Alec Baldwin fatally shot someone on movie set with gun mishap

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope Baldwin also gets found guilty and sentenced, but I know he won't. He always gets off clean.

I have no love for Baldwin but there is no way I would hold an actor responsible for firing a gun that was supposed to be empty of live ammo, or throwing a dummy grenade that turned out to be real, or stabbing someone with a blade that was supposed to retract. This was a movie set and Hall or the armorer handed him a loaded weapon and told him it was safe to fire. The jury will not convict him.

I agree. And I think he pulled the trigger because he didn’t think it was loaded. It was not supposed to be. (I know he says he didn’t pull the trigger).

Every gun is a loaded gun until you verify otherwise. Any responsible gun owners on the jury, and he's toast if that's the defense

Hundreds of pages on this and you all still don’t get it. It’s not the actor’s responsibility to do this - the actor may or may not know ANYTHING about guns. When an actor on a set is handed a gun it’s not different than being handed any other prop. It was the armorer’s responsibility to make sure that the gun was safe and the armorer was just found guilty of not doing that. Baldwin may have civil liability as one of the many producers of the movie that hired this recklessly incompetent armorer, but he should not be criminally responsible.

The reason people don't "get it" is that it's not true. Movie sets are not some kind of magical exclusionary zone where people can ignore basic safety. People who work in the film industry deserve the same safety protocols as people in any other industry.

Do other industries that use guns have a requirement that there always be a professional whose sole job is to make sure the guns are safe, and you only touch the gun if they hand it to you after they check it?

Because, to me that's a reasonable requirement for Hollywood, but it isn't the requirement for my family member who carries a gun at work. So, saying "well they should follow the same rules" doesn't make sense to me, since Hollywood's rules are equally or more stringent, and designed for their specific situation.

I think the million dollar question here is whether there's evidence that Baldwin knew that the armorer hadn't been following the rules before he accepted the gun. If he saw the people playing around with guns, or heard the gunshots, or otherwise knew that the rules weren't being followed, then he had a responsibility to stop production, raise the concerns, and refuse to continue till they were addressed. The New Mexico definition of Involuntary Manslaughter includes situations where someone doesn't exercise "due care", and I would think that continuing production when the armorer is not doing their job is not exercising "due care".

On the other hand if he didn't know that she wasn't doing her job, then I think that normally someone who handles a gun handed to him by a professional who tells him that it has been checked and is safe to use is exercising due care, just as much as my family member is exercising due care when he takes his gun out of a safe where he put it, and whose access he has protected, and checks it himself.

Generally, yes, when guns are used it is standard to have an armorer. This isn't a unique Hollywood thing.

There were a few cost cutting measure on this film and one of them is that the armorer was also the prop assistant. Usually that's two roles handed by two different people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope Baldwin also gets found guilty and sentenced, but I know he won't. He always gets off clean.

I have no love for Baldwin but there is no way I would hold an actor responsible for firing a gun that was supposed to be empty of live ammo, or throwing a dummy grenade that turned out to be real, or stabbing someone with a blade that was supposed to retract. This was a movie set and Hall or the armorer handed him a loaded weapon and told him it was safe to fire. The jury will not convict him.

I agree. And I think he pulled the trigger because he didn’t think it was loaded. It was not supposed to be. (I know he says he didn’t pull the trigger).

Every gun is a loaded gun until you verify otherwise. Any responsible gun owners on the jury, and he's toast if that's the defense

Hundreds of pages on this and you all still don’t get it. It’s not the actor’s responsibility to do this - the actor may or may not know ANYTHING about guns. When an actor on a set is handed a gun it’s not different than being handed any other prop. It was the armorer’s responsibility to make sure that the gun was safe and the armorer was just found guilty of not doing that. Baldwin may have civil liability as one of the many producers of the movie that hired this recklessly incompetent armorer, but he should not be criminally responsible.

The reason people don't "get it" is that it's not true. Movie sets are not some kind of magical exclusionary zone where people can ignore basic safety. People who work in the film industry deserve the same safety protocols as people in any other industry.

Do other industries that use guns have a requirement that there always be a professional whose sole job is to make sure the guns are safe, and you only touch the gun if they hand it to you after they check it?

Because, to me that's a reasonable requirement for Hollywood, but it isn't the requirement for my family member who carries a gun at work. So, saying "well they should follow the same rules" doesn't make sense to me, since Hollywood's rules are equally or more stringent, and designed for their specific situation.

I think the million dollar question here is whether there's evidence that Baldwin knew that the armorer hadn't been following the rules before he accepted the gun. If he saw the people playing around with guns, or heard the gunshots, or otherwise knew that the rules weren't being followed, then he had a responsibility to stop production, raise the concerns, and refuse to continue till they were addressed. The New Mexico definition of Involuntary Manslaughter includes situations where someone doesn't exercise "due care", and I would think that continuing production when the armorer is not doing their job is not exercising "due care".

On the other hand if he didn't know that she wasn't doing her job, then I think that normally someone who handles a gun handed to him by a professional who tells him that it has been checked and is safe to use is exercising due care, just as much as my family member is exercising due care when he takes his gun out of a safe where he put it, and whose access he has protected, and checks it himself.

Every range has a range master and the expectation is still on the person handling the weapon to verify that it is loaded or unloaded. The most basic gun safety rule is that every gun is loaded until you personally verify that it isn't. In gun safety classes, there are no exceptions to that rule. It will be up to Baldwin to convince a jury that hollywood is special

You're talking about something else, here. Can you see that your example is a contrast to the situation at Rust?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope Baldwin also gets found guilty and sentenced, but I know he won't. He always gets off clean.

I have no love for Baldwin but there is no way I would hold an actor responsible for firing a gun that was supposed to be empty of live ammo, or throwing a dummy grenade that turned out to be real, or stabbing someone with a blade that was supposed to retract. This was a movie set and Hall or the armorer handed him a loaded weapon and told him it was safe to fire. The jury will not convict him.

I agree. And I think he pulled the trigger because he didn’t think it was loaded. It was not supposed to be. (I know he says he didn’t pull the trigger).

Every gun is a loaded gun until you verify otherwise. Any responsible gun owners on the jury, and he's toast if that's the defense

Hundreds of pages on this and you all still don’t get it. It’s not the actor’s responsibility to do this - the actor may or may not know ANYTHING about guns. When an actor on a set is handed a gun it’s not different than being handed any other prop. It was the armorer’s responsibility to make sure that the gun was safe and the armorer was just found guilty of not doing that. Baldwin may have civil liability as one of the many producers of the movie that hired this recklessly incompetent armorer, but he should not be criminally responsible.

The reason people don't "get it" is that it's not true. Movie sets are not some kind of magical exclusionary zone where people can ignore basic safety. People who work in the film industry deserve the same safety protocols as people in any other industry.

Do other industries that use guns have a requirement that there always be a professional whose sole job is to make sure the guns are safe, and you only touch the gun if they hand it to you after they check it?

Because, to me that's a reasonable requirement for Hollywood, but it isn't the requirement for my family member who carries a gun at work. So, saying "well they should follow the same rules" doesn't make sense to me, since Hollywood's rules are equally or more stringent, and designed for their specific situation.

I think the million dollar question here is whether there's evidence that Baldwin knew that the armorer hadn't been following the rules before he accepted the gun. If he saw the people playing around with guns, or heard the gunshots, or otherwise knew that the rules weren't being followed, then he had a responsibility to stop production, raise the concerns, and refuse to continue till they were addressed. The New Mexico definition of Involuntary Manslaughter includes situations where someone doesn't exercise "due care", and I would think that continuing production when the armorer is not doing their job is not exercising "due care".

