America's Gun Violence #2

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

mace1229 said:

PJPOWER said:

So who should be charged with firearm negligence?  Alec?  The armory person?  

I wouldn’t think Baldwin would or should be charged if the industry standard was to have a firearms expert on site and trust his knowledge. I would also think that standard might change to make anyone handling a gun (if they even use real guns after this) be trained and responsible for the final inspection. 

I get many actors probably don’t own or use guns and just trust the experts working with them. But honestly, even if I was anti-gun, I’d want to take a safety training course and be able to inspect any firearm someone just hands me and says to go point it at someone and pull the trigger, it’s fine. 

If my first sentence is true, I think the standard should change to include anyone who held the gun in the chain of events be held responsible. Don’t just trust someone a gun is empty and take their word for it.

If someone gave you a gun and said “don’t worry, it’s not loaded”, and you pointed it at someone and shot them, who would be liable?  In the end, it’s always (with adults anyway)the person holding/pointing/shooting the gun that is responsible for where that bullet lands and the damage it does.  I don’t give him a pass just because he is an actor.  

But this isn't just any old backyard shenanigans. this is a controlled setting with real experts knowing what is inside the gun and what isn't. Baldwin wouldn't have known just by looking at it. this is one of those cases where the liability, in my view, would only fall on him if:

a) as the producer, knowingly cut corners with the union and safety protocols
b) as an actor, pointed it somewhere he shouldn't have been pointing it

It doesn’t even sound like the person in charge of the guns was very knowledgeable of them.  Not sure about “real experts”…
And the actor was obviously pointing it at someone’s mid-section.
My argument is that Baldwin shouldn’t have even had it in his hands if he doesn’t know how to operate it and do his own safety check.

Simple firearm basic safety rules:
”treat every gun as if it were loaded”
”never point at something you do not wish to destroy”

no, there are real experts in this field. from what I've read, there are many variables involved in a prop gun being used safely, so there's a ton of training and expertise involved. 

it's just the costume guy moonlighting as a prop gun guy. 

doing a "safety check", as I said, would have been moot if it had been baldwin, or even a trained firearm enthusiast. As I stated, a layman wouldn't know the difference between a real loaded gun and a prop gun loaded with blanks, even opening the chamber, it looks the same apparently; it is virtually indistinguishable just to look at. only the person loading it would know, and you have to trust they did their job correctly. 

From what I’ve read, it’s a far cry from “a ton of training and expertise”:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2021/10/24/baldwin-rust-shooting-armorer/

“ In particular, the incident has put a spotlight on the role of a set’s armorer, or a firearms specialist — and the lack of formal training required to become one.” 

“There is no standard test to become an armorer, according to Tristano, and training mainly consists of internships or other work under master armorers, the industry term for experienced armorers who oversee those with less experience.”

more evidence has come out that Alec was handed the gun, was practicing removing it from his holster to point at the camera when it discharged. 

Saw that, and also a rumor swirling that some were using the guns to plink prior and that there will most likely be criminal charges sought (not sure who for).  

What a mess, but it really does just boil down to negligence with a firearm.  Still sounds like the armorer was inexperienced and not very well trained.  Maybe they need to re-evaluate the training requirements for anyone handling firearms on movie sets.  There are plenty examples of Hollywood not knowing how firearms work on the big screen alone.  

I will still hold that Alec should not be handing a real firearm unless he knows basic firearm safety (eg: not pointing at anyone or anything, treat every real gun that is capable of firing real bullets as if it were loaded with real bullets).  Otherwise they should probably stick to rubber prop guns and CGI…
Honestly, I hope the film industry is hammered over their negligent portrayal and use of firearms. 

in any industry, there's a certain level of trust that goes with inherent risks that are posed. you trust those that are tasked with the safety of any given instrument/action. I don't see how Alec is at all to blame for this. 

But yes, there is simply no reason to use real firearms anymore, with the technology to make it look like a real firearm is within financial reach of especially big budget films. 

