Alec Baldwin- Charges dropped :-@

[JohnKSa]

I suppose that when they try him in SAG court, that will be important information.

[s3779m]

Here is where I do not follow but maybe it is clearing up. Charges were dropped because there was an aftermarket trigger on the gun. If Baldwin was responsible BEFORE the aftermarket trigger was discovered, why would he not be afterward. From the attorney,

In a statement, Special Prosecutor on the Santa Fe, New Mexico case Kari Morrissey told CNN on Thursday, “It is not appropriate for me to make extra judicial comments at this time.”

She continued, “The time will come when I will be able to fully comment but that time is not now. The dismissal against Mr. Baldwin will be temporary pending further investigation.

And from the article

So whether he’s fully clear remains to be seen as the investigators look into the question raised about the gun being modified. Charges of involuntary manslaughter are still pending against the armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed. Assistant director David Halls, who handed Baldwin the gun, already took a deal, pleading to a misdemeanor count of the negligent use of a deadly weapon.

https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2023...st-yet-n734723

[rickyrick]

This wouldn’t be murder, but this is no different than if I was horseplaying at work with a known hazardous tool and killed a coworker.

[ghbucky]

Seems that a very similar incident occurred in NM, and there was a conviction that was upheld by NM supreme court:

And, as it happens, there is indeed New Mexico case law precisely on this point.

That case law is a decision out of the New Mexico Supreme Court itself, State v. Gilliam, 288 P.2d 675 (NM Sup. Ct. 1955). For any of you who may be concerned that Gilliam, a decision handed down in 1955, is “out of date,” be not afraid—case law is perfectly valid law until there is a Constitutional, statutory, or later court decision that modifies or reverses the applied legal standard. Valid case law does not simply “expire”—and I used my office’s professional legal database resource, Lexis, to ensure that Gilliam remains good law in New Mexico.

The decision was an appeal of a criminal conviction at a jury trial, in which the defendant had been found guilty of involuntary manslaughter by the act of unsafely handling a gun with the result that it discharged and killed the victim.

The NM Supreme Court ruled in that decision, in relevant part that:

It could have made no difference to the trial of a charge of involuntary manslaughter as to who loaded the gun … . All that it is necessary to establish for involuntary manslaughter by the use of a loaded firearm is that a defendant had in his hands a gun which at some time had been loaded and that he handled it … without due caution and circumspection and that death resulted.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2023/0...e-known-facts/

[44 AMP]

if someone who is known to be or should reasonably be expected to be incompetent is hired,

So, aren't the industry "rules" that don't require competence or even awareness of safety rules and proper operation of an item setting the stage for just that sort of thing to happen?

Charges were dropped because there was an aftermarket trigger on the gun.

well, this is news to me. Who said there was an aftermarket trigger in the gun?? Was that a direct statement in the FBI report?

Or was it one of the many things Baldwin's lawyers have said that did not turn out to be true??

Claims were made that the gun was broken (so Baldwin is not responsible)
Claims were made that the FBI had to repair the gun in order to test it (so Baldwin is not responsible)
Claims were made that the FBI damaged the gun during testing, so the actual condition of the gun at the time of the shooting cannot be determined (and so Baldwin is not responsible)
a claim was made that the gun Baldwin used had been destroyed (so condition of the gun at the time of the shooting could not be...and so Baldwin is not responsible...etc)

This last claim, that the gun was destroyed has been refuted by the State of New Mexico, who said that they have the gun, it was not destroyed and Baldwin's legal people can examine it at any time they wish to make an appointment....

Now, what's the latest? Aftermarket trigger?? (so Baldwin is not responsible??)

The thought occurred to me that since there is a statement from the DA about new information that needs to be investigated, then dropping the charges NOW, is possibly a wise move. Doing this avoids the possibility that a request for delay might not be approved, and avoids the possibility of a judge tossing the case out (for good) because the prosecution was not fully ready.....

