Alec Baldwin SHOOTING

originally posted by: panoz77

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

Really? Or maybe that's just part of movie magic and it just appears like the gun is pointed at a person? You know, like when you see someone get punched in a movie, do you think they are actually getting punched in the face? LOL

Well, no, of course I don't think that.

I take it you have never seen the Deer Hunter, for example?

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: panoz77

Blank rounds don't have shrapnel.

Look... someone just died from improper handling of a firearm. It was 100% avoidable, but tomfollery and a lack of information overcame all that.

Please, just this once, can we stop spreading misinformation? Blanks may not be supposed to emit shrapnel, but they certainly can, and they certainly have. Those brass casings are not indestructable.

Please?

TheRedneck

You seem to have that CNN misinformation thing down. Blank rounds don't shoot out shrapnel, casing failures happen rarely in semi-autos and even more rarely in revolvers due to the design of the cylinders which fully support the casing. Please stop spreading misinformation.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

I was an armed security guard when they filmed the movie Sudden Death. My station was the weapons trailer and I got to see how they prepared for the scenes where there was gunfire. There were no "real" weapons on the set. Everything was a "prop gun" that only fired blanks. Even then each actor was personally briefed for each scene where they used a "gun". The weapons guys loaded each "gun" with the type of blank needed for each scene and had positive control of it until it was handed to each actor. After the scene it was handed back to the weapons guys, who cleaned, inspected and reloaded each "gun". Several of the actors came to the trailer to be briefed. I didn't see Van Damme, but, Powers Boothe was pretty cool. Had a chance to talk to him about Red Dawn and By Dawn's Early Light, two of my favorite movies. One of the weapons guys even adjusted the trigger of my Beretta to make it smoother.

originally posted by: panoz77

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

Really? Or maybe that's just part of movie magic and it just appears like the gun is pointed at a person? You know, like when you see someone get punched in a movie, do you think they are actually getting punched in the face? LOL

OK that has merit, but sometimes the shots are direct, with distance, and or partially obstructed barrels

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.

CGI much? If you think that people in the movies are firing blank rounds directly at other actors, you simply have no clue. They have a way of making it appear like that is what's happening, but it's not.

originally posted by: panoz77

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.

CGI much? If you think that people in the movies are firing blank rounds directly at other actors, you simply have no clue. They have a way of making it appear like that is what's happening, but it's not.

Newsflash for you, the Deer Hunter and countless other films were before the advent of CGI.

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

I don't claim to be a fire arms expert, or even a hobbyist. But, it seems that I'm not the only the one confused here. It seems the media is also conflating "misfires" with "accidental discharges".

someone on set was alarmed by the prop gun misfires and communicated their concerns to the unit production manager via text message. “We’ve now had 3 accidental discharges.

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...

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

I can foresee a scenario, where a film set could have been firing live, loaded ammunition through the pistol --- then having a misfire (with the primer only igniting and not the powder charge) --- That caused the bullet to be lodged in the barrel --- Then the armorer loaded the pistol with blanks, and fired off the bullet that was lodged in the barrel.

Mistake #1: Not checking to see if a bullet is lodged in the barrel

originally posted by: panoz77

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.

CGI much? If you think that people in the movies are firing blank rounds directly at other actors, you simply have no clue. They have a way of making it appear like that is what's happening, but it's not.

Yes, John Wick was CGI, that is a more recent trend

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

There was a story about how they did the opening for Dirty Harry where the .44 Magnum pistol is fired. They used live ammo for that and fired it almost at the camera. I'll see if I can find a link. I read it years ago.

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

I don't claim to be a fire arms expert, or even a hobbyist. But, it seems that I'm not the only the one confused here. It seems the media is also conflating "misfires" with "accidental discharges".

someone on set was alarmed by the prop gun misfires and communicated their concerns to the unit production manager via text message. “We’ve now had 3 accidental discharges.

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...