I’ll agree to disagree on the culpability of Alec.  In any other situation where an adult accidentally shoots someone, the person pulling the trigger is ultimately responsible for the damage caused by that action.  The “he’s just an actor” excuse is non-withstanding in my opinion.  If you handle a real firearm, you are responsible for what happens with it.  Alec had a choice to not use a real firearm, had a choice whether or not to check the chamber himself, made the decision as to where the gun was pointed, and made the decision to pull the trigger.  Once the firearm was in his possession, he was responsible for whatever happened to it.  Yes, the armorer is also to blame, but she did not point the gun or pull the trigger.  There are multiple points of irresponsible behavior, but I do think Alec is partly to blame.  The industry should change its protocols or use fake guns if they want to avoid this type of accident, plain and simple. 

Is there another example where the person pointing a firearm and pulling the trigger would not be held at least partially liable for what happens when that trigger is pulled?

so if I'm playing a terrorist in a movie, strap a bomb to my kidnap victim, being assured that, while the bomb looks real, it absolutely is not, and I click the little red button, and it somehow explodes, I'm culpable for homicide? gimme a break. 

I would say that the police would probably look at everyone, from the pyrotechnics professional, to the person that pushed the button to determine who was culpable.  I’m not familiar with bombs, but I know firearm laws pretty well and in any other case, accidental or intentional, the person pulling the trigger is responsible for what happens next.  It’s why the “I didn’t know it was loaded” never holds up in court.  You are responsible for checking that gun yourself.  Once a firearm is placed in your hands, you are responsible for it.  Firearm safety 101 is never assuming a gun is not loaded with live rounds. We agree, though, that the easiest solution to this is to avoid using real guns on set.
Question, are there any reasonable actions Alec could have taken to avoid this tragedy?  If yes, then I think he could face negligent homicide charges at least.

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

mace1229 said:

PJPOWER said:

So who should be charged with firearm negligence?  Alec?  The armory person?  

I wouldn’t think Baldwin would or should be charged if the industry standard was to have a firearms expert on site and trust his knowledge. I would also think that standard might change to make anyone handling a gun (if they even use real guns after this) be trained and responsible for the final inspection. 

I get many actors probably don’t own or use guns and just trust the experts working with them. But honestly, even if I was anti-gun, I’d want to take a safety training course and be able to inspect any firearm someone just hands me and says to go point it at someone and pull the trigger, it’s fine. 

If my first sentence is true, I think the standard should change to include anyone who held the gun in the chain of events be held responsible. Don’t just trust someone a gun is empty and take their word for it.

If someone gave you a gun and said “don’t worry, it’s not loaded”, and you pointed it at someone and shot them, who would be liable?  In the end, it’s always (with adults anyway)the person holding/pointing/shooting the gun that is responsible for where that bullet lands and the damage it does.  I don’t give him a pass just because he is an actor.  

But this isn't just any old backyard shenanigans. this is a controlled setting with real experts knowing what is inside the gun and what isn't. Baldwin wouldn't have known just by looking at it. this is one of those cases where the liability, in my view, would only fall on him if:

a) as the producer, knowingly cut corners with the union and safety protocols
b) as an actor, pointed it somewhere he shouldn't have been pointing it

It doesn’t even sound like the person in charge of the guns was very knowledgeable of them.  Not sure about “real experts”…
And the actor was obviously pointing it at someone’s mid-section.
My argument is that Baldwin shouldn’t have even had it in his hands if he doesn’t know how to operate it and do his own safety check.

Simple firearm basic safety rules:
”treat every gun as if it were loaded”
”never point at something you do not wish to destroy”

no, there are real experts in this field. from what I've read, there are many variables involved in a prop gun being used safely, so there's a ton of training and expertise involved. 

it's just the costume guy moonlighting as a prop gun guy. 

doing a "safety check", as I said, would have been moot if it had been baldwin, or even a trained firearm enthusiast. As I stated, a layman wouldn't know the difference between a real loaded gun and a prop gun loaded with blanks, even opening the chamber, it looks the same apparently; it is virtually indistinguishable just to look at. only the person loading it would know, and you have to trust they did their job correctly. 

