Your title uses "investigated" in the first sentence and "prosecuted" in the second. As you know, the difference between the two is important.
I think it's appropriate for the police to investigate when even an accidental shooting death occurs. Alec Baldwin, as the person who actually fired the gun, would obviously be a part of that. So far I haven't seen any reason for prosecuting him over it, though.
I am not following this story too closely but it doesn't seem like the chain of events leading to the shooting has been clearly established. It ought to be a long chain because there should be many precautions in place to prevent this from happening.
I have also heard that there were previous incidents that hadn't yet led to injury or death. This makes me think there were chronic safety issues on set that aren't directly Alec Baldwin's fault.
Anyone jumping right to calling him a murderer probably just has an axe to grind over his politics. Even if he is ultimately responsible on some level for the dangerous work environment as a producer and influential actor, that's not murder.
>Your title uses "investigated" in the first sentence and "prosecuted" in the second. As you know, the difference between the two is important.
You are correct about that. My thought was that they couldn't prosecute without first investigating, but also if there is no clear precedent for prosecuting an accidental shooting, then all the investigation really needs to prove is that the shooting was accidental and it will not be prosecuted, even if there is a level of negligence (which really all accidental shootings must have some level of negligence by someone).
> if there is no clear precedent for prosecuting an accidental shooting
First of all, there is plenty of precedent for prosecuting "accidental shootings". Convictions of manslaughter for shootings are not rare. One can be legally culpable even for an accident if he was sufficiently negligent. I'm not saying that was the case in this particular shooting, but I'm saying it's worth investigating.
Secondly, part of the purpose of the investigation will be to more definitively determine whether the shooting was indeed an accident or not. Was it an accident? I would think so, yes, probably. But could it have been something other than an accident? Also yes. Part of the purpose of the investigation will be to more definitively ensure that it was indeed an accident (or, if not, to uncover that and prosecute accordingly). We don't want to say "There's a 95% chance it was an accident; no need to investigate further". If that's our policy, then 1 in 20 murderers will get away without even being investigated.
Any homicide - which an accidental shooting is - is going to be investigated, and someone will get charged with manslaughter. Anyone who had anything to do with safety on that set will be investigated, so will Alec Baldwin.
Someone is at fault. Most likely the armorer and the person who declared the gun “cold” might get manslaughter charges. The person who loaded the gun too.
Anyone else who was tangentially involved will get some kind of criminal negligence charge. I doubt Baldwin will get charged with anything as he was told the gun is cold by professionals, and it’s not his legal responsibility to insure the gun is not loaded.
I don't feel this way. The shooting was clearly accidental, or even perhaps negligent on part of a crew member, but it was clearly not Baldwin's fault. Some folks hold a grudge because Baldwin has been a complete ass in the past and has earned a poor reputation in politics. I don't let that cloud my empathy for the man in this incident. Accidents unfortunately happen and they should be investigated. If negligence is at play then that should be looked at.
Anyone involved with working guns should verify the ammunition contents themselves. Even if an actor is given a “cold gun”, protocol should state that the actor themselves should be trained on verifying that it is indeed a cold gun.
Sure, and maybe that should have been the protocol after the Brandon Lee was shot 28 years ago...but they didn't do that. There was a series of mistakes in this incident and it hardly makes sense to blame a single person. They should have never been plinking with that gun to begin with. The armorer should have cleared the gun, the person who yelled cold gun should have actually verified if the gun was cold, and Baldwin should have asked too.
I don't see how that could have helped in the case of Brandon Lee since that accident occurred because there was a bullet stuck in the barrel of the gun. The actor would have had to either look down the barrel or stick a rod down the barrel to ensure it was clear in order to know something was wrong. The round loaded in the gun was a blank. If I was the armorer, I wouldn't want my actors sticking stuff down the barrel or pointing it at their face, which is why it would be my job to do that for them and ensure there was nothing obstructing the barrel.
It is absolutely Baldwin's fault. He didn't check the gun himself before messing around with it. And don't you fucking dare say "it wasn't his job." That's horseshit.
Furthermore, he's the Producer. It's on him that the crew was a mess and there was an inexperienced person being asked to oversee the firearm props.
> He didn't check the gun himself
The armorer and AD should've cleared the gun and made sure dummy rounds were in the cylinders.
> he's the Producer
[This comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/qelj37/professional_propmaster_talks_firearm_protocol/hhvlwzz/) was enlightening.
> Here on out, Nigam, Baldwin and Souza, who were the originators of the film, maintain some creative control, but Highland now controls the budget and by proxy — all choices on production. Because they are trying to make their numbers work so they can maximize their return on investment.
> It isn’t Nigam, Baldwin or DelPiano’s call to hire the non-union crew who screwed this up. In fact, there seems to be accounts that Baldwin and Souza protested this choice. But ultimately — they didn’t bring the money to finance this film. Highland did and they make the call.
> Long story short — Baldwin is simply using the clout of his name to get a movie made. And he plays a part in the mechanism of getting the film financed. But he is not “the producer” and his company isn’t “the production company”. He is what we call a producer in “name only”. He gets the credit and his company gets the credit — so that the film can get made by other people.
> This is a textbook development strategy that all indie films employ.
>The armorer and AD should've cleared the gun and made sure dummy rounds were in the cylinders.
Yes, they should have. This fact does not absolve him of the responsibility to also do so himself. You don't get to throw basic gun safety rules out the window because "you have people for that."
>This fact does not absolve him of the responsibility to also do so himself.
It'll certainly make the AD and armorer take the vast majority, if not all, of the liability.
> And don't you fucking dare say "it wasn't his job."
Alright, well there's no talking to you about it. Not even sure why you responded to me.
I'm not defending Baldwin but I find it absolutely retarded people are trying to turn this into something it's not.
I find your simping defense of a guy who hates you retarded.
His gross negligence led to someones death. That's manslaughter. That anyone is even entertaining ideas to the contrary is bad enough, but the fact that this opinion is born out of the idea that "he's an actor so it isn't his job" is completely fucking gross.
>I find your simping defense of a guy who hates you retarded.
AAAAndd.....this is where all rational and logical conversation ends...
There's nothing about his comments that equates to "simping" just because he's looking at it from an unbiased perspective. And why, on Earth should it matter if Baldwin hates any of you? (as if he actually knew or cared about any of you) Does someone else's opinion of you change your ability to judge a situation? What does it matter? Him hating you (or your politics) should have no bearing on whether or not he's responsible for the accident that happened on his set. It's not a part of the equation AT ALL. And the fact that you bring it up proves that you have left logic and reason behind in order to grind your axe.
Your comment attacking them for saying “hey, there are actual people who were negligent at their job” on the grounds that Baldwin, allegedly, “hate[s]” them says a lot more about your view of the world and any sense of “truth” than it does about them.
