On a holiday weekend in my area two parents and their three adolescent girls were coming home from visiting grandparents. Their car was hit by a woman in an SUV who was speeding, ran a red light, and was texting when it happened. That driver was charged with 3 counts of involuntary manslaughter because had she not been reckless and ignor…
On a holiday weekend in my area two parents and their three adolescent girls were coming home from visiting grandparents. Their car was hit by a woman in an SUV who was speeding, ran a red light, and was texting when it happened. That driver was charged with 3 counts of involuntary manslaughter because had she not been reckless and ignored general safety practices she would not have killed all three girls and left their parents injured for life.
There are 3 basic safety standards with guns taught to anyone who learns anything about gun safety.
1. Always check any weapon you pick up to ensure it is not loaded.
2. Never point any gun at anything you do not intend to shoot.
3. Never pull the trigger unless you intend to shoot.
Had Mr. Baldwin obeyed any ONE of these safety practices then the tragedy, like the car accident, would not have happened. It took 3 safety failures to take a life .
That is the essence of Involuntary Manslaughter.
Furthermore, as the executive producer, safety on the set was HIS responsibility. He agreed to taken on that role. No one made him ( wanted to say held a gun to his head but that is in bad taste).
So not only is the trial holding him to the same standards as a woman texting while driving, it would be like that woman was job was ensuring highway safety also.
My opinion of Mr Baldwin is irrelevant. But either celebrities are held to the same standards as common people or our legal system is completely corrupt.
Charging is completely correct. Whether or not he is convicted is a question for a judge or jury to answer.
The actor on the set is to follow the instructions of the director [here pointing a gun and shooting it] and the paid armorer's actual job is to be sure no live ammo is on set. The actor is not the person who is to check out a gun anymore than the actor needs to have a car safety checked before it is driven for a movie scene. the criminal charges against the armorer were righteous. against the actor they are political theatre.
That's nonsense. There's a reason gun safety rules require *everyone* who picks up a gun to follow the rules- because the potential consequences of not doing so are deadly. You can't pass it off to someone else.
The judge has ruled that Baldwin's role as Executive Producer is irrelevant and isn't to be mentioned at trial. I don't agree but it's not an irrational ruling.
I took can agree with that ruling because none of the other producers are being charged. However, I was merely listing it as part of his responsibility over all... Not that it had to be part of the evidence. It would be like stating in a dozen of his other movies he carried fire arms and therefore this was not something he just happened upon and made a mistake like some child finding his father's gun. Since it was a regular part of his employment he had moral responsibility to practice safety.
Seems like negligent homicide would fit these cirumstances better. Not every citizen is familiar with the three common sense rules of trigger discipline mentioned throughout this discussion, but every driver has to know that speeding and running a stoplight while texting is practically begging for a fatality.
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.
From the NM code... "Without due caution and circumspection" seems to fit the case
Alec Baldwin was familiar with the rules of trigger discipline. He discussed them in the police interview just after the shooting. He was taught them in training for this and every other film he's worked on with a gun on the set.
On a holiday weekend in my area two parents and their three adolescent girls were coming home from visiting grandparents. Their car was hit by a woman in an SUV who was speeding, ran a red light, and was texting when it happened. That driver was charged with 3 counts of involuntary manslaughter because had she not been reckless and ignored general safety practices she would not have killed all three girls and left their parents injured for life.
There are 3 basic safety standards with guns taught to anyone who learns anything about gun safety.
1. Always check any weapon you pick up to ensure it is not loaded.
2. Never point any gun at anything you do not intend to shoot.
3. Never pull the trigger unless you intend to shoot.
Had Mr. Baldwin obeyed any ONE of these safety practices then the tragedy, like the car accident, would not have happened. It took 3 safety failures to take a life .
That is the essence of Involuntary Manslaughter.
Furthermore, as the executive producer, safety on the set was HIS responsibility. He agreed to taken on that role. No one made him ( wanted to say held a gun to his head but that is in bad taste).
So not only is the trial holding him to the same standards as a woman texting while driving, it would be like that woman was job was ensuring highway safety also.
My opinion of Mr Baldwin is irrelevant. But either celebrities are held to the same standards as common people or our legal system is completely corrupt.
Charging is completely correct. Whether or not he is convicted is a question for a judge or jury to answer.
The actor on the set is to follow the instructions of the director [here pointing a gun and shooting it] and the paid armorer's actual job is to be sure no live ammo is on set. The actor is not the person who is to check out a gun anymore than the actor needs to have a car safety checked before it is driven for a movie scene. the criminal charges against the armorer were righteous. against the actor they are political theatre.
That's nonsense. There's a reason gun safety rules require *everyone* who picks up a gun to follow the rules- because the potential consequences of not doing so are deadly. You can't pass it off to someone else.
The judge has ruled that Baldwin's role as Executive Producer is irrelevant and isn't to be mentioned at trial. I don't agree but it's not an irrational ruling.
I took can agree with that ruling because none of the other producers are being charged. However, I was merely listing it as part of his responsibility over all... Not that it had to be part of the evidence. It would be like stating in a dozen of his other movies he carried fire arms and therefore this was not something he just happened upon and made a mistake like some child finding his father's gun. Since it was a regular part of his employment he had moral responsibility to practice safety.
It doesn't matter now. Alec was acquitted because of prosecutorial misconduct. I would have preferred that a jury weigh the evidence.
Seems like negligent homicide would fit these cirumstances better. Not every citizen is familiar with the three common sense rules of trigger discipline mentioned throughout this discussion, but every driver has to know that speeding and running a stoplight while texting is practically begging for a fatality.
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.
From the NM code... "Without due caution and circumspection" seems to fit the case
Alec Baldwin was familiar with the rules of trigger discipline. He discussed them in the police interview just after the shooting. He was taught them in training for this and every other film he's worked on with a gun on the set.