I think there’s a lot of hindsight bias at play here. Imagine almost the same scenario where Baldwin recklessly points the gun, pulls the trigger, but in this case, nothing happens because the gun does not have any live ammunition (presumably what anyone on that set would have expected). It may not even have been noticeable to anyone tha…
I think there’s a lot of hindsight bias at play here. Imagine almost the same scenario where Baldwin recklessly points the gun, pulls the trigger, but in this case, nothing happens because the gun does not have any live ammunition (presumably what anyone on that set would have expected). It may not even have been noticeable to anyone that this even occurred. Would anyone be advocating for prosecuting him for having pointed an empty gun and pulling the trigger, where nothing happened?
He's being prosecuted for manslaughter on a theory of negligent handling of a firearm. The situation you describe has no manslaughter. This one does. That's the difference.
Yes. I mis-wrote the name of the bias. I meant to say “outcome” bias. That is literally what you’ve said. The exact same action with the exact same intent; in his case resulting in death = guilty; in my hypothetical case not resulting in death = no problem. That’s outcome bias. It’s not logical or useful to hold someone morally culpable based on the outcome.
You are So Wrong! What is the purpose of law? Is it simply to punish bad behavior? NO! With respect o lethal weapons its purpose is to ensure that all those who brandish them act in a manner commensurate with the harm likely to be caused by misuse! If you are at a gun range or a bar or on the street and you point a lethal weapon at someone and pull the trigger, what do you suppose their response will be (assuming it fired a blank round)? I believe you would probably be beaten to a bloody pulp. Why? Because you have just committed the most reckless and insane “practical joke” that could very well have ended that person’s life! The law is designed to ensure that you - the gun handler - know that you will pay dearly for any harm you cause with that gun. Why? Because you - the gun handler -are the only person who can prevent this type of behavior. You need to take your responsibility seriously when you are handling a lethal weapon. What do you think the now dead director would have sId if it had been a blank round? Maybe, “WTF, Baldwin?!” She would have stopped the shoot and told him to find someone else to direct his movie. She could have sued him for reckless endangerment. He was not supposed to PULL THE TRIGGER! That was pure Baldwin uber-conceit-LARPing! No excuse for killing someone!
That's fundamental to our legal system- we prosecute based on outcomes, not potential outcomes. Medical negligence doesn't get prosecuted unless somebody gets hurt. Manslaughter doesn't get prosecuted unless there is a body.
People "get away with" acting irresponsibly every day. Outcome is the *only* way to morally prosecute them.
I think there’s a lot of hindsight bias at play here. Imagine almost the same scenario where Baldwin recklessly points the gun, pulls the trigger, but in this case, nothing happens because the gun does not have any live ammunition (presumably what anyone on that set would have expected). It may not even have been noticeable to anyone that this even occurred. Would anyone be advocating for prosecuting him for having pointed an empty gun and pulling the trigger, where nothing happened?
He's being prosecuted for manslaughter on a theory of negligent handling of a firearm. The situation you describe has no manslaughter. This one does. That's the difference.
Yes. I mis-wrote the name of the bias. I meant to say “outcome” bias. That is literally what you’ve said. The exact same action with the exact same intent; in his case resulting in death = guilty; in my hypothetical case not resulting in death = no problem. That’s outcome bias. It’s not logical or useful to hold someone morally culpable based on the outcome.
You are So Wrong! What is the purpose of law? Is it simply to punish bad behavior? NO! With respect o lethal weapons its purpose is to ensure that all those who brandish them act in a manner commensurate with the harm likely to be caused by misuse! If you are at a gun range or a bar or on the street and you point a lethal weapon at someone and pull the trigger, what do you suppose their response will be (assuming it fired a blank round)? I believe you would probably be beaten to a bloody pulp. Why? Because you have just committed the most reckless and insane “practical joke” that could very well have ended that person’s life! The law is designed to ensure that you - the gun handler - know that you will pay dearly for any harm you cause with that gun. Why? Because you - the gun handler -are the only person who can prevent this type of behavior. You need to take your responsibility seriously when you are handling a lethal weapon. What do you think the now dead director would have sId if it had been a blank round? Maybe, “WTF, Baldwin?!” She would have stopped the shoot and told him to find someone else to direct his movie. She could have sued him for reckless endangerment. He was not supposed to PULL THE TRIGGER! That was pure Baldwin uber-conceit-LARPing! No excuse for killing someone!
That's fundamental to our legal system- we prosecute based on outcomes, not potential outcomes. Medical negligence doesn't get prosecuted unless somebody gets hurt. Manslaughter doesn't get prosecuted unless there is a body.
People "get away with" acting irresponsibly every day. Outcome is the *only* way to morally prosecute them.