Bonanza!
Jonathan Turley, professor of law at Geo. Washington U., has become something of a legal commentator superhero. Or maybe a marathon legal commentator would be way to put it. In defense of the volume of his commentary, there has been ample provocation. Here are two excellent reads on current issues out of many possibilities:
The question is whether Garland will now rescind or amend his much criticized memo. It has the feel of an educational version of the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Should we reconsider our deployment in light of the false premise that triggered the escalation of hostilities?
And:
Biden's 'Come on, man' defense will not fly on religious freedom
“Come on, man,” seems to be President Biden’s signature response to any uncomfortable question. The phrase is meant to be both dismissive and conclusive in ending inquiries, ...
This week, however, it was not the pesky press but freedom itself that got hit with a version of the comeback. When asked during a CNN town hall program about those still objecting to taking COVID vaccines, Biden mocked them and their claimed rights with “Come on, ‘freedom.’ ” He then called for any police officers, firefighters, medical personnel or other first responders to be fired en masse if they refuse to be vaccinated.
Biden’s response to the question was applauded by the CNN audience, as if to say “Freedom — that is so last century.” And he reduced any vaccine refusals to claiming “I have the freedom to kill you with my COVID.”
…
… If the Justice Department goes into court with the president’s dismissive position, it could find itself on the wrong side of the next “Come on, man,” moment.
All good stuff, but let’s turn to the egregious Alec Baldwin. Having given him every benefit of the doubt, his prospects are looking ever bleaker—both criminally and civilly. This tweet, if accurate—it’s quoting the Daily Mail—is troubling, to say the least. Keep it in mind as we turn to Turleys commentary. As with most accounts thus far there are possible inaccuracies of terminology, but what we know for a fact is that the gun Baldwin fired was a real—as opposed to inert—firearm capable of firing full power ammunition:
Wow! That is not good. And this version is just as bad:
This is Basic Firearm Handling 101: You don’t point such a firearm at a person—much less pull the trigger. Even if Baldwin was required by the script to point in the direction of the camera, the accounts above portray him “jokingly” pointing the gun at the victims and pulling the trigger while uttering words that indicated that he knew he was covering them with the gun.
Turley advertises his analysis of the case in two tweets:
Here’s the full title of the article:
“Corners Were Being Cut”: Baldwin Shooting Already Has The Makings of a Blockbuster Tort Action
Turley’s analysis covers both the criminal and the civil (tort) angles. I’ll keep this to the point.
First, regarding possible criminal liability. Turley agrees that there is nothing that has come out so far to indicate that Baldwin intended to kill or harm the two victims. However, as I pointed out yesterday, every state has statutes covering the negligent infliction of death or injury—criminal and civil. Turley has reviewed the laws of the two states most likely to apply here: California and New Mexico. Each of those states have laws regarding involuntary manslaughter that appear to apply to the Baldwin case. Here’s the California law, as cited by Turley:
Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice. It is of three kinds:
(a) Voluntary—upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.
(b) Involuntary—in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to a felony; or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection. This subdivision shall not apply to acts committed in the driving of a vehicle.
(c) Vehicular—…
New Mexico’s statute is essentially identical.
Of course Baldwin will argue that he was told that the gun was not “live”. That, and the setting, would make his action arguably lawful. But the account of his actions we saw above definitely gets him squarely into the realm of “without due caution and circumspection.” I would not want to have to argue his case to a jury.
Now, here’s a digest of what Turley has to say about a civil action. I’m editing out a lot of the detailed argument, but you’ll get the essentials—the case against Baldwin, because he was also a producer, is very strong:
What is clear is that there is an abundance of evidence to support a tort action even at this early stage. Most sets strictly ban or limit live ammunition on the premises and have strict protocols for the use of prop guns. ...
The low-budget description of this production could add to questions of whether precautions or protocols were shorted or ignored on the set.
The use of a live round (or the presence of a projectile) is itself circumstantial proof of negligence. ...
A live round in a prop gun does not ordinarily occur absent negligence. The question of the exclusive control of the instrumentality can be challenged but the plaintiff could argue that the production company continued to have such control. The gun was reportedly handed over by an assistant director to Baldwin, who was also a producer.
... The violation of a statutory or regulatory standard of care in the use of prop weapons would allow a jury to assume negligence and proceed to questions of causation and defenses.
...
There are already witness statements that would fill out such a negligence narrative for trial. One crew member is quoted as saying “There were no safety meetings. There was no assurance that it wouldn’t happen again. All they wanted to do was rush, rush, rush.”
Another said that there were three accidental discharges and the set was “super unsafe.”
Yet another witness said “Corners were being cut — and they brought in nonunion people so they could continue shooting.”
Labor trouble at the site could serve to document such complaints. Labor disputes are often written up by a shop steward or labor representative at a work site.
As if all that weren’t bad enough, a definite possibility for tort actions by bystanders—not just the family of the deceased and the wounded victim—exists. Here I’ll just quote the first paragraph of this portion of Turley’s analysis. There’s much more at the link:
In addition to negligence, there could be claims for the intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress. Anyone who was injured or impacted by the accident could easily make such a claim. It can be more difficult for a bystander like the other members of the crew.
More difficult, but certainly not impossible. Turley concludes:
The attorneys for the production company are likely to move quickly to seek settlements of civil claims, particularly with the family. They would be wise to make those numbers as high as possible given the strength of any civil case even at this early stage.
In the end, the liability may be delayed but will likely be considerable. What is clear is that personal injury lawyers will view the Bonanza Ranch as aptly named for civil litigation.
Gulf of Tonkin is an excellent comparison. There is so much lying going on by this administration, the media, and the deep state. On Covid for example, it’s so hard to figure out what is true, snd not propaganda.
A recent Va school board meeting seemed to have an fbi presence, sigh.
https://www.independentsentinel.com/heavy-federal-presence-helicopter-overhead-at-va-school-board-meeting/
The spouse of the dead lady is a lawyer with an impressive pedigree.
There is a report from tmz there was target shooting going on during off hours. And there was live ammo on site. But, the pistol was black powder, and probably used cap and ball, if it had not been modified to use cartridges.
The 24 year old lady that was the armorer was green, and had hair to match. Her Father is an expert armorer.
And there are reports of extensive drug use on the set in cdan. A snarky comment / reply on another blog mentioned drug use was super common in Hollywood sets, and is always disguised in the budget somehow as flowers, etc.