Alec Baldwin gun incident

[ZeeOSix]

Rules, regulations and protocols mean absolutely nothing if they are not followed.

Filming With Firearms - The American Society of Cinematographers

Explainer: the rules for shooting on film sets

The death of a stuntman while filming a music video in Brisbane has thrown a spotlight on film set safety. Licensed armourers follow strict safety procedures while filming - but firing blanks can still be dangerous.

theconversation.com

Guideline No. 39: Firearms | Safety guidelines for the film and television industry

Learn about the requirements to identify and mitigate health and safety risks in the film and television industry.

www.labour.gov.on.ca

 

[CharlesInCharge]

Based on the definition of an accident, it was an accident. The word may not be used or liked in the gun world, but by the very definition of accident, it was an accident. People like to make up their own definition of words these days fore some reason.

Definition of ACCIDENT

an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance; lack of intention or necessity : chance; an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

View attachment 75743

100% incorrect. Sorry, but it's negligence.

None of these definitions, and particularly not the LEGAL definition, describe this incident. None of this was "unforeseeable," or "unexpected," or "not due to any fault of misconduct."

That's laughable.

Try Negligence. I guarantee if you point a gun at someone that's an assault, absent consent. But one cannot consent to a loaded gun pointed at them, in the law. There's many DUTIES for safety. Those were all violated by many folks including Baldwin, directly and indirectly. Baldwin is in fact the proximate cause of the death, since he pulled the trigger, which caused death and injury. If you go around 1) not personally checking the loaded status, and 2) drawing and pointing "cold" guns at people, and 3) cocking the hammer, and 4) pulling the trigger, then it's not "unexpected," or "unforeseeable," or "not due to any fault or misconduct..." In fact, Baldwin rails on gun owners for such negligence routinely.

No chance this is 'accidental.' It's Negligence, plain and simple. BTW, when you break the law it's not an accident, it's almost always due to intentional or negligent acts or omissions.

Definition of negligence
1a: the quality or state of being negligent
b: failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances… his naivete and negligence had been the source of his problems.— Michael Leahy

More specifically, it's squarely negligence when you dive into the elements. Duty, Standard of Care, Causation, Injury.

negligence

www.law.cornell.edu

Overview
Primary factors to consider in ascertaining whether the person's conduct lacks reasonable care are the foreseeable likelihood that the person's conduct will result in harm, the foreseeable severity of any harm that may ensue, and the burden of precautions to eliminate or reduce the risk of harm. See Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical Harm § 3 (P.F.D. No. 1, 2005). Negligent conduct may consist of either an act, or an omission to act when there is a duty to do so. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 282 (1965).

Four elements are required to establish a prima facie case of negligence:

1. the existence of a legal duty that the defendant owed to the plaintiff [Clearly many duties were owed on set]
2. defendant's breach of that duty [Clearly, many people including the producer, actor Baldwin who did it breached said duties]
3. plaintiff's sufferance of an injury [Death and injuries, possibly even witnesses suffering PTS]
4. proof that defendant's breach caused the injury (typically defined through proximate cause) [This is the are of debate, but I think it squarely lies on Baldwin and others sharing full responsibility for their collective and individual negligence.]

 

[MNgopher]

Did he directly her? I don't know that. Do you?

Hint: how many producers are there on this film. It isn't one.

Also while it is his production firm, did that mean he made all the hiring decisions?

To be blunt, there seems to be a desire to want to pin all the blame on one person. Reality in nearly every incident is much more nuanced multiple parties actions are at fault.

It couldn't have anything to do with who is involved, though right?

 

[redbone3]

Pointed is different than fired.
I would agree that it's probably not practical to expect every actor to chamber check every firearm

I disagree. Basic gun safety is not optional

 

[Propflux01]

You're logic is flawed. What you just said means that pilots are the only people 100% responsible if the airplane goes down because of faulty maintenance done by other people.

If the "boss" is responsible for 100 people, and 30 of those people broke rules and protocols without him knowing it, and their actions ultimately caused a deadly accident, those 30 people just don't walk away without any responsibility of the outcome. More people than just the "boss" hold responsibility.

No, I am saying the captain will burn. Why you ask will he burn? Because he is the end user. Look at Sully. Look what they did to him in the inquiry. Blamed him for the accident. In his case, he had to prove his innocence. They stated he was responsible for the lives of his passengers and crew. Why? again, because he was the end user.

 

[Propflux01]

I think you're not understanding a fundamental point I and others have made. Many people can be 100% liable. Happens all the time in co-conspiracy cases where numerous people are held equally liable; the bank robber, the shooter, the get-away driver, etc.

There is no apparent evidence (yet) that this was a planned crime. It appears more akin to gross negligence on the part of many; the party that hired the inept 'expert,' the party/parties that brought live ammo, whoever loaded the gun, whoever failed his/her duty to unload or inspect and ensure it's unloaded, and, ultimately, the shooter himself. All many points of reckless, careless, and somewhat intentional acts.

