I physically cannot even flag someone with a drill and the first thing this expert does is this. lol
Last edited:
'Rust' armorer found guilty of involuntary manslaughter?
- Thread starter NorCalMikie
- Start date
Mainly cause the rules of safety apply to adults regardless of stupidity, ignorance and occupation. Now political party these days will probably get you a pass... with this DOJ.
When there’s ‘ no evidence either way’ you no longer have a case.
I’m not going to get trapped into defending Baldwin. My opinion is he’s an egomaniac nut job. But that’s a guess. I have no proof of anything about him. What I happen to ‘think’ has nothing to do with the law.
As far as not having a gun hobby means zero. And your wanting to ‘bet’ on whether he brought or didn’t bring live ammunition on to the set is just a stupid bet.
“Safely bet” is actually hypocritical. If there were no doubt there would be no bet.
I don’t know. He probably is a screw ball given his history.
He’s the producer. He’s responsible for the hiring. He was/is making a low budget film. Someone is dead. Even if he wasn’t an actor he’d be held responsible.
And then throw in the FBI who successfully destroyed the murder weapon.
The woman who is mistakenly called an armorer is a convenient scapegoat .
dellet
Gold $$ Contributor
As.unpopular as this will sound. Try and read to the end.
Ultimately this was not a shooting related death. It was a workplace accident that involved a firearm. No one set out to shoot anyone, the object was to make it look as tho someone was.
The real problem is the conditions that allowed the death to occur, who allowed those conditions, and who should have stopped them, but didn’t. The armors was convicted of being criminally incompetent at her job. By allowing a live round to be not only on the site, but it finding its way into a firearm used in the film.
Accidental shootings happen often, rarely are charges filed. Purposeful shootings also happen often where the owner/provider of the firearm is not charged. Just some things to consider.
If the shooter in this case is charged with simply pulling the trigger, he probably walks. He screwed up, he trusted people paid to keep him from shooting people dead, to do their jobs. That’s probably less responsibility than killing someone with an unloaded gun while cleaning it.
If the man in charge of all the hiring and firing, who was present while drugs and alcohol were being mixed with potentially deadly tools of the trade, without shutting it down and firing people. Possibly even participating or encouraging,, while at the same time not allowing the paid and trained safety experts do their jobs, he should bear as much if not more responsibility as the armorer already convicted.
There had been known and cited safety issues involving firearms/tools of the trade, before the death. Production costs and time schedules were put in front of workplace safety. This is what cost someone their life.
In this case there is a unique situation where the man who pulled the trigger, could likely walk away from charges of killing someone, only to be convicted of being the man who allowed the conditions causing the trigger to be pulled on a live round.
I don’t think this will be a simple cut and dried shooting death trial.
Ultimately this was not a shooting related death. It was a workplace accident that involved a firearm. No one set out to shoot anyone, the object was to make it look as tho someone was.
The real problem is the conditions that allowed the death to occur, who allowed those conditions, and who should have stopped them, but didn’t. The armors was convicted of being criminally incompetent at her job. By allowing a live round to be not only on the site, but it finding its way into a firearm used in the film.
Accidental shootings happen often, rarely are charges filed. Purposeful shootings also happen often where the owner/provider of the firearm is not charged. Just some things to consider.
If the shooter in this case is charged with simply pulling the trigger, he probably walks. He screwed up, he trusted people paid to keep him from shooting people dead, to do their jobs. That’s probably less responsibility than killing someone with an unloaded gun while cleaning it.
If the man in charge of all the hiring and firing, who was present while drugs and alcohol were being mixed with potentially deadly tools of the trade, without shutting it down and firing people. Possibly even participating or encouraging,, while at the same time not allowing the paid and trained safety experts do their jobs, he should bear as much if not more responsibility as the armorer already convicted.
There had been known and cited safety issues involving firearms/tools of the trade, before the death. Production costs and time schedules were put in front of workplace safety. This is what cost someone their life.
In this case there is a unique situation where the man who pulled the trigger, could likely walk away from charges of killing someone, only to be convicted of being the man who allowed the conditions causing the trigger to be pulled on a live round.
I don’t think this will be a simple cut and dried shooting death trial.
I do agree with this part ^^^^
Involuntary[edit]
Involuntary manslaughter is the killing of a human being without intent of doing so, either expressed or implied. It is distinguished from voluntary manslaughter by the absence of intention. It is normally divided into two categories, constructive manslaughter and criminally negligent manslaughter.Criminally negligent[edit]
Main article: Negligent homicideCriminally negligent manslaughter is variously referred to as criminally negligent homicide in the United States, and gross negligence manslaughter in England and Wales. In Scotland and some Commonwealth of Nations jurisdictions the offence of culpable homicide might apply.
