tvc184

Thank you. In another forum a guy kind of confronted me on his real world versus a movie set, which I think matters. He, like some people in this forum, was of the mindset that if you pointed a firearm, you were automatically guilty. I was thinking of a response and remembered another part of Texas law on defenses to prosecution. Sec. 8.02. MISTAKE OF FACT. (a) It is a defense to prosecution that the actor through mistake formed a reasonable belief about a matter of fact if his mistaken belief negated the kind of culpability required for commission of the offense. (b) Although an actor's mistake of fact may constitute a defense to the offense charged, he may nevertheless be convicted of any lesser included offense of which he would be guilty if the fact were as he believed. It potentially could exonerate Baldwin depending on how movies are made and depending on state law. You can see in (a) that if a person formed a reasonable belief that would negate culpability, it is a defense of prosecution. In (b), even if it does not fit the most serious crime, you might be charged with a lower crime if that culpable mental state could be proven. I have asked this several times in different forums but again, what is normally done on a movie set? It very well might matter. If actors are often handed guns and they are not required to check them to see if it has dummy or live rounds, that would seem to fit (a). Would it be a reasonable belief by an actor who maybe hundreds of times done or seen other actors handed a gun and they do not check them because they believe an expert has cleared the weapon. In such a scenario I believe it would definitely fit (a) as to a reasonable belief. Even if a person used (b), that could reduce a murder charge in Texas down to Criminal Negligent Homicide which can be prosecuted as a misdemeanor with as little as one day in jail or a fine only.

The school certainly should handle such problems. I don’t ever recall seeing a police officer at a school ever. ”Should handle” is the problem however. What do you do with the students who may want to learn at least enough to be able to get a job when they get out of high school? Do you say oh well, you happen to go to a crappy public school or do you call in someone else like the police to try to gain control? Maybe they could try something like this…

I have been kind of keeping up with it but there are so many comments other than from his relatives that it’s hard to find about his condition. After I posted a few days ago, he had a couple of setbacks search as a bacterial lung infection. He was treated at that time and from what I could gather responded well. It took a couple of days for him to start coming out of the induced coma. What I read yesterday was that he had become conscious but was having expected mental or neurologic issues. I don’t want to use their terminology but it sounds like he was fighting to regain consciousness The family member posted that the doctor said this is what is to be expected and it could last for a few days to weeks or months but if I remember correctly, it is unlikely to be permanent. From what I gathered, he is on the road to recovery but barring any other setbacks, it will just take a while with an unknown timeframe.

These experts show a part of the problem in discussing this case. You have one Harvard law professor that says you have to show intent to criminally charge Baldwin and another who says intent is not required. The Harvard law professor is an idiot but is listed as an expert. I guess that’s true if you’re teaching at Harvard law but I’m wondering about that answer. I would assume that every state and I know Texas does, has a law that does not require intent to commit death. In the press conference today it said what I have said all along, they were rehearsing a scene. I am going to guess that part of that scene had Baldwin looking toward the camera and firing a shot for dramatic effect. Unfortunately he was mistakenly handed what was supposed to be an unloaded gun or a gun with a blank charge but was in fact loaded with a live round. So the question of the culpable mental state will probably come down to the definition of reckless or the definition of criminal negligence in New Mexico or whatever way they choose to describe how things happen. It is called Mens Rea which I think is Latin for “guilty mind”. Like always I will use Texas law as an example. Here is the definition quoted about criminal negligence. It is not just negligence which almost any accident is, it is criminal in nature. A person acts with criminal negligence, or is criminally negligent, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint. You really kind of have to note where is says deviate from standard care of an ordinary person….. under the circumstances…. as viewed from the actors standpoint. It is kind of interesting that Texas uses the word “actor” to mean criminal. That is what I have been trying to explain. You have to put yourself in the position that the person is in that situation. I don’t care what someone would have done deer hunting and I don’t care what somebody would do at the shooting range or the Police Academy. This was on a movies set where actors are probably very likely to be handed guns and never check them. We can argue whether they should or not but that is a different issue than the law. It has to be viewed from the actor’s standpoint. That is not my interpretation, that is a quote from Texas law. Is New Mexico law any different? I’m sure it is similar but the wording might leave open more possibilities. Maybe I’ll look it up later. And I kind of consider myself an expert. Maybe they will quote me… 😂

I watched that 20+ minute press conference. All they said was the standard, we have ruled nothing out which should be the correct answer. When you have not finished your investigation, how can you rule out something?

