Alec Baldwin to be charged with involuntary manslaughter in ‘Rust’ movie set shooting

Ye gods. The operation/assessment of a pistol - particularly a 19th century revolver - is about as complicated as a Pez dispenser. Anyone who A) can't figure it out, and B) can't be bothered to learn should consult their doctor immediately. There's a good chance they have the same strain of syphilis that turned Al Capone into a drooling imbecile.

 

Rubbish, he DID take the proper precautions, taking a gun from the expert professional. So far as he is concerned, the armourer handed him a gun with blanks. It is the job of the armourer to take the precautions with the gun. Baldwin's job is to act.

 

Everything I've said is true and you haven't even attempted to counter any of it.

Baldwin believes the same thing as you and someone is dead because of it.

And good god for the last time NO, he did NOT take the proper precautions....if he did, nobody would've died. He IGNORED basic gun safety rules that anybody who handles a gun should know. When someone hands you a gun you CHECK to see if it's loaded REGARDLESS of who hands it to you.

Basic gun safety rules exist for a reason and if Baldwin followed them, someone would be alive who isn't. But sure, you go on thinking you are right.

And please explain to us all how being on a movie set allows one to ignore basic gun safety. That's what I'd like to know because anybody defending Baldwin and saying he's not to blame is saying that it was ok for him to ignore basic gun safety rules. I'd like an explanation as to why one thinks that's ok.

 

I'll repeat. He is entitled to rely on the expert professional. Another example, if I, as a nurse, am handed a vaccine and I am told by the expert it is safe to inject.....I inject a patient. Am I guilty of some offence because it turned out to be lethal?

 

the problem with that argument is that if a die hard NRA member did the exact same thing, with the exact same circumstances, and someone was killed, the same group of people who are saying "you are responsible for the firearm" would be up in arms if that person was charged and defending him.

The pro NRA owners do not like Alec Baldwin or his politics, hence why they will never defend him, but will do so if one of their own does the exact same thing. And that is the problem with their arguments here.

 

You will never get an answer from these posters who are "figuratively" speaking, wanting Alec Baldwin to hang.

 

What answer are you looking for?

 

I can't speak for what other people and idiots think. I only speak for myself.

I'd advise you to stop basing your opinions on what the lowest common denominator of idiot thinks, and what the actual facts of each situation are, otherwise you will end up being tied in knots.

 

The answer to the questions BushLawyer was asking.

 

We do have some 500 accidental deaths by firearms every year, most involving gun owners in one form or another. Very few are charged and that is because they were clearly negligent based on the facts and circumstances. But this issue and Alec Baldwin are just another example of hypocrisy in politics. And that was the point.

 

If you think like this you get tied up in all sorts of knots. Hypocrisy cuts both ways. Plenty of people defending Baldwin absolutely would be calling for blood if a normal shooter did something similar.

The solution to this is to disregard all of that crap and concrentrate on the facts and having a consistent view yourself.

 

I'm reminded of something that has stuck with me since Baldwin was charged. Seems pretty convincing but we'll see if the jury agrees with the DA and convicts him of felony involuntary manslaughter.

Alec Baldwin Shouldn’t Go To Prison for 'Rust' Shooting Accident (reason.com)

 

Btw, I maintain the armorer is more at fault, but you can't say Baldwin took all the precautions because if he had, nobody would have died from the action he chose to take. That makes him culpable.

I think Baldwin will be convicted and let off with probation and a max. fine as a result but we'll see if the jury agrees with me.

 

I can’t be bothered to scroll thru 6 pages to isolate what you’re talking about, just as you can’t be bothered to pose the question(s) you’re so eager to have addressed. So I’ll assume it boils down to the standard-issue drivel emanating from all the Baldwin apologists: the gun Baldwin used is so arcane & esoteric that only a PhD level intellect or trained professional could possibly know if it's safe, and it's unreasonable to expect an actor to examine it himself, instead of taking someone else's word for it.

BULLSHIT.

A 19th century revolver is about as complicated as a pair of scissors. The most rudimentary gun safety check would have taken about 10 seconds. Clearly, Mrs. Hutchins’ life was not worth 10 seconds of Alec Baldwin’s time, and them’s the breaks.

Actors don’t get to jettison gun safety & common sense any more than you and I do. I wonder if Baldwin has trained professionals on staff to wipe his ass.

