If you want to have a coherent thought about this, you have to distinguish consequences of safety violations from consequences of the outcomes of safety violations. A safety violation in and of itself normally carries somewhat corrective consequences precisely because nothing bad happened. Hence the example of the person who sweeps someone else at the range. If the outcome of the safety violation is that nobody got hurt, then some corrective action is taken. The mistake is ultimately one of awareness. But the reason we care about sweeping in the first place is because somebody might get shot. That's a potential outcome of a safety violation, and if the sweeper causes that outcome, then nobody cares anymore about the corrective consequences for the safety violation. They care about the consequences for the tragic outcome that the safety violation caused.
Baldwin killed somebody. New Mexico has a law specifically about killing someone by way of negligence with a firearm. The mistake Baldwin actually made was a safety violation. The outcome of his safety violation is what makes charging him appropriate, not the safety violation per se. In this case, the outcome was an injury to himself and to a relative. If the relative doesn't want to press charges against him, then as long as the DA doesn't want to pursue anything on his own, he's legally off the hook, regardless of what the good captain would prefer. If Hutchins hadn't died, the NM involuntary manslaughter law wouldn't apply, and perhaps she, too, would have had an opportunity to effectively waive off prosecution on any lesser charges that might apply. But she did die, and if Baldwin is ever prosecuted, that's what he will be prosecuted for.