Halyna Hutchins Shot With Prop Gun - Alec Baldwin indicted & Hannah Gutierrez-Reed charged, 2021 #6

[10ofRods]

Thanks for the good information. I agree. As is shown, no primer means no primer and no main charge.

Unless.... a fake primer is used to make the round look real from the rear? But.... I think when realism from rear is wanted (visible primer), the other methods are used.

You are right. All dummies have a concave inflection where the primer/charge would have been - and it's therefore a "dimple."

It would be evident from the outside of the gun if a person pulled the revolver's chambers out and slowly spun it, inspect each round of each dummy for a dimple.

A live round would have a pimple, not a dimple. Most people understand the reasons why this is so and can memorize it - it would only have taken about 1 minute to check each round by the three people who were supposed to ensure checking was done (armorer, AD and actor).

 

[10ofRods]

It looks like the differences are pretty subtle and easy to over look for all three variants:

A - Probably a small hole drilled in the side to take the main powder charge out of one variant.

B- Missing primer area on other other one. This version seems down right scary as it sounds like it has a full powder charge (no hole in the cartridge), but just lacks the primer.

C. Externally the same as a live round- but you need to shake the round and listen for the ball to know for sure its a dummy.

Wow, now I know why well run sets do not allow guns with dummy rounds to be pointed at people.

Only if you're a complete novice at shooting. We have dummies and live ammo (no blanks at the moment). Even I can tell the difference. Of course, an armorer should know how a bullet actually works. An armorer should know that the gunpowder has to be on the bottom of the cartridge, pooching out a little - because there's powder there. If instead there's a dent (dimple) then there's no powder. In addition, dummies that look real are either loaded with a BB for a sound check (I guess in case one's vision isn't so great) or a hole in the side (so it's obvious there is no bullet). Both the hole and the BB are ways of ensuring there's no real projectile in there.

It does sound complicated to a newbie. Which is why my dummies are purple.

 

[10ofRods]

Alec Baldwin asks court to DISQUALIFY special prosecutor in his case

Alec Baldwin (pictured) has demanded the special prosecutor assigned to his involuntary manslaughter case be disqualified due to her status as a Republican lawmaker.

www.dailymail.co.uk

The special prosecutor is also a member of the state legislature? Rather odd, I've never heard of that before. It does explain some unusual things about the investigation and filing of charges.

She was only seated recently, IIRC. She happened to win the election. It is a quandary.

Legally, I don't think that is correct that AB was legally obligated to check the ammo.

I think every person who picks up a real gun has a legal obligation to check the ammo, or risk being charged with a crime - as has happened.

There are two sets of rules (both the same), one for crew and one for actors (two different unions). The rules are published. When a producer makes a movie, they either decide to go union (which enables them to sell their product much more widely - such as to Netflix or Hulu or Amazon) or they decide to go non-union (which means it will not be seen much and can't go to movie festivals).

If it's a union production, every signs contracts that say they're going to follow union rules. It's a contract. Is negligent and willful breaking of a contract illegal? Well, corporations do get criminal charges (cf., PG & E).

PG&E to face manslaughter trial over deadly California fire

A judge in Shasta County ruled there was enough evidence for the country’s largest utility to face trial on 11 felony and misdemeanor charges, including involuntary manslaughter and recklessly starting a fire, in the 2020 incident.

www.nbcnews.com

PGE had sloppy workers and is criminally charged. They face arraignment on Feb 15 (they will settle, as they've done before). It's the same kind of case to me.

There are no laws at all, are there, about regular people picking up a gun and not inspecting it? But there are laws against aiming at someone and pulling the trigger (whether one thought it was going to fire or not). Heck, these days, people get criminal charges when their kid uses a gun and kills someone.

Accused Michigan school shooter's parents will face involuntary manslaughter charges, judge rules | CNN

The parents of accused Oxford, Michigan, school shooter Ethan Crumbley will still face multiple involuntary manslaughter charges, a judge ruled Wednesday, despite their attempts to quash the counts against them.

www.cnn.com

Am truly interested whether a law specifically exists in Michigan concerning this. Negligence does not require intent, to my knowledge.

 

[PrairieWind]

She was only seated recently, IIRC. She happened to win the election. It is a quandary.



I think every person who picks up a real gun has a legal obligation to check the ammo, or risk being charged with a crime - as has happened.

