Baldwin Motion To Dismiss Is Denied -- Lawyer Response

Patreon: www.patreon.com/runkleofthebailey
Locals: runkleofthebailey.locals.com/
BTC address: bc1qdqzpz6ny6w35qyl2rnasshjm60jvwcjgllwcay
All comments for information only. Do not take anything as legal advice--if you have a legal issue, contact a lawyer directly so that you can received advice tailored to your situation. All views expressed are solely those of the creator.

[@Draphia]

It's rather ironic considering the Defense is crying negligence from the State when Baldwin is in court for negligence himself.

[@Epic-so3ek]

What proves negligence again? Oh yeah the state. Oh yeah and they were negligent so…yeah that’s not how this works draphia, this isn’t ironic at all. He’s not quite guilty yet 😂😂😂 you’re jumping the gun a bit

[@sorbabaric1]

He wiggles, he writhes, but he’s still on the hook.

[@cl5470]

​@matthewmarshall349 no one is saying he shouldn't have rights. Stop whining.

[@basicallyno1722]

@matthewmarshall are you alright?

[@North_West1]

IMO- Defense is trying to drown State in paperwork in order to get another plea offer. (Not going to happen)

[@jackielinde7568]

Today I Learned: I'm a bonus human and thus not allowed to join in on the fun.

[@sonastysorude]

After the hearing I was essentially 100% convinced the judge would deny this. Her pretrial motion persona is no-nonsense (mysteriously absent during trial for who tf knows reasons), and my read based on my elite qualifications of 1) not a lawyer and 2) watch many lawyers online, was that she had her mind made up already but grilled Morrissey to make sure nothing new and weird came up and also to make as solid a ruling as possible, which you talked about. But, MOST OF ALL IN MY OPINION, I think she did thoroughly enjoy watching Morrissey flop around on the deck for a lil bit trying to answer the questions. For vengeance of course.

[@tinahorne6018]

This judge is a breath of fresh air!

[@Epic-so3ek]

Better than aunt bev?

[@valoriel4464]

Thx, Sir Runkle, for the update. ✌🏻

[@jackielinde7568]

Isn't Sir Runkle Ian's father?

[@mc-zy7ju]

Do you think we'll see lots of legal shenanigans in attempt to get the case thrown out on a technicality?

[@forresta65]

those are tough with 2 convictions are already out there.

[@935maverick]

Fighting to get off on a technicallity because he knows a jury will find him as guilty as sin.

[@MichaelOnines]

Always fight for all the technicalities - even if your case is a slam-dunk acquittal. Juries convict on flimsy evidence all the time, and appeals courts give great deference to their decisions.

[@Charagrin]

Guilty of what though?

[@Kay__Tee]

@@Charagrinrecklessness while handling a firearm

[@Physics072]

Really only one question that needs to be answered "Who brought a live Alec Baldwin to the set?"

[@pauleric8799]

@@Physics072 hunt for red October

[@rreiter]

I was spellbound by Morrisey's argument at the Gutierrez sentencing hearing. In the case at hand, she was obviously aware of what minimum things the law required her to do. Her decision to substitute alternate/better witnesses seems icing on the cake against misconduct arguments.

[@yellowpillNP]

“the State responded with a 32-page jeremiad….” The defense was basically like “your Honor, this is BS of biblical proportions!”

[@claire2088]

this seems like it might be deliberate pigeon business- they're just throwing as much at the prosecution as they can, not to see what will stick but to make them have to answer endless motions

[@melp8175]

Thanks Ian. Helpful to have your take on all this BS.🍾🍾

[@snowgorilla9789]

If his ego wasn't so big he would/should be worried but we know different

[@UncleKennysPlace]

Yeah, listen to his weirdly-voiced interview after it happened.

[@Sam4got]

Thx Runkle!

[@Shnookamunu]

Let’s GOOOO ❤🎉

[@megkiely0128]

Thanks Ian… love your review as always 👏🏻

[@just_a_smalltowngirl585]

Thanks for the update, Ian. Appreciate the coverage 👍🏻

[@jeffreybaker4399]

Ah, Ian reading through a motion. Don't know why, but, as long as he stopped to comment on occasion, I think I could listen to him read an encyclopedia (not quite the stereotypical "read a telephone book," still pretty impressive).

[@SarahBahou]

Thanks Runkle! 🎉

[@SteveDarby-uy1tq]

Shunkle Dunkle of the Runkle

[@janewaysmom]

If Baldwin succeeds on a motion to dismiss, I'd be really surprised

[@denvan3143]

So will Alec Baldwin; he’s throwing spaghetti against the wall.

