Spring forward.
To delete this message, click the X at top right.

Rust and Related Lawsuits

User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 3830
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:48 am

Rust and Related Lawsuits

#1

Post by RVInit »

I thought I would go ahead and make a topic for discussion of the Rust shooting and the related lawsuits. I'm not sure they all need a separate topic, but we can see if there is enough interest to break some of these up. Nothing is really happening yet in any of them, that I know of, so not much to say.

I was able to find the lawsuit that Hannah Guitierrez-Reed filed against the armorer and against one of the owners of the armor supplier. He was hired to serve as the "Armorer Mentor" and he was the one who she says threatened her job if she told the producers about the incidents involving guns prior to the incident where Baldwin shot Halyna Hutchins and the director.

Here is her lawsuit. I downloaded it fresh and haven't read it yet, so not sure if it's the same as the original that was available when she first filed. If so, it's interesting. I think she would have been better off just stating facts and not adding her theory that she was being "set up", but there are some interesting allegations in here and it will be interesting if we ever find out all the actual facts.
There's a lot of things that need to change. One specifically? Police brutality.
--Colin Kaepernick
User avatar
GlimDropper
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:21 pm

Rust and Related Lawsuits

#2

Post by GlimDropper »

Lawyer and YouTuber Emily D. Baker has been covering the Rust related lawsuits in pretty good detail. This (two week old) video is her most recent commentary:



Skip to 4:12 to get past the intros.
User avatar
noblepa
Posts: 2403
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:55 pm
Location: Bay Village, Ohio
Occupation: Retired IT Nerd

Rust and Related Lawsuits

#3

Post by noblepa »

Does OSHA have any regulations regarding guns in the workplace? If so, they obviously weren't followed.

A movie set is clearly a workplace. It is perhaps different in a lot of ways from a factory floor, but it is still a workplace, and employees have a right to be safe.

If it were up to me, there would be a few rules that movie companies have to follow:

First rule of gun safety: There's no such thing as an unloaded weapon. All guns are to be treated at all times as if they are loaded.

Second rule of gun safety: You don't point a gun at someone or something unless you intend to shoot it. This one may have to be modified a little bit, because the story may require that the actor point the gun at someone.

Live ammunition has no place anywhere, at any time, for any reason, on a movie set. This might require some tightly-controlled exceptions when the scene requires showing bullets hitting a non-human target.

The armorer must check the weapon to make sure it is safe and loaded with the appropriate blank ammunition. The armorer must then hand the weapon DIRECTLY to the actor who must handle it in the scene. After the scene is filmed, the actor must hand the weapon DIRECTLY back to the armorer. No middle men!

Only the armorer and the actor are allowed to handle the weapon. Not the director, not the producer, not other actors or crew.

It should be the actor's responsibility to check the weapon before filming, to insure that it is safe and has the appropriate ammunition. If the actor is unsure, he/she must call the armorer.

Weapons must be stored in a locked safe/cabinet/box when not being used in a scene.

All armorers and actors handling weapons must attend a weapon safety briefing before being allowed to handle a weapon on the set.

I don't think that these rules put too much of a burden on a movie company. Mostly, they just require some minor, common-sense changes to the procedures for handling weapons. Nor do I think that they violate the 2nd amendment. Its not about gun ownership. Its about workplace safety.
User avatar
sugar magnolia
Posts: 3228
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:54 pm

Rust and Related Lawsuits

#4

Post by sugar magnolia »

noblepa wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 3:22 pm Does OSHA have any regulations regarding guns in the workplace? If so, they obviously weren't followed.

A movie set is clearly a workplace. It is perhaps different in a lot of ways from a factory floor, but it is still a workplace, and employees have a right to be safe.

If it were up to me, there would be a few rules that movie companies have to follow:

First rule of gun safety: There's no such thing as an unloaded weapon. All guns are to be treated at all times as if they are loaded.

Second rule of gun safety: You don't point a gun at someone or something unless you intend to shoot it. This one may have to be modified a little bit, because the story may require that the actor point the gun at someone.

