Hooligans Sportsbook

Alec Baldwin Trial

Vegas Dave

Not a Real GameLiver
Since
Jan 28, 2010
Messages
3,669
Score
1,824
Tokens
5
I genuinely don't get this at all.

Obviously it's super sad what happened. I do believe the prop master should be held responsible.

But the actor? Why on earth would an actor receiving a fake gun from a prop master ever assume it was real or be expected to check it/know how to check it? It wouldn't really occur to me that the fake movie gun I was handed might be a real loaded gun.

I feel bad for the dude. Accidentally killing someone must be devastating enough. Being charged with a crime for it seems crazy to me. What am I missing?
 
I genuinely don't get this at all.

Obviously it's super sad what happened. I do believe the prop master should be held responsible.

But the actor? Why on earth would an actor receiving a fake gun from a prop master ever assume it was real or be expected to check it/know how to check it? It wouldn't really occur to me that the fake movie gun I was handed might be a real loaded gun.

I feel bad for the dude. Accidentally killing someone must be devastating enough. Being charged with a crime for it seems crazy to me. What am I missing?
I think it has something to do with him also being a producer/boss and imposing harsh working conditions, which may or may not have contributed to the mishap.

But yeah, why the fuck was live ammo even at the set. Shit's fucked.
 
Made me curious and I did a quick look. Mattys right it seems to all stem from his role as producer and his carelessness in hiring and rule enforcement on set. In other words he'd be charged (or could be) even if actor Joe blow fired the bullet.

Involuntary manslaughter is not too serious, ill let it stand. For example, you would do more time f
if convicted of felony fraud, stealing high 5 figs like my contractor...
 
He's around and says he wants to do the work. I may need to pay for some things twice and we are going to settle up after it's all done with cash or work credit.

I could have sued him civilly or called the cops to report the crime. Either of those options I get nothing. If I try to work with him I get the value of the labor I already paid for. I'm not gonna buy anything I can't just keep and transfer to another contractor but for now I gotta try to make it work, otherwise I'm out the whole amount. At the end I'll probably just sue him for the additional expense if he doesn't make good. Just gotta keep him on a short leash. For example, he needed engineers to do drawings so I engaged them directly for the plans. I need plans no matter who does it, so now I own them (and he owes me the $ for them since I paid for plans twice).

No matter how you slice it I fucked up and I'm gonna lose a significant nut, even if it's just the investment return on those funds he's had going on 2 years.
 
I think it has something to do with him also being a producer/boss and imposing harsh working conditions, which may or may not have contributed to the mishap.

But yeah, why the fuck was live ammo even at the set. Shit's fucked.

Made me curious and I did a quick look. Mattys right it seems to all stem from his role as producer and his carelessness in hiring and rule enforcement on set. In other words he'd be charged (or could be) even if actor Joe blow fired the bullet.

Involuntary manslaughter is not too serious, ill let it stand. For example, you would do more time f
if convicted of felony fraud, stealing high 5 figs like my contractor...
I was thinking that initially, too, but apparently not:

 
Well maybe the indictment and prosecution to date have been based on this (reasonable enough) theory and now they're pot committed and are trying to throw something against the wall? I've got no problem with an indictment here, seems like supervisors should be held somewhat responsible when there's negligent homicide at their office/plant/set.

But, it seems the course agrees with you (they don't get it) and prob 99% he's acquitted now that they're excluding the producer/supervisor angle.
 
Did another quick look and it appears that the claim is that he may have violated a number rules (E.g. collectively bargianed rules) governing actors and handling of prop weapons. If actors are required by thier union to not point a prop weapon or place thier finger on a trigger until XYZ person declares a set "hot" for example, doing so would be reckless/negligent.

If a riveter in a factory ignores safety regulations at the factory, especially regs their union sought to include in a CBA, and their actions cause injury shouldn't they be held liable for thier recklessness? That's the theory. I don't know where the facts come out here but I don't think it's crazy to ask if the person who pulled a trigger resulting in death has some liability (again invol. manslaughter is not a lot of liability).
 
Did another quick look and it appears that the claim is that he may have violated a number rules (E.g. collectively bargianed rules) governing actors and handling of prop weapons. If actors are required by thier union to not point a prop weapon or place thier finger on a trigger until XYZ person declares a set "hot" for example, doing so would be reckless/negligent.

If a riveter in a factory ignores safety regulations at the factory, especially regs their union sought to include in a CBA, and their actions cause injury shouldn't they be held liable for thier recklessness? That's the theory. I don't know where the facts come out here but I don't think it's crazy to ask if the person who pulled a trigger resulting in death has some liability (again invol. manslaughter is not a lot of liability).
Yeah this makes sense if there are safety protocols in place that he recklessly ignored. This would also explain why he insists that he didn't pull the trigger, which always seemed unlikely to me.

Very interesting. I again would have assumed that a fake gun is fake and not dangerous. More to it than that, apparently.