Uh, Alec Baldwin just shot and killed someone

[Cultellus]

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.

Unintentional works. I follow this.

Yes, accidental, to me, is limited to mechanical failure.

Thanks man.

[Cultellus]

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).

I can't follow this. What the hell?

Had Alec missed what?

[Res Ipsa]

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).

Here's an example of the taxonomy Cultellus is using. https://www.guncrafttraining.com/articl ... -discharge It's used by some firearms safety folks. He could have saved us all a bunch of wasted time if he had explained he was using a non-standard definition of "accidental"

[Gadianton]

Here's an example of the taxonomy Cultellus is using. https://www.guncrafttraining.com/articl ... -discharge It's used by some firearms safety folks. He could have saved us all a bunch of wasted time if he had explained he was using a non-standard definition of "accidental"

Thank you Res, that helps a lot. I've Googled the terms and now Cultellus can be a victim of his own relativism. As he says, you can find anything on the Internet, and in fact, you can find definitions of these terms that don't agree with his use.

It's too bad, as you say, that he didn't capitalize on a subject he knows more about than others here and explain the difference from the beginning.

In the gun safety / military / police space, it looks like the term "unintentional discharge" often means what we would think of commonsensically as "accidental discharge". So make that substitution and now we're all on the same page in lingo. Then, is it "accidental" or "negligence"? But only some sources frame it that way.

https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Uninten ... (firearms)

An accidental discharge (AD) may occur when a the trigger of the firearm is deliberately pulled for a purpose other than shooting—dry-fire practice, demonstration, or function testing—but ammunition is negligently left in the chamber.[1

A negligent discharge (ND) is a discharge of a firearm involving culpable carelessness. In judicial and military technical terms, a negligent discharge is a chargeable offence. A number of armed forces automatically consider any accidental discharge to be negligent discharge, under the assumption that a trained soldier has control of his firearm at all times.

this might also help explain:

A concerted effort has been underway by professional firearm trainers to supplant the term accidental discharge with the negligent discharge. The idea is remove the excuse implied by the term accidental and replace it with responsibility as implied by the term negligence. Accidents cannot be avoided but negligent acts can be.

https://firsttimeshooter.com/article/ac ... discharge/

It sounds like Cult is an accident eliminativist, consistent with this last citation. In other words, in gun culture, you can have (1) Intentional vs. unintentional (accident vs. negligent) or (2) Intentional vs. accident. But in (2), it's becoming preferable to update this to (Second Amendment) intentional vs. negligent.

[Cultellus]

Here's an example of the taxonomy Cultellus is using. https://www.guncrafttraining.com/articl ... -discharge It's used by some firearms safety folks. He could have saved us all a bunch of wasted time if he had explained he was using a non-standard definition of "accidental"

Thank you Res, that helps a lot. I've Googled the terms and now Cultellus can be a victim of his own relativism. As he says, you can find anything on the Internet, and in fact, you can find definitions of these terms that don't agree with his use.

It's too bad, as you say, that he didn't capitalize on a subject he knows more about than others here and explain the difference from the beginning.

In the gun safety / military / police space, it looks like the term "unintentional discharge" often means what we would think of commonsensically as "accidental discharge". So make that substitution and now we're all on the same page in lingo. Then, is it "accidental" or "negligence"? But only some sources frame it that way.

https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Uninten ... (firearms)

An accidental discharge (AD) may occur when a the trigger of the firearm is deliberately pulled for a purpose other than shooting—dry-fire practice, demonstration, or function testing—but ammunition is negligently left in the chamber.[1

A negligent discharge (ND) is a discharge of a firearm involving culpable carelessness. In judicial and military technical terms, a negligent discharge is a chargeable offence. A number of armed forces automatically consider any accidental discharge to be negligent discharge, under the assumption that a trained soldier has control of his firearm at all times.

this might also help explain:

A concerted effort has been underway by professional firearm trainers to supplant the term accidental discharge with the negligent discharge. The idea is remove the excuse implied by the term accidental and replace it with responsibility as implied by the term negligence. Accidents cannot be avoided but negligent acts can be.

https://firsttimeshooter.com/article/ac ... discharge/

For the love of God. Gad, cool your sugar tits finally.

