New Mexico prosecutors on Tuesday said they intended to recharge actor Alec Baldwin with involuntary manslaughter for the fatal shooting of "Rust" cinematographer Halyna Hutchins in 2021.
Morrissey said if new testing of the gun showed it was working, she would recharge Baldwin.
I find some humor in the wiki link you provided for duty of care, the first sentence starts with “In tort law” as you keep trying to use it for criminal law.
There are no legal requirements for firearm handling that requires someone to check for a load. When you, and many others, say “the first rule of firearms” I invite you to provide us with a legal definition of these rules.
There is no expectation for a non-expert to identify the differences between blanks, dummy, and live rounds.
While there was likely gross negligence on the set, I’m not sure it rises to the level of criminal liability. A film set is a unique situation where there are different rules to firearm handling. This is a simple fact that cannot be overlooked. The rules of firearms as you have been trained on and as you understand them simply don’t apply.
So your saying that an adult picking up a firearm and waiving it around cocking it and pulling the trigger (accidentally or otherwise,) isn’t negligent when that firearm happens to go off?
Yes that article mostly covers tort law which is civil. esp. In this case the negligence rose to the level of criminality, and the test for duty of care applied to show he was being negligent.
Oh, by the way. The armorer wasn’t even on site. He was handed the weapon by a non-expert who declared it cold. Adding another failed check: “hey you’re not the armorer!” Would have also saved his victim’s life.
But nope. They had a schedule to keep. So whatever. What’s the worst that could happen?
You’re acting like Baldwin is not a reasonable human- he’s not a toddler who you would have no expectation of knowing “hey maybe I shouldn’t do this”. That it was on set in a staged scenario doesn’t absolve people of their personal responsibility.
I find some humor in the wiki link you provided for duty of care, the first sentence starts with “In tort law” as you keep trying to use it for criminal law.
There are no legal requirements for firearm handling that requires someone to check for a load. When you, and many others, say “the first rule of firearms” I invite you to provide us with a legal definition of these rules.
There is no expectation for a non-expert to identify the differences between blanks, dummy, and live rounds.
While there was likely gross negligence on the set, I’m not sure it rises to the level of criminal liability. A film set is a unique situation where there are different rules to firearm handling. This is a simple fact that cannot be overlooked. The rules of firearms as you have been trained on and as you understand them simply don’t apply.
Lol.
So your saying that an adult picking up a firearm and waiving it around cocking it and pulling the trigger (accidentally or otherwise,) isn’t negligent when that firearm happens to go off?
Yes that article mostly covers tort law which is civil. esp. In this case the negligence rose to the level of criminality, and the test for duty of care applied to show he was being negligent.
Oh, by the way. The armorer wasn’t even on site. He was handed the weapon by a non-expert who declared it cold. Adding another failed check: “hey you’re not the armorer!” Would have also saved his victim’s life.
But nope. They had a schedule to keep. So whatever. What’s the worst that could happen?
You’re acting like Baldwin is not a reasonable human- he’s not a toddler who you would have no expectation of knowing “hey maybe I shouldn’t do this”. That it was on set in a staged scenario doesn’t absolve people of their personal responsibility.