America's Gun Violence #2

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

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...

Calling it a prop gun is a sidestep.  It was a real gun used as a prop. 

New Mexico defines a deadly weapon as:
B. "deadly weapon" means any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded; or any weapon which is capable of producing death or great bodily harm,”
https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/2011/chapter30/article1/section30-1-12/

Calling it a “prop gun” is merely semantics.
So, through negligence, Alec Baldwin pointed a deadly weapon at a cast member without inspecting it himself and pulled the trigger= negligent homicide in the way New Mexico law is written.
Will he actually get charged?  Well, he is a rich old white guy, Hollywood “elite”, so not likely…

A) he didn't point it at a cast member. He pointed it at the camera, as the scene likely directed him to. 
even if he inspected it himself, he likely wouldn't have known the difference between blanks and live rounds (nor should he be expected to-why have an armorer if that's the expectation?)
C) he (allegedly) didn't pull the trigger. he was practicing his draw from his holster and it went off. 

real life is different from controlled conditions. I'm not really sure how you can keep arguing this. he won't be charged as the person holding the gun. He might get charged as the producer depending on those findings. But not as the person holding the gun. 

if an actor was supposed to be a firearms expert in a film, knowing they'd be subject to prosecution if an accident happened, we wouldn't have seen one single real gun in a film in decades. it's just not how it works. 

He did point it at a cast member because that is where the bullet hit (that’s how guns work). And guns do not fire just by drawing them from a holster, that’s just stupid.  Guns don’t just “go off” (that’s not how guns work).  He or something had to have pulled the trigger or dropped the hammer.
And they shouldn’t have any real firearms on set if actors are not trained in how to safely operate and inspect them…if nothing else for their own safety.  Hopefully this will bring some attention to this stupid practice.  You never know if a foreign object is in the barrel (another firearm safety training 101rule: Always be sure your barrel is not obstructed).  And you don’t have to be an “expert” to learn how to do a quick safety check, especially on a revolver.
I honestly don’t see how you are arguing against this.  I have showed what the law says, but if you just want to believe your assumptions instead of showing any actual facts, then I’m not sure what further there is to say.

no, he didn't point it at a cast member. he pointed it at the camera and it hit the cinematographer and the director who was crouching behind her. 

I know what the law says as you posted. you think every case is black and white, with no extenuating circumstances? 

I'm not arguing what they should or should not have on set. I actually have already stated I agree that this practice isn't necessary with how affordable the graphics are to make it look real to the movie goer. 

there were two people who handled the gun prior to baldwin, both of whom are responsible for this. the armorer, and the assistant director. I don't know if the AD is actually supposed to check the barrel of the gun, or if he just does as a fail safe, but he did, and failed to check it fully. he has admitted to checking the barrel but he can only remember seeing 3 rounds, and not seeing any live rounds. he said he couldn't recall if the armorer checked the entire barrel. 

I don't know if Baldwin knows what a real bullet looks like vs a blank one. I don't. I have never seen a gun in person in my entire life (no, I'm not kidding). So if I checked a barrel of a gun, I'd personally have zero clue if the round inside was blank or live. 

Uh, you are pretty much the only one arguing for this nonsense, so it's odd that you think it's weird I'm arguing against it. lol

No, he pointed it at the cinematographer.  I’m not saying he intentionally pointed it at her (I realize he claimed he pointed it at the camera), but the bullet would not have hit her if the gun was not pointed at her…not sure why that even has to be argued.  The bullet goes where the gun is pointed…Here is yet another link for you since you seem uneducated about physics:

https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-1/Newton-s-First-Law

And I’ve posted links to lawyers saying he “could” face charges, so I’m not sure where this “you are the only one that thinks that” bullshit comes into play other than a weak attempt at character assassination.  I haven’t seen you post a single bit of information other than your opinion and false information about how firearms work (by your own admission, you know jack shit about them).  All I’ve been posting is that he “could” be held culpable, which is backed up by professional sources saying the same thing, so don’t give me this “ your the only one that thinks that” bullshit.  

