[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Kelevision

Nepotism is with any job. That armorer didn’t get the job because her dad put in a good word for her, or told someone to hire her. The producers who hired her are also inexperienced and assumed that she was probably very good at her job since her dad was a very experienced one. It’s the same with any job. A lawyer’s child becomes a lawyer and takes over the practice. Doctors are the same. It’s any and every business. There are also children of famous people who are dying to work but can’t get hired because of who they are. Nicolas Cage changed his last name from Scorsese to Cage because he didn’t want people to know Martin Scorsese is his uncle.

Doctors and Lawyers kids still have to get thru law/medical school...

Oh, and never ASSUME anything...

[Kelevision]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

Good thing laws don't change in 30 years... PERIOD.

The laws did change after that. That’s when the strict gun protocol came into play. The prop person or armorer brings the gun on set and show’s the Assistant Director that it’s an empty gun, they open the chamber, show him, spin the barrel, at which point the assistant director, the person on set in charge of safety, says cold gun….. None of those things happened on this show. I’ve worked on over 700 episodes of television as a director for 30 years from Blue Bloods to Sleepy Hollow, Dexter to Entourage and I’ve never, not once, not seen this protocol happen. I’m baffled at the fact that it happened and the AD admitted he hadn’t actually checked the gun before yelling cold gun and handing to an actor. I couldn’t care less about Alec Baldwin’s politics or career. If I never see him again, I wouldn’t lose sleep, if he was in something i wanted to watch , I’d watch. I’m only trying to explain the way productions work and the first AD and Armorer are to blame. I’m a member of the DGA, there’s giant thread on that calling for the assistant director to be banned from the union. Perhaps where Alec failed was not being proactive and using his set experience to notice the red flags but as a producer, it’s a credit only just like all the writers and a best friend of someone. There are only 3 (give or take) actual producers who hire and are in charge. Yet there will be 20 listed. We call them vanity credits. They mean nothing. I was a producer for 7 years on a show and couldn’t have hired or fired or made any decisions at all. They just gave me that credit to keep me around. It meant nothing.

[MDLNB]

I don't like Alec Baldwin BUT I think he is a pretty decent actor. That said, it is my opinion that anyone handling a gun, regardless of state of loaded or not, should be instructed in gun safety. Perhaps sufficient instruction was given and someone was just careless. Accidents do happen. I don't believe there was any intent in the accident. I have no doubt in my mind that this is an instance where it was purely accidental. Does that make it OK? No, just saying that even though I do not like the guy, I am not going to disparage or ostracize the guy for something that was likely an unintentional and not evil in intent.
Yes, it was news. Yes, we would all like to know the details. It was most likely a horrendous mistake. This is much like incidents where a police officer is in a shoot out with a perpetrator and hits an innocent bystander. It was not intentional but nonetheless catastrophic.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Kelevision

The laws did change after that. That’s when the strict gun protocol came into play. The prop person or armorer brings the gun on set and show’s the Assistant Director that it’s an empty gun, they open the chamber, show him, spin the barrel, at which point the assistant director, the person on set in charge of safety, says cold gun….. None of those things happened on this show. I’ve worked on over 700 episodes of television as a director for 30 years from Blue Bloods to Sleepy Hollow, Dexter to Entourage and I’ve never, not once, not seen this protocol happen. I’m baffled at the fact that it happened and the AD admitted he hadn’t actually checked the gun before yelling cold gun and handing to an actor. I couldn’t care less about Alec Baldwin’s politics or career. If I never see him again, I wouldn’t lose sleep, if he was in something i wanted to watch , I’d watch. I’m only trying to explain the way productions work and the first AD and Armorer are to blame. I’m a member of the DGA, there’s giant thread on that calling for the assistant director to be banned from the union. Perhaps where Alec failed was not being proactive and using his set experience to notice the red flags but as a producer, it’s a credit only just like all the writers and a best friend of someone. There are only 3 (give or take) actual producers who hire and are in charge. Yet there will be 20 listed. We call them vanity credits. They mean nothing. I was a producer for 7 years on a show and couldn’t have hired or fired or made any decisions at all. They just gave me that credit to keep me around. It meant nothing.

Oh, now he shows the AD... Before, you stated he showed the crew and actors. Which is it?

And no, the "prop person" is not the one who should be bringing a firearm to the set. It's strictly the job of the 'armorer". You know, the trained professional...

As to the other 75% of your post, so?

[Caymus]

Originally Posted by Kelevision

The laws did change after that. That’s when the strict gun protocol came into play. .

Will the police, DA and jury agree with that version of the "law" Can any body (drug dealers etc?) use the argument that they didn't know the gun was loaded?

[Carla B]

I'm sorry, without reading through pages and pages of this thread to look for the answer, will someone take pity and tell me why real guns with real bullets are even used on a movie set?

[dewilson58]

Originally Posted by Carla B

I'm sorry, without reading through pages and pages of this thread to look for the answer, will someone take pity and tell me why real guns with real bullets are even used on a movie set?

Can't get much more real for the movie goers.

It's a risk the industry accepts.

[Boston-Sean]

Just to repeat an earlier post.

It doesn't matter who or how a gun is loaded. What matters is how the person handles the gun. That is according to the New Mexico supreme court.