If it makes you feel better, believe everything I am doing is wrong. It seems you are a hell of a lot more interested in my wrongness or rightness than a conversation about events and protocols. Jesus.

Dumb Alec pointed a real gun at someone, pulled the trigger, and killed the person. That, to me, is not an accidental discharge, his finger depressed the trigger of a loaded gun and it went bang and sent a bullet rifling through the barrel and toward the victim. The end. It may still be an accident. It is negligent. Now, Gad, go ahead and write another faux rage epistle about me being wrong. Or get bothered because I am using a different term than Res, even though I have said I agree with Res' stuff that he dug up. And cool your tits some more.

[Gadianton]

You misunderstand. I'm not against you being right about something, I'm against you thinking everyone else is always wrong about everything.

[canpakes]

You misunderstand. I'm not against you being right about something, I'm against you thinking everyone else is always wrong about everything.

And maybe against his need to be purposefully ambiguous about ‘negligence’ in order to avoid the real issue.

I wonder if Cultellus can tell us about any evidence of criminal wrongdoing, and who might be responsible for that.

[Jersey Girl]

Bold mind.

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.

What does this person mean by "the gun went off"? This doesn't tell us if Baldwin fired it or not. Perhaps no one but Baldwin himself could know that piece of information. We (the virtual grand jury) cannot make a determination without that critical piece.

I'm sick of how the media is presenting this case though I am not at all surprised. The news outlets make their living by clicks after all.

All that said, I agree with your current determination. If there was a mechanical failure of the weapon, it's no one's fault and could be categorized as an accidental discharge. If he fired the gun (this is my perspective) without checking it himself, then I say it's negligent discharge and eligible for a negligent homicide charge based on the outcome of the investigation.

The weapons go through a chain of handling. Manufacturer to set props inventory, to props storage at on site location of the set at any given time during the rehearsal and filming process where they are the firstly, responsibility of the armorer. If I am not mistaken, I read that the crew went on lunch break and returned to rehearse the scene.

Whose responsibility was it to secure the weapons? The armorer.
Whose responsibility was it to check the weapons before making them directly available for the rehearsal? The armorer.
Whose responsibility was it to make available a cold weapon to the crew (including directors/actors)? The armorer.
Whose responsibility was it to check the weapon before handing it to Baldwin? The armorer and then, the AD.
Whose responsibility was it to check the weapon before firing it? Baldwin.

I see this as either a case of accidental discharge or a case of one or more weak links in the chain of custody and responsibility of the weapons.

The final hand in the case, was Baldwins hand. What we need to know is if the weapon malfunctioned or if he fired it while practicing the cross draw. If he fired it without examining it, then he too, is negligent in the case.

[Jersey Girl]

ETA: In addition to my comments above, I have checked NM state statutes and am still unclear as to how charges could be applied to this case.

[Physics Guy]

It's not normally easy for a gun to just go off. A hammer or firing pin has to strike the back of the cartridge with considerable force. For that to happen, first of all the weapon has to be cocked: a strong spring has to be compressed. Somebody usually has to do that deliberately at some point.

The hammer or firing pin is normally held against that compressed spring by a trigger, which has to be pulled. Trigger pressure is usually significant; a "hair trigger" is unusual and dangerous. So after a weapon is cocked, somebody has to pull the trigger deliberately. Some weapons have "double action", such that the first part of pulling the trigger also cocks the weapon, but that means it's even harder to pull the trigger to fire the weapon—like, hard enough that you can easily try and fail.

The bottom line is that discharging a firearm isn't really easy to do just by accident. You might not realize that the thing in your hand is going to launch a lethal bullet, but you'll still have to do something deliberate to make that happen. If you do that with somebody in the line of fire, you'd better either be trying to kill that person, or be damn sure that this isn't a real firearm loaded with a real cartridge. So I've never worked in movies, but it's hard for me to believe that anyone could relieve the person who pulled the trigger from the responsibility of checking that personally.

If someone else was also supposed to check that before giving the prop to the person who fired it, I reckon they're at fault, too. And if someone else was supposed to make sure that everyone on the set understood things like this, then they can also be on the hook. When someone dies making a piece of entertainment, there's plenty of blame to go around. Nobody involved at all is going to be innocent.