On the other hand if he didn't know that she wasn't doing her job, then I think that normally someone who handles a gun handed to him by a professional who tells him that it has been checked and is safe to use is exercising due care, just as much as my family member is exercising due care when he takes his gun out of a safe where he put it, and whose access he has protected, and checks it himself.

Generally, yes, when guns are used it is standard to have an armorer. This isn't a unique Hollywood thing.

There were a few cost cutting measure on this film and one of them is that the armorer was also the prop assistant. Usually that's two roles handed by two different people.

I'm unsympathetic to this. If you can't afford an armorer, then don't use guns. There's literally no reason they couldn't have used a dummy fake gun. No one forced them to use real guns. But if you have real guns, then you're obligated to use gun safety protocols. And Alec was insistent on using that particular gun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope Baldwin also gets found guilty and sentenced, but I know he won't. He always gets off clean.

I have no love for Baldwin but there is no way I would hold an actor responsible for firing a gun that was supposed to be empty of live ammo, or throwing a dummy grenade that turned out to be real, or stabbing someone with a blade that was supposed to retract. This was a movie set and Hall or the armorer handed him a loaded weapon and told him it was safe to fire. The jury will not convict him.

I agree. And I think he pulled the trigger because he didn’t think it was loaded. It was not supposed to be. (I know he says he didn’t pull the trigger).

Every gun is a loaded gun until you verify otherwise. Any responsible gun owners on the jury, and he's toast if that's the defense

Hundreds of pages on this and you all still don’t get it. It’s not the actor’s responsibility to do this - the actor may or may not know ANYTHING about guns. When an actor on a set is handed a gun it’s not different than being handed any other prop. It was the armorer’s responsibility to make sure that the gun was safe and the armorer was just found guilty of not doing that. Baldwin may have civil liability as one of the many producers of the movie that hired this recklessly incompetent armorer, but he should not be criminally responsible.

The reason people don't "get it" is that it's not true. Movie sets are not some kind of magical exclusionary zone where people can ignore basic safety. People who work in the film industry deserve the same safety protocols as people in any other industry.

Do other industries that use guns have a requirement that there always be a professional whose sole job is to make sure the guns are safe, and you only touch the gun if they hand it to you after they check it?

Because, to me that's a reasonable requirement for Hollywood, but it isn't the requirement for my family member who carries a gun at work. So, saying "well they should follow the same rules" doesn't make sense to me, since Hollywood's rules are equally or more stringent, and designed for their specific situation.

I think the million dollar question here is whether there's evidence that Baldwin knew that the armorer hadn't been following the rules before he accepted the gun. If he saw the people playing around with guns, or heard the gunshots, or otherwise knew that the rules weren't being followed, then he had a responsibility to stop production, raise the concerns, and refuse to continue till they were addressed. The New Mexico definition of Involuntary Manslaughter includes situations where someone doesn't exercise "due care", and I would think that continuing production when the armorer is not doing their job is not exercising "due care".

On the other hand if he didn't know that she wasn't doing her job, then I think that normally someone who handles a gun handed to him by a professional who tells him that it has been checked and is safe to use is exercising due care, just as much as my family member is exercising due care when he takes his gun out of a safe where he put it, and whose access he has protected, and checks it himself.

Every range has a range master and the expectation is still on the person handling the weapon to verify that it is loaded or unloaded. The most basic gun safety rule is that every gun is loaded until you personally verify that it isn't. In gun safety classes, there are no exceptions to that rule. It will be up to Baldwin to convince a jury that hollywood is special

You're talking about something else, here. Can you see that your example is a contrast to the situation at Rust?

Yeah, what I see as different is that if this happened on a gun range, people would be calling them maga gun nuts.

Other than that, no, I don't see a difference. If you want to work with guns, you need to do it safely. If you choose not to, you are criminally responsible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope Baldwin also gets found guilty and sentenced, but I know he won't. He always gets off clean.