Live ammunition has no place anywhere, at any time, for any reason, on a movie set. This might require some tightly-controlled exceptions when the scene requires showing bullets hitting a non-human target.

The armorer must check the weapon to make sure it is safe and loaded with the appropriate blank ammunition. The armorer must then hand the weapon DIRECTLY to the actor who must handle it in the scene. After the scene is filmed, the actor must hand the weapon DIRECTLY back to the armorer. No middle men!

Only the armorer and the actor are allowed to handle the weapon. Not the director, not the producer, not other actors or crew.

It should be the actor's responsibility to check the weapon before filming, to insure that it is safe and has the appropriate ammunition. If the actor is unsure, he/she must call the armorer.

Weapons must be stored in a locked safe/cabinet/box when not being used in a scene.

All armorers and actors handling weapons must attend a weapon safety briefing before being allowed to handle a weapon on the set.

I don't think that these rules put too much of a burden on a movie company. Mostly, they just require some minor, common-sense changes to the procedures for handling weapons. Nor do I think that they violate the 2nd amendment. Its not about gun ownership. Its about workplace safety.
I'm fairly confident all of those rules are already in place. Unfortunately, having rules and following rules are not the same thing.
On the last movie set I worked on the ENTIRE cast and crew had to sit through a 2 hour gun safety meeting in a stifling hot gym. Not just props and sets crew either. Costumers,caterers, people who never went near the actual set, everyone had to sit through the training. I doubt my experience on a relatively low-budget movie is much different than one starring Alec Baldwin.
User avatar
noblepa
Posts: 2403
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:55 pm
Location: Bay Village, Ohio
Occupation: Retired IT Nerd

Rust and Related Lawsuits

#5

Post by noblepa »

sugar magnolia wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 6:21 am
I'm fairly confident all of those rules are already in place. Unfortunately, having rules and following rules are not the same thing.
On the last movie set I worked on the ENTIRE cast and crew had to sit through a 2 hour gun safety meeting in a stifling hot gym. Not just props and sets crew either. Costumers,caterers, people who never went near the actual set, everyone had to sit through the training. I doubt my experience on a relatively low-budget movie is much different than one starring Alec Baldwin.
If all that is true, and I don't doubt your word at all, I wonder why OSHA hasn't weighed in on this.

Do you know if the safety meeting you endured was required by law or regulation, or did you just luck into a movie with a producer or director with common sense?
User avatar
sugar magnolia
Posts: 3228
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:54 pm

Rust and Related Lawsuits

#6

Post by sugar magnolia »

noblepa wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 9:13 am
sugar magnolia wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 6:21 am
I'm fairly confident all of those rules are already in place. Unfortunately, having rules and following rules are not the same thing.
On the last movie set I worked on the ENTIRE cast and crew had to sit through a 2 hour gun safety meeting in a stifling hot gym. Not just props and sets crew either. Costumers,caterers, people who never went near the actual set, everyone had to sit through the training. I doubt my experience on a relatively low-budget movie is much different than one starring Alec Baldwin.
If all that is true, and I don't doubt your word at all, I wonder why OSHA hasn't weighed in on this.

Do you know if the safety meeting you endured was required by law or regulation, or did you just luck into a movie with a producer or director with common sense?
To be honest I have no idea but I do know that's not the only safety meeting I've sat through when firearms will be on set. Same thing for fireworks and some other situations I don't remember now.
andersweinstein
Posts: 521
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2021 7:10 pm

Rust and Related Lawsuits

#7

Post by andersweinstein »

noblepa wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 9:13 am Do you know if the safety meeting you endured was required by law or regulation, or did you just luck into a movie with a producer or director with common sense?
I'm not aware of law or regulation, but safety meetings are required by union guidelines. From SAG-AFTRA's (Screen Actor's Guild) Safety Bulletin #1 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SAFETY WITH FIREARMS AND USE OF "BLANK AMMUNITION":
Before any use of a firearm in a rehearsal and/or on-camera sequence or off-camera
use, all persons involved must be thoroughly briefed at an on-site SAFETY MEETING
where the firearms will be used. This meeting shall include an “on-site walk through”
and/or “dry-run” with the Property Master (or, in his/her absence, the weapons
handler and/or other appropriate personnel determined by the locality or the
needs of the production), designated production representative, and anyone that will
be using and/or handling a firearm. An understanding of the intended action, possible
deviations, plans to abort, emergency procedures, and chain of command should be
made clear.