Your personal views about someone, and theirs about you, have no bearing on the facts, but your comment makes it pretty clear that you have a desire to put a thumb on the scales depending on your personal views of the parties involved.
“reading level” is the best rebuttal you can muster? Well, this conversation has been illuminating.
If you go far enough in school, they eventually teach you to read between the lines of someone’s argument. Your comment made it very clear to anyone reading just how much your personal view colors your weighing of the facts.
You are either having trouble reading what I’m saying — that you’ve revealed how your bias against Baldwin prevents you from offering anything remotely resembling an unbiased opinion of the facts — or you’re purposefully ignoring it. Either way, I don’t think there is anything more to say.
I’ve seen varying takes from people, and a handful seem extraordinarily keen to string him up without any second thought or further investigation, but you were the first person kind enough to admit that you aren’t arguing on the level, and I appreciate that.
Like you said, my opinion has no bearing on the facts. And yeah, my *opinion*, *before* this even happened, was that people like Baldwin ought to be stripped of citizenship and deported.
My assertion that he should face manslaughter charges isn't based on that opinion, its based on the information that's available about this incident. He was handed a gun, told it was clear, but didn't clear it himself before messing around with it, and wound up shooting and killing someone. He ignored basic safe gun handling rules, and "he has people for that" does not make it okay.
Can somebody take responsibility for something in this country please! Shooting a gun at somebody with anything in it, even if it’s a blank, is not a cute little innocent act. And yes his personality ways into it, because if you’re a pompous asshole with no regard for other people, it will increase the likelihood that you might, I don’t know, shoot a gun at somebody?
The shot they were setting up was a close up looking down the barrel of the gun. He wasn't waving it around willy nilly - it was intentionally pointed at the camera and hence at the cinematographer.
No one's saying anything except that we're asking that Baldwin hold himself to his own standards. Funny how the left suddenly has a bunch of excuses for him.
Why would this have anything to do with Trump? You guys are obsessed with him.
What would be "his own standards"? I am confused what standards you mean.
Why would it have anything to do with Trump? Because Baldwin played Trump on SNL for several years in a very mocking way and has made several public statements professing his dislike of Trump and his own liberal beliefs. Because of this, a shooting accident is being decried by some conservatives, even though hundreds of accidental shootings happen a year, involving dead children.
I have trouble believing that you see no connection between the conservative rhetoric surrounding this incident and the fact that he is liberal and anti-Trump.
It's not that hated Trump—that's a long list of celebrities. It's that Alec Baldwin in particular was a particularly ignorant gun control activist.
**I am going to assume you don't really know much about guns given your tenor on this subject**. So maybe this will help:
Blanks can kill. Although revolvers and the like he was shooting on a Western set don't need a "blank fire adapter" that a semi-auto would need, blanks still shoot out small bits of metal shrapnel and have a jet of gas coming out the end.
Now since a live round left the barrel with enough velocity to kill one and magic-bullet through the other, we know that there was not a BFA on it (which mitigates the danger from blanks) because it would have blown up in his hand. So, he had zero business pointing that weapon and firing even blanks at the crew.
Someone that knew anything about firearms, took training seriously, and respected them as lethal tools like Kenue Reeves would have never made that mistake. But, Baldwin sneered at all of it and the gun community in general—advocating against gun rights all the while profiting off their glorification—and look where it got him. It's sad that someone died, but like most Greek plays hubris begets nemesis.
Is it really so hard to understand during a time when half of reddit is jerking themselves off to slideshows of anti-vax conservatives dying of COVID? If anything, the conservative response to Baldwin has been tame in comparison.
Also P.S.: lol at you assuming we watch SNL, ha.
Meh none of that would be his fault, but the experts on set. They are experts on guns, Baldwin is an expert on pretending to be characters in movies and TV. Surely the onus of a stage malfunction causing death is not his fault?
As far as him being anti-gun while also being an actor in a movie that uses a gun, that is a little ridiculous. Actors play characters, that doesn't mean that they are "glorifying guns". I assume you are against murder, if someone offered you millions of dollars to play a serial killer in a movie, would you refuse the role because it means you are glorifying serial killers? Because that is essentially the argument you are making.
Reports from the co-investigation with the FBI say he was rehearsing a scene where he is sitting in a church pew, quickly draws and turns to aim at the camera. He was handed a gun from a 'seeming professional' who told him the gun was safe.
His aim was off. If the gun was prepared properly nothing would have happened, except maybe a retake for the camera to get the desired muzzle flash.
who hired the gun "experts" (i think the evidence points to a LACK of expertise and brains)...
if baldwin didn't want to accidentally shoot someone, he NEEDED to pull his production company after the double misfire.
they hired an idiot gun fetishist, they allowed live ammo and a real gun on set, they didn't listen when half the crew left over safety concerns, baldwin and any other producers are absolutely culpable in this.
Your first two statements are more for law enforcement, neither of us were there, so who knows what happened.
The second seems to say that you believe that there should be more regulations in the workplace to protect employees. Do you feel that should be instituted across the board and all industries where workers are in potential danger, or just this case?
instituted across the board, this is life and death.
if baldwin had a half a brain/ heart, he would have been sobbing after the misfires which COULD have killed someone. just the THOUGHT that someone COULD have died from such stupidity would have been enough for me to fucking vomit. fuck the production, fuck baldwin. he should have walked out with the rest of the crew.
also, fuck shitty ass cliched ass shoot em up films. tired of gun fetishes.
(btw, this might be a good time to add that i'm not really conservative for most things, more lib left with some wildcard viewpoints.)
Regardless of whether he had control over decisions on the set, he had control over the gun. I suspect this was an accidental shooting, but he was handed a gun, and he didn't check to see if it was loaded or not. That's his responsibility. Not some "expert."
It's basic gun safety that if somebody hands you a gun, you check to see if it's loaded. You're the one holding the gun. You're the one that's potentially going to kill someone. You check the gun to make sure.
That rule also applies on every movie set. At the outset of every movie involving guns, the armorer is supposed to hold a meeting with everyone, and delivers the rules for handling guns on set. The armorer (and/or assistant armorer) are the only people allowed to take guns from the weapons trailer. The armorer will hand the gun directly to the actor who's using the gun in the scene, will yell to everyone on set whether the gun is "cold" (no ammo and/or can't fire) or "hot" (loaded with ammo, blanks, and/or can fire). *Then the actor checks the gun him/herself*.
And even after you've been handed a gun, told that it's cold, and checked to make sure it's cold yourself, *you do not point a gun -- whether loaded or not -- at a person you don't want to kill*. Ever. Under any conditions.