From what I’ve read, it’s a far cry from “a ton of training and expertise”:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2021/10/24/baldwin-rust-shooting-armorer/

“ In particular, the incident has put a spotlight on the role of a set’s armorer, or a firearms specialist — and the lack of formal training required to become one.” 

“There is no standard test to become an armorer, according to Tristano, and training mainly consists of internships or other work under master armorers, the industry term for experienced armorers who oversee those with less experience.”

more evidence has come out that Alec was handed the gun, was practicing removing it from his holster to point at the camera when it discharged. 

Saw that, and also a rumor swirling that some were using the guns to plink prior and that there will most likely be criminal charges sought (not sure who for).  

What a mess, but it really does just boil down to negligence with a firearm.  Still sounds like the armorer was inexperienced and not very well trained.  Maybe they need to re-evaluate the training requirements for anyone handling firearms on movie sets.  There are plenty examples of Hollywood not knowing how firearms work on the big screen alone.  

I will still hold that Alec should not be handing a real firearm unless he knows basic firearm safety (eg: not pointing at anyone or anything, treat every real gun that is capable of firing real bullets as if it were loaded with real bullets).  Otherwise they should probably stick to rubber prop guns and CGI…
Honestly, I hope the film industry is hammered over their negligent portrayal and use of firearms. 

in any industry, there's a certain level of trust that goes with inherent risks that are posed. you trust those that are tasked with the safety of any given instrument/action. I don't see how Alec is at all to blame for this. 

But yes, there is simply no reason to use real firearms anymore, with the technology to make it look like a real firearm is within financial reach of especially big budget films. 

I’ll agree to disagree on the culpability of Alec.  In any other situation where an adult accidentally shoots someone, the person pulling the trigger is ultimately responsible for the damage caused by that action.  The “he’s just an actor” excuse is non-withstanding in my opinion.  If you handle a real firearm, you are responsible for what happens with it.  Alec had a choice to not use a real firearm, had a choice whether or not to check the chamber himself, made the decision as to where the gun was pointed, and made the decision to pull the trigger.  Once the firearm was in his possession, he was responsible for whatever happened to it.  Yes, the armorer is also to blame, but she did not point the gun or pull the trigger.  There are multiple points of irresponsible behavior, but I do think Alec is partly to blame.  The industry should change its protocols or use fake guns if they want to avoid this type of accident, plain and simple. 

Is there another example where the person pointing a firearm and pulling the trigger would not be held at least partially liable for what happens when that trigger is pulled?

so if I'm playing a terrorist in a movie, strap a bomb to my kidnap victim, being assured that, while the bomb looks real, it absolutely is not, and I click the little red button, and it somehow explodes, I'm culpable for homicide? gimme a break. 

I would say that the police would probably look at everyone, from the pyrotechnics professional, to the person that pushed the button to determine who was culpable.  I’m not familiar with bombs, but I know firearm laws pretty well and in any other case, accidental or intentional, the person pulling the trigger is responsible for what happens next.  It’s why the “I didn’t know it was loaded” never holds up in court.  You are responsible for checking that gun yourself.  Once a firearm is placed in your hands, you are responsible for it.  Firearm safety 101 is never assuming a gun is not loaded with live rounds. We agree, though, that the easiest solution to this is to avoid using real guns on set.
Question, are there any reasonable actions Alec could have taken to avoid this tragedy?  If yes, then I think he could face negligent homicide charges at least.

if, as producer he was responsible for cutting corners budget-wise, or giving direction in some way that lead to negligence, maybe I could see something like that, but as the actor who had the gun discharge on him, no. this is a closed setting, again, not someone's back yard. these situations simply aren't comparable. 