This COULD BE a tactic to allow the DA the time needed for full investigation of the "new evidence" without the time pressure of a set court date, and the allegation that delaying the court date would be denying Baldwin his right to a "speedy trial".

I am hopeful that when things are fully investigated charges will be reinstated, the case will go to court and the DA will nail the lid shut on the matter in such a way that it stays shut.

The NM Supreme Court ruled in that decision, in relevant part that:

It could have made no difference to the trial of a charge of involuntary manslaughter as to who loaded the gun … . All that it is necessary to establish for involuntary manslaughter by the use of a loaded firearm is that a defendant had in his hands a gun which at some time had been loaded and that he handled it … without due caution and circumspection and that death resulted.

THIS has been my point of view all along.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

but mostly people were unwilling to hear it because they dislike Baldwin so much as a person.

Bingo boingo! AND the armorer is the daughter of a famous "gun" guy Thell Reed who is defending her. Baldwin is anti-gun as well.

[JohnKSa]

So, aren't the industry "rules" that don't require competence or even awareness of safety rules and proper operation of an item setting the stage for just that sort of thing to happen?

The industry won't be put on trial, but yes, as I said earlier, Baldwin/the filmmaker is almost certainly going to take a hit in civil court for hiring and retaining someone who doesn't appear to be competent.

Seems that a very similar incident occurred in NM...

Since it wasn't an actor shooting someone on the set with a prop gun, no, it's absolutely not "very similar".

Is a routine reckless speeding trial "very similar" to a race car driver being put on trial for driving too fast on the track? Is a stabbing trial "very similar" to a surgeon being put on trial for cutting on a patient in the OR? Is a trial for a parent who kills their child with medication by not reading the instructions on the bottle "very similar" to a parent being put on trial for overdosing their child because the pharmacist wrote the wrong instructions on the bottle? Context is really important.

Look, I don't know why this is so hard. (Well, I kinda do--it's not that it's hard, it's that people don't want to accept it.) Actors on set are not held to the same rules as people off set. EVERYONE here absolutely knows that is true because if it weren't, there would be actors being charged right and left for assault with a deadly weapon for pointing guns at other actors on set. Every case would be a slam dunk because the evidence would be captured on video.

Anyone remember when Brandon Lee was killed on set by Michael Massee? Now THAT is a "very similar" case. Massee wasn't even charged for pointing a gun at Lee and pulling the trigger--however the filmmaker was sued and lost the case for not maintaining the proper level of safety on set.

[s3779m]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

So, aren't the industry "rules" that don't require competence or even awareness of safety rules and proper operation of an item setting the stage for just that sort of thing to happen?



well, this is news to me. Who said there was an aftermarket trigger in the gun?? Was that a direct statement in the FBI report?

Or was it one of the many things Baldwin's lawyers have said that did not turn out to be true??

Claims were made that the gun was broken (so Baldwin is not responsible)
Claims were made that the FBI had to repair the gun in order to test it (so Baldwin is not responsible)
Claims were made that the FBI damaged the gun during testing, so the actual condition of the gun at the time of the shooting cannot be determined (and so Baldwin is not responsible)
a claim was made that the gun Baldwin used had been destroyed (so condition of the gun at the time of the shooting could not be...and so Baldwin is not responsible...etc)

This last claim, that the gun was destroyed has been refuted by the State of New Mexico, who said that they have the gun, it was not destroyed and Baldwin's legal people can examine it at any time they wish to make an appointment....

Now, what's the latest? Aftermarket trigger?? (so Baldwin is not responsible??)

The thought occurred to me that since there is a statement from the DA about new information that needs to be investigated, then dropping the charges NOW, is possibly a wise move. Doing this avoids the possibility that a request for delay might not be approved, and avoids the possibility of a judge tossing the case out (for good) because the prosecution was not fully ready.....

This COULD BE a tactic to allow the DA the time needed for full investigation of the "new evidence" without the time pressure of a set court date, and the allegation that delaying the court date would be denying Baldwin his right to a "speedy trial".

