Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: JD_UTDallas
Again you have to prove willful negligence.

I dont see 'willful' in the law. I see negligence. End of story. Your car story isnt an anolagy. There was nothing wrong with Baldwins firearm. Same with the other analogy.

I ask again, why are you on the crusade to exonerate Arec?

52 posted on 12/03/2021 10:02:16 AM PST by Magnum44 (...against all enemies, foreign and domestic...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]


To: Magnum44

This is the legal definition of negligence.

failure to use reasonable care, resulting in damage or injury to another.

The process to ensure you don’t commit negligence is due diligence.

The due diligence here is the weapon was handed to him by the certified armor, declared a cold gun. That is due diligence he has not the skills nor the responsibility to second guess that. He does have the reasonable expectation that the prop he was handed is safe to use. This expectation is due to the armor and the director both concurring and certified that prop was a cold gun. Since he lacks the credentials skills and responsibility to second guess the professional armor he completed his due diligence. He took reasonable care by following the protocol on set. Further more he was under active instructions from the director and photographer on where,how,when,and at what angles to point that prop. Then also under instruction he manipulated the hammer all that is reasonable care. Zero of that is negligent. It’s tragic that the armor didn’t do their job. Obviously he is broken up about it for all we know they could have been friend’s. It’s 100% just by looking at the reaction a surprise it went off. He certainly didn’t know that hammer could set it off and likely and the armor didn’t either.

There is no way a grand jury can discount the due diligence on set it’s simply not his job,he lacks the skills to do so. Props are tools he was handed a faulty tool. That dumb armor needs her firearms licence revoked. It’s wrong to string someone up who had no responsibility nor skills to know the difference.

I would bet I could hand my 1865 45 colt to most people here with wad cutters in it and the other one with flat front blanks and half wouldn’t be able to tell me without opening the gun which breaks the chain of custody which has real bullets into just looking up the cylinder they would look nearly identical. Then I’d say ok cock that hammer and then let it go. Fully half the rednecks here would discharge a round of bet real money on it.


54 posted on 12/03/2021 10:18:43 AM PST by JD_UTDallas ("Veni Vidi Vici" )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


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