And . . . Charges dropped in April.

See, this is how people get railroaded when they don't have resources. Only now is the prosecution getting the gun tested? Only now the prosecution is figuring out someone may have altered the gun and filed down the grooves on the hammer? Instead, they rush to file charges against Baldwin?

That makes my blood boil.

You called it.

Oh, for Pete's sake.

Now a grand jury will consider whether Baldwin should be prosecuted.

So, let's set aside that this kind of accidental shooting usually isn't prosecuted. Heck, a lot of accidental deaths do not result in a prosecution. The general rule is if you weren't doing anything obviously wrong when you did the act (e.g., speeding, drunk, horseplay), you won't go to jail if you run someone over or even shoot them if you didn't mean to pull the trigger. Right, Dick Cheney?

Here we have Baldwin, having been charged and then having had the charges dropped because expert analysis of the gun found it had been modified to fire more easily. Normally, that would be the end of it. Even if prosecutors changed their minds, a jury is going to know about that report.

But now, get this, from NYT. This new expert says the gun could fire, and here are the facts:

quote:

Before Mr. Haag tested the gun, it had been examined by the F.B.I., which broke parts of it during testing,[/] a complication that is certain to be raised by Mr. Baldwin’s defense. In order to test the gun, Mr. Haag [b]replaced the damaged parts with new ones from the same type of gun.

Good grief. Leave the man alone. The most they can prove is that he may have had his finger on the trigger while the gun was cocked. Not that he intentionally put it there, and not that he pulled the trigger. I mean, if the gun was so rickety that it fell apart or broke during testing, how can we know what was going on with it during the shooting?

This was a terrible accident, and the person who was responsible for the gun (the armoror), the assistant director (who told Baldwin the gun was empty), and whoever let live ammunition onto the set caused this.

Baldwin seems like the equivalent here to the deep pocket in a damages case. Others may carry 99.5% of the blame, but the Baldwin name is the one the prosecutors want to go after.

True.

But it's super wrong to unleash the full power of the state against a private person just because they're famous.

So they dropped the charges and then empaneled a grand jury?

What?

The article I read intimated (didn't say explicitly, but intimated) that somebody flipped.

If that's the case, and they have someone prepared to testify against him, it's a whole new ballgame.

Well sure. If the armorer copped a plea and is somehow going to testify to something completely new (like he was drunk and engaged in horseplay). The assistant director took a plea long ago, so I doubt that is the source of any new information.

But the article I read suggested that the state had simply gone to a different expert who reached a different conclusion.

If so, the prosecutor is gonna have a devil of a time establishing a case "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Looks like a Santa Fe grand jury ...

... decided that new prosecutors could go after Baldwin again.

The basis seems to be a new "expert" who decided that it took two pounds of pressure to engage the trigger therefore Baldwin must have pulled the trigger.

Of course, the gun had been altered (repaired) while in FBI custody because of damage, so we have no idea what pressure it took on the day of the event.

I will never understand the reasoning here. So what if he pulled the trigger on a gun that should have been a harmless prop? Where's the mens rea?

I agree.

What reason is there to ever have a loaded firearm on a movie set?

This kind of "accident" has happened before, so it's not unreasonable for the courts to assign culpability to something that "isn't supposed to happen."

It did happen. People made it happen. And there is blame to assign.

The question is who shares in the responsibility, and what is the appropriate level of criminal liability. Is this the right charge for Baldwin to face? Should he face any charge here? Is all the blame on the armorer or someone else? How did live ammo get on the set?

If he aimed a firearm directly at people and an "accident" happened, that may very well be an actionable violation of law even though he had no "intent" to do harm. More so if his finger pulled the trigger. But that's the rub. Since the gun was worked on while in FBI custody, we cannot know if Baldwin's "I didn't pull the trigger" claim is true. Given that, I don't see how a jury convicts him of a serious felony, or how an appeals court would uphold such a verdict.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Miller:
I agree.

What reason is there to ever have a loaded firearm on a movie set?

There you go. Who brought live ammo to a movie set? It starts right there.

Whelp, the 26-year-old armorer was convicted of manslaughter. Jury deliberated for 2.5 hours, so it sounds like it wasn't a difficult case for them.

I mean, come on. Apparently this clearly unqualified nepo-baby was the daughter of an experienced, well-regarded armorer in the industry. Daddy taught her the business, but not well, apparently.

"Rust" was her second film, and by all accounts, she was straight up terrible and careless. I hope she does some time. A woman was killed, a man was injured, and Baldwin and everyone else who witnessed this has to live with the trauma.

Will this satisfy the bloodlust of the prosecutors such that they stop going after Baldwin?

Nah. These prosecutors seem to have an endless appetite for blood.