Guns

[Michael88]

I think he should be charged because he knew there were live firearms on the set because several of the stuff did target shooting with the guns of the set AT the set, and we can assume he knew that at least some of the guns he handled, were capable of firing if loaded with proper ammunition. I don't see how any of this could have completely escaped him being heavily involved in the production of the movie.

We can also assume, he, an adult man of probably average intelligence, knew the absolute basic functions of a gun - bullet goes through tube at the front and hurts people. Also, its very unusual practice to even have guns capable of even shooting blanks in scenes were the firearms are actually pointed at people, for those scenes typically completely inert props not capable to do anything but look like a gun are used.

Put all this factors together and we can assume he knew he was handling real firearms at least a couple times. Knowing all those factors he should not have pointed any of the guns at anyone even if the person responsible for the supposed safe gun gave him the ok because he knew of the very unsafe conditions of the set. There was absolutely no reason for him to point the gun at anyone under those circumstances.

No matter how you twist it, being aware of even half of the conditions on the set he acted very stupidly, that's the bottom line. The question is, when does stupidity reach criminal levels. Guess that's what the judge / jury has to decide.

Of course the main fault for the death of the set worker by far is on the woman responsible for handling the prop guns. Real life ammunition on a set? Real working firearms on a set? Target shooting on a set? Allowing actors to point proper firearms at ach other at a set? Not checking the state of the gun during every scene? She completely failed her job on pretty much all levels possible.

 

[Danoff]

I think he should be charged because he knew there were live firearms on the set because several of the stuff did target shooting with the guns of the set AT the set, and we can assume he knew that at least some of the guns he handled, were capable of firing if loaded with proper ammunition. I don't see how any of this could have completely escaped him being heavily involved in the production of the movie.

Even with those assumptions, I don't see that he should be charged with involuntary manslaughter for not checking a gun that was cleared by the person responsible for clearing the firearm for safety. That part is not even apparently in dispute. He's a criminal if he doesn't follow up and check it himself when the person whose job it is to check the firearm signs off on it? Criminal? Ok, best practice for sure. But it's a crime not to? I'm not sure you've thought through your position here.

We can also assume, he, an adult man of probably average intelligence, knew the absolute basic functions of a gun - bullet goes through tube at the front and hurts people.

That's not enough to check that gun.

Also, its very unusual practice to even have guns capable of even shooting blanks in scenes were the firearms are actually pointed at people, for those scenes typically completely inert props not capable to do anything but look like a gun are used.

Sure.

Knowing all those factors he should not have pointed any of the guns at anyone even if the person responsible for the supposed safe gun gave him the ok because he knew of the very unsafe conditions of the set. There was absolutely no reason for him to point the gun at anyone under those circumstances.

Aside from the fact that in order to practice being filmed pointing a gun at people (including the people behind the camera), he kinda needs to. Aside from that, sure.

No matter how you twist it, being aware of even half of the conditions on the set he acted very stupidly, that's the bottom line.

What's being twisted? As best I can tell, he did his job with a gun that was cleared as safe.

 

[Michael88]

What's being twisted? As best I can tell, he did his job with a gun that was cleared as safe.

As a human with a functioning brain he should have been aware of the absolutely crazy safety conditions on the set and should have done something or even quit to prevent this extremely foreseeable accident, that's my point. In my opinion that makes him partially responsible for what happened.

Lets use a different scenario - If I am an actor who does not know anything about cars and work in a movie that is mostly about cars, and I see the mechanics and the personnel responsible for the vehicles act in - even to my untrained eye- in very irresponsible ways and then I shrug and roll along with it - and then I run somebody over with a car in a very dangerous scene because the vehicle was unsafe - that's partially on me as well.
I should have said something, protested or learned to check the car for myself for the most basic functions before using it.
Its common sense, no expert knowledge required. Doing nothing would be irresponsible on a criminal level.

 

[UKMikey]

Being guilty of trusting your gun expert when she says everything is safe sounds like a strange legal take regarding his responsibilities under the law.

I can't help thinking that Alec's impression of Trump on SNL is part of the animus behind the desire to make the charges stick from certain groups of people and that even if he's proved legally to not be responsible it'll become part of the vast liberal Hollyweird conspiracy. Maybe he should've stuck to Millard Fillmore impressions instead given his resemblance to your 13th president.

