4
4
0
Law
Justice
Police
Culture
Posted 3 y ago
Responses: 3
2
2
0
TOTAL NONSENSE.
ALL comparisons of these two cases are complete nonsense because all the major legal issues are completely different. The ONLY similarity between the two cases is that someone was shot and the person who shot them says he/she didn't intend to shoot anyone. On that thin and nearly irrelevant basis, we have ignorant fools pretending that the two cases are morally and/or legally identical.
ALL comparisons of these two cases are complete nonsense because all the major legal issues are completely different. The ONLY similarity between the two cases is that someone was shot and the person who shot them says he/she didn't intend to shoot anyone. On that thin and nearly irrelevant basis, we have ignorant fools pretending that the two cases are morally and/or legally identical.
(2)
(0)
CWO4 Terrence Clark
There is a cliched phrase going around that is like fingernails on a blackboard to me. Perhaps this is the place for it. Tell me you didn't comprehend the opinions expressed without telling me you didn't comprehend the opinions expressed.
(0)
(0)
CWO4 Terrence Clark
Capt Gregory Prickett
As broad as you desire. The three of us will never agree on this.
As broad as you desire. The three of us will never agree on this.
(0)
(0)
CWO4 Terrence Clark
Capt Gregory Prickett
Couldn't find a meme I liked to slide in here so I'll let you have the last word this time. Not that I agree, of course.
Couldn't find a meme I liked to slide in here so I'll let you have the last word this time. Not that I agree, of course.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
There is a difference between a seasoned police officer and a Hollywood actor...
Kim Potter was a police officer with 26 years of service when she accidentally killed Daunte Wright. Her manslaughter conviction from reckless use of a firearm was based not only on negligence as a uniformed officer on duty, but also from her being a field training officer to a new police graduate during the incident.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2021/04/13/heres-what-we-know-about-kim-potter-the-minnesota-officer-who-shot-daunte-wright/
Kim Potter was a police officer with 26 years of service when she accidentally killed Daunte Wright. Her manslaughter conviction from reckless use of a firearm was based not only on negligence as a uniformed officer on duty, but also from her being a field training officer to a new police graduate during the incident.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2021/04/13/heres-what-we-know-about-kim-potter-the-minnesota-officer-who-shot-daunte-wright/
Here’s What We Know About Kim Potter, The Minnesota Officer Who Shot Daunte Wright
Potter was a 26-year veteran of the force who was training another officer at the time of the fatal shooting.
(2)
(0)
CWO4 Terrence Clark
LTC Eugene Chu
I appreciate the Forbes article. Seems to support the idea of an accident.
I appreciate the Forbes article. Seems to support the idea of an accident.
(0)
(0)
CWO4 Terrence Clark
Capt Gregory Prickett I often admire your argumentive adroitness and say so. (whether I agree with you or not) This discussion must have caught you after a long and trying day.
(0)
(0)
MSG Thomas Currie
Capt Gregory Prickett - The name of the crime would vary from one state to another, but there is no doubt that Potter's action would be a crime in every state that I have ever seen. An act can be both an "accident" and a "crime" at the same time -- intent is not required for certain crimes.
The shooting on the Rust movie set is a much more complicated matter where multiple people made multiple mistakes. The vast majority of people commenting about the Rust shooting are pro-gun people who want to blame Alec Baldwin mostly because he has been vocally anti-gun. Rather than admit they just hate him for his politics they fall back on citing the short versions of Cooper's famous "four rules of firearms safety" as their logic for blaming Baldwin -- who, after all, did actually fire the gun. The problem with this simplistic approach is that the people citing Cooper's Four Rules fail to comprehend that those rules are applicable to an entirely different situation and that there are well-established rules for handling prop guns on a movie set that are completely different. The rules for properly handling a prop gun on a movie set were not followed on the Rust movie set that day (apparently they were frequently not followed). The failures of at least three people seem likely to rise to the level of a crime. Two of those people are easy to identify. The two identified people are the Armorer and the Assistant Director. Those are the two people who are SPECIFICALLY responsible for checking and verifying that the gun was not loaded.
The third person whose actions almost certainly constitute a crime has not been identified (and probably never will be identified). That would be whoever brought live ammo onto the set and loaded that live ammo into the gun. Unfortunately much of the sworn testimony so far is contradictory and probably false. IF we believe the Armorer, she properly loaded the gun with dummy ammunition, and properly checked it, then failed to keep the gun secure, which supposedly gave someone else the opportunity to replace one or more of the dummy rounds with a live round. Then the Assistant Director got the gun from the unsecured cart and failed to check it before giving it to the actor.
We know that the Assistant Director did get the gun from the unsecure cart and did fail to check the gun before giving it to the actor.