There are two sets of rules (both the same), one for crew and one for actors (two different unions). The rules are published. When a producer makes a movie, they either decide to go union (which enables them to sell their product much more widely - such as to Netflix or Hulu or Amazon) or they decide to go non-union (which means it will not be seen much and can't go to movie festivals).

If it's a union production, every signs contracts that say they're going to follow union rules. It's a contract. Is negligent and willful breaking of a contract illegal? Well, corporations do get criminal charges (cf., PG & E).

PG&E to face manslaughter trial over deadly California fire

A judge in Shasta County ruled there was enough evidence for the country’s largest utility to face trial on 11 felony and misdemeanor charges, including involuntary manslaughter and recklessly starting a fire, in the 2020 incident.

www.nbcnews.com

PGE had sloppy workers and is criminally charged. They face arraignment on Feb 15 (they will settle, as they've done before). It's the same kind of case to me.

There are no laws at all, are there, about regular people picking up a gun and not inspecting it? But there are laws against aiming at someone and pulling the trigger (whether one thought it was going to fire or not). Heck, these days, people get criminal charges when their kid uses a gun and kills someone.

Accused Michigan school shooter's parents will face involuntary manslaughter charges, judge rules | CNN

The parents of accused Oxford, Michigan, school shooter Ethan Crumbley will still face multiple involuntary manslaughter charges, a judge ruled Wednesday, despite their attempts to quash the counts against them.

www.cnn.com

Am truly interested whether a law specifically exists in Michigan concerning this. Negligence does not require intent, to my knowledge.

Can you provide a statute that says that an actor is required to check the ammo in a gun he is handed?

 

[deugirtni]

Alec Baldwin charged under gun law that did not exist when the Rust shooting took place​

Baldwin is also facing a 'firearms enhancement' charge which could lead to an additional five-year penalty because a firearm was involved.

The enhancement did not come into law until May 2022, seven months after Hutchins was killed.
....
The issue was first flagged in the legal podcast Serious Trouble by criminal attorney Caitlin Smith who is based in New Mexico.

“They probably shouldn’t have charged it,” Smith told Variety, explaining that the defence could file a pre-trial motion to have the enhancement thrown out.

Alec Baldwin charged under gun law that did not exist when the Rust shooting took place

The actor is facing a charge of involuntary manslaughter and a 'firearm enhancement' which carries an additional five-year penalty.

www.unilad.com

and same topic article:

Prosecutors filed the same charge and the same enhancement against Hannah Gutierrez Reed, the film’s armorer. Her attorney, Jason Bowles, said the D.A. is seeking to apply the enhancement retroactively, in violation of her constitutional rights.

“We will be addressing this with motions,” Bowles wrote in an email. “They have clearly charged an enhancement that is barred by the constitution and ex post facto law.”
....
The version of the firearm enhancement that applied at the time of the shooting went into effect in July 2020...
So they increased the sentence enhancement for use of a firearm during a felony from one year to three years.

But at the same time, they limited the circumstances in which that enhancement would apply by dropping the word “use,” which had a broader application, and replacing it with the narrower term “brandishing.”

That term was defined to mean “displaying or making a firearm known to another person while the firearm is present on the person of the offending party with intent to intimidate or injure a person.”

Alec Baldwin Charged Under Gun Law That Didn’t Exist at Time of ‘Rust’ Shooting

Prosecutors have sought to give Alec Baldwin a five-year sentence enhancement that wasn't on the books at the time of the 'Rust' shooting.

variety.com

It IS feeling like a witch hunt to me, at least in AB's case, not so much in HGR's case. jmo.

 

[Cool Cats]

Alec Baldwin May Face An Extra Five Years In Prison Due To A New Law In Rust Shooting Case

A week after Alec Baldwin was formally charged in the Rust shooting case, he now might face an extra five years in prison due to a new law.

www.yahoo.com

In addition to the involuntary manslaughter charge against him, Alec Baldwin is now facing a “firearm enhancement” charge from New Mexico prosecutors, which carries with it a five-year penalty for “discharge of a firearm in the course of a felony,” as reported by Variety. However, the enhancement didn’t become incorporated into New Mexico law until May 2022, seven months after Halyna Hutchins was killed. As such, it’s unclear if a judge will allow this to be applied to Baldwin during the forthcoming trial.