 

[Joey D]

Being guilty of trusting your gun expert when she says everything is safe sounds like a strange legal take regarding his responsibilities under the law.

It's a valid take. It's your responsibility always to check the weapon even if someone says "ya it's good." If I witness someone take out a magazine and eject the chambered round, I still verify it for myself every single time. I mean, I know it's good, but it builds muscle memory and reinforces what you should be doing. You can never be too safe or too responsible around guns.

 

[Danoff]

As a human with a functioning brain he should have been aware of the absolutely crazy safety conditions on the set and should have done something or even quit to prevent this extremely foreseeable accident, that's my point. In my opinion that makes him partially responsible for what happened.

Lets use a different scenario - If I am an actor who does not know anything about cars and work in a movie that is mostly about cars, and I see the mechanics and the personnel responsible for the vehicles act in - even to my untrained eye- in very irresponsible ways and then I shrug and roll along with it - and then I run somebody over with a car in a very dangerous scene because the vehicle was unsafe - that's partially on me as well.
I should have said something, protested or learned to check the car for myself for the most basic functions before using it.
Its common sense, no expert knowledge required. Doing nothing would be irresponsible on a criminal level.

Then you're suggesting that every single person on that set that was aware of the safety conditions (which you've define as any human who has a functioning brain) be charged with involuntary manslaughter. I'm going to hazard a guess that you're not a lawyer.

Your car example really undermines your point. Actors cannot be expected to inspect vehicle safety.

It's a valid take. It's your responsibility always to check the weapon even if someone says "ya it's good." If I witness someone take out a magazine and eject the chambered round, I still verify it for myself every single time. I mean, I know it's good, but it builds muscle memory and reinforces what you should be doing. You can never be too safe or too responsible around guns.

For the safety of a equipment of props on a movie set, I think this is overstating the requirements by a good bit. Sure, in general, I'm with you. On a movie set, I'm not with you - they literally have people to do this because actors cannot be expected to.

 

[Joey D]

For the safety of a equipment of props on a movie set, I think this is overstating the requirements by a good bit. Sure, in general, I'm with you. On a movie set, I'm not with you - they literally have people to do this because actors cannot be expected to.

I think from a legal perspective, it's not going to matter. A lawyer is pretty much going to present the case as Baldwin was in control of the firearm and didn't verify beforehand, which was a negligent act, and due to his actions, he unintentionally killed someone. It will be difficult to argue against involuntary manslaughter here since the case fits the definition of it pretty well. Had they tried to charge Baldwin with anything more severe, I don't think they've had a hope in hell at a conviction.

I agree, one would think you should be able to trust the armorer on a movie set, but handling a weapon that was just given to you without verifying it yourself seems really foreign to me. Even if my best friend or wife handed me a gun and said there were dummy rounds in it, I would still check it since I wasn't the one who loaded it. If it were a co-worker, I would be even warier because even if I knew them, I don't really know-know them. For all I know they could have a screw loose and be trying to set me up.

 

[Danoff]

I think from a legal perspective, it's not going to matter.

I think it is.

A lawyer is pretty much going to present the case as Baldwin was in control of the firearm and didn't verify beforehand, which was a negligent act, and due to his actions, he unintentionally killed someone. It will be difficult to argue against involuntary manslaughter here since the case fits the definition of it pretty well. Had they tried to charge Baldwin with anything more severe, I don't think they've had a hope in hell at a conviction.

I still don't think it's even likely a conviction.

Is the involuntary manslaughter case against Alec Baldwin strong enough to convince a jury?

Palm Beach County State Attorney outlines why a jury may not be convinced.

www.wpbf.com

Why the ‘Bold’ Prosecution of Alec Baldwin Could End in Disaster

KENA BETANCUR/AFP via GettyLegal experts say prosecutors will face an uphill battle in securing a conviction against actor Alec Baldwin, who will be charged with involuntary manslaughter for a tragic on-set shooting that left a young cinematographer dead.“This is a very aggressive prosecution,”...

finance.yahoo.com

“So, essentially, the question for a jury would be whether a reasonable actor with the knowledge and expertise of Alec Baldwin would have checked to see if the gun contained live ammunition or whether they would simply take the props master’s word for it,” Ms Gibbon says.