I am hopeful that when things are fully investigated charges will be reinstated, the case will go to court and the DA will nail the lid shut on the matter in such a way that it stays shut.



THIS has been my point of view all along.

I posted two articles where they were talking about it in prior posts.
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-65343821

According to the LA Times, prosecutors had recently learned that the gun used in the shooting, a .45 Colt revolver, had been modified with a new trigger in a way that could have made a misfire more likely.

https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2023...st-yet-n734723

So whether he’s fully clear remains to be seen as the investigators look into the question raised about the gun being modified.

In a statement, Special Prosecutor on the Santa Fe, New Mexico case Kari Morrissey told CNN on Thursday, “It is not appropriate for me to make extra judicial comments at this time.”

She continued, “The time will come when I will be able to fully comment but that time is not now. The dismissal against Mr. Baldwin will be temporary pending further investigation.”

None of the quotes are from Baldwin's attorneys.

the question I have is if charges were valid before what difference would a different trigger make? The FBI did check the gun out.

[HiBC]

It is absolute barn carpet to try to place responsibility for this death on the trigger or the gun.
Its the same thought process that isolates murder and violent crime to "gun crime" . And makes SUV's an animated killer with a soul of evil.

Inanimate objects do not commit crimes or negligence. Whether its Unerti or Pietta or Colt or whoever that made the gun,it was used and abused as a movie prop. Dropping,fanning,pistol whipping,nailing up wanted posters,etc.
Might it require maintenance or repair? Sure!!

NO ONE suggests that Baldwin intended to kill Halyna. Intent can be a factor in charging but its moot. I do not believe Baldwin woke up and thought "Today is the day I off Halyna".

Lines of testimony that shift focus to the gun are BS red herring distractions .A shiny object. "Look over here" A FALSE ARGUEMENT to shift the discussion away from true accountability.

Its lawyer sleight of hand meant to manipulate fools. The gun did not do it.

Critical Factors:

Halyna is dead. SAG protocols ignored. (Show biz equivalent of "The Four Rules") Ammo on set. Yes,there are more. Don't talk to me about the trigger.

I accept that Baldwin as an ACTOR is not accountable for the condition of the gun he is handed. To a point. He SHOULD have been witnessing the Armorer load the gun. But in general,I DON"T want ACTORS opening loading gates, jacking levers,racking slides.... Just do what is in the script. I agree that its WRONG for a gun to fire in an actors hand on set. I'll even agree that the ACTOR is not responsible (generally) for an unintended discharge HOWEVER see the SAG protocols. The ACTOR may well be responsible for where the gun is pointed.As much as I despise Baldwin, its likely I'd give the ACTOR Baldwin an acquittal. Don't forget he is also Producer Baldwin.

In general, I agree the ACTOR may bear a contributing level of responsibility, but not the burden of responsibility.
Joy Bahar could act in a Western with a gun scene.

Who manages the overall production of the film? Who is accountable if there are no Port_O_Lets? Handwashing? Who is accountable if a stage hand is electrocuted? Falls from height?
Yes,appropriate trades people, but who is responsible for managing them,hiring,firing,and setting standards if safety? IMO,that person is severely responsible for Halyna's death.

Now we come to the Armorer. We as gun folks may Respect Thell Reed. Thats OK. It might be sad Thell Reed's Daughter is involved.

I think we have to set that aside. Wear the Blindfold of Lady Justice. That does not mean scapegoat or lynch her, but be objective.

Her Job Description gives her the responsibility. OK,there may be "Yeah,but's,,," Granted. And those may be good reason to hold Management partly responsible.
But fundamentally the Armorer has a Job #1 . Make sure no one gets shot. Safety. There may well be mitigation, but she had one job and failed.

Sometimes when we have a Life or Death job.....The Boss may put us in a position where corners are being cut. The Boss may use you for a scapegoat to cover his buns.

I knew a guy who was a helicopter crew chief/ mechanic logging with a Skycrane. As I recall, he confided the Boss said "Keep it flying" with used parts that had not been FAA inspected. And there was something about cracks in the structure. The Boss said "Keep it flying". He quit.

