Alec Baldwin kills one,inures another with Prop Gun on set.

I'm not sure about that. Just googling "shot while cleaning gun" produces millions of hits. Bad habits probably do get passed on down generations.

Just found this about the armorer's father which I thought was interesting:
https://therecenttimes.com/news/who...-gutierrez-reeds-father-who-trained-brad-pitt

So no doubt her daily childhood revolved around guns.

 

Negligent homicide or involuntary manslaughter in some states.

 

Baldwin is a producer and the rules on the set were lax. This brings more liability.

 

I don't think it will fit the bill, but we'll see.

An employee was charged with negligent homicide after a plane crash after he left a piece of duct tape over a pressure gauge on the planes fuselage. The tape made the gauge useless and resulted in the crash, Charges were pressed because it was the employees responsibility to inspect the plane and make sure its good and safe. That tends to compare to the duty of the armorer, who neglected to perform her duty.

 

If you appeal to the US Constitution, you appeal to an absent thing. After your presidential election I would not recommend referring to that document. So could you form your answer in a different way? I mean you have to use other arguments now.

 

Thus why anyone handling a firearm is responsible. The armorer may hold some responsibility but the one pulling the trigger holds the most.

 

It was a movie set, not a firing range. A different set of rules apply to both and that is how the law will look at it when deciding whether to press charges or not. I don't see criminal charges being applied in this case but maybe civil lawsuits.

 

I doubt there was anything missing in her training, it was her familiarity with it and trust she put where she shouldn't have that got her in trouble. I would think that Armorer is as respected a job as stuntman (person) and that it is taken as seriously as a heart attack. Think about it, a western movie might have three or four main characters and 20 extras. There is no way all those people will be competent to check their firearms themselves. The entire industry depends on established procedure and competent armorer and crew. They hand out thousands of prop/real guns a year and nobody gets hurt with them. We spend a lot of money to watch them shoot each other with them.

This shooting was due to failure to follow established procedure in allowing live rounds to get mixed with blanks and dummy rounds. Baldwin's liability lies in hiring the young woman and not following through on safety complaints.

 

Has anyone in this thread denied that Baldwin killed Hutchins?

 

Other actors disagree. The one who handles the firearm has the ultimate safety responsibility.

 

Excellent! We're making progress... we have identified the killer.

Now then... onward!

 

I call BS on the "prop gun". If it fires live ammo, it's a gun.

 

"Qualified", I wonder what qualifications she has? Alec should have hired an NRA instructor, this would not have happened.

 

That may be your mindset but to an actor it's a prop which is probably why they don't use the same safety precautions as one would with a "real" gun and that is most likely how a juror would see it. People have watched thousands of movies with guns being used and no one in the audience believes they are real guns.

 

With special effects these days there is no need for live ammo on any set.

 

And which mindset would be more likely to get someone killed, mine whereas the gun is real and should follow the 4 rules of gun safety, or Alec's "It's just a prop so I can shoot anyone I want to with it"?

 

The armorer and the crew were plinking with it earlier that day. They brought the ammo to have fun with.

 

Different set of rules? What are those?

 

Yes... and not even a typically hyperliberal Santa Fe County population (who would make up a jury) can 'run away' from THAT!

 

Apparently, the different set of rules is that on a movie set, common sense gun rules do not apply.

It is a no-brainer that the person using the gun should, without a doubt, know what is in it. Putting myself in that movie situation, if I was supposed to point a gun at someone and pull the trigger, I would have checked, double checked, triple checked - and even if I knew it was empty or loaded with blanks, I'm honestly not sure that I could actually point that weapon at someone and pull the trigger. The thought of it makes me sick to my stomach. Of course, self defense is a different story - if it is someone doing me or my family harm, then bam, but on a movie set with a real gun? Ugh.

 

You are joking??? https://www.newsweek.com/nra-nemesis-woke-hollywood-could-have-made-alec-baldwins-set-safer-1643418
"As far as we know, the film's 24-year-old head armorer, Hannah Gutierrez Reed, had no special training or licenses to ensure she was qualified (beyond whatever she may have been taught by her father, a well-known Hollywood armorer)"
There's no indication she was an NRA member. I doubt she was too since Baldwin was anti-NRA. And, the assistant director who actually handed him the gun is not a NRA member.

 

You and me both, brother. But neither of us is a halfwitted hyperliberal with no real understanding of what a firearm DOES, or how it does it....

Again, back to basics: WHO SHOT THE WOMAN DEAD?! Start there....

 

Mindsets are learned from ones environment. I doubt anyone has ever handed you a "prop gun" on a movie set and set it was cold. totally different mindset. I doubt there is a precedent for this type of accident where an actor is charged for shooting a prop gun and killing someone and judges don't like setting new precedents so don't be setting yourself up for a disappointment.

 

Sounds like their mindset is a recipe for disaster, someone could get killed that way.

 

When no criminal charges are filed you'll know.