New Mexico prosecutors plan to recharge Alec Baldwin with involuntary manslaughter over a fatal on-set shooting in October 2021.

The prosecutors dismissed charges against the Emmy award-winning actor in April, just two weeks before his trial was due to start.

But “additional facts” merit bringing the case again before a grand jury next month, they said.

  • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】
    link
    -2
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    100%? How is that?

    A learned intermediary handed him a dangerous tool and said it was good to go.

    If the pharmacist gives you the wrong pills filling a script for your kid, and your kid takes them and dies, you’re not liable for manslaughter.

    It is generally reasonable to rely on the professional representations of a learned intermediary, especially in a case where the intermediary’s profession is so life-and-death important.

    This was the armorer’s one contractual duty. As a producer, Baldwin took reasonable steps to protect the victim by hiring a professional armorer. That satisfies a principal’s nondelegable duty for general safety, imo. Maybe he is culpable for negligent hiring or negligent supervision, not for manslaughter, though.

    Further, what are you saying was Baldwin’s duty, here? To–after the person hired solely to inspect, load, and handle the guns, handed it to him and said it was safe–clear the chamber, take out the magazine, and inspect and reload each cartridge? Baldwin’s duties are those of an actor, not an armorer.

    If you hire a painter, does that impute a duty on your part to test the paint for lead? No, it’s the painter’s duty to perform her contract as a reasonable tradesperson.

    These are some gaping holes in your 100%.

    • @Tujio
      link
      191 year ago

      Uh. Did you read the comment?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -11 year ago

      If he was a non producer, then you would have a stronger argument, but as a producer he may have been negligent in hiring someone unqualified.

      In a normal setting, pointing a gun at a person would be negligent, even if you believed it was empty. I don’t know the industry standard on movie sets, but pointing a real gun at a human when not in a scene would be at least careless, possibly legally negligent.

      That’s for the court to decide.

      • @ashok36
        link
        61 year ago

        That negligence as a producer would be civil though, not criminal.