Gun Handling, What Am I Missing?

[dirtydeed]

GJ, I was taught the same two rules, but I had a slight variant of the last one. My 'instructor' said NEVER point a gun at anyone unless you intend to use it. He knew how, trust me. Had a 99.87 average on skeet, could shoot flying bumblebees and light matches with a .22, and NEVER shot a squirrel anywhere except through the eye. He was scary good with a firearm.

Personally, I wouldn't want to be around anyone that shoots "flying bumblebees" with a .22. But, that's just me. I could be wrong. Perhaps, he had an additional Jeff Cooper rule that I'm unaware of? Jesus, man.

 

[aaluck]

People who shoot real guns with real ammunition are taught to never point a gun at anything that you don't intend to shoot, for real.

This is the point I was gong to make. Why the heck would you EVER point a real weapon at anyone (and pull the trigger) you didn't intend on shooting. I understand he though it was unloaded.

I don't think I could force myself to pull the trigger of a real weapon while pointed at anyone---even if I unloaded it myself and checked it again. It goes against everything in my being. Heck when I dry fire my weapons after cleaning I go OUTSIDE and point it at the ground, even if I see daylight down the barrel with the bolt open--I really do.

In my mind I picture the director behind the camera with him 'shooting' into the camera. Why, why would you every use a real weapon for this? I would love to hear how this happened.

Whatever happened it was tragic.

 

[RichardAaronlx2610]

So here’s my question? Maybe it’s been answered already, but unless they were Filming, wouldn’t they have this entire thing on video? Or do they just go around aiming guns for fun in Hollywood?

 

[dirtydeed]

This is the point I was gong to make. Why the heck would you EVER point a real weapon at anyone (and pull the trigger) you didn't intend on shooting. I understand he though it was unloaded.

I don't think I could force myself to pull the trigger of a real weapon while pointed at anyone---even if I unloaded it myself and checked it again. It goes against everything in my being. Heck when I dry fire my weapons after cleaning I go OUTSIDE and point it at the ground, even if I see daylight down the barrel with the bolt open--I really do.

In my mind I picture the director behind the camera with him 'shooting' into the camera. Why, why would you every use a real weapon for this? I would love to hear how this happened.

Whatever happened it was tragic.

Agreed. It is tragic and yet so ironic.

It seems that many of the Hollywierd types are the first to spout off about rooty-tooty violence and repealing those 2A rights in the name of safety and for the better good of all. Yet, they make their living using those very same tools in the character/movies they portray.

I suppose we'll see how it all shakes out soon enough. Most of the reports that I have seen thus far leads me to believe that there are many questions that will need to be answered. Target practicing on the set the night before???

 

[Old_Paint]

Personally, I wouldn't want to be around anyone that shoots "flying bumblebees" with a .22. But, that's just me. I could be wrong. Perhaps, he had an additional Jeff Cooper rule that I'm unaware of? Jesus, man.

I omitted the part about them flying through the target area while shooting the matches for brevity. He certainly didn't just randomly point the rifle because a bumblebee was buzzing. I assure you, he knew exactly what was behind the bee before pulling the trigger. The point was, he was accurate enough to do it, and aware enough to never harm something else he had no intention to. He could do this repeatedly, in case there was any doubt about it being luck.

That kind of skill can only come with a lot of practice. With that practice also comes the knowledge of handling and safety of the weapon. As for your Jeff Cooper remark, and with all due respect to Mr. Cooper, I don't think I could have learned what I know any better from reading a book. There is simply no substitute for experience and hands-on training when it comes to gun safety. The rules have to become habits, things that you don't even have to think about when handling guns.

What happened on that movie set was no accident. Whether or not we will ever know all the facts depends on the quantity of money and level of politics involved. We'll probably get all the facts about the same time we get all the facts about the assassination of JFK.

I agree that Mr. Baldwin should never take roles where he handles a gun if he's that staunch a supporter of gun control. But, the man's got a right to make a living, no matter how hypocritical his ethics. Does that make him guilty of murder? No, but not checking the weapon before pointing it certainly does, or at least Voluntary Manslaughter I. Some could argue his comments to those he pointed the gun at just before the incident could constitute pre-meditation. If he had no intent, he's going to have a lot of bad dreams for a long time, and liberals will have more fuel for their anti-gun mission. Any way you look at it, it will get twisted into that evil gun killed someone. It just jumped into his hand and commenced firing.