 

[10ofRods]

Can you provide a statute that says that an actor is required to check the ammo in a gun he is handed?

No. I guess I didn't write it out clearly. There are rules and contracts in the industry. Can you find a statute that says involuntary manslaughter due to negligence can't use overt violation of common sense and industry rules as its basis? Or even one in NM that defines "recklessness"?

My point is that since recklessness is what is being alleged, that gross violation of the rules of one's workplace, profession, union expectations and contracts...is reckless. And there's a statute against recklessness that results in death, in NM. Such as asking a person to use a Bobcat when they have no training and they tip it over and kill someone. Or a person using a Bobcat without attending proper training and without being told to do so. This would apply more to Hannah and Alec, IMO, since Dave Hall didn't use the weapon. That's likely why he got a plea bargain.

Both Hannah and Alec violated common sense rules and workplace rules in a reckless manner. That makes it illegal. I don't know of any jurisdiction that has specific laws for every single act of gross negligence. I've posted links about parents being charged with involuntary manslaughter for violating rules of common sense. Why isn't that relevant here?

 

[PrairieWind]

No. I guess I didn't write it out clearly. There are rules and contracts in the industry. Can you find a statute that says involuntary manslaughter due to negligence can't use overt violation of common sense and industry rules as its basis? Or even one in NM that defines "recklessness"?

My point is that since recklessness is what is being alleged, that gross violation of the rules of one's workplace, profession, union expectations and contracts...is reckless. And there's a statute against recklessness that results in death, in NM. Such as asking a person to use a Bobcat when they have no training and they tip it over and kill someone. Or a person using a Bobcat without attending proper training and without being told to do so. This would apply more to Hannah and Alec, IMO, since Dave Hall didn't use the weapon. That's likely why he got a plea bargain.

Both Hannah and Alec violated common sense rules and workplace rules in a reckless manner. That makes it illegal. I don't know of any jurisdiction that has specific laws for every single act of gross negligence. I've posted links about parents being charged with involuntary manslaughter for violating rules of common sense. Why isn't that relevant here?

But are those rules applicable to this set/movie. What exactly are those rules?

 

[10ofRods]

Alec Baldwin charged under gun law that did not exist when the Rust shooting took place​

Baldwin is also facing a 'firearms enhancement' charge which could lead to an additional five-year penalty because a firearm was involved.

The enhancement did not come into law until May 2022, seven months after Hutchins was killed.
....
The issue was first flagged in the legal podcast Serious Trouble by criminal attorney Caitlin Smith who is based in New Mexico.

“They probably shouldn’t have charged it,” Smith told Variety, explaining that the defence could file a pre-trial motion to have the enhancement thrown out.

Alec Baldwin charged under gun law that did not exist when the Rust shooting took place

The actor is facing a charge of involuntary manslaughter and a 'firearm enhancement' which carries an additional five-year penalty.

www.unilad.com

and same topic article:

Prosecutors filed the same charge and the same enhancement against Hannah Gutierrez Reed, the film’s armorer. Her attorney, Jason Bowles, said the D.A. is seeking to apply the enhancement retroactively, in violation of her constitutional rights.

“We will be addressing this with motions,” Bowles wrote in an email. “They have clearly charged an enhancement that is barred by the constitution and ex post facto law.”
....
The version of the firearm enhancement that applied at the time of the shooting went into effect in July 2020...
So they increased the sentence enhancement for use of a firearm during a felony from one year to three years.

But at the same time, they limited the circumstances in which that enhancement would apply by dropping the word “use,” which had a broader application, and replacing it with the narrower term “brandishing.”

That term was defined to mean “displaying or making a firearm known to another person while the firearm is present on the person of the offending party with intent to intimidate or injure a person.”

Alec Baldwin Charged Under Gun Law That Didn’t Exist at Time of ‘Rust’ Shooting

Prosecutors have sought to give Alec Baldwin a five-year sentence enhancement that wasn't on the books at the time of the 'Rust' shooting.

variety.com

It IS feeling like a witch hunt to me, at least in AB's case, not so much in HGR's case. jmo.

This one seems serious. Nevertheless, the effect of the charge (even if it's now thrown out) is to highlight that this is a special form of recklessness. I was really surprised to see that charge. I figured they'd charge him with a misdemeanor for reckless discharge of a firearm in addition to involuntary manslaughter.

So was there are prior, slightly different version of this enhancement or not? Wait. How about I read the link more carefully??

