(November 2, 2021 at 2:52 pm)slartibartfast Wrote:

(October 27, 2021 at 5:16 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: Rule #1 of guns - when you pull the trigger - you own the outcome. Period.  Only self defense or the defense of others is a valid reason to shoot someone.

Sure. So by your reasoning if a child gains access to an unsecured gun in the home and accidentally shoots someone, then they are guilty of manslaughter. Period. No exception. Got it.

Does your rule also apply to where actors are told that there is no petrol in the tank when they are supposed to throw their lit cigarette in to cause a delayed CGI explosion, but instead someone filled it up with gas and they blow up the entire set and everyone in it? Of course not. 

Or how about the scene where they throw someone off a cliff and the safety net below is not secured properly? Is it the pushing actor's fault for not double checking that this is safe? No. It's the crew's responsibility. 

How about the actor who hands another actor a poisoned glass of wine - but instead of being benign, this really does contain poison. Is it the actor's fault and he/she should face manslaughter? 

Why should a gun which was provided with the clear instruction that it was not loaded be any different to any other piece of potentially fatal film equipment, but in your opinion come with different responsibilities attached?

A kid is not culpable by virtue of being a kid.


However - his parents and/ or the gun owner SHOULD be held criminally liable for the kid' s action.

As far as the rest - we are talking about the responsibility of guns. 

The rest does not apply.

(November 2, 2021 at 3:00 pm)onlinebiker Wrote:

(November 2, 2021 at 2:52 pm)slartibartfast Wrote: Sure. So by your reasoning if a child gains access to an unsecured gun in the home and accidentally shoots someone, then they are guilty of manslaughter. Period. No exception. Got it.

Does your rule also apply to where actors are told that there is no petrol in the tank when they are supposed to throw their lit cigarette in to cause a delayed CGI explosion, but instead someone filled it up with gas and they blow up the entire set and everyone in it? Of course not. 

Or how about the scene where they throw someone off a cliff and the safety net below is not secured properly? Is it the pushing actor's fault for not double checking that this is safe? No. It's the crew's responsibility. 

How about the actor who hands another actor a poisoned glass of wine - but instead of being benign, this really does contain poison. Is it the actor's fault and he/she should face manslaughter? 

Why should a gun which was provided with the clear instruction that it was not loaded be any different to any other piece of potentially fatal film equipment, but in your opinion come with different responsibilities attached?

A kid is not culpable by virtue of being a kid.


However - his parents and/ or the gun owner SHOULD be held criminally liable for the kid' s action.

As far as the rest - we are talking about the responsibility of guns. 

The rest does not apply.

The point I was making is that your Point #1 was stated as a self-evident commandment and ended with the assertion of "Period." which in my book implies without exception. I was showing you an exception.

Also, you seem to be cherry picking your own interpretation of "responsibility" and singling out guns. In the real world, I agree with you, but we are talking about a film set, which is not the real world and contains many props, guns being just one type. Your "golden rule #1" is therefore simply an opinion. 

You will find that when the verdict is read on Alec, that you are wrong. He will not face any charges based on pulling the trigger himself. He may face charges based on the fact that he is a producer of the movie and did not put in place sufficient safeguards and processes to ensure a safe workplace for his actors.

Interesting point, while looking up the FD Pietta Colt .45's reliability (I did not find much information on this particular make, though it looks like it can be close to 100% if properly maintained, which we do not know it was, although the fact that there were two accidental discharges in the day prior to the shooting, it may very well not have been), I found this:





Turns out that with that particular model, you can't tell live rounds from blanks without removing them from the gun. That this gun needed more care to properly inspect than was normal in the industry points out that it may be more the armory's responsibility to check.

---

(November 2, 2021 at 3:12 pm)slartibartfast Wrote: You will find that when the verdict is read on Alec, that you are wrong. He will not face any charges based on pulling the trigger himself. He may face charges based on the fact that he is a producer of the movie and did not put in place sufficient safeguards and processes to ensure a safe workplace for his actors.

And, as mentioned before, when Michael Massee fatally shot Brandon Lee on the set of The Crow, he was not charged. Whether or not you think this is just, that's the way it is, and it's a big part of why I don't think Baldwin will be charged.

(November 2, 2021 at 2:58 pm)slartibartfast Wrote:

(November 1, 2021 at 2:55 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: It's not as an actor that this poses any legal risk to him.  

As a producer, it may be argued that it's incumbent upon him to hire people who are...and, people who can be responsible for props - especially dangerous ones...like guns....  

If I had to guess, he was a producer in that he signed a check, and that would be his inevitable (civil) defense.  He'll be able to show that he didn't personally select the team, and didn't personally select them for cutting costs even if he did sign off - and probably argue that he believed they weren't doing a great job for his money.  That he, at least as far as the law is concerned, is also a victim in all of this.