United States Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany and Sarah Huckabee Sanders had the same qualities.

This has been said before but I guess it either goes over your head or you just ignore it. They were on a movie set. They do things that are illegal in the real world. It is against the law to make an explosive device in the United States yet movies have explosions all the time. It is against the law and up to six months in jail in Texas to recklessly replace someone in danger of serious i jury. Movies however routinely place people in danger and that is why they are stunt people to fill in for actors although some actors do some of their own stunts. Start people often get injured, sometimes as much as breaking a bone. Why aren’t the directors and producers charged criminally? It is against the law to be reckless driving and can cost you a few months in the county jail in almost every state yet they film police chase scenes in several states on public streets yet the actors and stunt drivers don’t go to jail. Why is that? You are comparing the real world with a fantasy land intentionally created where there are risks. During the filming of the Wizard of Oz, the wicked witch had her face catch on fire from the stunt where she appeared in munchkin land. She has some third-degree burns I believe and filming had to stop until she recovered. It was obviously dangerous and somebody screwed up. Should they have gone to jail? I have said in more than one post, Baldwin or someone else or multiple people might be charged. If they are they are. It goes by state law but you are comparing the real world with people who intentionally go into dangerous situations, many of whom are untrained (like actors) and rely on other people to do the right thing.

He is absolutely civilly responsible and will either pay out of his pocket or the production company or his insurance. If a person visit you on trips on your driveway and gets injured, they are almost certainly going to sue you. Should you go to jail?

The guy that shot and killed Brandon Lee on the movie said did not check the weapon. Why was he not indicted? Yes, if John Voight had done the same thing the liberals would be coming after him. The conservatives are doing the exact same thing to Baldwin. Why should politics enter into this? You’re basically making your case for prejudice against Ballwin with your examples.

I think you made many people’s case right there. He is a real work, has a bad attitude, I totally disagree with him politically and generally think of him as an idiot. Unfortunately I think many of those same people think he should have charges filed because of that. Justice is supposed to be blind however reading various forums, sometimes obviously it is not.

It is against the law in Texas to point a firearm at a person even if you think it is not loaded and even if it is not loaded. On a movie set and many have been made in Texas, you have to point firearms at people at certain points in filming. I’m sure this, like all tragedies, will cause a change in policy in the way movies are made. Maybe they will file charges on Alec Baldwin, the person that handed him the gun or maybe both. I don’t have a clue. People are wanting to indict Alec Baldwin because he has Alec Baldwin. The concept of ex post facto and is in the Constitution. You can’t file charges on somebody after you change the law to match what happened before. Did he follow or do what is normally done at movie search over and over? How many actors check the Firearms before they take a movie shot? In the movie the Green Beret with John Wayne, did all of the actors checked the M-16s they were shooting on set and pointing in all directions? I am fairly certain they were real weapons and I doubt they bought hundreds of fake M16s that were fully functioning. There is a huge difference. One guy‘s last name was Wayne and one was named Baldwin.

Have I ever mentioned in any other threads that I think reporters are sometimes highly educated idiots? They ask a question and they get an answer. Another reporter will basically asked the same question, sometimes substituting a different word and will get the same answer. Then another reporter… Maybe that’s a taught technique that if you shout the same question over and over but by different reporters each time, you might get a different answer. The way it sounds to me though is like the second reporter did not grasp the person‘s response, I’m not answering that question. Like the district attorney in this case says something to the effect that we don’t know who will be charged if anyone. If we can find out who is responsible and it fits New Mexico law, we will file charges. We have to complete the investigation. A couple of minutes later a reporter asked, I know you said you’re not going to comment on it but could charge you to be filed against Alec Baldwin? Uhhhhh… I guess the attorney’s comment that she would not comment and the reporter’s opening statement that he knew she said she would not come here, would elicit a different response? One person asked the sheriff if they were taking into consideration the rumors (which are never evidence) that the set wasn’t safe. I can’t remember his exact response but it was the standard noncommittal, we will look into all aspects that we find and turn over all facts to the district attorney. The district attorney‘s response was that they would look into the accusations. Sure enough, a couple of minutes later a reporter asked the district attorney if the rumors about it being unsafe would matter.