I have no love for Baldwin but there is no way I would hold an actor responsible for firing a gun that was supposed to be empty of live ammo, or throwing a dummy grenade that turned out to be real, or stabbing someone with a blade that was supposed to retract. This was a movie set and Hall or the armorer handed him a loaded weapon and told him it was safe to fire. The jury will not convict him.

I agree. And I think he pulled the trigger because he didn’t think it was loaded. It was not supposed to be. (I know he says he didn’t pull the trigger).

Every gun is a loaded gun until you verify otherwise. Any responsible gun owners on the jury, and he's toast if that's the defense

Hundreds of pages on this and you all still don’t get it. It’s not the actor’s responsibility to do this - the actor may or may not know ANYTHING about guns. When an actor on a set is handed a gun it’s not different than being handed any other prop. It was the armorer’s responsibility to make sure that the gun was safe and the armorer was just found guilty of not doing that. Baldwin may have civil liability as one of the many producers of the movie that hired this recklessly incompetent armorer, but he should not be criminally responsible.

The reason people don't "get it" is that it's not true. Movie sets are not some kind of magical exclusionary zone where people can ignore basic safety. People who work in the film industry deserve the same safety protocols as people in any other industry.

Do other industries that use guns have a requirement that there always be a professional whose sole job is to make sure the guns are safe, and you only touch the gun if they hand it to you after they check it?

Because, to me that's a reasonable requirement for Hollywood, but it isn't the requirement for my family member who carries a gun at work. So, saying "well they should follow the same rules" doesn't make sense to me, since Hollywood's rules are equally or more stringent, and designed for their specific situation.

I think the million dollar question here is whether there's evidence that Baldwin knew that the armorer hadn't been following the rules before he accepted the gun. If he saw the people playing around with guns, or heard the gunshots, or otherwise knew that the rules weren't being followed, then he had a responsibility to stop production, raise the concerns, and refuse to continue till they were addressed. The New Mexico definition of Involuntary Manslaughter includes situations where someone doesn't exercise "due care", and I would think that continuing production when the armorer is not doing their job is not exercising "due care".

On the other hand if he didn't know that she wasn't doing her job, then I think that normally someone who handles a gun handed to him by a professional who tells him that it has been checked and is safe to use is exercising due care, just as much as my family member is exercising due care when he takes his gun out of a safe where he put it, and whose access he has protected, and checks it himself.

Every range has a range master and the expectation is still on the person handling the weapon to verify that it is loaded or unloaded. The most basic gun safety rule is that every gun is loaded until you personally verify that it isn't. In gun safety classes, there are no exceptions to that rule. It will be up to Baldwin to convince a jury that hollywood is special

You're talking about something else, here. Can you see that your example is a contrast to the situation at Rust?

Can you come up with any example outside of Hollywood where it's acceptable to treat a gun as unloaded without verifying? Look at the bailiff in the Gutierrez trial- even though he was 100% certain the gun being handled by the witness was unloaded, he still treated it as loaded when it was pointed at the judge. What constitutes reasonable will be up to the jury. Maybe if the trial was in LA, he'd get people who view his actions as reasonable. Good luck in New Mexico

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope Baldwin also gets found guilty and sentenced, but I know he won't. He always gets off clean.

I have no love for Baldwin but there is no way I would hold an actor responsible for firing a gun that was supposed to be empty of live ammo, or throwing a dummy grenade that turned out to be real, or stabbing someone with a blade that was supposed to retract. This was a movie set and Hall or the armorer handed him a loaded weapon and told him it was safe to fire. The jury will not convict him.

I agree. And I think he pulled the trigger because he didn’t think it was loaded. It was not supposed to be. (I know he says he didn’t pull the trigger).

