Alex Baldwin RE-Indicted for the Manslaughter of Halyna Hutchins! – Law of Self Defense

Alec Baldwin has been re-indicted for the October 2021 manslaughter of cinematographer, wife, and mother, Halyna Hutchins.

Join me on today’s show to recap of my prior legal analysis of this unlawful killing.

As always, you can find our aggregated, public-access legal analysis of this Baldwin case here: lawofselfdefense.com/baldwin

Resources:

January 19, 2024 Indictment of Alec Baldwin

Video of Baldwin telling detectives he knew the “props” were actual guns:

Brendan Herrera video using duplicate of Alec Baldwin’s single-action revolver

Disclaimer – Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice. If you are in need of legal advice you should retain competent legal counsel in the relevant jurisdiction.

Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

---

Transcript

(PDF Link)

NOTE: All LOSD video/podcast transcripts are prepared in rough form, provided solely for our members’ convenience & documentation, and are not thoroughly reviewed for accuracy. Refer to the original video/podcast for the authoritative form of this content.

Welcome everybody. Welcome to today’s impromptu episode of the Law of self-defense. I was not planning to do a show today as those of you who watched that. Yes, they would know. I notified everybody there would be no show until Monday, but here we are and we’re here because of some breaking news. And that breaking news is that the actor Alec Baldwin has once again been indicted in New Mexico over the October 2021 shooting death of cinematographer Elena Hutchins on the set of Rust.

So I think that’s a just indictment. I think it’s what should have happened and therefore I’m glad to see it. So I figured I take today to give a brief overview of kind of the facts of the case. There’s a lot of misconceptions, misperceptions about how the law should apply here. Why are, why aren’t other people instead of Alec Baldwin responsible? I didn’t do anything wrong and I’ve written about this a great deal. Now, if you look under my name on the screen here, you’ll see there’s a link law, self defense.com/adam. Sorry, Alec, well, law, self defense.com/b Baldwin.

And if you go to that page, we have aggregated uh all the blog posts and videos I’ve previously done on this Baldwin shooting all the way down to uh when I did the day after the event, the event happened. October 21st, 2021 the news broke, I read about it the following day and did my first blog post about it there. Of course, we didn’t have a lot of facts.

Now, today, I’m going to step through a few of these. Um Some of these are just videos, there’s no text. Uh So I’m not gonna replay videos for all of you. I’ll, this is your video. I’m doing it right now. Um I would recommend you take a look at this one in particular and by the way, this is accessible to everyone.

Law of self defense.com/baldwin because of the high degree of public interest in this case. Uh I did an interview with my buddy Adam Baldwin um about how actors are supposed to handle guns on movie sets. Adam of course, has done a ton of movies involving firearms. Um He was kind enough to share with me the S A screen actors guild guidelines for safety on a set, including firearm safety. And we spent an hour or so talking through the reality of handling guns on a movie set. So that was particularly informative to me.

I’ve never done movies. I’ve done a little bit of TV. Uh But I was uh the best defense TV show on the outdoor channel. I was a legal expert um on self defense law there and sometimes on set for a couple of years. That was great fun.

Um But I’ve never done movies so it was great to get that movie insight from him. So Law of Self defense.com/baldwin, today’s show will also be added to this once we’ve finished the post production. So I’m not gonna go through all that prior analysis, but I do wanna step through some of it, the, some of it that has written content that we can just filter through quickly. Um By the way, uh, this is just about the, I believe it’s the one year anniversary from when the new Mexico prosecutor first announced that she would be charging Alec Baldwin with manslaughter for the death of Helena Hutchins. Now, this has been a complicated political affair. The, uh the first prosecutor on this case, um, was took a year or so to decide she wanted to charge him with manslaughter.

Then after that, she, she appointed some kind of special prosecutor. Somebody was also running for office at the same time and that was inappropriate. So that indictment was done away with. Uh, now a new special prosecutor has been appointed Carrie Morrissey and she’s the one who’s filed the new indictment and the new indictment is right here.

So let’s take a look. It’s only one page. It’s very short. Let’s read what she has to say.

Carrie Morrissey. Special prosecutor appointed in this case. Uh, let’s see, Alexander Alec Ray Baldwin, defendant, charge involuntary manslaughter. And what we mean here by involuntary manslaughter is reckless manslaughter.

And I’ll get into what recklessness means in a moment. Uh, count one involuntary manslaughter, negligent use of a firearm on or about October 21st, 2021 in Santa Fe County, New Mexico, blah, blah, blah, blah. The above named defendant did cause the death of Elena Hutchins and the commission of negligent use of a firearm in unlawful act which did not amount to a felony, 1/4 degree felony. Contrary to N MS A 1978 section 32 3 B or in the alternative count, one involuntary manslaughter without due caution or circumspection on or about October 21st 2021 in Santa Fe County, State of New Mexico. The above named defendant did cause the death of Helena Hutchins by an act committed with the total disregard or indifference for the safety of others. And the act was such that an ordinary person would anticipate that death might occur under the circumstances. That’s 1/4 degree felony.

Contrary to 32 3 B now, believe it or not 1/4 degree felony. This involuntary manslaughter charge is only good for 18 months, a maximum of 18 months and a $5000 fine under New Mexico Law. Uh, she named some witnesses she certifies, um, this is a true bill indictment and carry T Morsy special prosecutor date 1, 1920 24.

So just yesterday and it’s signed by the foreperson of the grand jury and approved by the special prosecutor. Uh, and as we’ll see, um, when we’ll look at the new Mexico manslaughter statute and for involuntary manslaughter, there are two paths to get. There. One is when you kill someone in the commission of an unlawful act where that unlawful act is not itself a felony. If you’re committing a felony and you kill someone in the course of the felony, then it would be felony murder. But if you’re committing an unlawful act, that’s a misdemeanor and kill someone in the progress of that, then it’s this form of involuntary manslaughter, commission of an unlawful act that was not a felony or the other way you could get there. Oh, and in the, the commission on the unlawful act here is the crime of negligent, uh use of a firearm, which is a separate criminal violation under New Mexico law.

The alternative way to get to involuntary manslaughter is to be engaged in a lawful act, but without uh due cause or circumspection without some kind of and, and you cause the death of someone and the lawful act was done without due caution or circumspection, meaning it was done in a reckless manner. So that is the indictment and we’ll talk all about recklessness and all this stuff moving forward and why, what the differences are between accident, negligent recklessness and intent. So I don’t think anyone is arguing that this was an intentional killing, that Alec Baldwin wanted Helena Hutchins to be killed for those weak on the facts. This was on the movie set of um an independent film called Rust, a western uh Helena Hutchins was the cinematographer on the set. Alec Baldwin was by far the biggest star in the movie.