The sheriff did note get there at three revolvers recovered in the vicinity of the shooting. One was the actual gun which will be test fired but he said they assume that is a functioning weapons since it fired the round that killed the woman. He said that one appears as though it may have been modified but did not describe any and one he said it was a classic non-functioning revolver. I am assuming the one that was modified was probably a real revolver but set up only to fire blanks.

The sheriff said in the interview… “a mix of blanks, dummy rounds and what we are suspecting, live rounds”.

I would say that anytime someone is accidentally shot, it is an unsafe atmosphere. I don’t think you have to go past the fact that was somebody was shot to declare it as unsafe It seems like that movie set was an accident waiting to happen.

A walk through or rehearsal.

Yes, for covid19 it is new because covid19 is new. The technology isn’t. Again, when you can’t breathe and might be looking at the end, new technology is the least of your worries.

Well the times have changed. When I went to school more than 40 years ago, students were not assaulting teachers on getting in fights just so they could take videos.

Having never worked in a school except as a police officer, I suspect that is a big part of it.

That still does not negate what I have said before. Once people are sick and like me and many others possibly seriously ill, the choice between a new treatment and hospitalization or death seems like an easy choice. A majority and probably a vast majority of the people who get Covid and are not vaccinated, go through a relatively mild illness. If those people start taking a turn for the worst, they will likely opt for a new treatment rather than being put in a coma on a ventilator or death. That is not mind-boggling.

Is it because of corporal punishment or the attitude of the district officials? Maybe both? I know that nobody likes to air out their dirty laundry in public but having worked at a high school for security as a police officer (but not for the school district itself), I have arrested people on campus that the school district wished I had not. I am hesitant to use the word cover-up because they really didn’t cover anything up. Sometimes they’re highly suggestive to let the school district handle it internally. That never happened though. When I put handcuffs on someone, they are gone. An officer I were working at a high school and we watched one student assault another right in front of us. A teacher was standing between them and one reached over the teacher and smashed the other in the face. We arrested him immediately for assault of which he faced up to a year in jail. Some school officials came over and said that they would like to handle it. Nope. Off the student went to the County Jail. That is what I am wondering about as far as having a school backing up discipline (not necessarily from the police but any type of discipline) and trying to brush it under the rug so that it does not go public. That is one of the criticisms I have with a school district police departments. They are state licensed police officers but answer to school district officials. I think that a lot of times that comes into a conflict of interest for the school is not necessarily worried about enforcing the law as much as they are having control over the officers on the campus. Of course they will not say that but I have talked to school district officers before… When I worked on campus, we were contract labor and not worried about our boss being a school superintendent or principal. There was actually a pretty big incident at a high school several years ago and I was on duty for my police department and responded along with many officers. I had a school official look at me and my partner and ordered us on how to handle the situation. Uhhhhhh……. No. When I got that “order” my only response to be official was “Excuse me?”. We are pretty much turned around and ignored what was being said and went about our business. But that goes back to my question. Is it the corporal punishment or the backing of the school district or some kind of combination of both? Edited for tpyos ….. maybe I still missed some

Monoclonal antibodies have been around for decades. I don’t think mRNA vaccines have been around but about a year and a half as approved for humans. Obviously they did not make monoclonal antibodies 50 years ago for COVID-19 because two years ago it did not exist. After I have read tons of arguments against the vaccine, it is not that it is a vaccine but the fact that it is mRNA. Many people, like myself, including people I have read are against the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines have said they look forward to the Novavax which is traditional, non-mRNA vaccine.

Nothing that I know of. I have arrested and in detectives filed charges on several juveniles and they would never any charges to bring against the parents. Being a crappy parent is not a crime.

With the sequence of events, there is a lot of stuff that amazes me. Even if you were going to use a prop gun to shoot at a range while not filming, why would a loaded firearm be brought back into the set? I have gone shooting hundreds of times. Except for a handgun that I am wearing in a holster for self-defense, they never even go back in my car loaded. All guns are unloaded and the action is open. It seems like some safety personnel including the so-called experts made some obviously horrible decisions. You don’t need to be an expert to follow basic safety protocols. I can see maybe some criminal charges being filed against someone that brought a loaded gun and put it on the set as if it was an unloaded gun if it could be proven.

At one time probably everybody allowed it. I certainly took a couple of swats in high school.