Every gun is a loaded gun until you verify otherwise. Any responsible gun owners on the jury, and he's toast if that's the defense

Hundreds of pages on this and you all still don’t get it. It’s not the actor’s responsibility to do this - the actor may or may not know ANYTHING about guns. When an actor on a set is handed a gun it’s not different than being handed any other prop. It was the armorer’s responsibility to make sure that the gun was safe and the armorer was just found guilty of not doing that. Baldwin may have civil liability as one of the many producers of the movie that hired this recklessly incompetent armorer, but he should not be criminally responsible.

The reason people don't "get it" is that it's not true. Movie sets are not some kind of magical exclusionary zone where people can ignore basic safety. People who work in the film industry deserve the same safety protocols as people in any other industry.

Do other industries that use guns have a requirement that there always be a professional whose sole job is to make sure the guns are safe, and you only touch the gun if they hand it to you after they check it?

Because, to me that's a reasonable requirement for Hollywood, but it isn't the requirement for my family member who carries a gun at work. So, saying "well they should follow the same rules" doesn't make sense to me, since Hollywood's rules are equally or more stringent, and designed for their specific situation.

I think the million dollar question here is whether there's evidence that Baldwin knew that the armorer hadn't been following the rules before he accepted the gun. If he saw the people playing around with guns, or heard the gunshots, or otherwise knew that the rules weren't being followed, then he had a responsibility to stop production, raise the concerns, and refuse to continue till they were addressed. The New Mexico definition of Involuntary Manslaughter includes situations where someone doesn't exercise "due care", and I would think that continuing production when the armorer is not doing their job is not exercising "due care".

On the other hand if he didn't know that she wasn't doing her job, then I think that normally someone who handles a gun handed to him by a professional who tells him that it has been checked and is safe to use is exercising due care, just as much as my family member is exercising due care when he takes his gun out of a safe where he put it, and whose access he has protected, and checks it himself.

Every range has a range master and the expectation is still on the person handling the weapon to verify that it is loaded or unloaded. The most basic gun safety rule is that every gun is loaded until you personally verify that it isn't. In gun safety classes, there are no exceptions to that rule. It will be up to Baldwin to convince a jury that hollywood is special

You're talking about something else, here. Can you see that your example is a contrast to the situation at Rust?

Can you come up with any example outside of Hollywood where it's acceptable to treat a gun as unloaded without verifying? Look at the bailiff in the Gutierrez trial- even though he was 100% certain the gun being handled by the witness was unloaded, he still treated it as loaded when it was pointed at the judge. What constitutes reasonable will be up to the jury. Maybe if the trial was in LA, he'd get people who view his actions as reasonable. Good luck in New Mexico

You're making a point that the "Hollywood is exempt from safety standards" poster. People who have worked with and around guns do not buy Alec's defense that he's special and shouldn't be held responsible for his actions. In fact, they are likely to be offended by it, because no one would defend their actions if they made any missteps at all. This will not fly in NM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope Baldwin also gets found guilty and sentenced, but I know he won't. He always gets off clean.

I have no love for Baldwin but there is no way I would hold an actor responsible for firing a gun that was supposed to be empty of live ammo, or throwing a dummy grenade that turned out to be real, or stabbing someone with a blade that was supposed to retract. This was a movie set and Hall or the armorer handed him a loaded weapon and told him it was safe to fire. The jury will not convict him.

I agree. And I think he pulled the trigger because he didn’t think it was loaded. It was not supposed to be. (I know he says he didn’t pull the trigger).

Every gun is a loaded gun until you verify otherwise. Any responsible gun owners on the jury, and he's toast if that's the defense

Hundreds of pages on this and you all still don’t get it. It’s not the actor’s responsibility to do this - the actor may or may not know ANYTHING about guns. When an actor on a set is handed a gun it’s not different than being handed any other prop. It was the armorer’s responsibility to make sure that the gun was safe and the armorer was just found guilty of not doing that. Baldwin may have civil liability as one of the many producers of the movie that hired this recklessly incompetent armorer, but he should not be criminally responsible.