[@brackencloud]

I am surorised the court even allows Grand Jury appeals. They are just deciding weather or not to pass it on to the main court. I find Grand Jury a strange concept in general, but ive tried to understand it as a function to decrease the strain of lengthy trials on the primary court system

[@matthewmarshall349]

Grand juries were intended to be a safety measure to keep the state from weilding prosecution power as a political tool as was done frequently by monarchs. In practice, it's a rubber stamp for the prosecution. Any serious offenses should be tied to a probable cause hearing IMO.

[@The_Modeling_Underdog]

Thanks for the video, Runkle. Given what we've seen of Judge Sommers so far, I don't think she's gonna let AB get off the hook and allow Morrissey to run amok again. And I'm all for it.

[@huddunlap3999]

Glad to hear it.

[@Whooopsnobodybusinessactually]

Hilaria

[@crystal3850]

Enjoy crimecon and EDB meetup. Lawtubers unite lol

[@trickgum1030]

Finally. Js

[@sagethegreat4680]

Planes , trains and Runkle- mobiles . Safe travels hope you who done it at crime con 😂

[@easteuropecollusion468]

Blood for the blood god!

[@DannyGraves1775]

Khorne for the Khorneflakes!

[@AZ-bp5zo]

Just curious about your opinion on Nick Rekietas problems?

[@charlie-qh2ll]

I bet the next time that lawyer is on zoom/Google meets he won't have that New York book in the background. Edit: Typos

[@BH-by5ky]

As a person familiar with firearms Baldwin appears to have acted recklessly, relying in the faith that the armourer was competent and would have ensured the firearm was only loaded with blanks. Where that puts him is up for debate.

[@BH-by5ky]

My understanding is that weapons on set are the responsibility of the armourer being the only person allowed to handle them before it is handed to actor for a scene. No live rounds allowed on set unless specifically required and then only used under tight control. The actor is usually not allowed to manipulate the weapon except for the actions specified in the scene. Any practice of weapon manipulation done in a safe zone or under tight control under supervision. This whole thing has become a pissing match between the State or prosecutor and defendant. Given there are elected officials it’s become very political for some.

[@Hard_Qs]

i dont understand why he is wrong on this (Baldwin) , why is he even in court ???? just confused

[@charliefoxtrot5001]

Baldwin committed involuntary manslaughter, which is a crime. 🤷

[@indigoigloo]

Doin the good work.. thnx

[@vivianmcrary5617]

Replay crew

[@sagethegreat4680]

It might actually be funny if Saturday day night live actually got trump to play Baldwin

[@danieltaylor5231]

Ian could you check in with Kurt today. He's having a bit of a rough time with the Rekieta stuff.

[@trfinley7076]

This might not be popular, but it seems like the judge doesn't find prosecutorial bad faith BECAUSE she doesn't review what the defense is asking to be considered. Using the lack of bad faith as both a sword and a shield.

[@Kay__Tee]

what do you feel the judge failed to review that was asked for by defense?

[@dvereckis]

2nd comment #2 Limerick. Here I sit broken hearted came to shit but only farted. (as seen in a Saskatchewan truck stop bathroom stall)

[@MrSkydiver604]

🤣 Here I sit broken hearted, paid a dollar but only farted.

[@cormoran2303]

Here I stand broken hearted, thought i'd fart but now I've sharted.

[@donnalynn2]

I am curious about that gun. Why in the world would they choose to test it in a way that destroyed it when we have the Baldwin case yet to do? Is this something that happens or was this a new cowboy super hyped to get a win he wasn't thinking of the long term?

[@cassandrahey701]

The Colt revolver was a piece of evidence. The defence via Alec Blaldwin suggested that the Colt was defective. The Law Enforcement Officers took the Colt into evidence. The FBI/LEO then tried to get the Colt to malfunction in the way Alec Baldwin had described. They (the FBI and Law Enforcement) could not get the Colt to behave in the way Alec Baldwin suggested. So in order to be thorough they did use some violent methods to try to replicate the misfire Alec Baldwin claimed. It did not happen and during this process some components of the Colt became inoperative and destroyed (ish). During the Hannah trial a gun expert testified he took the broken bits of the Colt out and reassembled the gun with factory machined parts and the Colt functioned perfectly and could not have functioned in the manner Alec Baldwin described. Hope that helps.

