Forums

Legal definitions of homicide in the US and applicability to the accidental shooting on the 'Rust' movie set

Started by Joe Gwinn November 5, 2021
In the US, there is no single set of terms for the kinds of homicide.
The federal government has one set, and each state has its own.  They
are very similar in principle, but are not identical, and may be named
and worded quite differently.

Most of US law evolved from English Law, except for the Louisiana
Purchase states, which instead evolved from the Napoleonic Code of
France.  New Mexico law likely evolved from English Law.

Not all kinds of homicide are considered murder.  The main kinds (by
whatever name) are as follows (by some old definition from
California?):

First-degree Murder, for which one could be executed.  Requires the
action and the intent to kill someone, with success.  It is not
necessary to have had a specific person in mind.  The classic examples
are shooting into a crowd, or setting off a bomb - it's quite likely
that someone will die, no matter who was unlucky that day.

It's Attempted Murder if intended but no success - it's the thought
that counts.

Second-degree Murder, also known in some states as negligent homicide.
Requires action, but no intent to kill, but with success.  This is the
typical charge when an automobile accident leads to a death.  Another
example is an industrial accident.  

There is no such thing as attempted second-degree murder, for lack of
murderous intent.

Accidents leading to injury but not death are handled by Tort Law, not
Criminal Law, unless it is proven that the "accident" causing
crippling was in fact intentional, leading to a charge of injury with
intent to maim or the like.

There are some kinds of intentional homicide that are not crimes.  The
classic example is self-defense.

In the case of Alex Baldwin shooting two people, killing one of them,
he had no intent to even fire a live round, never mind killing anyone,
so it is unclear that he will be charged with anything criminal.

The Armorer and the Assistant Director may have been sloppy (this is
disputed), but even if true, that's at most second-degree murder.  I'd
hazard that the Assistant Director is the likely focus, not the
24-year old Armorer, who reports to that Assistant Director.

If it turns out that someone did slip a live (meaning with a lead
bullet and powder) round into the pistol that Alex Baldwin later used
on set, whoever meddled with that pistol will likely be charged with
first-degree murder, unless the law cannot figure out and prove beyond
a reasonable doubt who did it.

Joe Gwinn
 Joe Gwinn wrote:
===============
> > The Armorer and the Assistant Director may have been sloppy (this is > disputed), but even if true, that's at most second-degree murder. I'd > hazard that the Assistant Director is the likely focus, not the > 24-year old Armorer, who reports to that Assistant Director. >
** This is the only inaccurate part of your post. Sloppy does not equal criminal negligence. We already know the live and dummy rounds used look identical to the average person even when they know there is an odd one in the mix. ( The New Mexico DA said she could not tell ) The lady armorer had a near impossible task to get it right * every * time. Making an understandable mistake is never negligence - at all. The one class of event you left out was "death by misadventure" as seems the case here. A when a person or group engages in a hazardous activity - like race car or power boat racing and and one competitor is accidentally killed. Making a western movie with real guns is like that. I previously compared it to working on a construction site - where fatal falls, electrocutions and being hit by heavy falling objects are daily events. Despite a host of precautions being in place. The assistant director was not criminally negligent here either, for the same reasons as above. Do you want to see a clear example of criminal negligence on a movie set ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnight_Rider_(film) ..... Phil
Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote in
news:20b1350b-8716-40f2-a4fa-d7b279aa3b78n@googlegroups.com: 

> The lady armorer had a near impossible task to get it right * > every * time. Making an understandable mistake is never > negligence - at all. >
Not true. If she cannot discern the differences, she should not have been an armourer. Therefore making this mistake is negligence at the very least. Both on her part and on the part of whomever employed her specifically for that position without vetting her aptitude and knowledge and experience at doing that job. If there was no locked cabinet on hand, then the production company has some liability.
Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote in
news:20b1350b-8716-40f2-a4fa-d7b279aa3b78n@googlegroups.com: 

