In the case of Alec Baldwin, here's where I would be at as a juror knowing what I know about this case: #2. No. AB did not know of the danger involved. A professional armorer was hired to load the gun, and the First AD safety checked it. AB had no reason to suspect a live round was on set or in the gun. He did not know it was an accident waiting to happen. #3. No. He acted out the scene in accordance to what was called for. No one else in the church on that day spoke up or expressed concerns about the safety of the gun, therefore whatever clues AB might have missed were missed by everyone. Therefore, no other reasonable person would have also recognized the danger, and therefore he did not willfully disregard the safety of others. #4. No. Although AB might have been the one who ultimately fired or caused the gun to fire inadvertently, the primary cause of the accident was a live round being mistakenly loaded into the gun and for the First AD to improperly safety check it, combined with some very bad luck. AB is but one player in the context of the overall situation. He acted out the scene according to what was called for in the script. AB did not load the gun, therefore I would say it was not his actions that caused her death.
The ironic thing within 2b you mentioned in your other post. Speaking towards the common claim I have seen in saying he is guilty by not checking the gun himself. Most saying it would have taken a few seconds to check it . Do not seem to realize that act is superfluous towards being 100% sure there are no live rounds within the gun. Ergo thinking an extra quick check means it is now safe with the mind set of not trusting the armorer. Is then itself showing a mens rea of negligence. Because somebody better be doing a 100% surety check ... not 3 people with 33.3% surety . So imo if he is culpable , it will be found else where , not the act of handling the gun. For facilitating / effecting an unsafe work environment . Which I guess in an administrative capacity would need to find something specific to him to go beyond civil action liability .
@@tacticalattorney Does each of those 4 things on the jury instruction need "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" Or is it a case of either/or in satisfying the actus reus & mens rea ?
@@Mk101T Yes. It's an interesting question of what would happen if AB HAD checked the gun, and he also missed it. Now what? Once the gun is loaded, you can't tell a dummy from a live just from the back, so you'd have to unload the gun. So now you've got six dummy rounds laying out on the floor, now what? How can you be 100% sure they are all dummies? The shake test isn't 100% reliable either, so now you've gotta disassemble each round and verify there's no gunpowder in them. Now the dummies are unusable. It's a bottomless pit basically.
@@kdietz65 Not that I have anything against George Clooney and his modus operandi on set with guns. But it seems by speaking publicly about it ... he has now laid the foundation for criminal negligence if ever he fails in checking guns on movie sets. Which I am not sure of , but seems he was speaking more towards being able to tell the difference from a dummy and a blank. And assume there is a clear difference from the primer end of it ?
I plan to go to the Police Academy here in New Mexico later this year. I've printed off and studied into the search and seizure manual and started doing a dive into both the fourth amendment and Article II, section 10 as well as relevant case law. I also want to familiarize myself with NM statute, but am not sure where to start. Could you do a video (or link a video) going over which specific statutes I should look into starting out? Thank you for your time
Congratulations on choosing to go into law enforcement! I do plan to do some videos on this topic, I also plan to make some online academy prep courses for prospective cadets. Send me an email and I'll get you some resources. tacticallegalsolutions@gmail.com
I read that a conviction of involuntary manslaughter by negligent use of a weapon requires negligence which is ordinary rather than criminal negligence is that correct?
Slight differences exist under various state laws. In New Mexico, the legislature defined involuntary manslaughter as “the unlawful killing of a human being without malice . . . committed in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to felony, or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection. See the NM Jury Instruction above in the notes for the definition of negligence that the jury will be instructed on. Our courts refer to it as "criminal negligence."
@@tacticalattorney I've read somewhere else that with regards to part 1, "commission of an unlawful act", that Negligent Use of a Deadly Weapon cannot be used as the underlying "unlawful act" when the defendant is accused of IM with a firearm, because the Negligent Use of a Deadly Weapon is subsumed by the IM itself. It's like circular logic. Supposedly there are NM precedents that cover this, but I don't know which cases. If that were true, then the only thing that would apply is part 2, "commission of a lawful act". Part 2 itself has 2 subparts, "death in an unlawful manner", which doesn't seem like it would apply either, which only leaves Part 2(b) "without due caution and circumspection" as the only relevant part of the statute.
