Or, it really was a politically motivated trial and the prosecution was willing to cover up exculpatory evidence in order to manipulate the justice system. Either way, its damning.
This has always been what I believed.
I fail to see how the cartridges can possibly be exculpatory.
It doesn’t matter how they got in the gun, or if these were from a case on set. He doesn’t contest that that it went off while he was holding it. Only that it’s not his fault.
Manslaughter is about proving negligence or misconduct. The prosecution case was that Baldwin was at fault as he was negligent handling a gun with live ammunition.
Part of Baldwins defence was that he did not know the gun had a live round in it.
The new evidence was that the live ammo came from the props company, not the armourer, throwing doubt over whether the armourer or Baldwin knew there were live rounds on set or in the gun.
That's a hugely important part of the defence case, and also makes it much hard to prove involuntary manslaughter - it would be negligent to fire a gun knowing there is a live round in it, but if you did not know there were live rounds then does that meet the same level of negligence?
Personally I thought the case against Baldwin seemed tenuous so I'm not surprised this new evidence ended the trial.
This does raise serious questions about the safety of the armourers conviction. She might still be negligent as its unclear how live ammo from the prop company got on set without her knowing but she has not been able to answer that as the evidence was suppressed and she was convicted on the assumption it was entirely her fault the live ammo was on set.
It raises even more serious questions about the behaviour and motivations of the new mexico prosecution team and investigators.
The problem with this statement is that prop/inert cartridges are labeled and identified as such in ways that are usually fairly obvious.
Like “loading” the cartridge with a steel ball bearing, and a used/fired primer cap (which has a divot from the hammer.) Thorough inspection would have identified them as inert.
While it’s remotely possible they were so well crafted as to be virtually identical, that kind of thing would end the props company. They are very careful to always make the marking conspicuous- as long as you know to look for it. (Another common option is a somewhat large hole in the side of the casing.)
And the indicators should have been gone over in a safety briefing so everyone knows. (And is trained in what to do on seeing a live round. “Hey! Live round! armorer!”)
In any case Baldwin had a duty of care to handle the firearm safely. Part of that includes knowing its state. He did not clear the fire arm, and did not know its state. It becomes self evident they were not inert cartridges but rather live rounds given that we’re talking about Alina being shot.
Man, you really don't know anything about the case do you
If you're driving and your brakes mysteriously fail, consequently someone dies. Is it manslaughter?
Edit: clarity.
Not quite, you're ignoring the role of the armorer on set in your metaphor.
If you just picked up your car from the mechanic after they were expected to check everything, including the brakes, and the brakes then fail causing you to crash and kill someone... Is it manslaughter? And if so, who is at fault?
You were driving the vehicle, but you would obviously expect the brakes to be in working order since they were supposedly checked immediately before you started driving. The driver would almost certainly not be charged in that case, but the mechanic on the other hand would clearly be negligent, directly leading to the death.
I'm not tho. One of the implications of the bullets being a little bit of everywhere was that it implied another source.
Depends on why they failed and if you should have maintained your car better.
It’s usually not all that mysterious. Brakes don’t just randomly fail for no reason.
Let’s say they failed because of poor maintenance. Then yes.
Let’s say they failed because there was a defect in the brake line that caused it to rupture in the high temperatures of summer. Then no.
Baldwin failed a duty of care to ensure the weapon was cleared and in fact safe. He then failed a duty of care when handling that weapon in an extremely unsafe manner.
To go with the analogy, he knew his brakes were failing and drove anyway.
If you know your brakes are failing, and they fail... It's not mysterious.
Then your analogy sucks. This wasn’t a random failure.
As I said in the reply: Baldwin knew- or should have known- that he was handling the firearm unsafely, and that he shouldn’t handle it in an unsafe manner,
No. But with the withheld evidence now known... The armorer herself may not have been convicted and she's certainly getting retried.
Those mistakes didn't happen in a vacuum. But proving where that vacuum came from doesn't have the same certainty that it did.
That’s just it.
It doesn’t matter.
