Armstronglivs wrote:
phony al wrote:
You're pretending intent means deliberate. He could still be reckless or negligent, which are degrees of intent. He can be told something is safe, and still be reckless or negligent for failing to check himself. Since we are talking about an actual gun here, that some idiot (probably Baldwin) decided was actually going to be aimed at someone, I'd say it is quite likely that the law would assign some degree of care to the person aiming and firing the gun to ensure that it isn't going to kill anyone. Passing the blame to someone else is a weak defense when a person is the "but for" cause of a death.
Its bedrock criminal law (and tort law) that two people can be criminally negligent and/or reckless of the same crime and can even be criminally convicted for the same crime even under different theories of the case. You have no idea what you are talking about.
But have no fear, your liberal hero will be safe. No one will have the guts to arrest, charge or prosecute a rich, white, liberal male in the US.
Baldwin's liability depends solely in his own actions.
Yes, it certainly does, despite your apparent assertions above to the contrary.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Where is it required in law that an actor is required to check whether a stage firearm is loaded before using it on a set, or on a stage?
You wouldn't know this because you aren't very logical, you aren't a lawyer, and you don't live in the US, but in the US, it is not a requirement to codify every single possible fact pattern that may arise before charging someone criminally. Nor does the US expect there will be case law addressing every single possible fact pattern that may exist. So while there may very well be a criminal case that finds liability where a person kills someone after being told by an underling that the gun they are about to shoot is not loaded, there doesn't have to be such a case for criminal charges to be filed. It's just not the way the legal system in the US works. All you need is a homicide and a statute setting forth the elements of manslaughter and/or negligent or reckless homicide. And now you have learned something.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Thousands of movies and stage plays have required their use. Do the actors routinely check these stage props before pointing them during the course of a scene? Clint Eastwood anyone? Bruce Willis, Sylvester Stallone?
For all you know, every single one of those actors you listed does routinely check their gun before aiming it and pulling the trigger. The fact that none of them have killed anyone might even be viewed as evidence in support of that.
Raising a speculative question that you don't even know the answer to yourself is the weakest form of argument and persuasion. It shows either desperation, immaturity, or low IQ or a combination of two or more.
Armstronglivs wrote:
There is no intent in Baldwin's actions - he would have had to have known the weapon was loaded - he didn't - and no negligence because he was assured the prop was safe.
Again, you are pretending that intent requires deliberate action. It does not under US law. Reckless behavior and negligent behavior that result in death are often criminally charged, even when it is clear that the killer never intended for the victim to die.
Armstronglivs wrote:
There is no cogent argument against Baldwin supplied here - only the ignorant rantings of those moved solely by their antipathy towards him.
The cogent argument is that is that Baldwin was criminally negligent/reckless when he aimed a gun at a person and pulled the trigger without determining himself whether the gun was loaded or without deciding that he could aim the gun away from the person, irrespective of what someone else told him earlier about the gun. If he had done either of those things - checked the gun or aimed somewhere else - it is safe to say that someone would not have died. That is an argument for liability, and it is cogent. If you don't understand it, that's more of your demonstrated failure to understand US law.
Those here who have decided with 100% certitude that the above can never be the case are moved solely by emotional bias and tribal loyalties they feel toward Baldwin as a prominent liberal celebrity.