Alec Baldwin SHOOTING

originally posted by: Zyzxxrd
If in fact she was shot in the right shoulder area while standing behind the camera operator...

The gaffer next to her is saying she grabbed her abdomen and also states she was shot in the stomach. Probably best to wait for the coroner's findings at this point.

People should look up Deer Hunter, and what went on.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

It seems the media is also conflating "misfires" with "accidental discharges".

What else is new?

They have also confused the term "prop gun" with an actual workable weapon. A prop gun has no firing pin, the barrel plugged solid, or both. It cannot physically fire a round any more than a water gun can. What was used here was a real, honest-to-God, working, functional firearm which was supposed to be loaded with blanks.

Of course, it wasn't.

This is a perfect example of what people have been preaching every time the subject of gun control comes up. Those advocating to take away the right to have a gun know nothing, absolutely nothing, about the guns they want to take away. The people who keep and use the guns do know about firearm safety, and practice firearm safety.

To someone who doesn't know anything about a gun, yeah, going off accidentally might be incorrectly described as a "misfire" but it isn't. It's an accidental discharge. Just because someone who didn't know better called it a misfire does not mean it was one.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Zyzxxrd
If in fact she was shot in the right shoulder area while standing behind the camera operator...

The gaffer next to her is saying she grabbed her abdomen and also states she was shot in the stomach. Probably best to wait for the coroner's findings at this point.

Ah...ok, I read right shoulder somewhere but do recall that statement from the gaffer. Agreed.

a reply to: panoz77

The misinformation is yours, sir. I only pray no one listens to it.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: vonclod

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: vonclod

originally posted by: panoz77

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: TheRedneck


In any case, I am a bit relieved to hear you would like to see charges as well. I do not wish Alec Baldwin, or any actor, ill over this or anything else. I simply want to see some common sense safety precautions taken.

Im not a huge baldwin fan either, but here's the problem i see with charging Baldwin for this.

You bring your truck into a repair shop for new brakes. The brakes fail due to the work being subpar and you kill someone. Who is liable? The shop is so long as there is actual cause and proximate cause.

In the case of Baldwin, there was an outside firm responsible for the safety of the equipment and Baldwin was only an operator...whether or not he was properly trained in firearms safety and handling should never come into play as he had no desire to handle a projectile discharging firearm....but an illusion of one. We can argue whether or not its a great idea to use a "real" firearm as an illusion, but thats another debate.

Actual cause in Baldwins case would mean if not for the negligence of the outside firm would Mrs. Hutchins have been shot down? If the answer is no, actual cause has been established. Proximate cause in this case would be were there any unforseeable or intervening events that would relieve the outside firm of liability? If the answer is no, you have proximate cause.

Instead the outside firm should be held liable and any forthcoming charges should fall sqaurely on them.

Here is where you are wrong. You never point a firearm, real gun or blank firing gun (we are not talking about a plastic toy cap gun) at something you don't intend to kill and pull the trigger. Never, not ever. There are no exceptions to this rule. Even if every other firearm safety provision was violated, nobody would have died if this firearm wasn't pointed at a person and the trigger pulled, PERIOD.

I must assume you have never been to a movie, or watched tv..because obviously it has happened..I dunno..millions of times

Guess that poster has never seen the John Wick films. Or many others, for that matter.

Ya, his words are very reasonable..in real life. However, making movies/tv, it's par for the course. I did notice last John Wick, was a lot of digital gunfire, lots of up close stuff

You mean, it wasn't a documentary?!!!!

originally posted by: vonclod
People should look up Deer Hunter, and what went on.

Do tell!

a reply to: face23785

Me

So. can a "misfire" also be an accidental discharge, or not?

Face23785

Yeah, does that surprise you?

It confuses me.

Because this is how panoz77 defined a misfire.

originally posted by: panoz77
originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: face23785

panoz77

Guns don't just "go off."

Me

Then, what is a "misfire"? The crew reported that there were 3 misfires before this incident.

panoz77

A misfire is when you pull the trigger and the primer DOESN'T go off, hence igniting the powder and ejecting a bullet. There were not reports of "misfires". I believe the reports were of negligent discharges.

www.handgunsafetycourse.com...
"A misfire is when the primer fails to ignite the powder."

There are very rare cases where certain guns can "go off" without pulling the trigger. For example, some SKS's can fire a round if the butt of the gun is slammed into the ground, this is usually due to guns that have worn trigger components or lack of maintenance and are very rare.