Baldwin had a duty of care to know. He didn’t know. And now someone is dead. Had he taken the 30 seconds to clear the firearm, “oh there’s something chambered. armorer identify these!” (Or taking one out and checking himself, cuz it’s that kind of production, I guess….”hey this doesn’t rattle!”)… Alina would probably be alive today.
While HGR does have blame as the armorer who allowed abysmally bad safety practices; she’s not alone in that blame.
And the other guy who pled out. Him too.
The only way they could get out of it is if the prop cartridges were so realistic that you can’t tell them apart. At all. And for obvious reasons no prop company will ever produce such cartridges.
According to the affidavit, Halls said he did not check all cylinder chambers, but he recalled seeing three rounds in the cylinder at the time. (After the shooting, Halls said in the affidavit, Gutierrez-Reed retrieved the weapon and opened it, and Halls said that he saw four rounds which were plainly blanks, and one which could have been the remaining shell of a discharged live round.)[44] In the warrant, it is further stated that Halls announced the term "cold gun", meaning that it did not contain live rounds.[42] Halls's lawyer, Lisa Torraco, later sought to assert that he did not take the gun off the cart and hand it to Baldwin as reported, but when pressed by a reporter to be clear, she refused to repeat that assertion.[45]
It's Wikipedia, but it matches what I've read elsewhere. He was told he had a cold gun. There is a division of responsibility and what's described doesn't match your assertion.
You can’t “divide” duty of care.
Even if he doesn’t have to behave in a personally safe manner, he had no personal knowledge. He was told something literally second hand.
He had an obligation- not as an actor, or producer, but as a person holding a firearm- to behave safely. He did not.
And you can have those moral convictions.
I'm not sure that's how it would be viewed in the eyes of the law, which has been the basis of my replies.
My convictions?
Go read the freaking law. It's pretty self explanatory. Show me where it says people are allowed to act unsafely because somebody else told them it was okay. I'll wait.
Naw.
I'm here for discussion, not argument. But you can post your first citation in this thread. I've already done one.
You've used a lot of words, made a lot of assertions but followed few of the standards of civil debate.
Or, it really was a politically motivated trial and the prosecution was willing to cover up exculpatory evidence in order to manipulate the justice system. Either way, its damning.
This has always been what I believed.
I fail to see how the cartridges can possibly be exculpatory.
It doesn’t matter how they got in the gun, or if these were from a case on set. He doesn’t contest that that it went off while he was holding it. Only that it’s not his fault.
Manslaughter is about proving negligence or misconduct. The prosecution case was that Baldwin was at fault as he was negligent handling a gun with live ammunition.
Part of Baldwins defence was that he did not know the gun had a live round in it.
The new evidence was that the live ammo came from the props company, not the armourer, throwing doubt over whether the armourer or Baldwin knew there were live rounds on set or in the gun.
That's a hugely important part of the defence case, and also makes it much hard to prove involuntary manslaughter - it would be negligent to fire a gun knowing there is a live round in it, but if you did not know there were live rounds then does that meet the same level of negligence?
Personally I thought the case against Baldwin seemed tenuous so I'm not surprised this new evidence ended the trial.
This does raise serious questions about the safety of the armourers conviction. She might still be negligent as its unclear how live ammo from the prop company got on set without her knowing but she has not been able to answer that as the evidence was suppressed and she was convicted on the assumption it was entirely her fault the live ammo was on set.
It raises even more serious questions about the behaviour and motivations of the new mexico prosecution team and investigators.
The problem with this statement is that prop/inert cartridges are labeled and identified as such in ways that are usually fairly obvious.
Like “loading” the cartridge with a steel ball bearing, and a used/fired primer cap (which has a divot from the hammer.) Thorough inspection would have identified them as inert.
While it’s remotely possible they were so well crafted as to be virtually identical, that kind of thing would end the props company. They are very careful to always make the marking conspicuous- as long as you know to look for it. (Another common option is a somewhat large hole in the side of the casing.)
And the indicators should have been gone over in a safety briefing so everyone knows. (And is trained in what to do on seeing a live round. “Hey! Live round! armorer!”)
