Alec Baldwin Kills Cinematographer

[Jarlaxle]

Why do you think it was an error?

And again: MANY Peacemakers absolutely CAN fire without touching the trigger. Indeed-on some, it can happen when engaging the hammer safety.

[BoSoxGal]

Why do you think it was an error?

And again: MANY Peacemakers absolutely CAN fire without touching the trigger. Indeed-on some, it can happen when engaging the hammer safety.

Because in destroying the firearm they prevented the defense from having its own testing done on the firearm they created a reasonable doubt that might have otherwise not existed. And because there was no suggestion by any party that the gun was dropped or otherwise damaged to make it fire, it was just utterly irrelevant testing.

[ex-khobar Andy]

A day before the trial opened, AP reported that "Alec Baldwin ’s role as a producer of the Western film “Rust” isn’t relevant to the involuntary manslaughter trial over a fatal shooting on set, a New Mexico judge decided Monday."

Seems to me that is the only role which might be applicable. The reporting yesterday was that he had broken all the rules of firearm safety by pointing it at someone and not checking it himself etc. That's what an actor does. Just yesterday I watched an actor standing on a clifftop deciding whether to jump to her death or not. I didn't see the green screen or the safety net or the rigging or the stunt person or any of the safety stuff - I saw the scene the director intended me to see. And trust me - if I am on screen waving a gun around you want the armorer, and not me, checking that the thing is not loaded. (As I remind people on line, I will never be mistaken for Tom Cruise: I'm taller.)

[Sue U]

Why do you think it was an error?

And again: MANY Peacemakers absolutely CAN fire without touching the trigger. Indeed-on some, it can happen when engaging the hammer safety.

Because in destroying the firearm they prevented the defense from having its own testing done on the firearm they created a reasonable doubt that might have otherwise not existed. And because there was no suggestion by any party that the gun was dropped or otherwise damaged to make it fire, it was just utterly irrelevant testing.

I haven't been following the actual trial, but I would think testing the gun (by both sides) was necessary to the extent Baldwin's defense includes an argument that the gun went off without pulling the trigger. Conviction under the New Mexico involuntary manslaughter statute requires proof of "conduct which is reckless, wanton or willful." Whether or not he pulled the trigger may factor into the assessment of "reckless, wanton or willful" conduct, which is a significantly higher standard than careless or negligent. The state would want to argue that testing showed he must have pulled the trigger and that was a reckless act; the defense would want to show he didn't pull the trigger and that under the circumstances, merely pointing a prop gun does not rise to recklessness. I don't know how central the issue is to the case each side is presenting and I don't know whether the judge has ruled on the admissibility of the government's test results, but if I were defending I'd certainly object, since Baldwin did not have the opportunity to have his own experts test it. Either way I'd have an expert ready to give testimony both that the government's testing was faulty and that the gun could fire without pulling the trigger. The question would be how much latitude the judge will give both sides in presenting evidence and allowing expert witnesses to draw conclusions.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I am puzzled as to the difference between a "prop gun" and a "real gun". I know the latter shoots bullets.

Is it a prop merely because it was supplied by the property department/unit/person? If so, was it real gun when they bought it and then only a prop one after that?

[BoSoxGal]

I am puzzled as to the difference between a "prop gun" and a "real gun". I know the latter shoots bullets.

Is it a prop merely because it was supplied by the property department/unit/person? If so, was it real gun when they bought it and then only a prop one after that?

A prop gun is any that is used as a prop in a movie or theatrical production. A prop gun can be a functional ‘real’ gun capable of shooting blanks and/or live rounds, but it can also be a plastic replica gun incapable of shooting anything.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Thank you! So this gun was a real gun.

[Joe Guy]

Thank you! So this gun was a real gun.

An unreal gun would only exist in one's imagination.

[ex-khobar Andy]

I assume that, for example, a prop dagger (as used when Hamlet stabs Polonius) is spring loaded so it won't kill the victim while Hamlet does a realistic stabbing motion. But a gun might be a real gun because frankly it is probably far cheaper to get a real gun than a fake one which looks realistic. So it all comes down to the armorer whose job is to make sure - it should not take more than a few seconds - that it is unloaded or loaded only with 'safe' blanks. You do NOT want some amateur like Alec Baldwin (or George Clooney or John Wayne or Clint Eastwood) making sure the gun is safe.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Thank you! So this gun was a real gun.