Okay, so the statute is dated July 2020 (and amends a prior statute - which I do not have in front of me). So there was a statute in place when Rust was filmed, after all. Just a minor change to redefine "brandishing."

Whew. The NM criminal attorney quoted here needs to clarify her point, I think = and I doubt this will affect the charge, since this crime seems to fall under the 2020 law. Basically, it was enlarged to include merely showing a gun to commit a crime (so if the noncapital crime is involuntary manslaughter, the enhancement applies even if the gun wasn't fired - just shown in a way to accomplish the crime). Seems to fit.

Would love thoughts from our lawyers.

 

[RANCH]

Alec Baldwin sued by Halyna Hutchins' family for fatal 'Rust' shooting

Alec Baldwin is being sued by the family of Halyna Hutchins. The cinematographer died on Oct. 21, 2021 after a gun Baldwin was holding fired on the set of "Rust."

www.foxnews.com

Attorney Gloria Allred announced a press conference regarding the lawsuit will be held Thursday. She is representing Hutchins' parents and sister.

 

[Cool Cats]

No. I guess I didn't write it out clearly. There are rules and contracts in the industry. Can you find a statute that says involuntary manslaughter due to negligence can't use overt violation of common sense and industry rules as its basis? Or even one in NM that defines "recklessness"?

My point is that since recklessness is what is being alleged, that gross violation of the rules of one's workplace, profession, union expectations and contracts...is reckless. And there's a statute against recklessness that results in death, in NM. Such as asking a person to use a Bobcat when they have no training and they tip it over and kill someone. Or a person using a Bobcat without attending proper training and without being told to do so. This would apply more to Hannah and Alec, IMO, since Dave Hall didn't use the weapon. That's likely why he got a plea bargain.

Both Hannah and Alec violated common sense rules and workplace rules in a reckless manner. That makes it illegal. I don't know of any jurisdiction that has specific laws for every single act of gross negligence. I've posted links about parents being charged with involuntary manslaughter for violating rules of common sense. Why isn't that relevant here?

Quote:
"I've posted links about parents being charged with involuntary manslaughter for violating rules of common sense. Why isn't that relevant here?"

It's relevant here, just that some people haven't heard of it.

I have never heard of people getting charged for crimes because they violated RULES of common sense. You have to violate LAWS to get charged with crimes I thought.

I don't know where the links are. What page?

 

[10ofRods]

Quote:
"I've posted links about parents being charged with involuntary manslaughter for violating rules of common sense. Why isn't that relevant here?"

It's relevant here, just that some people haven't heard of it.

I have never heard of people getting charged for crimes because they violated RULES of common sense. You have to violate LAWS to get charged with crimes I thought.

I don't know where the links are. What page?

That's one legal definition of recklessness.

The category of recklessness, as I keep trying to say, is too broad to codify. There are no laws specifically against leaving a gun in a drawer. There are no specific laws about leaving a loaded gun in a drawer. But there are laws about involuntary manslaughter and negligence for those times when people's negligence with a firearm results in harm.

There are no laws against bungie jumping concessions using bungie cords. Nor are there laws that state how often the cords should be replaced or inspected. But if a bungie cord is defective or frayed, the operators of the concession can receive involuntary manslaughter charges.

I hate to keep listing more and more of these examples. It appears my point is getting lost. We have laws against reckless endangerment of life and reckless taking of life. Juries decide what's reckless (or judges do in bench trials). That's why it goes to trial. Reasonable people have to agree that it's reckless - and they do it all the time.

My point is that a person is charged with a crime called involuntary manslaughter because a judge thinks they have been reckless. There's no way to write laws to cover every situation, so we as a society elect people to make broad laws that cover all situations - such as recklessness.

Negligence is yet another term in the same category. A jury will need to decide (unless Alec pleads out) whether the law is applicable to the specific facts.

I'll go find the links and post in a couple of minutes.

 

[10ofRods]

Quote:
"I've posted links about parents being charged with involuntary manslaughter for violating rules of common sense. Why isn't that relevant here?"

It's relevant here, just that some people haven't heard of it.

I have never heard of people getting charged for crimes because they violated RULES of common sense. You have to violate LAWS to get charged with crimes I thought.

I don't know where the links are. What page?

That's one legal definition of recklessness.

