Alec Baldwin to be charged.

[stjames1_53]

I made the same type of comparison but the determination is that the gun did not accidentally go off and required a pull of the trigger.
The largest damage done to Baldwin is when he claimed to have not pulled the trigger. Now he is stuck with that statement showing the jury or judge that he told a big fat lie. They won't find anyone to say the gun fired itself and even the armorer will say that he had to pull the trigger. That is to her benefit to put this all on him. She will claim the accident was because Baldwin was letting the boys play with the guns and she simply missed the bullet that remained in the gun when she inspected it.
One of the most popular and most honest statements in quality control is that 100% inspection is not 100% perfect. Interruptions and fatigue cause missed flaws from being picked out. That is why both are responsible for checking the weapon. When one fails then the system is less perfect.

The good Dr. was kind enough to point out in one post that there were no lives rounds allowed on the set. I'm sure she'll recall it. It was part of something she copied and pasted. It's back there around 30 posts or so.

HUH
Alec Baldwin's Gun in 'Rust' Shooting Was Used for Target Practice by Crew Members: Report

Alec Baldwin's Gun in Rust Shooting Used for Target Practice: Report (people.com)

Who brought the bullets that weren't supposed to be there?
I thought there were rules against that. No live rounds on set/property.
Did Baldwin bring them?
Did the Armorer?
The bullet gremlins, mayhap?

[Dr. Who]

we aren't talking about fleet vehicles. I'm talking about your car, not someone else's.
An accident is an accident. It doesn't relieve anyone of criminal charges. A life was taken and you're trying to blame everyone but the operator.
Baldwin is the guy holding the gun, not you. I never said your car was defective, but I could claim it your brakes failed. (Even if it wasn't so).
I understand now why you're a legal secretary. You couldn't win this one if you tried.
I cave someone's head in with a bat. By God, it's the defective bat's fault.
You libs are always passing the buck. It was the company's fault. It was the armorer's fault. It was the gun's fault. blah blah blah
You're grasping at straws with zero court room time as a lawyer.
You're acting like a fricking litigator.

I am not and never have been a legal secretary. I am a retired senior claims professional who worked in the insurance and reinsurance industry for close to 40 years. My job required considerable knowledge of legal principles pertaining to liability as it applied to numerous industries, governments, auto etc as well as the principles of contract law and knowledge of all manner of liability insurance coverages as well as reinsurance coverages. In addition I had to remain current on all relevant leading jurisprudence and attend numerous legal seminars annually. I spent much of my time reading legal opinions, analyzing insurance contracts and assessing liability. Since very few of my files were worth less than a million dollars and typically tens of millions, they were thus often the subject of litigation - often multi-jurisdictional, multi-party litigation. Sometimes the insureds were charged criminally, so there were both criminal and civil trials, most often in cases of medical malpractice and sexual abuse but on occasion we had insureds charged with criminal negligence in workplace fatalities. I could go on but I think I've gone on long enough. The bottom line is that I spent more than half of my life assessing degrees of negligence, so I guess it still piques my interest.

[stjames1_53]

I am not and never have been a legal secretary. I am a retired senior claims professional who worked in the insurance and reinsurance industry for close to 40 years. My job required considerable knowledge of legal principles pertaining to liability as it applied to numerous industries, governments, auto etc as well as the principles of contract law and knowledge of all manner of liability insurance coverages as well as reinsurance coverages. In addition I had to remain current on all relevant leading jurisprudence and attend numerous legal seminars annually. I spent much of my time reading legal opinions, analyzing insurance contracts and assessing liability. Since very few of my files were worth less than a million dollars and typically tens of millions, they were thus often the subject of litigation - often multi-jurisdictional, multi-party litigation. Sometimes the insureds were charged criminally, so there were both criminal and civil trials, most often in cases of medical malpractice and sexual abuse but on occasion we had insureds charged with criminal negligence in workplace fatalities. I could go on but I think I've gone on long enough. The bottom line is that I spent more than half of my life assessing degrees of negligence, so I guess it still piques my interest.

So, you've never actually tried a case. Big of you to admit.
But you are still dealing with it from a civil litigator point of view.
So, do you refuse my offer, ma'am Litigator?
I'll be blunt, given the social situation about guns today, it would be his best deal of a lifetime.
Somebody will pay. The law will see to that.
He had the gun in his hand. They can prove that he had to pull the trigger for it to go off. That is where he screwed up.
You never put your finger inside of the trigger guard until you are ready to pull the trigger.