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

mace1229 said:

PJPOWER said:

So who should be charged with firearm negligence?  Alec?  The armory person?  

I wouldn’t think Baldwin would or should be charged if the industry standard was to have a firearms expert on site and trust his knowledge. I would also think that standard might change to make anyone handling a gun (if they even use real guns after this) be trained and responsible for the final inspection. 

I get many actors probably don’t own or use guns and just trust the experts working with them. But honestly, even if I was anti-gun, I’d want to take a safety training course and be able to inspect any firearm someone just hands me and says to go point it at someone and pull the trigger, it’s fine. 

If my first sentence is true, I think the standard should change to include anyone who held the gun in the chain of events be held responsible. Don’t just trust someone a gun is empty and take their word for it.

If someone gave you a gun and said “don’t worry, it’s not loaded”, and you pointed it at someone and shot them, who would be liable?  In the end, it’s always (with adults anyway)the person holding/pointing/shooting the gun that is responsible for where that bullet lands and the damage it does.  I don’t give him a pass just because he is an actor.  

But this isn't just any old backyard shenanigans. this is a controlled setting with real experts knowing what is inside the gun and what isn't. Baldwin wouldn't have known just by looking at it. this is one of those cases where the liability, in my view, would only fall on him if:

a) as the producer, knowingly cut corners with the union and safety protocols
b) as an actor, pointed it somewhere he shouldn't have been pointing it

It doesn’t even sound like the person in charge of the guns was very knowledgeable of them.  Not sure about “real experts”…
And the actor was obviously pointing it at someone’s mid-section.
My argument is that Baldwin shouldn’t have even had it in his hands if he doesn’t know how to operate it and do his own safety check.

Simple firearm basic safety rules:
”treat every gun as if it were loaded”
”never point at something you do not wish to destroy”

no, there are real experts in this field. from what I've read, there are many variables involved in a prop gun being used safely, so there's a ton of training and expertise involved. 

it's just the costume guy moonlighting as a prop gun guy. 

doing a "safety check", as I said, would have been moot if it had been baldwin, or even a trained firearm enthusiast. As I stated, a layman wouldn't know the difference between a real loaded gun and a prop gun loaded with blanks, even opening the chamber, it looks the same apparently; it is virtually indistinguishable just to look at. only the person loading it would know, and you have to trust they did their job correctly. 

From what I’ve read, it’s a far cry from “a ton of training and expertise”:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2021/10/24/baldwin-rust-shooting-armorer/

“ In particular, the incident has put a spotlight on the role of a set’s armorer, or a firearms specialist — and the lack of formal training required to become one.” 

“There is no standard test to become an armorer, according to Tristano, and training mainly consists of internships or other work under master armorers, the industry term for experienced armorers who oversee those with less experience.”

more evidence has come out that Alec was handed the gun, was practicing removing it from his holster to point at the camera when it discharged. 

Saw that, and also a rumor swirling that some were using the guns to plink prior and that there will most likely be criminal charges sought (not sure who for).  

What a mess, but it really does just boil down to negligence with a firearm.  Still sounds like the armorer was inexperienced and not very well trained.  Maybe they need to re-evaluate the training requirements for anyone handling firearms on movie sets.  There are plenty examples of Hollywood not knowing how firearms work on the big screen alone.  

I will still hold that Alec should not be handing a real firearm unless he knows basic firearm safety (eg: not pointing at anyone or anything, treat every real gun that is capable of firing real bullets as if it were loaded with real bullets).  Otherwise they should probably stick to rubber prop guns and CGI…
Honestly, I hope the film industry is hammered over their negligent portrayal and use of firearms. 

in any industry, there's a certain level of trust that goes with inherent risks that are posed. you trust those that are tasked with the safety of any given instrument/action. I don't see how Alec is at all to blame for this. 

But yes, there is simply no reason to use real firearms anymore, with the technology to make it look like a real firearm is within financial reach of especially big budget films. 