> I previously compared it to working on a construction site - > where fatal falls, electrocutions and being hit by heavy falling > objects are daily events. Despite a host of precautions being in > place. >
No, they are not. Or we would be seeing the news stories and we do not. We have OSHA here and strict training courses and provisos for construction site workers. I am OSHA 10 certified... twice in three years. Construction sites here is the US are pretty safe, and accidents happens rarely. Definitely NOT on your "daily" schedule.
 Decaying Zombie Moron @decadence.org wrote:
=======================================
> Phil Allison > > > The lady armorer had a near impossible task to get it right * > > every * time. Making an understandable mistake is never > > negligence - at all. > > > Not true.
** FFS yaaaawwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
> If she cannot discern the differences,
** FFS yaaaawnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
> Therefore making this mistake is negligence at the > very least.
** False conclusion. ( snip more vomitous, insane drivel )
Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote:

> In the case of Alex Baldwin shooting two people, killing one of them, > he had no intent to even fire a live round, never mind killing anyone, > so it is unclear that he will be charged with anything criminal.
The poster can write but apparently can't read. Look up (allintext:manslaughter intent). Manslaughter is criminal. You should know that much. But seriously. Intent is not required. I wonder where some people got the impression intent is required for criminality.
Pretends to be an expert when it has ABSOLUTE ZERO experience with
something (for example 3D printers). 

The group idiot, a.k.a. Always Wrong...

-- 
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

> Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!5U2ooNuM5UP0Ynf/GmOnCg.user.46.165.242.91.POSTED!not-for-mail > From: DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org > Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design > Subject: Re: Legal definitions of homicide in the US and applicability to the accidental shooting on the 'Rust' movie set > Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2021 22:58:19 -0000 (UTC) > Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server > Message-ID: <sm4cub$1791$1@gioia.aioe.org> > References: <v68bog9040pohh2k6u4lepktqmjddifdq0@4ax.com> <20b1350b-8716-40f2-a4fa-d7b279aa3b78n@googlegroups.com> > Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="40225"; posting-host="5U2ooNuM5UP0Ynf/GmOnCg.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org"; > User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25 > X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2 > Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:651585 > > Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote in > news:20b1350b-8716-40f2-a4fa-d7b279aa3b78n@googlegroups.com: > >> The lady armorer had a near impossible task to get it right * >> every * time. Making an understandable mistake is never >> negligence - at all. >> > > Not true. If she cannot discern the differences, she should not have > been an armourer. Therefore making this mistake is negligence at the > very least. Both on her part and on the part of whomever employed her > specifically for that position without vetting her aptitude and > knowledge and experience at doing that job. > > If there was no locked cabinet on hand, then the production company > has some liability. > >
John Dope Criminal Fuckwit wrote:
==========================
> Joe Gwinn <joeg...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > In the case of Alex Baldwin shooting two people, killing one of them, > > he had no intent to even fire a live round, never mind killing anyone, > > so it is unclear that he will be charged with anything criminal. > > The poster can write but apparently can't read. >
** While this one can write but not think. IOW a troll.
> Look up (allintext:manslaughter intent).
** Post a credible link - shithead.
> Manslaughter is criminal.
** Duh ???
> Intent is not required.
** Intent to * murder* is not required. Intent to seriously harm or being reckless is.
> I wonder where some people got the impression intent > is required for criminality.
** Cos it is written all over the criminal law - fuckwit. It's called " mens rea " = Latin for "guilty mind" . In criminal matters, it's the thought that counts. Attempted murder, though causing no harm will easily get you 15 years jail. ...... Phil
Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote in news:c161b1a5-f945-4bfc-
a8d3-613d77c68f7an@googlegroups.com:

snip

  Yeah you're a real good debater of your position, you fucking 
absolute retard.

  You are more stupid than John Doe troll.
  Simply because you should know better and not stoop, like you do so 
often, especially when refuted.

  Good Job, Phil baby...   NOT!  Got the baby part right though.  You 
are a childish fucking putz.
 Decaying Nut case LIAR :
===================
> > > I previously compared it to working on a construction site - > > where fatal falls, electrocutions and being hit by heavy falling > > objects are daily events. Despite a host of precautions being in > > place. > > > No, they are not.
** Fraid they are.
> Or we would be seeing the news stories and we do not.
** The media mostly ignore it. Roughly 150,000 injuries per year and over 1000 fatalities. https://www.2keller.com/library/construction-accident-statistics.cfm Bloody shocking. ..... Phil