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

Yeah, does that surprise you? People who have no idea about firearms, reporting on a firearm story, are confusing and getting details wrong? This in turn has a lot to do with why a lot of the public is confused about gun issues. Hollywood and the gun control lobby also contribute to the misinformation and confusion. The media routinely do not know what they're talking about. Another reason why they should leave their opinions out of their reporting.

As for the whole "oh they point guns at people on the sets of movies all the time" argument, that's not a defense, that's an enhancement for our argument. They absolutely should not be doing that. In cases where the shot absolutely requires the gun to be pointed directly at someone, an inert mockup should be used. This dangerous practice needs to end, especially when it's being practiced by such ignorant people who refuse to get trained, or to follow whatever training they did get.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: panoz77

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.

CGI much? If you think that people in the movies are firing blank rounds directly at other actors, you simply have no clue. They have a way of making it appear like that is what's happening, but it's not.

Newsflash for you, the Deer Hunter and countless other films were before the advent of CGI.

Camera angles can make something appear like it's not. It's really not complicated, especially on a movie set.

a reply to: panoz77

The very definition of "shrapnel" is small irregular pieces of metal. If a casing fractures (and they fracture much more often that you seem to believe), multiple pieces can exit the barrel. They are moving quite fast, and velocity is much more devastating than mass. A single atom in space can pierce a few inches of solid metal, due not to its mass, obviously, but to its extreme velocity.

My original theory (which was wrong, apparently) was saying that more than one piece of shrapnel could have exited the barrel, one striking Hutchins, and the other one the other victim. It would be difficult, but certainly not impossible, for a single piece of brass shrapnel to hit both people.

That theory is now moot. We now know the projectile was a bullet, assumed based on the weapon types used to be a .45 Colt round. That can certainly penetrate one person and injure a second. My only reason for responding is to counter the notion that blanks are inherently safe. They may not be as dangerous as a .45 Colt, and they may normally not emit brass shrapnel, but the possibility does exist for them to do so, especially if the blank is improperly loaded (too much powder charge, weakened brass used, uneven crimping, etc.). Telling people that it cannot happen is as irresponsible as not checking a gun to see if it is loaded.

Consider if an amateur loader decided to load up some blanks just for kicks. He might believe, according to your claim, that he can safely discharge them toward someone else... after all, they are blanks, right? That someone else could die from the resulting shrapnel just as surely as Hutchins died from the .45 Colt through her chest. I have years, no, decades of experience reloading, and I still will not load blanks. I understand the dangers of improper (and sometimes even proper) loading, and will not take that risk. Neither should anyone else who isn't trained to load blanks.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: panoz77

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: panoz77

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.

CGI much? If you think that people in the movies are firing blank rounds directly at other actors, you simply have no clue. They have a way of making it appear like that is what's happening, but it's not.

Newsflash for you, the Deer Hunter and countless other films were before the advent of CGI.

Camera angles can make something appear like it's not. It's really not complicated, especially on a movie set.

Please explain how camera angles made it appear in close up that they weren't holding guns to their heads in the famous Russian roulette scene?

originally posted by: panoz77

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: panoz77

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.

CGI much? If you think that people in the movies are firing blank rounds directly at other actors, you simply have no clue. They have a way of making it appear like that is what's happening, but it's not.

Newsflash for you, the Deer Hunter and countless other films were before the advent of CGI.

Camera angles can make something appear like it's not. It's really not complicated, especially on a movie set.

This is also done in porn.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: panoz77

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: panoz77

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.

CGI much? If you think that people in the movies are firing blank rounds directly at other actors, you simply have no clue. They have a way of making it appear like that is what's happening, but it's not.

Newsflash for you, the Deer Hunter and countless other films were before the advent of CGI.

Camera angles can make something appear like it's not. It's really not complicated, especially on a movie set.

This is also done in porn.

I wouldn't know....

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: panoz77

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: panoz77

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.

