Alec Baldwin fires prop gun on movie set, killing cinematographer

[beanman12345]

Seriously? The literal definition of a bullet starts with “a projectile”…

Seriously. Does projectile definition start with bullet?

- - - Updated - - -

They should have reversed it as it would have made more sense.

Fair, could have been clearer, but they still not equal. My whole argument is there is a difference between what most consider live and what production sets consider live. The distinction is very key in this, but most don't realize there is that distinction.

[gondrin]

Seriously. Does projectile definition start with bullet?

- - - Updated - - -



Fair, could have been clearer, but they still not equal. My whole argument is there is a difference between what most consider live and what production sets consider live. The distinction is very key in this, but most don't realize there is that distinction.

Fair enough. I know every gun is considered hot and live unless told otherwise. That is why this is tragic on many levels. Too many safety procedures either not followed or outright broken.

[beanman12345]

Fair enough. I know every gun is considered hot and live unless told otherwise. That is why this is tragic on many levels. Too many safety procedures either not followed or outright broken.

And broken several times if reporting is accurate. Whole thing needs a serious investigation.

[Zeth Hawkins]

How many firearms safety rules did Alec Baldwin break? Not an accident, but negligence.

Exactly. Calling this an accident is a disservice to gun safety and all involved in this incident.

[Citizen T]

This is just non-legal fantasy you're engaging in because you've got a political agenda against Baldwin.

There is an obvious lack of mens rea here, and Baldwin was following direction when he fired, by all accounts. There is no way under the law he could be deemed responsible, not unless he knew there was a proper round in the chamber and not a blank when he fired.

An actor unloading a prop gun to re-load it manually themselves invalidates all security and safety precautions on-set. There is no way that's the more-reasonable option. The entire reason they have prop handlers to account for these things is because those prop handlers are properly trained in how to ensure the prop weapons are safe for the actors to use as directed. The actors do not have that training, because that is not their role.

Just outright fucking ghoulish on your part.

Negligence meets mens rea requirements

[Citizen T]

Fair enough. I know every gun is considered hot and live unless told otherwise. That is why this is tragic on many levels. Too many safety procedures either not followed or outright broken.

Every gun should always be handled as if it were "hot and live" all the time.

[Zantos]

Hopefully he

There is no reason to charge him with anything in this instance. He was handed a Prop gun, that should have never had live ammo. Think of all of the action movies that get released with guns being shot off all the time, then think of how rare this type of thing is. Its like a lightning strike. You don't expect it'll even have a remote chance of happening to you, but sometimes it does.

Hopefully they figure out why there was live ammo on the set to begin with. Worst case scenario, this was planned to kill someone, and thus the live ammo snuck in. As to who the target would have been, who knows? Just crappy that it happened.

[Machismo]

Every gun should always be handled as if it were "hot and live" all the time.

This is rather idiotic, considering they use prop guns in movies and shows all the time. Does that mean you should never point a prop gun at someone in a movie, as it would break one of the rules of firearm handling?

The "expert" handed him the firearm, saying it was a "cold gun."

Now, since they used such experts, those experts are the ones assuming that liability.

It would be no different than a firearms instructor handing a gun, checking it, loading it, and handing it to a child to fire at a range... which happens all the time.

[uuuhname]

Fair enough. I know every gun is considered hot and live unless told otherwise. That is why this is tragic on many levels. Too many safety procedures either not followed or outright broken.

not just by Baldwin, which is what the point here should be. he's not the gun expert, he's not the director. he is just the guy who happened to have the gun.

[Kaleredar]

Every gun should always be handled as if it were "hot and live" all the time.

Have you ever seen a Hollywood film? That is clearly not how they are filmed.

And usually that isn’t a problem if the guns aren’t loaded with bullets.

[gondrin]

Negligence meets mens rea requirements

Ok, this is objectively false. Mens rea literally mean that someone has knowledge what they were going to do would constitute as a crime or cause a crime to happen through their own action or inaction. Unless you have information that nobody else has that states that Baldwin knew the gun was loaded with an actual bullet instead of a blank.

