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.
Says the guy quoting civil litigation in a discussion of criminal charges. I wasn’t going to go there even if it is like 6th grade civics level…. But now your just being insulting.
Just because another person also had a duty of care- doesn’t mean Baldwin didn’t.
It’s simple tragic fact that Baldwin failed in his obligation to handle a weapon that was fundamentally designed to kill humans in a safe manner. If he had done anything to even half ass checking that weapon Hutchinson would still be alive.
That the armorer failed to do their job, doesn’t change that simple fact. When you’re dealing with things that have “death” as a likely consequence… you don’t rely on a single person, which is why the armrorer is also guilty. They both are.
Nothing you are saying actually changed that Baldwin’s own actions lead directly to it- and if we swap out literally any other actor, that don’t change.
Because he still pointed a weapon fundamentally designed to murder people, at Hutchinson, and pulled the trigger.
Reasonable people don’t do that without excessive amounts of paranoia- including checking a firearm that takes ten seconds to safely check.
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.
Says the guy quoting civil litigation in a discussion of criminal charges. I wasn’t going to go there even if it is like 6th grade civics level…. But now your just being insulting.
Just because another person also had a duty of care- doesn’t mean Baldwin didn’t.
It’s simple tragic fact that Baldwin failed in his obligation to handle a weapon that was fundamentally designed to kill humans in a safe manner. If he had done anything to even half ass checking that weapon Hutchinson would still be alive.
That the armorer failed to do their job, doesn’t change that simple fact. When you’re dealing with things that have “death” as a likely consequence… you don’t rely on a single person, which is why the armrorer is also guilty. They both are.
Nothing you are saying actually changed that Baldwin’s own actions lead directly to it- and if we swap out literally any other actor, that don’t change.
Because he still pointed a weapon fundamentally designed to murder people, at Hutchinson, and pulled the trigger.
Reasonable people don’t do that without excessive amounts of paranoia- including checking a firearm that takes ten seconds to safely check.
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.
Wow, your feelings got so hurt that you went ad hominem. Congratulations on proving that you don’t have a point to stand on.