Also, an act does not have to be intentional to be criminal.

One would think these 2 concepts are not difficult to understand.

One would be wrong.

[dewilson58]

Originally Posted by Boston-Sean

It doesn't matter who or how a gun is loaded. What matters is how the person handles the gun. That is according to the New Mexico supreme court.

.

As a gun owner, I always believed and understood this.

Do you have any reference points on "according to the NM supreme court"?
Would like to read.
Thanx

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Boston-Sean

Just to repeat an earlier post.

It doesn't matter who or how a gun is loaded. What matters is how the person handles the gun. That is according to the New Mexico supreme court.

Also, an act does not have to be intentional to be criminal.

One would think these 2 concepts are not difficult to understand.

One would be wrong.

I'm forced to disagree with "concept 2" or more accurately, set the record straight

The basic legal term is mens rea---essentially criminal INTENT, without which there is no crime. To be more specific:

Mens rea (/ˈmɛnz ˈreɪə/; Law Latin for "guilty mind") is the mental element of a person's intention to commit a crime; or knowledge that one's action or lack of action would cause a crime to be committed. It is a necessary element of many crimes.

The standard common law test of criminal liability is expressed in the Latin phrase actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, i.e. "the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty".[1] As a general rule, someone who acted without mental fault is not liable in criminal law. Exceptions are known as strict liability crimes.

As the federal constitution entrenches a right of due process, the United States usually applies strict liability to only the most MINOR crimes or infractions. One example is a parking violation, where the state only needs to show that the defendant's vehicle was parked inappropriately at a certain curb. Serious crimes like rape and murder usually require some showing of culpability or mens rea.

[manaboutown]

"Some states no longer use the classifications of mens rea but instead, use the malice distinction. In New Mexico, malice distinction is used over mens rea, because it simplifies determining one’s state of mind. To determine if a person is liable for a criminal act, the courts will determine whether the defendant had one of two malice distinctions:

Express Malice – During the crime, the defendant had a deliberate intent to cause harm to the victim. They planned the act or knowingly approached their victim with the intent of harming or killing them.
Implied Malice – In this instance, the defendant was indifferent to the harm or death a victim might suffer, and they were inattentive or careless at the time."

From: Criminal Defense Basics: What Is Mens Rea? - New Mexico Criminal Law Offices

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by manaboutown

"Some states no longer use the classifications of mens rea but instead, use the malice distinction. In New Mexico, malice distinction is used over mens rea, because it simplifies determining one’s state of mind. To determine if a person is liable for a criminal act, the courts will determine whether the defendant had one of two malice distinctions:

Express Malice – During the crime, the defendant had a deliberate intent to cause harm to the victim. They planned the act or knowingly approached their victim with the intent of harming or killing them.
Implied Malice – In this instance, the defendant was indifferent to the harm or death a victim might suffer, and they were inattentive or careless at the time."

From: Criminal Defense Basics: What Is Mens Rea? - New Mexico Criminal Law Offices

Interesting. Nevertheless, I doubt a court would consider failure of an actor to check a gun he was told is "cold" as indifference to harming a person. Careless and inattentive probably, but without the prerequisite indifference I can't see a criminal conviction.

[JSR22]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Interesting. Nevertheless, I doubt a court would consider failure of an actor to check a gun he was told is "cold" as indifference to harming a person. Careless and inattentive probably, but without the prerequisite indifference I can't see a criminal conviction.

I would be shocked if he is convicted. Personally, I believe it was a terrible accident and he should not be convicted of any crime.

[Boston-Sean]

Originally Posted by dewilson58

As a gun owner, I always believed and understood this.

Do you have any reference points on "according to the NM supreme court"?
Would like to read.
Thanx

Here is an attorney who specializes in Firearms law (Unlike all of us posting here) doing an analysis of Baldwins case. Towards the end he references an appeal of a Felony Manslaughter conviction where the New Mexico Supreme court said it didn't matter who loaded the gun. Only that the gun was handled improperly.

Legal Analysis: Alec Baldwin Situation Beginning to Look a Lot Like Manslaughter - YouTube

[Boston-Sean]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

I'm forced to disagree with "concept 2" or more accurately, set the record straight

The basic legal term is mens rea---essentially criminal INTENT, without which there is no crime. To be more specific:

Mens rea (/ˈmɛnz ˈreɪə/; Law Latin for "guilty mind") is the mental element of a person's intention to commit a crime; or knowledge that one's action or lack of action would cause a crime to be committed. It is a necessary element of many crimes.

The standard common law test of criminal liability is expressed in the Latin phrase actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, i.e. "the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty".[1] As a general rule, someone who acted without mental fault is not liable in criminal law. Exceptions are known as strict liability crimes.

As the federal constitution entrenches a right of due process, the United States usually applies strict liability to only the most MINOR crimes or infractions. One example is a parking violation, where the state only needs to show that the defendant's vehicle was parked inappropriately at a certain curb. Serious crimes like rape and murder usually require some showing of culpability or mens rea.

It's good to know that I can speed down a highway at 100 MPH and if I crash and kill someone I can't be charged with the death because I didn't intend to kill anyone.