[Dr. Who]

Yeah, except there was nothing wrong with the gun.

There was something wrong with the ammunition and it wasn't Baldwin's job to check the gun. If the next assertion is that you should never point a gun at a person, let me ask you. Would you stand next to a target at a gun range? Baldwin's target was a camera lens. Hutchins decided to stand beside the target. Baldwin discharged the weapon while trying to point the gun at the camera lens. Is Hutchins dead because Baldwin accidentally discharged the weapon or because the gun contained a live round and/or because she wanted to stand beside the target?

I know for a fact that camera crew are either supposed to either stand behind a protective barrier or use a remote control camera in cases where an actor is directed to aim a gun at the camera lens.

I know for a fact that the armorer and/or prop master (in this case both the same person) is responsible for loading and unloading and not only for ensuring that no live rounds are loaded, but also that no live rounds are present anywhere on the set. They are also not supposed to leave a selection of guns in a cart for the assistant director to choose from and deliver to the actor, because they are supposed to give the gun to the actor. After using the gun, the actor is supposed to immediately give the weapon back to the armorer.

[Tahuyaman]

https://thepoliticalforums.com/threa...=1#post3665234

I'm not going to go through my reasoning again. Discounting the movie industry's policies and procedures is the same as disregarding any other industry's policies and procedures, which isn't done. Each industry's policies and procedures (and adherence to same) are considered in any assessment of negligence in a workplace accident. That's why the OSHA investigates every workplace fatality. What's important is that the industry has safety policies that are enforced. If they fail to adhere to their own policies, and that failure contributed to a fatality, then they are found negligent. The degree of negligence depends on whether they simply fail to enforce policies properly or whether they deliberately ignore them or worse, cause greater risk by asking employees to do something they know isn't safe. The last two can result in a finding of criminal negligence. The OSHA investigated the Rust movie set and found a number of safety issues. The production was fined. However they did not suggest that any of the issues amounted to criminal negligence or refer the matter to the DA for criminal prosecution, which they do when they find egregious negligence. The DA pursued the matter on their own.

Jeebus. Movie industry policy or lack thereof is irrelevant.

I guess in your mind rape was Ok because it was not against movie industry policy?

[countryboy]

There was something wrong with the ammunition and it wasn't Baldwin's job to check the gun. If the next assertion is that you should never point a gun at a person, let me ask you. Would you stand next to a target at a gun range? Baldwin's target was a camera lens. Hutchins decided to stand beside the target. Baldwin discharged the weapon while trying to point the gun at the camera lens. Is Hutchins dead because Baldwin accidentally discharged the weapon or because the gun contained a live round and/or because she wanted to stand beside the target?

I know for a fact that camera crew are either supposed to either stand behind a protective barrier or use a remote control camera in cases where an actor is directed to aim a gun at the camera lens.

I know for a fact that the armorer and/or prop master (in this case both the same person) is responsible for loading and unloading and not only for ensuring that no live rounds are loaded, but also that no live rounds are present anywhere on the set. They are also not supposed to leave a selection of guns in a cart for the assistant director to choose from and deliver to the actor, because they are supposed to give the gun to the actor. After using the gun, the actor is supposed to immediately give the weapon back to the armorer.

You've gone off the deep end into absurdity la-la land. Wow.

[carolina73]

There was something wrong with the ammunition and it wasn't Baldwin's job to check the gun. If the next assertion is that you should never point a gun at a person, let me ask you. Would you stand next to a target at a gun range? Baldwin's target was a camera lens. Hutchins decided to stand beside the target. Baldwin discharged the weapon while trying to point the gun at the camera lens. Is Hutchins dead because Baldwin accidentally discharged the weapon or because the gun contained a live round and/or because she wanted to stand beside the target?

I know for a fact that camera crew are either supposed to either stand behind a protective barrier or use a remote control camera in cases where an actor is directed to aim a gun at the camera lens.

I know for a fact that the armorer and/or prop master (in this case both the same person) is responsible for loading and unloading and not only for ensuring that no live rounds are loaded, but also that no live rounds are present anywhere on the set. They are also not supposed to leave a selection of guns in a cart for the assistant director to choose from and deliver to the actor, because they are supposed to give the gun to the actor. After using the gun, the actor is supposed to immediately give the weapon back to the armorer.

I think you are reading a little too much story telling in this case. I think the real testimony will tell us exactly what happened. The early re-enactments did not show what your scenario does.