The reason people don't "get it" is that it's not true. Movie sets are not some kind of magical exclusionary zone where people can ignore basic safety. People who work in the film industry deserve the same safety protocols as people in any other industry.

Do other industries that use guns have a requirement that there always be a professional whose sole job is to make sure the guns are safe, and you only touch the gun if they hand it to you after they check it?

Because, to me that's a reasonable requirement for Hollywood, but it isn't the requirement for my family member who carries a gun at work. So, saying "well they should follow the same rules" doesn't make sense to me, since Hollywood's rules are equally or more stringent, and designed for their specific situation.

I think the million dollar question here is whether there's evidence that Baldwin knew that the armorer hadn't been following the rules before he accepted the gun. If he saw the people playing around with guns, or heard the gunshots, or otherwise knew that the rules weren't being followed, then he had a responsibility to stop production, raise the concerns, and refuse to continue till they were addressed. The New Mexico definition of Involuntary Manslaughter includes situations where someone doesn't exercise "due care", and I would think that continuing production when the armorer is not doing their job is not exercising "due care".

On the other hand if he didn't know that she wasn't doing her job, then I think that normally someone who handles a gun handed to him by a professional who tells him that it has been checked and is safe to use is exercising due care, just as much as my family member is exercising due care when he takes his gun out of a safe where he put it, and whose access he has protected, and checks it himself.

Every range has a range master and the expectation is still on the person handling the weapon to verify that it is loaded or unloaded. The most basic gun safety rule is that every gun is loaded until you personally verify that it isn't. In gun safety classes, there are no exceptions to that rule. It will be up to Baldwin to convince a jury that hollywood is special

You're talking about something else, here. Can you see that your example is a contrast to the situation at Rust?

Can you come up with any example outside of Hollywood where it's acceptable to treat a gun as unloaded without verifying? Look at the bailiff in the Gutierrez trial- even though he was 100% certain the gun being handled by the witness was unloaded, he still treated it as loaded when it was pointed at the judge. What constitutes reasonable will be up to the jury. Maybe if the trial was in LA, he'd get people who view his actions as reasonable. Good luck in New Mexico

You're making a point that the "Hollywood is exempt from safety standards" poster. People who have worked with and around guns do not buy Alec's defense that he's special and shouldn't be held responsible for his actions. In fact, they are likely to be offended by it, because no one would defend their actions if they made any missteps at all. This will not fly in NM.

I'm making the point that Hollywood thinks it is exempt. I think a jury is going to tell them otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope Baldwin also gets found guilty and sentenced, but I know he won't. He always gets off clean.

I have no love for Baldwin but there is no way I would hold an actor responsible for firing a gun that was supposed to be empty of live ammo, or throwing a dummy grenade that turned out to be real, or stabbing someone with a blade that was supposed to retract. This was a movie set and Hall or the armorer handed him a loaded weapon and told him it was safe to fire. The jury will not convict him.

I agree. And I think he pulled the trigger because he didn’t think it was loaded. It was not supposed to be. (I know he says he didn’t pull the trigger).

Every gun is a loaded gun until you verify otherwise. Any responsible gun owners on the jury, and he's toast if that's the defense

Hundreds of pages on this and you all still don’t get it. It’s not the actor’s responsibility to do this - the actor may or may not know ANYTHING about guns. When an actor on a set is handed a gun it’s not different than being handed any other prop. It was the armorer’s responsibility to make sure that the gun was safe and the armorer was just found guilty of not doing that. Baldwin may have civil liability as one of the many producers of the movie that hired this recklessly incompetent armorer, but he should not be criminally responsible.

The reason people don't "get it" is that it's not true. Movie sets are not some kind of magical exclusionary zone where people can ignore basic safety. People who work in the film industry deserve the same safety protocols as people in any other industry.

Do other industries that use guns have a requirement that there always be a professional whose sole job is to make sure the guns are safe, and you only touch the gun if they hand it to you after they check it?

