Firearms Safety In The Entertainment Industry

[Cape Byron]

Baldwin’s trial is set for July, according th The Guardian.

Rust armorer found guilty of involuntary manslaughter over fatal film set shooting
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...nnah-gutierrez-reed-verdict?CMP=share_btn_url

 

[OverTheTop]

Armourer sentenced to 18 months jail.
https://www.9news.com.au/world/rust...ths-jail/62a9f021-532e-401f-ad1e-9cada949a8f0

 

[Lord Rory Gin]

Well, lets just say... I'm looking forward to the conclusion of this.

 

[rharshberger]

Well, lets just say... I'm looking forward to the conclusion of this.

You might have just seen it....

The armorer gets to be the fall guy (girl in this case, or whatever), she gets most of the blame and Baldwin can say "see its not my fault" and get zero jail time. I have been wrong lots of times before too so its just my $.02

 

[cerving]

I doubt Baldwin will be found criminally liable, but there's a pretty good case for finding him civilly negligent.

 

[Donnager]

I doubt Baldwin will be found criminally liable, but there's a pretty good case for finding him civilly negligent.

I tend to agree, but have mixed feelings about this, when someone is acquitted in criminal court, but public opinion seems to be supportive of a civil suit for the same action (with a much lower burden of proof-and possibly far more punitive judgement).

Seems like a second chance for the prosecution so they can properly make changes and not make mistakes (again)...... I thought we had a constitution that prevented things like this, at least in concept. I guess the founding fathers didn't realize how lucrative the civil side of law would be..... or maybe they did.

 

[jderimig]

I tend to agree, but have mixed feelings about this, when someone is acquitted in criminal court, but public opinion seems to be supportive of a civil suit for the same action (with a much lower burden of proof-and possibly far more punitive judgement).

Seems like a second chance for the prosecution so they can properly make changes and not make mistakes (again)...... I thought we had a constitution that prevented things like this, at least in concept. I guess the founding fathers didn't realize how lucrative the civil side of law would be..... or maybe they did.

99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name.

 

[boatgeek]

I tend to agree, but have mixed feelings about this, when someone is acquitted in criminal court, but public opinion seems to be supportive of a civil suit for the same action (with a much lower burden of proof-and possibly far more punitive judgement).

Seems like a second chance for the prosecution so they can properly make changes and not make mistakes (again)...... I thought we had a constitution that prevented things like this, at least in concept. I guess the founding fathers didn't realize how lucrative the civil side of law would be..... or maybe they did.

I was kind of surprised that the Supreme Court ruling that explicitly allows a civil action to follow a criminal action is fairly recent, from 1972. And that up until 1969, the double jeopardy clause didn't necessarily apply to states following a federal prosecution.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/double_jeopardy

I don't know if it's better or worse that the plaintiff in a civil case in this incident would be different from the criminal prosecutors. Of course, sometimes state or federal attorneys are plaintiffs in civil cases too.

 

[Donnager]

99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name.

True enough.

 

[jderimig]

Civil and criminal can be justifiably separate. You can be responsible for another person's loss without committing a crime. Examples are endless.

 

[mh9162013]

Seems like a second chance for the prosecution so they can properly make changes and not make mistakes (again)...... I thought we had a constitution that prevented things like this, at least in concept. I guess the founding fathers didn't realize how lucrative the civil side of law would be..... or maybe they did.

A civil suit is completely different than a criminal one.

It's like someone running a red light and causing an accident that harms a pedestrian. The pedestrian could file a civil suit for their injuries, but they wouldn't take criminal action against the driver because they ran a red light (although they'd likely be a witness and provide evidence in the criminal prosecution, assuming there is one). That would be handled by government (local, most likely) prosecutors. The potential punishments, rules of evidence/court procedure, burdens of proof, due process requirements, etc. may be different between the civil and criminal legal cases.

 

[Donnager]

A civil suit is completely different than a criminal one.

It's like someone running a red light and causing an accident that harms a pedestrian. The pedestrian could file a civil suit for their injuries, but they wouldn't take criminal action against the driver because they ran a red light (although they'd likely be a witness and provide evidence in the criminal prosecution, assuming there is one). That would be handled by government (local, most likely) prosecutors. The potential punishments, rules of evidence/court procedure, burdens of proof, due process requirements, etc. may be different between the civil and criminal legal cases.

Of course, it is/they are.

But, the prosecution has already had a trial, generally for the same concerns. Giving the government or the public a second whack doesn't sound good to me. Any (attorney) with a lick of sense can stack the jury, stack the evidence AND use all the arguments in the criminal case to re-frame the situation with a lower burden of proof, AND probably sway suggestible jurors that hate some types. Hence my concerns about whether things like this are justice, Prosecutor CYA, witch hunts, or just simple profiteering.

The public wasn't on the jury for the criminal trial, just the media trial, and the media feeds it's advertisers. Whatever sells soap, gets broadcast, regardless of accuracy, integrity, etc.....

Again, I'm not sure it's a good way to deal with justice in this country. It seems closer to mob rule than supreme court protection from double jeopardy.

