Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Pontiac; usconservative

“Baldwin was negligent in that he did not check the weapon”

Except that was explicitly not his job. On a film set firearm safety is the legal responsibility of the armorer.

Consider this example:
* You buy a bottle of aspirin from CVS
* You give one to a friend
* It turns out CVS had sold you cyanide!
* Your friend dies

CVS has 100% of the legal responsibility in this case.


36 posted on 04/20/2023 4:34:53 PM PDT by Renfrew (Muscovia delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]


To: Renfrew
Except that was explicitly not his job. On a film set firearm safety is the legal responsibility of the armorer.

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.

41 posted on 04/20/2023 5:02:30 PM PDT by Pontiac (The welfare state must fail because it is contrary to human nature and diminishes the human spirit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson