Alec Baldwin May Have INTENTIONALLY Killed That Woman

a reply to: MiddleInsite

Interesting so AB did kill her

Thanks for letting me know

You will never reach the middle btw

a reply to: MiddleInsite

If we go by what is fact, he pointed a weapon at her and killed her, knowing full well even a blank could kill her. Negligent homicide.

a reply to: FunshineCD

loading your weapon yourself, travelling across state lines to put yourself into a large group of people and then shooting 3 of them?

That's referred to as first degree or premeditated murder. It was deliberate and planned out.

What we are talking about is (in New Mexico anyway) fourth degree murder, aka involuntary manslaughter. It occurs when the action is not planned nor deliberate, but still results in the wrongful (as in, not in self-defense) death of an individual due to either an illegal act which not a felony or a legal act combined with a lack of due diligence. Typically the penalty is appreciably lower than that for first degree murder (as in this case). The legal definition of involuntary manslaughter (or negligent homicide) varies somewhat from state to state, but not much. In this case, since the incident occurred in New Mexico, New Mexico law prevails.

If you are speeding and run over someone, killing them, you will likely be charged with involuntary manslaughter. If you are driving distracted and run over someone, killing them, you will likely be charged with involuntary manslaughter. The first is during an illegal act (speeding) which is not a felony, and the latter is during a legal act with a lack of due diligence. If you are driving legally and watching the road, but an accident occurs in which you run over someone you could not have prevented running over, killing them, then you may or may not be charged with involuntary manslaughter. Accidents do happen, but to escape prosecution you must do everything reasonably expected to prevent the accident.

Now, in Alabama and New Mexico at least, if you rob a bank and during your getaway you run over someone and kill them, that will be voluntary manslaughter. You killed them during the commission of a felony.

At least three people we know of were involved in a legal act but failed to exercise due diligence. They are therefore, subject to a legal trial, guilty of involuntary manslaughter. There may be more.

Sounds like you may be basing your legal opinions on reruns of Perry Mason. That's not reality.

TheRedneck

Sounds like you may be basing your legal opinions on reruns of Perry Mason. That's not reality.

a reply to: TheRedneck
Thank you for your answer but I have never watched "Perry Mason" before my time but I have heard of it. The lawyer in the wheel chair?
I was actually referencing the Kyle Rittenhouse case.

It does seem odd how people are charged. I watch that show "48 hours" a lot. 3 young men on bikes approach a car and try to rob the driver. maybe at gunpoint. Driver pulls out gun and shoots and kills at least one kid. One kid on bike is charged and convicted of the death of his fellow bike rider.

A friend of a friend of mine, driving down the road when a lady crossed the centerline and hit him head on. She was killed. He did 7 years in prison because his BAC was over the limit. I know hard to feel bad for drunk driver, but damn.

originally posted by: FunshineCD

Sounds like you may be basing your legal opinions on reruns of Perry Mason. That's not reality.

a reply to: TheRedneck
Thank you for your answer but I have never watched "Perry Mason" before my time but I have heard of it. The lawyer in the wheel chair?
I was actually referencing the Kyle Rittenhouse case.

It does seem odd how people are charged. I watch that show "48 hours" a lot. 3 young men on bikes approach a car and try to rob the driver. maybe at gunpoint. Driver pulls out gun and shoots and kills at least one kid. One kid on bike is charged and convicted of the death of his fellow bike rider.

A friend of a friend of mine, driving down the road when a lady crossed the centerline and hit him head on. She was killed. He did 7 years in prison because his BAC was over the limit. I know hard to feel bad for drunk driver, but damn.

In my opinion drunk driving is like giving a loaded gun to a child and telling them "have at it".
Things are bound to go south and the responsible person should be culpable to the maximum extent of the law. No excuses.

a reply to: FunshineCD

I think it was a tragic accident That started with bad decisions. I heard or read they were firing real bullets from that gun at some point.

I agree. Unless more evidence to the contrary comes to light, I accept that this shooting was not intentional.