 

Yes, we will see. I assume they have competent criminal lawyers in the USA, yes?

I'll give you another example......you are driving your car with a passenger...a Copper tells you that it is safe for you to drive on through a flooded road. He assures you it is safe, solid, no danger and gestures you on. You drive in....the ground swallows your car up with sudden subsidence.......and your passenger drowns. You escape. Are you guilty of any criminal behaviour? Should you have gotten out of the car...walked through the road to check for yourself or are you entitled to rely on the Copper's assurance?

 

I am loving this hole you are digging and soon enough I'll let you in on my little secret, knockout blow.

 

To answer your first question, though I've never needed one, I will assume there are plenty of good criminal attorneys in my country.

As for your hypothetical question...
One probably would not be charged with involuntary manslaughter or reckless driving if they can prove that the cop told them it was safe to drive through a flooded road. However, good luck with proving the cop told them to do something reckless or negligent after the fact.

Here's the charge and what it means btw. "Involuntary manslaughter is the unintended killing of a person while committing a crime or acting in a reckless or negligent manner".

Involuntary Manslaughter - Definition, Examples, Cases, Processes (legaldictionary.net)

 

And it will be the 'acting in a reckless or negligent manner' part that is relevant here.

Given the expert professional armourer on set, whose very presence there is to ensure that everything about the guns on set is safe, I say that Baldwin is fully entitled to rely on that fact to show he was neither reckless nor negligent.

This happened on a movie set, where people are SPECIFICALLY EMPLOYED to do their expert job.

This was not some circus out in the redneck woods where a couple of duelling banjo locals drunks are playing with guns.

 

I actually already answered that one quite easily.

The bottom line is that gun safety shouldn't be ignored just because they're shooting a movie.

That's the argument people are making who think baldwin is innocent. I'm yet to get an explanation as to why gun safety can all of the sudden be ignored because you're shooting a movie.

 

No, he absolutely is NOT entitled to do that, basic gun safety says you have to check. You're completely fabricating that it's ok to rely on the person who handed you the gun, expert or not.

And you're little whataboutism is not the same, just like all your others.

Is it protocol to recheck the vaccine? Is that the safety protocol? If it is and you don't recheck it, then yes, you're liable. The point is whether or not it's a safety guideline that is supposed to be followed. When someone hands you a gun, you check, that's a basic safety guideline and baldwin didn't follow it and someone died.

Any other hypotheticals you want to throw at me?

And you're yet to answer my question: Why do you think it's ok to throw basic gun safety rules out the window when shooting a movie?

https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/tips

You only have to read number 1 here....and it's from california

 

The 'protoco'l in this context is......wait for it.........the armourer. That is top cover.

 

Oh...that's all we need, yissssssss.! We can do away with any Trial, and just hang people because they are charged by a 'prosecutor.'

 

No it isn't. Gun safety rules in no way suggest that....not at all. You are making this up and passing it off as fact.

And I see you can't answer my question. Hell, you can hardly respond to anything I've said. You just double down.

You are wrong here. You've been asked multiple times to explain why you think it's ok to ignore basic gun safety when you're on a movie set and you have simply refused to answer....while at the same time basically demanding that I answer one of your whataboutism scenarios.

Your position here is that it's ok to throw gun safety out the window but can't explain why. Also, throwing gun safety out the window is why someone died so why on earth are you sticking with this argument?

We all know you're simply defending baldwin because he's a diehard lefty.

 

I say Baldwin has been part of a process which would be reasonably required and sufficient to conclude that he was neither reckless not negligent. (Let's remember it is the job of the Prosecutor to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that Baldwin was reckless or negligent...Baldwin does not have to prove jackshit.

How can the Prosecutor get to that standard when Baldwin clearly did NOT ignore gun safety (the armourer WAS 'gun safety.')

Nope, it is not my position 'to throw gun safety out the window,' at all. Gun safety was dealt with by having the expert professional armourer there whose VERY JOB it was to ensure that guns were safe on the set.

I say there are two elephants in the room and I'll tell you about the first one. HOW DID live ammo get in the chambers of that gun? How did live ammo even get on that set. Riddle me that mudman, and you'll find the penultimate villain!

 

What I'm saying is that it would have been loaded with prop bullets, it's not a matter of it being loaded or not, it's just that one of these dummy rounds was live.