In any case Baldwin had a duty of care to handle the firearm safely. Part of that includes knowing its state. He did not clear the fire arm, and did not know its state. It becomes self evident they were not inert cartridges but rather live rounds given that we’re talking about Alina being shot.
Man, you really don't know anything about the case do you
If you're driving and your brakes mysteriously fail, consequently someone dies. Is it manslaughter?
Edit: clarity.
Not quite, you're ignoring the role of the armorer on set in your metaphor.
If you just picked up your car from the mechanic after they were expected to check everything, including the brakes, and the brakes then fail causing you to crash and kill someone... Is it manslaughter? And if so, who is at fault?
You were driving the vehicle, but you would obviously expect the brakes to be in working order since they were supposedly checked immediately before you started driving. The driver would almost certainly not be charged in that case, but the mechanic on the other hand would clearly be negligent, directly leading to the death.
I'm not tho. One of the implications of the bullets being a little bit of everywhere was that it implied another source.
Depends on why they failed and if you should have maintained your car better.
It’s usually not all that mysterious. Brakes don’t just randomly fail for no reason.
Let’s say they failed because of poor maintenance. Then yes.
Let’s say they failed because there was a defect in the brake line that caused it to rupture in the high temperatures of summer. Then no.
Baldwin failed a duty of care to ensure the weapon was cleared and in fact safe. He then failed a duty of care when handling that weapon in an extremely unsafe manner.
To go with the analogy, he knew his brakes were failing and drove anyway.
If you know your brakes are failing, and they fail... It's not mysterious.
Then your analogy sucks. This wasn’t a random failure.
As I said in the reply: Baldwin knew- or should have known- that he was handling the firearm unsafely, and that he shouldn’t handle it in an unsafe manner,
No. But with the withheld evidence now known... The armorer herself may not have been convicted and she's certainly getting retried.
Those mistakes didn't happen in a vacuum. But proving where that vacuum came from doesn't have the same certainty that it did.
That’s just it.
It doesn’t matter.
Baldwin had a duty of care to know. He didn’t know. And now someone is dead. Had he taken the 30 seconds to clear the firearm, “oh there’s something chambered. armorer identify these!” (Or taking one out and checking himself, cuz it’s that kind of production, I guess….”hey this doesn’t rattle!”)… Alina would probably be alive today.
While HGR does have blame as the armorer who allowed abysmally bad safety practices; she’s not alone in that blame.
And the other guy who pled out. Him too.
The only way they could get out of it is if the prop cartridges were so realistic that you can’t tell them apart. At all. And for obvious reasons no prop company will ever produce such cartridges.
According to the affidavit, Halls said he did not check all cylinder chambers, but he recalled seeing three rounds in the cylinder at the time. (After the shooting, Halls said in the affidavit, Gutierrez-Reed retrieved the weapon and opened it, and Halls said that he saw four rounds which were plainly blanks, and one which could have been the remaining shell of a discharged live round.)[44] In the warrant, it is further stated that Halls announced the term "cold gun", meaning that it did not contain live rounds.[42] Halls's lawyer, Lisa Torraco, later sought to assert that he did not take the gun off the cart and hand it to Baldwin as reported, but when pressed by a reporter to be clear, she refused to repeat that assertion.[45]
It's Wikipedia, but it matches what I've read elsewhere. He was told he had a cold gun. There is a division of responsibility and what's described doesn't match your assertion.
You can’t “divide” duty of care.
Even if he doesn’t have to behave in a personally safe manner, he had no personal knowledge. He was told something literally second hand.
He had an obligation- not as an actor, or producer, but as a person holding a firearm- to behave safely. He did not.
And you can have those moral convictions.
I'm not sure that's how it would be viewed in the eyes of the law, which has been the basis of my replies.
My convictions?
Go read the freaking law. It's pretty self explanatory. Show me where it says people are allowed to act unsafely because somebody else told them it was okay. I'll wait.
Naw.
I'm here for discussion, not argument. But you can post your first citation in this thread. I've already done one.
You've used a lot of words, made a lot of assertions but followed few of the standards of civil debate.