From the story:
“This is problematic for Baldwin because he has insisted that he did not pull the trigger,” said Beverly Hills entertainment attorney Mitra Ahouraian. “Those types of inconsistencies are not helpful to his case.”
Reports prepared by FBI analysts in Virginia, however, cast doubt on that claim. While the FBI did not conclude where live ammunition came from, agents said in an August report that the pistol, a replica of a vintage Pietta Colt .45, “functioned normally when tested in the laboratory.” The FBI report also noted that, in order for the revolver to fire, the trigger would have been pulled.
Mitra Ahouraian continued:
“Regardless of what the practice may be in the entertainment industry, and regardless of what the protocols are on Hollywood sets, that’s not the law. The gun was in his hands. And if there’s any possibility that you are handling something that could harm someone, then you have an obligation to handle it safely.”
Honestly, I think the husband believes it was truly an accident. That is what I think as well, at least in the case of Baldwin.
I think they might have a case against the armorer, however.
They’re going to have a terrible time proving that.
He was told “cold gun”.
How is pulling the trigger on a gun you’re told isn’t loaded, that you have no reason to think would ever be loaded with live ammo, manslaughter?
My guess is that he will plead guilty and wind up paying $5000 with no time served. It was a horrible accident, but he still did it – trusting someone that puts a gun in your hand without verifying that it is unloaded falls on him.
I hope the armorer gets hit harder.
The crime of the armorer was more than just a mistake. It was a blatant failure to do the job, and that’s a serious matter when the job is essentially to protect people’s lives. That seems like criminal negligence to me, and therefore manslaughter when a life is lost.
But I don’t really know …
1) how the specific New Mexico law applies to these things
2) how a jury will view them, which is often very different from the strictest application of the law and evidence.
I recall reading in the wake of the shooting that the woman they hired to be the armorer didn’t have the qualifications for the job but that the producers gave her the armorer responsibilities to save money. If that is true, her defense might be that she was never trained for the job and didn’t know what she was doing. That might shift the blame towards the producers, especially the producer that was holding the gun when the gun decided to shoot the director of photography, proving forever more that people don’t shoot people, guns shoot people.
That’s a good point. I hadn’t thought of that, and it may be part of the case against Baldwin.
See this
I’m curious as to why the prosecution thinks they have a case against Baldwin as actor (as opposed to as producer). They don’t usually go to trial unless they think they have a strong chance to win, but I’m just not seeing that, especially after looking at that link you supplied, coupled with the fact that the civil case was settled satisfactorily to both parties (and they are all now buddies). I guess I’d better withhold judgment until I hear the prosecution’s side of the story.
If Baldwin pleads guilty the civil case settlement will be yuuuge! Just sayin’.
ok, the civil case settlement will be huge regardless. IOW Baldwin is fucked regardless! As he should be according to the law.
I think the civil suit has already been settled without going to trial.
Assuming the suit was settled without acknowledging negligence highly doubtful Baldwin will plead guilty, plea bargain notwithstanding.
Also assuming prosecutors usually don’t go to court unless it’s a “slam dunk”.
It’s one of the oddest settlements I’ve ever seen. Part of the terms involve finishing the damned movie – with the dead woman’s husband newly added to the list of producers.
Either he’s the most forgiving guy in the world, or he has truly been bought and sold. “I have no interest in engaging in recriminations or attribution of blame (to the producers or Mr. Baldwin),” he said in a statement. “All of us believe Halyna’s death was a terrible accident.”
I reckon the New Mexico prosecutors found all of that to be too much like “circling the wagons.” As one lawyer pointed out in the original article, that may be the way Hollywood does business, but that doesn’t mean it conforms to the law.
I think this statement is extremely well put. “Regardless of what the practice may be in the entertainment industry, and regardless of what the protocols are on Hollywood sets, that’s not the law. The gun was in his hands. And if there’s any possibility that you are handling something that could harm someone, then you have an obligation to handle it safely.”
It was a horrible accident! I don’t think anyone sane believes that Baldwin went to set planning on killing or shooting anyone. He was misinformed about the gun for sure! But he was also legally negligent and will be found such. Probably why he settled the civil suit. Because if he is found guilty in the criminals suit the plaintiff could have added a couple zeros to the settlement. It was an accident but I don’t believe that he didn’t know the proper way to handle a firearm. This armor my have been totally inept on this set but he has been handling guns on sets for decades and I do not believe that ALL armors are on all other sets where incompetent or there would be a lot more accidents! Others would have drilled that in. The issue I have is with his handling of the aftermath. As Scoopy mentions “circling the wagons” In the clips I’ve seen it seems like it’s all about trying to cover his ass. Lying about not pulling the trigger is going to cost him.