It occurs where death results from serious negligence, or, in some jurisdictions, serious recklessness. A high degree of negligence is required to warrant criminal liability.[14] A related concept is that of willful blindness, which is where a defendant intentionally puts themselves in a position where they will be unaware of facts which would render them liable.
Criminally negligent manslaughter occurs where there is an omission to act when there is a duty to do so, or a failure to perform a duty owed, which leads to a death. The existence of the duty is essential because the law does not impose criminal liability for a failure to act unless a specific duty is owed to the victim. It is most common in the case of professionals who are grossly negligent in the course of their employment. An example is where a doctor fails to notice a patient's oxygen supply has disconnected and the patient dies (R v Adomako and R v Perreau).[15] Another example could be leaving a child locked in a car on a hot day.[16]
As a New Zealander, I beg to differ, and my opinion is different to yours.
In New Zealand there are 7 firearms safety rules and no matter who is handling the firearm these rules apply to the person handling the firearm, so why wouldn't safety rules apply to AB as an actor, and they most certainly would apply to him as an employer here in NZ.
That is like saying here's a car go and drive it and you aren't responsible for any accidents.
In New Zealand OSHA applies in all industries that employ people, and no matter what the chiefs are held accountable for the Indians that are employed, this means if the chiefs don't have the correct and thorough protocols and safety standards in place then they are held responsible for the employees actions.
So taking all that into account how would AB NOT be responsible since USA also has Occupational Health and Safety, and AB employed the armourer and is ultimately responsible for employment and employees.
As a NZ'er I find it hard to believe that someone in employment, who is required to handle a firearm doesn't apply all safety protocols, ie ensuring a firearm is unloaded when it is handed to them.
We all know the outcome of incorrect safety, if someone hands me a firearm the first thing I do is ensure it is safe, no matter what the circumstances.
Familiarity is the cause of many incidents that should not have happened.
Murray Brook
Silver $$ Contributor
So true and regardless who has handed you the firearm.
Sounds like you didn't see my subsequent post (#52)
Coyotefurharvester
Silver $$ Contributor
Was watching the movie The Equalizer. A scene where the dirty cop hears his car alarm go off. He grabs his revolver, swings out the cylinder to make sure it's loaded. Every case has a dimpled primer. So even a scene where NO ONE ELSE is in the house, he is only walking past camera/crew. Not even blanks. Or dummies with live primers?
They were all incompetent. By Actors Guild rules there was not supposed to be live ammo on the set. They had live ammo and pistols that were not disabled. They were just off the set the evening before shooting the same pistols at targets in the desert with live ammo. It wasn’t clear to me what the credentials were for the set safety director. Did they just grab someone and say you’re the safety director to fulfil the requirement. Many people on the set and no-one questioned safety. To shoot a person you have to point the gun at someone and pull against a 5 lb. trigger pull. Not sure but I believe the pistol was not needed for the scenes being shot, he was just playing with it? Why are they using real pistols and not ones that you cannot load a shell in. For safety some movies are now made with a pistol that cannot hold real ammo or blanks. After the filming is they put the sound of the gun going off on the recording.
Here's, a LITTLE KNOWN, "Detail" that,.. I "Heard" in one of, the court, Testimonies,..
The Director, Halyna H., supposedly ASKED, Alec B to,.. Point the Revolver to, the LEFT side of, the Camera, THEN,.
He drew the Revolver and shot her Squarely, in the Middle, cutting her Spine, in Two !
IF, that "Testimony" comes Up again, Baldwin,.. could be,.."Toast" !
IIRC,. David Hall's was, the One, who said it, or one of, the "grip's",.. IN, the Church ?
A GOOD Prosecutor WOULD, get to,... the Bottom of, THIS !
I personally think that,.. Alec B., IS going,.. to Prison
The Director, Halyna H., supposedly ASKED, Alec B to,.. Point the Revolver to, the LEFT side of, the Camera, THEN,.
He drew the Revolver and shot her Squarely, in the Middle, cutting her Spine, in Two !
IF, that "Testimony" comes Up again, Baldwin,.. could be,.."Toast" !
IIRC,. David Hall's was, the One, who said it, or one of, the "grip's",.. IN, the Church ?
A GOOD Prosecutor WOULD, get to,... the Bottom of, THIS !
I personally think that,.. Alec B., IS going,.. to Prison
Last edited:
Infrequent Shooter
Gold $$ Contributor
Judge just dismssed case against Alec Balwin. She found bad faith re: prosecutor probably hiding evidence that should have been turned over to Defense.
Charliemac
Silver $$ Contributor
He’s a disgusting piece of flesh.
Money talks.
Upgrades & Donations
This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.