Alec Baldwin just shot and KILLED a woman on a movie set

lurking lawyer again wrote:

And even what you just wrote, “crimes require intent.” Completely not true. That is a GENERAL rule, but there are many exceptions, and there are crimes that do not even require negligence (e.g., statutory rape in some states is a strict liability crime).

We are discussing a killing, not statutory rape. Homicide is not a strict liability offence. Strict liability is irrelevant to the discussion. Murder requires intent, while manslaughter can ensue from recklessness as to whether death ensues, or an unlawful act (like a robbery or an assault) or gross negligence, where there is a necessary standard of care that is not observed. The known facts in this incident do not readily admit of any of those charges. But feel free to disagree - since you apparently have a superior grasp of both the law - and the facts. You might also want to correct the published legal experts while you are about it.

Dr. Do wrote:

"Baldwin pointed a loaded gun at someone and pulled the trigger killing them."

Are you calling Baldwin a liar? You are the only person in the world who seems to be disagreeing with the facts that the parties are stating and the authorities have confirmed. You have lost all credibility.

Baldwin did not and has not said he "pointed a gun" at the victim and "pulled the trigger". No "authorities" (who?) have confirmed this. A death by shooting can be an accident. An intentional killing or death caused by recklessness or from an unlawful act will have to be proven.

I get what you are trying to say. It is true in general life that you would check the veracity of what you were told in order to assess risk. In a domestic situation, let's say you borrow a ladder from an aquaintance you don't know very well. It looks well used but he assures you its ok. Before I go up on it to my roof, I will check it out.

Or a random dude says, " here take my climbing rope and descenders etc", you are not just going to abseil off that cliff, would you?

Etc etc etc, there are many examples.

But in a work setting we generally do not doubt what an expert in the tool tells us , do we. The gun expert is there for a reason. He says here's the prop, the actor uses it.

The pilot of the commercial airliner doesn't doubt the engineers nor do they demand to do their own checks

Work environments have health and safety rules and law. The issue on the movie set is:

a) yes the actual incident, but ...

b) where are the previous transgressions, have they been reported/followed up/corrective action etc etc?....this is what someone would be liable for and if so, then by inference someone would be liable for the incident

Armstronglivs wrote:

Dr. Do wrote:

"Baldwin pointed a loaded gun at someone and pulled the trigger killing them."

Are you calling Baldwin a liar? You are the only person in the world who seems to be disagreeing with the facts that the parties are stating and the authorities have confirmed. You have lost all credibility.

Baldwin did not and has not said he "pointed a gun" at the victim and "pulled the trigger". No "authorities" (who?) have confirmed this. A death by shooting can be an accident. An intentional killing or death caused by recklessness or from an unlawful act will have to be proven.

Absent an opinion on Baldwin's potential legal jeopardy, how would the gun have not been pointed at the now dead woman and fire without pulling the trigger? There's been nothing stating in any reports that the gun misfired in any fashion.

fada tyme wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Baldwin did not and has not said he "pointed a gun" at the victim and "pulled the trigger". No "authorities" (who?) have confirmed this. A death by shooting can be an accident. An intentional killing or death caused by recklessness or from an unlawful act will have to be proven.

Absent an opinion on Baldwin's potential legal jeopardy, how would the gun have not been pointed at the now dead woman and fire without pulling the trigger? There's been nothing stating in any reports that the gun misfired in any fashion.

If/when most facts are known, your point will be interesting. Baldwin did not fire a fulling automatic machine gun. Pull the trigger on fully automatic machine gun, exact number of rounds fired will be initially unknown to shooter of fully automatic machine gun. Even a semi-automatic pistol does not require equal pounds of pressure to fire as a revolver pistol. If a round has been chambered with a semi-automatic pistol, if pistol is dropped, semi-automatic pistol may fire with no one pulling trigger. Firing a revolver takes purpose or intent. A revolver only fires when a person intentionally pulls trigger. Baldwin's people have stated Alec Baldwin was practicing cross-drawing his pistol. Why did Baldwin pull trigger when he was practicing drawing his pistol? If it were 100% an accident, wouldn't Baldwin have shot the ground or only shot someone in the foot? If Baldwin accidently grabbed pistol trigger when drawing, pistol should have fired almost immediately before Baldwin was able to aim? Why was Baldwin's finger on the trigger of said pistol?

fada tyme wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Baldwin did not and has not said he "pointed a gun" at the victim and "pulled the trigger". No "authorities" (who?) have confirmed this. A death by shooting can be an accident. An intentional killing or death caused by recklessness or from an unlawful act will have to be proven.

Absent an opinion on Baldwin's potential legal jeopardy, how would the gun have not been pointed at the now dead woman and fire without pulling the trigger? There's been nothing stating in any reports that the gun misfired in any fashion.

To "point" a gun suggests it is deliberately aimed. It may not be. You could fire a gun with your eyes closed - and thus not "point" it at anyone - and it could still hit someone who is in the line of fire by sheer chance. There is no suggestion that Baldwin aimed at the victim. Quite the opposite. It has been reported he was practicing a "drawing" motion with the gun when it discharged. Nor is it a requirement for the gun to discharge that the trigger is pulled intentionally. It may discharge by accident, in the act of manipulating the gun, for example. (This was also a gun he had been assured was not armed.) All of this is possible while Baldwin was practising "drawing" the gun, as has been reported by a witness on the set.

