• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Alec Baldwin guilty of involuntary manslaughter?

Given what we know, is he guilty ?


  • Total voters
    61
The unique reality is that in the movie business a gun is not real gun, or firearm, until it is loaded with live ammunition. Until then it's a prop.
Well, then the industry had it wrong. A real gun is always a real gun. Doesn't matter if you use for a movie prop, or a paper weight. The nature of the thing does not change to something else based on whatever changing enviroment it may be placed.

What this then demonstrates, is how some people are unable to process simple high school level logic.


And it's not the actor's job to make sure that it isn't loaded with live ammunition. That is for the hired experts to determine. Even if an actor were open a gun, which they are pretty much prohibited from doing, they wouldn't have the expertise to know if they were looking at the backend of a blank, a dummy round, or a live round.
If anyone can be trained to be safe with a gun, so can actors. This sounds very entitled to me, that they are willing to handle a real gun, but unwilling to apply basic common gun safety rules which everyone else are required to apply.




So it's kind of a pointless exercise.
Funny how liberals say this. Liberal anti gun, anti NRA folks will DEMAND laws requiring a homeowner, especially one with small children, to follow required gun storage laws under threat of prosecution, especially if there is a tragedy. But then same folks will say in a case like Baldwin's: "Nope, not my job to make sure a gun is safe"

The irony..

If an actor wants some further reassurance he or she can ask the armorer to check for it again before proceeding. But whatever reason it seems she wasn't around to do so. But other than that they have rely on the expertise of those charged with responsibility of handling those guns and making sure that they are safe
Why wouldn't an actor WANT to be extra safe? Maybe we need to have our legislatures pass laws prohibiting film productions from access to real guns? How about that? Not like the left doesn't try to prohibit other people from gun access, maybe they need to ban guns on movie sets?

What say you?
 
25 pages of blog fluffery on a dumb shit celebrity who said he never pulled the trigger on the gun that killed the cinematographer on the film set?
What a waste of time by all those posters who think Alec Baldwin is worth discussing.
 
25 pages of blog fluffery on a dumb shit celebrity who said he never pulled the trigger on the gun that killed the cinematographer on the film set?
What a waste of time by all those posters who think Alec Baldwin is worth discussing.
So why are you here then? To waste more time? And perhaps everybody else's time too?
 
There's NO reason whatsoever to point that gun at another human being, period......especially on a movie set......camera angles can easily show it's not necessary.
There is no reason for actors to speak to each other on set either... camera angles can easily show it's not necessary.

There is no reason for actors to look at each other on set either... camera angles can easily show it's not necessary.
 
There is no reason for actors to speak to each other on set either... camera angles can easily show it's not necessary.

There is no reason for actors to look at each other on set either... camera angles can easily show it's not necessary.

You support the senseless killing of an innocent woman, so for that reason your opinion really has no merit.
 
Since I hardly know anything I can't say and I am not really interested. Dustin Hoffman shot himself.

With all of the gun usage in movies and television you would think almost all actors would have gun training. Don't point guns at people even if it is not loaded. Unless it is part of the movie and she wasn't an actress from what little I have heard.

I would lean toward manslaughter but I would wonder about standard practices in Hollywood.
 
He should have checked to see if the gun was loaded with bullets before accepting the gun.
Since you are obviously incapable of reading an complete post, I will ask again: Can you show an easy check without undoing the whole loading would show that they were blanks?
 
I didn't get the chance to answer the original question yesterday, just responded to a couple of posts.

No not involuntary manslaughter. As the actor the responsibility is not on him to ensure that what is in the gun are not live rounds. And again, I ask that someone show me that it's simple to look at a casing in a chamber or clip and tell immediately whether it's a live or blank. However, as the producer, he is responsible for hiring a competent armorer. So the proper charge would probably be better as negligent homicide.
 
Since you are obviously incapable of reading an complete post, I will ask again: Can you show an easy check without undoing the whole loading would show that they were blanks?
Try asking respectfully
 
Pointing a REAL gun at somebody and pulling the trigger is not in your mind a significant risk?

Your argument that if the gun is not loaded, then that is not a significant risk. But first you would need to be certain is what not loaded, right? Something Baldwin did not do.
Pointing a prop gun handed to an actor on a movie set which is maintained by a professional armorer under the customary practice and procedure that has been applicable for over 100 years is not reckless. There is significant risk in dangling an actor off a building like Tom Cruise, there is significant risk in using explosives on set, there is significant risk in flying helicopters on set, there is significant risk in making actors run fast or do stunts. The question is whether it is criminally negligent/reckless behavior by Baldwin which amounts to him not giving a flying **** if someone gets hurt. I don't see anything to suggest that Baldwin was acting recklessly, without regard for whether he would injure someone.
 
Again you are failing to comprehend the levels of culpability in criminal offenses. At the top of the culpability ladder in criminal offenses is intent. At the bottom is negligence. Negligence is not necessarily defined as "egregious", it may simply be defined as a failure to provide duty or care. I think you need to look this up for yourself. I keep explaining it to you, but you keep inserting your subjective interpretation, which is not how laws are written.
Negative. YOU are failing to comprehend the difference between "negligence" (failing to act reasonably under the circumstances when there is a duty of care to do so - which is civil negligence and a person can be sued for money damages proximately caused by that negligence - it's not a crime, even if someone dies - that's what a wrongful death suit is), and "criminal negligence" which is like recklessness - so far beyond the pale, that it evinces a lack of concern at all if someone gets hurt, like firing a gun toward a group of people, getting in a car shitfaced, etc.

Look what up? You haven't cited a law other than the general law of involuntary manslaughter, which I am correctly describing. You keep pretending that if someone dies due to simple negligence (civil negligence) then it is always a crime. It isn't. You're wrong.
Because it was a REAL gun, he knew it was a REAL gun, and REAL guns are ALWAYS dangerous.
So is flying in an airplane. It's always dangerous. So is driving in a car. It's always dangerous. But a pilot or driver being negligent and causing someone's death is not involuntary manslaughter, unless that negligence is CRIMINAL negligence which means recklessly without regard for whether someone would get injured.
 
I wonder if now that this has all unfolded who wouldn't check a gun themselves no matter who told you it was not loaded. Did anybody learn anything?
 
That doesn't matter, but it has happened. Once is too many.
One car accident is too many. One side effect from an OTC medication is too many. One screw up by a doctor is too many. One teenager crashing their bicycle is too many. One person slipping on a banana peel is too many.

The issue isn't whether an event is too many. The issue is whether Alec Baldwin himself at that time was acting recklessly, without regard or with callous disregard for safety, and when analyzing that we look at the context and what that person objectively displays or shows. Alec Baldwin, as much as I disagree with his politics, was an actor who was handed a gun as a prop on the set that was cared for by the armorer and he had every reason to expect it was not loaded and he was asked to point it at the camera as he did. There is no evidence - certainly none that I've seen and certainly not anything that proves beyond a reasonable doubt - that Baldwin was just acting recklessly, willy nilly pointing the gun and shooting it without regard for whether someone gets hurt.

Even if you are right and he should have checked the gun no matter what the SAG or set procedures/rules were, and no matter what he was told to do, etc., even if we assume that he should be held liable for wrongful death. That does not mean he is a criminal, guilty of manslaughter.
 
Really stupid thing to do. Not just to point a real gun at your own head, loaded or not. But to ignore the fact that a blank is still an explosion of hot powder, gasses, and force. Nobody would explode a firecracker next to their own skull, why would they fire a blank next to their own skull? Darwin award much?

It's a movie set. Happens a lot. Actors point guns at their own heads.
To be more specific, the Brandon Lee incident was the result of a 'squib load' situation. So, different than the Baldwin incident.

See wikipedia explanation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Lee#cite_note-104

Sure, it was a different situation. It was also the only other time a person died as a result of a gun accident on set. 24 people died from helicopter accidents. 37 total. 3 now, from guns.
In the Vic Morrow death (Twilight Zone filming) where a helicopter crash killed Morrow and two child actors. The director and several others on that production were charged with involuntary manslaughter. They were acquitted by a jury of their peers, so maybe that may happen with Baldwin as well. Some sappy jurors may disregard obvious criminal negligence as what happened in the Twilight Zone film, and then Baldwin will get a pass.
And probably rightly so to be acquitted of an accident. Sending people to jail for accidents caused by negligence is not solving any problem of criminality.
I'm fine with charging Baldwin with a crime. And that being said, he is considered innocent until proven guilty. Never know what a jury may do, and does Baldwin really want to risk that? If he could accept a plea deal? In the Twilight Zone trial no deal was offered.
Prosecutors love to overcharge. It's their stock in trade. And, that's me - the guy around here half the members claim is "right wing." We can speculate about what deals will be offered and who will accept what. I'm just saying that based on what I know now, what I've read in the news, I wouldn't convict Baldwin. If new facts are added to the mix which show something else, I might change my mind.
 
Are you saying that you believe he did not realize the gun was capable of firing bullets do he didn't guilty and that you believe the gun could of went off by itself even though it was in his hand at the time?
It is entirely possible that Baldwin did not intend to fire the gun, but did brush the trigger inadvertently. Single action triggers can be pretty light in some guns.

If you take a CCW/gun safety class, they will teach you to keep your finger entirely outside of the trigger guard until you are ready to fire, for exactly this reason. One more reason why anti-gun nuts should not handle firearms.
 
Try asking respectfully
Already did and you ignored it. Even the second time wasn't disrespectful, although I will concede that respectfulness is a subjective value. You going to keep dodging the question?
 
It is entirely possible that Baldwin did not intend to fire the gun, but did brush the trigger inadvertently. Single action triggers can be pretty light in some guns.

If you take a CCW/gun safety class, they will teach you to keep your finger entirely outside of the trigger guard until you are ready to fire, for exactly this reason. One more reason why anti-gun nuts should not handle firearms.
You make an interesting point about gun safety courses. It would be interesting to know if Baldwin has had any or was required to in order to handle a gun on set.
 
Already did and you ignored it. Even the second time wasn't disrespectful, although I will concede that respectfulness is a subjective value. You going to keep dodging the question?
He could of witnessed the gun being loaded. If he did not he should of checked for bullets which is not that hard. If it was a revolver he could visually inspect the ammo without loading the gun although I would not recommend doing it without removing the shells.
 
So why are you here then? To waste more time? And perhaps everybody else's time too?
It took me two minutes to lodge my opinion of all those people gathering around to gawk at a failed celebrity.
If two minutes is wasting time doing that, then you have a strange concept of time.
 
He could of witnessed the gun being loaded. If he did not he should of checked for bullets which is not that hard. If it was a revolver he could visually inspect the ammo without loading the gun although I would not recommend doing it without removing the shells.
That didn't answer my question. In looking to see if there were casings in the gun would he have been able to easily tell if they were bullets or blanks, short of taking them out? The only reason to use a gun that can fire is the need to use blanks for sound and/visual effects (muzzle flash or something). So if I'm handed a gun that's supposed to be loaded with blanks, is there an easy way to tell they are not? Simply being loaded is obviously not enough.
 
That didn't answer my question. In looking to see if there were casings in the gun would he have been able to easily tell if they were bullets or blanks, short of taking them out? The only reason to use a gun that can fire is the need to use blanks for sound and/visual effects (muzzle flash or something). So if I'm handed a gun that's supposed to be loaded with blanks, is there an easy way to tell they are not? Simply being loaded is obviously not enough.
You can easily tell if there is a bullet in front of the casing or a was of paper. If you have any doubt when checking them, the prudent course of action is to fire a test round at a benign target.
 
It's a movie set. Happens a lot. Actors point guns at their own heads.

Posting a clip from the film The Deerhunter is proof of nothing. Unless you believe that scene was shot with a real gun and live real ammo--- and that was pointed at a human being.

Sure, it was a different situation. It was also the only other time a person died as a result of a gun accident on set. 24 people died from helicopter accidents. 37 total. 3 now, from guns.
Not the only other time See: The Captive (1915).

And probably rightly so to be acquitted of an accident. Sending people to jail for accidents caused by negligence is not solving any problem of criminality.
Never know how a jury will decide, but you should look closer at that case. The level of recklessness, and disregard for safety during that scene despite warnings from the helicopter pilot, stuntmen, and other technicians despite the director's refusing to listen, was simply astounding.


Prosecutors love to overcharge. It's their stock in trade. And, that's me - the guy around here half the members claim is "right wing." We can speculate about what deals will be offered and who will accept what. I'm just saying that based on what I know now, what I've read in the news, I wouldn't convict Baldwin. If new facts are added to the mix which show something else, I might change my mind.
Fine, and you probably would have acquitted John Landis too (Twilight Zone incident). Heck, I might have considered acquitting Baldwin too, if not for his own statements regarding the gun malfunction and his attempt to avoid blame for his part in this. If that had not been said, then maybe I would believe Baldwin a complete victim of this negligence, but instead here is a man admitting that he owes no duty of care to anyone else while handling a real gun, and for that I believe he deserves to be punished. For everyone else's own good.
 
Well, then the industry had it wrong. A real gun is always a real gun. Doesn't matter if you use for a movie prop, or a paper weight. The nature of the thing does not change to something else based on whatever changing enviroment it may be placed.

What this then demonstrates, is how some people are unable to process simple high school level logic.
But you would be wrong. Because in the eyes of the law, especially where criminal negligence is concerned, the environment and circumstances under which the disputed act takes place matters greatly. If there is any place in the real world where a firearm is not actually a firearm, as it is understood to be in the common everyday world, it would be on a Hollywood film set. But maybe that's a concept a step or two, beyond your idea is anyway, as to what it is that constitutes simple high school level logic
If anyone can be trained to be safe with a gun, so can actors. This sounds very entitled to me, that they are willing to handle a real gun, but unwilling to apply basic common gun safety rules which everyone else are required to apply.
So what are actors then? Are you saying that they're entitled spoiled brats who think they know everything and are not really as smart as you or I? Or is that just Alec Baldwin? The truth is a movie set is not so basic in comparison to the real world everyday normal working environments . You can't do all the things they do there in the real world. What goes on in your home, at a shooting range, the military, hunting lodge, the streets, or what have you, isn't really applicable. That's why they hire experts such a armorers to manage the safety issue
Funny how liberals say this. Liberal anti gun, anti NRA folks will DEMAND laws requiring a homeowner, especially one with small children, to follow required gun storage laws under threat of prosecution, especially if there is a tragedy. But then same folks will say in a case like Baldwin's: "Nope, not my job to make sure a gun is safe"

The irony..
I knew it! It was only a matter of time. 🎵 I see your true colors shining through 🎵. Now we know what you really think the problem is here. It's those damn libruls! Those leftists commies don't know how to handle a gun the same way a classical alt right manly hero like Kyle Rittenhouse does. Alec Baldwin is an anti gun, anti Trump liberal, so of course he's the guilty one. News flash it wasn't his role to make sure the gun was safe. In that setting he is just an actor. His job to act and to concentrate on that, that's why they hire people like armorers whose job is to ensure the safety and security of any guns on the set. When you're a parent you have an implicit responsibility to ensure your children's safety in the home. That means making sure that dangerous household cleaning chemicals are secured and not within reach, putting covers on wall plug circuits, etc. Not just the proper storage of firearms. Speaking of proper gun storage whatever guns are on a set are to be placed in a locked storage container that the armorer and perhaps /or a designated authorized production executive, only have the keys to unlock. Whenever the armorer is not physically present on the set those prop guns are supposed to be locked away. Not left out in the open on a cart for God knows how long.
Why wouldn't an actor WANT to be extra safe?
If they want to extra safe the easiest, best and safest to do so is to verbally request the armorer to open and inspect the gun in front of everyone before proceeding as the actor in video suggested. Because they're the experts and know what they're looking at or for, not the actors.
Maybe we need to have our legislatures pass laws prohibiting film productions from access to real guns? How about that?
If that's what they think is needed then they go for it. Whether or not film production companies will continue to stage productions in those states is another matter however.
Not like the left doesn't try to prohibit other people from gun access, maybe they need to ban guns on movie sets?

What say you?
What I say is that there are certain other people who ought not to have access to guns should be a common sense issue we all can agree on, not a political issue to be divided on.
 
You support the senseless killing of an innocent woman, so for that reason your opinion really has no merit.
You support the mass slaughter of innocent children AND you think that guns that are not loaded... are loaded.
 
But you would be wrong. Because in the eyes of the law, especially where criminal negligence is concerned, the environment and circumstances under which the disputed act takes place matters greatly.
Not necessarily. You may not avoid getting a ticket for speeding just because your speedometer was not working properly. You may have had no specific, or general intent to violate a law, all that matters in some crimes is that a law was violated. Criminal negligence works that way too. In those cases a jury would be asked to judge what the due care should be with a reasonable person under the same circumstances. The gun was real. Baldwin knew it was real. Movie set aside, a real gun is dangerous----and, somebody died.


If there is any place in the real world where a firearm is not actually a firearm, as it is understood to be in the common everyday world, it would be on a Hollywood film set.
NO, a real gun is still a real gun. You keep falling into the same illogical demand that a gun on movie set should be considered different than a gun at a shooting range, or a gun shop. or in a citizens home who has small children. The gun is still a gun.

But maybe that's a concept a step or two, beyond your idea is anyway, as to what it is that constitutes simple high school level logic

LOL! I'm not the one here with a logic defect. The nature of REAL guns do not change based on where they are located.
 
Back
Top Bottom