2 hours ago, jsdarkstar said:

Nope. Baldwin is not required to open the barrel and check the rounds himself. That is the prop master/armorer's job not the actors.

How exactly does someone open a "barrel” anyways? 

2 minutes ago, SNOORDA said:

How exactly does someone open a "barrel” anyways? 

Yeah, I meant Cylinder. LOL. Open the Cylinder and shine a light down the barrel. 

1 hour ago, VanHammersly said:

If you think every actor is checking the weapon before each use then you've never been on set.  There's a system of trust built into any production.  Everyone expects electrical to do their job to prevent electrical fires/other electrical malfunctions.  Everyone expects gaffers to do their job to prevent c-stands from falling on someone's head.  Everyone expects actors to learn their lines and carry the film on-screen.  They also expect the armorers to safely load the gun and make it clear that it's safe for use.  

And a good electrician always tests for voltage before handling wiring.   Even if someone tells them they turned the power off he checks it for himself

Just now, SNOORDA said:

And a good electrician always tests for voltage before handling wiring.   Even if someone tells them they turned the power off he checks it for himself

As he should.  But camera isn't expected to double check electrical's work, neither is the script supervisor, neither are the actors, etc.

1 minute ago, SNOORDA said:

And a good electrician always tests for voltage before handling wiring.   Even if someone tells them they turned the power off he checks it for himself

But if they did electrocute themselves it would be Joe Biden’s fault

9 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

But if they did electrocute themselves it would be Joe Biden’s fault

If the electricians tools/tester were stolen because of rampid crime maybe so. 
 

just kidding relax

2 hours ago, jsdarkstar said:

Nope. Baldwin is not required to open the barrel and check the rounds himself. That is the prop master/armorer's job not the actors.

If you do not check a gun yourself that is handed to you, you are not responsible or smart enough to handle a gun.

Rule number one:  ALWAYS assume that any gun is loaded with lethal ammo until you verify it yourself.

5 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

As he should.  But camera isn't expected to double check electrical's work, neither is the script supervisor, neither are the actors, etc.

I worded my comment incorrectly.  I should have said "anyone working on electricity” not just electricians.  
 

just like "anyone” who is handling a gun should know use the standard gun safety precautions 

7 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

 

3 minutes ago, bobeph said:

If you do not check a gun yourself that is handed to you, you are not responsible or smart enough to handle a gun.

Rule number one:  ALWAYS assume that any gun is loaded with lethal ammo until you verify it yourself.

Same rule in electrical. Always assume the wire is live

16 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said:

Yeah, I meant Cylinder. LOL. Open the Cylinder and shine a light down the barrel. 

Just messing w/ you I understood

12 minutes ago, SNOORDA said:

Same rule in electrical. Always assume the wire is live

I have the ability to do VERY minor types of electrical work and even I know that.  Makes you wonder about wtf some people are thinking.  Christ, I’ll cut the breaker in the basement while my wife watches and yells, "OFF!” and I’m still scared sheetless to touch the wires. 

22 minutes ago, bobeph said:

I have the ability to do VERY minor types of electrical work and even I know that.  Makes you wonder about wtf some people are thinking.  Christ, I’ll cut the breaker in the basement while my wife watches and yells, "OFF!” and I’m still scared sheetless to touch the wires. 

I haaaaaate electrical work. Even new stuff with no electricity around. Stupid little wires. 

1 hour ago, VanHammersly said:

When someone goes hunting, they don't have a team of people on staff checking and double checking the safety of the gun they use.  They also don't have the expectation that the gun, that again has been checked by multiple people, doesn't have live ammo in it.  Which is why they have a different amount of culpability in a situation like this than someone who was using a gun for sport.  

Yeah the chain of custody is just you when hunting so it’s even less risky and more of a reason the actor should check for themselves. Or don’t - rely on others and live with the horror of shooting a mother in the face. 

 

54 minutes ago, SNOORDA said:

I worded my comment incorrectly.  I should have said "anyone working on electricity” not just electricians.  

Except no one else on set is working on electricity except electrical.  That's their job.  Which is why, if an actor turned on a practical on set and it electrocuted him, the culpability would lie with the electrician.

15 minutes ago, binkybink77 said:

Yeah the chain of custody is just you when hunting so it’s even less risky and more of a reason the actor should check for themselves. Or don’t - rely on others and live with the horror of shooting a mother in the face. 

 

On a set, you just flat out have to rely on others and everyone can't be expected to be an expert in every job on set, otherwise productions would never end.  But they do have safety protocols in place, which it doesn't sound like everyone followed here.  Either way, everyone's getting sued and they all have to deal with the fallout/guilt.

But, again, the greater question in this isn't really who checked the gun, it's why in God's name there were live rounds in a gun during a movie shoot.  