 

[NCL4701]

I omitted the part about them flying through the target area while shooting the matches for brevity. He certainly didn't just randomly point the rifle because a bumblebee was buzzing. I assure you, he knew exactly what was behind the bee before pulling the trigger. The point was, he was accurate enough to do it, and aware enough to never harm something else he had no intention to. He could do this repeatedly, in case there was any doubt about it being luck.

That kind of skill can only come with a lot of practice. With that practice also comes the knowledge of handling and safety of the weapon. As for your Jeff Cooper remark, and with all due respect to Mr. Cooper, I don't think I could have learned what I know any better from reading a book. There is simply no substitute for experience and hands-on training when it comes to gun safety. The rules have to become habits, things that you don't even have to think about when handling guns.

What happened on that movie set was no accident. Whether or not we will ever know all the facts depends on the quantity of money and level of politics involved. We'll probably get all the facts about the same time we get all the facts about the assassination of JFK.

I agree that Mr. Baldwin should never take roles where he handles a gun if he's that staunch a supporter of gun control. But, the man's got a right to make a living, no matter how hypocritical his ethics. Does that make him guilty of murder? No, but not checking the weapon before pointing it certainly does, or at least Voluntary Manslaughter I. Some could argue his comments to those he pointed the gun at just before the incident could constitute pre-meditation. If he had no intent, he's going to have a lot of bad dreams for a long time, and liberals will have more fuel for their anti-gun mission. Any way you look at it, it will get twisted into that evil gun killed someone. It just jumped into his hand and commenced firing.

Haven’t seen his comments just before the incident. Agree it’s hard to see how he wouldn’t be guilty of negligent homicide/manslaughter.

 

[GreensvilleJay]

if 'ignornance of the law' can't be used as an excuse, then neither can ' I didn't know it was loaded' !!

 

[Old_Paint]

Haven’t seen his comments just before the incident. Agree it’s hard to see how he wouldn’t be guilty of negligent homicide/manslaughter.

There was apparently a request from the director to reshoot a particular scene, and he was rumored/quoted (depending on if you ask the police or the newspapers) as saying "How 'bout we just shoot you instead" just before he pulled the trigger. Rumors/hearsay, dunno. But if that's true .....

 

[dirtydeed]

Paint. My comment was more tongue-in-cheek in regard to the topic. all good.

I think they'll be all kinds of conspiracy theories about this one. I thought that I heard of a new Tee shirt that says...tooties don't kill people, Alec does.

Just read that there was some sort of exhibition boxing match in Tampa with proceeds (or awareness) to go towards ending "gun violence". ...found it.

MSN

What sucks is that this type of publicity makes it more difficult for responsible tootie owners each and every day.

 

[Steppenwolfe]

I’m wondering why he isn’t in jail for murder?

You or me, would be.

Gee... maybe no crime was committed???

 

[MOOTS]

Gee... maybe no crime was committed???

How so? He pointed and pulled the trigger of a gun at another human being. And in doing so, took her life.

 

[aaluck]

I hate talk of gun control, but we need to DISGUSS the future of owning guns in America; ya'll fighting me and calling me a libtard won't help. I love guns, I love shooting guns, I love holding a nice gun, I love I can carry a gun for my personal protection; if you guys do too, you had better come around...

The problem with your point is that you must put people in office that feel the same way. You and I agreeing makes no difference, if the elected officials don't.

 

[fried1765]

Gee... maybe no crime was committed???

Very obviously negligent homicide!
The negligence being that HE did not check the chamber before pointing it at ANYONE or ANYTHING!

 

[NCL4701]

Gee... maybe no crime was committed???

Even without malicious intent, there is a level of negligence that rises to culpable negligence; i.e. criminal negligence. Accidentally shooting someone resulting in their death (at least in the US) is one of the typically clear cases of culpable negligence, which is the basis for criminal statutes variously called manslaughter (which may be divided into voluntary and involuntary), negligent homicide, third degree murder, and maybe some other titles that all reference the same thing. In many jurisdictions, causing a death while driving under the influence also meets the definition or may fall under a separate death by motor vehicle, which is also a criminal offense.