“Juries may differ in their views on what a “reasonable” or “ordinarily prudent or careful” person in the same circumstances would have done. But the criminal standard of proof is high: beyond all reasonable doubt. It is unlikely a prosecutor would see an indictment against Baldwin as having a reasonable prospect of conviction,” Ms Gibbon says.

 

[Michael88]

Then you're suggesting that every single person on that set that was aware of the safety conditions (which you've define as any human who has a functioning brain) be charged with involuntary manslaughter. I'm going to hazard a guess that you're not a lawyer.

No, but the one who should have been concerned the most because he was expected to handle guns on set and even point it at people a lot but went along anyway without even checking its condition or learning to do so, which ultimately lead to him killing a person and severely injuring the other, DUH.
But hey, here we are and he is getting charged for involuntary manslaughter so maybe you are not the lawyer-type, lol.

By the way, Alec Baldwin was heavily involved in the production and was aware that the armorer had reservations about the job because of her relative lack of experience - and several of the set crew quit because they deemed the conditions on the set unsafe.
In fact, I think he should not just be charged but also convicted of involuntary manslaughter because he was partially responsible for letting people work in a clearly unsafe environment which in the end lead to the death of a set worker - through his own hands, literally.

 

[Danoff]

But hey, here we are and he is getting charged for involuntary manslaughter so maybe you are not the lawyer-type, lol.

I literally just quoted a bunch of articles from lawyers and judges explaining that this charge is weird. But do go on.

By the way, Alec Baldwin was heavily involved in the production

What exactly does this mean?

and was aware that the armorer had reservations about the job because of her relative lack of experience

You make it sound like he hired her.

In fact, I think he should not just be charged but also convicted of involuntary manslaughter because he was partially responsible for letting people work

Explain how you come to this conclusion.

 

[Danoff]

Jon Stewart has some really solid arguments.

BRIEF LANGUAGE WARNING

 

[Brett]

John Stewart has some really solid arguments.

BRIEF LANGUAGE WARNING

I have seen the last minute and a half. I may watch all of it at some point, but I have not wanted to subject myself to eight and a half minutes of Nathan Dahm.

 

[Danoff]

I have seen the last minute and a half. I may watch all of it at some point, but I have not wanted to subject myself to eight and a half minutes of Nathan Dahm.

It's mostly Jon Stewart.

 

[Tornado]

But hey, here we are and he is getting charged for involuntary manslaughter so maybe you are not the lawyer-type, lol.

Prosecutors overcharge all the time when they are chasing media circuses, which this case undoubtedly is intended to be. No less a creep than George Zimmerman walked a decade ago after the loon of a prosecutor in that case charged him with second degree murder for getting his ass kicked by someone he should have left alone and shooting in self-defense; and in that case the charges were also questioned well before it actually went to trial. The same thing also happened with Rittenhouse just a few years ago.

 

[Keef]

Prosecutors overcharge all the time when they are chasing media circuses, which this case undoubtedly is intended to be. No less a creep than George Zimmerman walked a decade ago after the loon of a prosecutor in that case charged him with second degree murder for getting his ass kicked by someone he should have left alone and shooting in self-defense; and in that case the charges were also questioned well before it actually went to trial. The same thing also happened with Rittenhouse just a few years ago.

Makes me wonder why they do that because the prosecutors are indirectly causing further division and social unrest by losing cases that seem clear-cut for different charges. Zimmerman and Rittenhouse are both guilty as hell of something - you can't claim self-defence if you seek conflict, that is a very basic concept to understand. Yet they walk. Utter failure of prosecution and virtually all the resulting unrest can be blamed directly on the prosecution.

Maybe they're doing it on purpose, I don't know.