Because, to me that's a reasonable requirement for Hollywood, but it isn't the requirement for my family member who carries a gun at work. So, saying "well they should follow the same rules" doesn't make sense to me, since Hollywood's rules are equally or more stringent, and designed for their specific situation.

I think the million dollar question here is whether there's evidence that Baldwin knew that the armorer hadn't been following the rules before he accepted the gun. If he saw the people playing around with guns, or heard the gunshots, or otherwise knew that the rules weren't being followed, then he had a responsibility to stop production, raise the concerns, and refuse to continue till they were addressed. The New Mexico definition of Involuntary Manslaughter includes situations where someone doesn't exercise "due care", and I would think that continuing production when the armorer is not doing their job is not exercising "due care".

On the other hand if he didn't know that she wasn't doing her job, then I think that normally someone who handles a gun handed to him by a professional who tells him that it has been checked and is safe to use is exercising due care, just as much as my family member is exercising due care when he takes his gun out of a safe where he put it, and whose access he has protected, and checks it himself.

Every range has a range master and the expectation is still on the person handling the weapon to verify that it is loaded or unloaded. The most basic gun safety rule is that every gun is loaded until you personally verify that it isn't. In gun safety classes, there are no exceptions to that rule. It will be up to Baldwin to convince a jury that hollywood is special

You're talking about something else, here. Can you see that your example is a contrast to the situation at Rust?

Can you come up with any example outside of Hollywood where it's acceptable to treat a gun as unloaded without verifying? Look at the bailiff in the Gutierrez trial- even though he was 100% certain the gun being handled by the witness was unloaded, he still treated it as loaded when it was pointed at the judge. What constitutes reasonable will be up to the jury. Maybe if the trial was in LA, he'd get people who view his actions as reasonable. Good luck in New Mexico

You're making a point that the "Hollywood is exempt from safety standards" poster. People who have worked with and around guns do not buy Alec's defense that he's special and shouldn't be held responsible for his actions. In fact, they are likely to be offended by it, because no one would defend their actions if they made any missteps at all. This will not fly in NM.

I'm making the point that Hollywood thinks it is exempt. I think a jury is going to tell them otherwise.

Yes I am agreeing with you. Left out a few words on the first sentence. I meant to say, the Hollywood poster doesn't understand how this sounds to anyone who has worked with guns, or has even been around guns in a safe and responsible manner. People wouldn't be defending, for example, a cop if they killed a colleague in a similar manner during training. Alec is quite literally saying that as an actor, he cannot be held responsible for his actions.

[Anonymous]

Absent new evidence I do not believe Alec will be found guilty. Likely will be a hung jury.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Absent new evidence I do not believe Alec will be found guilty. Likely will be a hung jury.

I think the new evidence is the experts all agreeing that the gun was functional and the trigger was pulled. Balwdin is on tape insisting it misfired.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Absent new evidence I do not believe Alec will be found guilty. Likely will be a hung jury.

I think the new evidence is the experts all agreeing that the gun was functional and the trigger was pulled. Balwdin is on tape insisting it misfired.

I don't get it. The gun was always functional? (Although temperamental, it had misfired previously.)

[Anonymous]

Hannah is an easy blame. Alec pulled the trigger and killed Halyna.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hannah is an easy blame. Alec pulled the trigger and killed Halyna.

Hannah killed Halyna. Legally and morally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hannah is an easy blame. Alec pulled the trigger and killed Halyna.

Hannah killed Halyna. Legally and morally.

I disagree. She didn’t point the gun at Halyna and pull this trigger.

If someone accidentally hits and kills someone with their car, is the actual car responsible?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hannah is an easy blame. Alec pulled the trigger and killed Halyna.

Hannah killed Halyna. Legally and morally.

I disagree. She didn’t point the gun at Halyna and pull this trigger.

If someone accidentally hits and kills someone with their car, is the actual car responsible?

Is the mechanic who uninstalled the brakes responsible? Yes.