Alec Baldwin Shooting

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

"IT WAS HIS JOB TO CHECK TO SEE IF THE GUN WAS LOADED!"

Meanwhile... kids killing kids with loaded guns left lying around by those 'responsible' adults, who never do prison time and those people shouting for Baldwin to go to jail are suspiciously silent about that.

Any parent who lets their kids cause mayhem with a firearm should be in a cell adjoining Mr Baldwin's.

It is not the gun enthusists that cause this problem - but bleeding heart types who refuse to convict " those poor people".

---

Yeah, how would it be his responsibility to check the gun since not all people know how to examine a gun?

And also from what I understand, when it comes to actors and the props they don't bother with it. They let other people dress them, put on the make-up, give them and check the props, etc while their only concern is acting.

If you don' t know how to handle a firearm - PUT THE MOTHERFUCKING THING DOWN!

You REALLY don' t think it' s the guy with the gun in his hand who is responsible for it?


Let' s test that theory.


....

Here is a gun. Take it in your hand. It is not loaded with live rounds.

Put it to your head.

Pull the trigger.


.....

When you do that- I will agree that you are not responsible.

You' re an irresponsible idiot.

(Bold mine)

And there it is - you don’t want Baldwin punished because he pulled the trigger, you want him punished because he’s a ‘lefty cunt’.

You should be more careful about saying the quiet part out loud.

Boru

[onlinebiker]

Any parent who lets their kids cause mayhem with a firearm should be in a cell adjoining Mr Baldwin's.

It is not the gun enthusists that cause this problem - but bleeding heart types who refuse to convict " those poor people".

---

If you don' t know how to handle a firearm - PUT THE MOTHERFUCKING THING DOWN!

You REALLY don' t think it' s the guy with the gun in his hand who is responsible for it?


Let' s test that theory.


....

Here is a gun. Take it in your hand. It is not loaded with live rounds.

Put it to your head.

Pull the trigger.


.....

When you do that- I will agree that you are not responsible.

You' re an irresponsible idiot.

(Bold mine)

And there it is - you don’t want Baldwin punished because he pulled the trigger, you want him punished because he’s a ‘lefty cunt’.

You should be more careful about saying the quiet part out loud.

Boru

Want to read shit that isn't there?

It' s more likely you want to forgive his unforgivable act because you love his politics.

Because you KNOW he fucked up.
....

I have not made this about who loves who. 

The way I see it?

If I said he was NOT responsible - you' d be looking for Mr Baldwin' s head on a pike.......

Incidentally - you claim that Mr Baldwin has no legal obligation to ensure that the gun he is using is safe for that use. You have yet to show any such legal ( or moral) precidence.

Why is that? Too inconvenient?

[The Architect Of Fate]

Biker whines about being misinterpreted when he hasn't been. Then proceeds to actually misinterpret someone else's position.



And it's the job of the props peoples to make sure the gun isn't armed

[The Grand Nudger]

Here’s an article explaining the consensus of what I’ve heard about why Alec Baldwin is unlikely to face charges:

https://www.insider.com/alec-baldwin-lik...ts-2021-10

And, for the record, here's New Mexico Statute § 30-2-5  (Bold mine)

The armourer and AD claimed that the gun was unloaded, and, in theory, would have been checked and double checked. There's no reason for Baldwin to have suspected them to be lying to him until the shot was fired. He was going to do a routine shot (in both senses of the word) that had been done in film since The Great Train Robbery in 1903. And then the gun discharged. That seems to fit well within the realm of Statute 30-2-5a.

It looks like Baldwin's only likely to get criminal charges if it turns out someone warned him that it was loaded and he did what he did despite that. Or maybe civil charges if the DP's family or the director charges them, but that doesn't seem to be happening.

There's an angle - the entire production was pretty hinky.  Everyone involved had a history of this shit and everyone was collected there pretty explicitly to cut corners and costs.  There'd been walkouts.  At some point.....it's impossible to believe it wasn't an intentional management decision.  Not the shooting - but trading a safe work environment for minor potential profit increases.  Wouldn't be criminal ....probably should be, broadly, even if it turns out not to be the case in this specific case, but wont be.  Could definitely eat into that cash they were trying to make in settlements.

