1911Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
611 Posts
How does LA County become the venue for this lawsuit?

Don't be surprised when she is told that this is all under workman's comp...
You can sue a person where the act happened, where they have their office or company or where they live. Those minimum contacts with any state allows them personal jurisdiction over the person. So, if the lawyers are in LA county or near there and LA is home to any of the above, it just makes sense, otherwise everyone would have to go to Santa Fe every time they had a hearing.

And yes, injuries that happen in the work place are generally consider workers comp. She is trying to take it as a tort where damages can be substantial. What are her damages? The muzzle blast of a single 45 blank? The lawyers will be finding any other cases where she was in close proximity to guns firing in other movies and asked why she did not sue all of them. If it turns out she owns or has any experience with guns, her position will change.

She is going to claim trauma/drama from seeing someone killed in a close setting. I have no clue if that is actually damage in California. If it is then every cast member should share in such a lawsuit. Lets all sue the boss for killing one of our staff members? It is an important point, in the action by the 2 people killed, not sure she really has any claim. Of course her lawyer will send her to shrinks and she will want reimbursement and she will want to be paid big dollars because she will never be able to work again. Kind of like veterans with PTSD I suppose.

I doubt it is easy as it sounds. Also, the act happened completely in New Mexico. The first question is where New Mexico worker's compensation law applies. Usually any company working in a state has to comply with that states workers comp laws and may even have to buy that insurance. It will be interesting. If she is correct then it does show a little more in the way of negligence, ie, they were not doing the job, they were goofing off. However it willbe easy to say he was just getting familiarity wth the gun for use in many later scripts. I see it as negligence, simple negligence, does not matter what they were filming, the act and the injury is all that is needed to prove negligence, IMHO
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
611 Posts
The co-producer (joint owner of the enterprise ) consciously aiming an unchecked pistol at someone, pulling the trigger, and firing a fatal shot would be a first-time workers comp case.

But a lot of things in this case are “first time”, This (workers comp) has been discussed both here and on legal forums…without an absolutely clear resolution.
I am not suggested the people shot were only in the workers comp category, I was referring to the two employees who are now claiming damage of emotional trauma.

A key point may very will lie in whether a criminal charge, is filed. workers comp is designed to replace all lawsuits for injury while going about the work a person is hired to do. Being the victim of a criminal act is beyond what the worker comp statutes were designed to do, however, it all depends on the law of the state. If a person were driving a truck cross country and got shot by a stranger, it would be a worker;s comp case against the employer,, you got shot while working for the employer. However, you could always always sue the guy who shot you.

In this case, it looks to me like the two people shot have both a workers comp suit against the company, and a tort suit against Alex.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
611 Posts
Every involved party, including that script woman, doesn't want to go to a trial. Apparently she is claiming assault and deliberate / intentional harm. If this goes to a trial, her chances of proving that are a low and she Gloria Allred knows that. The play is to force Rust Production and Baldwin to settle, knowing that Baldwin wants no time in any court either.
Everybody in the country sees all those late night TV adds and think they can get a million bucks for about anything. Occasionally there is a runaway jury that is made up of angry people who just enjoy doing goofy stuff like awarding a billion dollars against some big company. I once heard about a 19 year old guy on a jury who was the deciding vote on giving big bucks in a civil case, It was Friday night about 9:00 o'clock and the judge told them they had to stay till they got a verdict. In that civil case it only took 9 votes, and it was 8 to 4 and none would budge. So, when the judge told them that, he switched his vote, another jury guy told me he said screw it it's Friday, give him anything you want, time to go party. So, he caved because it was Friday night. otherwise it would have been a hung jury.

Think about those Round up cases in California. Now answer, does Round up cause cancer either Lymphoma or Leukemia?
Really how do you know? You have seen the $10.9 settlement agreement right? What does the FDA say? Here it is.
-----------------------------------
"The U.S. EPA said on April 30 that glyphosate, a chemical in many popular weed killers, is not a carcinogen, contradicting decisions by U.S. juries that found it caused cancer in people.