Not long after, the Skycrane fell out of the Sky. People died. You don't just buy a new Skycrane. It takes time to build one. That Skycrane fed logs to the Mill which was the heart of a town's economy. The mill shut down.

Some jobs put Life and Death responsibility on a person. That is also the responsibility to say "No!" and shut it down.

There has been no trial. "Innocent till proven guilty" I'll say my impression is,she was not a perfect match for the job.

With all due Respect to Thell.

[44 AMP]

According to the LA Times, prosecutors had recently learned that the gun used in the shooting, a .45 Colt revolver, had been modified with a new trigger in a way that could have made a misfire more likely.

Thank you for the information.

Well, there you have it, a complete explanation from the LA Times, which, if taken at face value indicates they don't know what they are talking about.

[Metal god]

This all is exactly what I mean . 44 is correct:-@ … lol there has already been tones of wrong info already discussed in the media . Likely do to Baldwins lawyers and there is only going to be more . I’m barely hearing of these things but what you want to bet its a nightly or weekly thing on the NM news feeds . Jury pool has already been tainted and its only going to get worse . I still think at best you get a hung jury now .

I did hear new evidence had been obtained and the DA felt they did not have enough time to vet it before some clock ran out ????? Requiring them to drop the charges ??? Maybe Baldwin is forcing the speedy trial aspect and they don’t have enough time before???? Don’t know how that all works ??? Could it be a dropping of charges to gain more time with out needing to disclose evidence??? Then file again later ?

[ghbucky]

Since it wasn't an actor shooting someone on the set with a prop gun, no, it's absolutely not "very similar".

Is a routine reckless speeding trial "very similar" to a race car driver being put on trial for driving too fast on the track? Is a stabbing trial "very similar" to a surgeon being put on trial for cutting on a patient in the OR? Is a trial for a parent who kills their child with medication by not reading the instructions on the bottle "very similar" to a parent being put on trial for overdosing their child because the pharmacist wrote the wrong instructions on the bottle? Context is really important.

Look, I don't know why this is so hard. (Well, I kinda do--it's not that it's hard, it's that people don't want to accept it.) Actors on set are not held to the same rules as people off set. EVERYONE here absolutely knows that is true because if it weren't, there would be actors being charged right and left for assault with a deadly weapon for pointing guns at other actors on set. Every case would be a slam dunk because the evidence would be captured on video.

Anyone remember when Brandon Lee was killed on set by Michael Massee? Now THAT is a "very similar" case. Massee wasn't even charged for pointing a gun at Lee and pulling the trigger--however the filmmaker was sued and lost the case for not maintaining the proper level of safety on set.

This, I do not understand. Unless I'm mistaken, the law makes no special carve outs for people acting within the bounds of their profession.

The example of a surgeon or race car driver has been provided.

OK, surgeons don't have 'free rein' on how they perform surgery. There are very specific guidelines that they are supposed to work within. If a surgeon just decided on the fly to try an alternate method of accomplishing his goal and that resulted in the death of the patient, he woulndn't be criminally negligent, if there was an alternate method that wouldn't have exposed the patient to the risk?

A race car driver that ignored the track rules and as a result negligently ran down pit row and killed someone working in a pit crew wouldn't be criminally negligent if he had just followed the track rules that would have kept his victime safe?

An actor/producer that ignored industry guidelines that clearly state guns should NEVER be pointed at people without special precautions being taken (such as bullet proof shield between actor and crew, or remote cameras) isn't criminally negligent for the death that results?

As a lawyer, it may seem simple and clear. But to me, as a layperson, this looks very much like special treatment. You may want to lay that on me as prejudice against the accused, but that is on you, not me.

[JohnKSa]

Unless I'm mistaken, the law makes no special carve outs for people acting within the bounds of their profession.

So where are all the charges against actors for pointing guns at other actors on set? Pointing a gun at another person is a crime--the evidence is right there on video. Why aren't the courts full of these cases?

