Alec Baldwin shooting

[ClydeR]

The case in court will be tried on actual laws, not rules.

All laws are rules. Not all rules are laws. Rules that are not laws will be relevant to determine if Baldwin's conduct was so excessive as to constitute a crime. If, for example, the jury agrees with Methais that the first rule of gun safety is to assume that the gun is loaded unless you personally check it, then that will have a significant bearing on the outcome of the trial.

[Methais]

It was Baldwin too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0G45DOOm80c

Haha, what a dickbag going off on a 12 year old.

Seran should be along shortly to defend it and blame Trump.

[Parkbandit]

All laws are rules. Not all rules are laws. Rules that are not laws will be relevant to determine if Baldwin's conduct was so excessive as to constitute a crime. If, for example, the jury agrees with Methais that the first rule of gun safety is to assume that the gun is loaded unless you personally check it, then that will have a significant bearing on the outcome of the trial.

So when you said "The case in court will be tried on actual rules." you were incorrect.

You could have just said "You are right PB.. I'm a cowardly little bitch" and just be done with it.

[ClydeR]

So when you said "The case in court will be tried on actual rules." you were incorrect.

The reason I asked the source of Methais' first rule was to determine if it is really a widely accepted rule or just his opinion. Since he has not cited a source, I assume it is just his opinion. Many states, not including New Mexico, have gun storage laws making it a crime to store a loaded gun. In those states, would you satisfy your obligation to be sure your gun is unloaded when stored if you relied on your spouse to check that for you? If the statute does not answer that question, then a best practices rule as determined by a jury, even though not written by the government, would determine whether or not relying on your spouse in that situation would be a crime.

[Parkbandit]

The reason I asked the source of Methais' first rule was to determine if it is really a widely accepted rule or just his opinion. Since he has not cited a source, I assume it is just his opinion. Many states, not including New Mexico, have gun storage laws making it a crime to store a loaded gun. In those states, would you satisfy your obligation to be sure your gun is unloaded when stored if you relied on your spouse to check that for you? If the statute does not answer that question, then a best practices rule as determined by a jury, even though not written by the government, would determine whether or not relying on your spouse in that situation would be a crime.

Weird way to say "You're right PB and I'm wrong".. but whatever.

[Methais]

The reason I asked the source of Methais' first rule was to let everyone know how retarded I am.

Fixed.

Since you're retarded and still struggling to keep up, if I was referring to actual laws, I would have said the word "law" instead of "rule." As far as I know, that's not a law, but it could demonstrate gross negligence for all I know, which I would assume, in my non-expert legal opinion, that that would be weighed into the manslaughter charge, similar to the "gross negligence" someone demonstrates when they drive drunk and then get someone else killed.

But go take any gun safety course anywhere or whatever, and let me know how many of them don't tell you about that rule. That number will be zero.


Hey ClydeR, do you believe that any of this would have happened to begin with if Baldwin had heeded this very important rule of gun safety?

[ClydeR]

Hey ClydeR, do you believe that any of this would have happened to begin with if Baldwin had heeded this very important rule of gun safety?

You would be a good prosecutor. The question you pose is exactly the question Baldwin's prosecutors will want the jury to ask themselves.

If Baldwin had checked the gun himself and if the prosecutors can show that it would have been possible for him to distinguish real bullets from blanks, then obviously the death would never have occurred.

You could ask a similar "but for" question about everybody in the chain of events. But for the person who bought the gun for use on a movie set, would the death have occurred. But for the person who brought live ammo to the set. But for the person who put the bullets in the gun. But for the armorer who handed the gun to Baldwin and told him it was not loaded. But for Baldwin who fired the gun, or at least cocked the hammer. And probably some more people I can't think of right now.

If the answer to the above question is what determines guilt, then Baldwin's position at the end of the list of potentially responsible people will make him a criminal.

I think the question the jury should ask if whether or not Baldwin had a duty to check the gun himself after a professional armorer told him it was not armed. The person who put the bullets in the gun is most to blame. I've not seen any reports about who that was.

But go take any gun safety course anywhere or whatever, and let me know how many of them don't tell you about that rule. That number will be zero.

Most hunters are not accompanied by a professional armorer who is paid to check whether or not the gun is loaded.

[Neveragain]

201Most hunters are not accompanied by a professional armorer who is paid to check whether or not the gun is loaded.

I'm not sure if this is a federal or state law, but, in Iowa to get a hunting license one must attend hunter safety courses. It's been this way for at least 40 years.

I first learned to check the receiver anytime you're handed a gun at 5 years old.

The person who put the bullets in the gun is most to blame.

I'm 95% positive that it's already been said that Baldwin had live rounds in his belt.

[Methais]

You would be a good prosecutor. The question you pose is exactly the question Baldwin's prosecutors will want the jury to ask themselves.

If Baldwin had checked the gun himself and if the prosecutors can show that it would have been possible for him to distinguish real bullets from blanks, then obviously the death would never have occurred.

You could ask a similar "but for" question about everybody in the chain of events. But for the person who bought the gun for use on a movie set, would the death have occurred. But for the person who brought live ammo to the set. But for the person who put the bullets in the gun. But for the armorer who handed the gun to Baldwin and told him it was not loaded. But for Baldwin who fired the gun, or at least cocked the hammer. And probably some more people I can't think of right now.

If the answer to the above question is what determines guilt, then Baldwin's position at the end of the list of potentially responsible people will make him a criminal.

I think the question the jury should ask if whether or not Baldwin had a duty to check the gun himself after a professional armorer told him it was not armed. The person who put the bullets in the gun is most to blame. I've not seen any reports about who that was.





Most hunters are not accompanied by a professional armorer who is paid to check whether or not the gun is loaded.

That's a lot of words just to avoid answering the question yourself.

Let's try again.

Hey ClydeR, in your opinion, as opposed to the opinion of a court/jury, and you can even pretend that nobody is being charged with anything if it helps you keep up with the conversation, do you believe that this situation would have been avoided if Baldwin followed the #1 rule in gun safety, which is to assume that the gun is loaded until you confirm for yourself that it isn't?

Most hunters are not accompanied by a professional armorer who is paid to check whether or not the gun is loaded.

But if they were, they would still check it before pointing it at another person, despite the fact that no real hunter is going to be pointing their gun at another person in the first place anyway.

[ClydeR]

Hey ClydeR, in your opinion, as opposed to the opinion of a court/jury, and you can even pretend that nobody is being charged with anything if it helps you keep up with the conversation, do you believe that this situation would have been avoided if Baldwin followed the #1 rule in gun safety, which is to assume that the gun is loaded until you confirm for yourself that it isn't?

I've already said that if Baldwin had checked the gun and if he was able to distinguish blanks from real bullets, then the accident would not have happened. I do not accept the premise of your question that the number one rule of gun safety is to assume that a gun is loaded. I think the number one rule of gun safety is not to point a gun at another person, but that rule would not work in Westerns, would it?

But if they were, they would still check it before pointing it at another person, despite the fact that no real hunter is going to be pointing their gun at another person in the first place anyway.

Dick Cheney.