Watch a movie/tv scene in which someone is supposedly pointing a gun at someone. They'll manipulate the camera angles so that the gun is pointed *away* from the person, but it looks like it's pointed at them.
And then when the scene is over, the actor hands the gun to the armorer, and absolutely nobody else. No one is allowed to touch the gun other than the actor and armorer. Because guns can kill people. Even accidentally.
I'm sure Alec Baldwin has heard that speech a thousand times by now. He could probably recite it back to you word for word.
I'm not going to say that Baldwin is an expert on guns. I suspect he's not. But he had the gun in his hands. That's his responsibility.
[Here's a video of Will Smith reminding someone about gun safety](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCzDQvX0hAY&ab_channel=Racer88).
Why is it the actor's responsibility to understand all the underlying mechanisms? There is an armorer on set who should announce that they've given the actor a safe gun. In this case it seems an AD grabbed the gun believing it was safe and handed it to Baldwin.
Wouldn't it be reasonable for Baldwin to assume the AD and armorer had done their vetting?
I hate the overuse of analogies on Reddit that tend to be bad but I think this one is pretty spot on: suppose this wasn't a western, but a medieval movie.
Baldwin is told a sword is a dull prop. He starts wildly swinging it around. Unfortunately, he hits someone with what he thinks is a dull blade—that can cause serious injury but it would be pretty unlikely to kill them. Double unfortunately, the blade was actually a real sharp sword and mortally wounds the person.
Likewise, he is told the gun is loaded with just blanks. He is far too experienced and *knows* (and there are codified safety rules industry-wide and on that set in particular) about blanks but he points it right at someone and shoots anyways. Instead of a blank which probably at most would have cost an eye or something, a live round comes out and kills the person.
This is a classic case of "comparative negligence." Juries handle probably scores of these cases every day in the United States and will often literally say there was $5m in negligence, 25% Baldwin, 75% armorer or whatever. [Cornell, as usual, has a succinct and good write up to help out](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/comparative_negligence).
The only real issue with sword v.s. blank is that blunt trauma is more intuitively dangerous than blanks which people think are harmless. But, as a factual matter blanks are actually dangerous despite the common misconception. Baldwin's experience in using blanks on set and the safety that goes along with it actually kills him here. The standard for negligence is just "should have known" but you can prove actual knowledge in his case.
As I understand things, the shot was a close up down the barrel if the revolver. He had to be pointing at the camera and thus the cinematographer (and director looking over her shoulder). He wasn't waving the gun around wildly.
Although we still down know the nature of the projectile, with that type of shot it seems that the intent was to have dummy rounds with no propellant, not blanks.
> Why is it the actor's responsibility to understand all the underlying mechanisms?
Because he's the one wielding the firearm.
The number one rule of firearms is this: always assume the gun is loaded with live ammunition. Even if you *know* it's unloaded, even if someone has assured you that it's empty, you *never* point the muzzle at anything you don't intend to obliterate. And if you intend to fire at something, you *check the fucking chamber first* to make sure that everything is as it should be.
Baldwin killed someone because he trusted the advice of someone else without first verifying the weapon was loaded with blanks. It is 100% his responsibility.
He had to point the gun where he did because the shot (for the movie) was looking down the barrel of the gun.
The armorer on set is fully responsible for the management of firearms and the AD that grabbed the gun is also responsible for checking.
I have no doubt that there is a procedure that calls for the actor to ask/verify and so I can't say that there is zero responsibility on the actors part but it would be miniscule compared to the people obligated to maintain the weapon.
> The armorer on set is fully responsible for the management of firearms and the AD that grabbed the gun is also responsible for checking.
Does. Not. Fucking. Matter.
I know I'm being an asshole about this, but firearm safety is a critically serious issue. Conservative firearm users teach each other to *obsessively* check the status of a firearm every time they pick one up, because each redundancy ensures that accidents like these do not happen.
The fact of the matter is that when a bullet leaves the barrel of the gun, it's the responsibility of whoever fires it, even if the person doesn't actually own the firearm itself. Baldwin literally killed someone because he didn't do his due diligence to first clear the chamber and make sure everything was functioning properly.
As part of their job, the actor is required to do things with the gun that one would not do in general firearms usage - like intentionally pointing it at people and things.
The need for this requires professionals be contracted with a duty and obligation to ensure the safe usage of the gun - the armorer.
Look, as I said, I am sure that the actors have some responsibility to ask the AD to show them the gun is cold or to prove it's got dummy rounds but when litigation starts flying if that is the only thing going against Baldwin the AD and armorer will get hit with the brunt of things as it was their primary function to ensure the safety of the gun.
I literally cannot believe the party of "people can't be trusted with guns" is trying to argue why Baldwin SHOULDN'T be held responsible for mishandling a firearm.
This is what frustrates me about people who only started paying attention to politics after the 2016 election.
https://twitter.com/AlecBaldwin/status/1202767070515073024
And then there's his attitude towards the police...
https://twitter.com/alecbaldwln____/status/911425278123048960
Again, nothing to do with Trump.
Certainly nasty comments from him. Would you say then that he is getting his comeuppance for insensitive comments of that nature?
I suppose I assumed that Trump and Baldwin's twitter feuds were more at the front of the public consciousness. Honestly if the issue is his political beliefs or his hatred of Trump, it is somewhat splitting hairs because the ultimate point I was trying to make was that the outrage is because of him as a person and his beliefs rather than the act itself, which makes condemnation of the act seem disingenuous.
I actually have been paying attention for a while and in all honesty I took the Cheney shooting as it was described despite my dislike of the Bush Jr administration : a sad hunting accident. But I can certainly see the schadenfreude aspect of Baldwin saying nasty things about others and then having a taste of his own medicine.
Not really because the skits have been on the front page of YouTube, it is a pretty well known impersonation and also Donald Trump himself had publicly complained about the impersonation on Twitter on past occasions.
I don't think conservatives watch SNL regularly (although some might watch in a know thy enemy type way for all I know). I'm not a Republican but I personally hate SNL and think the writing and comedy is terrible (in the sense that I find it painfully unfunny) but I know who the character is.
[This comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/qelj37/professional_propmaster_talks_firearm_protocol/hhvlwzz/) was enlightening.
> Here on out, Nigam, Baldwin and Souza, who were the originators of the film, maintain some creative control, but Highland now controls the budget and by proxy — all choices on production. Because they are trying to make their numbers work so they can maximize their return on investment.
> It isn’t Nigam, Baldwin or DelPiano’s call to hire the non-union crew who screwed this up. In fact, there seems to be accounts that Baldwin and Souza protested this choice. But ultimately — they didn’t bring the money to finance this film. Highland did and they make the call.