OK, surgeons don't have 'free rein' on how they perform surgery.

Nobody said they did they have "free reign". In fact, I've explicitly stated that they don't. Twice. Three times now.

"That doesn't mean there's no responsibility on the part of surgeons at all..."

"As I said, it does not absolve them of total responsibility. If they do something that is, in the context, criminal or negligent they can certainly be charged. The point is that context is critical. "

The point is they don't get charged with stabbing someone or assault when they perform surgery. You go out and try to cut someone and see what happens. The context is extremely important.

A race car driver that ignored the track rules and as a result negligently ran down pit row and killed someone working in a pit crew wouldn't be criminally negligent if he had just followed the track rules that would have kept his victime safe?

Nobody said race car drivers can do anything they want. In fact I've said so explicitly.

" That doesn't mean there's no responsibility at all on the part of racecar drivers, but it's not the same as if they were speeding under normal circumstances."

The point is that they can definitely do things (i.e. drive very fast) that would be against the law in another context. You go out and drive 200mph and see what happens. The context is critical.

As a lawyer, it may seem simple and clear. But to me, as a layperson, this looks very much like special treatment. You may want to lay that on me as prejudice against the accused, but that is on you, not me.

Again, look at the case of Brandon Lee's death. The person who pointed a gun at Brandon Lee and pulled the trigger, killing him, was not even charged. How do you explain that? It certainly wasn't any sort of special privilege, the guy was hardly even known as an actor before that.

[ghbucky]

Again, look at the case of Brandon Lee's death. The person who pointed a gun at Brandon Lee and pulled the trigger, killing him, was not even charged. How do you explain that? It certainly wasn't any sort of special privilege, the guy was hardly even known as an actor before that.

The SAG safety directions came out specifically because of Brandon Lee's death. I take it that the union saw that this was a problem, so they put out guidelines to avoid that ever happening again.

Those professional guidelines were ignored in this case, and a death resulted. How is this any different from the examples of a race car driver or a surgeon?

I'm not trying to argue with you, I really don't understand why there are special exceptions. Why can an actor ignore the industry standard safety guidelines and get an exemption?

[44 AMP]

an actor shooting someone on the set with a prop gun,

Something I think bears pointing out, the term "prop gun". There are two types of "props" in film and the stage. One is real items, used AS props, and the other are "prop items" made specifically for the theater/film with some special function in mind.

The rubber gun, used to reduce injury during stunts. The breakaway chair or table, or the "spun sugar glass" window the stunt guy gets tossed through. Those are props, and important for safety.

Stage swords (particularly for theater), are made special, for repeated "banging together" use in the play. Not just edgeless, but also with extra thick tangs and even blades, for durability.

On the Rust set, some real guns were being used AS props. That alone removes a layer of safety, requiring specific diligence to avoid the kind of accident that happened.

I think an argument can be made that other than to save money, there is no use for actual functioning firearms (and ammo ) to be on a movie set at all these days. Between fully realistic replica guns (made of metal, wood & plastic with functioning actions but incapable of firing or even chambering live ammunition) and the current state of CGI editing, the result on film will be realistic.

Also been thinking about the surgeon cutting people, and noticed there is something left out of the description. The surgeon has the patient's PERMISSION to cut on them.

The race car driver is not on a public road. SO the applicable rules are situational, TO A POINT.

Baldwin has consistently maintained that when the gun fired he did not pull the trigger. He has admitted to cocking the hammer, and I seem to recall a report where he said the gun fired as he was attempting to lower the hammer (its not impossible the report is false).

We have not seen the FBI report on the gun, all we have is "leaks" about/from the report which could also be so much fabrication.
I am hoping this matter does go to trial. I don't personally care if they find him legally liable or not, I want to see sworn testimony, on the record of who did what, where, and when, and I'd like to see the FBI report as well.

All the mis and dis information that has been flung about since the shooting happened really makes me want to see the "official" truth as sworn testimony.