However, an unintentional shooting by anyone else would result in arrests, charges, and likely prison time. Good for goose = good for gander. If we are going to have such laws, they must be applied to everyone or they cannot apply to anyone.

Movie sets do not use real bullets unless absolutely necessary. Normally, only two types of bullets are used:

• Dummy rounds, which have a real bullet loaded into a real casing, but no primer or powder charge. They cannot fire, but in closeups they look real. From my understanding, the dummies also have a BB inside them, so they rattle when shook. Of course, in this case, the difference in sound between five dummies and six dummies would not have been detectable.
  
  There is another, more accurate difference, however: dummy rounds do not contain a primer. The primers are visible in the center of the casing base on any centerfire round (this does not apply to .22 rounds, as they are "rimfire" and have the primer built into the casing... which is why they cannot be reloaded from used brass casings). A dummy will either have an open hole where the primer is supposed to be, or sometimes a plastic cap which is brightly colored to indicate the round is a dummy (this is to prevent damage to the firing pin from a "dry fire"). As I understand it at this time, these had no primers whatsoever. What most people here are claiming is a lack of due diligence is when Baldwin did not simply look to ensure that six bullets had no primers.
  
  
• Blanks do contain primers and powder charges, just like a live round. However, they contain no bullet. Instead, the ends are capped either with wadding (still dangerous at close range, although their effective distance is very short compared to a live round) or the end of the casing is crimped shut. Crimped blanks can also launch projectiles, known as shrapnel. These are much smaller than an actual bullet, have a shorter range, and are not normal. Shrapnel typically results from either worn brass (one should never try to reload a blank with used brass) or a poor crimping job (crimping is somewhat of an artwork). In either case, shrapnel is the result of microfractures that develop in the casing due to stress.
  
  A blank may not look real, but it will provide the traditional flash and smoke like a live round. It is also considered just as hazardous as a live round for safety reasons. A gun loaded with blanks should never, ever, under any circumstances be pointed at someone; it is still a loaded round in a gun.
  
  
• Live rounds are normally not used on movie sets, as they are quite correctly considered too dangerous. I understand that there are a few times when one wants the look of a live round and the flash/smoke of a live round; there is no other way to accomplish this. Live rounds are extremely hazardous (especially in a high-power round like a .45 Colt) and should never be loaded in a gun on a movie set where there are any other people anywhere around.

TheRedneck

a reply to: machineintelligence

If I accidently shoot someone while cleaning my gun.

Even though that with no doubt would clearly be an accident.
The cops on scene wouldn't just leave with out me I guarantee that.
There would be multiple charges. So why not him?

originally posted by: machineintelligence
a reply to: markovian

Weapon handling does include user knowledge of the firing potential of any firearm in the handling and operation of the user. That is clear in the law. No one is above this law and that is a fact. If someone hands you a loaded weapon and you fire it and kill someone and are telling a judge you did not know it was loaded this is not a legal remedy. Ask anyone who is not a celebrity if this legal position kept them out of prison.

As I said in the main thread about this incident... I've been on movie sets where there are a lot of guns around and even acted with a shotgun on kickass... also had a gun pointed at the back of my head...let me tell you, i didn't check the guns because it's not the actors job to check the guns... I'm also guessing the other actor holding the gun at my head didn't check his..

a reply to: FunshineCD

you would think that a movie prop gun would be made to not be able to load real bullets. I personally have never seen a "blank" bullet thing, but I assume it does not have the pointy thing that comes shooting out. Why couldnt a "prop gun" be made to not accept a real bullet?

As I understand it, there are some that cannot load a bullet that is the same length as a live round. However, these do not look real. One can easily see the non-chambered bullets in a revolver at anything approaching close range. Plus, even this would not absolutely prevent firing of alive round. Live rounds can be loaded with shortened bullets quite easily (although removing one of those bullets would be far from easy).

