Posted on 10/22/2021 7:57:05 PM PDT by DoodleBob
... what can we make of Alec Baldwin’s shooting death of Ms. Hutchins? Could it have been an innocent accident? Or is it merely civil negligence? Or is it criminal recklessness, and involuntary manslaughter? The answer will, of course, depend on what the facts are ultimately turnout to be, but we can certainly explore the range of outcomes that would be on the table.
Innocent accidents can happen with firearms, but they are rare—and the reason they are rare is that firearms are recognized legally as inherently dangerous instruments, and therefore the standard of care for handling them is very high.
...
...there’s another factor in this tragic event that will likely play a role in civil liability, and perhaps criminal liability, if any, for Alec Baldwin.
...Alec Baldwin was both the actor handling the firearm when it discharged—and an actor might argue that he is at the “bottom” of the safety responsibility ladder for something like a movie set—but he was also a co-producer for the film—which would place him at the “top” of the safety responsibility ladder.
In theory, an actor at the “bottom” and the producer at the “top” might each point their finger at each other in the case of a tragic event like this. ...
In this case, however, Alec Baldwin occupies both seats. So he can point his finger in this manner if he wishes, but ultimately he’ll be pointing it at himself.
And this implication could well apply not merely in the civil law context, within the scope of negligence, but also within the criminal law context, within the scope of recklessness and involuntary manslaughter.
(Excerpt) Read more at legalinsurrection.com ...
If it wasn’t a revolver it just goes deeper.
I wonder why he is pulling a trigger on a set hand?
Hit 2 people and killed one.
Lock him up.
SNL should have him on this week.
I’m sure they are so proud to have such an idiot represent them.
Indeed. Very true.
A bullet has no brains. A shooter does.
This is what I was thinking. If it was a SAA then that means the actor (Baldwin) would have had to deliberately cock and fire the pistol. Which means about the only way this was an accident is if the scene called for firing the gun at the camera. Were they shooting or rehearsing a scene? If not then Baldwin has a lot of splaining to do. If this was truly an accident, and it likely was, I still feel sorry for him.
In the case if a bad sear, the gun might go off if only cocked. That might be why there were complaints about the gun earlier.
Finally someone memed the song I’ve been singing in my head.
If that's the case, that the gun had "gone off by itself" earlier, then the gun was used for live fire recently, blanks or full loads. A live round may have been left in, either by itself or mixed with blanks or dummy rounds. It might be hard to tell a dummy round from a live one. Would cause an inadvertent case of Russian roulette.
bookmark
Yes, he absolutely does have legal liability here.
Regardless of any fault on the Armorer’s part, he:
A) failed to check that the gun was not loaded
B) pointed a gun at someone (this was obviously not part of the movie since it was the director of photography and the director AND none of the usual safety protocols were followed....ie minimal crew, minimal safe distance, crew behind bullet proof glass, etc)
and
C) pulled the trigger.
Those are all basic safety rules when handling a gun. Everybody is taught these rules. He failed to follow them and was thus negligent. His negligence resulted in a death. That is manslaughter and he’s guilty of it.
A story I read said that the scene called for him to fire towards the camera. I hope in the future all Hollywood crews and actors will stay out of the line of fire in any scene. Their unions should make that a work rule. They will have to find a way to get the shot they want without anyone actually being fired upon.
He can also apparently, pick up a SA wheelgun, deliberately cock the hammer with his thumb, deliberately point the gun at a crew member, and deliberately pull the trigger. Ultimately he should have been pointing it at himself.
Firearms safety officer told us,no such thing as an accident.Lightning striking a gun causing it to discharge is an accident,but leaving the gun where it can be hit by lightning is negligence....Case closed,Baldwin owns this.
Reeves is a pro gunner level shooter. Check u tube for his videos on the combat range. And like Tom Selleck, Clint Eastwood, would make sure Gun saftey 101 was drilled into everyone on the set and that there would be a real experienced armourer who ONLY job was to over see the safe handling and loading of any weapon.
That seems possible but why were they cocking the gun?
Still too many unanswered question to really guess what happened. How did a live round get in the gun? Was their only one live round? .
I take it that “prop gun” means that it is a gun that is to be used as a prop, not a gun that is designed to be a prop and therefore is safe to use for that purpose.
I always thought a “prop gun” was a safe gun. Still, by training, I would have utilized safe gun practices, when handling it, by training.
I really don’t like guns; just CCW for self defense purposes.
From what little I now know...or *think* I know...about this case I doubt that I’d vote guilty on Baldwin. My vote on others involved in the film...like the guy in charge of props...might be different
If this were any other person or occupation 5here would have been charges filed.
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.