 

[TexRex]

Prosecutors are frequently disinterested in reasonable leveling of justice, indeed prosecutors are frequently disinterest in due process of law. They're frequently politicians rather than true civil servants. With the exception of legitimately progressive prosecutors, they're also frequently on the conservative side, and even if they're not staunch conservatives, that they're frequently politicians rather than true civil servants means they're haunted by allegations of being "soft on crime." A special prosecutor involved with the case against Baldwin actually made it explicitly clear that it's politically motivated, stating the intent to make a point that nobody, including A-list actors (lol), is above the law.

So one of the charges against Baldwin was dropped...I guess a couple weeks ago? In 2022, New Mexico passed an amendment to existing criminal statute that added two years to a three-year mandatory minimum for firearm possession during the commission of a crime. One of the two charges against Baldwin carried a firearm enhancement and, as charged, carried that newer five-year mandatory minimum despite the incident occurring in 2021. Upon contest and review due to the unconstitutional imposition of statute nonexistent at the time of the incident, the firearm enhancement itself was dropped "to avoid further litigious distractions"--so stupid. Application of the enhancement here absolutely isn't in the spirit of the statute.

Alec Baldwin shouldn’t spend 5 years in prison for an accident

The actor is a polarizing figure. That shouldn't matter when evaluating the criminal case against him.

reason.com

 

[Touring Mars]

Virginia boy who shot his teacher won’t face criminal charges, says prosecutor

Six-year-old shot Abigail Zwerner on 6 January while she was teaching class, leaving her seriously injured

www.theguardian.com

It's pretty crazy that there doesn't seem to be much the law can do about cases like this, which however rare, are clearly not unheard of in the US. According to that article, there has been ca. 17 school shootings by children under the age of 10 since 1970... rare indeed, but that's one every 2.5 years approximately... and yet, in this case, the child will not be prosecuted, and what happens to the parents remains to be seen. It is odd, however, that seemingly responsible parents who went to some lengths to avoid their gun ending up in the hands of their 6-y.o. child somehow managed to fail, resulting in the child taking a loaded firearm to school in order to shoot their teacher.

On top of that, a local attorney said "We don’t believe the law supports charging a six-year-old with a criminal offense as serious as this one", and "Once we analyze all the facts, we will charge any person or persons that we believe we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt committed a crime."... kind of begs the question, then, what happens if/when they conclude that no crime has been committed?? That's just bonkers.

If I were an educator in the US, I'd be extremely worried if such a conclusion were to be reached - that a child can deliberately shoot a teacher and for that not to be consider a crime - or, to put it another way, a child deliberately shooting their teacher is effectively legal.

It's also pretty crazy that at this juncture it seems more likely that school officials may end up being prosecuted for not preventing the shooting than either the shooter themselves, or the people responsible for providing the child with access to a gun and ammunition... crazy.

 

[Danoff]

a child deliberately shooting their teacher is effectively legal.

Not necessarily "legal" but not necessarily criminal. Maybe think of it like an accident.

I'm not sure how the parents manage to escape this one.

 

[Barra333]

there has been ca. 17 school shootings by children under the age of 10 since 1970... rare indeed

To me, this sums up how bad it has gotten in the US. How many countries have had 17 school shootings in that time frame, independent of shooter profile?

 

[Famine]

that a child can deliberately shoot a teacher and for that not to be consider a crime

It's not that it's not a crime, but that it can't be prosecuted.

There's a giant legal chasm between a crime being committed - which is very digital - and the ability to prosecute and convict - and it's why there's a "not guilty" verdict rather than a "not crime" verdict. The crime took place, but the person prosecuted for it can't be held to be guilty of committing it (whether they didn't, couldn't be confirmed to have done it, or did it but had mitigating circumstances for doing so... or the prosecutors chose the wrong crime, as with Baldwin above).

The kid very definitely committed a crime, but as they're below the age of criminal responsibility (which I think is 10 in VA) they can't be prosecuted for it.

What remains is trying to determine if anyone else in the chain of events committed a crime that allowed for that crime to happen, and if they can be prosecuted.

 

[Biggles]

Louisville, Kentucky: Gunman kills five in bank shooting

The former intern opened fire on staff in a conference room at the bank, livestreaming the attack.

www.bbc.com

It's reached the point where nobody even bothers to comment on GTPlanet about these mass shooting events anymore. They're so frequent as to be unremarkable.