Just because Baldwin is ignorant about how to check firearms for safety (a pretty easy task) does not excuse him from culpability.  If you want to give him a pass because he’s a rich old white actor, then that’s your prerogative, but there’s plenty of law professionals that seem to think he “could” face charges.  Will he?  I seriously doubt it.
It sounds like the armorer is the one being thrown under the bus, or the last person to touch the gun before handing it to Baldwin.  I can see a lawyer pointing at the “last point of contact” before it was in Alec’s hands.  Regardless of it all, if actors are using real firearms as props, they should know some basic firearm safety protocols to keep themselves and everyone around them safe.

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

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...

Calling it a prop gun is a sidestep.  It was a real gun used as a prop. 

New Mexico defines a deadly weapon as:
B. "deadly weapon" means any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded; or any weapon which is capable of producing death or great bodily harm,”
https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/2011/chapter30/article1/section30-1-12/

Calling it a “prop gun” is merely semantics.
So, through negligence, Alec Baldwin pointed a deadly weapon at a cast member without inspecting it himself and pulled the trigger= negligent homicide in the way New Mexico law is written.
Will he actually get charged?  Well, he is a rich old white guy, Hollywood “elite”, so not likely…

A) he didn't point it at a cast member. He pointed it at the camera, as the scene likely directed him to. 
even if he inspected it himself, he likely wouldn't have known the difference between blanks and live rounds (nor should he be expected to-why have an armorer if that's the expectation?)
C) he (allegedly) didn't pull the trigger. he was practicing his draw from his holster and it went off. 

real life is different from controlled conditions. I'm not really sure how you can keep arguing this. he won't be charged as the person holding the gun. He might get charged as the producer depending on those findings. But not as the person holding the gun. 

if an actor was supposed to be a firearms expert in a film, knowing they'd be subject to prosecution if an accident happened, we wouldn't have seen one single real gun in a film in decades. it's just not how it works. 

He did point it at a cast member because that is where the bullet hit (that’s how guns work). And guns do not fire just by drawing them from a holster, that’s just stupid.  Guns don’t just “go off” (that’s not how guns work).  He or something had to have pulled the trigger or dropped the hammer.
And they shouldn’t have any real firearms on set if actors are not trained in how to safely operate and inspect them…if nothing else for their own safety.  Hopefully this will bring some attention to this stupid practice.  You never know if a foreign object is in the barrel (another firearm safety training 101rule: Always be sure your barrel is not obstructed).  And you don’t have to be an “expert” to learn how to do a quick safety check, especially on a revolver.
I honestly don’t see how you are arguing against this.  I have showed what the law says, but if you just want to believe your assumptions instead of showing any actual facts, then I’m not sure what further there is to say.

no, he didn't point it at a cast member. he pointed it at the camera and it hit the cinematographer and the director who was crouching behind her. 

I know what the law says as you posted. you think every case is black and white, with no extenuating circumstances? 

I'm not arguing what they should or should not have on set. I actually have already stated I agree that this practice isn't necessary with how affordable the graphics are to make it look real to the movie goer. 

there were two people who handled the gun prior to baldwin, both of whom are responsible for this. the armorer, and the assistant director. I don't know if the AD is actually supposed to check the barrel of the gun, or if he just does as a fail safe, but he did, and failed to check it fully. he has admitted to checking the barrel but he can only remember seeing 3 rounds, and not seeing any live rounds. he said he couldn't recall if the armorer checked the entire barrel. 

I don't know if Baldwin knows what a real bullet looks like vs a blank one. I don't. I have never seen a gun in person in my entire life (no, I'm not kidding). So if I checked a barrel of a gun, I'd personally have zero clue if the round inside was blank or live. 

Uh, you are pretty much the only one arguing for this nonsense, so it's odd that you think it's weird I'm arguing against it. lol

No, he pointed it at the cinematographer.  I’m not saying he intentionally pointed it at her (I realize he claimed he pointed it at the camera), but the bullet would not have hit her if the gun was not pointed at her…not sure why that even has to be argued.  The bullet goes where the gun is pointed…Here is yet another link for you since you seem uneducated about physics:

https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-1/Newton-s-First-Law

And I’ve posted links to lawyers saying he “could” face charges, so I’m not sure where this “you are the only one that thinks that” bullshit comes into play other than a weak attempt at character assassination.  I haven’t seen you post a single bit of information other than your opinion and false information about how firearms work (by your own admission, you know jack shit about them).  All I’ve been posting is that he “could” be held culpable, which is backed up by professional sources saying the same thing, so don’t give me this “ your the only one that thinks that” bullshit.  

Just because Baldwin is ignorant about how to check firearms for safety (a pretty easy task) does not excuse him from culpability.  If you want to give him a pass because he’s a rich old white actor, then that’s your prerogative, but there’s plenty of law professionals that seem to think he “could” face charges.  Will he?  I seriously doubt it.
It sounds like the armorer is the one being thrown under the bus, or the last person to touch the gun before handing it to Baldwin.  I can see a lawyer pointing at the “last point of contact” before it was in Alec’s hands.  Regardless of it all, if actors are using real firearms as props, they should know some basic firearm safety protocols to keep themselves and everyone around them safe.

HAHA, so someone who points a gun at a target where they only assume they need to make it look like they are aiming properly at it since they don't think any projectile will be expelled from it, is going to hit that target 100% of the time? sure. haha. he was fucking PRACTICING. jesus you're really reaching here. 

sure there's going to be lawyers that think he "could" be charged. there's always going to be lawyers that have differing opinions. For every lawyer you find that thinks he could be charged, there's an equal amount that will think the opposite. Especially with so many variables still unknown. 

Character assassination? WTF are you talking about? I'm talking about people here and their respective opinions. 

give him a pass because he's a rich old white actor? where the hell did you get that from?

these aren't my "bullshit" opinions based on false information. I've been reading about this process and how it works. Opinions extrapolated from that. 

you're correct, I don't know "jack shit" about guns. in my opinion, that's irrelevant. he depends on the person responsible for the firearm. full stop. 

I'm not sure why you're so jacked up about this and insulting me, so I'll leave it at that for now. 

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

I'm no lawyer but he was handed a gun and was told it was a "cold gun".....they can try to hold him culpable but he won't be found culpable based on what I've heard.

So if I’m at a gun range (controlled setting) and the range master tells me my gun is unloaded and I pick it up and shoot someone without checking it myself, am I at all culpable?
There are still choices that come into play.  

Choice 1- to point or not to point at someone
Choice 2-to do my own safety check or not
Choice 3-to pull the trigger or not
If your choices could have changed the outcome, you can be held culpable.  Keep in mind, a big part of the law surrounding this is based on whether or not the person knew that the object (gun) was capable of causing harm.  In Baldwin’s case, there had already been accidental discharges on set and plenty of safety concerns.  Did he know that it was a real gun capable of firing real bullets that he was holding? I think it’s pretty easy to conclude he did.  

It was a TV set...not a gun range. 

Not a proper comparison

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

I'm no lawyer but he was handed a gun and was told it was a "cold gun".....they can try to hold him culpable but he won't be found culpable based on what I've heard.

So if I’m at a gun range (controlled setting) and the range master tells me my gun is unloaded and I pick it up and shoot someone without checking it myself, am I at all culpable?
There are still choices that come into play.  

Choice 1- to point or not to point at someone
Choice 2-to do my own safety check or not
Choice 3-to pull the trigger or not
If your choices could have changed the outcome, you can be held culpable.  Keep in mind, a big part of the law surrounding this is based on whether or not the person knew that the object (gun) was capable of causing harm.  In Baldwin’s case, there had already been accidental discharges on set and plenty of safety concerns.  Did he know that it was a real gun capable of firing real bullets that he was holding? I think it’s pretty easy to conclude he did.  