No one shall be issued a firearm until he or she is trained in safe handling, safe use, the
safety lock, and proper firing procedures. If there are any questions as to the
competency of the person who will use the firearm, the Property Master (or, in his/her
absence, the weapons handler and/or other appropriate personnel determined by
the locality or the needs of the production) shall determine if additional training is
required.

A SAFETY MEETING for the cast and crew shall be conducted. If there are any
questions as to the safety of firearms being used in the sequence or if any changes are
made from the original sequence, another SAFETY MEETING shall be held.
ETA: click through the link and you'll see several rules of gun safety enumerated, including "Refrain from pointing a firearm at anyone including yourself" (though it allows for carefully approved exceptions if absolutely necessary) and "Never place your finger on the trigger until you are ready to shoot". And this safety bulletin is supposed to be appended to the call sheet for any day on which firearms will be used.

At the very top of the document it says "BLANKS CAN KILL. TREAT ALL FIREARMS AS THOUGH THEY ARE LOADED.
"LIVE AMMUNITION" IS NEVER TO BE USED NOR BROUGHT ONTO ANY STUDIO LOT OR STAGE"
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14356
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

Rust and Related Lawsuits

#8

Post by RTH10260 »

now definitive...
Charges filed against Alec Baldwin for ‘extremely reckless acts’ on Rust set
The actor maintains his innocence and plans to fight the charge of involuntary slaughter of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins

Guardian staff and agencies
Tue 31 Jan 2023 22.48 GMT

Actor Alec Baldwin and a weapons specialist have been formally charged with involuntary manslaughter in the fatal shooting of a cinematographer on a New Mexico movie set, according to court documents filed by prosecutors Tuesday.

The charges come with two alternate sanctions, one with a penalty of up to 18 months in jail and a $5,000 (£4,061) fine, and another that could bring a mandatory minimum prison term of five years.

The official charges came nearly two weeks after Mary Carmack-Altwies, the Santa Fe district attorney, first announced that Baldwin and Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, who supervised weapons for the film, would be prosecuted for what authorities have described as a pattern of criminal disregard for safety on the set of the Western movie Rust.

Halyna Hutchins died shortly after being wounded during rehearsals at a ranch on the outskirts of Santa Fe on 21 October 2021. Baldwin was pointing a pistol at Hutchins when the gun went off, killing her and wounding the director, Joel Souza.




https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... a-hutchins
andersweinstein
Posts: 521
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2021 7:10 pm

Rust and Related Lawsuits

#9

Post by andersweinstein »

[Cross-posting from the "Another Shooting" thread]

Statement of probable cause for Baldwin:
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/ ... tement.pdf

And for Hannah Gutierrez-Reed: (differs only in a small number of paragraphs specific to her)
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... -statement
Slarti the White
Posts: 442
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:23 pm
Location: Michigan
Verified: Badges... we don't need no stinkin' badges

Rust and Related Lawsuits

#10

Post by Slarti the White »

andersweinstein wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 12:28 pm [Cross-posting from the "Another Shooting" thread]

Statement of probable cause for Baldwin:
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/ ... tement.pdf

And for Hannah Gutierrez-Reed: (differs only in a small number of paragraphs specific to her)
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... -statement
After reading these statements this looks really bad for both Baldwin and Gutierrez-Reed. The sheer number of violations of industry standards in the roles of actor, armorer, and producer suggest that there were multiple points at which this shooting could (and should) have been averted by Baldwin and/or Reed. I don't think that the DA is overcharging any more -- I think that neither defendant should want to go to trial on this. Even a plea deal that included 18 months of jail seems preferable to the chance (or possibly likelihood) of being convicted of an offense with a 5 year minimum jail term.