The category of recklessness, as I keep trying to say, is too broad to codify. There are no laws specifically against leaving a gun in a drawer. There are no specific laws about leaving a loaded gun in a drawer. But there are laws about involuntary manslaughter and negligence for those times when people's negligence with a firearm results in harm.

There are no laws against bungie jumping concessions using bungie cords. Nor are there laws that state how often the cords should be replaced or inspected. But if a bungie cord is defective or frayed, the operators of the concession can receive involuntary manslaughter charges.

I hate to keep listing more and more of these examples. It appears my point is getting lost. We have laws against reckless endangerment of life and reckless taking of life. Juries decide what's reckless (or judges do in bench trials). That's why it goes to trial. Reasonable people have to agree that it's reckless - and they do it all the time.

My point is that a person is charged with a crime called involuntary manslaughter because a judge thinks they have been reckless. There's no way to write laws to cover every situation, so we as a society elect people to make broad laws that cover all situations - such as recklessness.

Negligence is yet another term in the same category. A jury will need to decide (unless Alec pleads out) whether the law is applicable to the specific facts.

I'll go find the links and post in a couple of minutes.

Here's the first one:

Accused Michigan school shooter's parents will face involuntary manslaughter charges, judge rules | CNN

The parents of accused Oxford, Michigan, school shooter Ethan Crumbley will still face multiple involuntary manslaughter charges, a judge ruled Wednesday, despite their attempts to quash the counts against them.

www.cnn.com

Do you really want me to keep posting links? Because there are several in just that category. Note that the people were charged with a felony. Can you find evidence that there's a law against having guns in a house with children? Or laws against allowing children to handle guns? I've never seen such laws - and would think that if they existed in this jurisdiction, they would have been used to indict this couple. But it was involuntary manslaughter.

Hot car case:

Father facing charges for 3-month-old found dead in hot car; seeks release from jail

A defense attorney is critical of the judge's decision to deny bond, which is keeping his client in the Allegheny County Jail. It will be challenged at a court hearing Friday morning.

www.wtae.com

Involuntary manslaughter, again. No laws in most places against leaving a child in a car. California has one. Many places do not but prosecution still occurs, obviously:

Is it illegal to leave your kid in a car? | finder.com

Leaving a child in the car could be illegal in your state. But breaking them out could cause you more trouble than you think.

www.finder.com

No laws against many other things that can cause death. Final category: amusement park negligence and death.

Amusement parks run dangerous rides, similar to movie sets using real guns. However, they are expected to make the place safe. WHen they don't and someone dies, there are involuntary manslaughter charges (even though there are no laws against dangerous amusement park rides or even specific special laws pertaining to amusement park ride maintenance). OSHA has "standards" but an OSHA violation is neither civil or criminal. It's a workplace violation. IMO.

Ex-water park director charged with involuntary manslaughter for boy’s decapitation

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — A Kansas waterslide hyped as the world’s highest was a “deadly weapon” that had already injured more than a dozen people before a 10-year-old boy was decapitate…

nypost.com

Amusement park manager found guilty of reckless homicide

A jury convicted the former manager of a Tennessee amusement of reckless homicide for a woman’s fatal fall from a pendulum-like ride known as The Hawk in March 2004. It opted not to convict the defendant of second-degree murder for the death of June Alexander, who fell 60 …

injuryprevention.bmj.com

Kansas water park executives charged with murder in boy's death | CNN

Two designers of a massive waterslide in Kansas on which a 10-year-old boy was decapitated face second-degree murder charges in connection with the child's death, according to an indictment unsealed Tuesday.

www.cnn.com

Schlitterbahn water park, ex-employee charged in 10-year-old's 2016 death on ride

The indictment alleges the ride suffered from a "persistent airborne problem."

abcnews.go.com

Various homicide charges in all of these (and there are many others). No specific law against putting a larger person than a ride was designed for, on the ride. No specific laws stating how often a ride should be checked. ETc. Etc.

My point is that the same law (involuntary homicide - or sometimes voluntary homicide) cover ALL of these situations with no individual laws. Reckless endangerment and negligence are violations of the standards of "reasonable men and women" (just like sexual harassment, gender discrimination, workplace harassment, etc).

IMO. And I think that's enough of the off topic links. I don't want to drag this discussion into discussions of amusement parks.