They were filming a scene in a church on set. Um Of course, Alec Baldwin’s wearing western gear and he’s supposed to be drawing quickly cross drawing his cult revolver and firing around at some kind of aggressor. Of course, he’s what he’s actually facing is um a camera um cinematographer, Helena Hutchins and a uh assistant director who would also be injured but but not killed by the same bullet that killed Helena Hutchins. So those are the uh the initial facts.

So let’s turn now to the first blog post I did on this tragic event and that is that occurred uh the day after the event. So the shooting happened October 21st, I wrote this blog post on October 22nd. We didn’t have a lot of facts. Um So I’m wondering, Alec Baldwin shoots a woman dead.

Could it be an innocent accident or involuntary manslaughter? And I actually explore more options than that, but I was just keeping the headline short and I didn’t come back and add a headline uh a headline, an update later as more information had become available down the road update. It would appear that this tragic event as new facts continue to be revealed is a pretty textbook case of involuntary manslaughter under New Mexico law per the New Mexico Supreme Court. Quote. All that is necessary to establish for involuntary manslaughter by the use of a loaded firearm is that a defendant had in his hands, a gun which at some time had been loaded and that he handled it whether drunk, drinking or sober without due causation and circumspection. And that death resulted close quote, Steve V Gilliam 1955 New Mexico Supreme court case rather on point here. Uh Let’s see, I’ve already described the facts.

So let’s talk about, could this have been an accident? Could this have been an accident? What is an accident? An accident is when we have a negative outcome from someone’s conduct. But that negative outcome would have been completely unforeseeable to uh the person who engaged in the conduct. And an example I often use is you visit your elderly aunt in her apartment building, she’s on the second floor. She asks you to move a heavy bureau for her. You’re a strong young man.

So of course you agree to help out your aunt, you pick up the bureau from one side of the room, put it down where she wants in the other side of the room and unbeknownst to you, you unknowable to you, the floor joists are rotten. The heavy bureau crashes through the floor and kills another old lady in the apartment below. That would be an accident. You had a bad outcome.

You had the death of an innocent person. Certainly not justified as self defense, obviously. Uh, but it was completely unforeseeable to you that, that would happen if it’s an accident. If in fact, the negative outcome was completely unforeseeable. There is no legal liability, there’s no civil liability, there’s no criminal liability. An accident is a legal defense that your lawyer would raise at trial just like they would raise the legal defense of self defense, for example. So it’s a specific legal defense that has specific elements that would be argued at trial.

The next relevant mental state that could apply here, would we be one of negligence? Negligence is where you’re creating a risk of harm to other people and the bad outcome occurs. But under negligence, you did not have a conscious awareness of the risk. You should have had an awareness of the risk.

So a reasonable and prudent person would have known they were creating this risk and you didn’t, when that mental state exists, we have what’s called negligence. You have a duty, a general duty not to harm others and you do it in a negligent way. You have civil liability for the damages, you don’t have criminal liability, but you do have similar liability. In this case. That would could be a wrongful death suit on the part of Helena Hutchins family, for example.

But, but under negligence, if everyone agrees it’s negligence, there is no criminal responsibility, there is no role for a prosecution. Here’s the trouble with trying to argue pure negligence in this case, pure negligence doesn’t apply if you’re engaged in an inherently dangerous activity. So there are things human beings do that are inherently dangerous, uh demolition of buildings, use of explosives, dangerous chemicals, um and firearms, these are all things that have done improperly can readily kill people and they’re, they’re obviously um inherently dangerous activities.

Everyone knows that guns are dangerous, that bullets come out and kill people. Uh And if you’re engaged in inherently dangerous activity and you engage in negligence, that negligence automatically gets bumped up a level to recklessness. What is recklessness, recklessness is different than negligence, negligence. You didn’t know you were creating a risk of harm to others, but you should have recklessness is where, you know, you know, you were creating an unjustified risk of harm to others and you do it anyway. And a bad result happens. Classic example of this would be drunk driving.

So, you know, when you’re operating, you know, you got drunk, you know, if you operate a vehicle drunk, you’re creating an unjustified risk of death to others. Now, you’re not intending to run anybody over on the way home, you just wanna get home, but you are aware you’re running the risk and you do the conduct anyway and you run some over and kill them. That would be a reckless killing. You’re aware of the risk and you ignore it. That’s the core of recklessness. Recklessness does carry criminal liability, uh, in the context of manslaughter that would give rise to involuntary manslaughter.

Like in the drunk driving case, you weren’t intending to harm anyone but the recklessness creates the risk and you deliberately ignored that risk, consciously ignored that risk. That’s reckless conduct and that gives rise to criminal liability. Now, in this case, um, you might say, well, why would it, why would it bump from negligence to recklessness? And that’s because when you’re handling a gun, a gun is an inherently dangerous instrument, you can’t pretend you didn’t know that you were creating a risk of death because everyone knows guns kill people. Guns are deadly weapons. So it’s, it’s impossible to argue that, well, sure, a reasonable person would have known, but I wasn’t thinking about it at the time. No, no, no, no. When you’re engaged in inherently dangerous activity, as the new Mexico statute says, without due care and circumspection, that’s recklessness.

And if someone dies as a result, that’s a reckless killing, meaning involuntary manslaughter, that’s what involuntary manslaughter is a reckless killing. And again, that creates legal liability. So again, this is the day after the event when I’m writing this, we don’t have a lot of facts, but so it could have been an accident. What might an accident have looked like? Um, well, uh it could be that the, the gun was defective. There was something wrong with the gun where if you swing it quickly without touching the trigger, if you swing it quickly, the gun just discharges. Well, this gun was tested.

So that’s not what happened here. Um It could be where Alec Baldwin is holding the gun in a safe manner and a piece of the set collapses on him and the shock of being struck by this collapsing um set uh causes him involuntary involuntarily to clench on the gun and discharge the gun. Ok? I think that would be a fair example of accident, but that’s not what happened here. Um And we’ll have a video of a buddy of mine, Brandon Herrera who did a test of an identical gun to this shows shows that it could not have been discharged. But for the tr uh the, the trigger being pulled and that’s also what the FBI concluded when they tested the gun.

Um Let’s see what might negligence have looked like here. Uh Negligence could be um if Alec Baldwin discharged the gun intentionally, but he shot it into the ground and he thought that would be a good effect for the movie. Now, we all know if you, if you shoot bullets into the ground, they can skip up. I certainly wouldn’t want someone shooting at the ground near me.

So a reasonable person would know, hey, if I do this, that the bullet might still continue on and hurt somebody. And Alec Baldwin might say, well, I had, I had no idea about that. I thought the bullet would just bury itself in the ground. So a reasonable person would have known the risk. But Alec wasn’t consciously thinking of it.