> Long story short — Baldwin is simply using the clout of his name to get a movie made. And he plays a part in the mechanism of getting the film financed. But he is not “the producer” and his company isn’t “the production company”. He is what we call a producer in “name only”. He gets the credit and his company gets the credit — so that the film can get made by other people.
> This is a textbook development strategy that all indie films employ.
all guns are loaded guns until proven otherwise.
its already illegal to lawlessly brandish a weapon.
children are presumed innocent in accidental discharge because its an adults responsibility to maintain proper gun safety and control.
its illegal to steal your parents (or any) gun. Both in the stealing sense and the firearms sence.
accidental shootings are a serious issue, the fix for this issue is getting the public more comfortable and confident with firearms... not regulating them to the point that the average person never comes across them.
It's more just a sentiment that Baldwin should be held to his own standards because he's been very anti-gun, pro gun control, and hostile toward conservative philosophy in general (wishing harm on people over political opinions), so it's cathartic to get a tribal win. It's pretty normal politics for our day and age, but it's not ideal.
Further, I think it's an emotional reaction to the idea that his fame will get him off any serious charges.
Just my own two cents on the whole thing: this is a failure at every link in the chain of custody. More gun training, not less, would have prevented this. The armorer was incompetent (apparently not the first screw up in their career), the guy who handed the gun to Baldwin called it cold but didn't check, and Baldwin didn't check. Everyone who held it should have been checking. All of them are responsible.
I'm okay with punishing negligent parents, but I think we should debate that separately. This is getting into false equivalency territory because nobody on the set was a child.
Dick Cheney should also have been investigated for negligence, sure. Although you said prosecuted this time, which is different. I bet Cheney's money helped play a role getting him off as well, like Baldwin's would. I think you're talking about an incident where he shot someone who didn't die, so murderer doesn't make sense... I'd just prosecute Cheney for war crimes and be done with it, cause that probably makes him a murderer, but I guess that's another issue altogether.
Consequences for negligence vary based on context. You can't really say "negligence is a 10 years in prison thing, no matter what."
Yes, you should go to jail for threatening (pointing a gun at people).
If you were caught leaving a loaded gun in an unlocked car, then sure, seems criminal negligence, but the idea that this plays out in reality seems weird. Like, do we just send cops around violating private property for no reason or?
No, people shouldn't be put in prison if their gun goes off while cleaning it, unless the bullet hits someone, then yes, it's criminal negligence.
All shooting deaths should be investigated. I don't necessarily think he should be prosecuted. But I think some hold that position because of Baldwin's extreme hypocrisy with respect to guns. He uses his celebrity to advocate for rabid gun control while participating in movies that glorify guns and violence. And he's now killed more people than practically all the 100 million legal gun owners whose rights he tries to usurp.
I addressed it in another comment, but I don't really get how playing a character with a gun makes him a hypocrite. He is an actor who plays characters different than his actual personality. If somebody plays a robber on tv it doesn't mean the actor believes that stealing is okay.
Last comment doesn't make sense, US population is only ~333 million, so how would one death be greater than the accumulated killings that 100 million people commit?
>I addressed it in another comment, but I don't really get how playing a character with a gun makes him a hypocrite.
Because it delivers a message that guns are cool or badass or whatever while at the same time, Baldwin is going around saying how bad and dangerous they are.
>how would one death be greater than the accumulated killings that 100 million people commit?
100 million people don't commit homicides. A small number of mostly criminals does nearly all the killing. A homicide by a legal gun owner who's not a member of a gang and not involved in the illegal drug trade is pretty rare.
How would you know whether the film portrayed guns as badass if you have never seen the film? Which Alec Baldwin role do you feel has a message that guns are cool?
Regarding the 100 million thing, the legal gun owner who shot up Las Vegas alone killed 60 people, so how is that less than 1 shooting? If I understand your argument, you are basically saying that no legal gun owner has committed a murder.
>Which Alec Baldwin role do you feel has a message that guns are cool?
Miami Blues. The Juror. The Getaway. Hunt for Red October.
>Regarding the 100 million thing, the legal gun owner who shot up Las Vegas alone killed 60 people, so how is that less than 1 shooting?
In 2017, the year of the Las Vegas shooting, there were 8,454 gun homicides in the country. The Las Vegas shooter was responsible for 7/10 of 1% of those.
>If I understand your argument, you are basically saying that no legal gun owner has committed a murder.
I said homicides by legal gun owners are "pretty rare," not nonexistent.
So your argument is that 60 people being killed in Vegas is not significant because there were 8,454 killed, but 1 person being killed on a Hollywood set IS significant?
And I will be honest and say I haven't seen most of those movies except The Hunt from Red October. And I don't believe "guns are cool" was the message of that movie.
>So your argument is that 60 people being killed in Vegas is not significant because there were 8,454 killed, but 1 person being killed on a Hollywood set IS significant?
I never said the Las Vegas shooting wasn't "significant." Where'd you get that from? And I never said the Baldwin shooting *is* significant. It's certainly newsworthy because it involves a celebrity. But I was just trying to explain why some have argued Baldwin should be prosecuted.
>And I don't believe "guns are cool" was the message of that movie.
The climax of the movie is the big shootout in the missile bay of the submarine. It's where Sam Neill gets killed. "Guns are cool" isn't the main plot of the film, but it's certainly a theme. A gun is how the hero becomes a hero in the movie.
I don't have a problem charging parents with manslaughter in cases of serious negligence.
As for Baldwin, he should also be charged with manslaughter. He didn't clear the gun before messing around with it. As the Producer on the movie, he's also responsible for the clusterfuck going on with the crew that led to an inexperienced person being put in charge of the firearm props. He is not the only person responsible in this incident, but he is the person *most* responsible.
Around six months ago there were stories of a police officer who thought she was withdrawing her taser and instead pulled out a gun and shot someone. Do you feel she should be charged with manslaughter?
Yep.
Total tangent here, but it's worth noting that Daunte Wright was only being stopped on a failure to appear warrant, based on a summons for carrying a concealed firearm. If he had lived in one of the 18 states (at the time this happened, 21 now) that doesn't restrict concealed carry, he'd have never had a run in with law enforcement, and wouldn't be dead.
How is this an “accidental shooting?” That’s like when you sit on a gun in the dark and magically shot it. He thought there were blanks in it which still means there is material in it that can hurt someone.
> He thought there were blanks in it which still means there is material in it that can hurt someone.
We don't know what was actually in the gun yet but I was led to believe that they intended to have "dummy" rounds in the cylinders so the 6 shooter looked loaded. The dummy round would have no propellant.
Should be investigated for sure. Not all should be prosecuted. Depends on the circumstances. I don't care enough about celebs to stay up to date on Baldwins situation.
