Baldwin charged.

[PegLeg45]

I don't know about the rest of you, but even if I see some one check the chamber, leave the action open and hand it too me... I still double check it.

Always.

[Majer]

Same here, always double and triple check.

[alfsauve]

Even the pros, like Massad Ayoob, can overlook a cartridge.  Student checked her revolver. He checked the revolver.  He pulled the trigger....blam.  That's why rules 2 - 4 are there, because no matter what.  All Guns Are Always Loaded.

[MikeBjerum]

I don't know about the rest of you, but even if I see some one check the chamber, leave the action open and hand it too me... I still double check it.

The issue here is that they are on a production set. The standard rules in this setting are that a person is in charge of the firearms, they control them, and they declare them "safe". If anyone, including the actor they are given to does anything to possible change that, opening chambers or removing and replacing magazines, the whole process starts over.

Under the standard rules of the industry, Baldwin the actor followed protocol, and his inexperience with firearms use and safety lead to an injury and a death. Baldwin the producer is in big trouble for hiring and incompetent armor and not controlling that business's firearm control and training standards, but Baldwin the actor's liability will hinge on whether he followed the rules set and prestented to him by the armor.

[TAB]

Just charged with involuntary manslaughter

[Sponsor]

[billt]

Just charged with involuntary manslaughter

As he should be.... He pulled the trigger.

[Rastus]

[<snip>Under the standard rules of the industry, Baldwin the actor followed protocol, and his inexperience with firearms use and safety lead to an injury and a death. <snip>
[/quote]

Is he inexperienced with real firearms?  What level of experience or inexperience does he have with real firearms?  I think those are valid questions and that any assumption of his experience needs to be born out by real fact. 

He does have 30+ years of experience with Hollywood weapons (see link below) that is inescapable.  You would think an armorer somewhere along the line was competent and schooled Baldwin.  If Baldwin skipped every safety meeting on the Hollywood weapons he used could that be a red flag for intentional negligence?  Surely....surely...he knew not to point a Hollywood gun directly in a person's direction and to cant the barrel so that the camera would think he was pointing directly at a human target while he actually was not pointing an anyone....don't we think he had at least that level of knowledge...how could he escape that normal Hollywood safety practice in over 30 years of films?

https://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Alec_Baldwin

Guilty as charged?

[MikeBjerum]

Rastus hit the pertinent points. This is theater. We need to check all of our use and safety expertise at the door of the theater. Not saying that theater doesn't care about safety. There are different procedures that are to be followed to safely depict actions in theater.  And YES, in many cases firearm use in theater flies against the common rules of real-world firearm safety.

First, the armorer is guilty in this death and injury. She allowed this to happen under her watch. As far as Baldwin, the facts of how he followed the rules set before him. Did he fully participate in the training and briefings concerning the firearms use on this set. Third, as I recall it was not the armor who actually handed the gun to Baldwin and declared it safe for walk through of the scene. Where will liability fall on this (was it within protocol)? Finaly, Baldwin was a producer in this production. Where will Baldwin's production company fall in the liability for hiring and trusting the armorer.

If I found myself in Baldwin's shoes in this situation I would be sweating heavily. Between the highly charged emotions concerning firearms in our society, and the media and social media running truth and fiction for so long, how do you find an impartial jury?

[billt]

First, the armorer is guilty in this death and injury. She allowed this to happen under her watch.

Not if she wasn't the last one to touch that gun before Baldwin. And from the testimony that I heard, she wasn't. The gun was not only given to him by someone else, but that person declared to Baldwin that the gun was, "cold". (Meaning it was checked and found to be safe). It obviously was not.

And even that does not absolve Baldwin from checking it himself. You don't have to be an expert gun handler to open a loading gate, and spin a cylinder.

[MikeBjerum]

Not if she wasn't the last one to touch that gun before Baldwin.

Wrong! The armor is 100% responsible for the access and control of the firearms on the set. They are either with them, or they are locked away where only the armor has access. If the armor loses contact with the firearm at any time, they must go through their verification process again before they are put into use. It is a standard that puts full control and verification of the process on the professional, and the actor trusts the process and acts only within the process. One armor even stated in an interview that if the actor opens an action when it is not scripted, they must take the firearm back and go through the process again. It is a step to keep unauthorized operators from having access to the ammunition.

This is a standard that I had learned from a group of theatrical armorers a few years prior to this event. And, it is a standard that was quoted by armorers interviewed in what could have possibly gone wrong in this event.