CGI much? If you think that people in the movies are firing blank rounds directly at other actors, you simply have no clue. They have a way of making it appear like that is what's happening, but it's not.

Newsflash for you, the Deer Hunter and countless other films were before the advent of CGI.

Camera angles can make something appear like it's not. It's really not complicated, especially on a movie set.

Please explain how camera angles made it appear in close up that they weren't holding guns to their heads in the famous Russian roulette scene?

You don't need a real, functioning firearm to shoot a scene like that. That's the point. They should be using mockups that are physically incapable of firing a round.

a reply to: face23785

Yeah, I know....

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: panoz77

The very definition of "shrapnel" is small irregular pieces of metal. If a casing fractures (and they fracture much more often that you seem to believe), multiple pieces can exit the barrel. They are moving quite fast, and velocity is much more devastating than mass. A single atom in space can pierce a few inches of solid metal, due not to its mass, obviously, but to its extreme velocity.

My original theory (which was wrong, apparently) was saying that more than one piece of shrapnel could have exited the barrel, one striking Hutchins, and the other one the other victim. It would be difficult, but certainly not impossible, for a single piece of brass shrapnel to hit both people.

That theory is now moot. We now know the projectile was a bullet, assumed based on the weapon types used to be a .45 Colt round. That can certainly penetrate one person and injure a second. My only reason for responding is to counter the notion that blanks are inherently safe. They may not be as dangerous as a .45 Colt, and they may normally not emit brass shrapnel, but the possibility does exist for them to do so, especially if the blank is improperly loaded (too much powder charge, weakened brass used, uneven crimping, etc.). Telling people that it cannot happen is as irresponsible as not checking a gun to see if it is loaded.

Consider if an amateur loader decided to load up some blanks just for kicks. He might believe, according to your claim, that he can safely discharge them toward someone else... after all, they are blanks, right? That someone else could die from the resulting shrapnel just as surely as Hutchins died from the .45 Colt through her chest. I have years, no, decades of experience reloading, and I still will not load blanks. I understand the dangers of improper (and sometimes even proper) loading, and will not take that risk. Neither should anyone else who isn't trained to load blanks.

TheRedneck

Your putting words in my mouth I didn't say. I never said blanks were harmless, or that casings couldn't rupture. In fact, what I said was the just the hot gas emitted from a blank could injure someone if you were close enough to the barrel. People have died playing Russian roulette with blanks, thinking a blank held up to their temple couldn't kill them. But at any distance greater than a couple feet, a tiny piece of irregular shaped brass is going to loose velocity fast and simply does not have enough energy to kill, there is simply not enough mass to penetrate deep enough.

Here is an example.
www.thewrap.com...
"Hexum was on the set of the CBS TV show “Cover Up,” and he got bored during a long delay in filming. As a joke, he loaded his revolver with a blank round, spun the cylinder as if he was playing Russian roulette, and put the gun to his head. He pulled the trigger, unaware that this was extremely dangerous, and the blank’s wad impacted his head. It wasn’t strong enough to penetrate his body, but the impact fractured his skull and sent bone fragments into his brain. He died 6 days later."

"This wasn't an accidental discharge or more appropriately a negligent discharge."

I've read through the whole thread and, like The Redneck, have appreciated the education I've gotten about the film production industry through some of the posts here.

I think any of the shooters / firearms owners / concealed or open-carry folks here can all agree that you never have your finger inside the trigger guard as you draw. And furthermore, your finger shouldn't be inside the trigger guard until you're ready to shoot. If in fact she was shot in the right shoulder area while standing behind the camera operator Baldwin would've had to be clear of the holster and extended forward with his shooting hand to hit her there. Speculation, of course, but it seems reasonable.

This sounds like a negligent discharge but and not one that should be forgiven. He's ultimately responsible for the firearm in his hand as much as everyone that prepared it, handled it, deemed it "cold" in the process.

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...