Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Laws should be more holistic

I think it’s the armourer’s fault only.
Baldwic didn’t even trigger the gun... really?

Literally it seems that a criminal could place a gun in my hand and run off, just to put the blame on me!
 
~ Cyber Geek ~ said:
www.bbc.co.uk

Alec Baldwin to be charged with involuntary manslaughter over Rust shooting

A crew member will also be charged with involuntary manslaughter over the death of Halyna Hutchins.
www.bbc.co.uk

It’s not fair Baldwin was blamed when he wasn’t responsible for ensuring guns are safe to use. The guy who loaded the gun should be jailed!
Click to expand...

He was one of the producers of the film. They'd had several accidental discharges on set, they violated all of the rules of basic gun safety, as well film industry safety standards. They treated a deadly weapon like a toy on that set. I'd be surprised if there weren't charges.
 
Last edited:
Shippou-Sensei said:
He said he didn't pull the trigger but people who analysed the gun say it could only have fired if the trigger was pressed.

Also he was a producer on the film so was in charge of a lot of things.


Plus he is being charged with involuntary manslaughter which is about negligence not intent.
Click to expand...
Yes negligence, but it’s not his fault if it’s not what he was responsible for.

The armourer is, agreeably to me, responsible for manslaughter as he should have known better than to load a gun with a live bullet !
 
~ Cyber Geek ~ said:
Yes negligence, but it’s not his fault if it’s not what he was responsible for.

The armourer is, agreeably to me, responsible for manslaughter as he should have known better than to load a gun with a live bullet !
Click to expand...

Overseeing the production was literally in his job description. He would have made executive decisions regarding who to hire. The fact that live rounds came anywhere near the set demonstrates that Baldwin was grossly negligent in checking the credentials and/or the competence of the armourer they hired.
 
NoXion said:
Overseeing the production was literally in his job description. He would have made executive decisions regarding who to hire. The fact that live rounds came anywhere near the set demonstrates that Baldwin was grossly negligent in checking the credentials and/or the competence of the armourer they hired.
Click to expand...
I didn't pay much attention when this came out but had assumed it was some other form of misfire, leftover crap in the barrel or whatever the terminology is. The fuck was a live round ever doing in a gun that was going to be aimed at anyone in a film?

Can see in theory he could have trusted official credentials if they were present, once they had one accidental discharge it seems that should have triggered a promotion to viewer event fairly quickly afterwards however, if not the first time then definitely the second.....
 
NoXion said:
Overseeing the production was literally in his job description. He would have made executive decisions regarding who to hire. The fact that live rounds came anywhere near the set demonstrates that Baldwin was grossly negligent in checking the credentials and/or the competence of the armourer they hired.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily, the armourer could have made a genuine mistake and in which case he and only he should be held liable. It should all have been investigated who’s really at fault rather than jumping to a conclusion to the minute letter of the law
 
~ Cyber Geek ~ said:
Not necessarily, the armourer could have made a genuine mistake and in which case he and only he should be held liable. It should all have been investigated who’s really at fault rather than jumping to a conclusion to the minute letter of the law
Click to expand...

I don't see how the genuine nature of the armourer's mistakes makes Baldwin any less culpable. There were multiple safety incidents before the one involving a fatal shooting. That should have been enough of a warning to anyone competent enough to realise the importance of adhering to strict safety standards with regards to firearms handling.
 
He was the producer. If he was negligent in his duties then he could be liable.

I don't know how it is in the States but involuntary manslaughter in the UK isn't an automatic jail sentence. Here in the UK the bar is quite high, though - gross negligence. I don't see the point in sending anyone to jail here, but someone is dead because a bullet was where it shouldn't have been. That at least seems to demand investigation. And if procedures were slack then that's on the producer ultimately.
 