That could be negligence. That’s not what happened here either. What does recklessness look like? Recklessness? Looks a lot like what happened here that Alec Baldwin was holding what he knew to be a real gun and he pointed it at Helena Hutchins. Now, I think there’s good evidence to indicate that he also pulled the trigger, the gun that was tested, that was used in this tragic event was tested by the FBI. They concluded it would not discharge without the trigger being pulled. There’s pho photographs that we’ll see today of Alec Baldwin rehearsing his presentation of the revolver and every time he does it, he’s got his finger on the trigger that allows for an inference that he had a finger on his, on the trigger this time too, when you point a real gun at another human being, whether or not you discharge the trigger, you know, that’s dangerous. You know, that creates a risk, an unjustified risk of death to others.

Do you imagine if Alec Baldwin, if the scene called for Alec Baldwin to point that gun at his own head, he would not have made sure there were no live rounds in the gun. He could have done that here. He could have done that here and he didn’t do that.

Uh, ok. So that was the first article I did next of just a few days later, three days later, October 25th, we had more data and it begins to look a lot like involuntary manslaughter. Uh, Alec Baldwin was the person who was manipulating the gun that fired the projectile that killed Miss Hu Hutchins. The gun discharged because the trigger was depressed by Baldwin and not because of some defect in the weapon. I think there’s evidence to support that. Frankly, I don’t think the trigger press is required for involuntary manslaughter here. Uh, that the muzzle of the weapon was directed at MS Hutchins by Baldwin when it fired.

So she was not killed by some unpredictable ricochet. And we know that it was in fact pointed at her that the gun contained a live round that killed her. We know that’s true that Baldwin had the opportunity to inspect the weapon for live ammo before he directed it at her.

I, I don’t even think this is required for involuntary manslaughter, but he did in fact have the opportunity. And of course, there’s no justification for the shooting that this was not something like self defense. And obviously, we know that’s the case too. So here’s the relevant New Mexico statute on manslaughter. 32 3 manslaughter is the sorry about that. But I was just summarizing facts.

Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice. If there’s malice, it’s either murder or voluntary manslaughter. Uh, but without malice, involuntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed in the commission of a lawful act that might produce death without due caution or circumspection. So here I was only exploring one branch of involuntary manslaughter under New Mexico law.

The commission of a lawful act without due care and circumspection. There is the other branch which is the commission of an unlawful act, the unlawful act, in this case, being negligent use of a firearm that would also get you to involuntary manslaughter. Uh Inherit, I talk here about inherently dangerous instruments and how that creates strict liability when you’re handling those and guns are included in those. I talk about the four rules of gun safety. Um All guns are presumed to be loaded until the gun handler personally verifies.

Otherwise. Now there are times when you can know a gun is unloaded, you have to do that if you’re taking the gun apart for cleaning, for example, but you personally verify that the gun is unloaded while it’s in your hand. And you only have that belief that it’s unloaded while the gun remains in your hand.

If you put the gun down and then pick it up again, you check it again to make sure it’s unloaded. And at all, other times, other than when you’ve personally ensured that it’s unloaded. You have to presume that it’s loaded. Rule number two, never point the muzzle of a firearm at anything you’re not willing to kill or destroy. Well, we know the muzzle was pointed directly at Helena Hutchins. Rule number three, never press the trigger of a firearm unless you intend for it to fire a bullet from the barrel.

Again, I think there’s good evidence that Baldwin had his finger on the trigger here, know your target and what is beyond your target. Now, that would only really apply if we had an intentional shooting here, which I don’t believe is the case. I think it’s a reckless shooting. Um, but the beauty of these rules is that they’re redundant. You really have to violate a combination of them before you’re in trouble before a bad outcome happens. Right? If you fail to ensure the gun’s not loaded, but you keep it pointed in a safe direction, well, then if it goes off, nobody’s hurt or if you don’t put your finger on the trigger, it doesn’t discharge nobody’s hurt.

If you point the muzzle of the firearm at something you don’t want to kill or destroy. But you made sure it was not loaded and you don’t touch the trigger. You don’t have a bad outcome if you press the trigger of the gun, but you made sure it was not loaded and it was pointed in a safe direction. You don’t have a bad outcome.

So you have to violate a combination of these four simple rules. Um, here’s a look at the New Jersey, uh, sorry, New Mexico jury instruction on involuntary manslaughter and the jury would be instructed for you to find the defendant guilty of involuntary manslaughter. The state must prove to your satisfaction beyond a reasonable doubt, each of the following elements of the crime that Alec Baldwin pointed a loaded firearm at Miss Hutchins and depressed the trigger, firing a bullet into her. That’s true. Alec Baldwin should have known of the danger involved by his actions. We we know pointing a real gun at people is dangerous.

Alec Baldwin acted with a willful disregard for the safety of others. Well, if he knew and he did it anyway, that’s the willful disregard. Alec Baldwin’s act caused the death of Miss Hutchins. No, that’s not contested and it took place in New Mexico on or about the 21st day of October 2021. These are, these are all strongly supported by the evidence. Um By the way, people keep saying, well, what about the armor? She’s the one that led bullets on the set.

Why shouldn’t she be held accountable? Well, this is a misconception. Um She should be held accountable, but just because one person has fault, doesn’t remove the fault of other people. It’s quite possible. There’s a lot of people here.

In fact, uh an assistant director I believe was also um criminally charged in this case and, and came to some kind of plea agreement. Uh So multiple people could have done things wrong. That’s common in these kinds of tragic events where there’s a cascade of failures. It’s not simply one person’s fault. So those other people should be held accountable, but them being held accountable. Them having fault does not erase Alec Baldwin’s recklessness. He’s still responsible for his own conduct.

In fact, the other people have an argument, a defense, uh what’s called intervening cause that there was an intervening cause between what they did wrong and the bad outcome and the bad outcome would not have happened. But for the intervening cause, if the intervening cause had not occurred, their misconduct would not have resulted in the bad outcome. And look at the armor, for example, you can say, well, her misconduct was allowing live ammo on the set fair enough, but her lying, allowing live ammo on the set is not the cause of the death of Helena Hutchins without Alec Baldwin pointing the muzzle of the gun at Helena Hutchins. That’s an intervening event. So while those other people may well have legal liability, criminal liability, in fact, the, the armorer is being criminally prosecuted, um They have a defense that Alec Baldwin doesn’t have because the ultimate responsibility for how, when and where a gun is discharged is in the hands of the person who’s holding the gun. Nobody else pointed that muzzle at Helena Hutchins, nobody else arguably pressed the trigger, cocked the hammer. Certainly the gun absolutely cannot fire with, without the hammer cocked.

