Alec Baldwin just shot and KILLED a woman on a movie set

You are further corroboration that if there was a stupid tax we could possibly eliminate the national debt in a decade.

I live in Toronto. There are some Canadians just as stupid as an American but there many more Americans than Canadians.

We have gun control and people are mostly very happy about it… we don’t have as much gun violence and not many people care to own a gun for “safety”. I’m pretty sure Toronto is a much safer than any comparable American city.

Back to discussion topic… I dislike Alec Baldwin but I can’t image many realistic scenarios in which he would be found responsible for a film accident likely caused by people not doing their job checking that the gun had blanks and it was safe to use for the scene.

I assume he was pointing toward the camera and pulled the trigger as directed… by the director who was behind or beside the camera.

I’m sure all the facts will be out soon.

You're pretending intent means deliberate. He could still be reckless or negligent, which are degrees of intent. He can be told something is safe, and still be reckless or negligent for failing to check himself. Since we are talking about an actual gun here, that some idiot (probably Baldwin) decided was actually going to be aimed at someone, I'd say it is quite likely that the law would assign some degree of care to the person aiming and firing the gun to ensure that it isn't going to kill anyone. Passing the blame to someone else is a weak defense when a person is the "but for" cause of a death.

Its bedrock criminal law (and tort law) that two people can be criminally negligent and/or reckless of the same crime and can even be criminally convicted for the same crime even under different theories of the case. You have no idea what you are talking about.

But have no fear, your liberal hero will be safe. No one will have the guts to arrest, charge or prosecute a rich, white, liberal male in the US.

Not even addressing intent. I'll go ahead and assume he had no mal intent.

He still has liability.

Jon James is really stubborn wrote:

Bad example. Driving a car is a normal activity. The mechanic is at fault. Pointing a gun at somebody and pretending to kill them is at a bit of a higher level of responsibility.

Working a job is a normal activity and that's what Baldwin was doing. He's not anymore to blame for this than if he drove into someone in a car with faulty brakes that had been signed off by a mechanic.

By the way, to emphasise, he wasn't goofing around or doing a prank, he was at work and he could easily have been the guy being fired at.

danube steak wrote:

https://nypost.com/2021/10/23/baldwin-ignored-no-1-rule-of-gun-safety-hollywood-weapons-expert/

Why are there three people pointing guns at each other in that picture accompanying the NY Post tabloid article if no one ever points guns at people in making movies?

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

It wasn't his gun. It was a stage prop that an assistant director assured him was "cold" i.e. safe. You are another moron.

If the actor wasn't Baldwin, there wouldn't be all these posts damning him.

He killed someone. Right?

Here is a question for everyone.

Would he have checked the chamber if the scene had him shooting at his own head?

Betting he wouldn't even agree to execute that with a real gun.

You have no idea about the law. Baldwin's liability depends solely in his own actions. Where is it required in law that an actor is required to check whether a stage firearm is loaded before using it on a set, or on a stage? Thousands of movies and stage plays have required their use. Do the actors routinely check these stage props before pointing them during the course of a scene? Clint Eastwood anyone? Bruce Willis, Sylvester Stallone? The actor will be given the prop by stage assistants at the direction of a director. If there is to be a check that it is safe this is done - or should be done - well before it is supplied to the actor. The assistant director declared it "cold" and therefore safe. There is no intent in Baldwin's actions - he would have had to have known the weapon was loaded - he didn't - and no negligence because he was assured the prop was safe. The event was a tragic accident, but if there is liability it may be in the film company if requisite safeguards weren't followed.

There is no cogent argument against Baldwin supplied here - only the ignorant rantings of those moved solely by their antipathy towards him.

From someone who has no knowledge of the law.

Of course it is required in the law. Shoot somebody with a loaded gun and you are guilty. That is the law. If I sign a contract with you to check my guns before I point them at people and pull the trigger, I am guilty of murder if someone dies. My wife may be able to sue you but I am the criminal. Movie companies aren't exempt from the law. Every actor mentioned would be guilty if they also had pulled the trigger on a loaded gun that killed someone but they didn't so they aren't guilty regardless if they ever checked their own guns.

Armstronglivs wrote:

jamb innn wrote:

"Wasn't his gun"

Great defense.

Actually it is. It was an actor's stage prop that he was assured was harmless. You are quite the moron.

So if I hand you a gun and assure you it's harmless and "cold". Then you go shoot somebody with it, you're not responsible at all? Baldwin has some responsibility and could very easily be civilly and criminally liable to some extent.

Who cares if he is held liable? Justice should be done, whatever that means and is possible in this case.

The whole thing seems like it was an accident waiting to happen: crew walking off set due to safety and work issues, two accidental gun discharges prior to the fatal one, the armorer expressing her concern over her inexperience.

Hmmm. Baldwin his fast draw and pulled the trigger while practicing before the camera shot was ready. He pulled the trigger twice. It seems he was pointing the gun at the camera while three people were behind it still getting ready for the scene.

From Huffpost dot com: "Baldwin was acting out a gunfight at the time, the Los Angeles Times reported, citing production notes that said Baldwin was supposed to back out of a church and withdraw a gun from a holster. While the film crew would normally watch the scene from a distance, the L.A. Times said, Hutchins was still lining up her next camera shot with Souza and one other person. Baldwin reportedly pulled the gun out of its holster once without incident, but the second time, it discharged."

.44 wrote:

Hmmm. Baldwin his fast draw and pulled the trigger while practicing before the camera shot was ready. He pulled the trigger twice. It seems he was pointing the gun at the camera while three people were behind it still getting ready for the scene.

From Huffpost dot com: "Baldwin was acting out a gunfight at the time, the Los Angeles Times reported, citing production notes that said Baldwin was supposed to back out of a church and withdraw a gun from a holster. While the film crew would normally watch the scene from a distance, the L.A. Times said, Hutchins was still lining up her next camera shot with Souza and one other person. Baldwin reportedly pulled the gun out of its holster once without incident, but the second time, it discharged."

News is entertainment. You are quoting an online newspaper as if it is fact. Did HuffPost give their source? If not, source was Alec Baldwin's attorney or Alec Baldwin's public relations team.