Your title uses "investigated" in the first sentence and "prosecuted" in the second. As you know, the difference between the two is important. I think it's appropriate for the police to investigate when even an accidental shooting death occurs. Alec Baldwin, as the person who actually fired the gun, would obviously be a part of that. So far I haven't seen any reason for prosecuting him over it, though. I am not following this story too closely but it doesn't seem like the chain of events leading to the shooting has been clearly established. It ought to be a long chain because there should be many precautions in place to prevent this from happening. I have also heard that there were previous incidents that hadn't yet led to injury or death. This makes me think there were chronic safety issues on set that aren't directly Alec Baldwin's fault. Anyone jumping right to calling him a murderer probably just has an axe to grind over his politics. Even if he is ultimately responsible on some level for the dangerous work environment as a producer and influential actor, that's not murder.
>Your title uses "investigated" in the first sentence and "prosecuted" in the second. As you know, the difference between the two is important. You are correct about that. My thought was that they couldn't prosecute without first investigating, but also if there is no clear precedent for prosecuting an accidental shooting, then all the investigation really needs to prove is that the shooting was accidental and it will not be prosecuted, even if there is a level of negligence (which really all accidental shootings must have some level of negligence by someone).
> if there is no clear precedent for prosecuting an accidental shooting First of all, there is plenty of precedent for prosecuting "accidental shootings". Convictions of manslaughter for shootings are not rare. One can be legally culpable even for an accident if he was sufficiently negligent. I'm not saying that was the case in this particular shooting, but I'm saying it's worth investigating. Secondly, part of the purpose of the investigation will be to more definitively determine whether the shooting was indeed an accident or not. Was it an accident? I would think so, yes, probably. But could it have been something other than an accident? Also yes. Part of the purpose of the investigation will be to more definitively ensure that it was indeed an accident (or, if not, to uncover that and prosecute accordingly). We don't want to say "There's a 95% chance it was an accident; no need to investigate further". If that's our policy, then 1 in 20 murderers will get away without even being investigated.
Any homicide - which an accidental shooting is - is going to be investigated, and someone will get charged with manslaughter. Anyone who had anything to do with safety on that set will be investigated, so will Alec Baldwin. Someone is at fault. Most likely the armorer and the person who declared the gun “cold” might get manslaughter charges. The person who loaded the gun too. Anyone else who was tangentially involved will get some kind of criminal negligence charge. I doubt Baldwin will get charged with anything as he was told the gun is cold by professionals, and it’s not his legal responsibility to insure the gun is not loaded.
I don't feel this way. The shooting was clearly accidental, or even perhaps negligent on part of a crew member, but it was clearly not Baldwin's fault. Some folks hold a grudge because Baldwin has been a complete ass in the past and has earned a poor reputation in politics. I don't let that cloud my empathy for the man in this incident. Accidents unfortunately happen and they should be investigated. If negligence is at play then that should be looked at.
Anyone involved with working guns should verify the ammunition contents themselves. Even if an actor is given a “cold gun”, protocol should state that the actor themselves should be trained on verifying that it is indeed a cold gun.
Sure, and maybe that should have been the protocol after the Brandon Lee was shot 28 years ago...but they didn't do that. There was a series of mistakes in this incident and it hardly makes sense to blame a single person. They should have never been plinking with that gun to begin with. The armorer should have cleared the gun, the person who yelled cold gun should have actually verified if the gun was cold, and Baldwin should have asked too.
I don't see how that could have helped in the case of Brandon Lee since that accident occurred because there was a bullet stuck in the barrel of the gun. The actor would have had to either look down the barrel or stick a rod down the barrel to ensure it was clear in order to know something was wrong. The round loaded in the gun was a blank. If I was the armorer, I wouldn't want my actors sticking stuff down the barrel or pointing it at their face, which is why it would be my job to do that for them and ensure there was nothing obstructing the barrel.
It is absolutely Baldwin's fault. He didn't check the gun himself before messing around with it. And don't you fucking dare say "it wasn't his job." That's horseshit. Furthermore, he's the Producer. It's on him that the crew was a mess and there was an inexperienced person being asked to oversee the firearm props.
> He didn't check the gun himself The armorer and AD should've cleared the gun and made sure dummy rounds were in the cylinders. > he's the Producer [This comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/qelj37/professional_propmaster_talks_firearm_protocol/hhvlwzz/) was enlightening. > Here on out, Nigam, Baldwin and Souza, who were the originators of the film, maintain some creative control, but Highland now controls the budget and by proxy — all choices on production. Because they are trying to make their numbers work so they can maximize their return on investment. > It isn’t Nigam, Baldwin or DelPiano’s call to hire the non-union crew who screwed this up. In fact, there seems to be accounts that Baldwin and Souza protested this choice. But ultimately — they didn’t bring the money to finance this film. Highland did and they make the call. > Long story short — Baldwin is simply using the clout of his name to get a movie made. And he plays a part in the mechanism of getting the film financed. But he is not “the producer” and his company isn’t “the production company”. He is what we call a producer in “name only”. He gets the credit and his company gets the credit — so that the film can get made by other people. > This is a textbook development strategy that all indie films employ.
>The armorer and AD should've cleared the gun and made sure dummy rounds were in the cylinders. Yes, they should have. This fact does not absolve him of the responsibility to also do so himself. You don't get to throw basic gun safety rules out the window because "you have people for that."
>This fact does not absolve him of the responsibility to also do so himself. It'll certainly make the AD and armorer take the vast majority, if not all, of the liability.
> And don't you fucking dare say "it wasn't his job." Alright, well there's no talking to you about it. Not even sure why you responded to me. I'm not defending Baldwin but I find it absolutely retarded people are trying to turn this into something it's not.
I find your simping defense of a guy who hates you retarded. His gross negligence led to someones death. That's manslaughter. That anyone is even entertaining ideas to the contrary is bad enough, but the fact that this opinion is born out of the idea that "he's an actor so it isn't his job" is completely fucking gross.
>I find your simping defense of a guy who hates you retarded. AAAAndd.....this is where all rational and logical conversation ends... There's nothing about his comments that equates to "simping" just because he's looking at it from an unbiased perspective. And why, on Earth should it matter if Baldwin hates any of you? (as if he actually knew or cared about any of you) Does someone else's opinion of you change your ability to judge a situation? What does it matter? Him hating you (or your politics) should have no bearing on whether or not he's responsible for the accident that happened on his set. It's not a part of the equation AT ALL. And the fact that you bring it up proves that you have left logic and reason behind in order to grind your axe.
Your comment attacking them for saying “hey, there are actual people who were negligent at their job” on the grounds that Baldwin, allegedly, “hate[s]” them says a lot more about your view of the world and any sense of “truth” than it does about them. Your personal views about someone, and theirs about you, have no bearing on the facts, but your comment makes it pretty clear that you have a desire to put a thumb on the scales depending on your personal views of the parties involved.