It’s a single action weapon. So this notion that while other people are responsible, that does nothing to clear Alec Baldwin of responsibility, his personal responsibility. In fact, there is case law on this, make this bigger. Does it matter that it wasn’t Alec Baldwin who put the bullet in the gun? No, New York Supreme, uh, New Mexico Supreme Court tells us it could have made no difference to the trial of a charge of involuntary manslaughter as to who loaded the gun. All that is necessary to establish for involuntary manslaughter by the use of the loaded firearm is that a defendant had in his hands, a gun which at some time had been loaded at some time had been loaded by somebody and that he handled it without due caution and circumspection and that death resulted.

That’s New Mexico Supreme Court case law exactly on this point. Uh And here I talk about what the other things other people might have done wrong. Uh And people always say, but he’s just an actor. He’s just an actor. All right.

Well, for one thing, he’s an actor with 30 years of experience handling guns on sets. He’s been trained on gun safety for everyone of those movies, TV. Shows where he was handling a gun, every single one. So that being an actor is not gonna help them.

Um, second of all, we’re all presumed. I don’t care how stupid an adult are. You’re presumed as assuming you’re at least mentally competent, you’re presumed to know the guns are dangerous, they’re inherently dangerous instruments. And you’ll notice that that New Mexico statute on manslaughter doesn’t include the words unless you’re an actor, being an actor does not relieve you of liability. Under New Mexico criminal law.

Being a member of the screen Actors Guild doesn’t give you different criminal liability than the rest of us. So it’s nonsense. Then I talk about whether or not he will be charged with involuntary manslaughter. Of course, ultimately, he will, it’ll be dismissed and now it’s back again, which is why we’re talking about this. But um, here I’m talking about how much politics is involved.

Uh, a big part of the politics here is that this area of New Mexico um would love to have more movie business. And of course, they, it may be perceived that they’re less likely to get more movie business if they prosecute one of the biggest actors in the movie industry. So, and of course, there, this is um a very left wing area of New Mexico. So they would be amenable to seeing Alec Baldwin in a positive light. OK.

Let’s see then. Oh, by the way, before I get to this, there’s another, where did I put that? Oh, come on, here we go. There is a theoretical defense that Alec Baldwin could have raised that would have made this legally speaking an accident carrying no criminal liability and no civil liability. He could have claimed that he did not know he was holding a functional firearm. Now, we often confuse these words prop and firearm as if a prop means it’s plastic or something. No, a prop is any physical object being used on the set.

An operable car being used as part of the movie is a prop. Um, an operable sewing machine is a prop. An operable gun is a prop. It’s a prop. That’s a real gun.

So just to call something, a prop doesn’t mean it’s harmless. It’s, it’s a real gun. Now, of course, there are props in movies that are not real guns, they’re just rubber.

A lot of times they’ll give the extras like if there’s a scene with lots of police, the extras are given just rubber guns, uh painted black. So they look real enough from a distance, but the armorer doesn’t have to worry about gun safety for all those extras. Alec Baldwin could have said, I believed what I was holding was an inoperable prop not capable of discharging a bullet.

And if he said that and you believed him, then he was not engaged in reckless conduct when he pointed the muzzle at Helena Hutchins because he was not creating an unjustified risk of death, not knowingly creating an unjustified risk of death. So there would be no recklessness and there would be no criminal liability, unfortunately. Or Alec Baldwin, he’s got an ego the size of the moon and he thought it would be a good idea to immediately sit down and chat with a couple of police detectives immediately after the shooting. What’s going through Alec Baldwin’s head when he’s doing this? I can only presume it’s his ego. He’s a big Hollywood star.

He’s worth millions of dollars. He’s talking to two podunk town detectives, uh both women and he figures his prestige and status and intelligence. I’m sure he thinks he’s the most intelligent person ever. Uh He’ll be able to impress them and talk his way out of whatever trouble he might be in or convince them of his own view, not grounded in any understanding of the law, um, that he shouldn’t have any accountability here. So he talks to them for about an hour and a quarter and I, I’ve gone through this interview before.

It’s one of the blog posts on that uh link law self-defense.com/baldwin. But his best legal defense here in this case would have been for him to be able to say with credibility. I thought that was an inoperable prop. I had no idea and no reason to believe that I was creating any risk, whatever. When I pointed what I believe to be a hunk of plastic or whatever at Helena Hutchins. And if that were true, I’d have to agree. He wouldn’t have any criminal liability.

He wouldn’t even have any civil liability who took that legal defense away from Alec Baldwin, none other than Alec Baldwin. This is about 21 or 22 minutes into his police interview and this is what happens. People, when you’re talking two detectives without a lawyer present, a lawyer sitting beside Alec Baldwin would never have let him say any of this, particularly this part, but he thinks he’s a lot smarter than he is. Don’t ever do this, don’t ever do this. Don’t ever be talking to detectives without a lawyer present. If there’s any possibility that you could have some legal liability. And obviously, if you’ve discharged a gun and injured or killed someone, there’s absolutely a possibility you can have legal liability.

Yeah, this is absolutely. He thinks these girls are dummies and when you listen to them the questions they ask, they know exactly what words have to come out of his mouth to make him a criminal defendant. They know they’re asking the right questions.

These are a smart couple of gals. He does not see the danger in those questions. They’re like a shark under the water and he’s a swimmer. He just, he thinks he’s having a simple conversation and he’s legally burying himself. So his best defense again, I had no idea those that was an actual gun.

I listen to him here. Um, I think that’s what she had, but many of the departments have that and on that tray would be her or something like that. I don’t recall what exactly hers but they have a station that they, to the set for, to put over stuff and, uh, if the weather is co, and sometimes they put it under a 10, if it look like a rain in the dam or some property. But, uh, she has a little place she would go to and then he has a truck where she stores them and when they wrap it and he goes into a truck and she takes off her responsibility to, to uh secure the prop weapons which are real guns. A real gun. Um Can you actually describe the gun to me? Oh, sorry about the humming there. I don, I’m not sure what’s wrong with the audio there, but that’s why I put the uh the words on the screen.

She’s responsible for the security of the prop weapons which are real guns. They’re real guns. So he knew he was holding a real gun. So he doesn’t have that accident argument available to him.

What a dummy? Uh Let’s see. What else did I want to share? I did have a little video clip here. Is it this one? Let’s see. I’m gonna come back to that. Yeah, I covered the, I covered the police interview in depth in uh one of one of the blog posts you can find at that link at the very beginning too. They, they mirandize him and they have him sign the form, you know, acknowledging that he’s been mirandized folks. If, if, if, if police ever mirandize you, you’re not saying a damn word without a lawyer present, why do you think they’re doing that? They just say, well, it’s just, it’s standard operating procedure.

You know, we just have to kind of do this, don’t worry about it. They’re putting a rope around your neck when they mirandize, you, be aware of the risk. Oh, where’s that little video clip I had? Let’s see here it is. Here it is. See if I can make this bigger.

All right. So this is one of Alec’s excuses is that he never, he never touched the trigger of the gun. Now this is a gun, it’s a single action revolver.

