New Mexico prosecutors plan to recharge Alec Baldwin with involuntary manslaughter over a fatal on-set shooting in October 2021.
The prosecutors dismissed charges against the Emmy award-winning actor in April, just two weeks before his trial was due to start.
But “additional facts” merit bringing the case again before a grand jury next month, they said.
My personal opinion: The public prosecutor’s want to fuck Baldwin hard because he impersonated Trump in several mock speeches
If the charges were dismissed wouldn’t that be considered double jeopardy charging him again for the same crime?
Charges can be dismissed with prejudice or without prejudice. If they are dismissed with prejudice, you can’t be charged again. If they are dismissed without, then you can.
Depends on when, by whom, and why they are dismissed.
I’d say dismissals with or without prejudice goes to law of the case doctrine and issue preclusion. Those doctrines are about whether the prosecution is legally able to relitigate something that was already decided under the law, in the interests of judicial economy and finality of judgments.
Freedom from double jeopardy on the other hand is a constitutional right and attaches specifically when a jury is empaneled and sworn in. Before that, the defendant is not “in jeopardy.” If a case never made it to a jury, a subsequent prosecution is not double jeopardy.
If a case is dismissed after a jury is sworn, it is the consequence of jeopardy that makes the dismissal one with prejudice.
*champing at the bit
It’s a common phrase that’s often said incorrectly. What’s the difference between “champing at the bit” and “chomping at the bit”? Which one is correct?
It’s champing at the bit, not chomping at the bit.
This phrase (or idiom) comes from the sport of kings: horse racing. A bit is part of the apparatus that goes in the horse’s mouth and connects to the bridle and reins so the horse can be controlled and directed by the jockey on its back. The bit fits into a toothless ridge of the horse’s mouth, so the horse never really bites the bit. But it can grind his teeth or jaw against the bit, and if it does, it means that the horse is either nervous, or really excited about racing. That’s how the phrase “champing at the bit” entered everyday communications: to indicate extreme eagerness.
You seem certain of this and this quote is apparently copy pasted from a reliable source, however it still makes more sense to me to say chomping at the bit. If you take a bite of a sandwich, do you “chomp” it, or “champ” it?
Out of all the people that know 100% Baldwin is guilty of manslaughter, how many would flip their opinion in an instant if Trump killed someone while filming a pro gun campaign ad?
100%? How is that?
A learned intermediary handed him a dangerous tool and said it was good to go.
If the pharmacist gives you the wrong pills filling a script for your kid, and your kid takes them and dies, you’re not liable for manslaughter.
It is generally reasonable to rely on the professional representations of a learned intermediary, especially in a case where the intermediary’s profession is so life-and-death important.
This was the armorer’s one contractual duty. As a producer, Baldwin took reasonable steps to protect the victim by hiring a professional armorer. That satisfies a principal’s nondelegable duty for general safety, imo. Maybe he is culpable for negligent hiring or negligent supervision, not for manslaughter, though.
Further, what are you saying was Baldwin’s duty, here? To–after the person hired solely to inspect, load, and handle the guns, handed it to him and said it was safe–clear the chamber, take out the magazine, and inspect and reload each cartridge? Baldwin’s duties are those of an actor, not an armorer.
If you hire a painter, does that impute a duty on your part to test the paint for lead? No, it’s the painter’s duty to perform her contract as a reasonable tradesperson.
These are some gaping holes in your 100%.
If he was a non producer, then you would have a stronger argument, but as a producer he may have been negligent in hiring someone unqualified.
In a normal setting, pointing a gun at a person would be negligent, even if you believed it was empty. I don’t know the industry standard on movie sets, but pointing a real gun at a human when not in a scene would be at least careless, possibly legally negligent.
That’s for the court to decide.
I’m sure there’s some degree of legal culpability when you’re the one holding the gun. What’s weird to me is that anything illegal can have the word “involuntary” in the title.
It is basically when someone is doing something illegal and stupid, but isn’t thinking about it killing someone. Then accidentally kills someone.
Voluntary manslaughter is then when you do something that you know will kill a person, but for some reason it isn’t murder.
For lots (most?) laws, ignorance isn’t an excuse… even though the specific charge may change.
It varies from state to state.
I’ve been watching a case out in California where it ended in conviction for voluntary manslaughter instead of murder.
The basic situation was two random guys who didn’t know each other got into an argument outside a bar ending in one shooting and killing the other.
Under California law, the intent to kill was there, but it was an in the moment fit of rage, not planned or premeditated.
I was on a jury in Texas with a similar situation that ended in a murder conviction because under Texas law, the intent to kill in and of itself is murder regardless of planning or premeditation.
The sentences between the two cases were twenty years in California and thirty years in Texas, but either or both could’ve gone longer or shorter.
Same effective crime and punishment, different labels.
How long ago was this? Because if it was a similar situation, the lawyer for Texas should have easily made the argument necessary in (d) here.
Involuntary manslaughter is a form homicide that derived from negligence.
Usually, you failed to do something that you should have done, and that failing resulted in the death of someone. In Baldwin’s case, he had an obligation to handle the firearm safely and did not.
It’s considered “involuntary” because you didn’t intend to actually kill them.
I’m about to get downvoted to shit here, because there’s a surprising number of people that are about to carve out exceptions because an “expert” handed it to him. That doesn’t absolve anyone of personal responsibility to behave in a safe manner…
I don’t see any reason to downvote you, it’s a fair opinion.
I don’t really agree. While it’s definitely good practice to handle firearm safety even with prop guns, I also don’t see any reason to expect a real gun.
But I know very little about guns. I have never seen or even heard of someone handling one over here. I guess the USA is different and there is actually a real chance a real gun ends up between prop guns.
I say only that it is a poor choice of word. Why not “negligent manslaughter” or some such?
As to theories of guilt, I agree with you.
It’s not called negligent manslaughter because negligence is not the only situation that can result in a charge of involuntary manslaughter. For example, in some places it can apply to an unintentional death during commission of certain misdemeanors.
This is a movie set where guns are part of the movie. What I don’t understand is how there were any real guns with real bullets allowed anywhere on set. Prop guns exist ffs.
There is a lot to do with how guns actuate and how people react to the gun kicking and the sounds from blanks. Most movies use real guns and blanks.
Imagine holding a fake gun and making pew pew noises. I don’t care how good of an actor you are, you cannot make the gun move realistically.
I could never point a realistic weapon at someone and fire without first checking the bullets for myself. Every single time. Human life is more valuable than any job.
What does that even mean? Did a no parking sign spring up out of the ground next to your car?
