Helena Hutchins’ death was an accident, but it could be criminal.

Alec Baldwin is now facing a criminal charge of manslaughter Accidental death by shooting by cinematographer Helena Hutchins in a New Mexico film set in October 2021. The charge alleges criminal degree of negligence.

In legal terms, negligence is disregard for expected safer actions, the consequences of which can be serious, including death. In law, negligence can be adjudicated through civil or criminal means. In a civil action for damages (known as a tort action), even when the injuries or consequences are serious, the penalty is a monetary payment in damages rather than a criminal conviction and prison sentence.

What makes Baldwin’s case criminal (threat to his freedom) rather than civil (threat to his money)?

Where the negligence is particularly egregious – whether it can be prevented or such disregard for the safety of the persons affected – it becomes a criminal wrong. When the terrible outcome is death, that criminal error is manslaughter: killing without intent to kill.

Although it appeared as an accident, prosecutors may have good reason to believe that Baldwin’s actions exceeded this threshold of egregiousness, and the reasons are particular to the way Hutchins died: a gunshot wound.

Prosecutors determined that the gun required a “duty of care”—the historical legal standard violated in negligence cases—that was too high. They claim that Baldwin, as the handler of the gun, acted with blatant disregard for his potential dangers. This is referred to in the law as the “neighbor principle”: we owe a duty to our neighbours, and in this case Baldwin shot his neighbor, Helena Hutchins. In the prosecution’s view, it was his atrocious gun handling that caused this needless death, and that is the crux of the criminal charges. There is always an obligation on anyone holding a gun and pointing it at another person to check beforehand that the gun is unloaded.

It is commonly understood that guns are dangerous and are, in fact, designed to cause death. America continues to grapple with gun violence, More than 30 mass shootings recorded in January 2023 alone. The charge in this case would almost certainly not have been criminal if Hutchins had died by any other means.

Imagine a movie set where, during a scene, an actor pulls a rope to turn a ceiling light on or off. The light hangs from the ceiling. After pulling the rope, the lamp falls, striking and killing a member of the production crew. Subsequent investigation reveals that the light was improperly held by a member of the crew, and this was the proximate cause of the accident. The actor who pulled the rope reported that he had no idea that the light would fall because he knew nothing about the hanging light and never thought that he should check such things in the conditions of his job. This death is the result of negligence because a “duty of care” was due: some movie lights are expected not to fall.

But unlike a shotgun, the ceiling light is not a deadly weapon. It is not a tool designed to kill. Falling film light as a cause of death is a very uncommon occurrence and a reasonable person in the position of actor might not have expected this problem if he had not been tasked with hanging the light from the start. In this hypothetical case, attributing criminal wrong would be virtually impossible—only civil negligence at most.

An actor like Baldwin shouldn’t be expected to climb a ladder and check that overhead lights are secured, but prosecutors would likely argue that anyone who handles a gun should be certain the gun is safe. Failing to do so in this case elevates neglect to something beyond fall-light.

How about the fact that it was a gun on a movie set and that the danger of prop guns on movie sets could reasonably be expected to be lower than real guns in the real world? Shouldn’t this fact affect Baldwin’s level of carelessness? The term “prop gun” generally refers to a disabling weapon used in theater or film. Also refers to real guns loaded with special cartridges that are modified bullets, called “blanks”.

Baldwin used a real gun—a F.lli Pietta single-action revolver in .45 caliber Colt (.45 Long Colt)—that was supposed to be loaded with blanks, not real bullets. A single-action revolver operates by pulling the hammer back until it clicks into place and then depressing the trigger to release the hammer. A hammer strike on a chambered projectile requires a set amount of force to detonate primer. Baldwin claims he didn’t pull the trigger, however FBI analysis after the fact differed. Testing of this particular weapon showed that it could not be fired without pulling the trigger. It has even been suggested that a computer-generated image of a gun would suffice for the scene. Guns of any kind, prop or otherwise, are There is simply no need On a recent set of films.

Defense attorneys will likely argue that the fault lies not with Baldwin, but with either the manufacturer of the gun—if it fired somehow without the trigger being pulled—or with others in the group responsible for its safety. In cases of neglect, the ‘duty of care’ to your neighbor relates to risks as a result of the behavior – risks that the person knows or should reasonably know. The plaintiffs in this case would allege that each handler of this object, including Baldwin, had a unique responsibility because of the nature of the object. Again, they’ll argue: A gun isn’t a flashlight. Even if The revolver was defective, and evidently such a dangerous object that his operator was clearly obliged to his neighbors to handle it with a high standard of care which Baldwin so scandalously disregarded.

Dying on a movie set is a catastrophic breaking of the fourth wall; The shock of this death requires action. But would raising the legal pressure on Baldwin from civil wrong to criminal wrong make any outcome in the case fairer?

A criminal charge seeks imprisonment for Baldwin as a possible outcome. This may be desirable if prosecutors wish to teach a lesson about circumstances, or to remove a dangerous person from the public. Alec Baldwin is a complex, well-documented public figure The history of aggressionMovie sets can be unsafe places. But there is no evidence that Baldwin fired the gun out of aggression. It seems unlikely to me that audiences would be too afraid of Baldwin being shot by other cinematographers, or anyone else on the set of a future movie.

Baldwin made public comments on the affair where he maintained that he never pulled the trigger and was in no way responsible for Hutchins’ death. He claims that the fault must lie with others. In his desire to gain the sympathy and support of the public, Baldwin actually takes a risk Turning public opinion against him and antagonizing the prosecution. The anger of the public prosecutor or popular public opinion must have no place in a court of law. Baldwin went on to sue the film crew for their negligence “Clear his name.”

The shooting of Helena Hutchins was not murder, but it may have been criminal negligence. Handling a gun is a duty to all who touch it, and death on a movie set should be considered.”never happened. Modern negligence relates, in legal terms, to a breach of the duty of care we owe to our neighbours. Lacking a specific intent to harm a particular person, Baldwin says, we have no reason not to believe him. But there is a reason why this wrongful death is considered criminal negligence, and why Baldwin is being prosecuted. the reason is Gun.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *