If the same thing happened to one of use at say a range. Would we be arrested for a crime.My gut says he gets rich privilege and armorer takes the fall.
If the same thing happened to one of use at say a range. Would we be arrested for a crime.My gut says he gets rich privilege and armorer takes the fall.
I totally agree, because of their negligence someone died and the issue is to what degree of accountability and punishment.Does any "reason" actually matter? The gun was in his hand, it went off, someone got killed. Was there homicidal intent? Probably not. Was there negligence? Obviously so. A crime was most definitely committed. Alec is directly responsible for killing someone. As far as the production crew's culpability, having live rounds on the set, loading live rounds in a gun used for a scene and giving the actor "Safe Gun" assurance are all obviously negligent actions on the part of the crew members. Seems as if the only arguable issue(s) are the level of crime and severity of penalty for every crew member involved.
Reason matters a lot. People do not generally get convicted of accidents. The family should sue the pants off of the lot of them, but there should be some actual criminal intent to pursue criminal charges.Does any "reason" actually matter? The gun was in his hand, it went off, someone got killed. Was there homicidal intent? Probably not. Was there negligence? Obviously so. A crime was most definitely committed. Alec is directly responsible for killing someone. As far as the production crew's culpability, having live rounds on the set, loading live rounds in a gun used for a scene and giving the actor "Safe Gun" assurance are all obviously negligent actions on the part of the crew members. Seems as if the only arguable issue(s) are the level of crime and severity of penalty for every crew member involved.
How does a drunk driver then be charged with murder? His mental and physical faculties are impaired, but did he have the intent of killing an innocent person?Reason matters a lot. People do not generally get convicted of accidents. The family should sue the pants off of the lot of them, but there should be some actual criminal intent to pursue criminal charges.
It will be interesting to see what they do down there.
I disagree.Reason matters a lot. People do not generally get convicted of accidents. The family should sue the pants off of the lot of them, but there should be some actual criminal intent to pursue criminal charges.
It will be interesting to see what they do down there.
The Armorer probably had some sort of insurance and Baldwin plenty of money."The movie's armorer, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, who was in charge of weapons on the movie set, is also expected to be charged with two counts of involuntary manslaughter over the shooting. The flick's assistant director, Dave Halls, has signed a plea agreement for the charge of negligent use of a deadly weapon."
Interesting that the assistand director has already signed a plea deal. I assume he's the guy they think will bury the other 2, Baldwin and the Armorer, with his testimony.
Looks like the prosecution gets to present both charges to the jury (if it gets that far), and the jury gets to decide which version of involuntary manslaughter to convict them of (if either).Why are they both being charged with TWO counts of involuntarily manslaughter?
I thought there was only one fatality.
I have the opinion prosecutors should have to pick the charge(s) and then prove it. They shouldn't be allowed to throw charges against a wall and see what sticks.Looks like the prosecution gets to present both charges to the jury (if it gets that far), and the jury gets to decide which version of involuntary manslaughter to convict them of (if either).
The two are both charged with two counts involuntary manslaughter.Guy behind the lady who was killed was hit by the bullet passthrough. Not sure if the second person is the second charge?