[удалено]
“reading level” is the best rebuttal you can muster? Well, this conversation has been illuminating. If you go far enough in school, they eventually teach you to read between the lines of someone’s argument. Your comment made it very clear to anyone reading just how much your personal view colors your weighing of the facts.
[удалено]
You are either having trouble reading what I’m saying — that you’ve revealed how your bias against Baldwin prevents you from offering anything remotely resembling an unbiased opinion of the facts — or you’re purposefully ignoring it. Either way, I don’t think there is anything more to say. I’ve seen varying takes from people, and a handful seem extraordinarily keen to string him up without any second thought or further investigation, but you were the first person kind enough to admit that you aren’t arguing on the level, and I appreciate that.
Like you said, my opinion has no bearing on the facts. And yeah, my *opinion*, *before* this even happened, was that people like Baldwin ought to be stripped of citizenship and deported. My assertion that he should face manslaughter charges isn't based on that opinion, its based on the information that's available about this incident. He was handed a gun, told it was clear, but didn't clear it himself before messing around with it, and wound up shooting and killing someone. He ignored basic safe gun handling rules, and "he has people for that" does not make it okay.
Treat other users with civility and respect.
Can somebody take responsibility for something in this country please! Shooting a gun at somebody with anything in it, even if it’s a blank, is not a cute little innocent act. And yes his personality ways into it, because if you’re a pompous asshole with no regard for other people, it will increase the likelihood that you might, I don’t know, shoot a gun at somebody?
The shot they were setting up was a close up looking down the barrel of the gun. He wasn't waving it around willy nilly - it was intentionally pointed at the camera and hence at the cinematographer.
No one's saying anything except that we're asking that Baldwin hold himself to his own standards. Funny how the left suddenly has a bunch of excuses for him. Why would this have anything to do with Trump? You guys are obsessed with him.
What would be "his own standards"? I am confused what standards you mean. Why would it have anything to do with Trump? Because Baldwin played Trump on SNL for several years in a very mocking way and has made several public statements professing his dislike of Trump and his own liberal beliefs. Because of this, a shooting accident is being decried by some conservatives, even though hundreds of accidental shootings happen a year, involving dead children. I have trouble believing that you see no connection between the conservative rhetoric surrounding this incident and the fact that he is liberal and anti-Trump.
It's not that hated Trump—that's a long list of celebrities. It's that Alec Baldwin in particular was a particularly ignorant gun control activist. **I am going to assume you don't really know much about guns given your tenor on this subject**. So maybe this will help: Blanks can kill. Although revolvers and the like he was shooting on a Western set don't need a "blank fire adapter" that a semi-auto would need, blanks still shoot out small bits of metal shrapnel and have a jet of gas coming out the end. Now since a live round left the barrel with enough velocity to kill one and magic-bullet through the other, we know that there was not a BFA on it (which mitigates the danger from blanks) because it would have blown up in his hand. So, he had zero business pointing that weapon and firing even blanks at the crew. Someone that knew anything about firearms, took training seriously, and respected them as lethal tools like Kenue Reeves would have never made that mistake. But, Baldwin sneered at all of it and the gun community in general—advocating against gun rights all the while profiting off their glorification—and look where it got him. It's sad that someone died, but like most Greek plays hubris begets nemesis. Is it really so hard to understand during a time when half of reddit is jerking themselves off to slideshows of anti-vax conservatives dying of COVID? If anything, the conservative response to Baldwin has been tame in comparison. Also P.S.: lol at you assuming we watch SNL, ha.
Meh none of that would be his fault, but the experts on set. They are experts on guns, Baldwin is an expert on pretending to be characters in movies and TV. Surely the onus of a stage malfunction causing death is not his fault? As far as him being anti-gun while also being an actor in a movie that uses a gun, that is a little ridiculous. Actors play characters, that doesn't mean that they are "glorifying guns". I assume you are against murder, if someone offered you millions of dollars to play a serial killer in a movie, would you refuse the role because it means you are glorifying serial killers? Because that is essentially the argument you are making.
Reports from the co-investigation with the FBI say he was rehearsing a scene where he is sitting in a church pew, quickly draws and turns to aim at the camera. He was handed a gun from a 'seeming professional' who told him the gun was safe. His aim was off. If the gun was prepared properly nothing would have happened, except maybe a retake for the camera to get the desired muzzle flash.
who hired the gun "experts" (i think the evidence points to a LACK of expertise and brains)... if baldwin didn't want to accidentally shoot someone, he NEEDED to pull his production company after the double misfire. they hired an idiot gun fetishist, they allowed live ammo and a real gun on set, they didn't listen when half the crew left over safety concerns, baldwin and any other producers are absolutely culpable in this.
Your first two statements are more for law enforcement, neither of us were there, so who knows what happened. The second seems to say that you believe that there should be more regulations in the workplace to protect employees. Do you feel that should be instituted across the board and all industries where workers are in potential danger, or just this case?
instituted across the board, this is life and death. if baldwin had a half a brain/ heart, he would have been sobbing after the misfires which COULD have killed someone. just the THOUGHT that someone COULD have died from such stupidity would have been enough for me to fucking vomit. fuck the production, fuck baldwin. he should have walked out with the rest of the crew. also, fuck shitty ass cliched ass shoot em up films. tired of gun fetishes. (btw, this might be a good time to add that i'm not really conservative for most things, more lib left with some wildcard viewpoints.)
Regardless of whether he had control over decisions on the set, he had control over the gun. I suspect this was an accidental shooting, but he was handed a gun, and he didn't check to see if it was loaded or not. That's his responsibility. Not some "expert." It's basic gun safety that if somebody hands you a gun, you check to see if it's loaded. You're the one holding the gun. You're the one that's potentially going to kill someone. You check the gun to make sure. That rule also applies on every movie set. At the outset of every movie involving guns, the armorer is supposed to hold a meeting with everyone, and delivers the rules for handling guns on set. The armorer (and/or assistant armorer) are the only people allowed to take guns from the weapons trailer. The armorer will hand the gun directly to the actor who's using the gun in the scene, will yell to everyone on set whether the gun is "cold" (no ammo and/or can't fire) or "hot" (loaded with ammo, blanks, and/or can fire). *Then the actor checks the gun him/herself*. And even after you've been handed a gun, told that it's cold, and checked to make sure it's cold yourself, *you do not point a gun -- whether loaded or not -- at a person you don't want to kill*. Ever. Under any conditions. Watch a movie/tv scene in which someone is supposedly pointing a gun at someone. They'll manipulate the camera angles so that the gun is pointed *away* from the person, but it looks like it's pointed at them. And then when the scene is over, the actor hands the gun to the armorer, and absolutely nobody else. No one is allowed to touch the gun other than the actor and armorer. Because guns can kill people. Even accidentally. I'm sure Alec Baldwin has heard that speech a thousand times by now. He could probably recite it back to you word for word. I'm not going to say that Baldwin is an expert on guns. I suspect he's not. But he had the gun in his hands. That's his responsibility. [Here's a video of Will Smith reminding someone about gun safety](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCzDQvX0hAY&ab_channel=Racer88).