1 minute ago, VanHammersly said:

But, again, the greater question in this isn't really who checked the gun, it's why in God's name there were live rounds in a gun during a movie shoot.  

agreed. we can debate all this other stuff, but at the end of the day, who put the live round(s) in that gun ?

2 hours ago, VanHammersly said:

On a set, you just flat out have to rely on others and everyone can't be expected to be an expert in every job on set, otherwise productions would never end.  But they do have safety protocols in place, which it doesn't sound like everyone followed here.  Either way, everyone's getting sued and they all have to deal with the fallout/guilt.

But, again, the greater question in this isn't really who checked the gun, it's why in God's name there were live rounds in a gun during a movie shoot.  

It doesn’t matter if it’s on a set - the safety protocols are the same. Person pulling the trigger checks - even experts who train actors on sets train that way.  Don’t handle deadly anything if you aren’t trained on it. So dumb.

9 hours ago, Boogyman said:

You forgot to add "impersonated Trump on SNL and made him really sad".  That's the thing that made you really dislike him.

I always considered him to be rather ****y. Havent watched SNL since Belushi

8 hours ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said:

Do we have any case law on this?  Is it negligence?

There needs to be as thorough investigation done to determine that. We don't have all of the facts so, we can't answer the question. If the investigation determines there was criminal negligence, often referred to as gross negligence, then it's up to the prosecutor to move forward or not. Every jurisdiction has it's own version of an applicable law but in general causing harm (injury) to another person is illegal. 

4 hours ago, PoconoDon said:

There needs to be as thorough investigation done to determine that. We don't have all of the facts so, we can't answer the question. If the investigation determines there was criminal negligence, often referred to as gross negligence, then it's up to the prosecutor to move forward or not. Every jurisdiction has it's own version of an applicable law but in general causing harm (injury) to another person is illegal. 

Well that’s what I’m asking.  Do you at least know how to use Google Scholar to look up cases?  I’m wondering if there’s a specific case in the past that has dealt exactly with an actor killing someone like that

so yes they still need to get the facts, but we’ve got enough so far to start looking at old court cases I would say

59 minutes ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said:

Well that’s what I’m asking.  Do you at least know how to use Google Scholar to look up cases?  I’m wondering if there’s a specific case in the past that has dealt exactly with an actor killing someone like that

so yes they still need to get the facts, but we’ve got enough so far to start looking at old court cases I would say

Google Scholar is a rabbit hole I'm not going down. 

Other similar cases are not relevant for the merits of this potential case because the facts and circumstances are different in each case. If the jurisdiction has a law that requires gross negligence be proved, and the Prosecutor feels it can be through the facts and circumstances of this case alone, then charges can be brought against the violator(s). Usually, each criminal case stands alone on it's own merits. Whether or not a similar case was tried in another jurisdiction or not doesn't matter, unless maybe one was looking for potential prosecutorial or defense strategies. 

The question at hand is simple: Was the Actor, through his behavior, and considering all of the facts and circumstances, grossly negligent or not, and if so, can it be proven beyond a reasonable doubt? That'll determine criminal culpability and whether or not charges are filed. It's up to the DA to decide once everything is in. Normally they choose not to charge, but they can if they feel it's appropriate.

Beyond that are the Civil case(s) that'll surely come calling in droves.

 

7 hours ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said:

Well that’s what I’m asking.  Do you at least know how to use Google Scholar to look up cases?  I’m wondering if there’s a specific case in the past that has dealt exactly with an actor killing someone like that

so yes they still need to get the facts, but we’ve got enough so far to start looking at old court cases I would say

Brandon Lee.

Michael Massee shot Brandon with a gun loaded with a blank. However, the idiots in charge let the the weapon master go after completing all the multi-shooting scenes.

There was one scene left with a gun. The tip of a fake bullet came off and was in the barrel. The gun was not properly checked and loaded with a blank.

Massee shot Lee, the blank pushed the slug into his body and killed him.

Despite all the back and forth Alec Baldwin managed to answer his own question.

He now knows what it feels like to wrongfully kill someone.

1 hour ago, Toastrel said:

Brandon Lee.

Michael Massee shot Brandon with a gun loaded with a blank. However, the idiots in charge let the the weapon master go after completing all the multi-shooting scenes.

There was one scene left with a gun. The tip of a fake bullet came off and was in the barrel. The gun was not properly checked and loaded with a blank.

Massee shot Lee, the blank pushed the slug into his body and killed him.

And did the actor get sentenced?

interesting

1 hour ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said:

And did the actor get sentenced?

interesting

I don't think any charges were ever brought up on Massee. I mean, you could just Google the guys name and find out for sure though.

I doubt Baldwin will either. Negligence is not criminal negligence, necessarily. It was an accident, in that it was not intentional. Unless the real bullet was introduced on purpose. Which seems possible to me.