Actors are NOT supposed to check the gun they are given. The correct procedures for a movie set assume that actors don't generally know enough about guns to check them correctly. The correct procedure would have been for the Armorer to load and check the gun. The Armorer then takes the gun to the director or assistant director for the scene where the gun will be used. The armorer checks the gun again showing the director that the gun is set up as it is supposed to be for that scene. Then the director and/or the armorer take the gun to the actor, check the gun again showing the actor that they gun is set up as it is supposed to be, and the actor takes the gun for the scene. The actor never "checks" the gun because actors are not allowed to tamper with guns and the only way to check the gun would be tampering. In the shooting on the Rust movie set, the actor's error was that he did not actually SEE the assistant director check the gun but took the assistant director's word that the gun had been checked. Since the actor is not expected to know how to check the gun, his failure to notice that the assistant director failed to check it properly does not seem to be criminally negligent or wanton.
There is one more person with responsibility: The Producer.
The producer has overall responsibility for everything and everyone in the production. The producer hires (or approves hiring) the entire cast and crew, including the inexperienced and apparently incompetent armorer. The producer sets or approves all policies are procedures throughout the production. The armorer claims that she had requested additional safety procedures and that her requests were denied. From multiple reports, it seems that the cast and crew frequently cut corners in many aspects of the production. On a movie set, the producer is in the position equivalent to the commander of a military unit - responsible for everything his people do or fail to do. There is absolutely no doubt that the producer has tort liability for the shooting but whether or not that rises to the level of criminal responsibility would depend on exactly what the authorities can find and what a prosecutor thinks he can prove to a jury. Absent some surprise new discovery, I doubt the New Mexico prosecutor will try to charge the producer with a crime. The producer (or really his insurance company) will pay out millions for this shooting, but I doubt he will go to jail.
The shooting on the Rust movie set is a much more complicated matter where multiple people made multiple mistakes. The vast majority of people commenting about the Rust shooting are pro-gun people who want to blame Alec Baldwin mostly because he has been vocally anti-gun. Rather than admit they just hate him for his politics they fall back on citing the short versions of Cooper's famous "four rules of firearms safety" as their logic for blaming Baldwin -- who, after all, did actually fire the gun. The problem with this simplistic approach is that the people citing Cooper's Four Rules fail to comprehend that those rules are applicable to an entirely different situation and that there are well-established rules for handling prop guns on a movie set that are completely different. The rules for properly handling a prop gun on a movie set were not followed on the Rust movie set that day (apparently they were frequently not followed). The failures of at least three people seem likely to rise to the level of a crime. Two of those people are easy to identify. The two identified people are the Armorer and the Assistant Director. Those are the two people who are SPECIFICALLY responsible for checking and verifying that the gun was not loaded.
The third person whose actions almost certainly constitute a crime has not been identified (and probably never will be identified). That would be whoever brought live ammo onto the set and loaded that live ammo into the gun. Unfortunately much of the sworn testimony so far is contradictory and probably false. IF we believe the Armorer, she properly loaded the gun with dummy ammunition, and properly checked it, then failed to keep the gun secure, which supposedly gave someone else the opportunity to replace one or more of the dummy rounds with a live round. Then the Assistant Director got the gun from the unsecured cart and failed to check it before giving it to the actor.
We know that the Assistant Director did get the gun from the unsecure cart and did fail to check the gun before giving it to the actor.
Actors are NOT supposed to check the gun they are given. The correct procedures for a movie set assume that actors don't generally know enough about guns to check them correctly. The correct procedure would have been for the Armorer to load and check the gun. The Armorer then takes the gun to the director or assistant director for the scene where the gun will be used. The armorer checks the gun again showing the director that the gun is set up as it is supposed to be for that scene. Then the director and/or the armorer take the gun to the actor, check the gun again showing the actor that they gun is set up as it is supposed to be, and the actor takes the gun for the scene. The actor never "checks" the gun because actors are not allowed to tamper with guns and the only way to check the gun would be tampering. In the shooting on the Rust movie set, the actor's error was that he did not actually SEE the assistant director check the gun but took the assistant director's word that the gun had been checked. Since the actor is not expected to know how to check the gun, his failure to notice that the assistant director failed to check it properly does not seem to be criminally negligent or wanton.
There is one more person with responsibility: The Producer.
The producer has overall responsibility for everything and everyone in the production. The producer hires (or approves hiring) the entire cast and crew, including the inexperienced and apparently incompetent armorer. The producer sets or approves all policies are procedures throughout the production. The armorer claims that she had requested additional safety procedures and that her requests were denied. From multiple reports, it seems that the cast and crew frequently cut corners in many aspects of the production. On a movie set, the producer is in the position equivalent to the commander of a military unit - responsible for everything his people do or fail to do. There is absolutely no doubt that the producer has tort liability for the shooting but whether or not that rises to the level of criminal responsibility would depend on exactly what the authorities can find and what a prosecutor thinks he can prove to a jury. Absent some surprise new discovery, I doubt the New Mexico prosecutor will try to charge the producer with a crime. The producer (or really his insurance company) will pay out millions for this shooting, but I doubt he will go to jail.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
Money is the factor for one person, the other person wasn't that lucky to be rich CWO4 Terrence Clark , and things are more one sided against the police officer.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google