Which is worse, a 2 million dollar civil judgement, or a 50K criminal fine for same? Civil penalties can easily exceed criminal penalties, both in reach and effect. If our criminal penalties are too low, that is a change that needs to occur. We shouldn't band-aid that by selectively suing people we don't like.

Eventually, you might be the person the media doesn't like. Facts won't be part of the equation.

 

[mh9162013]

Giving the government or the public a second whack doesn't sound good to me.

But there isn't a second "whack" taking place. A civil case deals with a different legal issue than a criminal one, even if they both stem from the same incident.

That's like saying someone who stole your bike doesn't have to pay you back for your financial loss, because the thief got punished in criminal court with jail time (and let's say it was a plea bargain requiring no restititution or any restitution isn't enough to fully repay you for the lost bike).

If you want to get annoyed by anything, it should be that the state and federal governments are usually considered different sovereigns for the sake of double jeapardy.

 

[smstachwick]

But there isn't a second "whack" taking place. A civil case deals with a different legal issue than a criminal one, even if they both stem from the same incident.

That's like saying someone who stole your bike doesn't have to pay you back for your financial loss, because the thief got punished in criminal court with jail time (and let's say it was a plea bargain requiring no restititution or any restitution isn't enough to fully repay you for the lost bike).

If you want to get annoyed by anything, it should be that the state and federal governments are usually considered different sovereigns for the sake of double jeapardy.

The way I understand it, a federal court will typically review the evidence in a state-issued guilty verdict (and vice versa) and apply its own sentencing guidelines. Double jeopardy protects against being tried twice for the same act, not being sentenced under two different rule sets.

Of course, if the defendant is declared not guilty they’re free to go (although they may still be on the hook for other matters)

One notable case where double jeopardy protections have been held to not apply at all is with acts committed by a military service member; they can be tried under both applicable civilian criminal law in a civilian court and the Uniform Code of Military Justice in a military court.

 

[Donnager]

But there isn't a second "whack" taking place. A civil case deals with a different legal issue than a criminal one, even if they both stem from the same incident.

That's like saying someone who stole your bike doesn't have to pay you back for your financial loss, because the thief got punished in criminal court with jail time (and let's say it was a plea bargain requiring no restititution or any restitution isn't enough to fully repay you for the lost bike).

If you want to get annoyed by anything, it should be that the state and federal governments are usually considered different sovereigns for the sake of double jeapardy.

Yes, there is.

After a trial, both attorneys have all the evidence, the arguments generated in the criminal case, the opinion of an "impartial" jury, and it will be a matter of public record that the entire public will remember (because the trial already did actually happen). The attorneys can twist it and adjust their case as needed while they wait to see where the media wind blows. Basically, they got a trial run. All they have to do is doctor/embellish/enhance evidence (or re-frame it's inclusion) so that it leads to the desired conclusion. The second "whack" is the government (or it's hand) using all the same evidence from the criminal case, with a different jury but different procedure.

I have low confidence that information in the criminal trial will be used wisely, or will provide justice beyond the (displayed) media opinions in a later trial. I have high confidence that if some attorney did a lousy job at prosecution, they will have a desire for a second chance, or the ability to bill in the mean time.

I think all of the above is undue influence in the legal process, that does nothing to make the public safer or otherwise lock up hard cases... just makes the media folks happy, and enriches the attorneys/system.

Look at it this way, after an 11 month OJ Simpson criminal trial, do you really feel like you will get impartial jurors for the civil repeat?

 

[Bravo52]

Well, lets just say... I'm looking forward to the conclusion of this.

It won't be soon. The judge in the sentencing (Mary Marlowe Sommer) was demonstrably unprofessional and biased in sentencing. She even said in her monologue that her sentencing was partially based on comments Reed made about the her in jailhouse phone recordings and those calls gave her the standing to impose the maximum sentence allowed. Unfortunately the judge doesn't understand she does not have "standing", only to act as a facilitator in the court proceedings. The jury has standing... All this really means nothing because even when/if overturned, Reed will have already served the max time allowable under NM law (18 months). Additionally, Reed already served 2 mths in county and the judge said that was "too easy" and she needed to be in the state prison (in NM, that's bad news). Yet all they want to do in this case is pretend they are all about “law and order.”

Modern justice is not justice. This is a show trial and meant to protect the profit the state makes in the movie business. NM is notorious for letting murderers out on no bail or "time served", who have committed much worse crimes. Also, the NM prison system notoriously lets people out on parole much sooner than the national average (48 out of 50 ranking).

The Baldwin trial will be a joke...much like the circus tents already surrounding this situation.

 

[Banzai88]

One notable case where double jeopardy protections have been held to not apply at all is with acts committed by a military service member; they can be tried under both applicable civilian criminal law in a civilian court and the Uniform Code of Military Justice in a military court.

Only within certain very narrow guidelines.

Up until about 2005, the .mil routinely prosecuted active duty service members for gettings arrested and charged with a DUI. The .mil would then move to prosecute the individual at NJP before the .civ court date WITHOUT ANY FURTHER EVIDENCE other than the arrest on suspicion of DUI from the .civ authorities. They were often convicted and punished, sometimes up to and including separation from service with an OTH discharge.