~ Cyber Geek ~ said:
Not necessarily, the armourer could have made a genuine mistake and in which case he and only he should be held liable.
Click to expand...
That's not how involuntary manslaughter works, though. You don't get done just for making a genuine mistake. You get done for recklessly failing to following procedures that you would reasonably be expected to know given your position of responsibility.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
That's not how involuntary manslaughter works, though. You don't get done just for making a genuine mistake. You get done for recklessly failing to following procedures that you would reasonably be expected to know given your position of responsibility.
Click to expand...
I think you’re right. Produres should have been place for MULTIPLE people and NOT JUST ONE to check the bullet was a fake
 
Like I say, I don't know if it's the same in the US as here, but if it is then for Baldwin to be done, the prosecution will need to demonstrate that he was running a shoddy, slack outfit in which safety procedures were ignored. Maybe he was? We don't know.
 
~ Cyber Geek ~ said:
Yes negligence, but it’s not his fault if it’s not what he was responsible for.

The armourer is, agreeably to me, responsible for manslaughter as he should have known better than to load a gun with a live bullet !
Click to expand...
The argument is if you are holding a gun you are the person responsible for it. It's a gun. It's a very dangerous object. you should be doing everything you can do in terms of safety checks. Especially as there had been some incidents already.

While the armourer has a lead role in safety so does absolutely everyone else who handles the equipment.

when a stunt driver has a car accident you do check to see if there was equipment failure but you also check to see what the stunt driver was doing.
the same applies here. he was handling a deadly weapon. he may have been handling it negligently.

Also the armourer is a she not a he as far as I know.
 
Shippou-Sensei said:
The argument is if you are holding a gun you are the person responsible for it. It's a gun. It's a very dangerous object. you should be doing everything you can do in terms of safety checks. Especially as there had been some incidents already.

While the armourer has a lead role in safety so does absolutely everyone else who handles the equipment.

when a stunt driver has a car accident you do check to see if there was equipment failure but you also check to see what the stunt driver was doing.
the same applies here. he was handling a deadly weapon. he may have been handling it negligently.

Also the armourer is a she not a he as far as I know.
Click to expand...

He should not have relied on assurances.
Then again he may not have had the training in gun safety or been an expert... but in that case he should have refused to shoot
 
Shippou-Sensei said:
Especially as he was a producer, a lead actor, and someone who has worked in the industry for years.
Click to expand...
And that's why he could get done. He's not just a hired actor taking direction. He was the boss, basically.

It doesn't look great for him. The assistant director pleaded guilty to a lesser charge and got probation. Maybe Baldwin should have done the same.
 
Not sure if this case will lead to a trial or conviction but it sounds like the DA has a reasonable enough case - with the multiple complaints about gun safety on set before the shooting, Baldwin might want to consider a plea deal.

The district attorney said Baldwin's involvement as a producer and as the actor who fired the gun weighed in the decision to file charges.

“This set was really being run pretty fast and loose, and he knew or he should have known that there had been misfires, that there were safety concerns, that multiple people had brought them up," Carmack-Altwies told The Associated Press in an interview. The fact that Baldwin was “the actor that held the gun, that pointed the gun and that pulled the trigger" also contributed.

Involuntary manslaughter can involve a killing that happens while a defendant is doing something that is lawful but dangerous.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
And that's why he could get done. He's not just a hired actor taking direction. He was the boss, basically.

It doesn't look great for him. The assistant director pleaded guilty to a lesser charge and got probation. Maybe Baldwin should have done the same.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, he only had to do community service right ?

What exactly was the lesser charge?
 
I was looking forward to Rust, I reckon it would have been a good movie.

Was surprised to read today it's going to resume filming with Baldwin continuing in his acting role.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PTK
  • Poll
Do You Agree that the USA should Reduce its Military Expenditure and Close its Overseas Bases?
2 3
Replies
82
Views
2K
likesfish
likesfish
Yossarian
More than 1,000 dead in Morocco quake
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
planetgeli
P
Dom Traynor
The government in the North of Ireland is about to be restored.
Replies
8
Views
691
likesfish
likesfish
tim
Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics, and Donbas more generally.
Replies
9
Views
716
frogwoman
frogwoman
shambler
  • Poll
Should the EU/NATO use direct military action to help defend Ukraine?
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
167
Views
6K
Dogsauce
Dogsauce
Back
Top Bottom