11 hours ago, W2DR said:

What I don't understand is what do our fathers have anything to do with what we're talking about here?

 

Huh! You quizzed me on my experience with guns. My experience with guns WAS from my father, so right that I should give you his experience too. 

12 hours ago, Fielder said:

Trigger locks are for guns that you are not going to defend yourself with. Because they take too long to deactivate.

 

Read Noels post. On the contrary, he feels his biometric trigger lock has made the deployment of his weapon faster. 

13 hours ago, birdguy said:

That means 78% of the states have no laws requiring safe storage of firearms.  So instead of saying many states agree that safe storage is a good idea in reality many states do NOT agree that safe storage is a good idea.

 

78%... that stuns me. I recall that most Americans want stricter gun laws, hopefully, one day, when the majority actually means something, that will be manifest. 

 

Quote

 

I think in any case a wrongful death suit will be filed against Baldwin's production company and the three primary principals involved, Baldwin himself, the AD and the armorer.  Maybe others since the weapon was one of several on a table outside the building, unattended, for some period of time, as has been reported.

Probably out of court settlements will be reached.

 

 

You might be right Noel, but I note that the deceased ladies father has stated publicly that he doesn't regard Baldwin as culpable. Not sure what the ramifications would be of that admittance in terms of any damages claim. 

Edited October 27, 20214 yr by martin-w

12 hours ago, Fielder said:

Longbows were actually prohibited by royal decree.

 

Which time period was that? 

"All English males over the age of 14 are to carry out two hours of longbow practice every week, supervised by the local clergy. This law dates from the middle ages when there was no army and is still in place today."

Still in place today... I'm rushing out to the woods with the Vicar now, to practice with my longbow. 😁

https://thelincolnite.co.uk/2012/04/lincoln-lawyer-ancient-laws-that-still-exist/

12 hours ago, W2DR said:

Indeed, the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution does say we have a right to bear arms. But it has nothing to do with self defense. The second amendment was designed to allow the people to prevent the establishment of a tyrannical government. Self defense is not "guaranteed".

 

Very true! And I recall the second part of the sentence is usually ignored. 

The right to bear arms "as part of a well organized militia" I'm paraphrasing, cant remember the exact wording. 

 

In other news, according to the video below, one of the camera men who was on the scene, said that Baldwin was being "so careful" and the friend of the deceased lady said that there is no way Baldwin was responsible. So that's both her father and her friend that aren't blaming Baldwin. 

The lawyers opinion in the video is interesting. Paraphrasing... he said that it appears from the affidavit that there have been a lot of protocols that have been followed and it wasn't a reckless situation, so in that respect Baldwin seems not to be liable. He went on to say that if the company was negligent in hiring someone who didn't follow a protocol or the set itself was unsafe the producer would share some liability.  

 

 

 

Edited October 27, 20214 yr by martin-w

3 hours ago, martin-w said:

 

Which time period was that? 

"All English males over the age of 14 are to carry out two hours of longbow practice every week, supervised by the local clergy. This law dates from the middle ages when there was no army and is still in place today."

Still in place today... I'm rushing out to the woods with the Vicar now, to practice with my longbow. 😁

https://thelincolnite.co.uk/2012/04/lincoln-lawyer-ancient-laws-that-still-exist/

One of the Kings outlawing longbows was Edward I (grandson of King John), he and his father Henry I overthrough the non royal ruler of England, Simon de Montfort. de Montfort was a reformer who championed rights to bear arms. Edward I son Edward II tried to outlaw hunting deer in most of the forests of England, all of them from Yorkshire (Barnsdale) on down. If there was a Robin Hood it was probably in Edward II's time because Edward II was descending down to Sherwood Forrest on a few separate known occasions on hunting trips.

5 hours ago, martin-w said:

 

78%... that stuns me. I recall that most Americans want stricter gun laws, hopefully, one day, when the majority actually means something, that will be manifest. 

I would love to expound on this and on the Second Amendment Martin but that would turn this into a political debate and close the thread.  After my breakfast I will PM you on my thoughts.

Noel

Legal Analysis: Alec Baldwin Situation Beginning to Look a Lot Like Manslaughter (legalinsurrection.com)

Not looking good for Mr. Baldwin.  Updated analysis goes into New Mexico law specifically regarding involuntary manslaughter. It seems this case meets all the requirements to charge and convict on involuntary manslaughter. There is even relevant New Mexico case law about a guy who was convicted for involuntary manslaughter for shooting someone with a gun he thought was unloaded. The conviction stood on appeal to the NM supreme court:

It could have made no difference to the trial of a charge of involuntary manslaughter as to who loaded the gun … . All that it is necessary to establish for involuntary manslaughter by the use of a loaded firearm is that a defendant had in his hands a gun which at some time had been loaded and that he handled it … without due caution and circumspection and that death resulted.

He also makes a good point regarding others' responsibility:

It is, indeed, possible that other people also bear some responsibility, perhaps even criminal responsibility, for this tragedy.  Perhaps safety rules were broken, professional duties were failed, or adequate resources to ensure safety were not provided.

None of that, however, at all diminishes the responsibility, under law, for Baldwin to handle that inherently dangerous instrument, the gun, with due caution and circumspection—and that he failed to do when he pointed the gun at Ms. Hutchins and pressed the trigger, without first personally ensuring that the weapon did not contain a live round.

Whatever mistakes others might have made previously, had Baldwin broken even one less of the fundamental gun safety rules—had he not pointed the gun at Ms. Hutchins, or had he not pressed the trigger, or had he assumed the gun contained live ammo until he personally determined otherwise—Ms. Hutchins would not have died from that bullet on that day.  Her fate ultimately rested entirely in the hands of Baldwin. And, it appears, he failed her and failed the law of New Mexico.

 

6 hours ago, martin-w said:

And I recall the second part of the sentence is usually ignored.

Or misinterpreted. The other interpretation is, I believe, that the right to bear arms is to be ready for the possibility of having to join a well-regulated militia. Certainly, the wording of that part of the Second Amendment is a bit ambiguous so it's important to read the exact wording of the whole sentence.

Edited October 27, 20214 yr by dmwalker

OK,  I will ask that discussion of ANYTHING of a political nature be curtailed.  We don't need to debate the 2nd Amendment.  Many different "opinions" exist on the subject.  It has been interrupted by the Supreme Court several times.

50 minutes ago, rjack1282 said:

And, it appears, he failed her and failed the law of New Mexico.

And failed himself as having the ultimate responsibility of the man with the finger on the trigger not verifying the gun was loaded.  Gross negligence.  That goes all the way back to what I said on page 1 of this thread.

Noel

Edited October 27, 20214 yr by birdguy

5 minutes ago, birdguy said:

Gross negligence.

You must also have a strong opinion about the armorer's negligence. Could you, please, let us know your thoughts about that?

32 minutes ago, dmwalker said:

Or misinterpreted. The other interpretation is, I believe, that the right to bear arms is to be ready for the possibility of having to join a well-regulated militia. Certainly, the wording of that part of the Second Amendment is a bit ambiguous so it's important to read the exact wording of the whole sentence.

and, perhaps more importantly, US Supreme Court cases considering the meaning and interpretation of the amendment, for example the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the "Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

2 minutes ago, kevinfirth said:

and, perhaps more importantly, US Supreme Court cases considering the meaning and interpretation of the amendment, for example the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the "Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

Can't argue with that.

 

Err... Charlie has asked that there be no debate about the second amendment people.  

A moderators job can be hard, I used to be one once. Let's make it easier for him. 👍 Comply and you get a cat point 😺