A gun is a pretty simple machine. The round is simply a casing with a primer in the bottom, powder in the casing, and a bullet pressed into the end of the casing. All the gun does is slam a firing pin against the primer. The primer ignites, that ignites the gunpowder, and the resulting explosion propels the bullet out of the casing and down the barrel. Rifling (spiral grooves in the barrel) spin the bullet as it travels down the barrel to maintain accuracy. That's really all it is. The rounds can actually be loaded at home; I have been reloading for several decades. It's an easy way to keep a stock of rounds without limiting one's choices and it saves a lot of money. I can take some spend brass, my press, primers, bullets (whatever size/style/weight I choose), and some gunpowder, and load up 100 rounds in a couple of hours if I am in a hurry. The bullets never go bad, the primers have an amazing shelf life, and the gunpowder stays fresh for a long time if kept in dry enough conditions.

The whole setup costs a couple hundred dollars, plus the components.

So while it might be possible to make a gun that couldn't fire a standard round, it wouldn't be realistic and would be easily foiled.

Like when Rambo shoots off a machine gun, does he check every bullet for live rounds? would the guns in his movies shoot real bullets? That could cause some damage.

No, those are not real bullets; those are blanks.

I'm referring to the scene at the end of, I believe it was Rambo II. John has just recovered some POWs form a Vietnamese prison and flown them to safety in a shot-up helicopter, against orders. He lands, strides straight into the building where the guy who ordered him to leave them behind is, grabs an M-60, loads it with a magazine belt (that's actually several hundred rounds) and starts mowing everything down.

Looked cool! But here's what actually happened:

There were two identical M-60s there. One was loaded with a belt full of dummy rounds, while the other had blanks. You see scenes where you see Rambo a few feet away from the camera and there's fire coming out the end of the gun; that's blanks. Then you see closeups of the belt feeding into the gun; that's dummies. Those shots are taken at different times and edited together to look like they were of the same scene.

When you see the equipment room being blown to bits, that's squibs going off. A squib is a small, directed explosive charge remotely detonated wherever the bullet is supposed to hit. Stallone didn't have to aim to hit those spots; the explosives were already wired. Squibs can even be used directly on actors, but this is always done by trained professionals; even such a small charge can cause severe damage if not set up properly. On buildings or equipment, though? The damage is expected. No issue.

When Rambo is firing blanks, there is no one, and I mean NO ONE, anywhere around him! The cameras are operated remotely and are covered by a bullet-proof shield, The only way they can be damaged is if a round hits directly in the lens. In the case of a magazine belt, no, he probably doesn't inspect every single round. I would be surprised if he didn't at least look the belts over, though, after the armorer personally inspects every single round and the assistant directory gives it a good look over as well, all immediately before he gets the weapon.

It's all an illusion... still dangerous, but not as dangerous as live rounds. And the safety precautions are supposed to be astronomical; that's why they have armorers, to absolutely ensure that nothing goes wrong. But even armorers can make mistakes, which is why the assistant director and the actor also inspect the ammo.

I think people here that want to blame Alec are just mad about him playing Donald Trump on SNL.

I make no secret of the fact that i detest Alec Baldwin. I consider it fine irony that he is guilty of killing someone with a firearm due to massive safety issues on his own set and during his own practice, when he has spent so much time trying to demonize the millions of Americans who safely use firearms every day.

But that has nothing to do with this case. His actions during the incident do. It does not matter who we are talking about, guilty is guilty. Anything less invalidates the law entirely and destroys us as a society.

If anything, those who try to excuse his behavior because he is an actor are the ones who are acting in a biased manner. I simply want equal justice. Being hated is not a license to avoid prosecution.

TheRedneck

a reply to: machineintelligence

The thing that Tim points out here is the basic where is the line drawn. Alec Baldwin pointed a loaded weapon at this person, pulled the trigger and she died of the resulting gunshot.

From what I read he was pointing and shooting at the camera not the person , I think it's a bit early to be pointing the finger but it's something the Daily Mail are good at.

a reply to: FunshineCD

Thank you for your answer but I have never watched "Perry Mason" before my time but I have heard of it. The lawyer in the wheel chair?