Note, none of this is an ACCIDENT. These act were all negligent acts or omissions. The gun functioned correctly. It was the human negligence at probably 5-10 causation chains that lead to this. And as head producer and the actor that fired the gun, Baldwin will or at least should shoulder much of the criminal and civil liability.

IMHO, he should burden all of it. The others involved should burden that which they were negligent of. But in the end, Baldwin caused the incident. He was IN charge, He was responsible for the crew, and he was responsible for the safety of operations, as well. including the discharge of weapons.

 

[ZeeOSix]

100% incorrect. Sorry, but it's negligence.

None of these definitions, and particularly not the LEGAL definition, describe this incident. None of this was "unforeseeable," or "unexpected," or "not due to any fault of misconduct."

That's laughable.

Try Negligence. I guarantee if you point a gun at someone that's an assault, absent consent. But one cannot consent to a loaded gun pointed at them, in the law. There's many DUTIES for safety. Those were all violated by many folks including Baldwin, directly and indirectly. Baldwin is in fact the proximate cause of the death, since he pulled the trigger, which caused death and injury. If you go around 1) not personally checking the loaded status, and 2) drawing and pointing "cold" guns at people, and 3) cocking the hammer, and 4) pulling the trigger, then it's not "unexpected," or "unforeseeable," or "not due to any fault or misconduct..." In fact, Baldwin rails on gun owners for such negligence routinely.

No chance this is 'accidental.' It's Negligence, plain and simple. BTW, when you break the law it's not an accident, it's almost always due to intentional or negligent acts or omissions.

Definition of negligence
1a: the quality or state of being negligent
b: failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances… his naivete and negligence had been the source of his problems.— Michael Leahy

More specifically, it's squarely negligence when you dive into the elements. Duty, Standard of Care, Causation, Injury.

negligence

www.law.cornell.edu

Overview
Primary factors to consider in ascertaining whether the person's conduct lacks reasonable care are the foreseeable likelihood that the person's conduct will result in harm, the foreseeable severity of any harm that may ensue, and the burden of precautions to eliminate or reduce the risk of harm. See Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical Harm § 3 (P.F.D. No. 1, 2005). Negligent conduct may consist of either an act, or an omission to act when there is a duty to do so. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 282 (1965).

Four elements are required to establish a prima facie case of negligence:

1. the existence of a legal duty that the defendant owed to the plaintiff [Clearly many duties were owed on set]
2. defendant's breach of that duty [Clearly, many people including the producer, actor Baldwin who did it breached said duties]
3. plaintiff's sufferance of an injury [Death and injuries, possibly even witnesses suffering PTS]
4. proof that defendant's breach caused the injury (typically defined through proximate cause) [This is the are of debate, but I think it squarely lies on Baldwin and others sharing full responsibility for their collective and individual negligence.]

There was also a lot of carelessness and ignorage involved too I'd say. A level of negligence can be a result from carelessness and/or ignorance. In order to prove negligence, you would have to prove that everyone involved knew exactly what to do (sounds like they didn't), and instead just purposely ignored what they should have been doing knowing it could result in something bad.

 

[ZeeOSix]

No, I am saying the captain will burn. Why you ask will he burn? Because he is the end user. Look at Sully. Look what they did to him in the inquiry. Blamed him for the accident. In his case, he had to prove his innocence. They stated he was responsible for the lives of his passengers and crew. Why? again, because he was the end user.

You keep saying " the end user is 100% responsible" ... even with airplane crashes. Obviously that's not always the case. Sully was the hero in the end. Even if he didn't save everyone and the plane crash killed everyone he still wouldn't have been the only one to blame after the investigation took place - he might have not been held responsible on any level if everyone died. If your logic held, then he should be in jail right now.

 

[billt460]

To be blunt, there seems to be a desire to want to pin all the blame on one person.

Now you're starting to catch on. There was one person who picked up the gun. There was one person who pointed the gun. There was one person who pulled the trigger on the gun, and killed the person it was intentionally pointed at. That is the person who gets 100 percent of the blame. His name is Alec Baldwin.... Everything else is nothing but Saturday afternoon bar stool crap.

 

[ZeeOSix]

^^^ Blinded with with bias, and no sense of what happens on movie sets when the rules and protocols are actually followed by everyone involved with firearms on set.

 

[Krieg]

Baldwin must live knowing that he killed someone without justification. I'm not a fan. But, killing another person is a burden.

 

[billt460]

^^^ Blinded with with bias, and no sense of what happens on movie sets when the rules and protocols are actually followed by everyone involved with firearms on set.

I have an excellent sense of what happens when simple firearm safety rules are not followed. People end up dead. Just like what happened here. You guys could over complicate a cup of coffee, with all of your B.S. analogies. No matter what angle you try to push, if Baldwin had followed the 4 rules of gun safety, that girl would still be alive. He didn't, and she's dead as a direct result.