So this misfire, that killed Helyna Hutchins, didn't fail to ignite, per the definition of a misfire panoz77 provided. it was a hot gun that was accidentally discharged.

So, what I'm understanding here is that a "misfire" is when a gun fails to ignite, OR when a "hot" gun accidentally discharges, most likely by pulling the trigger, when a gun was assumed to be "cold".

It appears the previous "misfires" that were reported were also accidental discharges, of "hot" guns thought to be "cold".

originally posted by: Erno86

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: alphabetaone

But hollywood is an entirely different animal

There is the crux of my disagreement. No, Hollywood is not a "completely different animal" when it comes to firearm safety! No one is immune to firearm safety, and this incident underscores that statement. No one. Period.

Also, i looked up the definition of manslaughter in Mew Mexico:

Chapter 30: Criminal Offenses
Article 2: Homicide, 30-2-1 through 30-2-9
Section 30-2-3: Manslaughter.

Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice.

A. Voluntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed upon a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion.

Whoever commits voluntary manslaughter is guilty of a third degree felony resulting in the death of a human being.

B. Involuntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to felony, or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection.

Whoever commits involuntary manslaughter is guilty of a fourth degree felony.

Paragraph B seems to apply. Not personally checking the weapon before firing it demonstrates a lack of "due caution and circumspection." It does not matter if it was on a Hollywood movie set or in a biker barroom... a gun is a gun is a gun, and a gun can kill. Alec Baldwin knew this, as evidenced by a cornucopia of comments made in favor of gun control before this happened. He can't even plead ignorance here due to those previous statements. He knew the gun could kill, and yet he failed to verify it was safe before pointing it at another human being and pulling the trigger.

Hanna Gutierrez Reed (the armorer) and Dave Halls (the assistant director) would also be subject to the same charge. Anyone else who may have been complicit (discounting intent of course) would likely be subject to a serious misdemeanor.

The maximum punishment in New Mexico for a fourth degree felony is 18 months in prison and a $5000 fine.

TheRedneck

So what if said film actor had a Tommy gun with a 50 or 100 round drum magazine. Do you think said actor should be held liable for a negligent discharge, if he did not check to see if the magazine drum was loaded with live ammunition or not --- When the film armorer is --- after all --- under contract to see whether the firearm is loaded with blank ammunition?

Jus sayin...

Everyone involved is responsible imo. It sounds like the conditions on set were unreasonably dangerous. Their normal safety people weren't there. They were probably being rushed to just get on with it to save the #ing studio money. Whoever deemed the firearm safe and Baldwin for not checking it himself are equally responsible. In the end, Baldwin is the one handling the gun.

If a "firearms expert" handed you a gun and swore it wasn't loaded and you fired it at someone and killed them, I guarantee you'd be charged. Because it happened on the set of the movie doesn't make it any less irresponsible. It's a deadly machine.

If they wanted Baldwin to do a vehicle stunt that he didn't have the training for, they just told him how to do it and that it would be safe, and he tried it anyway and killed someone, there would be no argument here. It's just our stupid culture that it's always the gun's fault and not the person holding it.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: vonclod
People should look up Deer Hunter, and what went on.

Do tell!

Does the game of "Russian roulette"...ring a bell???

originally posted by: Erno86

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: vonclod
People should look up Deer Hunter, and what went on.

Do tell!

Does the game of "Russian roulette"...ring a bell???

Yes. I posted about that scene earlier.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: face23785

Me

So. can a "misfire" also be an accidental discharge, or not?

Face23785

Yeah, does that surprise you?

It confuses me.

Because this is how panoz77 defined a misfire.

originally posted by: panoz77
originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: face23785

panoz77

Guns don't just "go off."

Me

Then, what is a "misfire"? The crew reported that there were 3 misfires before this incident.

panoz77

A misfire is when you pull the trigger and the primer DOESN'T go off, hence igniting the powder and ejecting a bullet. There were not reports of "misfires". I believe the reports were of negligent discharges.

www.handgunsafetycourse.com...
"A misfire is when the primer fails to ignite the powder."

There are very rare cases where certain guns can "go off" without pulling the trigger. For example, some SKS's can fire a round if the butt of the gun is slammed into the ground, this is usually due to guns that have worn trigger components or lack of maintenance and are very rare.

So this misfire, that killed Helyna Hutchins, didn't fail to ignite, per the definition of a misfire panoz77 provided. it was a hot gun that was accidentally discharged.