Wasn't that Ironsides? I dunno, been soooooo long. Maybe Perry Mason was in a wheelchair too?

Anyway, I was using Perry Mason generically to indicate some TV courtroom drama show. Those aren't real. I know lawyers who consider them pure comedy.

I was actually referencing the Kyle Rittenhouse case.

The question in that case was concerning whether Kyle was participating in a legal or illegal activity, whether or not he had a reasonable expectation that he was in danger when he fired, and whether or not he instigated the incident. As I saw it, he was participating in a legal activity, watching a family business and later walking through a protest; he did have a reasonable expectation that he was in danger; the question of whether he or his victims instigated the altercation seemed to be somewhat at issue.

I do know I saw where at one point he was tackled while running away from the altercation and toward the police. That makes me doubt that he instigated the altercation.

3 young men on bikes approach a car and try to rob the driver. maybe at gunpoint. Driver pulls out gun and shoots and kills at least one kid. One kid on bike is charged and convicted of the death of his fellow bike rider.

Well, I can't vouch for "48 Hours" accuracy, but I can tell you the legal theory behind that:

Whenever one commits a crime, especially a felony, whatever happens during the commission of that crime is considered their fault. that's why the difference between an unintentional death during commission of a non-felony (involuntary manslaughter) and during a felony (voluntary manslaughter). The driver was reasonable in fearing for his safety, so he was innocent of any type of murder charge by reason of self-defense.

So who is left to be held responsible? The kid who was committing a felony. Had he obeyed the law, his friend would not be dead. Depending on the charge, whether or not he intended for his friend to be killed might not be relevant.

An interesting bit of trivia on that point: in Alabama, we still have the death penalty. To be eligible for the death penalty, one must fall into one of two categories: they must be guilty of multiple first or second degree murders in a single incident, or they must be guilty of a single first or second degree murder during the commission of a violent felony.

For instance: try to rob a convenience store without a weapon, even if you kill someone, and you're not eligible; the robbery was a felony, but not considered a violent felony. Try to rob a convenience store with a weapon and kill someone, and you can get the death penalty.

Shoot someone down in cold blood, and you are not eligible for the death penalty... hit a bystander in the process and kill them, you're now eligible. Killing an expecting mother also can make you eligible for the death penalty, as the unborn child is still considered another person.

A friend of a friend of mine, driving down the road when a lady crossed the centerline and hit him head on. She was killed. He did 7 years in prison because his BAC was over the limit. I know hard to feel bad for drunk driver, but damn.

Eh, yeah, I have heard of things like that. Sounds like he was charged with involuntary manslaughter.

He was in the act of committing a crime (driving while intoxicated). As such, even though he was not committing a felony, involuntary manslaughter could still apply. Now, it was the lady who crossed the median who caused the accident; I understand that. But once you get before a jury, emotions start to get involved. Apparently she had a good lawyer who was able to persuade 12 people that your friend was reckless without the lady being seen as reckless as well.

Technically, he probably wasn't guilty of involuntary manslaughter (some states call this "vehicular manslaughter"), at least not in full. But lawyers are good at what they do. My condolences to him, really; but I'll also mention he probably won't drive drunk again.

TheRedneck

a reply to: CrazeeWorld777

i didn't check the guns because it's not the actors job to check the guns... I'm also guessing the other actor holding the gun at my head didn't check his..

You're lucky to be alive.

Let me ask you this: the actor is just doing their job, right? So does that mean if someone hires me to kill someone, and I kill them, that I shouldn't be charged with killing them? I was just doing my job, wasn't I?

Let me tell you: there has been an awful lot of evil done in the name of "I was doing my job."

TheRedneck

a reply to: gortex

From what I read he was pointing and shooting at the camera not the person

Hey, that's' a good idea!

"But officer, I didn't kill him! I was pointing the gun behind him and he got in the way. Not my fault!"

I wonder how that would go over in a courtroom...

TheRedneck

When you're rich and cool and oh so important you might think you don't need to follow all the rules, such as always keeping the muzzle of ANY gun pointed in a safe direction.