Furthermore, I don't see this incident having any effect on industry standards (except inasmuch as it focuses more attention on compliance and enforcement) -- if proper procedure had been followed, this shooting never would have happened.
andersweinstein
Posts: 521
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2021 7:10 pm

Rust and Related Lawsuits

#11

Post by andersweinstein »

Slarti the White wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 2:00 pm Even a plea deal that included 18 months of jail seems preferable to the chance (or possibly likelihood) of being convicted of an offense with a 5 year minimum jail term.
I asked this question once before but didn't get an answer: The mandatory 5-year sentence enhancement (for discharging a firearm during commission of a felony) was enacted in March of 2022 (NM House Bill 68). The incident occurred in Oct 2021. Would it violate the prohibition against ex post facto laws to sentence him under that provision? Wouldn't he have to be sentenced under law in effect at the time of the offense? (As best I can determine, at that time the law had a one-year enhancement for use of a firearm in commission of a first felony offense)
somerset
Posts: 788
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:06 pm
Occupation: Lab Rat

Rust and Related Lawsuits

#12

Post by somerset »

Slarti the White wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 2:00 pm

Furthermore, I don't see this incident having any effect on industry standards (except inasmuch as it focuses more attention on compliance and enforcement) -- if proper procedure had been followed, this shooting never would have happened.
Probably not in industry standards, but it may affect industry practice, especially on the low-budget productions proliferating because of the streaming services. There can be a price to pay for too much cost (and corner) cutting, and nothing drives that lesson home like a high-profile producer going to jail.
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14356
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

Rust and Related Lawsuits

#13

Post by RTH10260 »

andersweinstein wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 2:18 pm
Slarti the White wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 2:00 pm Even a plea deal that included 18 months of jail seems preferable to the chance (or possibly likelihood) of being convicted of an offense with a 5 year minimum jail term.
I asked this question once before but didn't get an answer: The mandatory 5-year sentence enhancement (for discharging a firearm during commission of a felony) was enacted in March of 2022 (NM House Bill 68). The incident occurred in Oct 2021. Would it violate the prohibition against ex post facto laws to sentence him under that provision? Wouldn't he have to be sentenced under law in effect at the time of the offense? (As best I can determine, at that time the law had a one-year enhancement for use of a firearm in commission of a first felony offense)
IANAL but the intended discharge of a firearm on the set was in itself not a felony so I don't believe that clause applies.
andersweinstein
Posts: 521
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2021 7:10 pm

Rust and Related Lawsuits

#14

Post by andersweinstein »

RTH10260 wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 3:01 pm
andersweinstein wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 2:18 pm
Slarti the White wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 2:00 pm Even a plea deal that included 18 months of jail seems preferable to the chance (or possibly likelihood) of being convicted of an offense with a 5 year minimum jail term.
I asked this question once before but didn't get an answer: The mandatory 5-year sentence enhancement (for discharging a firearm during commission of a felony) was enacted in March of 2022 (NM House Bill 68). The incident occurred in Oct 2021. Would it violate the prohibition against ex post facto laws to sentence him under that provision? Wouldn't he have to be sentenced under law in effect at the time of the offense? (As best I can determine, at that time the law had a one-year enhancement for use of a firearm in commission of a first felony offense)
IANAL but the intended discharge of a firearm on the set was in itself not a felony so I don't believe that clause applies.
I'm not a lawyer either (which is why I asked) but my understanding of the details:

The DA intends to charge two counts in the alternative, meaning the jury will get to decide which one if any applies.

One alternative is involuntary manslaughter through unlawful act not amounting to a felony ("misdemeanor manslaughter").This depends on committing a predicate misdemeanor, which in this case would be misdemeanor "negligent use of a deadly weapon". While that's only a misdemeanor, if you kill someone, the involuntary manslaughter predicated upon that misdemeanor is a felony and carries up to 18 months. But because this charge includes use of a firearm as one of its elements, it would not be subject to a sentencing enhancement for use of a firearm.