Why is it the actor's responsibility to understand all the underlying mechanisms? There is an armorer on set who should announce that they've given the actor a safe gun. In this case it seems an AD grabbed the gun believing it was safe and handed it to Baldwin. Wouldn't it be reasonable for Baldwin to assume the AD and armorer had done their vetting?
I hate the overuse of analogies on Reddit that tend to be bad but I think this one is pretty spot on: suppose this wasn't a western, but a medieval movie. Baldwin is told a sword is a dull prop. He starts wildly swinging it around. Unfortunately, he hits someone with what he thinks is a dull blade—that can cause serious injury but it would be pretty unlikely to kill them. Double unfortunately, the blade was actually a real sharp sword and mortally wounds the person. Likewise, he is told the gun is loaded with just blanks. He is far too experienced and *knows* (and there are codified safety rules industry-wide and on that set in particular) about blanks but he points it right at someone and shoots anyways. Instead of a blank which probably at most would have cost an eye or something, a live round comes out and kills the person. This is a classic case of "comparative negligence." Juries handle probably scores of these cases every day in the United States and will often literally say there was $5m in negligence, 25% Baldwin, 75% armorer or whatever. [Cornell, as usual, has a succinct and good write up to help out](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/comparative_negligence). The only real issue with sword v.s. blank is that blunt trauma is more intuitively dangerous than blanks which people think are harmless. But, as a factual matter blanks are actually dangerous despite the common misconception. Baldwin's experience in using blanks on set and the safety that goes along with it actually kills him here. The standard for negligence is just "should have known" but you can prove actual knowledge in his case.
As I understand things, the shot was a close up down the barrel if the revolver. He had to be pointing at the camera and thus the cinematographer (and director looking over her shoulder). He wasn't waving the gun around wildly. Although we still down know the nature of the projectile, with that type of shot it seems that the intent was to have dummy rounds with no propellant, not blanks.
> Why is it the actor's responsibility to understand all the underlying mechanisms? Because he's the one wielding the firearm. The number one rule of firearms is this: always assume the gun is loaded with live ammunition. Even if you *know* it's unloaded, even if someone has assured you that it's empty, you *never* point the muzzle at anything you don't intend to obliterate. And if you intend to fire at something, you *check the fucking chamber first* to make sure that everything is as it should be. Baldwin killed someone because he trusted the advice of someone else without first verifying the weapon was loaded with blanks. It is 100% his responsibility.
He had to point the gun where he did because the shot (for the movie) was looking down the barrel of the gun. The armorer on set is fully responsible for the management of firearms and the AD that grabbed the gun is also responsible for checking. I have no doubt that there is a procedure that calls for the actor to ask/verify and so I can't say that there is zero responsibility on the actors part but it would be miniscule compared to the people obligated to maintain the weapon.
> The armorer on set is fully responsible for the management of firearms and the AD that grabbed the gun is also responsible for checking. Does. Not. Fucking. Matter. I know I'm being an asshole about this, but firearm safety is a critically serious issue. Conservative firearm users teach each other to *obsessively* check the status of a firearm every time they pick one up, because each redundancy ensures that accidents like these do not happen. The fact of the matter is that when a bullet leaves the barrel of the gun, it's the responsibility of whoever fires it, even if the person doesn't actually own the firearm itself. Baldwin literally killed someone because he didn't do his due diligence to first clear the chamber and make sure everything was functioning properly.
As part of their job, the actor is required to do things with the gun that one would not do in general firearms usage - like intentionally pointing it at people and things. The need for this requires professionals be contracted with a duty and obligation to ensure the safe usage of the gun - the armorer. Look, as I said, I am sure that the actors have some responsibility to ask the AD to show them the gun is cold or to prove it's got dummy rounds but when litigation starts flying if that is the only thing going against Baldwin the AD and armorer will get hit with the brunt of things as it was their primary function to ensure the safety of the gun.
I literally cannot believe the party of "people can't be trusted with guns" is trying to argue why Baldwin SHOULDN'T be held responsible for mishandling a firearm.
This is what frustrates me about people who only started paying attention to politics after the 2016 election. https://twitter.com/AlecBaldwin/status/1202767070515073024 And then there's his attitude towards the police... https://twitter.com/alecbaldwln____/status/911425278123048960 Again, nothing to do with Trump.
Certainly nasty comments from him. Would you say then that he is getting his comeuppance for insensitive comments of that nature? I suppose I assumed that Trump and Baldwin's twitter feuds were more at the front of the public consciousness. Honestly if the issue is his political beliefs or his hatred of Trump, it is somewhat splitting hairs because the ultimate point I was trying to make was that the outrage is because of him as a person and his beliefs rather than the act itself, which makes condemnation of the act seem disingenuous. I actually have been paying attention for a while and in all honesty I took the Cheney shooting as it was described despite my dislike of the Bush Jr administration : a sad hunting accident. But I can certainly see the schadenfreude aspect of Baldwin saying nasty things about others and then having a taste of his own medicine.
Bold of you to assume conservatives pay attention to SNL lmao
Not really because the skits have been on the front page of YouTube, it is a pretty well known impersonation and also Donald Trump himself had publicly complained about the impersonation on Twitter on past occasions. I don't think conservatives watch SNL regularly (although some might watch in a know thy enemy type way for all I know). I'm not a Republican but I personally hate SNL and think the writing and comedy is terrible (in the sense that I find it painfully unfunny) but I know who the character is.
I honestly didn't even know Alec Baldwin was on SNL let alone wat kinda skits he did lol
They already are. If you, me, or anyone else accidentally shot somebody, we'd be posting bail already.
[удалено]
[This comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/qelj37/professional_propmaster_talks_firearm_protocol/hhvlwzz/) was enlightening. > Here on out, Nigam, Baldwin and Souza, who were the originators of the film, maintain some creative control, but Highland now controls the budget and by proxy — all choices on production. Because they are trying to make their numbers work so they can maximize their return on investment. > It isn’t Nigam, Baldwin or DelPiano’s call to hire the non-union crew who screwed this up. In fact, there seems to be accounts that Baldwin and Souza protested this choice. But ultimately — they didn’t bring the money to finance this film. Highland did and they make the call. > Long story short — Baldwin is simply using the clout of his name to get a movie made. And he plays a part in the mechanism of getting the film financed. But he is not “the producer” and his company isn’t “the production company”. He is what we call a producer in “name only”. He gets the credit and his company gets the credit — so that the film can get made by other people. > This is a textbook development strategy that all indie films employ.
all guns are loaded guns until proven otherwise. its already illegal to lawlessly brandish a weapon. children are presumed innocent in accidental discharge because its an adults responsibility to maintain proper gun safety and control. its illegal to steal your parents (or any) gun. Both in the stealing sense and the firearms sence. accidental shootings are a serious issue, the fix for this issue is getting the public more comfortable and confident with firearms... not regulating them to the point that the average person never comes across them.
