Alec Balwin Sues Movie Crewmembers to Deflect Blame for Cinematographer’s Shooting Death

This is a curious discussion. I've taken part in various gun control threads here, and lefties are consistently appalled that I own guns, let alone used one in self defense once upon a time. Alec Baldwin makes a movie where gun violence is glorified, kills an innocent woman in the process, and he gets a pass. Cognitive dissonance much?

 

Lee's death has several differences.
1) different states, different standards
2) the man who fired the weapon in Lees case had no cause to know that there was anything irregular about the rounds. There had been no accidental live fire incidents on set to put him on notice to be careful. This is contrasted with Baldwin who a) knew there had been a walkout because of live fire incidents on set THAT VERY DAY b) as a producer made the decision to continue filming with a skeleton crew c) as the actor holding the gun knowing all this, took not even a common precaution of simply inspecting the weapon for himself d) despite training with firearms on numerous sets throughout his entire career.
3) the round fired was an improperly made homemade blank cartridge in Lee's case, which was not susceptible to a simple visual inspection unlike the rounds in Baldwin's case which were conventional live rounds and so were susceptible to a simple visual inspection.

 

The arms master and producers of which baldwin was one.
What's more, there were other live fire incidents that day. Still more, there was a crew walkout BECAUSE of those live fire incidents THAT DAY. More still, Baldwin made the decision to continue and took no precautions despite these incidents.
That's at least 50% on him given his role as both the person firing the gun who should've checked, and a person in authority on set.

 

Don't know the details but if a person was holding the gun, they're responsible for checking to see if it's loaded.

Gun safety is simple and it doesn't change just because you're on a movie set.

 

Do you read the links you provide or just the bi-lines here? The parents were not home at the time. There is no state requirement in Florida or anywhere else to keep the guns safe or in a gun safe. However, they left a three-year-old child unsupervised for quite a long time. Thus, I can see a charge of child endangerment here, which led to the death of the child. It does not matter if the child fired a gun or drank liquid drano for this charge to be given to them. The other aspect is the father, who is a convicted felon, who had access to and possession of firearms. That is a state felony and is a serious charge that can even revoke his parole, if he was on parole. I do think manslaughter is a stretch in and by itself, but the facts that they faced two counts of Neglect Causing Great Bodily Harm and two counts of neglect Without Causing Great Bodily Harm are the two factors here in the charges of manslaughter. If they were home, taking care of the baby, and it happened, then manslaughter and the four other charges probably won't have been charged.

You have to look at all the facts of the case, not the politicization of the case as you are doing here.

 

On the movie set, that is the job of the firearms master is for and what they do, among preparing the firearm, etc.

 

And when you're the person holding the gun, and there have been live fire incidents on set that day, and you don't check despite having been trained on basically every set you've ever worked in a 40 year career, you not checking makes you at least 50% liable.

 

Yep, it's their job.

It's also the job of whoever is holding the gun.

I don't know what's so hard to understand that gun safety doesn't change just because you're on a movie set. When you're taught gun safety you are taught that as soon as you are handed a gun, you check to see if it's loaded regardless of who handed it to you and regardless of whether or not they've told you they checked and that it's not loaded. Why do you think there's a scenario in which that changes? If anything, you should realize that this story is exactly why gun safety doesn't change regardless of the situation.

 

Eagerly awaiting your next round of mealy-mouthed rationalizations.

Police arrest parents of toddler who accidentally shot self
Muncie parents arrested for neglect in accidental shooting death of child
Parents face charges in accidental shooting of sibling by his 8 year old brother
Parents Arrested After Child Injured in Accidental Shooting Incident
Mother Charged With Manslaughter After 2-Year-Old Fatally Shoots Father
Parents arrested after 9-year-old boy fatally shot in head in Phoenix
Father arrested after boy shoots himself, dies in south St. Louis
Father arrested in accidental shooting of 2-year-old, Roswell police say
Parents arrested after 6-year-old boy fatally shoots 5-year-old sister in Indiana home
Mother arrested in connection with accidental shooting that killed 3-year-old
Mother arrested after fatal shooting of 4-year-old boy at home in Muncie
Mother of boy, 3, who fatally shot himself in Denver is arrested
Father arrested after shooting at Florida home leaves 1 child dead, another hospitalized
Mother charged after toddler dies in accidental shooting in Hueytown
Parents arrested after baby's accidental shooting

 

There are a lot more facts and circumstances at play than just holding the gun before you are even considered liable.

 

Not particularly, but then I've also gone over the fact that the live fire incidents that same day put everyone on notice that more care should be taken particularly an authority figure particularly one who had been trained on sets prior for over 40 years.

 

That will depend on certain factors. What usually happens is that the firearms master will provide the gun, tell the person the gun is checked out, it is safe, and to try a few "practice" runs on what is going to do that day with that gun. Is it a draw? Is it a shooting scene with a bad guy shooting at a good guy? Etc. In the movie Rush, there were a lot of moving parts and a lot of things happening that the actor was not aware of. They are on a tight schedule to get this scene done and any delays cost the company hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions. It is like with all safety measures out there. If we did all safety measures 100% of the time, the costs will go up through the roof, won't it. It is why we have those "warning labels" on pretty much everything, even the blatantly obvious ones like "Please turn off the engine before installing" an alternator belt.

 

Like everything, more care should have been done, more practice should have been done, more improvements can be done despite the football team winning 75-0, etc. The point is that is not what I am arguing here. I am arguing that fine line between having culbability and not having culpability. Some of the conservatives on here are saying that he is culpable simply because he is a liberal, but with all others, they have not said a word or even a concern.

 

And yet, you never answered my questions on the two links you provided. If I go through each and every one of these, the chances are the firearm is not the main reason why they are being arrested, it is simply the sensationalism of the article.

And yet, with these links, you are proving my point that you are reading the bylines, not the facts of the case.

 

He's culpable for the very specific, legally significant, reasons I listed. I've said nothing about his politics, keep that filthy little strawman away from me.

 

Whenever there is an "unnatural" death, the scene automatically becomes a crime scene until the forensics are signed off.

While people may not be criminally accountable, there was negligence.

 

Which you're "proving" by reading the bylines, not the facts of the case(s). Heads you win, tails I lose. You're brilliant.

 

Give it a shot (so to speak).

 

No, I sympathise with Baldwin, you're an actor on a movie set and the armourer hands you a gun, the last thing you'd ever expect is that there's a live round in it.

 

I hate to say it, but I can't disagree.

The blame lies with whoever allowed live rounds on set. If it's the same person who then didn't double check the weapons had the right rounds, that person is pretty much 100% responsible. It's not the same as a theatre nurse handing a surgeon the wrong scalpel, because the surgeon can SEE it's wrong.

 

Tim Allen already wore one of those lol

 

Honestly I’m amazed it’s not illegal to use a real gun on a movie set.

 

LoL forgot all about that.

 

There shouldn't be any charges whatsoever. It was an accident. I think people have forgotten what that means.