An unreal gun would only exist in one's imagination.

So more of a gun, then?

This is a prop gun

[Big RR]

I assume that, for example, a prop dagger (as used when Hamlet stabs Polonius) is spring loaded so it won't kill the victim while Hamlet does a realistic stabbing motion. But a gun might be a real gun because frankly it is probably far cheaper to get a real gun than a fake one which looks realistic. So it all comes down to the armorer whose job is to make sure - it should not take more than a few seconds - that it is unloaded or loaded only with 'safe' blanks. You do NOT want some amateur like Alec Baldwin (or George Clooney or John Wayne or Clint Eastwood) making sure the gun is safe.

Now if he were running around playing with the gun--aiming it at the cew and pretending to kill them, there might be the basis for a charge, but I have not heard this.

[BoSoxGal]

There’s a motion to dismiss for serious Brady/Giglio violation by the state on the table today - jury was sent home for the weekend without hearing any witnesses because the court is hearing witnesses out of their presence over evidence that was presented to law enforcement and never disclosed to defense, and possibly not disclosed to prosecutors! Cops did that BS to me once and I had to dismiss a case after impaneling a jury so with prejudice as jeopardy had attached.

Morrisey the special prosecutor is not winning any points with the court or me, wonder how she is coming across to the jury. Her loathing of the defense and defendant is far too evident, a very bad quality in a prosecutor.

[Sue U]

Morrisey the special prosecutor is not winning any points with the court or me, wonder how she is coming across to the jury. Her loathing of the defense and defendant is far too evident, a very bad quality in a prosecutor.

Apparently it is a long-standing character trait; from her Martindale profile's peer review section:

2.6/5.0 Rated by a Judge on 03/15/10 in Criminal Defense

Attorney tends to be unnecessarily hostile, oppositional and borderline on courtroom decorum and respect for the court. She zealously advocates for her clients and generally demonstrates above-average trial skills.

[BoSoxGal]

Yeah having watched the other trial and this one so far, that’s her in a nutshell. She’s capable but unnecessarily an AH. The very kind of attorney that made me dislike the practice of law.

[Big RR]

i've known far too many attorneys that way--people who worked up a hatred for the other side to get ready in litigation. I can't stand it either; indeed, since many lawsuits (and even criminal cases) settle (Ok, plea bargain in criminal law), these people b ecome useless. One of my earliest jobs as an attorney was, because of my personality I think. to be the part of the litigation team that contacted the other side for "favors" (things like extensions to answer interrogatories), and I used to get hammered by both sides since my boss treated them (and me--because he perceived me taking their side at times by advocating to give something in return)like shit, and they reflected it back to me (also, if they asked for anything similar and I advocated it as a quid pro quo, my boss would take my head off). We went to the judge a number of times to get things done which were routinely agreed to by most other attorneys, and it began to tick him off. I got good reviews, but I was glad to get out of that. When I was in corporate practice, I avoided counsel like that all the time. But there are people who are impressed by them.

From her reviews, it sounds like she would make a good divorce attorney, as they tend to have a very high number of those assholes in that bar.

[BoSoxGal]

Case dismissed with prejudice due to Brady/Giglio violations!! Yay for the criminal justice system holding police and prosecutors accountable!!

Congratulations to Alec Baldwin, I think he’s already paid a terrible price and carries much more remorse and grief for what happened than the arrogant young woman who was at fault.

[Joe Guy]

Baldwin haters are already claiming some type of conspiracy. I can see where some people might believe someone was paid off to hide evidence.

I don't believe that but I'm sure that idea is floating around.

[Jarlaxle]

Case dismissed with prejudice due to Brady/Giglio violations!! Yay for the criminal justice system holding police and prosecutors accountable!!

Nobody will be held accountable.

[Jarlaxle]

Baldwin haters are already claiming some type of conspiracy. I can see where some people might believe someone was paid off to hide evidence.

I don't believe that but I'm sure that idea is floating around.

I wouldn't be surprised if someone's Bitcoin wallet grew. I expect this was more of a combination of incompetence and malfeasance.

[Burning Petard]

Never ascribe to malice what can be explained by ordinary human perversity.

snailgate.