Which is the first rule of gun safety, by the way, and the only one you need to follow to avoid KILLING SOMEONE.

Two things happened that only Alec Baldwin is responsible for, two things that nobody else involved had anything to do with...He pointed a loaded gun at someone AND pulled the trigger. His fault.

a reply to: TheRedneck


Normal people will electrocute people to death, just for answering questions wrong

Because they are being told to


Can't remember the experiment but yeah, people are zombies

I'm not like that, that's how I can't hold down a job

I have a problem with authority though

Case is still ongoing and was a tragically stupid accident. So far...

Here's an old clip from a Will Smith set. The initial look and block of a mishandled firearm by Will Smith is real. The take down and inspection of the firearm is not. This was uploaded last January of 2020.

youtu.be...


Everybody who handles a firearm FAKE or not should always make the checks.

Edit: for what it's worth. Law Enforcement are looking into one or another set worker that has walked off set the day before due to having to drive from Albuquerque New Mexico to the set, an hour back and forth daily. They wanted trailers at least to be able to be there for the 12+ hours a day.

Law enforcement seem convinced this is intentional now.

P.s.s... Mr. Baldwin is still an a$$hole, but the case continues.

originally posted by: TheWhiteKnight
a reply to: machineintelligence

Gwan...they're friends.
He had just dined with her fer chrissakes.
He's no expert on arms, knows nothing about them in fact.
There were live rounds all over the set,
therefore it's nobody's fault.
Could have been anyone!
Someone should just make sweeping reform,
and.... he'll be good with that rest assured!

# 1466

If this is true, why was he not only pointing a weapon at her but also pulled the trigger?
If he was joking around, he went against all gun safety.
Why was he pointing a gun at someone at all, if it wasn't part of a scene? She ain't an actress.
That is what I want to know.
Deliberate or not, he was dumb and negligent at best.

originally posted by: Hecate666

originally posted by: TheWhiteKnight
a reply to: machineintelligence

Gwan...they're friends.
He had just dined with her fer chrissakes.
He's no expert on arms, knows nothing about them in fact.
There were live rounds all over the set,
therefore it's nobody's fault.
Could have been anyone!
Someone should just make sweeping reform,
and.... he'll be good with that rest assured!

# 1466

If this is true, why was he not only pointing a weapon at her but also pulled the trigger?
If he was joking around, he went against all gun safety.
Why was he pointing a gun at someone at all, if it wasn't part of a scene? She ain't an actress.
That is what I want to know.
Deliberate or not, he was dumb and negligent at best.

Well, Alec is not allowed to make any comments.
The things I wrote are from Alec's mouth, right after he said
that he cannot make any comments.

Look, they were just acting. Obviously Alec wouldn't kill a friend.
This isn't supposed to happen to actors. It wasn't his fault that some of the live projectiles
they were playing with while off set, not acting, got mixed up with the play guns.
Things may have gotten a little muzzy headed on set.
Should have laid off the ayahuasca, while boozing the night before.

# 1469

Theres obviously at the very least gross negligence here, that led to the loss of life. At the most there was direct intent. Finding the source of either seems paramount, and an obvious place to be looking is the one who pulled the trigger, along with those who handled the murder weapon.

Alec does tick both those boxes, no?

a reply to: machineintelligence

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow

I didn't know the weapon was loaded when I pointed it at a person and fired it at them and they died, as a result, is very poor defense and clearly constitutes negligent homicide as a result.

a reply to: machineintelligence

What are you talking about ??

It's a MOVIE , he is an ACTOR he was directed by the Director to fire the weapon at the person .

How is that his fault , its Hollywood people fire weapons all the time at people , someone put a live round in that pistol as sabotage end of story.

No. You NEVER fire AT a person on set. You are given a 'mark' to fire at which just looks like you are firing at a person due to camera angles. He fired point blank at a person who is not an actor.

Also, are you claiming he was directed to fire at the movie director and the director of photography? There is a scene where that happens?