The EPA’s announcement reaffirms its earlier findings about the safety of glyphosate, the key ingredient in Bayer’s Roundup. The company faces thousands of lawsuits from Roundup users who allege it caused their cancer.

“EPA continues to find that there are no risks to public health when glyphosate is used in accordance with its current label and that glyphosate is not a carcinogen,” the agency said in a statement.
-----------------------------------------------

So did the Bayer/Monsanto company buy off the FDC>? No, the law in California allows companies to be held liable for anything a jury says they are liable for. And in the first $289 million lawsuit that was docked down to $80 million punitive which is being appealed, the jury punished the company for not warning people that it might cause cancer, OK think about this, it is California, it does not cause cancer, but in California you can lose a lawsuit unless you warn that it does cause cancer. Get it? That jury awarded big bucks because there was not fake warning label. Now, just check ebay, everything you buy in Califorina has a label that says it may cause cancer, it fact, it says the state has determined that it does cause cancer, everything in California does, check those labels.

So Bayer makes a business decision. They sell so much all over the world, that they can afford $10.9 Billion dollars to be put in a pot to pay anyone and everyone that might ever want to file a lawsuit, they just raised the price of each gallon of Round up by 25 -30 cents not sure the amount but no big deal to them. They sell $6,000,000,000 a year at about $29 a gallon. The super concentrate is $157 per gallon on ebay just now. The sell about 36,764,705 gallons. each year. So what we have is a situation in which some states like California have such a goofy legal system that lawyers can get $10.9 Billion to put in a fund to pay people who get cancer from Monsanto, but their product did not cause the cancer.

So why are we surprised when lawyers file a case in Los Angeles seeking to get big bucks because you were in the room when you boss did something stupid and killed someone else?

I buy the generic super concentrate in 2.5 gallons jugs, it works. In fact, Round up is the most important herbicide in the world, if it did not exist the price of food would be dramatically more. You can run over your 160 acres and kill all the weeds in a day with a big sprayer, or you can plow it every couple of weeks to keep weeds down for your crops, but that does not really work because you are just running your tractor between wide rows, so you only have about half of your ground producing Round up in effect lets you farm your entire 160 acres. complicated I know, but it is valuable to world food production. So, the company is just extorted billions under legal California law, notice those cases are not in federal court where science matters. End of rant.
See the source image
 
  • Like
Reactions: AZdesert1911

·
Registered
Joined
·
611 Posts
Perhaps I missed it, but how many bullets, or blanks were in the gun after it was fired? Did it have 1 empty and 5 live rounds? It matters.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
611 Posts
Keep in mind the context of Shakespeare's "kill all the lawyers" line. It was spoken by Dick the Butcher and really is meant to show that lawyers are what stands between thuggery and the rule of law. The plaintiff's bar is pretty easy to hate but they are only part of a system that keeps guys like me out of jail or from being arbitrarily hanged.

Much is made of the Bill of Rights and its various protections. Freedom of speech is one of five rights contained in the First Amendment. One fifth of one of the first ten amendments to our Constitution. Criminal and civil procedure account for fully half the Bill of Rights. Amendments IV, V, VI, VII, and VIII. If you remember that its authors, our founding fathers, were almost all trained in law, that should come as no surprise. Compare and contrast those wonderful garden spots without lawyers and an independent judiciary: Iran, Afghanistan, Libya, Uganda. Any wonder why refugees come this way and not to those places?
True Once saw a sign in a pasture with the words, "nobody likes a crooked lawyer......until you need one" Not sure why it was there, just recall it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
611 Posts
oh! A partial answer, provided by an untrusted source ( a reporter ) -;*, was that AB cocked the hammer and pressed the trigger twice. The 2nd time it fired. If true, no more than five live rounds. And with that pistol, many would never load the chamber under the hammer other than while at the line shooting it.


*- One of my uncles was a reporter ... loved that man ... it greatly saddens me to see the estate to which the press has fallen.
Your comment caught my attention when you said:

"And with that pistol, many would never load the chamber under the hammer other than while at the line shooting it."