 

[deugirtni]

This one seems serious. Nevertheless, the effect of the charge (even if it's now thrown out) is to highlight that this is a special form of recklessness. I was really surprised to see that charge. I figured they'd charge him with a misdemeanor for reckless discharge of a firearm in addition to involuntary manslaughter.

So was there are prior, slightly different version of this enhancement or not? Wait. How about I read the link more carefully??

Okay, so the statute is dated July 2020 (and amends a prior statute - which I do not have in front of me). So there was a statute in place when Rust was filmed, after all. Just a minor change to redefine "brandishing."

Whew. The NM criminal attorney quoted here needs to clarify her point, I think = and I doubt this will affect the charge, since this crime seems to fall under the 2020 law. Basically, it was enlarged to include merely showing a gun to commit a crime (so if the noncapital crime is involuntary manslaughter, the enhancement applies even if the gun wasn't fired - just shown in a way to accomplish the crime). Seems to fit.

Would love thoughts from our lawyers.

It seems (imo) that the law that was in effect at the time, rules both AB and HGR out, since neither of them intended to intimidate nor injure a person?

D. As used in this section, "brandished" means
displaying or making a firearm known to another person while
the firearm is present on the person of the offending party
with intent to intimidate or injure a person."

Link to the change (PDF): https://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/20 Regular/final/HB0006.pdf

 

[deugirtni]

I hadn't seen this police interview with Seth Kenney before, so I thought I'd post it.. if it was previously posted, I was unable to find it.

 

[Cool Cats]

That's one legal definition of recklessness.

The category of recklessness, as I keep trying to say, is too broad to codify. There are no laws specifically against leaving a gun in a drawer. There are no specific laws about leaving a loaded gun in a drawer. But there are laws about involuntary manslaughter and negligence for those times when people's negligence with a firearm results in harm.

There are no laws against bungie jumping concessions using bungie cords. Nor are there laws that state how often the cords should be replaced or inspected. But if a bungie cord is defective or frayed, the operators of the concession can receive involuntary manslaughter charges.

I hate to keep listing more and more of these examples. It appears my point is getting lost. We have laws against reckless endangerment of life and reckless taking of life. Juries decide what's reckless (or judges do in bench trials). That's why it goes to trial. Reasonable people have to agree that it's reckless - and they do it all the time.

My point is that a person is charged with a crime called involuntary manslaughter because a judge thinks they have been reckless. There's no way to write laws to cover every situation, so we as a society elect people to make broad laws that cover all situations - such as recklessness.

Negligence is yet another term in the same category. A jury will need to decide (unless Alec pleads out) whether the law is applicable to the specific facts.

I'll go find the links and post in a couple of minutes.

Here's the first one:

Accused Michigan school shooter's parents will face involuntary manslaughter charges, judge rules | CNN

The parents of accused Oxford, Michigan, school shooter Ethan Crumbley will still face multiple involuntary manslaughter charges, a judge ruled Wednesday, despite their attempts to quash the counts against them.

www.cnn.com

Do you really want me to keep posting links? Because there are several in just that category. Note that the people were charged with a felony. Can you find evidence that there's a law against having guns in a house with children? Or laws against allowing children to handle guns? I've never seen such laws - and would think that if they existed in this jurisdiction, they would have been used to indict this couple. But it was involuntary manslaughter.

Hot car case:

Father facing charges for 3-month-old found dead in hot car; seeks release from jail

A defense attorney is critical of the judge's decision to deny bond, which is keeping his client in the Allegheny County Jail. It will be challenged at a court hearing Friday morning.

www.wtae.com

Involuntary manslaughter, again. No laws in most places against leaving a child in a car. California has one. Many places do not but prosecution still occurs, obviously:

Is it illegal to leave your kid in a car? | finder.com

Leaving a child in the car could be illegal in your state. But breaking them out could cause you more trouble than you think.

www.finder.com

No laws against many other things that can cause death. Final category: amusement park negligence and death.

Amusement parks run dangerous rides, similar to movie sets using real guns. However, they are expected to make the place safe. WHen they don't and someone dies, there are involuntary manslaughter charges (even though there are no laws against dangerous amusement park rides or even specific special laws pertaining to amusement park ride maintenance). OSHA has "standards" but an OSHA violation is neither civil or criminal. It's a workplace violation. IMO.

