What law is there that defines this responsibility? Modern society operates on the idea of outsourced responsibility. Why are guns uniquely different? Why should we expect an actor to personally know about firearm safety and have a personal responsibility to ensure a firearm is in a safe state? A strange pattern I've seen in discussions around guns over the years, those with gun knowledge assume everyone has or should have the same knowledge. But this is unreasonable.
Your comment is unanswerable because the questions you ask contain within them assumptions that are false. Modern society does not rely on outsourced responsibility. Guns are not uniquely different. Negligence does not differ for actors. And the idea that people should handle firearms without becoming knowledgeable in them is total bull puckey.
EDITED TO ADD:
With the caveat that IANANML... the bottom line is that "Involuntary manslaughter consists . . . of a lawful act which might produce death . . . without due caution and circumspection." This is satisfied by "Negligent use of a deadly weapon [including] endangering the safety of another by handling or using a firearm or other deadly weapon in a negligent manner," which "means omitting to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do."
A prudent and reasonable man would not point a loaded weapon at a cinematographer and pull the trigger, or even have his finger on the trigger, even in jest, and certainly not do so without verifying that the round in the chamber was a dummy round.
The fact that there had already been two negligent discharges mere days before makes this all the more repugnant. Not only was Baldwin negligent, he knew he was negligent, and did nothing to fix it.
>Modern society does not rely on outsourced responsibility
So you personally inspect your car for suitability, your food for safety, all amusement parks, buildings, tools, etc that you come into contact with? Yes, modern society would not be possible without outsourced responsibility.
>Negligence does not differ for actors.
Of course it does. Those with more knowledge and training are held to higher standards in specific contexts. That's why we have licensing and such. The question is how do guns fit into this context.
I'm a Harvard-trained lawyer with over 15 years of criminal litigation experience, including in homicide. I have a former client right now serving a sentence for involuntary manslaughter (he was originally charged with murder).
You don't need to listen to me. I have neither the ability nor the desire to force you to listen to me. But I promise you I know what I'm talking about.
Why does every discussion concerning emotionally charged issues devolve into some version of this? Why can't it just be about offering arguments to clarify the landscape?
This isn't about an emotionally charged issue. The discussion is about the legal test for negligence. It is an objective standard: what a reasonable person would do. The specifics of the individual are irrelevant.
But what does a "reasonable person" standard say when it comes to specialist knowledge? Why would a reasonable person not expect that an armorer who is responsible for ensuring the proper state of the gun is sufficient "due caution and circumspection"?
Responding to your edit, the issue reduces to what counts as "due caution and circumspection" for someone who isn't trained in the usage of firearms. Why is having an armorer who is responsible for ensuring the proper state of the gun not sufficient "due caution and circumspection"?
The way I see it, it’s not unlike the expression “Workplace safety rules are written in blood”. It’s taken a century of fatalities and refinement of procedures to come to the modern set of 4 gun safety rules. They exist because of those countless deaths over the years by those who didn’t follow them. The morality of it speaks for itself.
Given how much thought, refinement and bloodshed are behind those rules, to not follow them seems immoral. Anyone handling a gun has a moral obligation to following the safety rules. Do to otherwise is criminal negligence.
The issue isn't morality, but one of legal responsibility. What is the legal theory for an actor's personal responsibility to ensure the safety of a prop gun before using it?
The US has a kind of older code of guns organically and manufactured in organizations that need people to handle guns. If you are not careful I think you are going to talk past people from places where that code seems universal.
I.e. I can understand the perspective that not checking a gun you are handed is always gross negligence even though I have friends that I don't think would know that.
