“As far as the blame goes, the armorer is the number one person to blame.”
If you handed me a firearm and told me it was clear, then I didn't check myself (or at least ask you to check it in front of me) and shot someone with it, I would have thought the the number one person to blame would be me. No?
Here is the James Comey version of why Baldwin will probably get off:
"Although we did not find clear evidence that Mr Baldwin or his collegues intended to violate laws governing the handling of a lethal weapon, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling the weapon.
There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Mr Baldwin’s position, or in the position of those employees with whom he was working on this film, should have known that a film set was no place for that kind of carelessness.
While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the safety culture of the this film set in general, and with respect to use of lethal weapons in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for gun safety found elsewhere in the Film Industry.
Although we don’t normally make public our recommendations to the prosecutors, we frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate, given the evidence. In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.
Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of lethal weapons, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling and ignoring gun safety rules, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of a gun in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to civil or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.
As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.
I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout this investigation. What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear."
(with modifications of the July 5, 2016 Remarks prepared for delivery at press briefing.)
“As far as the blame goes, the armorer is the number one person to blame.”
If you handed me a firearm and told me it was clear, then I didn't check myself (or at least ask you to check it in front of me) and shot someone with it, I would have thought the the number one person to blame would be me. No?
Here is the James Comey version of why Baldwin will probably get off:
"Although we did not find clear evidence that Mr Baldwin or his collegues intended to violate laws governing the handling of a lethal weapon, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling the weapon.
There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Mr Baldwin’s position, or in the position of those employees with whom he was working on this film, should have known that a film set was no place for that kind of carelessness.
While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the safety culture of the this film set in general, and with respect to use of lethal weapons in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for gun safety found elsewhere in the Film Industry.
Although we don’t normally make public our recommendations to the prosecutors, we frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate, given the evidence. In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.
Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of lethal weapons, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling and ignoring gun safety rules, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of a gun in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to civil or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.
As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.
I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout this investigation. What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear."
(with modifications of the July 5, 2016 Remarks prepared for delivery at press briefing.)
from: Washington, D.C.
FBI National Press Office
(202) 324-3691