|
|
Post by eisenhower on Jul 22, 2024 9:19:03 GMT -5
Those are the rules in the real world. This accident happened on a movie set where a gun is also a stage prop and has an armorer who is responsible for it. There is a difference.
I realize some do not see it that way. That's fine. We can disagree.
|
|
|
|
Post by CraigC on Jul 22, 2024 9:23:59 GMT -5
Eisenhower,
I'm not going to try to quote that mess.
It's not personal, it's an observation. You know, like you've done through this discussion accusing others of being biased. Myself included. I'm not making these comments because I don't like him and it's clouded my judgment and my argument points to that. I'm making these comments because a woman was killed through his negligence and the armorer was convicted in his place. She will forever be a convicted felon and will have a hell of a time making a living. While the man responsible for the entire set, along with the direct responsibility for the woman's death goes free. His character does not come into play.
I guess a jury of peers never convicted an innocent person? Her lawyers can question a jury conviction but we can't? How convenient.
Again, this is a discussion forum, not a courtroom. We can certainly change the context to make the perspective more clear, or to make a point.
Oh please, everybody knows the system is slanted in favor of those with money and influence. I guess there was never a politically motivated prosecution either, huh? You're not going to paint me with the "conspiracy theory" brush.
|
|
|
|
Post by CraigC on Jul 22, 2024 9:24:58 GMT -5
Those are the rules in the real world. This accident happened on a movie set where a gun is also a stage prop and has an armorer who is responsible for it. There is a difference. I realize some do not see it that way. That's fine. We can disagree. I guess the fact that she was not present and wasn't the one that handed the gun to the actor is irrelevant, huh? I sincerely hope you're not a lawyer. |
|
|
|
Post by bigbore5 on Jul 22, 2024 9:32:34 GMT -5
Under the Manslaughter law, there is no difference between "real world" and Hollywood. It plainly states, " action through carelessness or recklessness, without malice or intent,that causes the death of another through such actions, whether direct or directly contributory, shall constitute manslaughter." That's how they define it under New Mexico general statute.
So Baldwin's actions perfectly fit the legal description. The armorer, not being present, not presenting the gun to the actor, no proof ever presented showing she loaded the gun, and not certifying the arm wasn't carrying live ammo, doesn't fit the legal description. Famous or not, a-hole or saint, whatever is irrelevant. The law as written is perfectly clear.
|
|
|
|
Post by eisenhower on Jul 22, 2024 9:34:11 GMT -5
[/quote]I guess the fact that she was not present and wasn't the one that handed the gun to the actor is irrelevant, huh? I sincerely hope you're not a lawyer. [/quote]
According to a jury, that is correct.
And keep doubling down on the personal stuff - it's like you're trying to prove my point.
|
|
|
|
Post by eisenhower on Jul 22, 2024 9:38:48 GMT -5
Under the Manslaughter law, there is no difference between "real world" and Hollywood. It plainly states, " action through carelessness or recklessness, without malice or intent,that causes the death of another through such actions, whether direct or directly contributory, shall constitute manslaughter." That's how they define it under New Mexico general statute. Indeed, but the key words here are "carelessness or recklessness" ... Baldwin's lawyers would contend that an actor pointing a prop pistol on a movie set, at the direction of the crew, and with a gun he was told was "cold" does not constitute careless or reckless behavior. Off a movie set, obviously, pointing a gun at anyone who is not threatening you, at any time, would be considered careless and reckless. |
|
rat44
.240 Incinerator
Posts: 10 
|
Post by rat44 on Jul 22, 2024 14:42:55 GMT -5
What I want to know is: what the hell does this have to do with single actions? Seriously boys, 5 pages? Get over it!
|
|
jb500
.30 Stingray
Looking for 500 jrh info
Posts: 107
|
Post by jb500 on Jul 22, 2024 15:54:18 GMT -5
What I want to know is: what the hell does this have to do with single actions? Seriously boys, 5 pages? Get over it! What it has to do with single actions is that it was a single action revolver, a 45 Colt, and you have to cock the hammer back and pull the trigger for it to fire. Baldwin claimed he never pulled the trigger. So those are the two things that it has to do with single actions (gun was single action, and Baldwin lied about not having pulled the trigger). |
|
|
|
Post by lockhart on Jul 22, 2024 16:10:19 GMT -5
I think this guys actions in the past pretty much describe what kind of a man
he is in REAL life, not REEL life!
|
|
|
|
Post by bigbore5 on Jul 22, 2024 17:55:18 GMT -5
Under the Manslaughter law, there is no difference between "real world" and Hollywood. It plainly states, " action through carelessness or recklessness, without malice or intent,that causes the death of another through such actions, whether direct or directly contributory, shall constitute manslaughter." That's how they define it under New Mexico general statute. Indeed, but the key words here are "carelessness or recklessness" ... Baldwin's lawyers would contend that an actor pointing a prop pistol on a movie set, at the direction of the crew, and with a gun he was told was "cold" does not constitute careless or reckless behavior. Off a movie set, obviously, pointing a gun at anyone who is not threatening you, at any time, would be considered careless and reckless. However his assignment of other duties and handling firearms outside of the armorer's supervision despite the industry guidelines and common practices is the underlying reckless and careless behavior. He violated standard industry safety guidelines. That's the underlying facts that would be enough to show recklessness. |
|
|
|
Post by eisenhower on Jul 22, 2024 18:35:08 GMT -5
Fair point and would make for a worthwhile legal argument.
I suspect his lawyers would reference this section of the Contract Services guidelines which seems to anticipate such situations: "If it is absolutely necessary to do so on camera, consult the Property Master (or, in his/her absence, the weapons handler and/or other appropriate personnel determined by the locality or the needs of the production) ..." Also, given that it was the AD who handed him the gun and instructed him and everyone around that it was a "cold gun," that would surely figure into the defense. "Needs of the production" would be fodder for interpretation.
If I were arguing to convict, your notion of creating an environment where such an accident was more likely to happen would certainly be worth fleshing out, but I still don't foresee a jury holding the actor (or even producer in this case) to the same degree of responsibility as the armorer who loaded the gun and handed it off to the AD. But one never knows how a jury will assign responsibility. Anything is possible.
|
|