So if the hammer is already down, you can press the trigger. All you want, nothing happens first. You have to cock the hammer and they call it a single action because the trigger does a single action. All it can do is release the hammer, the trigger itself cannot cock the hammer. You have to cock the hammer separately. First cock the hammer, then press the trigger.

The hammer drops, the gun goes off a double action revolver. You can cock the hammer simply by pulling on a long trigger, pull and move the hammer back and then the hammer drops. That’s two actions, double action revolver. But this was a single action revolver. So the first thing that has to happen for this gun to fire is you, you have to pull the hammer back and cock it, then it has a very, very light trigger. One of the things Alec Baldwin claims consistently is that he never touched the trigger. Well, we have footage of him in the, in the minutes before the shooting of Elena Hutchins where he’s rehearsing his presentation of the gun to the camera and this is what it looks like.

And this is just one example. He does it over and over and over again and it’s always the same way. So he’s got the gun in the holster. He’s psyching himself up pretending to be asleep and he’s woken up by a noise and the gun comes out. It’s a little longer than it needs to be sorry about that.

Boom. What’s that? What’s that? That’s his finger on the trigger. I think he does it twice here.

Put it back in the holster. Same thing, pretends to be asleep with his hand on the gun. The gun will come out and there he is again with his finger on the trigger.

So, you know, a jury can look at that and infer that his finger was on the trigger when it discharged too, especially when the FBI said the gun would not fire unless that was the case. Now, I have a, a little video here from a buddy of mine. You may know Brendan Herrera goes by the A K guy, uh 3 million subscribers on youtube and he did a test of a identical gun to the one that Baldwin was handling. It’s only about a 16 minute video. I’ve never heard it.

Uh So I’m gonna play it as part of this show. Um and I will um speed it up so it doesn’t take quite 15 minutes, by the way. I, I know Brandon we’ve hung out a few times. This is at his range down in uh the San Antonio area.

A great guy. Just fantastic. This was a fun arranged day. They had recently, I’ve been down there for a few of those. All right.

So let’s listen to what Brandon has to say here.

[START OF BRENDAN HERRERA VIDEO]

What is up, you sexy youtube mother lovers. As you might notice today’s video looks a little different. That’s because it’s being shot on a tripod because frankly, Delance did not want to be here because last time somebody filmed with one of these, it did not end well for the camera person. I’m just kidding. I paid Delance way too much to be here. But this is what we are filming with today is the model 1873 Colt single action army in 45 long cold made by Piena.

This is the revolver that appears to have been used in the infamous incident involving Alec Baldwin on the set of rust. Not this —

[ANDREW INTERJECTION]

Yeah, I should have mentioned Brendan is um running for Congress in Texas. It’s either, I think it’s district 23 or 24. I can never remember. Um, I’ve personally contributed substantial funds to his election campaign.

He’s looking to unseat a Rhino Republican, uh, anti Gunn Republican in the district and, uh I certainly hope he wins. Uh, so I think if you Google Herrera or Congress, you’ll come up with his website, look at what he has to say and maybe you’ll want to contribute too

[END OF ANDREW INTERJECTION]

— exact revolver. That one is probably in an evidence locker today. We’re gonna be putting a couple of myths to the test as far as like with this revolver.

Uh Can it be fired without pulling the trigger? Like Alec Baldwin claims it was. But aside from that, this is just a wonderful piece of history. So we’re gonna respect it for that because this was a very cool weapon before it was used by some Hollywood dip shit to chew them. So, with that in mind, let’s channel our inner uh Emilio Estevez from young guns with his three ps.

Do the town I offer you with a stranger by d at least to boss around and didn’t have to muster say no longer. Has this been ownership? I don’t know. So you see there how Brennan had to cock the hammer manually in order to fire the revolver again to the top, right on the south side, there’s a new sheriff in town and he hasn’t ruled out manslaughter charges. Now, if you guys recognize and, or like the song that we use for that montage there, you’re probably subscribing. I feel like you’ll like it here. The 45 long called cult single action Army is one of the most iconic handguns of the American West.

So iconic, it’s used very often in western films, including the new film, possibly still coming out called Rust starring Alec Baldwin on October 21st 2021 actor Alec Baldwin used this particular model of firearm in an accidental slash negligent discharge that killed his cinematographer and wounded his director. In later interviews, he claimed that he didn’t pull the trigger and that the pistol went off by itself. We’re gonna put that to the test, but real quick, we’d like to thank the people who allowed us to get this uh prop for the channel. Today’s sponsor is Rise Of Kingdoms. This month, Rise of Kingdoms is trying to focus on civilizations. Are you a Roman Empire guy or kind of more of the claw penetration test we now have for this particular video, two white claws space.

Some of this, I’m gonna skip just the pure gun stuff. I’ll, I’ll link this video. Um So these are more cowboy loads, they’re a little more appropriate to use on kind of period pieces. Older style revolvers weren’t really built to handle the pressures of modern cartridges. So you use things that are slightly downloaded.

They don’t carry necessarily as much velocity. But still, they clearly pack a decent punch with a very, very heavy projectile as a protruding firing pin into the area of the frame of the gun where the cylinder rests. You see on a center fire cartridge, uh this little spot here in the middle of the back of the casing is the primer. This is what ignites the round and causes it to fire only when it’s struck by the firing pin. Now, if you pull the hammer back, you see this little bit right here is the firing pin that strikes the primer and causes the weapon to discharge. Now, on this revolver, when the hammer is all the way forward, you can see that the firing pin is actually visible through the side as protruding into the area where the casings are uh where it strikes the primer.

So let’s go ahead and load our live round. We have a uh otherwise empty revolver here. I’m showing you, I’m doing a basic safety check because I’m responsible for what happens on the loading our one live round here. This is how quick it is to make sure this gun’s not loaded. Do you revolve your hair? And it is actually visible through the side as protruding into the area where the casings are where it strikes the primer.

So let’s go ahead and load our live round. We have a uh otherwise 705, I’m showing you, I’m doing a basic safety took five seconds to ensure there were no live rounds around here d that round into the position where it will be next. That’s the burden on Alec Baldwin. And we are now sitting for him not to kill Helena Hutch.

So as you can see now, my finger is nowhere round aligned with the barrel and the hammer here. And I, I don’t have a hammer. I meant to bring a hammer out here to show that, see if you can get this to go off without fucking puncturing the side of my hand with the sharp ass hammer. But seeing if you can get this to just go off from sheer just impact force or, or, or anything alone, this is the kind of testing the FBI did. The actual was an A K magazine which for all intents and purposes. Uh It’s basically the right tool for the job. I think all I am succeeding in doing is fucking up the garling on a brand new previously unfired revolver.