If he needs to, ofc, if it escalates that far - full on dirtbag lawyer mode.

This. Exactly this.

The producer is effectively the CEO of a movie. Ultimate responsibility rests there. It's not him pulling the trigger that is the problem.

The trouble, for you and for society, is that no one actually believes this - you certainly don't.  You probably don't believe, for example, that the ceos of some company are legally responsible for the use of their products even when they aggressively market that use specifically. Say.... in the case of shooting a man with a product marketed explicitly to the fantasy of shooting a man - which isn't what alec baldwin did but certainly does accurately describe most (purportedly) accidental shootings.

For what it's worth, neither do I at the end of the day.  Somebody want to hold the ceo of winchester accountable for gun death, I say pound sand - so do you, so does society, and so too will this be incorporated in his defense...if he even needs one, which I'm guessing he won't (at least not criminally. though it'll be part of his civil case too, when minimizing the risk of financial damages).

(November 2, 2021 at 3:23 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

(November 2, 2021 at 2:58 pm)slartibartfast Wrote: This. Exactly this.

The producer is effectively the CEO of a movie. Ultimate responsibility rests there. It's not him pulling the trigger that is the problem.

The trouble, for you and for society, is that no one actually believes this - you certainly don't.  You probably don't believe, for example, that the ceos of some company are legally responsible for the use of their products even when they aggressively market that use specifically.  Say.... in the case of shooting a man with a product marketed explicitly to the fantasy of shooting a man - which isn't what alec baldwin did but certainly does accurately describe most (purportedly) accidental shootings.

For what it's worth, neither do I at the end of the day.  Somebody want to hold the ceo of winchester accountable for gun death, I say pound sand - so do you, so does society, and so too will this be incorporated in his defense...if he even needs one, which I'm guessing he won't (at least not criminally. though it'll be part of his civil case too, when minimizing the risk of financial damages).

Ahhh... the responsibility of leadership is complicated. I used to own a business that employed about 30 staff. As owner of the business it certainly was my responsibility to demonstrably employ skilled people for roles that involved risk, ensure that safety protocols and procedures were in place, and people had adequate training.

I would say Baldwin will certainly not found culpable if he hired a skilled armorer, had industry standard safety processes and training in place, but then the armorer lied on their CV, didn't follow the safety protocols and procedures provided without his knowledge or employees didn't turn up for training day.

So it comes down to specifics. But I disagree with your statement "no one actually believes this" as it is much more nuanced that that.

A CEO being responsible for the use (or misuse) of their product is another whole level of abstraction, which comes with its own set of specifics and subtleties. For instance if I am CEO of a company that sells a potentially dangerous product which is benign when used for its intended purpose, but don't put warning labels on the packaging, then I may be liable for exactly what you suggested. You will find warnings such as "Product only to be used for its intended purpose" for example on household products which is that kind of ass-covering. AKA "What do you mean I can't inject bleach to cure COVID?" Hehe

Yeah, maybe it was ham fisted, but I think it's true in the sense that no one actually believes this enough to indict alec baldwin for murder.

Regardless of whether we should or shouldn't.

FWIW, if I poisoned some bitch on accident with bad fish (or made a guy go full on murderer with bad weed), I would absolutely be charged with it. I just don't think he will, and not even on accident, precisely because of what we all (or most of us) believe about legal complicity. He didn't want or intend to shoot that motherfucker dead the same way that some factory manager has no fantasies about shooting any other motherfuckers. It's just parts per labor hour. That's it, that's all. That's everything. I run my non profit business the same way, and if I didn't I wouldn't get the grants that allow me to even have such a business.

Oh - it' s for a MOVIE.......


That makes it alllll better....


Jesus - you have some fucked up ideas in your head.

Quote:Oh - it' s for a MOVIE.......


That makes it alllll better....

What the gun was being used for matters 

Quote:Jesus - you have some fucked up ideas in your head.

Says the man who gets angry because bills have names and thinks opinions can't be wrong

..and if you were in the courtroom, you'd persuasively and successfully argue to the contrary and hold this gun user ultimately accountable..would you?

Honestly man, go fuck yourself, you're all over the place in disappointingly predictable ways. You think what you do about alec baldwin in contradiction to your every offered comment on the matter at all previous points in time because he made fun of your hero..but you're such an ideal free-pussy you wont even claim the heroes you hold. Worthless.

You're worthless..OLB. Swish that around in your gums. No use to me, no use the the forces of conservatism, no use to anyone, because you don't hold any genuine beliefs.

I wonder if Alec would have checked the gun (or insisted that it be checked) if he knew that it, during practice, was going to be aimed at him?