My take is there is no one on that set that would know not to place a loaded round under the hammer of the Peacermaker, Pretty much any gun guy would know that for the older model guns. Lots of the newer clones have the Ruger transfer bar, I think the Uberti Millienium type, or they have the little first notch that is supposed to hold the firing pin off the primer. Have no clue if the are actually drop safe but they do hold the firing pin off the primer.

Does anyone know the exact gun they were using?

.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
611 Posts
Pietta .45 Colt replica. Mine is the rival Uberti ... so it's possible they are different; mine has no transfer bar. The firing mechinism is a beak on the front face of the hammer. Havent' tested it for being drop safe and not inclined to do so: prefering the traditional way: empty chamber (actually a dummy / spent case) under the hammer.
Some of them or course have the Ruger type transfer but some of the clones have that feature I mentioned. You can pull the hammer back to the first click which some will call a half cock, it is not, it is only about 1/4 inch back. The hammer looks like it is resting on the frame but the firing pin is not being touched. You can take a piece of wood, like a hammer handle or 2 x 2 and whack it pretty good, it will not go off like the original design. However, if you pull the trigger hard, like 25 pounds of pressure, the hammer will fall, basically just going that 1/4 inch forward. Probably would not set of the primer, but it could. I have tried the wood stick hitting the hammer, but it is my gun, I am not going to drop it on concrete just to see.

Anyway, like many have said it takes one second to pull the cylinder and you know it is loaded. Anyone who shoots them much can just put it on half cock and slowly move the cylinder and check all six in about 5 seconds. No excuse for not doing that.

I have carried my Uberti with all six but in a secure holster, hammer tied in with a thong. I carry the Rugers with 6 of course. And then I heard about a guy near me who carried a Ruger 44 in a shoulder rig. He had spent a long day riding horses on his deer hunting place and stopped for gas on the way home. He was in a hurry and as he jumped out of his pickup, the seat belt caught the Ruger, it hit the ground and killed him, So for the last several years since then, I just carry 5.

From the description the Sheriff gave there is no way to tell if it had the transfer bar, the modified hammer safety notch, or none at all. Does not matter in this case.

I was a consultant for a DA once in a murder case. He knew very little about guns. Same deal as here, a fellow pointed an unloaded gun at his girlfriend that was breaking up with him and pulled the trigger, it was a model 629 Smith and Wesson that a buddy was showing him. He claimed that he was inspecting the gun and could not see any bullet in it so he assumed it was unloaded. He said he pointed it at her just as a joke to scare her. The first question I asked him was what year the gun was made. He thought I was nuts, he said it was stainless steel but he had no clue what year it was made. Without seeing the gun I told him it was no accident that on all stainless Smith and Wesson 44 mags you can easily see from the side that the gun has ammo in it. So he went back to his office and called, dammmm he says, how did you know. I explained to him the difference between the recessed cylinders in the pre-82 guns. So he took the case to trial and when the guy testified he thought it was unloaded but could see nothing in it, the DA, at my suggestion took the gun and put 6 empty cases in it. Then from across the room he asked the guy if it was loaded or empty. Of course from 20 feet away you can actually see the case heads on a SW 44 mag with the regular cylinder. Everybody on the jury could see them also. He was convicted. The point is lots of people do not know squat about guns.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
611 Posts
Charged, maybe. But I doubt that a jury would convict Baldwin. He was handed a prop gun and told it was “cold”. He was on a set where trained professionals had a duty to ensure that was the case.The standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt”. What is a rule for range safety does not necessarily transfer to a court room.

The armorer or asst director are more likely to be charged. But the main question is who loaded the gun with a live round?
The criminal law is looked at by what the player did, the question for the simple charged of negligent use of a firearm is below.
019 New Mexico Statutes
Chapter 30 - Criminal Offenses
Article 7 - Weapons and Explosives
Section 30-7-4 - Negligent use of a deadly weapon.