I’ll agree to disagree on the culpability of Alec.  In any other situation where an adult accidentally shoots someone, the person pulling the trigger is ultimately responsible for the damage caused by that action.  The “he’s just an actor” excuse is non-withstanding in my opinion.  If you handle a real firearm, you are responsible for what happens with it.  Alec had a choice to not use a real firearm, had a choice whether or not to check the chamber himself, made the decision as to where the gun was pointed, and made the decision to pull the trigger.  Once the firearm was in his possession, he was responsible for whatever happened to it.  Yes, the armorer is also to blame, but she did not point the gun or pull the trigger.  There are multiple points of irresponsible behavior, but I do think Alec is partly to blame.  The industry should change its protocols or use fake guns if they want to avoid this type of accident, plain and simple. 

Is there another example where the person pointing a firearm and pulling the trigger would not be held at least partially liable for what happens when that trigger is pulled?

so if I'm playing a terrorist in a movie, strap a bomb to my kidnap victim, being assured that, while the bomb looks real, it absolutely is not, and I click the little red button, and it somehow explodes, I'm culpable for homicide? gimme a break. 

I would say that the police would probably look at everyone, from the pyrotechnics professional, to the person that pushed the button to determine who was culpable.  I’m not familiar with bombs, but I know firearm laws pretty well and in any other case, accidental or intentional, the person pulling the trigger is responsible for what happens next.  It’s why the “I didn’t know it was loaded” never holds up in court.  You are responsible for checking that gun yourself.  Once a firearm is placed in your hands, you are responsible for it.  Firearm safety 101 is never assuming a gun is not loaded with live rounds. We agree, though, that the easiest solution to this is to avoid using real guns on set.
Question, are there any reasonable actions Alec could have taken to avoid this tragedy?  If yes, then I think he could face negligent homicide charges at least.

if, as producer he was responsible for cutting corners budget-wise, or giving direction in some way that lead to negligence, maybe I could see something like that, but as the actor who had the gun discharge on him, no. this is a closed setting, again, not someone's back yard. these situations simply aren't comparable. 

From New Mexico law:

https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/2013/chapter-30/article-2/section-30-2-3/

“Involuntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to felony, or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection.”

Due caution and circumspection=not pointing a real gun at someone, checking chamber, etc.
I honestly don’t see how he would not be somewhat culpable here with the way the law is written.

If you were at a gun range (closed setting) and the range master told you your gun was unloaded, and you picked it up without checking it, pointed it at someone (or “practicing your
draw”) and shot them with a live round, do you think charges would be brought up against you?  

tempo_n_groove said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

mace1229 said:

PJPOWER said:

So who should be charged with firearm negligence?  Alec?  The armory person?  

I wouldn’t think Baldwin would or should be charged if the industry standard was to have a firearms expert on site and trust his knowledge. I would also think that standard might change to make anyone handling a gun (if they even use real guns after this) be trained and responsible for the final inspection. 

I get many actors probably don’t own or use guns and just trust the experts working with them. But honestly, even if I was anti-gun, I’d want to take a safety training course and be able to inspect any firearm someone just hands me and says to go point it at someone and pull the trigger, it’s fine. 

If my first sentence is true, I think the standard should change to include anyone who held the gun in the chain of events be held responsible. Don’t just trust someone a gun is empty and take their word for it.

If someone gave you a gun and said “don’t worry, it’s not loaded”, and you pointed it at someone and shot them, who would be liable?  In the end, it’s always (with adults anyway)the person holding/pointing/shooting the gun that is responsible for where that bullet lands and the damage it does.  I don’t give him a pass just because he is an actor.  

But this isn't just any old backyard shenanigans. this is a controlled setting with real experts knowing what is inside the gun and what isn't. Baldwin wouldn't have known just by looking at it. this is one of those cases where the liability, in my view, would only fall on him if:

a) as the producer, knowingly cut corners with the union and safety protocols
b) as an actor, pointed it somewhere he shouldn't have been pointing it

It doesn’t even sound like the person in charge of the guns was very knowledgeable of them.  Not sure about “real experts”…
And the actor was obviously pointing it at someone’s mid-section.
My argument is that Baldwin shouldn’t have even had it in his hands if he doesn’t know how to operate it and do his own safety check.