Basically, intent to harm is highly unlikely to be relevant to whether A crime occurred unless New Mexico has very odd laws. In every state I am familiar with (pretty much those east of the Mississippi) the true question is not “was a crime committed?” The question is exactly what crime was committed (murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, etc.) and what person or persons committed crimes. Since, in the absence of malice, that’s based on negligence (duty owed, duty breached, damage proximately resulting) much of that decision rests on what duty the involved parties (armorer, assistant director, actor, producers, director) owed, did they breach that legal duty, and did their breach of duty proximately result in Hutchins’ death. If investigators can determine who loaded the live round, that person may be in trouble as well. Once all those duties and potential breaches of duties are established, the DA has to compare the facts to the specific statutes in the jurisdiction to determine exactly what statutes are applicable before making final formal charges. Injuries inflicted negligently but without malice that don’t result in death, even if serious, are often left to civil actions. In cases of death there’s almost always criminality in cases of culpable (exceptionally egregious) negligence.

All that got me to wondering what the law is in NM as I still maintain I’m not an expert in NM law. The NM statute is quite similar to others whose practical application I am familiar with.

2020 New Mexico Statutes :: Chapter 30 - Criminal Offenses :: Article 2 - Homicide :: Section 30-2-3 - Manslaughter.

Justia Free Databases of US Laws, Codes & Statutes

law.justia.com

“Involuntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed… in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death… without due caution and circumspection.”

I’m aware that’s a partially redacted quote of the full citation. There are a bunch of “or’s” in there so boiled it down to the options most favorable to Baldwin and the others involved by choosing the lowest bar of the options. That assumes there was no “heat of passion or argument” to meet the voluntary manslaughter requirements and the act wasn’t in and of itself unlawful (simply discharging the gun wasn’t unlawful) but was a lawful act which might produce death without due caution and circumspection. To argue that the duty of due caution and circumspection was not breached in a case of an activity, pointing a functional firearm at a person and pulling the trigger, where that activity directly resulted in death is nonsensical to the point the legal principle of res ipsa loquitur (the mere fact that it occurred speaks for itself) appears clearly applicable.

So was a crime committed? A plain reading of the involuntary manslaughter statute in New Mexico indicates if the answer was no, Hutchins would still be alive. Assuming the news reports of Ms. Hutchins’ demise due to an accidental discharge of a firearm are accurate, the answer is yes, a crime was committed.

The more salient question is exactly what crimes were committed and what person, persons, or corporations committed those crimes. Somehow the cynical part of me (most of me at this point) has to suspect Baldwin will either skate on the criminal charges or get a slap on the wrist while someone with less resources to fight with will take a hard fall. The DA is unlikely to want the OJ trial, part 2. They’re better at overcharging people who can’t afford a defense and taking a plea deal based on reduced charges closer to what they should have been in the first place. Nothing against the DA in NM, that’s just how they are here. Baldwin is more likely to quietly take a hit on the civil side of it.

Just an opinion. Could be completely wrong, aside from the statute is what it is.

 

[lugbolt]

I agree. Put guns to work making America safe, and remove the guns from criminals of all sorts.

and therein lies an issue.
did you know. Convicted felons cannot own firearms, it's already law. the problem is not the gun, it's the person who possesses it.

when i growed up it was in an inner city hood. i saw the results of gun violence. Right before we moved to the area we are at now, there was more gun shots, and my sister and i were out in the backyard tossing a softball back and forth. this guy comes running across the neighbors yard, jumps our fence, and went to jump the other fence at the corner. He didn't make it, was shot in the shoulder, i guess it nabbed an artery because he was squirting blood out by time he got to the first fence. I told my mom in the house and my sister ran in a few seconds later, by time the meat wagon got there he was cold/dead.

I saw knives kill people. on the bus going to school, two other rodents got into a fight and one of them stabbed the other in the temple multiple times with an ink pen. I am not sure he made it or not. After that my mom said you don't really need to ride the bus. Another kid got into a fight at the school and the metal lunchboxes went flying, one hit the other other kid in the eye socket and really put the hurting on him. He's ok now but was out of school/in hospital for a couple weeks.

so I am well versed on what people can do, you can take away every single gun on the face of the planet, melt them down, and people will still kill other people. They'll just use rocks, stones, sharp sticks, explosive devices, what I'm saying here is that people are resourceful; the gun just happens to be the easiest to get. making them harder to get doesn't help a thing. They can't be any harder to get. They can't be any easier to get at the same time. Remember, there is a black market. The same kind of market that houses husbands who make good money by getting paid to marry immigrants (among other things). There's not much that can be done about that stuff, it happens in all countries. People are resourceful, if someone wants something they can get it if they are creative enough.

on firearms, if all are completely erased from Earth, did you know....that you can be everything that is needed to take out an entire football stadium full of people, all those supplies are available at your local Sams club.

