Posted on 04/20/2023 3:31:46 PM PDT by Navy Patriot
Incorrect.
The armorer is responsible for preparing the weapons, maintaining, servicing, inventory, obtaining, TRAINING and storage.
Just like everywhere else, on the set anyone who handles a weapon is responsible for the safe handling of that weapon.
When Baldwin took physicial possession of that firearm he became responsible for every shot fired from that weapon.
He did not verify the weapon safe before he pulled the trigger.
That is negligence.
Someone died due to that negligence.
Negligent Homeside. <> I do not excuse the armorer but the ultimate responsibility has to be with the man in possession of the firearm at the time.
As a gun owner I can not excuse anyone of this responsibility.
If you pick up a firearm you accept the responsibility.
“When Baldwin took physicial possession of that firearm he became responsible for every shot fired from that weapon.”
That is simply not true under the law. Possession does not mean responsibility. A pilot is responsible for the safety of his passengers, but if it was the mistake of a mechanic that caused a fatal accident it’s the mechanic not the pilot who is responsible.
Baldwin going to jail would be a joy, but the law itself matters.
Additionally and Importantly, Baldwin is the Producer of the film and as such bears the responsibility for the actions of all the personnel on the set.
Baldwin specifically ordered the violation of mandatory safety procedures on the set and fired those persons who refused to follow his orders, including ordering personnel to disregard the Armorer's instructions.
Baldwin is fully responsible for the shooting and death on the set.
“Additionally and Importantly, Baldwin is the Producer of the film and as such bears the responsibility for the actions of all the personnel on the set.”
That might have hung him, except the DA didn’t charge the six other producers on the film. Including the director who issued the safety protocols.
Baldwin is entirely responsible and the DA is the equivalent of Bragg.
If he wanted Baldwin in prison, he'd be there.
“Again there are some people above the law.”
Or as our betters tell us, “There are rule for me and rules for thee.”
This is a false equivalency.
Was the Baldwin’s firearm defective? No.
Baldwin was responsible to check the weapon safe, end of story.
“It’s not if gun safety wasn’t his job.”
If you handle a gun, it is your job.
I have a film degree and have choreographed fights and dealt with issues like gun procedures on a film set. I had a fellow student’s production, of which I was part, shut down over not following gun safety procedures.
I don’t see any reason to ever point a real gun at another person for a film. The sound and look of a gun being fired can be easily added in post. If a real gun is desired for whatever reason, the camera can be set up to give the illusion of the gun being pointed at a person without that person ever being in the line of fire.
This is not giving someone an aspirin. This is handling something that is designed to kill. It requires careful planning and safety precautions.
Balwin was responsible for firing the gun. He was responsible as a producer to hire qualified people. He was responsible to be sure safety concerns were being addressed. There had already been gun safety issues on this set and concerns were ignored. Safety meetings were skipped. Baldwin was all about the Benjamins. A woman died because of his hubris, greed, and reckless disregard for the safety of others.
Can there now be a civil suit like OJ had?
“If you handle a gun, it is your job.”
It’s not. On a film set it is someone else’s job. The law is very clear on issues like this.
He’s disgusting
I believe there is something rotten.
No deadly cartridges should have been available for use on the set as far as I know.
How did the deadly cartridge get there?
The armorer should probably have kept any deadly cartridges under lock and key.
“It’s not. On a film set it is someone else’s job. The law is very clear on issues like this.”
LOL. Please cite the specific law that is so clear.
It ain’t over. He wasn’t exonerated so he could be re-charged. Or a higher jurisdiction could take up the case. And he still has the civil suit to worry about.
“Incorrect. There is no such thing as an unintentional crime. Every crime requires a mens rea, which is Latin for ‘guilty mind.’”
No. You’re incorrect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability_(criminal)
“In criminal law, strict liability is liability for which mens rea (Law Latin for ‘guilty mind’) does not have to be proven in relation to one or more elements comprising the actus reus (’guilty act’).”
Further, mens rea has been clarified in many cases of modern jurisprudence with the Model Penal Code. Culpability does not necessitate intent (or “purpose”).
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/recklessness-and-model-penal-code
“The four mental states or types of culpability upon which criminal responsibility is based include purpose, knowledge, negligence, and recklessness.”
Under the Model Penal Code, which is a set of guidelines used by many states in the US, a person can be held legally accountable for crimes committed unintentionally if they acted recklessly or negligently. The Model Penal Code defines recklessness as a conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a particular result will occur. Negligence is defined as a failure to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a particular result will occur.
As an example, drunk driving is a crime that is often prosecuted as a form of negligence or recklessness, depending on the circumstances of the case. In general, if a person decides to drink alcohol and then chooses to get behind the wheel of a car, they are acting recklessly and could be held legally accountable for any harm they cause as a result of their actions. In the case of drunk driving, a person who chooses to drink alcohol and then drive is consciously disregarding the risk that they may cause an accident and harm themselves or others.
There may very well be NO INTENT to harm anyone, but if you drink and drive you risk incarceration and can be charged with multiple crimes, depending on the specific situation.
Now, if you will return to my statement which you contradicted: “Involuntary manslaughter is a crime and does not require intent”, you will find that I thoroughly demonstrated that you are wrong. You stated: “There is no such thing as an unintentional crime.” and I have proven this to be false. If it is not plain to you now, I can’t help you. When you continue to argue from a point of ignorance, you dig yourself deeper into a hole.
I suppose Alex’ life is more valuable than the life he took? Charges may be dropped but the fact remains, he killed a young lady!
Absolutely there can be a civil suit and I think it is already in the works.
Can’t wait to see what is found in discovery. I hope they hammer the crap out of Baldwin.
“I am no fan of Alec Baldwin, but the man did NOT commit a crime. He had no criminal intent”
Have you never heard of criminally negligent homicide?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.