Simple firearm basic safety rules:
”treat every gun as if it were loaded”
”never point at something you do not wish to destroy”

no, there are real experts in this field. from what I've read, there are many variables involved in a prop gun being used safely, so there's a ton of training and expertise involved. 

it's just the costume guy moonlighting as a prop gun guy. 

doing a "safety check", as I said, would have been moot if it had been baldwin, or even a trained firearm enthusiast. As I stated, a layman wouldn't know the difference between a real loaded gun and a prop gun loaded with blanks, even opening the chamber, it looks the same apparently; it is virtually indistinguishable just to look at. only the person loading it would know, and you have to trust they did their job correctly. 

From what I’ve read, it’s a far cry from “a ton of training and expertise”:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2021/10/24/baldwin-rust-shooting-armorer/

“ In particular, the incident has put a spotlight on the role of a set’s armorer, or a firearms specialist — and the lack of formal training required to become one.” 

“There is no standard test to become an armorer, according to Tristano, and training mainly consists of internships or other work under master armorers, the industry term for experienced armorers who oversee those with less experience.”

more evidence has come out that Alec was handed the gun, was practicing removing it from his holster to point at the camera when it discharged. 

Saw that, and also a rumor swirling that some were using the guns to plink prior and that there will most likely be criminal charges sought (not sure who for).  

What a mess, but it really does just boil down to negligence with a firearm.  Still sounds like the armorer was inexperienced and not very well trained.  Maybe they need to re-evaluate the training requirements for anyone handling firearms on movie sets.  There are plenty examples of Hollywood not knowing how firearms work on the big screen alone.  

I will still hold that Alec should not be handing a real firearm unless he knows basic firearm safety (eg: not pointing at anyone or anything, treat every real gun that is capable of firing real bullets as if it were loaded with real bullets).  Otherwise they should probably stick to rubber prop guns and CGI…
Honestly, I hope the film industry is hammered over their negligent portrayal and use of firearms. 

in any industry, there's a certain level of trust that goes with inherent risks that are posed. you trust those that are tasked with the safety of any given instrument/action. I don't see how Alec is at all to blame for this. 

But yes, there is simply no reason to use real firearms anymore, with the technology to make it look like a real firearm is within financial reach of especially big budget films. 

I’ll agree to disagree on the culpability of Alec.  In any other situation where an adult accidentally shoots someone, the person pulling the trigger is ultimately responsible for the damage caused by that action.  The “he’s just an actor” excuse is non-withstanding in my opinion.  If you handle a real firearm, you are responsible for what happens with it.  Alec had a choice to not use a real firearm, had a choice whether or not to check the chamber himself, made the decision as to where the gun was pointed, and made the decision to pull the trigger.  Once the firearm was in his possession, he was responsible for whatever happened to it.  Yes, the armorer is also to blame, but she did not point the gun or pull the trigger.  There are multiple points of irresponsible behavior, but I do think Alec is partly to blame.  The industry should change its protocols or use fake guns if they want to avoid this type of accident, plain and simple. 

Is there another example where the person pointing a firearm and pulling the trigger would not be held at least partially liable for what happens when that trigger is pulled?

so if I'm playing a terrorist in a movie, strap a bomb to my kidnap victim, being assured that, while the bomb looks real, it absolutely is not, and I click the little red button, and it somehow explodes, I'm culpable for homicide? gimme a break. 

