I think it was also mentioned recently that the case was removed AND voluntarily given to the authorities by the armorer--leaving that out in the beginning colored the speculation on that.I can't find the post in this thread, but someone pointed out that the casing was removed from the gun after the shooting and before the police arrived. Whoever did that has a ton of questions to answer.
I wonder if the armorer fouled up the last fingerprints that were on the casing? I'm sure the authorities want to know who last handled that live round.I think it was also mentioned recently that the case was removed AND voluntarily given to the authorities by the armorer--leaving that out in the beginning colored the speculation on that.
I'm sure the armorer probably made mistakes, but safing a weapon by ensuring it was completely unloaded after a fatal shooting is not one of those mistakes in my mind.
Think, for just a moment, that you are going to hand over a weapon to police that potentially has live rounds in it.
You have just violated a standard firearms handling protocol.
I know that any time I hand a weapon over to another person, I clear it first and ensure there are no rounds in it.
I read that and he refers exactly to what I was talking about; the "golden rules" that accompany every firearm owner's manual and are usually ingrained in every class on firearms. The only problem I see in this analysis is that these "golden rules" are not codified into actual law(s)--so while the logic is perfectly clear, in and of themselves it's not what I would consider a clear-cut case manslaughter--and that's where John Ska's interpretation comes in; it has been a long-standing industry procedure for responsibility to be handled by others since the actors (presumably) don't have the time and/or knowledge to deal with it. That's what's really on trial IMO. A involuntary manslaughter charge on Baldwin would technically be correct IMO--but then probably a majority of every film ever made using firearms could become potentially liable for negligence and threatening with a deadly weapon I would think. I agree "the law is the law" and special circumstances like acting don't create a special class of people with immunity from those laws. But at the same time I still don't think Baldwin will get hung with the charge (and instead most likely face some kind of enormous group civil lawsuit with many of the movie's crew named in the lawsuit) since "standard operating procedures" have created a long standing precedent for actor's use of firearms on the stages of sets. I'm willing to bet their will be a sea-change in the industry that will come out of this, one way or the other.FWIW, attorney Andrew Branca has penned his thoughts on the incident:
https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/1...-manslaughter/
For those who may not be familiar with the name, Mr. Branca is a fairly well-known attorney and he's on our side.
it's not what I would consider a clear-cut case manslaughter--
What I meant was--it's not a clear case as to who will individually/solely be held responsible for that manslaughter. I have my doubts that this will be hung around Baldwin's neck, ultimately, at least for having simply pulled the trigger. He might get nailed on another path, that the crew clearly had known issues with firearms handling and safety prior to and possibly leading up to the accident, and had he known about it prior should have taken action to correct the unsafe management of firearms on the set.oh, but it IS....
A person was killed, unintentionally, due to an act that should not have resulted in death. Its not a difficult concept, its basic, as defined in the law, if you intend to kill someone it is some class of murder. If you kill someone by accident, it is some class of manslaughter.
Forget the smoke and mirrors of actors not needing to know what they're doing, or what industry standards are or any of that and break it down to basics.
A man shot someone without intending to, and they died. That makes it manslaughter, as clear as can be.
How and why it happened are additional details that in no way alter the basic facts of what happened.
this entire business about blame and the responsibility of who loaded the gun only applies to whether or not there was intent to cause harm, and nothing else.
"I didn't know it was loaded" has never been a valid defense for anyone, actor or otherwise. It's an explanation, not an excuse.
My guess? He wouldn't even know what a "live" round is--and probably would put everyone at risk being the one to check if he did not have adequate training.How long would it have taken Baldwin to flip open the loading gate and rotate the cylinder to verify that it was a "cold" gun before holstering it? Five seconds? Maybe ten seconds at most?
IIRC, that was his "breakout" role, the first big role that made him a star. He failed to observe safety protocols then
Doesn't even have to do that.....How long would it have taken Baldwin to flip
open the loading gate and rotate the cylinder....
This isn't the first time such a thing has happened on set. It's been a few decades but an actor named Jon Eric Hexum was playing with a pistol on set that was loaded with blanks for want of a better term. He held the gun up to his head and pulled the trigger.
A harsh person might recall Heinlein's dictum: Stupidity is the only real capital crime.