I too read with prejudice. Then without prejudice so I don't know what is true.
I'll throw this out there though. First I don't care for Alec Baldwin.
From what I know about the case it seems to me that he shouldn't be guilty of a crime. Someone else gave him the gun in a movie set. He had no reason to believe it was a loaded weapon. So if there isn't something I am missing I would say not guilty at this point.
In terms of standard gun safety, all firearms are to be handled as though they are loaded even when known to not be loaded. Baldwin had the weapon in hand, and was responsible for it.
In terms of standard gun safety, all firearms are to be handled as though they are loaded even when known to not be loaded. Baldwin had the weapon in hand, and was responsible for it.
There was someone who was paid to do that job. They handed him a loaded gun.
ANYONE who handles a firearm is responsible for its safe handling. The fault of the paid specialist is grounds for firing but Baldwin fired the shot that killed. He is an adult and is responsible for the homocide.
The fault of the paid specialist is grounds for firing but Baldwin fired the shot that killed. He is an adult and is responsible for the homocide.
Granted, BUT you're dealing with the Hollywood types that know NOTHING about firearms. I've spent 50+ years with firearms being a way of life. My handling is automatic as certain as I hate predators (homo/pedo/tranny). For me, it's innate.
I don't understand folks that don't have my skillset. I noticed it yesterday when I was outside spraying weeds with a spray bottle. I can reliably hit the weed within a quarter of an inch with the bottle at my side not aiming. I recovered on target instinctively on the second spray.
It'd suck to be an armorer in Hollywood. Robert DeNiro was BADLY burned on the set of "Scarface" by grabbing an AR-15 platform gun by the barrel after firing blanks for a scene.