Universal Citation: NM Stat § 30-7-4 (2019)
A. Negligent use of a deadly weapon consists of:
(1) discharging a firearm into any building or vehicle or so as to knowingly endanger a person or his property;
(2) carrying a firearm while under the influence of an intoxicant or narcotic;
(3) endangering the safety of another by handling or using a firearm or other deadly weapon in a negligent manner; or
(4) discharging a firearm within one hundred fifty yards of a dwelling or building, not including abandoned or vacated buildings on public lands during hunting seasons, without the permission of the owner or lessees thereof.
B. The provisions of Paragraphs (1), (3) and (4) of Subsection A of this section shall not apply to a peace officer or other public employee who is required or authorized by law to carry or use a firearm in the course of his employment and who carries, handles, uses or discharges a firearm while lawfully engaged in carrying out the duties of his office or employment.
C. The exceptions from criminal liability provided for in Subsection B of this section shall not preclude or affect civil liability for the same conduct.
Whoever commits negligent use of a deadly weapon is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.
History:
1953 Comp., § 40A-7-3, enacted by Laws 1963, ch. 303, § 7-3; 1977, ch. 266, § 1; 1979, ch. 79, § 1; 1993, ch. 139, § 1.
==================================
This is just simple negligence. It is the shooter who might be guilty, no one else. The only question for the jury is whether he was negligent in not checking it himself. There is nothing in that statute that says you are not guilty if someone told you it was not loaded. I think it would be an easy conviction, this is just if he shoots and scares somebody---it is not a crime where any one is injured.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Then when somebody dies, here are the crimes.
2018 New Mexico Statutes
Chapter 30 - Criminal Offenses
Article 2 - Homicide
Section 30-2-3 - Manslaughter.

Universal Citation: NM Stat § 30-2-3 (2018)
30-2-3. Manslaughter.
Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice.

A. Voluntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed upon a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion.
Whoever commits voluntary manslaughter is guilty of a third degree felony resulting in the death of a human being.
B. Involuntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to felony, or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection.
Whoever commits involuntary manslaughter is guilty of a fourth degree felony-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only question for the jury is whether Alec used due caution. SO what is "due caution". Here us the legal definition. some definitions.

Due caution definition: Caution is great care which you take in order to avoid possible danger .

Here is an excellant article by an attorney who cites a relevant case and says it is still New Mexico law. New Mexico v. Alec Baldwin? - The American Spectator | USA News and Politics

The bottom line is the law is pretty clear, you cannot ever rely on someelse telling you a gun is not loaded, the duty to safely handle the gun goes to the guy with the gun.

So, if it were to go to a trial, there would be a conviction, any jury would simply read the law and conclude that he was guilty. But, if the dead lady's family does not want a prosecution, the DA probably will not do anything. The job of the DA is to punish all criminals, but practically it does not always work that way. My 2 cents.---He needs to be prosecuted if for no other reason to send a message to others that you cannot kill people by being careless and then just walk away. IMHo
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
611 Posts
Here is the fine print one more time....

B. Involuntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to felony, or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection.

Due caution in New Mexico, means you have to exercise whatever care goes with guns if you choose to play with guns. No different that if you choose to use dynamite on the set....if you choose not to educate yourself and follow the safe rules that go with explosive then you ignorance, is negligence. There is just no such thing as killing people because you did not know what you were doing was dangerous. Everyone owes this duty to exercise due caution when playing with stuff they do not know about.

This is not rocket science.. Nobody wants to charge old Alec, but he is the only one that committed this death. Other people contributed to this death, but Alec did it.

So, I respectfully disagree with your conclusion and interpretation of New Mexico law.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
611 Posts
That may be tough to convince a jury when almost all jury cases are based on "what would the avg person believe or have done". AB was handed a "cleared" pistol. He had reasonable expectations as an "actor", who will likely say at some point that he knows little about firearms.

However, the standard safety protocols between the expert (amorer) and the 'dumb' actor (ab) did not take place. This is a mutual safety task, so I see reasonable blame on both parties.
There is no jury instruction in New Mexico as to what the average person would do. Among the uniform jury instructions, there in one that deals with common sense and it is often used to get the jury to think about what they would do in a similiar situation. That one will not fly in New Mexico where everybody has guns. And no one on the jury is going to say, they would have just trusted someone else and therefore it is OK to kill people in that situation.

