But,… you know what, I’m gonna keep on saying it: if yours is the attitude typical of the layperson, there is so much more at stake here than just whether Alec Baldwin is guilty of manslaughter. What is at stake, it seems, is whether Americans believe that laws are made by legislatures and judges accountable to We the People, or whether industry makes its own laws, which we mere humans must simply abide by.
That thought frankly scares me. I don’t know why it doesn’t scare you.
I mean, if I get run over by a self-driving Uber tomorrow, I don’t want Uber to get off by saying “Hey, as industry leaders, we decided it was safe to test this vehicle on a public road. Don’t like it? Maybe next time don’t be riding your bike in the road without radar reflective outerwear next time.”
Because that is what happens when we cede to industry the power of determining what is or is not negligent: we cede our very lives to them.
No one is saying that. In general, in a controlled area, like a play, a show, or a movie- you can fire blanks at each other all you want- assuming you stay a safe distance, etc.
The question her is whether or not he was criminally negligent. And then you have to define what is and is not normal and thus negligent or no.
Let us take fencing- a fencer goes in, and due to the fact his mask has rusted out , a foil goes through and blinds him. Yes, hitting and stabbing at each other with pointy metal sticks can be dangerous- but such dangers are known and expected and minimized if the industry safety rules are followed.
Race car drivers drive well over the speed limit- on closed tracks. if there is an accident and a driver is killed- that fact that they were driving over the states speed limit can not come into question. or better not, anyway. Should a cop sit there with a speed camera and write tickets at the Indy 500?
If you hit someone repeatedly in the face- that’s assault and battery- unless you are wearing glovse and in a boxing ring and following the rules.
And that’s what we do every day in many many sports- race car driving, fencing, boxing, wrestling, etc etc. And in entertainment- swordfights on stage- gun battles with blanks- car crashes with stuntmen, throwing someone through a plate glass window (made of special stuff, of course). In every action films dozens and dozens of mundane laws are violated- car chases, fights, etc.
You are I think confusing laws created by legislatures and interpreted by judges, regulating industry practices, which are of course a good thing when done with actual expert input, and a jury of laypeople without expertise deciding what industry practices should be, which frankly scares me.
If industry practices are wholesale negligent, why shouldn’t a jury of lay people, after hearing evidence offered within an adversarial system, be permitted to decide whether industry practices are adequate?
It’s the opposite that scares me. I absolutely do not want legislatures and lawmakers getting involved in my medical health, for example. But look at all these laws policing women’s reproductive health. It’s despicable.
“If” is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence. Are you saying that gun safety practices on movie sets are wholesale negligent? Got any evidence for that?
Of course Baldwin didnt “act like a responsible person” that in no way indicates or even suggests that he is guilty of killing the director of photography.
It has nothing to do with any crime. Similarly his cussing out of his daughter (or whoever it was) over the phone years ago has nothing to do with the DoP’s death.
So… not a fan of the FDA, for example? You’d prefer, for example, that Snake Oil Salesmen self-regulate? Homeopaths? Chiropractors? No licensing standards for medical doctors?
I prefer third party experts in the field determine the standards, not lawmakers or legislatures. Lawmakers and legislatures are clearly unable to be trusted to be non-partisan.
You start off with an assumption that places a cart before the horse.
A jury of laypeople uneducated in a particular field or even about risks and benefits, hearing different hired guns of “experts” and being manipulated as well as possible, emotionally and otherwise, by different teams of lawyers, is a very poor method to determine what is and is not “wholesale negligence.”
I think you are confusing lawmakers passing legislation to further private (industry) ends for a problem with laws in general. The problem there isn’t that legislators are making laws, it’s that they’re making laws on behalf of industry rather than for the public good.
But you don’t fix anything by cutting legislators out of lawmaking, you just cut out the middle man and let industry manipulate the levers of power directly.
This is a particularly poor example. I am, in fact, a fan of the FDA. I am not a fan of lawmakers who have outlawed the abortion pill that was approved by the FDA. Their justification for trying to ban it is laughable.
So yeah, I do want those lawmakers and legislators to shut the fuck up and sit down.
I’m going to bow out of this conversation in this thread for now. I am not interested enough to start a new one (a new thread on this side topic) myself, but if someone else does, perhaps I will join.
By way of having been an expert witness and being otherwise familiar with many cases I recognize that the findings of juries about subjects they know little about can be absolutely irrational. And the things I have seen hired gun experts claim, convincingly to someone who has no way to know better, is disgusting.
My opinion is based on experience. I’ll take that over your faith.
Maybe a jury should hear whether this may be the case. But if this is the situation then it’s a seperate legal case involving SAG or some other entity that devised the allegedly negligent safety standards.
It doesnt involve Baldwin or his case other than perhaps the Rust tragedy serving as evidence that industry standards may be substandard.
ETA: i think the examples above of fencing, auto racing, and movie stunts provide excellent examples of other dangerous activities that are allowed despite the potential for injury or death if safety protocols are not properly administered (and sometimes even when they are).
Industries frequently pre-empt direct government regulation by adopting self-regulation standards. I don’t see how the film industry’s standards of handling firearms on set is that different.