So by the way, this could have been another basis for accident, right? The facts could have been that Alec Baldwin dropped the gun through no fault of his own. It fell on the hammer and that caused discharge, but that’s not the facts of this case. And again, now still finger off the trigger a little bit up more from the bottom to get kind of more direct impact on this hammer surface here. Nothing let’s go ahead and inspect this cartridge. And if you look there, actually, we have a little bit of an indent on the back of the primer. I think you guys can agree.

That was a little bit of an extreme example. I don’t think he was taking an A K mag and beating the back of his revolver with a live round in the chamber or what was supposed to be a blank round, whatever you would have to be really, really, really beating on the back of that thing to make an indent like we did. Now, why is that? So the Pieta in particular, I don’t know about other reproductions and I especially don’t know about the original model cults, but the Pieta like was specifically mentioned, was used by Alec Baldwin uh have a firing pin here that is not fixed.

So as you look here, it has a bit of give to it. I’m not sure if it’s spring loaded. Uh but it just, it has a bit of give so that when it’s resting on that, it can move a little bit.

So you’re not directly converting pressure or impact into energy into the primer. And just to prove to you, of course, this isn’t a hit piece that is the uh the round that we had made indentations on. I’m gonna go ahead and load this and prove that this is an actual live round and could be fired under normal circumstances. There you go. So let’s try another method. So we’re gonna load up another live round here into the chamber, advance that forward.

And now, as you can see here, the brass here we are rotating that into place where that is now square behind the hammer. So the other possibility and I think this is what Alec Baldwin is claiming happened is he was practicing his cross draw and was pulling the hammer back, didn’t pull the hammer back all the way, released it back forward. And that is what discharged the round, which still doesn’t explain why he was pointing a live firearm at another human being. But you know what Samantha, that’s for the lawyers to decide right now, we’re just going to determine if that is a possible scenario in which case it’s going to get fired. So we’re gonna, well, we’re gonna test that here, you know, put this to the test while we’re in a, uh, you know, controlled and safe environment, youtube. We are in a controlled and safe environment. All right, let’s give this a shot.

So the trick is gonna be pulling us back to the point where it doesn’t start advancing the cylinder, right? So it seems that points about here. So let’s try to, I don’t think we’re gonna get anywhere on that. And uh for those asking why we couldn’t go farther back and advance to the next one because these have something called half cock. So if you uh let’s go ahead and get that live round out of there. So I can demonstrate this again, partially struck. You can actually see where this has had multiple impacts from that free floating firing pan on the primer, but none of which were even remotely strong enough to actually strike the round. Next time I fire this, I’m gonna show you guys you can see what an actual struck round looks like.

Uh This is definitely making an impact, but it’s nowhere close to being uh something that is fable. So when your hammer is all the way forward, ok, you pull it back, that’s full cock, right? Giggity half cock is when you pull it halfway back and it has a little catch here and this allows you to freely rotate the cylinder. Like if you’ve seen me uh pulling out the uh the fire brass on this, I have it at half cock.

This is just kind of a safety that allows the cylinder to freely move. Uh while not in danger of firing around. It is also important to point out that you cannot pull the trigger on half cock because the cylinder is freely moving. If you fired any one of these rounds, without it being perfectly aligned with the barrel, it’s a great way to explode, which is why they do not allow you to pull the trigger while you have it in this setting. And if you pull the hammer any farther back than half cock without going to full cock. It just sets you right back to half cock. So that impact has to be made before you get to half cock.

And realistically, it has to be before that cylinder starts to rotate. Otherwise that primer does not align with the firing pin, so it doesn’t even matter. So it has to be in this range here. All right. Now, of course, just to show you this is the round that we were striking earlier. This is still a live round.

I am not flopping anything, put that back in the gun and it is fireable. That is what a round looks like when it has been struck. So you see the indentation on the primer is significantly deeper, something, something the gun likes it when it’s deeper. I don’t know.

Now I’m gonna load up three more rounds real quick because I’m gonna demonstrate what I think might have actually happened. I think this is the most plausible theory outside of intentional homicide, which I’d like not to think about and quick shout out to Tim for military arms channel because I think he just did a video, I think like a day before we filmed this. Uh And I think he had a similar theory as to as to mine, I’m moving to an empty cylinder real quick just to demonstrate on these old revolvers.

It is possible to already have your finger on the trigger and not pull the trigger, but just have pressure on the trigger and pull the hammer back and completely missed the sear that disconnects the trigger there. So it is entirely possible that Mr Baldwin was not actively like pulling the trigger, but just had his finger in the right place. Drew his revolver. Yeah. So those of you who are watching on youtube, I just got a notification from youtube. Hi Law, self defense. We wanted to let you know our team reviewed your content and we think it violates our firearms policy.

We know you may not have realized this was a violation of our policy. So we’re not applying a strike to your channel here. I I’ll just share it. Uh Can I share it? Let me see. This is funny because the, the content they’re talking about is this content and it’s on youtube. It’s, it’s Brendan’s channel on youtube. Let’s see.

So yeah, all the youtube people are gone. Now, I would see this just came in 1048. So a minute and a half ago, high law self defense, we want to let you know our team reviewed your content. We think it violates our firearms policy. We may, you, we know you may not have realized this was a violation of our policy.

So we’re not applying a strike to your channel. However, we’ve removed the following content from youtube. This show, this live stream as it’s happening time it occurred. You can see an example, at 4550 in your video. Well, this is one example, there may be other instances we realize this may be disappointing news, but it’s our job to make sure that youtube is a safe place for all.

If you think we’ve made a mistake, you can appeal this decision, you’ll find more details below what our policy says. Youtube does not allow livestream showing someone holding, handling or transporting a firearm channels, not in compliance with this policy may temporarily lose their ability to livestream. Um You know, that could be, that could be true.

Actually, maybe it is a violation. Uh Brendan’s channel is um a recording, of course, and I’m live streaming a recording. Oh, it’s fine. It’s all fine. All right. Back to uh back to Brendan.

Yeah, I guess I should just have uh I wonder if I take the recording of the show and post it back up as a recording and not a live stream. If uh youtube will accept that, I’ll have to try that out. All right back to Brendan and fire it around. I’m not going to demonstrate that from a draw just because that’s basically swinging around a loaded gun uh with your finger on the trigger and a live round in the chamber that’s safe. And as it turns out not good for your staff, but this in particular is why it is popular in western movies to be able to keep fan revolvers that is what allows that to happen. Now, of course, that’s just my theory if I’m incorrect and if I’ve been completely wrong on all this, I owe Alec Baldwin an apology and I’ll man up to that. But so far, this seems like the most likely thing to me this of course, still does not explain why there was live ammunition on set for any reason, especially since he was not just an actor in the film, but also the producer, you know, the kind of person whose job it is to make sure shit like this doesn’t happen and that there isn’t live ammo on set.

