Why you can never be too careful

Status
Not open for further replies.
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 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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
stagpanther said:
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.
Click to expand...
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'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'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.
Click to expand...

Tampering with evidence is a problem. No, you don't hand it over. You let the police take it. It should not be in your hands, anyhow. No safety violation involved.
 
Tampering with evidence is a problem, but tampering involves intent to alter the evidence so a false conclusion will be reached. I don't think that this matter reaches that standard.

there was no apparent intent to hide, conceal or alter anything. I note the PRESS reports that the fired casing was removed from the gun. but NO MENTION of any other ammo, live, fired, blank, or dummy is made. So far no press story has told us how many rounds (or of what) were in the gun along with the live round that was fired. I believe this is a case of the press only reporting PART of the information in order to give the impression they desire to the reader.

Now, consider the certainly chaotic scene after the shooting. There's no question the gun was in Baldwin's hand when it fired. SO, how does it get to the armorer's hands to be unloaded and made safe? Either he handed it to her, or to someone else, who then handed it to her, or he set it down and she picked it up.

at that point things have changed from what existed the instant the gun was fired. Is this "tampering" with evidence? I don't think so. As long as the chain of events between the gun firing and the police taking possession of it can be factually determined, I don't see any issue.

Rather than leaving a potentially loaded gun laying around waiting for the cops to show up, I would have unloaded it, too. And I would happily tell the deputies I did so, and why and testify to that in court if needed.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.

PS--"Legal Insurrection" is not on my side.
 
it's not what I would consider a clear-cut case manslaughter--
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.

Mitigating responsibility happens all the time--think about two year olds that find daddy's loaded gun and kill another kid accidentally. By shielding the actors from any realistic knowledge or training of the seriousness of handling a firearm--there is a possible comparison in "level of innocent ignorance" IMO.
 
Review the bidding....
(https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/the-unloaded-gun.896664/page-6#post-12096673)

Baldwin was the last man in the chain
Baldwin was the last man to ignore every one of the 4 Rules
Baldwin pointed the gun at a human being
Baldwin pulled the trigger.

All the others (including Baldwin) in the chain can be charged with/sued for... criminal/civil negligence.
Baldwin, however, is the ONLY one who can be charged with actual involuntary manslaughter -- 4th degree felony.

if circumstances bear out in fact what is slowly being revealed in witness statements
 
We'll see. I think the industry is on trial, not Baldwin.

My parting comment is that I've seen similar widespread ignorance and negligence commonly in action at shooting ranges throughout my decades of shooting. Is this a question of "bad luck catching up with bad procedures"--or is it a question of "toss the guy under the bus and let's move along--until the next accident happens?"
 
Let's face it -- so this was a low-budget production, they were ruuning with a skeleton crew comprised of scabs, and they were behind schedule so they wanted to keep moving.

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?

I think (my personal opinion) that Baldwin has likely spent his entire career ignoring gun safety rules. I looked up the scene in The Hunt for Red October in which he crawls along an electrical cable tray to confront the crewman who is about to blow up the submarine. He is carrying a 1911 and as he is crawling along the cable tray he has his finger on the trigger the entire time.

IIRC, that was his "breakout" role, the first big role that made him a star. He failed to observe safety protocols then -- why should I think he got better about it as his star power increased?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kaBIMuW74Q

Fast forward to 0:13
 
Don't disagree w/ everybody -- very deliberately -- being covered in spaghetti sauce, Stag.
[But...] the level of multiple stages of increasingly negligent action & public exposure, make this one "more special"

"The industry" per se, has established reasonable controls, safeguards and processes.
That fact that ALL of them were ignored should be the trial centerpiece.

... should be.... ;)
 
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
IIRC, that was his "breakout" role, the first big role that made him a star. He failed to observe safety protocols then
Click to expand...

Finger on the trigger while moving through the submarine? Yeah, Clint Eastwood would ride the trigger in a bunch of his movies as well.
 
....How long would it have taken Baldwin to flip
open the loading gate and rotate the cylinder....
Click to expand...
Doesn't even have to do that.

Casual Look at rear of cylinder gap -- brass rim staring you in face before it rotates into line.
Casual Look at front of cylinder face -- lead bullet staring you in face before it rotates into line.

"....even my wife saw both just now...."
:rolleyes:
 
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.
Click to expand...

Apples and oranges. Hexum did it to himself. A harsh person might recall Heinlein's dictum: Stupidity is the only real capital crime.
Brandon Lee might reasonably be called an accident, so many things had to go wrong.
 
We can only hope that this results in enough change to prevent another tragedy like this from happening again.

Now to my personal beliefs or opinions: I feel it is a bit hypocritical for these people to degrade lawful gun owners, or advocate for gun control then make movies glorifying gun violence. I try to avoid entertainment that involves guns and antigun celebrities.

I also avoid knowing a celebrity’s political views when possible, but many of them make that difficult.

I wish entertainers would just entertain us, and leave the virtue signaling out of it all... no matter which side...

I used to get upset about the partisan politics ban on this forum, but the older I get, the more I understand why lol
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top