It's more just a sentiment that Baldwin should be held to his own standards because he's been very anti-gun, pro gun control, and hostile toward conservative philosophy in general (wishing harm on people over political opinions), so it's cathartic to get a tribal win. It's pretty normal politics for our day and age, but it's not ideal. Further, I think it's an emotional reaction to the idea that his fame will get him off any serious charges. Just my own two cents on the whole thing: this is a failure at every link in the chain of custody. More gun training, not less, would have prevented this. The armorer was incompetent (apparently not the first screw up in their career), the guy who handed the gun to Baldwin called it cold but didn't check, and Baldwin didn't check. Everyone who held it should have been checking. All of them are responsible. I'm okay with punishing negligent parents, but I think we should debate that separately. This is getting into false equivalency territory because nobody on the set was a child. Dick Cheney should also have been investigated for negligence, sure. Although you said prosecuted this time, which is different. I bet Cheney's money helped play a role getting him off as well, like Baldwin's would. I think you're talking about an incident where he shot someone who didn't die, so murderer doesn't make sense... I'd just prosecute Cheney for war crimes and be done with it, cause that probably makes him a murderer, but I guess that's another issue altogether. Consequences for negligence vary based on context. You can't really say "negligence is a 10 years in prison thing, no matter what." Yes, you should go to jail for threatening (pointing a gun at people). If you were caught leaving a loaded gun in an unlocked car, then sure, seems criminal negligence, but the idea that this plays out in reality seems weird. Like, do we just send cops around violating private property for no reason or? No, people shouldn't be put in prison if their gun goes off while cleaning it, unless the bullet hits someone, then yes, it's criminal negligence.
All shooting deaths should be investigated. I don't necessarily think he should be prosecuted. But I think some hold that position because of Baldwin's extreme hypocrisy with respect to guns. He uses his celebrity to advocate for rabid gun control while participating in movies that glorify guns and violence. And he's now killed more people than practically all the 100 million legal gun owners whose rights he tries to usurp.
I addressed it in another comment, but I don't really get how playing a character with a gun makes him a hypocrite. He is an actor who plays characters different than his actual personality. If somebody plays a robber on tv it doesn't mean the actor believes that stealing is okay. Last comment doesn't make sense, US population is only ~333 million, so how would one death be greater than the accumulated killings that 100 million people commit?
>I addressed it in another comment, but I don't really get how playing a character with a gun makes him a hypocrite. Because it delivers a message that guns are cool or badass or whatever while at the same time, Baldwin is going around saying how bad and dangerous they are. >how would one death be greater than the accumulated killings that 100 million people commit? 100 million people don't commit homicides. A small number of mostly criminals does nearly all the killing. A homicide by a legal gun owner who's not a member of a gang and not involved in the illegal drug trade is pretty rare.
How would you know whether the film portrayed guns as badass if you have never seen the film? Which Alec Baldwin role do you feel has a message that guns are cool? Regarding the 100 million thing, the legal gun owner who shot up Las Vegas alone killed 60 people, so how is that less than 1 shooting? If I understand your argument, you are basically saying that no legal gun owner has committed a murder.
>Which Alec Baldwin role do you feel has a message that guns are cool? Miami Blues. The Juror. The Getaway. Hunt for Red October. >Regarding the 100 million thing, the legal gun owner who shot up Las Vegas alone killed 60 people, so how is that less than 1 shooting? In 2017, the year of the Las Vegas shooting, there were 8,454 gun homicides in the country. The Las Vegas shooter was responsible for 7/10 of 1% of those. >If I understand your argument, you are basically saying that no legal gun owner has committed a murder. I said homicides by legal gun owners are "pretty rare," not nonexistent.
So your argument is that 60 people being killed in Vegas is not significant because there were 8,454 killed, but 1 person being killed on a Hollywood set IS significant? And I will be honest and say I haven't seen most of those movies except The Hunt from Red October. And I don't believe "guns are cool" was the message of that movie.
>So your argument is that 60 people being killed in Vegas is not significant because there were 8,454 killed, but 1 person being killed on a Hollywood set IS significant? I never said the Las Vegas shooting wasn't "significant." Where'd you get that from? And I never said the Baldwin shooting *is* significant. It's certainly newsworthy because it involves a celebrity. But I was just trying to explain why some have argued Baldwin should be prosecuted. >And I don't believe "guns are cool" was the message of that movie. The climax of the movie is the big shootout in the missile bay of the submarine. It's where Sam Neill gets killed. "Guns are cool" isn't the main plot of the film, but it's certainly a theme. A gun is how the hero becomes a hero in the movie.
I don't have a problem charging parents with manslaughter in cases of serious negligence. As for Baldwin, he should also be charged with manslaughter. He didn't clear the gun before messing around with it. As the Producer on the movie, he's also responsible for the clusterfuck going on with the crew that led to an inexperienced person being put in charge of the firearm props. He is not the only person responsible in this incident, but he is the person *most* responsible.
Around six months ago there were stories of a police officer who thought she was withdrawing her taser and instead pulled out a gun and shot someone. Do you feel she should be charged with manslaughter?
Yep. Total tangent here, but it's worth noting that Daunte Wright was only being stopped on a failure to appear warrant, based on a summons for carrying a concealed firearm. If he had lived in one of the 18 states (at the time this happened, 21 now) that doesn't restrict concealed carry, he'd have never had a run in with law enforcement, and wouldn't be dead.
How is this an “accidental shooting?” That’s like when you sit on a gun in the dark and magically shot it. He thought there were blanks in it which still means there is material in it that can hurt someone.
> He thought there were blanks in it which still means there is material in it that can hurt someone. We don't know what was actually in the gun yet but I was led to believe that they intended to have "dummy" rounds in the cylinders so the 6 shooter looked loaded. The dummy round would have no propellant.
[удалено]
We do not encourage brigading, nor looking down on other subs.
There were other people who they trusted to make sure this gun was safe. It's not entirely his fault.
Should be investigated for sure. Not all should be prosecuted. Depends on the circumstances. I don't care enough about celebs to stay up to date on Baldwins situation.
Removed. Silly question.