 

[Shaun]

Louisville, Kentucky: Gunman kills five in bank shooting

The former intern opened fire on staff in a conference room at the bank, livestreaming the attack.

www.bbc.com

It's reached the point where nobody even bothers to comment on GTPlanet about these mass shooting events anymore. They're so frequent as to be unremarkable.

Yep noticed that months ago, sad state of affairs really.

 

[UKMikey]

InB4 someone says

• you just commented on GTPlanet
• over half of gun deaths in the US are suicides
• the number of mass shootings fell last year for the first time since 2018
• it only rose in 2020 because Covid must have been a major factor etc

In reality the trend looks like it's risen sharply to my uneducated foreign eyes. Thoughts and prayers. I'm trying not to politicise the issue but I suspect some people see victims as an outgroup so are saving the outrage until when most of the mass shooters turn out to be black Chicagoans or trans activists or something.

 

[Roo]

InB4 someone says

• you just commented on GTPlanet
• over half of gun deaths in the US are suicides
• the number of mass shootings fell last year for the first time since 2018
• it only rose in 2020 because Covid must have been a major factor etc

In reality the trend looks like it's risen sharply to my uneducated foreign eyes. Thoughts and prayers. I'm trying not to politicise the issue but I suspect some people see victims as an outgroup so are saving the outrage until when most of the mass shooters turn out to be black Chicagoans or trans activists or something.

View attachment 1246934

Easily overlooked is the number of mass shootings to begin with. For context, in the same timeframe Wikipedia has 61 mass shootings recorded for the whole of Europe for a population over double that of the US, which includes some terrorist attacks. Wikipedia lists 34 for the UK ever, including 2 in the last 5 months.

 

[UKMikey]

Easily overlooked is the number of mass shootings to begin with. For context, in the same timeframe Wikipedia has 61 mass shootings recorded for the whole of Europe for a population over double that of the US, which includes some terrorist attacks. Wikipedia lists 34 for the UK ever, including 2 in the last 5 months.

The article linked to an infographic for that too. When this was mentioned previously someone pointed out that you can also kill people by running them over in a motor vehicle, which although true I'm pretty sure also happens in the US.

 

[Joey D]

What can anyone say that hasn't already been said? You can't ban guns in the US, it's not legally possible due to the Constitution. Yes, the Constitution can be amended, but while not impossible, it's improbable, especially when it comes to something like guns. Even if guns were somehow banned there are somewhere between 300-400 million guns, so they'd still exist. Plus, a vast majority of gun owners are law-abiding citizens that have zero interest in killing anyone, so in the end, all you would be doing is taking away guns from them while people intent on doing harm would still manage to get weapons.

I've yet to hear an actual plan that would work to reduce gun violence and most politicians just aren't concerned with it. They might say they are, but their actions say otherwise, and this is both Democrats and Republicans.

Ideally, we'd quit sensationalizing shootings and along with giving the shooters the chance to be immortalized. But in a world of social media and a 24-hour news cycle, that's not going to happen.

Ideally, we'd address mental healthcare, but there are so many hurdles with that, it's not likely either. You'd first need the older part of the population to understand mental health issues are real instead of saying "young people need to toughen up" or whatever other nonsense they say. Next, you'd actually need mental healthcare providers, which we don't have enough of. At the local hospital near me, we have people being held in the ER for months because there isn't a mental health facility that has room to take them, and because they're suicidal, they can't be discharged from the hospital (nor should they be). To get the providers, you'd need better access to programs to train new providers, but those are prohibitively expensive and you need the professors to actually do the training. Even if you manage to figure all that out, you'd still need to address how terrible drugs used to treat mental illness are too, which is a whole other can of worms.

Ideally, we'd have better background checks, red flag and safe storage laws, waiting periods, and proper licensing, but that all comes back to politicians not caring about anyone other than themselves. Plus, many of these laws would be badly abused and would likely target minorities. I mean, is being black a red flag for gun ownership? Of course not, but the way red flag laws are setup it absolutely can be if you have a racist justice system.

So it's not that people on GTP don't care, most of us do, but there's not much that can be said regarding the issue. Voting doesn't change anything and that's about the most any of us can do anyway.

