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.
Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice.
(snip. this section is about voluntary manslaughter)
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.
Seriously Already linked it in the comments. Or you could just look up 'new mexico manslaughter' on google.
So. where's your sources?
The movie industry has a Standard of Operations where an expert ensures safety and provides better protection than individual actors can. We cannot expect them to police the props and I sure as hell don't want them deciding if it's a blank or not.
He followed that process.
Now the legal system has spoken and the prosecution made such a mess of it a proper trial cannot happen.
You can state your convictions all you want. Good faith would include "allegedly." You're full of certanties and cast judgement like it's your job. At him. At me. At others.
Have your certainty. Maybe that will keep you warm at night.
My link was posted on this thread and speaks directly to the events of that day. It's easier to find than your implication that if I want a citation I need to read all the next under the OP.
I'm on vacation with family. I'm not spending hours on you. You're just not worth it. You can feel free to read that last sentence a couple times, but I want to tell you the tone: these are events in New Mexico. We weren't on set. There are far more important things than if some person on the internet thinks I should spend time finding out what I already know. People on the internet aren't worth the judgement and vitriol you spew.
When you've re-proceszed my link, because it addresses your post (I'd think) and shows they my original metaphor works... Then we can consider contuing.
Or you can consider me not worth your time. And I'd support that. I'm just some dude on the internet. And it's just some actor who will never get a real trial. And it's not worth all the feels you're putting out there...
You'd have gotten further with me by talking about how poorly he handled the situation that lead to this. Instead you're back to checking the brakeline every time you drive.
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.
Manslaughter
Seriously Already linked it in the comments. Or you could just look up 'new mexico manslaughter' on google.
So. where's your sources?
The movie industry has a Standard of Operations where an expert ensures safety and provides better protection than individual actors can. We cannot expect them to police the props and I sure as hell don't want them deciding if it's a blank or not.
He followed that process.
Now the legal system has spoken and the prosecution made such a mess of it a proper trial cannot happen.
You can state your convictions all you want. Good faith would include "allegedly." You're full of certanties and cast judgement like it's your job. At him. At me. At others.
Have your certainty. Maybe that will keep you warm at night.
My link was posted on this thread and speaks directly to the events of that day. It's easier to find than your implication that if I want a citation I need to read all the next under the OP.
I'm on vacation with family. I'm not spending hours on you. You're just not worth it. You can feel free to read that last sentence a couple times, but I want to tell you the tone: these are events in New Mexico. We weren't on set. There are far more important things than if some person on the internet thinks I should spend time finding out what I already know. People on the internet aren't worth the judgement and vitriol you spew.
When you've re-proceszed my link, because it addresses your post (I'd think) and shows they my original metaphor works... Then we can consider contuing.
Or you can consider me not worth your time. And I'd support that. I'm just some dude on the internet. And it's just some actor who will never get a real trial. And it's not worth all the feels you're putting out there...
You'd have gotten further with me by talking about how poorly he handled the situation that lead to this. Instead you're back to checking the brakeline every time you drive.