I would say that the police would probably look at everyone, from the pyrotechnics professional, to the person that pushed the button to determine who was culpable.  I’m not familiar with bombs, but I know firearm laws pretty well and in any other case, accidental or intentional, the person pulling the trigger is responsible for what happens next.  It’s why the “I didn’t know it was loaded” never holds up in court.  You are responsible for checking that gun yourself.  Once a firearm is placed in your hands, you are responsible for it.  Firearm safety 101 is never assuming a gun is not loaded with live rounds. We agree, though, that the easiest solution to this is to avoid using real guns on set.
Question, are there any reasonable actions Alec could have taken to avoid this tragedy?  If yes, then I think he could face negligent homicide charges at least.

if, as producer he was responsible for cutting corners budget-wise, or giving direction in some way that lead to negligence, maybe I could see something like that, but as the actor who had the gun discharge on him, no. this is a closed setting, again, not someone's back yard. these situations simply aren't comparable. 

From New Mexico law:

https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/2013/chapter-30/article-2/section-30-2-3/

“Involuntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to felony, or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection.”

Due caution and circumspection=not pointing a real gun at someone, checking chamber, etc.
I honestly don’t see how he would not be somewhat culpable here with the way the law is written.

If you were at a gun range (closed setting) and the range master told you your gun was unloaded, and you picked it up without checking it, pointed it at someone (or “practicing your
draw”) and shot them with a live round, do you think charges would be brought up against you?  

Movie set and was told it's a prop gun.

No way he gets charged.

I still think there was intent from someone though...

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Hilarious that some folks want more “responsibility” regarding firearms and “responsibleness” on a movie set than they do out in public. What a joke.

Like “responsible” gun owners who have shot and/or killed someone have always been held accountable or “responsible?” Haha, good one!

This was supposed to be a trained professional and not Big Hoss from around the Holler.  The professional should be held to a higher standard because he is the hired expert.

Do you hire the guy from up the block that slept at the Holiday Inn to do your taxes or someone certified?  

HughFreakingDillon said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

dick cheney shot a man in the face on a hunting trip. i have seen more vitriol online about baldwin than i ever saw following the cheney incident. i hated dick cheney and am no fan of baldwin as a person, but i think from what i can see baldwin is being attacked more viciously than cheney ever was.

that's actually a really great point. 

Meltdown99 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

dick cheney shot a man in the face on a hunting trip. i have seen more vitriol online about baldwin than i ever saw following the cheney incident. i hated dick cheney and am no fan of baldwin as a person, but i think from what i can see baldwin is being attacked more viciously than cheney ever was.

Social media was in its infancy.  Facebook started in 2004 and Twitter in 2006.

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Hilarious that some folks want more “responsibility” regarding firearms and “responsibleness” on a movie set than they do out in public. What a joke.

Like “responsible” gun owners who have shot and/or killed someone have always been held accountable or “responsible?” Haha, good one!

This was supposed to be a trained professional and not Big Hoss from around the Holler.  The professional should be held to a higher standard because he is the hired expert.

Do you hire the guy from up the block that slept at the Holiday Inn to do your taxes or someone certified?  

Let me know when these two Big Hoss' from around the Holler are held "responsible."

Police crack mystery of bullet out of nowhere that killed an Everglades fisherman - The Washington Post

“Both males were cooperative and advised that they both shot multiple guns that day, handing them back and forth,” Palm Beach Sheriff spokeswoman Teri Barbera told the Sun Sentinel. “They both shot Galvan’s .45-caliber gun throughout the afternoon.”

When ballistics compared Galvan’s gun with the bullet that fatally hit Ramdass, they matched.

Investigators determined neither men could see beyond the raised bank and vegetation. They did not realize Ramdass was in the line of fire. Detectives also could not prove conclusively who fired the fatal shot. “The victim’s position was concealed from the target range,” Barbara said. “Investigators found no criminal intent and this appears to be a tragic accident.”

Investigators met with the Palm Beach County State Attorney’s Office and determined there was no probable cause for an arrest or criminal charges. Neither Galvan nor Salcedo immediately responded to a Facebook message for comment.

So the person who stayed at the Holiday Inn, got it!