The ruling increases the likelihood that Mr. Baldwin will stand trial this summer in the fatal shooting of a cinematographer on the set of the film “Rust.”
Baldwin didn’t, yes, because he hired an incompetent armorer. In normal circumstances the armorer is the person doing everything you just said needed to be done.
Properly handling a firearm is not a job that can be outsourced. The armorer is also criminally responsible, but primary responsibility always falls on the person handling the weapon.
A gun is different, it requires ammunition.
Rule #1: All guns are loaded until positively proven otherwise. The requirement of ammunition is presumed until proven otherwise.
To expect every handler of a firearm to be knowledgeable enough about guns to safely unload, confirm what ammunition is in use, and then proceed accordingly when they also have to act and deal with what comes with that is insane.exactly the standard expected of every single person, handling every single weapon, every single time.
FTFY. The standard of behavior when you do not positively know if a firearm is loaded or unloaded is Rule #1: All guns are loaded until positively proven otherwise.
The industry standard is that if your mind wanders while an unloaded gun is in your hand, that “unloaded” gun is to be treated as if it grew a cartridge while you weren’t paying attention, and is to be treated as a loaded weapon until reverified.
Baldwin is guilty because he failed to employ a good armorer who could do their job.
No, Baldwin is civilly liable for that. He is guilty because he negligently discharged a firearm, resulting in the death of another person.
Safe handling cannot be outsourced to a “professional”. The purpose of hiring an armorer is to add an additional layer of safety, not to replace the handling skills of the actor.
If you want to make it so that the actor is not responsible for his actions, you hire a specifically trained individual who is capable of performing those actions. In the business, this person is known as a “stunt double”. You hire a stunt double to perform actions that the principal actor is not capable of performing. Baldwin’s decision to perform the actions himself makes him responsible for the consequences of his performance.
If the actor (or double) performing those “stunts” is so inept that he kills someone in the process, he is criminally liable for his reckless behavior.
to think otherwise is straight up victim blaming.
Baldwin is not a victim. He is a perpetrator. That another person’s incompetence contributed to the death merely means there was an additional perpetrator. The armorer’s incompetence does not absolve Baldwin’s own incompetence.
Reducing the safety factor from “everyone is responsible for using multiple safety factors to prevent injury” to “one designated individual is responsible for everything that happens” is not “different”. It’s dangerous.
You would not tolerate this in any other circumstances. A random gun owner hires a designated safety officer to protect everyone in the area, then recklessly handles a gun and shoots someone. You wouldn’t tolerate this exact same behavior from some random redneck; why does Baldwin get a pass?
Properly handling a firearm is not a job that can be outsourced. The armorer is also criminally responsible, but primary responsibility always falls on the person handling the weapon.
Rule #1: All guns are loaded until positively proven otherwise. The requirement of ammunition is presumed until proven otherwise.
FTFY. The standard of behavior when you do not positively know if a firearm is loaded or unloaded is Rule #1: All guns are loaded until positively proven otherwise.
The industry standard is that if your mind wanders while an unloaded gun is in your hand, that “unloaded” gun is to be treated as if it grew a cartridge while you weren’t paying attention, and is to be treated as a loaded weapon until reverified.
No, Baldwin is civilly liable for that. He is guilty because he negligently discharged a firearm, resulting in the death of another person.
Safe handling cannot be outsourced to a “professional”. The purpose of hiring an armorer is to add an additional layer of safety, not to replace the handling skills of the actor.
If you want to make it so that the actor is not responsible for his actions, you hire a specifically trained individual who is capable of performing those actions. In the business, this person is known as a “stunt double”. You hire a stunt double to perform actions that the principal actor is not capable of performing. Baldwin’s decision to perform the actions himself makes him responsible for the consequences of his performance.
If the actor (or double) performing those “stunts” is so inept that he kills someone in the process, he is criminally liable for his reckless behavior.
Baldwin is not a victim. He is a perpetrator. That another person’s incompetence contributed to the death merely means there was an additional perpetrator. The armorer’s incompetence does not absolve Baldwin’s own incompetence.
Oh look, someone else with 0 clue what they’re talking about posting a wall of text when:
Would have been much easier to write
Correct. You have no business discussing this topic.
Being on a film set is not an excuse for reckless behavior. If anything, it makes his actions more egregious, not less.
Stop being so willfully ignorant.
Shits done differently not unssfely
1 person getting shot vs the many who don’t proves this is safe
Reducing the safety factor from “everyone is responsible for using multiple safety factors to prevent injury” to “one designated individual is responsible for everything that happens” is not “different”. It’s dangerous.
You would not tolerate this in any other circumstances. A random gun owner hires a designated safety officer to protect everyone in the area, then recklessly handles a gun and shoots someone. You wouldn’t tolerate this exact same behavior from some random redneck; why does Baldwin get a pass?