Posted on 10/26/2021 4:18:37 AM PDT by Kaslin
Alan Dershowitz, an emeritus law professor at Harvard, is one of the greatest legal minds of our time, writing multiple books and publishing hundreds of articles about the law. He has been defending clients in courtrooms since the 1970s and argued numerous cases before the Supreme Court. He was also on the team that defended Donald Trump against impeachment.
Alan Dershowitz believes that Alec Baldwin’s shooting of Halyna Hutchins could be considered a homicide. Gun safety protocols are so stringent that an accident of this kind is almost impossible. Armando Gutierrez recalls that on the set of Purge of Kingdoms, “weapons went through maybe 10 people before any actor was handed anything.” Prop masters must be licensed, secure permits, and go through strict procedures on set that ensure everyone’s safety.
Some of the protocols include keeping weapons in a safe. Then, when the armorer removes a weapon from the safe, he or she checks it for ammunition. After that, the armorer hands the weapon off to the prop master, who also checks for ammunition. The weapon is checked again on the set. For rehearsals, the actors use only non-working replicas, and the prop master or armorer does not load the gun with blanks until the scene is ready to be filmed. When the armorer finally loads the gun with blanks, he or she uses only the exact number of blanks required for the scene.
When the actor is handed the gun, there is a general warning that the gun is hot so that everyone on the set is aware of the weapon’s status. If any adjustment is needed to the scene, the prop master or armorer takes the weapon back. As soon as the scene is done, the prop master or armorer secures the weapon.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
But if you are a #ComDem, Like Baldwin, you are above the law. /sarcasm-sort of
Geez! The protocols are extreme! I’m glad Dershowitz thinks Baldwin should be held responsible. Innocent or not…I’d like to see him carted off to jail.
It appears that most of those safety precautions, were ignored.
Aren't there already legal penalties in place?
There is no "actor's exception," is there? Wouldn't the same penalties that apply in one's home when a child is accidentally killed also apply on a movie set when a crew member is killed?
The fact that the movie industry has voluntarily developed its own procedures for handling guns safely doesn't prevent the law from applying when those procedures are violated.
When a child is killed in the home, nobody wonders whether there is enough evidence to charge the parent or not. So why does the question arise if there is enough evidence to charge the actor who held the gun and was witnessed pulling the trigger?
A parent would clearly not intend to shoot their child, and the actor would clearly not intend to shoot the crew member. That doesn't let the actor off the hook for the crew member's death on the set, just as it doesn't let the parent off the hook for their child's death in the home.
-PJ
One of the first thingsd I was taught about firearms is that you never trust anothere persons word about whether or not they are loaded. When you take possession of a firearm, the first thing you do is check to see if it is loaded or not.
“There is no “actor’s exception,” is there?”
Yes there is. It’s called the rich and famous exception. Extra credit if one is a liberal.
Precedent was set in 1987 when John Landis, among others, was found not guilty of manslaughter for the deaths of Vic Morrow and two child actors on the set of the movie the twilight zone.
It appears those safety regulations were ignored.
Calling this an accident implies the gun was fired accidentally.
It wasn’t. He raised the gun into firing position, cocked it, pointed the barrel at her chest and pulled the trigger.
How is that an accident ?
OFF WITH HIS HEAD (Alec Baldwin)!
This answers the question of why the Baldwin family packed up and moved back to The Hamptons the morning after the homicide.
Homicide just means death by the acts of another human. It doesn’t mean murdered. Which is the intentional killing of another.
Exactly.
Exactly.
On the one hand, Landis did not personally shoot Vic Morrow and the kids, nor did he personally fly the helicopter into them.
The case against Landis was that the explosives were too powerful, the helicopter was too close to the ground, the parents were not aware that explosives would be used. The explosives kicked up debris into the helicopter which broke the tail rotor and caused the helicopter to lose control and crash.
Landis was found guilty of violating child labor laws by not having the required permits for the children, but not guilty of causing the crash.
Was it negligence on his part, or was it a sequence of events that combined into a terrible tragedy? Landis was heard to call for the helicopter to go lower during the chaos of the shoot, does that make him guilty?
I don't know. Sometimes it really is just a terrible accident and not reckless endangerment or manslaughter.
Also, this was 1982... I don't think we had the concept of "elite" yet (except maybe the Kennedys), at least not as it's defined today. The "elite" as a class didn't really emerge until Bill Clinton merged with Hollywood celebrities as the pendulum swung away from the Reagan/Bush decade and the "new money" started to spread around. The "new money" elite were started by Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, and the players who grew out of their sphere. The blockbuster movies created the rise of the activist actor, such as Robert Di Niro, Jack Nicholson, Brangelina, George Clooney, etc. These all came later, after the John Landis Twilight Zone incident.
-PJ
Motive.
That is a laugh! This clown is an expert of law on nothing more that OJ, dogs chasing cars, Tiger King, Laundrie, and two bit actor Baldwin?
What about the lawlessness in DC Alan? What about the FBI going after parents? What about the 600+ political prisoners being held illegally in a DC jail? Alan is nothing more than another Jessie Jackson, an ambulance chaser and publicity hound.
As the producer, he had too much responsibility to his investors to be so personally reckless. He may have been in over his head as a producer, he may have been stressed by the labor issues, but he must have known that killing someone on the set is a career-breaker.
No, I don't think even he would do something like that.
That's a leap too far for me.
-PJ
With that many picky protocols it is inevitable they will be ignored.
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.