The big problem with the way the government tries to enforce current laws, is that the current laws have enough gray in them that law abiding and peaceful folks are the ones who pay the real price. If you are a sportsman who enjoys duck hunting or perhaps sporting clays, you could be victim of government overreach, in that your semi-automatic 12ga could be considered an assault weapon, and thus could easily be banned, and if you are caught with a banned firearm, subject to fines in the tens of thousands and prison time. I don't trust the government anyway based on my past, thus I wouldn't put it past them to try to do this to everyone whether or not they obey the laws. Thats exactly what happened in 2011 when they showed up and held 12 of us hostage for basically no reason; and there is nothing you can do about it because they are above the law. That gray, exploited by criminals, also exploited by the government at the expense of lawful citizens' trust in their governing body. It's sad. Really sad.

 

[Old_Paint]

Stupid, more likely.

I was being sarcastic, but I guess it was lost. However, do you disagree with the sentiment that violence is going to happen, or that a lot of people feel that it's necessary to use violence to make a change? It's painfully obvious that both left and right feel that way, especially the further out on the limbs that you climb.

Better look around. Time to turn off the coffee pot and get a cup. It's already happening, and has been for a while now. The Left's first Messiah stirred it up good when he was in office. It still hasn't calmed back down, and frankly, I don't think it will. Things were going pretty darn good until cancel culture started.

As for me, I fully expect another civil war, and it won't be civil at all. The next one will make the first one look like an elementary school bake sale. I shudder to think of the world that my grandchildren and great grandchildren are going to have to grow up in. I just hope I'm dead and gone before that so I don't have to see one of them die for nothing.

I used to be an optimistic and happy person. Then real life happened.

 

[Old_Paint]

We don’t prosecute improper and illegal use of firearms in crimes.

The last line is all that's needed. THAT is the problem.

 

[aaluck]

I agree. Put guns to work making America safe, and remove the guns from criminals of all sorts.

I'm assuming from you logic you also support the beef industry by only eating chicken?

 

[bearskinner]

Here’s a comparison from the DOT standards and is on EVERY commercial DMV test I’ve taken over 40 years.
it asks, “who is responsible for the load on your truck” the answer is always YOU as the end user. No matter what someone else does and says, YOU must be responsible as the last one in line. YOU are the one who drives the truck down the road, and will loose the load. It is COMMON SENSE to make sure of what will, or may happen, due to your actions.
Same with anything else in life. Use common sense.
Or just blame everyone else, for your inability to think………

 

[random]

The recent accident on that movie set, got me thinking. Sorry no link, but it has been in the news enough that I imagine almost all of us have heard about it.

Isn't it the responsibility of anyone holding a guy to verify it is safe, regardless of what anyone tells him?

I mean, shouldn't an actor have to verify a gun is safe if he holds it?

I realize others are given responsibility to provide safe firearms on a movie set, but still, shouldn't the actor also verify for himself. AND if he does not know how, shouldn't he be required to do a "show me" to the person in charge of these weapons?

I have some guns in my home that I really do not use, but would never put them in someone's hands if that person were not able to verify they are safe. Or not smart enough to know not to trust me...because obviously trust doesn't work...

I thought the same, but have since learned that apparently actors are, by union rules, prohibited from checking the chamber of a firearm handed to them on set. That is purely the responsibility of the armorer. I disagree, and when I directed a short film (in NM, incidentally) that had a real gun on set, I taught the basics and insisted on absolute compliance on penalty of fully shutting down the production.

That said, there are FOUR basic rules, and it requires that ALL FOUR be violated for something like this to happen.

Some additional details that haven't been noted here:
- There was a crew walk-off earlier that day specifically due to the poor safety being exercised on set.
- This particular firearm apparently had previously "misfired" three times.
- The armorer was apparently new to the job.
- Baldwin was the producer (meaning that responsibility business-wise is ultimately his)

There was plenty of opportunities to have prevented this. Taking into account both his actions in handling the gun and his negligence as producer regarding the other items, I think that Baldwin should be charged with at least criminal negligence. I doubt that will actually happen though.