Due caution is a standard that applies to everyone regardless of the task at hand. The same would apply to a person driving too fast on an icy road. They may be in a new car, and they may have zero experience driving on icy roads, that does not give every such person a right to kill people by claiming they just did not know about driving on icy roads. Any lawful act, that happens without "due caution" and then someone dies meets that criteria.

There is no such thing as an industry protocol that a judge is going to allow as a jury instruction, the legal
standard is simply going to be what people should do to safely handle guns without killing other people nearby.

Here is is again.

Here is the fine print one more time....

B. Involuntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to felony, or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection.

Due caution in New Mexico, means you have to exercise whatever care goes with guns if you choose to play with guns.

Otherwise, anybody can just play dumb and kill people without accountability. The sentencing guidelines are the tool that judges and juries use to define what punishment the shooter should recieve. The guilt is pretty easy to establish. The jury will know the minute they walk in and every minute that the are there, that the lady is dead, and she is dead because one guy pointed a gun at her...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
611 Posts
Deleting the account falls in with the LegalInsurrection.com analysis that the interview was [ paraphrasing ] intended to pollute the jury pool. Making the earlier remarks more difficult get see means fewer jurors will have seen them and asking pool members if they used a time-machine app to eliminate candidates in voi dire.

Maybe AB's defense advisors are being wisely prophylactic. But this move has a look of fear. If so, one part of the legal system accomplished: discourage the offender from repeat offenses*. But a bit more "pour l'encouragement des autres" would be better.


*- To give AB his due, I expect it would never happen again.
Actually, in New Mexico, much of the jury pool will be offended by that claim. Anybody want to guess how many revolvers there are in New Mexico? When the Sheriff commented that the gun did not fire itself, every guy in state thought, Yup.

And the second boob Alec made was when he told George that if he felt it was his fault he might have killed himself, and he did not take that lightly. That gave the impression that he felt OK about it.He said there were people resonsible and they should be held accountable, but did not name them. And then he said the gun fired itself, so all the time it was in his hands he felt OK with, not going to make the jury like him.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
611 Posts
If he had just gone on TV and cried for 30 minutes it might have helped him. But he had a few thousand words of explanation.. too much talk.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
611 Posts
Ah, yes. The mysterious "disgruntled crew member" that no one knows or can identify.

What's good is that the more these folks talk, the more likely somebody's getting charged with criminal behavior. Too much finger pointing and blame assigning. That's got to be keeping the sheriff's interest going.
As I said somewhere else, the prosecutor is in no rush and the longer the case goes without charges, the more stressed some folks will be and the more likely they will either come forward with more truth than we know or the more likely they will put the blame on someone else.

The theory that there was sabotage presents reasonable doubt, but what they have to prove or convince a jury is that she had eyes on the gun during the time that she was supposed to be controlling the gun, or if it happened during her watch she has to come up with some clever distraction that would have provided some excuse. Such as someone setting off a farm alarm or someone having a medical crises or something that would cause here to not have eyes on the gun at all times.

Same thing with the guy she gave it to. She will testify it was fine when she gave it to him, and if the jury buys that, then the sabotage could only be on his watch, so he has the same deal, did something critical cause him to lose sight of the gun for a minute.? So, that some other guy could sneak over and take one bullet out of the chamber and put one live round in that chamber. Yea right?

So they can all run this scam and it is possible a jury might buy it, but I do not think so, she had a duty to safequard the gun as did Hall . Alec had a duty to use due care, that means he had to make sure it was not loaded, and make sure where he was pointing it, apparently he failed on both of those.

Interesting theory. I do not think she has that much risk at this point, two other people had that gun in hand before it killed a person. If they can prove it got the fatal bullet while on her watch sure, but how will they prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. They will need an eye witness who will testify that either she or someone she allowed to put a real bullet in that gun. I doubt that there is any such person. Time will tell.