 

[Famine]

Easily overlooked is the number of mass shootings to begin with.

Also the sheer amount of violence.

If you were to delete every single shooting death (and, as noted, the majority are suicide), the USA would still have excess deaths from violence compared to just about every other western nation.

The per capita homicide (excluding suicide) rate in the USA is roughly 8/100,000, and guns account for roughly 80% of those - so the not-gun homicide rate is about 1.6/100,000. The UK's total per capita homicide rate is 1.1/100,000; Canada is about 2, Australia about 0.9, France is about 1.2, Spain is about 0.6, Germany is about 0.9, New Zealand's is about 0.7 (although it spiked at 2.6 in 2019, when there were another 51 deaths in the Christchurch Mosque Shootings), Japan's is 0.3... and so on.

We can quibble about the decimals, but generally speaking Americans act with murderous intent 50% more often than anyone else in any civilised countries without guns, and then they have another 400% on top of that with guns.

The guns don't make them kill each other; they seem to want to do that anyway. They (or the bullets they carry) just make it easier - and less personal, aside from the "I want to kill you" aspect; shooting someone from several metres away is more disconnected than sticking a knife into them or bludgeoning them with a wheelbrace - to kill each other once the "decision" has been reached to kill each other, and then easier to kill more people afterwards since you've already screwed the pooch killing the first one, and then yourself once there's no way out.

Yet each year, 99.996%* of the legally held private firearms don't kill anyone. Even if you assume half are antiques which couldn't muster so much as a fart or are locked in glass cases, that's still 99.991%* of privately held, legal firearms not killing anybody. Teleport 10,000 guns from the USA at random into one place, and one might be a weapon that has been used to kill someone.


It seems pretty clear that guns aren't the problem, they're just a symptom of the problem: an incredible, endemic lack of respect for life. But the fact they're so readily available to so many people who shouldn't have control over anything more dangerous than a sock is a clear and obvious exacerbation of the problem.

What the country needs is a root and branch reassessment of who gets to have one - including mandatory training and testing before ownership, like you would with a car (and they kill about the same number of people annually) - and considerably stiffer penalties for those who have one when they shouldn't (same sentence as attempted murder would be ideal).

But the USA itself cannot really do anything about it due to successive overly generous interpretations of 2A**, a red-tilted SCOTUS, and nowhere near the supermajority of blue Houses required; it has to be the States - and there's no way some of them would ever do anything like that, affecting the ones that do because there's no internal borders and if you're going to commit a gun crime there's no real incentive not to make it a federal case.


*Napkin math: 400,000,000 privately held firearms, 20,000 gun murders a year, ~3000 of which are spree shootings with a small number of weapons used to kill multiple people; ~18,000 guns used to murder out of 400,000,000 = 0.0045%
**Although quite how the assault weapons ban got through I don't know; maybe 14A could be used as a basis to deny 2A rights through due process of law?

 

[Danoff]

I've yet to hear an actual plan that would work to reduce gun violence and most politicians just aren't concerned with it. They might say they are, but their actions say otherwise, and this is both Democrats and Republicans.

I definitely hear and agree with your expression of frustration here. Actually I think a lot of politicians are concerned with it and would love to do something about it, but feel about as helpless as you and me.

Roughly 2/3 of the US wants abortion to be legal and the last 1/3 is making in-roads to preventing it in every state. We have the same problem with guns. About 70% of the US wants tighter gun restrictions, and the last 30%, with much overlap to the previous sentence, is holding us all hostage with their guns.

The 2nd amendment offers much room for more careful gun control, but the US political system is log-jammed into powerlessness. We need an even larger more widespread outrage if we're to get something done. What needs to be done? Probably licensing at a minimum. And that's tricky, both legally and morally, and requires nuance - which we're not good at.

 

[R3V]

generally speaking Americans act with murderous intent 50% more often than anyone else in any civilised countries without guns

The more Americans from both sides ignore this, the longer the problem is going to stay.

Oh and this extends to police. Shoot first ask questions later isn't just an internet joke.

 

[Liquid]

@Danoff said it years ago on this board; the United States has a violence problem. Bottom line.

There's a time and a place for guns but they make it so easy to exploit such a dangerous problem.