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

People wouldn’t laugh at you so much if you could only admit you were wrong. Very wrong. Until then, we laugh at you. Hahahahahahaha

You would be wrong, and you would have known this if you read the link I posted.

Pertinent section starting on page 14

“GENERAL SAFE USE AND HANDLING OF FIREARMS

1. Refrain from pointing a firearm at anyone including yourself. If it is necessary
to so on camera, consult the Property Master (or, in his/her absence, the weapons handler and/or other appropriate personnel determined by the locality or the needs of the production) or other safety representative, such as the First A.D./Stage Manager. Remember that any object at which you point a firearm could be destroyed.”

You do understand that in their acting role they could be required to point the gun at another actor and also pull the trigger? These would be Westerns, espionage movies and gangster movies. That is the reason for a gun in a movie - it is used as a weapon - but a fake weapon. The last thing anyone would expect on the set, whether it's the actors or crew, is that the guns would be armed. That is the tragic mistake that occurred in "Rust". The fact we are discussing it shows it is very much an unfortunate exception to what is normally the case on a film set.

The last part of the section you quote above indicates that the use of a gun on a set requires the advice of "appropriate personnel". That was the armorer and director in "Rust", which was a process that had supposedly been adhered to when the director declared the gun "cold". But someone didn't do their job.

I think the issue for Baldwin is whether he was entitled to trust the process in place intended to ensure the safety of the firearm on the set. That is critical to his defence. Even if he was, the question then arises as to whether he had any independent responsibility to check the safety of the weapon once he had been advised it was safe. If it is decided that he did then he could be seen as negligent if he failed to do that. However that negligence would generally need to be extreme for him to become criminally liable. In the circumstances it could be argued he was possibly too casual with his use of the weapon - even careless - but that falls substantially short of the gross negligence likely necessary to decide involuntary manslaughter.

You're an idiot. Of course Baldwin pointed the gun. For you to say otherwise shows that you don't understand the facts in the case. He pointed the gun at the camera, and the woman who was shot was standing behind the camera.

Baldwin himself admits that he pointed the gun at the camera which the woman was behind.

The only thing that Baldwin disputes is that he claims he didn't pull the trigger while he was pointing it. He claims the gun fired without him pulling the trigger.

Armstrong continues to believe that movie sets are somhow immune to rules and laws of the outside world. Saying that an actor is required to point a gun at someone and pull the trigger is a silly statement. If my employer tells me to point a gun at someone and pull the trigger, that doesn't get me off of the hook.

He didn't point the gun. He hasn't admitted that. You fail to understand what that word means, which is that he aimed it at the victim. There is no suggestion by anyone that he did that.

What happens in your work place has nothing to do with what an actor is required to do on a film set. Innumerable films have required them to point a gun at another actor and pull the trigger. But of course the gun was either fake or not loaded.

A useful summary of the legal questions so far.

yahoo.com

The Legal Question at the Center of the Alec Baldwin Criminal Case

Now that a grand jury has indicted Alec Baldwin on a charge of involuntary manslaughter for the fatal shooting of a cinematographer on the set of the film “Rust” in New Mexico in 2021, the contours of the looming legal battle...

Link:www.yahoo.com/news/legal-center-alec-b...

Legal experts were divided on the merits of reviving the case, noting that traditional gun safety rules — such as never pointing a functional gun toward someone — do not always apply on film sets, and that investigators found he had been assured by the film’s safety crew that the gun did not contain live ammunition.

“The notion that you never point a gun at someone would sort of undo Westerns for the past 100 years,” said Nancy Gertner, a retired federal judge.

Is this one of those new guns that can shoot around corners? If not, it only shoots where pointed.

You used that word again. Actors sign up to do it. They aren't required to do it. It is almost like you think someone was holding a gun to their head to make them take the job.

If he has conceded that he pointed the gun at the victim ((I've not seen that he has admitted that) then that increases the possibility of him being found liable. But as the article posted above indicates, there are a number of other issues that would need to be resolved to decide that.

You don't understand the distinction between a gun that is fired without being aimed and one that is aimed.

"The notion that you never point a gun at someone would sort of undo Westerns for the past 100 years,” said Nancy Gertner, a retired federal judge.

I have owned and shot guns my entire life. A gun is always pointed.

Baldwin reportedly claims he pointed the gun where he was directed by the cinematographer.

They aren't. Sometimes they accidentally discharge while not being pointed at anything. There are examples of this in domestic and hunting accidents.

From the article above.

"I think it’s an uphill battle,” said Steve Aarons, a veteran defense lawyer in New Mexico. “There is no reason for live rounds to be there. It’s a little different than other situations where you have a firearm and you assume any bullet that is there would be a live round.”

You don't understand the difference between aimed and pointed.