ALL of that used to happen sometimes a year before the trail in the .civ courts. Even if the .civ courts acquitted the accused, the .mil punishment was already in place and there was no recourse for the service member.

After a 2005 DoD directive to commanding officers was not to do that anymore because of a series of lawsuits that challenged the authority of the .mil to try service members for violations alleged by the civil authorities, especially in regards to out of uniform/off duty/off base, on the grounds that to so, even as an NJP, was a violation of the double jeopardy protections, never mind the utter and complete lack of .mil jurisdiction!

In light of that, the DoD general order was issued "Do not get arrested/charged with a DUI". Therefore, subsequent service members who were charged were taken to NJP on "Violation of a lawful order" and double jeopardy was avoided. "Do not get arrested/charged with domestic violence" "Do not get arrested/charged with (fill in the blank)" is still the current standing general order.

DUI is not the only offense that's changed like that to avoid double jeopardy, there are lots of others that early in my .mil career I saw folks face, but towards the end the .mil had gotten out of that particular business.

For example (I've seen this happen in 2014 right before I retired), if you were to be on active duty and charged with murder by the civil authorities and taken into custody, unless it's on base (where they have jurisdiction), you'll be "Mustered in the custody of civilian authorities" until such time as you are available again for military service. Once in that muster status, the JAG will decide when you pay and benefits should be shut off, and whether to levy any other charges. Likely you'll remain on active service, until you are released from custody (even if it's only pending trail), and will stay on active duty until/unless you are adjudicated guilty and again taken into custody by the civilian authorities. From there, you can be mustered out legally.
In the event that you're cleared of all charges, that time that you were "Mustered in the custody of civilian authorities" will be added to the end of your active duty contract, effectively adjusting your end of active obligated service......but otherwise nothing changes.

 

[Bravo52]

^This. (@Banzai88)

I dealt with all of these during my time in the service. It proved to me that the military and civilian systems should have a very distinct line drawn between them and at no time should they cross. I would have prefered the military have precedence over military members but the social ills of this country would not allow that. In my experience, the military always handled cases more just than the civilians.

 

[rharshberger]

Only within certain very narrow guidelines.

Up until about 2005, the .mil routinely prosecuted active duty service members for gettings arrested and charged with a DUI. The .mil would then move to prosecute the individual at NJP before the .civ court date WITHOUT ANY FURTHER EVIDENCE other than the arrest on suspicion of DUI from the .civ authorities. They were often convicted and punished, sometimes up to and including separation from service with an OTH discharge.

ALL of that used to happen sometimes a year before the trail in the .civ courts. Even if the .civ courts acquitted the accused, the .mil punishment was already in place and there was no recourse for the service member.

After a 2005 DoD directive to commanding officers was not to do that anymore because of a series of lawsuits that challenged the authority of the .mil to try service members for violations alleged by the civil authorities, especially in regards to out of uniform/off duty/off base, on the grounds that to so, even as an NJP, was a violation of the double jeopardy protections, never mind the utter and complete lack of .mil jurisdiction!

In light of that, the DoD general order was issued "Do not get arrested/charged with a DUI". Therefore, subsequent service members who were charged were taken to NJP on "Violation of a lawful order" and double jeopardy was avoided. "Do not get arrested/charged with domestic violence" "Do not get arrested/charged with (fill in the blank)" is still the current standing general order.

DUI is not the only offense that's changed like that to avoid double jeopardy, there are lots of others that early in my .mil career I saw folks face, but towards the end the .mil had gotten out of that particular business.

For example (I've seen this happen in 2014 right before I retired), if you were to be on active duty and charged with murder by the civil authorities and taken into custody, unless it's on base (where they have jurisdiction), you'll be "Mustered in the custody of civilian authorities" until such time as you are available again for military service. Once in that muster status, the JAG will decide when you pay and benefits should be shut off, and whether to levy any other charges. Likely you'll remain on active service, until you are released from custody (even if it's only pending trail), and will stay on active duty until/unless you are adjudicated guilty and again taken into custody by the civilian authorities. From there, you can be mustered out legally.
In the event that you're cleared of all charges, that time that you were "Mustered in the custody of civilian authorities" will be added to the end of your active duty contract, effectively adjusting your end of active obligated service......but otherwise nothing changes.

iirc, for all the DUI tickets I wrote to service members (US ARMY mostly) during my time as a Military Policeman ALL of the DD1805 tickets (which was used for all DUIs, ) were prosecuted in local civilian courts, the DD1408 tickets (not usually written for DUIs, and are the Armed Services Traffic Ticket) were processed the the UCMJ procedures at the unit level (Company/Battalion level). The DD1805s are US District Court Notices, and were used for violations of state traffic law. For most tickets the MP had the choice of which to write to a service member EXCEPT in the case of DUI and violent crimes. My service was in the early and mid 1990s. DD1408s were depending on the members standing with their CO either a slap on the hand or pretty much glossed over....DD1805s on the other hand could ruin a career officer or enlisted, we thought carefully before issuing a DD1805.