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

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote in news:19861212-7a05-46ef-
bdba-5c7d700937e5n@googlegroups.com:

> Don WHY bullshitted:
> 
> ======================
> 
> ** What does it take to make an idiot like you fuck off ??
>     Permanently.
> 
> I mean, you are SO  FUCKING  CLUELESS  its  STINKs  !!
> 
> 
> 
> ......  Phil 
> 
> 

  Damn I wish I could travel the world putting and end to retarded 
bastards like you.

  I'd be the Internet Dexter.  You'd make a great first candidate!

> Flyshit is So Fucking Stupid 
======================
>> 
> > Go and f your mother - you ridiculous child. 
> > ================================= 


> 1. When negligence is involved in the wrongful death of another it is, by definition, criminal. 

**  Nonsense. 

> 2. How did the bullet strike Hutchins if it wasn't pointed at her? 

**  Pure chance, the gun was neither pointed nor the trigger intentionally pulled. 

> I think you are talking about AIMED at her, which is different. 

**  No it is NOT -  you  pedantic, autistic TWAT  


> 3. Practicing with a LOADED weapon IS negligent.

**   Only if done knowingly  -  NOT  the case here. 

>  Not checking that the gun was loaded IS ALSO negligent. 

**   NOT  in circumstances like these.

  
> 4. As the onsite film Producer, Baldwin's duties REQUIRED him to maintain safety on the set. 

**  No it fucking does  NOT   !!
  
Along with main character acting,  that would be a totally impossible task. 

Others shared that job. 




.....  Phil 

On 11/5/2021 6:46 PM, Don Y wrote:
> The question will boil down to assigning "responsibility" to the various
> *roles* (job descriptions) present on the set.  I suspect there's going to
> be a fair bit of interest into any "extracurricular activities" that may
> have taken place on the set -- and who *enabled* that practice!

This is a sort of "best practices" for the handling of firearms on a set:

<https://www.csatf.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/01FIREARMS.pdf>

None of it is legally binding but, rather, the guidelines that contract
services personnel are expected to follow.

Here's a collection of all such guidelines:

<https://www.csatf.org/all_safety_bulletins-procedural_guidelines-info_fact_sheets/>

Interesting to note which bulletin is top of the list!

 gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
=============================


> > ** 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.
>
> And a thought of intentionally killing someone is not required for many crimes.

**  ROTFLMAO  !!!!!    wot pile of horse dung !!!

 
> The fact that "mens rea" is considered in many aspects of the law does not mean 
>  you get off because you didn't "mean" to hurt anyone. 

**  Straw man......,

> Besides, a state of mind is very hard to prove.

** Courts infer it from words and actions plus likely motives of of the accused. 

   An obvious lack of  " mens rea "  is a solid defense in most criminal cases. 
   Don't work in civil ones though. 
   
.....  Phil 

 Don WHY bullshitted 

====================

Fuck off Don  -  you are soooo  WAAAAYYYYY out of your depth here.



....   Phil 

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:3334648a-ba3e-4c54-ba90-a19646c0c2den@googlegroups.com: 

> On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 5:24:50 PM UTC-4, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>> 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. 
> 
> You would think that - and it has been argued in court exactly
> that way... but I know someone who was convicted and sentenced for
> attempted second degree murder.  I read the documents submitted
> attempting to overthrow the conviction.  It didn't fly in Florida.
>  The crime met every aspect of the requirements for second degree
> murder (not exactly as you state them, but that varies between
> states) except the body wasn't dead when they loaded it in the
> trunk to dispose of it.  
> 
> The example of auto accident might not suffice to reach second
> degree murder in Florida.  There they require you to be committing
> a felony that could be expected to result in death without intent
> of causing a death.  So if the manner of driving the auto in the
> deadly accident was not sufficient to be committing a felony that
> could be expected to result in death it would not be second degree
> murder, while it could be manslaughter. 
> 
> 
>> 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. 
> 
> I think that is very clearly not first degree murder since it was
> only a remote possibility someone would have been killed by the
> bullet.  In fact I think it was very unlikely someone would have
> been killed.  You give a definition of first degree murder above,
> but you don't say that is the definition in New Mexico where the
> killing took place. 
> 

  The assistant director is the guy supposed to hand a gun to an 
actor AFTER the armourer hands it to the AD.  That did not happen 
here AND when asked by the investigators, he said he 'could not 
remember how well he checked the gun'.  WHAT?  can't remember?  I 
would remember every single second.  Something is not right with that 
crew.

  I cannot help but think that it is Trump related, because there are 
so many absolute idiots out there following the dope, and guess 
what...  they hate Alec Baldwin.

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote in news:5c6c5055-d659-4094-
8e3a-5f484575c2b7n@googlegroups.com:

>  Don WHY bullshitted 
> 
> ====================
> 
> Fuck off Don  -  you are soooo  WAAAAYYYYY out of your depth here.
> 
> 
> 
> ....   Phil 

  It's a damned shame that you are not out experiencing the depth of 
your death.

 DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
------------------------------------------------------
> > Don WHY bullshitted 
> > 
> > ==================== 
> > 
> > Fuck off Don - you are soooo WAAAAYYYYY out of your depth here. 
> > 
> It's a damned shame that you are not out experiencing the depth of 
> your death.

**  FFS   Don is a real PITA old fool. 

   But you make him look a saint. 


.....  Phil 

On Fri, 5 Nov 2021 15:14:52 -0700 (PDT), Phil Allison
<pallison49@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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. 

Sure it can, in the US anyway.  Common charge in fatal automobile
accidents.  Goes with reckless driving, the issue being lack of
judgment by the driver in question.


>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 )

Don't know if that DA knows guns at all well.

If I were the Armorer, I would have ensured that live and blank did
not look alike, somehow.  I've read that many blanks have a 0.125"
diameter hole drilled in the case, so it can be directly verified that
there is no powder inside.  But I don't know what was in fact done. We
shall soon find out, I'd venture.


>The lady armorer had a near impossible task to get it right * every *  time. 
>Making an understandable mistake is never negligence - at all. 

True, and is the basic reason one uses multiple parallel measures,
such that all must fail before a accident can happen.

It's also often done to have multiple people independently verifying
critical details.


>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. 

You are correct in that I didn't cover assumption of risk.  In this
case, the decision to undertake a risk was made by the person
undertaking the risk, not by someone else.  Whatever later happened,
it is not murder.

There is a parallel in medicine.  When one goes in for surgery, one
signs a release form of some kind.  What this form does is to say that
you understand and accept the risk that the surgery won't go as
planned, and you might die.  One is also authorizing an activity that
would be assault and battery, perhaps with intent to maim.

I saw this when I was having eye surgery for cataracts.  They went
through the whole crescendo, ending up with death.  Really?  For eye
surgery?  They do many millions of cataract surgeries per year, so
maybe there is one lost soul per year.  But I bet they actually died
of something else, even if it was during surgery.


>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)>

It's a good example for sure.  But the Assistant Director could well
be held liable under the same legal theory that resulted in some being
"convicted of felony involuntary manslaughter and criminal
trespassing" for the Midnight Rider accident.

The key is "willful negligence", which is usually the intentional
skipping required safety measures to save money, thereby forcing the
employees to incur a risk they never agreed to.

Joe Gwinn

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote in
news:20b1350b-8716-40f2-a4fa-d7b279aa3b78n@googlegroups.com: 

> 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 ) 
> 

  They do not "look identical" to ANY hollywood actor utilizing guns 
and gunplay in their role.  They all know the differences.

  Dummy, lookalike rounds in Hollywood and likely the film making 
world over, ALL have BBs in place of the powder, which can be heard 
distinctly upon shaking, AND the primers have all been struck and in 
some cases removed.

  So there is no chance that a live, unstruck primer would ever 
"accidentally" end up not only on a set, but with the armourer and 
end up in a gun.  It really is that simple.  All those dummy rounds 
it the Mexican bandito's gun belts ALL have struck primers or even 
removed primers.  They prefer struck. Because firing pin break 
eventually if it gets fired and doesn't smack a primer tail.

  So it sounds like a live round was intentionally brought to a movie 
set full of gun scenes.

  That is deliberate.  The act of bringing something deadly to a 
movie set which is not allowed to begin with even on non-gun involved 
productions.

  Whether or not it ending up in a "cold gun" was deliberate (by that 
same person who brought it or other) is a different question, because 
as was stated, there may have been some break time plinking going on 
opening a small window of it possibly being pure accident, but not 
much.

  But it still sounds like a deliberate set of acts, because it 
should not have been within miles of the set, much less end up being 
inserted by someone into a gun that was *the gun* being used in the 
production by the lead actor whom was rehearsing at the time with the 
gun.

  Anyone loading a gun of any type notices the "live" condition of 
each round as they load it by the same method, and that is seeing a 
fat, rounded, live primer in the ass of the bullet.

  So it is not possible for a properly trained person to load a gun 
without looking at the primer on a center fire bullet as each is 
loaded up.  And I do not mean properly trained movie set armourer, I 
mean ANY person with gun training does it JUST THAT WAY.

  So ALL of the rounds being loaded should have shown a struck primer 
and made rattle sound when shook due to the B-Bs.

  And ultimately if an idiot was the guy that loaded it and he didn't 
look, that is the very definition of negligence leading to a death 
with all of their policies and handling mechanisms in place.

  So either a deliberate stunt by someone that ended tragically or an 
accident by the guy who loaded the gun for not looking at the rounds.
But that accident has culpability for the loader if it was his job to 
ensure dead rounds.