Ex-water park director charged with involuntary manslaughter for boy’s decapitation

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — A Kansas waterslide hyped as the world’s highest was a “deadly weapon” that had already injured more than a dozen people before a 10-year-old boy was decapitate…

nypost.com

Amusement park manager found guilty of reckless homicide

A jury convicted the former manager of a Tennessee amusement of reckless homicide for a woman’s fatal fall from a pendulum-like ride known as The Hawk in March 2004. It opted not to convict the defendant of second-degree murder for the death of June Alexander, who fell 60 …

injuryprevention.bmj.com

Kansas water park executives charged with murder in boy's death | CNN

Two designers of a massive waterslide in Kansas on which a 10-year-old boy was decapitated face second-degree murder charges in connection with the child's death, according to an indictment unsealed Tuesday.

www.cnn.com

Schlitterbahn water park, ex-employee charged in 10-year-old's 2016 death on ride

The indictment alleges the ride suffered from a "persistent airborne problem."

abcnews.go.com

Various homicide charges in all of these (and there are many others). No specific law against putting a larger person than a ride was designed for, on the ride. No specific laws stating how often a ride should be checked. ETc. Etc.

My point is that the same law (involuntary homicide - or sometimes voluntary homicide) cover ALL of these situations with no individual laws. Reckless endangerment and negligence are violations of the standards of "reasonable men and women" (just like sexual harassment, gender discrimination, workplace harassment, etc).

IMO. And I think that's enough of the off topic links. I don't want to drag this discussion into discussions of amusement parks.

This is great thanks. I was trying to get a handle on it.

I am following the Oxford school shooting and the Crumbly parents being charged for that shooting. Their trials will be interesting.

If found guilty of manslaughter, this will be precedent setting in law.

 

[DI_Isokawa]

OK, here's a question for the legal experts: AB is charged because his negligence (gun handling) led to a death. HGR is charged because her negligence (gun was loaded) led to the same death. The consequence (death) only exists if both acts of negligence occur together. That is, AB's act does not lead to a death unless HRG is negligent, and HGR's negligence does not lead to a death unless AB is negligent. But they are being tried separately. Does this make sense from a legal point of view?

 

[10ofRods]

It seems (imo) that the law that was in effect at the time, rules both AB and HGR out, since neither of them intended to intimidate nor injure a person?

D. As used in this section, "brandished" means
displaying or making a firearm known to another person while
the firearm is present on the person of the offending party
with intent to intimidate or injure a person."

Link to the change (PDF): https://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/20 Regular/final/HB0006.pdf

The law in effect when the crime was made simply said "use of a firearm" so this crime falls under that. I'm quoting from memory.

The change was to include brandishing as opposed to "use" of a firearm, to make it clear that the term "use" didn't just mean firing. In this case the firearm was used, so it's not a brandishing case and the new language is irrelevant. The 2020 changes just say "use of a firearm" which is what Alec did. He didn't brandish - but brandishing is now a part of NM code.

It's all good - the law in effect at the time of the crime still works - and the changes do not affect that portion of the law (use of a firearm) it just expands it to waving a gun around, without using it (but adds intent ONLY for brandishing).

So if a person willfully gets a gun out and intentionally uses it to scare someone (but it goes off and harms someone - perhaps not even the person they're trying to scare) and it was an accidental discharge, they can get the enhancement.

The core of the statute involving USE of a weapon was unchanged. I think the firearms enhancement came in 2020, the brandishing is more recent.

Alec is not charged with brandishing, his actions fall under use.

IMO.

 

[10ofRods]

OK, here's a question for the legal experts: AB is charged because his negligence (gun handling) led to a death. HGR is charged because her negligence (gun was loaded) led to the same death. The consequence (death) only exists if both acts of negligence occur together. That is, AB's act does not lead to a death unless HRG is negligent, and HGR's negligence does not lead to a death unless AB is negligent. But they are being tried separately. Does this make sense from a legal point of view?

NM apparently thinks it does (and I do too). I'll defer to the DA of Santa Fe County.

The DA specifically said that THREE people had to be negligent for this to happen and they're all guilty.

To prove her point, she can mention that one of the three has already pleaded guilty. Two more to go.

IMO.

 

[PrairieWind]

10ofRods, I don't think you point is getting lost (or maybe it is). Its just not on target. All the cases you linked are very distinguishable from this case because of the knowledge of the defendant.
But we're going in circles and eating up pages needlessly. Lets just move on.