It does not account for the failures of the people whose responsibility was to make sure shit like this couldn’t happen in the first place, the Armorers, et cetera. I just kind of hope as with Darwin Awards, this just goes to show you guys that you need to respect firearms no matter what state they’re in or whatever state you’re told they’re in. You need to verify if somebody says a gun isn’t loaded and they hand it to you. You don’t just start Willy nilly pulling the trigger, you verify, you look through, you do the basic safety checks and that applies to everybody, not just gun guys but anybody who is handling a firearm period. I feel like I accidentally might have gotten kind of preachy there. So uh let me use this prop gun here and take out this can of.

[END OF BRANDON HERRERA VIDEO]

Ok, I think that’s, uh, he’s going back to his, uh, very entertaining channel content, which is great, but not exactly what we’re doing here today. So, uh, the, uh, the narrative that, uh, the gun would have discharged without Alec Baldwin having pulled the trigger is, uh, is nonsense. Um, so this is a tweet put up by Emily Miller who I know she’s a big second amendment advocate and a journalist. I think she was one of the first people to get a concealed carry permit in Washington DC if I recall correctly. I think she wrote a book about it. Emily got her gun or something along those lines.

Um, and she’s written about the Alec Baldwin. She’s a great follower, by the way on, uh, Twitter. Uh, so I would encourage you to follow her, Emily Miller at Emily Miller on Twitter. Um, and she has a, a URL there, Emily Post news.com.

So top 10 Alec Baldwin excuses. Actually the first and the last one are the same. I didn’t pull the trigger and the trigger was never pulled. Well, I think that’s debunked beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s not my responsibility. Well, that’s not what New Mexican law says.

New Mexico law says if you’re handling a gun either in a negligent way or without due circumspection, um, and someone dies as a result, you’ve committed manslaughter. That’s the definition of manslaughter. She told me to hold it.

Well, you can hold a gun and not point it at somebody. Did she tell you to point it at her? Even if she had, would that relieve you of criminal liability? No, I let go of the hammer. Well, that was just as debunked. I pointed the gun in a direction she wanted that doesn’t relieve you of responsibility. If there’s a bad outcome, you know what you could have done, you could have held it how she told you and pointed it like she told you, even if you pointed it right at her, but first taking five seconds to make sure there’s no live rounds in the gun. Someone is responsibility, someone is responsible.

I know it’s not me. No, it’s you. Just because other people may have responsibility too, doesn’t relieve you of your responsibility.

Uh, they didn’t get her in a car. Well, I don’t know what that’s supposed to mean. That doesn’t relieve your responsibility for shooting her in any case.

I believe that the wound was mortal. I think it was a heart shot. Um, the gun goes off. Well, we know the gun didn’t spontaneously go off. Someone put a live bullet in a gun and that person should be held responsible for that for allowing live ammo into a gun on a movie set. And that’s probably the armor and she is being prosecuted for that.

But again, other people having responsibility does not relieve him, Alec Baldwin of his own criminal responsibility. He knew he was holding a real gun. As we saw in the police interview, we know he was putting his finger on the trigger and in fact, he had to be for the gun to discharge. And we know that it doesn’t matter, it does not matter who put the bullet in the gun. Under New Mexico Law, New Mexico Supreme Court. It could have made no difference to the trial of a charge of involuntary manslaughter as to who loaded the gun.

All that is necessary to establish for involuntary manslaughter by the use of a loaded firearm is that a defendant, Alec Baldwin had in his hands, a gun which at some time had been loaded and that he handled it without due caution and circumspection and death resulted. That is, that is classic involuntary manslaughter under New Mexico Law, somewhat shockingly only good for a maximum of 18 months in prison and a $5000 fine. All right, folks. So I think I’ll transition over to the Q and A portion of the show and the Q and A portion of the show is where I guess I don’t have to worry about leaving you two behind because they’re already gone. Uh, but the Q and A portion of our shows are where we cut off the open access live streams on youtube, um, uh, Twitter and Rumble and we’re, we cut down to just the live stream that’s on our law. Self-defense member, dashboard.

Uh, the Good news is, it’s dirt cheap to be a law self defense member. You could do it right now and participate in the Q and A for the rest of the show. You can become a two week trial member for 99 cents, folks only 99 cents at law of self defense.com/trial or scan that QR code. And after the two week trial membership, a regular membership is still dirt cheap. It’s only about 30 cents a day, less than $10 a month to be a law self defense member, but at least try it out for two weeks for 99 cents right now.

Open up another tab in your browser law of self-defense.com/trial and you’ll be emailed instructions for how to log in to our member dashboard and enjoy the rest of the show as a live stream Q and a Law of Self defense.com/trial. And with that, I’m gonna play a little outro music for the public streams. If you’re a member watching on the member Dashboard, don’t go anywhere. We’ll be back in about 20 seconds and we’ll dig into the member Q and A. Here we go and we’re back.

Just us. Law of self defense members. Now, let me pull up my own member. Dashboard. It should be here somewhere.

Mhm hm. Hm. Let’s see. And again, all this legal analysis on, um, that we’ve done ever since the shooting happened the day after the shooting we started is available at that little URL in the bottom corner there. Law self-defense.com/baldwin. All right.

You know, the funny thing is I do live streams all the time showing, you know, police shootings, they’re handling guns in much more violent context than this. Very odd. Uh, let’s see, uh Robert Robert has a comment from yesterday’s show. Robert had submitted yesterday was our Platinum Q and A show and I had a question from Robert about a California case.

Um, people versus Murphy or whatever it was. Um, and, uh, he had some questions about it and I provided some answers. He wasn’t able to join live, but he watched it afterwards and he says, uh, yes, he’s, um, he used, he is an attorney no longer lives in California has moved to Idaho when promoting platinum memberships. You could add that some platinum members are attorneys.

Yeah, I just, I mean, I know that. So we have quite a few attorneys who are platinum members. Uh, that’s very kind of you. I should, I should perhaps share that more often. Ah, let’s sing.

Yeah. And he’s, uh, I’ll, I’ll dig into that Robert and check. Uh, lexis didn’t have any indication of any subsequent action on that case, but, uh, I’ll check, uh, Lloyd, asked a great question. I was actually, uh, me and the wife were in the hot tub last night and I, I raised this issue with her. Uh, if Alec Baldwin gets a felony conviction, what’s that mean for his movie career to the extent he still has a movie career. Uh, but assuming he still wants to be acting in movies that involve guns. Um, virtually all the guns you see in movies are real guns.

