• APassenger@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    If you’re driving and your brakes mysteriously fail, consequently someone dies. Is it manslaughter?

    Edit: clarity.

    • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      4 months ago

      Not quite, you’re ignoring the role of the armorer on set in your metaphor.

      If you just picked up your car from the mechanic after they were expected to check everything, including the brakes, and the brakes then fail causing you to crash and kill someone… Is it manslaughter? And if so, who is at fault?

      You were driving the vehicle, but you would obviously expect the brakes to be in working order since they were supposedly checked immediately before you started driving. The driver would almost certainly not be charged in that case, but the mechanic on the other hand would clearly be negligent, directly leading to the death.

      • APassenger@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        I’m not tho. One of the implications of the bullets being a little bit of everywhere was that it implied another source.

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      4 months ago

      Depends on why they failed and if you should have maintained your car better.

      It’s usually not all that mysterious. Brakes don’t just randomly fail for no reason.

      Let’s say they failed because of poor maintenance. Then yes.

      Let’s say they failed because there was a defect in the brake line that caused it to rupture in the high temperatures of summer. Then no.

      Baldwin failed a duty of care to ensure the weapon was cleared and in fact safe. He then failed a duty of care when handling that weapon in an extremely unsafe manner.

      To go with the analogy, he knew his brakes were failing and drove anyway.

        • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          4 months ago

          Then your analogy sucks. This wasn’t a random failure.

          As I said in the reply: Baldwin knew- or should have known- that he was handling the firearm unsafely, and that he shouldn’t handle it in an unsafe manner,

          • APassenger@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            4 months ago

            No. But with the withheld evidence now known… The armorer herself may not have been convicted and she’s certainly getting retried.

            Those mistakes didn’t happen in a vacuum. But proving where that vacuum came from doesn’t have the same certainty that it did.

            • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              9
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              That’s just it.

              It doesn’t matter.

              Baldwin had a duty of care to know. He didn’t know. And now someone is dead. Had he taken the 30 seconds to clear the firearm, “oh there’s something chambered. armorer identify these!” (Or taking one out and checking himself, cuz it’s that kind of production, I guess….”hey this doesn’t rattle!”)… Alina would probably be alive today.

              While HGR does have blame as the armorer who allowed abysmally bad safety practices; she’s not alone in that blame.

              And the other guy who pled out. Him too.

              The only way they could get out of it is if the prop cartridges were so realistic that you can’t tell them apart. At all. And for obvious reasons no prop company will ever produce such cartridges.

              • APassenger@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                4 months ago

                According to the affidavit, Halls said he did not check all cylinder chambers, but he recalled seeing three rounds in the cylinder at the time. (After the shooting, Halls said in the affidavit, Gutierrez-Reed retrieved the weapon and opened it, and Halls said that he saw four rounds which were plainly blanks, and one which could have been the remaining shell of a discharged live round.)[44] In the warrant, it is further stated that Halls announced the term “cold gun”, meaning that it did not contain live rounds.[42] Halls’s lawyer, Lisa Torraco, later sought to assert that he did not take the gun off the cart and hand it to Baldwin as reported, but when pressed by a reporter to be clear, she refused to repeat that assertion.[45]

                It’s Wikipedia, but it matches what I’ve read elsewhere. He was told he had a cold gun. There is a division of responsibility and what’s described doesn’t match your assertion.

                • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  You can’t “divide” duty of care.

                  Even if he doesn’t have to behave in a personally safe manner, he had no personal knowledge. He was told something literally second hand.

                  He had an obligation- not as an actor, or producer, but as a person holding a firearm- to behave safely. He did not.

                  • APassenger@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    And you can have those moral convictions.

                    I’m not sure that’s how it would be viewed in the eyes of the law, which has been the basis of my replies.