[Machismo]

Hopefully he, and the person that handed him the gun gets charged with something. Simple firearm safety could have prevented this. If someone handed me a gun as a prop I would still check to see if it had live ammunition in it.

I doubt you could charge him, since they go out of their way to hire experts to assume control and responsibility for the handling and control of all firearms.

I would also check, but since they hire people to do that, then they are the ones who would be liable.

[Citizen T]

This is rather idiotic, considering they use prop guns in movies and shows all the time. Does that mean you should never point a prop gun at someone in a movie, as it would break one of the rules of firearm handling?

The "expert" handed him the firearm, saying it was a "cold gun."

Now, since they used such experts, those experts are the ones assuming that liability.

It would be no different than a firearms instructor handing a gun, checking it, loading it, and handing it to a child to fire at a range... which happens all the time.

Proper safety would have the actor point the weapon slightly way from other people as has been mentioned in many of the articles concerning this negligent discharge. Your example comparison would work if the adult had the child point the weapon at a person rather than downrange.

[gondrin]

Proper safety would have the actor point the weapon slightly way from other people as has been mentioned in many of the articles concerning this negligent discharge. Your example comparison would work if the adult had the child point the weapon at a person rather than downrange.

And in this example, Baldwin would be the child in it.

[Machismo]

Proper safety would have the actor point the weapon slightly way from other people as has been mentioned in many of the articles concerning this negligent discharge. Your example comparison would work if the adult had the child point the weapon at a person rather than downrange.

Once again, you are ignoring that they would still be pointing a "loaded weapon" in the direction of a person. That's no different than assuming he's so accurate, he can just miss by an inch.

Instructors and trainers hand people firearms to fire when doing training. The instructor will check it, load it, and even clear it afterwards. Hell, if I were an instructor (or a weapons handler on set, I wouldn't want someone on a set doing anything with the weapon other than firing it, for exactly that reason. The more a weapon gets handled, the more of a risk it is that someone will do the wrong thing.

The fault here lies with the experts on set, not the actor.

As for pointing it at people... wait until you hear about paintball battles, or Marine Corps boot camp.

[gondrin]

I doubt you could charge him, since they go out of their way to hire experts to assume control and responsibility for the handling and control of all firearms.

I would also check, but since they hire people to do that, then they are the ones who would be liable.

I figure Baldwin won't get charged criminally outside of a fine due to the fact he is a producer(workplace negligence). However, and this can happen as it doesn't require as much to prove, he can be sued by the family of said victim.

[Machismo]

I figure Baldwin won't get charged criminally outside of a fine due to the fact he is a producer(workplace negligence). However, and this can happen as it doesn't require as much to prove, he can be sued by the family of said victim.

If he's a producer, he can be sued, but I don't see it happening for the act of shooting. The liability would lie with the weapons expert, and possibly their employers.

[Citizen T]

Ok, this is objectively false. Mens rea literally mean that someone has knowledge what they were going to do would constitute as a crime or cause a crime to happen through their own action or inaction. Unless you have information that nobody else has that states that Baldwin knew the gun was loaded with an actual bullet instead of a blank.

Recklessness and negligence both meet mens Rea legal requirements. It could be argued that he was negligent in not checking the firearm to be safe and reckless in pointing it at someone and pulling the trigger.

[Machismo]

Recklessness and negligence both meet mens Rea legal requirements. It could be argued that he was negligent in not checking the firearm to be safe and reckless in pointing it at someone and pulling the trigger.

Nope, and nope.

That's like saying I would have been liable if there was a malfunction with the blanks we used in boot camp, whilst being ordered to point it at other recruits, and pretend to fire.

To be clear, you think the girl should be arrested for this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Charles_Vacca

[uuuhname]

it wasn't Baldwin's job to check the gun.... how many times does this need to be pointed out?