The other alternative is involuntary manslaughter through lawful act. This applies to doing something in itself lawful with criminal negligence -- without exercising due caution or circumspection. If convicted under this charge, the involuntary manslaughter felony you've been convicted of would then be subject to a sentencing enhancement for use of a firearm during commission of a felony.

So the second alternative is much worse for Baldwin!

Almost all news stories mention the possible 5-year mandatory sentence. That's big risk! But I haven't found anyone addressing the ex post facto nature of applying a 2022 change in penalties to a 2021 crime. Either I am wrong about the ex post facto clause being relevant to changes in sentencing enhancements -- completely possible! -- or all the reports are missing something important. I would be grateful if someone knowledgeable could tell me which it is.
humblescribe
Posts: 1091
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:42 pm
Occupation: Dude
Verified:

Rust and Related Lawsuits

#15

Post by humblescribe »

I am not a lawyer. I am not knowledgeable. But to misquote Foggy, "to speculate would be irresponsible."

I really believe that a law enacted today cannot be applied retroactively in general. I think we see this a lot when a cold case is revived after a passage of time or when the law changes six days after the act.

Look at it this way: If a highly Democratic Congress changes federal criminal law with "any crimes committed under this title by a former sitting President of the United States shall be subject to a minimum ten years in federal prison and further disqualification from any elected, appointed, or other federal employment in addition to any sentence for the specific crime convicted," I doubt that tfg would be subject to this newly passed law.
"Some cause happiness wherever they go; others whenever they go." O. Wilde
User avatar
pipistrelle
Posts: 6695
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:27 am

Rust and Related Lawsuits

#16

Post by pipistrelle »

Well, yeah, you can't break a law that doesn't exist.

IANAL.

But there oughtta be a law.
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5387
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Rust and Related Lawsuits

#17

Post by bob »

noblepa wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 9:13 amIf all that is true, and I don't doubt your word at all, I wonder why OSHA hasn't weighed in on this.
See:
Statement of probable cause for Baldwin:
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/ ... tement.pdf

And for Hannah Gutierrez-Reed: (differs only in a small number of paragraphs specific to her)
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... -statement
There are multiple references to OSHA's involvement.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
raison de arizona
Posts: 17657
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
Location: Nothing, Arizona
Occupation: bit twiddler
Verified: ✔️ he/him/his

Rust and Related Lawsuits

#18

Post by raison de arizona »

humblescribe wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 5:35 pm I am not a lawyer. I am not knowledgeable. But to misquote Foggy, "to speculate would be irresponsible."

I really believe that a law enacted today cannot be applied retroactively in general. I think we see this a lot when a cold case is revived after a passage of time or when the law changes six days after the act.

Look at it this way: If a highly Democratic Congress changes federal criminal law with "any crimes committed under this title by a former sitting President of the United States shall be subject to a minimum ten years in federal prison and further disqualification from any elected, appointed, or other federal employment in addition to any sentence for the specific crime convicted," I doubt that tfg would be subject to this newly passed law.
I dunno. Ask E. Jean Carroll about that mebbe.
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
andersweinstein
Posts: 521
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2021 7:10 pm

Rust and Related Lawsuits

#19

Post by andersweinstein »

OK, looks like a legal journalist has caught up to me on this issue. ;-)



ETA: The article corrects me on another important detail: While it's true NM *HAD* had a one-year enhancement on the books for use of a firearm in a felony, the text was revised in 2020 so that it now applied only to *brandishing* a firearm, with the explanation '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.'

It seems extremely far-fetched in Baldwin's case to say he brandished in this way. So by 2021 law there would probably be NO enhancement applicable.
andersweinstein
Posts: 521
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2021 7:10 pm

Rust and Related Lawsuits

#20

Post by andersweinstein »

bob wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 6:14 pm
Statement of probable cause for Baldwin:
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/ ... tement.pdf
...
There are multiple references to OSHA's involvement.
There was a substantial investigation by NM's Occupational Health and Safety Bureau (OHSB). It looks to me like everybody refers to them as "OSHA", I assume because, as this press release says, 'OHSB administers the Occupational Safety and Health Administration program in the State of New Mexico'.