Um, because that’s the least expensive way for the movie producers to have what appear, especially in close ups to be real guns. I mean, in theory, I suppose you could make very real looking replicas that were capable of firing only blanks and maybe that’s a good policy idea, maybe somebody should do that, but they don’t do that because the cost of making such a replica would be a multiple of simply going to the gun store and buying the gun or more practically. Of course, they, they contract with Hollywood companies that have a warehouse full of guns and they just basically rent the gun for the movie set, but they’re invariably all real guns except of course, where there’s like more distant shots of extras there, they might use rubber guns. But for the leading actors, when you see a gun in their hand, it’s invariably a real gun. Well, if, if Alec Baldwin’s con convicted of a felony here, uh he, he’s a prohibited person, felons cannot be in possession of real guns. So he would not be able to hold a real gun in a movie without committing a felony offense. A federal felony offense.

So that, that, that could be awkward. Uh Let’s see. No what else? What else? What else? Oh, Long Island, Brooklyn, I’ve lived in both those places. Long Island and Brooklyn.

Um, this is interesting. Robert says the mirror which I believe is a UK news publication reports. Alec Baldwin’s dad was school shooting coach who died after breathing in bullet dust.

Ok. Um, I saw someone else mention that they went to the, they were a student at the high school on Long Island. Where, where was that? Where Alec Baldwin’s father was head of the rifle team, believe it or not Massapequa is on Long Island. It’s a short distance outside of New York City, largely where I grew up.

It’s where I went to high school, not Massapequa, but uh an adjacent town. Um, and where I went to high school, we had a rifle range, a small boy rifle range for the high school rifle team in the basement under the cafeteria. That’s where we shot.

So it would be hard to believe that uh Alec Baldwin’s father was a essentially a small arms expert and none of that rubbed off on Alec Baldwin. In any case, as I said earlier, he’s had 30 years experience on movie sets and, uh, um, getting trained every single time in gun safety handling lots of guns. Uh, Jeffrey asks in the indictment, why do they say on or about October 21st 2021? Um Yeah, it’s just common practice often. You may not be certain of the date and there, it would make sense like if a body is found, were they killed today or yesterday? I mean, you may not know, uh, it could be happened around midnight.

You’re not sure if it’s a few minutes before midnight or after midnight and you just get into the habit of not being overly sp specific about a date if you don’t have to on or about is close enough. Uh, let’s see. Um, ba ba ba ba. Yeah, Brennan would be a, a, he’s such a great guy, Brendan Herrera. I mean, just, just such a personable kind person and he’d make a and obviously hugely pro second amendment. Great American.

He’d be great in Congress. Um, Russ asks for lack of a better term. Is there a chain of custody for firearms in a movie set? They’re supposed to be. Um, that’s kind of what he was describing in that little clip. I played of him acknowledging that this was a real gun.

He was kind of describing how the guns were supposed to be managed. They, they would be on a cart on the set. The armorer would be standing next to the cart when they weren’t on the cart. They’d be in a van that she locked up, kept secure.

Um, and then in the evenings the van would be parked someplace safe. Um, but yeah, the purpose of the armor is to prevent these kinds of things from happening. So certainly, I think the armorer has a legal liability here. But that again does not excuse, uh, Baldwin’s liability. Uh, someone says Mark Wahlberg is a felon and is in many movies with firearms. He’s certainly in many movies with firearms.

I don’t, I don’t know if he’s a felon or not. I, I don’t follow Hollywood that much. But, uh, yeah, I’m not sure how that would work.

You, you don’t get an excuse from federal persons and you know, a prohibited person in possession laws because you’re an actor. If Alec Baldwin was a member of law, self-defense, how would you handle this? Well, he would retain local defense counsel and I’m sure his defense counsel is excellent. I mean, he’s a wealthy man, so I’m sure he’s got the very best working for him. Defense counsel would call me and say, hey, Alec tells us he’s a platinum member. He’s guaranteed your legal consult for free.

Uh We’d like you to do a legal analysis of this case. Um Frankly, he doesn’t need to be a platinum member because I’ve done the legal analysis for free, right in the public blog posts. Um But that would essentially be my legal analysis. Um And I would note things like, well, if he, if there had been credible evidence that he didn’t know it was a gun, then that would be his best defense.

But it looks to me like that can’t credibly be argued. You, you can try to argue it now, but it wouldn’t be very credible given that video clip we just saw. Um, so I would, I would get all the evidence. I would look at all the law.

I would write up my expert legal opinion in a lengthy detailed report, uh, obviously much more detailed than I can do in live streams and, uh, submit that to them. But my conclusion wouldn’t be any different. Uh, my conclusion would be to a reasonable degree of legal certainty.

This looks like involuntary manslaughter under New Mexico law. And we could try to, you know, brainstorm ways to mitigate the severity, maybe get a favorable plea deal of some kind. Um, but, you know, I mean, my legal analysis follows the law and the facts and it is delivered to your lawyer and then your lawyer makes what use of it he thinks best. It doesn’t mean it’s guaranteed to be positive. So I, I can’t turn a bad shoot into a good shoot. Uh, let’s see, what else? Yeah, I don’t know if youtube is gonna be a stickler about showing recordings of gun uses during a live stream. Then I won’t be able to do those on youtube anymore.

I’ll just have, I mean, those will basically become members only content. Let’s see. Jeffrey says youtube hates the live stream because you’re attacking Alec. I think there were people in the youtube comments who were obviously, uh, or apparently I should say.

Um, I think Alec Baldwin’s put, his legal team has put together a very good pre pr organization that’s scanning for these kinds of things, especially right after the indictment, right. Uh going into the comments, making all of these excuses, all of these, he’s just an actor, it’s not his job, blah, blah, blah. It was an accident, all that nonsense by these low follower accounts on youtube. And yeah, of course, one of them filed or a bunch of them probably filed a grievance with youtube. Um, they know that anyone who’s going to be covering this is likely to be showing some kind of guns or some kind of gun use, uh, in a recorded manner and, uh, they can complain on that basis and it worked, it worked. So we’ll have to see about that. I guess I’ll have to do it.

Maybe I’ll do this again as a separate show that I just pre-recorded. I’ll have to see what they say. All right, back to the questions. All right. It looks like that’s about it. So, uh, folks thank you for taking time from your Saturday to be here with us. Uh, I really appreciate it.

Um, and, uh, and I look forward to covering this trial if they hold it. If it’s, uh, if it’s not televised, I may have to go down to New Mexico and stay there, uh, for the course of the trial, see if I can get into the courtroom, um, during which of course, I wouldn’t be able to stream it live, but I’d be able to share some personal insights on what’s happening. All right, folks. So with that, out of the way, I’ll just remind all of you that if you carry a gun. So you’re hard to kill if you carry a knife, pepper spray, study jiu jitsu. So you’re hard to kill.

That’s why I do all those things. So then I am hard to kill. So my family is hard to kill. Then you also owe it to yourself to make sure you know the law.

So you’re hard to convict as well. Until next time I remain attorney Andrew Braner for law of self defense. Stay safe.