I look at this through the lens of accident investigation and 'lessons learned" so that we can change what we do, so the same kind of thing won't happen in the future. In order to do that with any degree of accuracy we have to know the reality of what happened. And why.

Crashed airplanes don't lie. People, however, do.

[stagpanther]

Crashed airplanes don't lie. People, however, do.

People lie often when they are absolutely convinced that lie is the truth--pretty common in the world these days.

At the end of the day, I personally find that Baldwin preemptively vindicating himself and resuming filming strikes me as he really doesn't care that much and budgetary concerns are his biggest priority. Regardless of how this goes he'll forever be tainted by it IMO.

[JohnKSa]

...The SAG safety directions came out specifically because of Brandon Lee's death.

People don't get charged based on industry safety directions, they get charged based on the law. There is no court of SAG. The laws now are the same as they were when Brandon Lee was killed. The guy was not charged.

Something I think bears pointing out, the term "prop gun". There are two types of "props" in film and the stage. One is real items, used AS props, and the other are "prop items" made specifically for the theater/film with some special function in mind.

Correct.

On the Rust set, some real guns were being used AS props.

Which is very common. There are companies that make their money renting out real guns and modified real guns for use on movie sets.

The surgeon has the patient's PERMISSION to cut on them.

Excellent observation. That's exactly the case on a movie set when an actor is required to point a gun at another cast member or the camera. They have the permission of the actor or the camera personnel. Context is critical.

The race car driver is not on a public road.

Excellent observation. The same basic situation applies in this case. The actor is not in public, they are on a set which is supposed to be tightly controlled and operates under different rules. Actors don't get arrested for impersonating police officers when they dress up in uniforms and flash badges on set, actors don't get charged for pointing guns at people on set, etc.

[Tom Servo]

There is no court of SAG.

Absolutely correct. In terms of a criminal trial, it looks like the DA felt they didn't have enough evidence to overcome reasonable doubt. Our opinions, no matter how grounded they may be on technical grounds, don't matter. Only the opinion of a jury matters.

I get that people find Baldwin irritating, but that's not enough to convict. I get that Baldwin acted unsafely and irresponsibly, but the DA seems to doubt whether she can convince a jury of that.

As for civil suits, this stuff can be much more compelling. Only a preponderance of evidence is necessary to win. In that venue, negligence is easier to establish.

The CSATF and SAG both have clear policies on handling of firearms on set. Baldwin did violate numerous parts of both, as an actor and as a producer. That's probably where this is going to hash out.

[s3779m]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Thank you for the information.

Well, there you have it, a complete explanation from the LA Times, which, if taken at face value indicates they don't know what they are talking about.

I don't think the prosecutor got her information from the times. Where it came from is not my point, why would a different trigger make such a difference in the charges? I'm not a lawyer, but there are some really, really good ones here. Is this a cop out by the prosecutor?

[Double Naught Spy]

Where it came from is not my point, why would a different trigger make such a difference in the charges?

It certainly introduces a good case for plausible deniability. If the trigger is prone or potentially prone to malfunction, then maybe Baldwin didn't 'pull' the trigger. If he didn't pull the trigger, involuntary manslaughter becomes a harder case to prove.

[Metal god]

The trigger work does introduce an interesting aspect but generally seems irrelevant to me . Even if the trigger was adjusted to be a very light trigger but the FBI report correctly concluded the gun would not fire with out pulling the trigger . In totality it shouldn’t matter if the gun had a 1lb trigger or an 8oz trigger . If someone’s finger had to pull the trigger for it to go off the trigger pull weight should be irrelevant. In my video I showed not only that the hammer is stopped before hitting the chamber/cylinder if the trigger is not pulled . Even if the trigger is pulled while cocking and the hammer slips from your finger before fully cocked. The firing pin will not land on a primer do to the misaligned cylinder chamber . This means two things had to happen, the gun had to be fully cocked and someone had to have pulled the trigger after the hammer was fully cocked .