In April 2022, OHSB wound up issuing the maximum fine of $137K under the NM Occupational Safety and Health Act for multiple willful violations of safety standards. Their report:

https://www.env.nm.gov/occupational_health_safety/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2022/04/2022-04-19-NM-OSHA-Rust-Summary-of-Investigation.pdf

The report does note that no state or federal standards exist for firearms used in the film industry. It cites that SAG-AFTRA safety bulletin #1 for safety standards violated. Also their failure to take corrective action when informed of safety issues like the accidental discharges ("misfires").
User avatar
noblepa
Posts: 2403
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:55 pm
Location: Bay Village, Ohio
Occupation: Retired IT Nerd

Rust and Related Lawsuits

#21

Post by noblepa »

humblescribe wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 5:35 pm I am not a lawyer. I am not knowledgeable. But to misquote Foggy, "to speculate would be irresponsible."

I really believe that a law enacted today cannot be applied retroactively in general. I think we see this a lot when a cold case is revived after a passage of time or when the law changes six days after the act.
US Constitution wrote: Section 9: Powers Denied Congress

:snippity:

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
So, yeah, a law can't make something a crime retroactively.
andersweinstein
Posts: 521
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2021 7:10 pm

Rust and Related Lawsuits

#22

Post by andersweinstein »

Team Baldwin has filed a motion to disqualify special prosecutor Andrea Reeb on grounds that NM constitution forbids serving in both judicial and legislative branches. Reeb was elected to the state legislature last November so took office this year. DA dismisses move as distraction.

andersweinstein
Posts: 521
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2021 7:10 pm

Rust and Related Lawsuits

#23

Post by andersweinstein »

A videoconferenced preliminary hearing is scheduled for Feb 24. The state filed a list of 44 potential witnesses.



That Deadline piece noted that first A.D. Halls, who has taken a plea, was not on the list, but a subsequent article notes he has been added.
andersweinstein
Posts: 521
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2021 7:10 pm

Rust and Related Lawsuits

#24

Post by andersweinstein »

As expected, Baldwin's laywers have filed a motion to reject the 5-year firearm enhancement as "an unconstitutional and elementary legal error.", violating both US and NM constitutions and "basic rules of statutory interpretation". You can read it here:

https://deadline.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/baldwin-rust-enhancement-motion.pdf

A DA spokesperson said "Another day, another motion from Alec Baldwin and his attorneys in an attempt to distract from the gross negligence and complete disregard for safety on the Rust film set that led to Halyna Hutchins’ death". That might fit their first action, but seems hard to fault team Baldwin for fighting the ex post facto application of a 5-year mandatory sentence law.

ETA: I notice the motion also dings the prosecutors for making potentially prejudicial extra-judicial statements in media interviews about this penalty that they know or reasonably ought to know are false, in violation of their code of professional ethics. This is something I have wondered about. I would have thought the prosecturs knew full well that ex post facto application of the 5-year enhancement was not likely to fly.
Slarti the White
Posts: 442
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:23 pm
Location: Michigan
Verified: Badges... we don't need no stinkin' badges

Rust and Related Lawsuits

#25

Post by Slarti the White »

While I think that the prosecutors have extremely strong cases against both Baldwin and the armorer for negligence, the attempt to overcharge them with the 5-year enhancement is, in my opinion, a truly despicable prosecutorial abuse of power. This is exactly the sort of thing that many poor defendants would be unable to recognize or fight. No matter the reason why it was done in this case, it speaks incredibly poorly of the prosecutors and, if I were their boss, would most likely cause me to ask for their resignations. In my opinion, just one more example (as if we needed one) of why there needs to be greater accountability for prosecutorial discretion.
Post Reply

Return to “Law and Lawsuits”