Which, honestly, is the least they could do for those peoples survivors regardless of their culpability. I won't hold my breath waiting for people to do right with money when they have legal recourse not to, ofc.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

(Bold mine)

And there it is - you don’t want Baldwin punished because he pulled the trigger, you want him punished because he’s a ‘lefty cunt’.

You should be more careful about saying the quiet part out loud.

Boru

Want to read shit that isn't there?

It' s more likely you want to forgive his unforgivable act because you love his politics.

Because you KNOW he fucked up.
....

I have not made this about who loves who. 

The way I see it?

If I said he was NOT responsible - you' d be looking for Mr Baldwin' s head on a pike.......

Incidentally - you claim that Mr Baldwin has no legal obligation to ensure that the gun he is using is safe for that use. You have yet to show any such legal ( or moral) precidence.

Why is that? Too inconvenient?

‘Accidental homicide’ (in some jurisdictions, ‘homicide by misadventure) is the killing of a person in what would otherwise have been a lawful act. Since there is no law requiring Baldwin to check the loads (and since it isn’t illegal to fire that gun on a film set) in what he had every reason to believe was a ‘cold’ gun, he’s not legally culpable.

Baldwin has wide experience with prop guns on film sets, and nothing like this had ever happened to him before. He had a reasonable expectation, based on prior experience, that he could trust the on-set armourer/gunsmith to hand him a safed weapon. He is therefore not morally culpable (although I imagine he feels that way).

Now, your job: find me a law that says anytime someone pulls a trigger, they are legally responsible for the consequences. Take your time.

Not for nothing, but the word is ‘precedent’, not ‘precedence’. 

Boru

[Soberman921]

There's a big difference between a gun owner shooting their own gun without checking to see whether its loaded and an actor firing a prop gun on a set in which the production company has hired someone for the specific purpose of ensuring a loaded gun is not fired on set who tells the actor the gun is not loaded and it is safe to fire. The law imposes no additional duty on the actor to check to make sure the expert is correct. If that were the case no one could every be justified on relying on the expertise of others regarding safety issues. Did your mechanic tell you your brakes were in working order? Sorry, you should have checked them yourself.

[arewethereyet]

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/27/alec-bal...-says.html

The assistant director who handed Alec Baldwin the prop firearm that killed cinematographer Halyna Hutchins told authorities he did not check all the rounds inside the revolver before declaring it a “cold gun” on the New Mexico set of the film “Rust.”
David Halls picked up the gun and brought it over to the production’s armorer, Hannah Gutierrez, to be checked prior to a rehearsal for an upcoming scene, according to a search warrant filed in Santa Fe County Magistrate Court.
Halls said that he only recalled seeing three rounds in the chamber ahead of passing the gun over to Baldwin.

[Rev. Rye]

Worth noting: the problems with the production run deeper than the shooting. Not only were there three other separate incidents where guns accidentally discharged, but some of the employees were denied payment and the hotel rooms they were promised. They were also apparently lax on COVID safety, but what exactly that entails isn’t clear. The fact that the production was cutting corners in the hopes of potentially increased profit margins is all but confirmed at this point.

[HappySkeptic]

Baldwin will likely be sued, and will have to pay a ton of money. He is absolutely civilly liable for the clusterfuck that was this production, as well as taking some percent of the blame for actually firing the shot.

For criminal liability, there is no way Baldwin should be charged, despite bikers claim that the person pulling the trigger is ALWAYS the one criminally responsible. That is absolutely not so. If the standards of action are that Baldwin does not have to check the gun himself, then that is the standard. If the standard of action is that the armorer and the AD DID have the obligation to check the guns, and they didn't, then they are at criminal risk of negligent homicide.

Plus - who the F allowed yahoos to use the prop gun to shoot real bullets at the site, and then presumably leave them in the guns? Whoever allowed this should be fired and civilly charged as well, and if the yahoos knew it wasn't allowed, then they should be partly civilly liable. If someone deliberately left bullets in the gun, then they are murderers (but that is impossible to prove).

As I said, Baldwin is going to have to pay a shit ton of money for this.

[arewethereyet]

Doing a little digging it seems that the 'weapons specialist' on the set of The Crow had already left before the deadly scene was shot.

Another case of the people who should have done a job...not doing it and it ended in a death.

No criminal charges were ever filed.