![ตีสิบเดย์ [FULL] | นางเอกหมอลำเงินล้าน "อุ๋งอิ๋ง เพชรบ้านแพง" & ไฮโซสาวสุดฮอต "ลิลลี่ เหงียน"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/jPxQS_EgrJ4/mqdefault.jpg)
In the case of Alec Baldwin, here's where I would be at as a juror knowing what I know about this case:
#2. No. AB did not know of the danger involved. A professional armorer was hired to load the gun, and the First AD safety checked it. AB had no reason to suspect a live round was on set or in the gun. He did not know it was an accident waiting to happen.
#3. No. He acted out the scene in accordance to what was called for. No one else in the church on that day spoke up or expressed concerns about the safety of the gun, therefore whatever clues AB might have missed were missed by everyone. Therefore, no other reasonable person would have also recognized the danger, and therefore he did not willfully disregard the safety of others.
#4. No. Although AB might have been the one who ultimately fired or caused the gun to fire inadvertently, the primary cause of the accident was a live round being mistakenly loaded into the gun and for the First AD to improperly safety check it, combined with some very bad luck. AB is but one player in the context of the overall situation. He acted out the scene according to what was called for in the script. AB did not load the gun, therefore I would say it was not his actions that caused her death.
It's definitely an uphill battle for the prosecution. You have highlighted some issues they will definitely need to address in their case in chief.
The ironic thing within 2b you mentioned in your other post. Speaking towards the common claim I have seen in saying he is guilty by not checking the gun himself.
Most saying it would have taken a few seconds to check it .
Do not seem to realize that act is superfluous towards being 100% sure there are no live rounds within the gun. Ergo thinking an extra quick check means it is now safe with the mind set of not trusting the armorer. Is then itself showing a mens rea of negligence.
Because somebody better be doing a 100% surety check ... not 3 people with 33.3% surety .
So imo if he is culpable , it will be found else where , not the act of handling the gun.
For facilitating / effecting an unsafe work environment . Which I guess in an administrative capacity would need to find something specific to him to go beyond civil action liability .
@@tacticalattorney Does each of those 4 things on the jury instruction need "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" Or is it a case of either/or in satisfying the actus reus & mens rea ?
@@Mk101T Yes. It's an interesting question of what would happen if AB HAD checked the gun, and he also missed it. Now what? Once the gun is loaded, you can't tell a dummy from a live just from the back, so you'd have to unload the gun. So now you've got six dummy rounds laying out on the floor, now what? How can you be 100% sure they are all dummies? The shake test isn't 100% reliable either, so now you've gotta disassemble each round and verify there's no gunpowder in them. Now the dummies are unusable. It's a bottomless pit basically.
@@kdietz65 Not that I have anything against George Clooney and his modus operandi on set with guns.
But it seems by speaking publicly about it ... he has now laid the foundation for criminal negligence if ever he fails in checking guns on movie sets.
Which I am not sure of , but seems he was speaking more towards being able to tell the difference from a dummy and a blank.
And assume there is a clear difference from the primer end of it ?
I plan to go to the Police Academy here in New Mexico later this year. I've printed off and studied into the search and seizure manual and started doing a dive into both the fourth amendment and Article II, section 10 as well as relevant case law. I also want to familiarize myself with NM statute, but am not sure where to start. Could you do a video (or link a video) going over which specific statutes I should look into starting out? Thank you for your time
Congratulations on choosing to go into law enforcement! I do plan to do some videos on this topic, I also plan to make some online academy prep courses for prospective cadets. Send me an email and I'll get you some resources. tacticallegalsolutions@gmail.com
I read that a conviction of involuntary manslaughter by negligent use of a weapon requires negligence which is ordinary rather than criminal negligence is that correct?
Slight differences exist under various state laws. In New Mexico, the legislature defined involuntary manslaughter as “the unlawful killing of a human being without malice . . . committed in the commission of an unlawful act not
amounting to felony, or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death in
an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection. See the NM Jury Instruction above in the notes for the definition of negligence that the jury will be instructed on. Our courts refer to it as "criminal negligence."
@@tacticalattorney I've read somewhere else that with regards to part 1, "commission of an unlawful act", that Negligent Use of a Deadly Weapon cannot be used as the underlying "unlawful act" when the defendant is accused of IM with a firearm, because the Negligent Use of a Deadly Weapon is subsumed by the IM itself. It's like circular logic. Supposedly there are NM precedents that cover this, but I don't know which cases.
If that were true, then the only thing that would apply is part 2, "commission of a lawful act". Part 2 itself has 2 subparts, "death in an unlawful manner", which doesn't seem like it would apply either, which only leaves Part 2(b) "without due caution and circumspection" as the only relevant part of the statute.
First!😎