Can shooting incident on movie set qualify as unintentional killing?
Fate recently struck on a movie set in New Mexico when Alec Baldwin fired a shot with a firearm that served as a movie prop while filming a scene. Contrary to popular belief, the firearm did not contain "blanks [1] but a real bullet. In the unfortunate incident, picture director Halyna Hutchins was killed. Retrieved from social media there is intense speculation about who was at fault and whether Baldwin will be charged. We looked at what implications this scenario would have in Belgian criminal law.
From the available coverage, one can infer that this was a mere accident and not an intentional alleged conduct by Baldwin. Qualifications such as manslaughter or murder are consequently by no means at issue.
In Belgian criminal law, however, in addition to manslaughter or murder, we also know the crime of the accidental killing. Unintentional killing occurs when the following components are united:
- A lack of caution or precaution;
- Killing someone;
- Causal relationship between the two.
While the second and third conditions are self-explanatory, the first requires some clarification.
Lack of caution or precaution
For unintentional killing, it is not required that the perpetrator have the intent to assault another's person, but he makes himself by a lack of caution or precaution guilty of it anyway.
The term "lack of prudence or precaution" is interpreted very broadly in this regard, making any error, even the lightest error, may already suffice to speak of the crime of unintentional killing.[2]
For there to be a "mistake," there is no requirement that there be a violation of a particular legal or regulatory obligation. Indeed, the general standard of prudence applies to everyone.
The broad interpretation of "lack of caution or precaution" allows for quite a few scenarios could fall under this heading. Indeed, there may be a lack of caution or precaution when a possibility is not taken into account if that possibility could have been foreseen [3] although the alleged act does not have to be of such a nature that it could necessarily cause damage. A lack of prudence or precaution is also present when the perpetrator has failed to follow the rules of prudence or precaution.
To judge whether there really is such a defect on the part of the offender, his conduct is tested against the conduct of a "prudent and reasonable person [4] placed in the same circumstances. A mistake is thus an act committed by the perpetrator that a prudent and reasonable person placed in the same circumstances would not have committed. [5]
Consideration should always be given to the factual circumstances [6] in which the injurious behavior was stated.
The case of Baldwin
According to reports, the firearm was handled by several people before it was handed to Alec Baldwin. For example, there was a firearms supervisor who took care of the firearms used on set. This person in charge would have checked the weapon before using it in a film scene. Also, the first assistant director would have gotten his hands on the weapon before Baldwin.
Baldwin was assured that it was a "cold weapon," meaning the weapon contained no ammunition.
How it could have been overlooked that the gun did contain a bullet will be the subject of further investigation. At the moment, however, it seems that under Belgian criminal law, Alec Baldwin can be blamed for very little, since one can assume that a prudent and reasonable person, placed in the same circumstances, would also trust that the firearm was indeed safe.
Questions about unintentional killing? Our experts are here to help. Contact our attorneys at info@bannister.be or 03 369 28 00.
Sources:
https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2021/10/22/herbots-over-wapens-op-de-filmset/
https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2021/10/22/baldwin-schietincident/
[1] I.e. casing and powder charge without bullet
[2] Cass. Sept. 27, 1985, Arr.Cass. 1985-1986, 96 and RW 1985-1986, 1388; Cass. Dec. 15, 1992, Arr.Cass. 1991- 1992, 1437; Cass. May 31, 2000, Arr.Cass. 2000, no. 334; Cass. Sept. 12, 2007, Arr.Cass. 2007, no. 402; Cass. May 3, 2017, P.16.0532.F, RDP 2017, 957, concl. Adv. Gen. D. VANDERMEERSCH; Ghent Oct. 1, 1971, RW 1974-1975, 1316; Corr. Brussels Feb. 20, 2004, Soc. Chron. 2005, 455; Pol. Mechelen Dec. 6, 1999, TAVW 2000, 70
[3] Cass. March 9, 1964, Pass. 1964, I, 731; Cass. Jan. 14, 1974, Arr.Cass. 1974, 532; Cass. April 19, 1978, Arr.Cass. 1978, 949; Cass. May 10, 1994, Arr.Cass. 1994, 468; see also Ghent March 29, 2017, RABG 2018, 1479; Corr. Nivelles Sept. 13, 2007, RGAR 2008, no. 14,376; Pol. Antwerp June 7, 2000, Traffic Law 2001, 90.
[4] The former bonus pater familias
[5] Cass. Dec. 15, 1958, Pass. 1959, I, 385; Cass. April 14, 1969, Pass. I, 711; Cass. March 24, 1999, R.W. 1999-2000, 1132.
[6] Cass. April 11, 1979, Arr.Cass. 1978-1979, 967; Cass. Oct. 7, 1981, Arr.Cass. 1981-1982, 189.