It was a TV set...not a gun range. 

Not a proper comparison

Why not?  I haven’t read any addendums to the firearms laws giving different rules to movie sets.  They are pretty black and white and universal when it comes to settings.  Do you have a better example for comparison?

Why not? Because loaded guns are used at gun ranges. Blank guns are used on TV/Movie sets.

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

mickeyrat said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

I'm no lawyer but he was handed a gun and was told it was a "cold gun".....they can try to hold him culpable but he won't be found culpable based on what I've heard.

So if I’m at a gun range (controlled setting) and the range master tells me my gun is unloaded and I pick it up and shoot someone without checking it myself, am I at all culpable?
There are still choices that come into play.  

Choice 1- to point or not to point at someone
Choice 2-to do my own safety check or not
Choice 3-to pull the trigger or not
If your choices could have changed the outcome, you can be held culpable.  Keep in mind, a big part of the law surrounding this is based on whether or not the person knew that the object (gun) was capable of causing harm.  In Baldwin’s case, there had already been accidental discharges on set and plenty of safety concerns.  Did he know that it was a real gun capable of firing real bullets that he was holding? I think it’s pretty easy to conclude he did.  

different circumstances. at a range , why the fuck would you have blanks?

Maybe to test out the function of a firearm you plan to use as a prop gun?  
They are a actually very similar scenarios and I think you are missing the point.
What I think is ironic is how many of you anti-gun people are being so lenient here.  If Baldwin is not charged, it opens the door to plenty of “but I didn’t know it was really loaded” excuses for people to use in future culpably proceedings with gun accidents, when the momentum should be to hold people more accountable for firearm safety…but I digress…
The gun control crowd taking Baldwin’s side are figuratively shooting themselves in the foot (pun intended).

How many times had Baldwin fired a gun on set in that location? Do you know?

I don’t, do you?  Not sure it matters in the least.  Do you think he should be able to reasonably tell the difference between a plastic gun incapable of causing damage and a real one capable of causing damage?

Plastic? You think they use plastic guns? Maybe they will now but they obviously don't use plastic guns.

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

mickeyrat said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

I'm no lawyer but he was handed a gun and was told it was a "cold gun".....they can try to hold him culpable but he won't be found culpable based on what I've heard.

So if I’m at a gun range (controlled setting) and the range master tells me my gun is unloaded and I pick it up and shoot someone without checking it myself, am I at all culpable?
There are still choices that come into play.  

Choice 1- to point or not to point at someone
Choice 2-to do my own safety check or not
Choice 3-to pull the trigger or not
If your choices could have changed the outcome, you can be held culpable.  Keep in mind, a big part of the law surrounding this is based on whether or not the person knew that the object (gun) was capable of causing harm.  In Baldwin’s case, there had already been accidental discharges on set and plenty of safety concerns.  Did he know that it was a real gun capable of firing real bullets that he was holding? I think it’s pretty easy to conclude he did.  

different circumstances. at a range , why the fuck would you have blanks?

Maybe to test out the function of a firearm you plan to use as a prop gun?  
They are a actually very similar scenarios and I think you are missing the point.
What I think is ironic is how many of you anti-gun people are being so lenient here.  If Baldwin is not charged, it opens the door to plenty of “but I didn’t know it was really loaded” excuses for people to use in future culpably proceedings with gun accidents, when the momentum should be to hold people more accountable for firearm safety…but I digress…
The gun control crowd taking Baldwin’s side are figuratively shooting themselves in the foot (pun intended).

How many times had Baldwin fired a gun on set in that location? Do you know?

I don’t, do you?  Not sure it matters in the least.  Do you think he should be able to reasonably tell the difference between a plastic gun incapable of causing damage and a real one capable of causing damage?

Plastic? You think they use plastic guns? Maybe they will now but they obviously don't use plastic guns.