New Mexico prosecutors on Tuesday said they intended to recharge actor Alec Baldwin with involuntary manslaughter for the fatal shooting of "Rust" cinematographer Halyna Hutchins in 2021.
Morrissey said if new testing of the gun showed it was working, she would recharge Baldwin.
Was it reckless to point the gun at the camera? I don’t think so, even with someone behind the camera. While working on a film, there are times when you’ll want to record a shot from that angle. It’s pretty unavoidable if you want that shot.
It is certainly possible to point a gun at a camera or a person and it not be an act of recklessness. However, it is also possible to point a gun at a camera in a reckless manner.
The “industry standard” of safe gun handling includes four rules. Breaking any of those rules makes the person handling the gun responsible for any harm arising from their handling of that gun. It’s not necessarily reckless to break the rules: I pull the triggers on my Glocks without intending to fire them, because pulling the trigger is required to field strip them. I point revolver barrels at my eye while cleaning them, because I can’t observe the barrel from the breech. I accept the consequences when I break the rules. If any harm were to occur while I was breaking the standards of safe gun handling, I would be directly and personally responsible. I can only be absolved of responsibility for a firearm accident if I was following the rules at the time of the accident.
The first rule of safe gun handling is “Treat every gun as if it were loaded until proven otherwise.”
“Every gun is loaded” means that if I haven’t personally observed the chamber to be empty, I must assume it is loaded. If I want to treat it as unloaded, I have to positively verify it is unloaded. It is reckless for me to assume that it is unloaded. It is reckless for me to use a random gun in any manner in which it would be reckless to handle a loaded gun.
I agree with you, it is not reckless to point an unloaded gun at a camera. If you want a picture of the muzzle end of a gun, you need to point that gun at a camera. That’s not a problem.
The problem is that he assumed the gun was unloaded. He made no effort to verify the gun was unloaded. The industry standard for safety gun handling requires him to assume the gun is loaded, and to personally verify a gun is unloaded before treating it as unloaded.
By the time he got around to actually pointing the gun at the camera, he had already committed the acts of recklessness that resulted in her death. He is guilty of criminally negligent homicide due to his mishandling of the firearm.
When you say “industry standard” what industry are you referring to?
The “first rule of safe gun handling” is written in what legal document?
I don’t disagree that this is the first rule I reach anyone when we go to the range. But the crux of this argument is that it is not a written rule in any code of law. It’s an axiom that we follow and we teach but does that make it a legally binding rule where failure to follow it makes the resulting action criminal? I’m just not sure it does.
Would a reasonable person check the firearm in this very unique and specific scenario on a film set where controls are supposed to be put in place and followed?
When working with a revolver specifically it’s common to have dummy rounds which are inert but look real. Even if an actor did check the gun would they be able to reasonably discern between a dummy round and a live round?
If such a distinction cannot be easily done by an actor and if there is a prohibition on live ammunition would a reasonable person assume the gun is “safe” even if they saw ammunition loaded in the firearm?
If such an environment exists where there are dummy rounds and a prohibition on live ammunition is it still reckless?
If an actor personally checks and believes it to be dummy rounds is it reckless?
If this goes to court, it will be interesting to see the arguments made. I’m not convinced it is criminally reckless, but at the same time I am not convinced it isn’t.
All of your arguments tolerate ignorance on the part of the person actually handling the gun. You’ve allowed for the actor to be ignorant of whether the gun is loaded. You’ve allowed for the actor to be ignorant of the distinction between real and dummy ammunition. You’ve allowed for the actor to be ignorant of the safety standards expected of reasonable people.
This is completely and totally unacceptable. The risks associated with firearm use demand a higher standard of care among actors than typical gun users, not the total abdication of reasonable safety standards.
Ignorance of the difference between live and dummy rounds is indicative of negligence and recklessness. That ignorance is a condemnation of the actor, not a mitigation.
Ignorance of whether a gun is loaded or not is a condemnation of the actor, not an exoneration.
Baldwin’s handling of that weapon was well beyond simple negligence. This was extremely reckless behavior.
It is certainly possible to point a gun at a camera or a person and it not be an act of recklessness. However, it is also possible to point a gun at a camera in a reckless manner.
The “industry standard” of safe gun handling includes four rules. Breaking any of those rules makes the person handling the gun responsible for any harm arising from their handling of that gun. It’s not necessarily reckless to break the rules: I pull the triggers on my Glocks without intending to fire them, because pulling the trigger is required to field strip them. I point revolver barrels at my eye while cleaning them, because I can’t observe the barrel from the breech. I accept the consequences when I break the rules. If any harm were to occur while I was breaking the standards of safe gun handling, I would be directly and personally responsible. I can only be absolved of responsibility for a firearm accident if I was following the rules at the time of the accident.
The first rule of safe gun handling is “Treat every gun as if it were loaded until proven otherwise.”
“Every gun is loaded” means that if I haven’t personally observed the chamber to be empty, I must assume it is loaded. If I want to treat it as unloaded, I have to positively verify it is unloaded. It is reckless for me to assume that it is unloaded. It is reckless for me to use a random gun in any manner in which it would be reckless to handle a loaded gun.
I agree with you, it is not reckless to point an unloaded gun at a camera. If you want a picture of the muzzle end of a gun, you need to point that gun at a camera. That’s not a problem.
The problem is that he assumed the gun was unloaded. He made no effort to verify the gun was unloaded. The industry standard for safety gun handling requires him to assume the gun is loaded, and to personally verify a gun is unloaded before treating it as unloaded.
By the time he got around to actually pointing the gun at the camera, he had already committed the acts of recklessness that resulted in her death. He is guilty of criminally negligent homicide due to his mishandling of the firearm.
When you say “industry standard” what industry are you referring to?
The “first rule of safe gun handling” is written in what legal document?
I don’t disagree that this is the first rule I reach anyone when we go to the range. But the crux of this argument is that it is not a written rule in any code of law. It’s an axiom that we follow and we teach but does that make it a legally binding rule where failure to follow it makes the resulting action criminal? I’m just not sure it does.
Would a reasonable person check the firearm in this very unique and specific scenario on a film set where controls are supposed to be put in place and followed?
When working with a revolver specifically it’s common to have dummy rounds which are inert but look real. Even if an actor did check the gun would they be able to reasonably discern between a dummy round and a live round?
If such a distinction cannot be easily done by an actor and if there is a prohibition on live ammunition would a reasonable person assume the gun is “safe” even if they saw ammunition loaded in the firearm?
If such an environment exists where there are dummy rounds and a prohibition on live ammunition is it still reckless?
If an actor personally checks and believes it to be dummy rounds is it reckless?
If this goes to court, it will be interesting to see the arguments made. I’m not convinced it is criminally reckless, but at the same time I am not convinced it isn’t.
All of your arguments tolerate ignorance on the part of the person actually handling the gun. You’ve allowed for the actor to be ignorant of whether the gun is loaded. You’ve allowed for the actor to be ignorant of the distinction between real and dummy ammunition. You’ve allowed for the actor to be ignorant of the safety standards expected of reasonable people.
This is completely and totally unacceptable. The risks associated with firearm use demand a higher standard of care among actors than typical gun users, not the total abdication of reasonable safety standards.
Ignorance of the difference between live and dummy rounds is indicative of negligence and recklessness. That ignorance is a condemnation of the actor, not a mitigation.
Ignorance of whether a gun is loaded or not is a condemnation of the actor, not an exoneration.
Baldwin’s handling of that weapon was well beyond simple negligence. This was extremely reckless behavior.
I