One thing about prosecutors. In a case like this, they have nothing to lose by waiting until the civil cases go forward and see if evidence comes out in those cases. She only has to be concerned with the statute of limitations if they have one on those cases.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
611 Posts
If she loaded it properly, checked it and is not culpable then someone would have had to put a live round in the chamber, no?

Too much speculation. Everyone's affidavit would be an interesting read.
The problem with affidavits, or depositions or sworn statements is no one is going to give one that says they did anything close to a crime. If an attorney is involved no such thing is going to happen unless there is a deal on the table. Just saying you were at a spot on the ground means that all the other vultures can then figure our some story to say they were elsewhere, further away perhaps, and therefore since you have admitted you were at spot X, you were the most likely one.

Most will have given written statements to the investigators the day of the crime or shortly thereafter, everyone was in shock, and most witnesses will spout off the who, what, when and where. The people who might be "guilty" are naturally going to proceed with caution. The weak link would be the 22 year old, she is likely to have spilled her guts, as best she knew. Meaning she would not admit to putting the live round in the gun, but she is likely to have mentioned who would have had live rounds at the property, who engaged in target shooting at the property and things like that. That narrows the list of people who might have touched the gun.

Meanwhile, everybody there and even vendors who may have come and gone on different days would be interviewed, everybody remembers gunfire, a driver or delivery person may have recalled seeing certain persons shooting during a trip out there. Those little bits will then be used to interview the cast. There will also be checks ran to see which of the people on scene had gun permits or CCW permits from their home states, because they are likely to have guns or ammo. They also can tell about safety issues they might have seen, gun people notice things like that.

Will the ever solve it? Maybe not. If the guilty people are smart they will all clam up and stay clammed up for life. Only one person pointed the empty gun at her that killed her. That one is likely to be charged. If the rest of them would never have said a word, they probably would not be convicted even if charged. The only other guy who has real risk is the person who handed it directly to Alec, he appears to have handed Alec a loaded gun that he had possession of for a while. The girl is at lesser risk because it was longer since she had possession of the gun.


likely to state wa
so they may or may no
 
  • Like
Reactions: chrysanthemum

·
Registered
Joined
·
611 Posts
The attention span of an average US citizen is shorter than my hair(s). Alec is already old news. The findings of the Warren Commission will be of equal interest, shortly.
That's a good observation. That does not control the local DA. She is elected. Votes affect the local DA and statutes of limitation. What we do know is that Alec's legal team has not made any plea offers or hints of offers. We know that because they sent Alec out there to be on liberal TV, so that he could speak to public pressure. That was not a typical media event. that was strategic. As I said above, I think they took a gamble and failed. Maybe people in LA or New York are impressed about how the gun went off by itself.but the people who advise the local DA are telling her that he is insulting her intelligence and he is. She can find a hundred guys in New Mexico who can qualify as experts to testify that that particular gun did not go off by itself. And she has a statute that says it does not matter.

I have been involved in lots of prosecution decisions. The local DA will meet with her staff periodically and discuss every case. There will be meetings of her lawyers, investigators, and probably a represeentative from the Sheiriff;s office on this case will be there too. because of the media interest.

I have seen cases where a person had committed 4 or 5 crimes. We made an arrest and filed one crime every Friday for a month, he spent every weekend in jail as he could not get a bail hearing until Monday. They do things like that.

Time is on her side. She knows Alec should be charged with at least the lowser level of manslaughter, she took that oath. She also has discretion and little will be done if she does nothing, until next election And then her opponent can get up and say that she lets rich people and movie stars kill people and get away with it. That will offend many of the voters. So, she has a choice to make, and as I stated, she has nothing that forces her to file by any certain date. I would not be surprised if she filed a charge, at least against Alec by Christmas, if has nothing to do with that day, except they plan budgets by the year and most of their statistics are based on a calendar year, they try to wrap things up before the end of the year. This is a big case, it will take time and resources, they may be trying to get rid of other cases to make time for this one. The news cycle that we see it not what controls her. So, I do not think it being Old News is the same to her, it will not be old news at election time.

I guess we all will see. Remind me after Xmas and see if this prediction is wrong.
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top