Baldwin was practising with a gun he had been assured was safe. In his mind it would have been - should have been - no more dangerous than a child's toy. That is what an unarmed gun would be - harmless. Those in charge of the gun, who supplied it to him, failed to ensure this. With what he believed was an unarmed gun he could have exerted pressure on the trigger without intending to do so or reflecting on it. In simply holding the gun his finger would naturally fall on the trigger. It may have taken very little pressure to discharge - and could have been caused by his "drawing" motion. Essentially, he could not have been intending to fire what he had been told was an unarmed weapon.

40 pages!

ffs people.

Something tragic happened

Nobody except those directly involved really knows what happened

All this is pointless speculation that seems to be about anonymous people scoring internet points.

Don't you have better things to do?

This.

Let me describe a difference between old revolvers and modern semiautos. The revolver has a curved grip and the distance from the palm position on the grip to the trigger is longer and the angle of grip to trigger is also different (except for Glocks). The result is that the finger falls naturally on the trigger when drawing a revolver. In modern semiautos, it's easy with practice to draw and keep the trigger finger on the frame instead of the trigger because the angle of the grip and the distance to the trigger are different.

There's a sympathetic response when you grip a handgun with three fingers for the trigger finger to also flex even if you try to keep it straight. It can be overcome with lots of practice, but it can happen. That's why I don't own Glocks. The angle of the grip and the fatness of the grip force my trigger finger to land on the trigger instead of the trigger guard or frame. (Look up "Glock leg"... lots of accidents.)

Revolvers have a relatively long trigger pull, but older guns have been fired so often that the trigger is sometimes very light. My point is that it's not difficult to accidentally pull the trigger, especially when practicing a quick draw and especially if the person has not practiced extensively with the weapon.

I don't understand why Hollywood hasn't enacted additional safety protocols for revolvers. It would be easy to do. The casing on dummy rounds could be painted burgundy, like dummy rounds called snap caps. A hole could be drilled through the casing that would prevent them from being loaded with powder and provide a visual and tactile cue. Finally, a bucket of sand could be kept by the table where the weapons are staged. The assistant could point the gun into the bucket and pull the trigger at least 7 or 8 times to ensure it's empty. The actor taking the gun could do the same thing into another bucket. Armorers used to do this when working on firearms and maybe still do.

It's a sad situation and I'm sure safety protocols will change as a result.

He killed a woman. He is going to prison for 3 years.

Parents be crazy wrote:

He killed a woman. He is going to prison for 3 years.

The judge or jury gets to make up their own sentence? For manslaughter in New Mexico, the sentence can be up to 18 months.

I am Sam wrote:But in a work setting we generally do not doubt what an expert in the tool tells us , do we. The gun expert is there for a reason. He says here's the prop, the actor uses it.

The pilot of the commercial airliner doesn't doubt the engineers nor do they demand to do their own checks

Work environments have health and safety rules and law. The issue on the movie set is:

a) yes the actual incident, but ...

b) where are the previous transgressions, have they been reported/followed up/corrective action etc etc?....this is what someone would be liable for and if so, then by inference someone would be liable for the incident

Commercial pilots are not solely responsible for the airworthiness of their planes, but they are required to go through a pre-flight checklist, including a "walk-around" visual inspection of the plane. The walk-around is roughly analagous to double checking that a "cold gun" is not actually loaded.

buskery wrote:

40 pages!

ffs people.

Something tragic happened

Nobody except those directly involved really knows what happened

All this is pointless speculation that seems to be about anonymous people scoring internet points.

Don't you have better things to do?

Imagine wasting any time at all on your weekend arguing about things like the definition of "pointed".

prognog wrote:

buskery wrote:

40 pages!

ffs people.

Something tragic happened

Nobody except those directly involved really knows what happened

All this is pointless speculation that seems to be about anonymous people scoring internet points.

Don't you have better things to do?

Imagine wasting any time at all on your weekend arguing about things like the definition of "pointed".

You mean like the investigators will?

So piloting an aircraft full of passengers is "roughly analogous" to an actor being handed what he has been told is an unarmed gun? That there might be safety issues with an actor's prop hardly makes it analogous to the responsibilities of a pilot. There are safety issues simply with walking across the road. Is that, too, "roughly analogous"? The analogy also doesn't work for the following reason. The visual "walk-around" by the pilot will not tell him/her whether there is a defect inside the aircraft or in the engine, for example - which would be crucial to the safety of the aircraft. The pilot depends on other professionals to do their jobs - just like Baldwin did. If he was required to check the gun that suggests those professionals weren't to be trusted to do their jobs.

Parents be crazy wrote:

He killed a woman. He is going to prison for 3 years.

Not if he is deemed to have not been at fault and the death is ruled accidental.

I would have to agree with you here, although it would be interesting to know what the exact rules and regulations are on set for an actor with a prop gun. However I doubt that the rules would state that the onset firearms safety chief etc checks that the gun chamber is empty and harmless to use and then the actor needs to do the same thorough check himself before he acts out the scene. If that were the case there would be no need to have the firearms safety expert as the responsibility would ultimately be on the actor regardless.

If you want to compare it to a pilot, it would belike the tower telling him that he is clear for takeoff but when he starts to taxi, a baggage guy is passed out on the runway and he just runs him over because the experts told him he was clear. Not the pilot's responsibility to look where he is going.