[@kimberlymoriarity]

My understanding from the Hannah Gutierrez Reed trial and the FBI testimony there is they did the more destructive test after Baldwin went on an interview and insisted that the gun "just went off". They gave notice to the special prosecutor (I think it was the previous one) that the testing would destroy the gun and the prosecutor approved it. They had tested other things about the gun (i.e. whether or not it could fire) prior to destroying the gun

[@dd4850]

@@kimberlymoriaritythat’s still stupid. Destroy the gun to “prove a point” when all they did was smash it to bits and prove nothing. When he says “it just went off” I’m Pretty sure he means he cocked the hammer back and accidentally triggered the gun

[@specialsause949]

​@@dd4850Baldwin claims he never pulled the trigger. He says he pulled the hammer back and let the hammer go and it just "went off". However, that particular firearm doesn't work that way. There are half-cock and quarter-cock safeties that would prevent the firearm from going off UNLESS he was holding the trigger.

[@bradenculver7457]

⁠@@dd4850they didn’t “prove nothing”. They proved the gun would not go off without some sort of destructive test. That’s absolutely not nothing. They showed the gun could not have gone off the way Baldwin claims it did.

[@bjornlangoren3002]

Seems to me the prosecution was overcharging in this case because they hate Hollywood, and also that Bakdwin's celebrity privilege has been an obstacle to justice being served. Baldwin is liable for a number of negligent acts here, as producer ultimately responsible for safety. And for negligent acts as the person who did not check his gun for ammo, and pointing a gun directly at another human being. The production was amateurish, both due to budget and inexperience on the part of producers.

[@charliefoxtrot5001]

What should they have charged Baldwin with instead?

[@wishingb5859]

The checking the gun part interests me because the dummies looked identical to real bullets and had to be shaken to hear that they were dummies so the process of showing Alec the gun would not have helped.

[@LelahWells]

Hi!

[@wishingb5859]

Nothing Alec did would have prevented this. The live bullet looked identical to most of the dummies, except for how they sounded. Even if they showed them the gun and pulled the rounds out in front of him, there were live bullets in the dummy round box. Still would have happened.

[@charliefoxtrot5001]

"Nothing Alec did would have prevented this." Which is exactly why he is being charged!

[@goblinday1]

I really been enjoying your videos....but i gotta be totally honest.....every video i keep waiting for you to go "hang on a second" .....than pick up a sword and run outside and fight a wizard.

[@dvereckis]

Good Morning.

[@metal--babble346]

Alec's "gun experts" have not impressed anyone. They need to focus everything towards intoxicated armourer Hannah, and quit playing around with "our client acted professional, and NEVER pulled the trigger".

[@donnalynn2]

He didn't have to pull the trigger, the gun was cocked. Why in the world did he cock it? Was he told to do that? Should not have touched it. I think he forgets we have seen video of how he has acted being very careless shooting around the set. He was so crazy with the gun.

[@charliefoxtrot5001]

The armorer was already found guilty of her crimes. That does not absolve Baldwin from his. Baldwin's defense know that they are toast based on the facts, so they try to muddy the waters by throwing all kinds of things against then wall.

[@rayives7758]

@@donnalynn2 The gun in question is a single action revolver, which means it must be cocked to even be capable of firing. Once it is cocked, there is a sort of latch (called a sear) that prevents the hammer from falling unless the trigger is pulled beyond a certain point. The only way the gun good "just go off" is if that sear is so damaged that it does not securely hold the hammer in place. There has been no claim that the sear was damaged or modified in any way. Of course, the question still remains as to why the gun was cocked in the first place, since that is only done if you intend to fire the weapon.

[@paulghignon4092]

@@donnalynn2 In this case he did pull the trigger. There's been plenty of youtubers who took the exact same gun and actively showed how it's impossible for it to fire without a trigger pull, unless it's modified, which would destroy the gun.

[@mistyk.2152]

Idk how I feel about this case. I do not feel like Baldwin did it with malice, I don’t think he knew the gun was live, and I don’t think it even crossed his mind. But he shot people and someone died. Idk I am not mad at him for trying to get out of it.

[@wishingb5859]

My thoughts are that even if he checked the gun, he wouldn’t have seen anything because the dummies looked identical to real bullets and even the armorer couldn’t tell the difference and real bullets were in the dummy box. Nothing Alec did would have prevented it.

[@wishingb5859]

My thoughts are that even if he checked the gun, he wouldn’t have seen anything because the dummies looked identical to real bullets and even the armorer couldn’t tell the difference and real bullets were in the dummy box. Nothing Alec did would have prevented it.

[@Kay__Tee]

@@wishingb5859unless all the dummies had dented primers.

[@TheKillWizard]

Alex Baldwin deserves more time in jail than the Armorer

[@UncleKennysPlace]

There were several links in the accident chain, one was found guilty, one pled out, gonna guess Baldwin thinks he'll skate.

[@charliefoxtrot5001]

Given the charges, he can't.

[@TriphexCorporation]

Everyone disagrees with me but the way I see it he was a layman who was told the weapon was safe. He doesn't know the dangers. The burden was on the professional whose job it was to ensure safety.

[@DaDaDo661]

​@@TriphexCorporationI'm with you, I hate him but he was surrounded by incompetent people and it wasn't really his fault

[@robsomethin4415]

​@@TriphexCorporationhe worked on other movies with guns, he wasn't a layman.

[@melvinjohnson7033]

Baldwin needs jail time in general population.

[@forresta65]

god loves a trier lol

[@michaelgarrison688]

Oh, something bad happened, someone must go to jail. NO EVERYONE HAS TO GO TO JAIL. We should just turn navada in to big jail because there is nothing there any ways. I do believe they did that with Australia between 1788 and 1868, they call it a Penal Colony. Imagine that.

[@UncleKennysPlace]

Oh, a young mother was _killed_ when someone _pointed a gun at her and pulled the trigger._ So, yeah, everyone in the "chain" of events needs to be in jail.

[@michaelgarrison688]

@UncleKennysPlace Yes, and the people who were IN charge of, and trained, and hired to verify that the gun was safe, failed to do their job and were found guilty. So let's charge an actor that was in charge of directing the movie, trained to be an actor and paid to be an actor. That logic would put the whole crew and actors and catering company and drivers and..... in jail. So my question was how big of a jail do you want? As large as the country of Australia? Or would Nevada be big enough?

[@charliefoxtrot5001]

@@michaelgarrison688 The safe handling of a firearm is not a "job" of an “armorer”. Every single adult in this country has a legal duty to not act with a willful disregard for the safety of others. Actors are not exempt from the law. The safe handling of a firearm is an individual legal requirement for anyone handling a firearm. Alec Baldwin knew it was a real firearm capable of firing live rounds, assumed the gun was loaded with dummies, pointed it at Halyna Hutchins, cocked the hammer, pulled the trigger, and killed Halyna Hutchins. This is the very definition of involuntary manslaughter through negligent handling of a firearm. The applicable state laws are NM Stat § 30-7-4 and § 30-2-3. A movie armorer is no different than a gun range safety officer. They are there as an extra safety to prevent people from being negligent. That, however, does not absolve anyone from criminal liability when they are negligent. Oh, and Alec Baldwin grew up around guns. His father was a high school shooting coach who died from cancer after spending 28 years breathing in the lead dust from an unventilated gun range. Baldwin himself has been doing movies with firearms since famously filming Hunt for Red October in 1989. By his own words to investigators, he had been trained on the use of firearms for decades. He simply can't claim ignorance here.

[@kdietz65]

The motion to dismiss based on failure to allege a crime will be very interesting. If the prosecution argues that lack of personal knowledge / failure to verify is an essential element, then they will have to provide compelling evidence that such a claim is always true, even on a movie set. If on the other hand the prosecution backtracks from personal knowledge (as they seem to have done in this hearing), then the prosecution will have to show that actors can absolutely, positive, never ever under any conceivable circumstance never point a gun at anyone, and in that case they will have to explain away hundreds of examples where actors do precisely that on movies: The Russian Roulette scenes in Deer Hunter, the Diner scene in Pulp Fiction, the bank robbery scenes in Hell or Highwater, the Tango Shooting scene in American Gangster to name just four of hundreds of examples I could come up with.

[@charliefoxtrot5001]

The essential elements of the crime are: Alec Baldwin knew it was a real firearm capable of firing live rounds, assumed the gun was loaded with dummies, pointed it at Halyna Hutchins, cocked the hammer, pulled the trigger, and killed Halyna Hutchins. This is the very definition of involuntary manslaughter through negligent handling of a firearm. Alec Baldwin was required to either verify that the firearm wasn't real, verify that the firearm was loaded with dummy rounds, not point it at Halyna Hutchins, not cock the hammer, or not pull the trigger. Just one of these actions would have prevented Alec Baldwin from endangering the lives of others and from killing Halyna Hutchins. All arguments about actors and movie sets, and corresponding what if scenarios, are nonsense. Actors are not exempt from the law. The safe handling of a firearm is an individual legal requirement for anyone handling a firearm. The terms "actor" and "movie" aren't even in the indictment. To be blunt, you can't take a firearm that someone else told you is "cold" and then try to shoot someone with it, without assuming the criminal liability for the case where the gun wasn't "cold". What someone else tells you about the status of the firearm does not absolve you from your own criminal liability.