However, the movie industry standards should not be dismissed. Our insurance company has quite a bit to do with our business. They required us to spend about $200,000 this year just to keep our coverage. They now dictate everything from computer system security to wellness checking of our employees that the legal system would have no involvement with.

[Cletus]

There was something wrong with the ammunition and it wasn't Baldwin's job to check the gun.

His Job? Maybe not. His responsibility? 100%

If the next assertion is that you should never point a gun at a person, let me ask you. Would you stand next to a target at a gun range?

Standing next to a target is not the same as being the target. To answer your question, yes, I have... many times. The first time was back in the early 1960s when I actually held targets while a trick shooter and western movie actor named Sunset "Kit" Carson shot them. I was probably 7 or 8 at the time. and that was actually a strong influence in my desire to hone my marksmanship skills over the years. I have also done many confidence drills in which I stood next a target while a team member engaged it and have reversed the role and engaged the target with someone standing next to it.

Baldwin's victim's location is completely irrelevant because Baldwin wasn't supposed to be shooting anything. There was no "target".

Baldwin's target was a camera lens. Hutchins decided to stand beside the target. Baldwin discharged the weapon while trying to point the gun at the camera lens. Is Hutchins dead because Baldwin accidentally discharged the weapon or because the gun contained a live round and/or because she wanted to stand beside the target?

Are you really trying to blame the victim for her own death? Baldwin fired the shot that killed her. No one else. No one else is responsible.

I know for a fact that camera crew are either supposed to either stand behind a protective barrier or use a remote control camera in cases where an actor is directed to aim a gun at the camera lens.

And? So what? If Baldwin had not fired a live round, it would not matter in the least where she was standing. Even if she had been standing behind some plexiglass to protect her from powder burns, that .45 Colt round would have torn right through it like it wasn't even there and she would still be dead. You can't blame the victim for her own death. It is all on Baldwin. He fired the gun.

I know for a fact that the armorer and/or prop master (in this case both the same person) is responsible for loading and unloading and not only for ensuring that no live rounds are loaded, but also that no live rounds are present anywhere on the set. They are also not supposed to leave a selection of guns in a cart for the assistant director to choose from and deliver to the actor, because they are supposed to give the gun to the actor. After using the gun, the actor is supposed to immediately give the weapon back to the armorer.

I know for a fact that responsibility for where the bullet ends up is the shooter's. It really is that simple. The New Mexico Supreme Court has ruled that it doesn't matter who loads the gun. What matters is who fires it. It is ALWAYS the responsibility of the person wielding the firearm.

[Dr. Who]

I made the same type of comparison but the determination is that the gun did not accidentally go off and required a pull of the trigger.
The largest damage done to Baldwin is when he claimed to have not pulled the trigger. Now he is stuck with that statement showing the jury or judge that he told a big fat lie. They won't find anyone to say the gun fired itself and even the armorer will say that he had to pull the trigger. That is to her benefit to put this all on him. She will claim the accident was because Baldwin was letting the boys play with the guns and she simply missed the bullet that remained in the gun when she inspected it.
One of the most popular and most honest statements in quality control is that 100% inspection is not 100% perfect. Interruptions and fatigue cause missed flaws from being picked out. That is why both are responsible for checking the weapon. When one fails then the system is less perfect.

I don't see that his immediate claim that the gun went off by itself as necessarily damaging. He might not have even been aware that he caused the discharge. I believe that I read somewhere that when the hammer is fully $#@!ed on that type of revolver, the trigger doesn't take much pressure to fire.

The only way Baldwin could have "permitted" any kind of activity by the crew is if set supervision and control over the armorer and armory was part of his role as producer. I have yet to see anything credible that would support that idea, but if true then it would be very damaging and probably guarantee a finding of involuntary manslaughter given that he could not argue that allowing crew to play with the props did not introduce a very foreseeable increase in the risk of live rounds on the set or left in the guns.

[Dr. Who]

So, you've never actually tried a case. Big of you to admit.
But you are still dealing with it from a civil litigator point of view.
So, do you refuse my offer, ma'am Litigator?
I'll be blunt, given the social situation about guns today, it would be his best deal of a lifetime.
Somebody will pay. The law will see to that.
He had the gun in his hand. They can prove that he had to pull the trigger for it to go off. That is where he screwed up.
You never put your finger inside of the trigger guard until you are ready to pull the trigger.

I'm not looking at it from the perspective of civil litigation but the concept of gross negligence is the same in both civil and criminal law.