Uh, Alec Baldwin just shot and killed someone

[Res Ipsa]

That's progress, since you didn't insist it wasn't an accident.

Suppose the gun hadn't been loaded but that he'd operated the gun exactly as he had, nobody was hurt and filming continued. In that scenario, would it be correct to say he was trying to kill somebody?

Let's say an A hole husband wants to scare the crap out of his wife because she threatened to leave him. So the husband buys some 9mm blanks and loads them in his handgun. One day he decides to point the gun he loaded with blanks at his wife and he says, THE DAY YOU LEAVE, THIS GUN WON'T BE LOADED WITH BLANKS!! Then he points the gun loaded with blanks at his wife and shoots. After shooting one round at his wife, he realizes the blank round shot out debris that rnded up penetrating the wife's skull and she died on the way to the hospital. When questioned by the police he says he was only trying to scare his wife. They don't believe him and charge him with first degree murder. What do you think? Did the husband murder his wife?

If we’re talking in the everyday sense of the word, I wouldn’t call it murder. Depending on the state, it might legally be some lower degree of murder. But I think the term “murder” implies an intent to kill, or at least cause serious bodily harm, which his lack of knowledge about how blanks work and his statement both contradict.

[Moksha]

Maybe Cultellus can get some quotes from Steve Bannon and the Kremlin.

Do you have a point?

They both desire the overthrow of the United States and they are not fans of Amerikanski actors except Steven Seagal.

[Cultellus]

Maybe Cultellus can get some quotes from Steve Bannon and the Kremlin.

Do you have a point?

They both desire the overthrow of the United States and they are not fans of Amerikanski actors except Steven Seagal.

Jesus, Moksha. You know this because you watch Pandemic War Room, or because someone told you to think and say that?

You may be right, but do tell, have you watched Pandemic War Room? Or are you taking someone’s word for it because Kool Aid, CNN and The Atlantic?

[Jersey Girl]

delete

[Jersey Girl]

delete

[Gadianton]

My theory is given it's out in the desert, some of the team were screwing around shooting the guns at cans in off hours and from there, the mix-up.

There's this pastime that crew members sometimes do, it's called 'plinking,' and they go out into the rural areas and they shoot at beer cans. This is with live ammunition.

This is bad because since a couple of rounds had gone off a day or two before, there should have been a complete ban on can shooting. There should have been a ban anyways, and it sounds like there was, but if they'd been lax, then someone needed to have said 'okay guys really seriously now we've had this accident, no more plinking'. And the skepticism level where the filming was happening should have been as high as it gets.

the negligence needle is going up.

[Cultellus]

My theory is given it's out in the desert, some of the team were screwing around shooting the guns at cans in off hours and from there, the mix-up.

There's this pastime that crew members sometimes do, it's called 'plinking,' and they go out into the rural areas and they shoot at beer cans. This is with live ammunition.

This is bad because since a couple of rounds had gone off a day or two before, there should have been a complete ban on can shooting. There should have been a ban anyways, and it sounds like there was, but if they'd been lax, then someone needed to have said 'okay guys really seriously now we've had this accident, no more plinking'. And the skepticism level where the filming was happening should have been as high as it gets.

the negligence needle is going up.

Yep. And it is pretty clear now that while the legal definition of “accident” may be worth considering, the guns obviously worked properly and there was NO accidental discharge.

[Alf'Omega]

This is bad because since a couple of rounds had gone off a day or two before, there should have been a complete ban on can shooting. There should have been a ban anyways, and it sounds like there was, but if they'd been lax, then someone needed to have said 'okay guys really seriously now we've had this accident, no more plinking'. And the skepticism level where the filming was happening should have been as high as it gets.

the negligence needle is going up.

Yep. And it is pretty clear now that while the legal definition of “accident” may be worth considering, the guns obviously worked properly and there was NO accidental discharge.

You're still pretending you actually believe your own BS on that point? I've been told by two authorities here that you're just doing a parody. You don't really believe this wasn't an accident.

[Res Ipsa]

Souza, who was injured in the shoulder, told investigators the prop gun went off as Baldwin was practicing drawing his gun, according to an affidavit for a search warrant.

Souza spoke to investigators Friday, according to the affidavit released by the Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office on Sunday.
Souza told them Baldwin was "sitting in a pew in a church building setting, and he was practicing a cross draw," the affidavit said. A cross draw is when a shooter pulls the weapon from a holster on the opposite side of the body from the draw hand.

Souza was looking over Hutchins' shoulder "when he heard what sounded like a whip and then loud pop," according to the affidavit.

Souza also confirmed to an investigator that he heard the term "cold gun" on set, meaning the firearm should have been empty.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/26/entertai ... index.html

Cultellus, it looks like you're using a specialized taxonomy that is not universally adopted in classifying firearm discharges. In that scheme of classification, "accidental discharge" is limited to mechanical failure of the weapon, while "negligent discharge" applies to human carelessness. Both are classified as "unintentional discharges," which is the pertinent issue in the Baldwin case.

[Gadianton]

Yep. And it is pretty clear now that while the legal definition of “accident” may be worth considering, the guns obviously worked properly and there was NO accidental discharge.

we both know there was an accidental discharge, even in everyday language. Denying the discharge as accidental doesn't help promote gun safety. It would make for one hell of a confusing hunter's safety course or concealed carry or other gun course. The only benefit to this terminology would be to magnify the liability such that people take it even more seriously, but I don't think the confusion is worth it. Please cite a gun safety manual that says discharging a gun believed to be unloaded is an intentional discharge and I will consider it.

Had Alec had missed, would we say he intended to shoot somebody? He intentionally pointed a gun at a person. He intentionally discharged the gun (per you).