[@kdietz65]

@@charliefoxtrot5001 Says that in the New Mexico statute nowhere.

[@charliefoxtrot5001]

@@kdietz65 NM Stat § 30-7-4 (A): "Negligent use of a deadly weapon consists of: ... (3) endangering the safety of another by handling or using a firearm or other deadly weapon in a negligent manner". NM Stat § 30-2-3 (B): " Involuntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to felony, or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection." There is LOTS of case law on this. Baldwin isn't the first person unintentionally shooting and killing someone. It happens about 500 times a year nationwide. The most uttered sentence after an unintentional shooting is: “I thought it was unloaded”. It never works in court.

[@kdietz65]

@@charliefoxtrot5001 I think we've been through this Charlie. We're going around in circles.

[@charliefoxtrot5001]

@@kdietz65 Yes, the actual written and case law is pretty clear about this. This trial will certainly be interesting. Note that one of the motions to dismiss makes your argument. It will fail!

[@supersonique001]

Haircut please!

[@Charagrin]

I still don't understand what hes guilty of. It literally doesn't make sense. Like, fudge him as a celeb, but guilt requires guilt.

[@gracesprocket7340]

He was holding a "Dangerous weapon, a firearm, loaded or unloaded". He pointed the dangerous weapon, a firearm, loaded or unloaded at another person (plus a second as a backstop). He manipulated the controls of his dangerous weapon, a firearm, loaded or unloaded. His actions caused a live cartridge in his Dangerous weapon, a firearm, loaded or unloaded, not placed there by Baldwin with murderous intent, to be discharged - loud noises and holes in places holes shouldn't be. Smoking gun in is Baldwin's hand, Baldwin is standing over the body of the victims of his negligent handling of a Dangerous weapon, a firearm, loaded or unloaded, or of his lawful handling of a Dangerous weapon with criminally absent due care and circumspection. HE pointed the firearm, his preferred 'hero prop' (instead of a completely adequate 'blue gun' or non-firing-replica which would serve for the scheduled 'blocking in', right at the centre of the silhouette of a person standing in plain sight... rather than the 'safer' 1" outside the margin... HE played with the trigger and hammer of his real-gun 'hero prop' while this was not on his call sheet. HE failed to cause Hannah to adequately clear the Dangerous weapon, a firearm, loaded or unloaded, which he was to hold.

[@Charagrin]

@@gracesprocket7340 None of this makes sense. Everything you just said only applies to YOU as a normal citizen. This was a movie set where the laws very clearly say YOU can't do anything you just said. The certification holding person legally designated by the state makes these distinctions, she's the one at fault. That's my issue. You guys are you, not on a movie set with different requirements. So again, there's no reason. It's literally her job to be legally responsible. Like, it just is.

[@Kay__Tee]

@@Charagrinthere are no exceptions in the law for film sets. The Screen Actors Guild safety guildlines outlines whats required of actors. He ignored this safety guidelines by handling the firearm recklessly. That’s why he’s guilty.

[@charliefoxtrot5001]

@@Charagrin There is no exemption in the law for actors, movie set, TV show, stage theater, war reenactment, or force-on-force firearms training. An actor at a WWII reenactment taking a Mosin-Nagant from someone, assuming the gun was loaded with dummies, pointing it at another human being, racking the bolt, pulling the trigger, and killing a human being will go to jail for involuntary manslaughter. There is no such thing as a "certification holding person legally designated by the state". A movie armorer is no different than a gun range safety officer. They are there as an extra safety to prevent people from being negligent. That, however, does not absolve anyone from criminal liability when they are negligent. I believe people who have never received any firearms training in their life and just get their information on that from the news, movies, and TV shows are just so out of touch with reality that they simply don't understand the straight forward application of the law in the real world. The safe handling of a firearm is not a "job" of an “armorer”. It is an individual legal requirement for anyone handling a firearm. If an actor screws up and kills someone, then, yes, they go to jail.

[@cormoran2303]

@@Charagrin You thinking movie sets are above the law is the dichotomy your brain is having trouble with. Once you realise movie sets are just like any other work site it'll start to make a lot more sense to you.