So, what I'm understanding here is that a "misfire" is when a gun fails to ignite, OR when a "hot" gun accidentally discharges, most likely by pulling the trigger, because the gun was assumed to be "cold".

It appears the previous "misfires" that were reported were also accidental discharges, of "hot" guns thought to be "cold".

Someone firing a gun that they thought was unloaded is not a misfire.

Your confusion is partly understandable because of the unreliability of media reporting. Until we get more details, we don't know for sure what the 3 prior incidents were. We still don't even know for sure precisely what happened with Baldwin. You have to keep in mind that most of the people covering this are so ignorant as to the subject matter that they don't even know the right questions to ask when they get a chance to question law enforcement. They also think some terms are interchangeable that aren't. There's also the matter that some terms are colloquial and others actually have strict technical and/or legal definitions.

This is precisely why the "I don't have to know about guns to know we need to implement [insert gun control policy that hasn't been logically thought through by qualified people]" attitude by these people needs to go away.

Also, I hope this gives you some pause next time you start to take media reporting at face value. Even if you don't believe the media would purposefully lie to you, they often are just out of their element and don't know what the hell they're talking about. For every time, like this one, where you actually do realize you're confused, there are undoubtedly other times where you think you understand the issue but actually don't because their reporting was flawed.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: vonclod
People should look up Deer Hunter, and what went on.

Do tell!

DeNero wanted some real cartridges in the russian roulette scenes..talk about method acting, obviously the rounds where never in the majic spot, still..yikes

A lot of misery in general went on, made for a very good movie though.

a reply to: face23785

Someone firing a gun that they thought was unloaded is not a misfire.

Yeah...LOL

It appears to be a semantics puzzle designed by legal eagles. You can bet it will be called a "misfire" in court.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: face23785

Someone firing a gun that they thought was unloaded is not a misfire.

Yeah...LOL

It appears to be a semantics puzzle designed by legal eagles. You can bet it will be called a "misfire" in court.

It's not semantics at all. The confusion is caused by ignorant people who refuse to learn about the subject matter constantly trying to opine on and debate the subject. Millions of members of the public become misinformed in this manner, and then when they talk about it they use incorrect terms. It's not hard to understand. No "design" is needed.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: panoz77

The misinformation is yours, sir. I only pray no one listens to it.

TheRedneck

Oh, like the misinformation you just posted about a "prop gun" not having a firing pin? Some prop guns have firing pins, which are needed to fire a BLANK. The reason they cannot fire a round with a projectile is that usually the barrel is modified so that an actual round with a bullet cannot fit into the barrel and the action closed to fire the round.

a reply to: face23785

I'm certainly not familiar with the --- going ons' --- of a Hollywood film set --- But I would speculate that everybody is under contract to perform such dangerous work. And I assume that Baldwin will not be charged for any illegal activity in this tragic incident.

originally posted by: Erno86
And I assume that Baldwin will not be charged for any illegal activity in this tragic incident.

Maybe, if it's found they were running an unsafe set he could be charge and he will 100% be sued civilly.

There was a similar case in 2014 of an unsafely run set and the production company and AD were both criminally charged and all parties involved were civilly sued.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: face23785

Someone firing a gun that they thought was unloaded is not a misfire.

Yeah...LOL

It appears to be a semantics puzzle designed by legal eagles. You can bet it will be called a "misfire" in court.

It's not semantics at all. The confusion is caused by ignorant people who refuse to learn about the subject matter constantly trying to opine on and debate the subject. Millions of members of the public become misinformed in this manner, and then when they talk about it they use incorrect terms. It's not hard to understand. No "design" is needed.

I don't believe this statement was made out of ignorance.

on the set of Rust a few times before the fatal incident where Alec Baldwin fired a prop gun that misfired and killed cinematographer Halyna Hutchins.

www.pedestrian.tv...

I think it was a legally calculated statement, meant to set a certain tone that emphasizes the assumed innocence of Alec Baldwin.

originally posted by: vonclod

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: vonclod
People should look up Deer Hunter, and what went on.

Do tell!

DeNero wanted some real cartridges in the russian roulette scenes..talk about method acting, obviously the rounds where never in the majic spot, still..yikes

A lot of misery in general went on, made for a very good movie though.

Yikes! Indeed.

I can only wonder how he got into the part of the cross dressing gay pirate in Stardust.....