The fact that there is a camera around does not relieve a gun handler of their responsibilities to handle a gun safely.
The role of "armorer" is comparable to that of "wardrobe" or "choreographer". If a dancer kicks a baby in the face while practicing a routine, primary responsibility falls on the dancer, not the person who supplied her dance shoes nor the person who arranged the dance.
Baldwin didn’t, yes, because he hired an incompetent armorer. In normal circumstances the armorer is the person doing everything you just said needed to be done.
Properly handling a firearm is not a job that can be outsourced. The armorer is also criminally responsible, but primary responsibility always falls on the person handling the weapon.
A gun is different, it requires ammunition.
Rule #1: All guns are loaded until positively proven otherwise. The requirement of ammunition is presumed until proven otherwise.
To expect every handler of a firearm to be knowledgeable enough about guns to safely unload, confirm what ammunition is in use, and then proceed accordingly when they also have to act and deal with what comes with that is ~~insane.~~ exactly the standard expected of every single person, handling every single weapon, every single time.
FTFY. The standard of behavior when you do not positively know if a firearm is loaded or unloaded is Rule #1: All guns are loaded until positively proven otherwise.
The industry standard is that if your mind wanders while an unloaded gun is in your hand, that "unloaded" gun is to be treated as if it grew a cartridge while you weren't paying attention, and is to be treated as a loaded weapon until reverified.
Baldwin is guilty because he failed to employ a good armorer who could do their job.
No, Baldwin is civilly liable for that. He is guilty because he negligently discharged a firearm, resulting in the death of another person.
Safe handling cannot be outsourced to a "professional". The purpose of hiring an armorer is to add an additional layer of safety, not to replace the handling skills of the actor.
If you want to make it so that the actor is not responsible for his actions, you hire a specifically trained individual who is capable of performing those actions. In the business, this person is known as a "stunt double". You hire a stunt double to perform actions that the principal actor is not capable of performing. Baldwin's decision to perform the actions himself makes him responsible for the consequences of his performance.
If the actor (or double) performing those "stunts" is so inept that he kills someone in the process, he is criminally liable for his reckless behavior.
to think otherwise is straight up victim blaming.
Baldwin is not a victim. He is a perpetrator. That another person's incompetence contributed to the death merely means there was an additional perpetrator. The armorer's incompetence does not absolve Baldwin's own incompetence.
Not because he pulled the trigger,
I am not willing to make that concession. Firearms are too simple to operate, and their risks too well known to argue that the person handling them can have zero responsibility for their operation.
If I pick up a knife on set, and I make no effort to verify its blade is dulled, or it's retractable blade functional, I am responsible if I cut or stab someone with that knife.
If I pick up a hammer on set and bash someone over the head with it, not bothering to check that it's a rubber hammer, I'm responsible for the injuries and damage I cause.
A gun is no different. If I haven't verified that the gun is non-functional, I'm responsible for whatever comes out of the barrel. People have been killed by blanks, either fired at closer range than they are safe, or behind projectiles stuck in barrels.
The industry safety standard is summarized in 4 redundant rules, intended to prevent the discharge, or, if that fails, to ensure that discharge does not cause injury or unacceptable damage. A handler violating any of these rules is negligent, but they have to violate all of them before someone gets hurt.
Yes, the movie industry does, indeed, allow us to violate safety rules. Many industries do this with all sorts of dangerous operations.
But, we can do this only when the safety measure provided by that rule is replaced with an equivalent protection. Baldwin broke all four rules, and did not replace any of them with an equivalent measure.
Turbine engines (jets) do not burn leaded fuels. Jet fuel is similar to kerosene or diesel fuel, with certain additives to meet aviation needs.
The overwhelming majority of piston powered aircraft use 100LL, which has a relatively tiny amount of lead compared to automotive fuels of the 1970s. The FAA has recently certified 100UL for use in all aircraft, but production does not yet meet demand.
Jet-A has higher energy density and is cheaper than 100LL or 100UL, but can't be used in spark-ignition engines.
Compression-ignition ("diesel") piston engines are coming on the market as new and retrofit kits, allowing the use of Jet-A in general aviation aircraft.
We didn't "switch" to unleaded gas in the 1970s. We added unleaded, required gas stations to offer it, and vehicle manufacturers were prohibited from making new cars that required it.
Leaded gas was still being offered at some stations well into the 1990s.
Guillotines are always an option.
Everything you just said is only true for stocks that pay dividends now, or may pay dividends in the future.
It is not true for companies with zero intention of ever paying dividends.
Even if the company went bankrupt, you own a sliver of their real product
Historically, when that happens, the creditors walk away with the assets. The shareholders get nothing.
but the stock itself is intrinsically tied to the literal ownership of those profit generating assets.
That's the scam. It's not. In practice, the sole value of a zero-dividend stock is the speculative value.
it is not tied in theory or in practice to something of perceptibly equal realized value.
Electricity has value. Crypto value is intrinsically tied to mining costs. Even if you have access to a free source of power like your own solar panels, you have to weigh the cost effectiveness of mining against the revenue from using your panels to backfeed the grid, selling power back to the power companies.
Because crypto is tied to something of utilitarian value, and zero-dividend stocks are tied only to the whims of investors, the stocks are actually a significantly greater scam than the crypto.
There are plenty of places I can take you where your $20 bill isn't worth the paper it's printed on. There is nothing particularly special about a dollar bill that makes it fundamentally different from any other intangible object.
Again, the only difference is the size of the community that shares the belief. The dollar has a much larger user base than crypto. Crypto has a much larger user base than the Albanian Lek.
Your comments about Emperor Norton and the Ruble demonstrate my point. The value of these currencies is entirely in the minds of the people using them. None of the items I mentioned have any significant intrinsic value. Their value is to the community that uses the .
I was not suggesting that any of these items was a currency, merely that they derive their value in the same way that currency does.
It is real because the people who use it believe it is real. Same goes for zero-dividend stocks, crypto, Yu-Gi-Oh cards, Beanie Babies, etc. The difference between currency and any ofbthese others is only in the number of people involved.
You can point to government regulations for money. You can point to SEC regulations for stocks and other securities. I can point to algorithmic scarcity for crypto. And I am sure there are standards that various collector communities deem important. But, the fundamental concept value for any of these others is that the people using it believe it has value.
Money is real in exactly the same way that zero-dividend shares are real, or that cryptocurrency is real.
The difference is that the government can freely adjust the value of money, and anyone can create shares. Cryptocurrency can only be generated per the conditions of an algorithm.
Correct. However, you will still be judged by the standards of the original ruleset, and not by how well you followed your own.
Baldwin did the firearm equivalent of cruising through a red light at 80 miles an hour without asking if anyone had actually closed the intersection. His excuse that it was a movie set does not exempt him from liability.