Although technical , that all seems like an easy thing to prove with the proper expert witness and the right questions. What it sounds like is that the defense is trying to say because it’s a lighter trigger resulting is it being easier to fire means its more likely to misfire . That is simply not true period “if” the gun is in proper working order . It’s just easier to pull the trigger and anytime you pull the trigger intentionally or not . By definition that is not a misfire , its a accidental discharge (AD) or negligent discharge (ND) and at least to me that difference would be easy to show and explain to a jury especially with video evidence of the actor with his finger on the trigger moments before the fatal shot .

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

Absolutely correct. In terms of a criminal trial, it looks like the DA felt they didn't have enough evidence to overcome reasonable doubt. Our opinions, no matter how grounded they may be on technical grounds, don't matter. Only the opinion of a jury matters.

Baldwin has not been charged with violating the SAG safety guidelines. He was charged with involuntary manslaughter. The fundamental bases for that charge are the (a) you did something careless, and (b) someone died as a result.

The SAG guidelines were created after the on-set death of Brandon Lee, which occurred in 1993. So those industry guidelines have been in place for approaching thirty years. Any actor who has appeared in films involving firearms (other than as extras or very minor roles) has certainly encountered them and should (IMHO) be expected to be aware of them and be familiar with them.

The SAG guidelines are intended to serve the same purpose as the NRA three rules of gun safety, and Cooper's four rules of gun safety. Those are guidelines, too, but if any of us were to ignore those and have a negligent discharge that resulted in someone's death, I think we can be fairly certain that those rules would be entered into evidence to show that our actions were unreasonably careless and negligent.

I don't see why it should be any different for Baldwin.

[Double Naught Spy]

He was charged with involuntary manslaughter. The fundamental bases for that charge are the (a) you did something careless, and (b) someone died as a result.

I think what you are missing from the previous arguments is that while the SAG rules do exist, they don't determine the case. Yes, they are there for safety. Sure, they might have been introduced if there was a criminal trial, but no trial, no SAG rules introduced. That Baldwin may have violated SAG rules is therefore moot since the DA doesn't think they have enough other evidence for a conviction.

[44 AMP]

.. had been modified with a new trigger in a way that could have made a misfire more likely.

I kind of focused on this part of the statement. Again, its from the LA Times, not directly from the prosecutor on the case.

"More likely to misfire".....

Either a complete misunderstanding of the definition of what a misfire is, or yet another "red herring"...

Even internet dictionaries define "misfire" as a FAILURE to fire. The gun in Baldwin's hands did not misfire. It FIRED. Result was a tragic death and a second person wounded. So, any argument involving the likelihood of the gun misfiring is due to an aftermarket trigger is specious. Superficially plausible, but WRONG....

Where an uber light trigger pull can have a bearing is that a very light trigger pull can result in the trigger being pulled before the shooter intends for the gun to fire. Absent mechanical failure (and we're relying on "leaks" from the FBI report about that) the trigger MUST be pulled after the hammer is at full cock, or the gun does not fire.

Baldwin says he didn't pull the trigger. I'm sure HE believes that. I think he believes he didn't pull the trigger because he doesn't remember doing it and since he doesn't remember doing it, he must not have done it. As I see it, this is also specious. Or, he could remember doing it, and simply be lying...

Perhaps my opinion is colored by what was reported to be the first thing he said after the shot was fired.

It wasn't, "What happened???" It wasn't "Is she ok?" It wasn't "call 911" (or the medic or first aid,) or anything like that.

It was (reportedly) "I didn't pull the trigger!"

(if true) it kind of shows me where his personal priorities are, his first concern seemed to be not over what happened, or was anyone hurt, but his personal CYA.

That Baldwin may have violated SAG rules is therefore moot since the DA doesn't think they have enough other evidence for a conviction.

I would point out that the DA has not said that, yet. The DA did NOT say charges have been dropped because they believe they do not have enough evidence for a conviction. That may, ultimately, be true, but, its not true YET.

[Jim Watson]

"Misfire" is common Media Speak for inadvertent discharge, they don't use Gun Culture English.