Alec Baldwin fatally shot someone on movie set with gun mishap

[Anonymous]

I can't believe AB did that horrific interview. What an awful person he is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a reason for the word hair trigger. It means once you Vick the gun it doesn’t take much for it to fire. It shouldn’t have been live in the first place but he should have checked anyway.

But why? If the gun was hair trigger and would shoot anytime after it had been cocked, it didn't really matter because it was a cold gun. There were no live bullets anywhere on the set, certainly none in the gun. They were rehearsing the gun draw, so he would probably draw it multiple times. Every time would be perfectly safe because the prop gun was cold.

Except there was a live bullet in it.

And that's why you should always check before aiming, cocking, etc.

I think that’s an easy accusation to level in hindsight but in a professional environment people assume that other professional are doing their job. I mean that’s basically the core of what an armorer does.

In the interview the fellow that supplies some of the ammo said their job was to shake each round to make sure it was a blank. I think it would be reasonable for the armorer to do the same on the other side of that transaction. Clearly that wasn’t done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Alec Baldwin was in charge of the set. He created the atmosphere that led to this. Many people quit the day before because of conditions, resulting in an untrained “armorer” having a loaded weapon on the scene.
Also, the very first rule of gun safety is to treat EVERY gun as if loaded, and never point a weapon at anyone you don’t intend to shoot. Every person handling the gun is RESPONSIBLE for ensuring the gun is safe - this includes Baldwin.
Also, the screen actors guild regulations make it clear:
“Treat all weapons as though they are loaded and/or ready to use. Do not play with weapons and never point one at anyone, including yourself. Follow the directions of the Property Master and/or Weapons Handler regarding all weapons.”
If Baldwin was following the regulations, no one would be dead. End of story.

When you have more of a grasp of facts, then come back to us.

These are the facts. Sorry it doesn’t support your narrative that Baldwin is innocent.

No, Baldwin wasn't in charge of the set. That's a fake fact. Not a true fact.

No narrative. Stick to facts next time.

Oh, you got me. He wasn’t technically in charge of the set. But he is the famous lead actor being his typical a-hole self by all accounts.
Regardless, it does not change the fact that according to regulations, he was REQUIRED to “Treat all weapons as though they are loaded and/or ready to use. Do not play with weapons and never point one at anyone, including yourself. Follow the directions of the Property Master and/or Weapons Handler regarding all weapons.”
He failed to follow regulations, blatantly disregarding them, causing the loss of human life. He is at fault.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Alec Baldwin was in charge of the set. He created the atmosphere that led to this. Many people quit the day before because of conditions, resulting in an untrained “armorer” having a loaded weapon on the scene.
Also, the very first rule of gun safety is to treat EVERY gun as if loaded, and never point a weapon at anyone you don’t intend to shoot. Every person handling the gun is RESPONSIBLE for ensuring the gun is safe - this includes Baldwin.
Also, the screen actors guild regulations make it clear:
“Treat all weapons as though they are loaded and/or ready to use. Do not play with weapons and never point one at anyone, including yourself. Follow the directions of the Property Master and/or Weapons Handler regarding all weapons.”
If Baldwin was following the regulations, no one would be dead. End of story.

When you have more of a grasp of facts, then come back to us.

These are the facts. Sorry it doesn’t support your narrative that Baldwin is innocent.

No, Baldwin wasn't in charge of the set. That's a fake fact. Not a true fact.

No narrative. Stick to facts next time.

Oh, you got me. He wasn’t technically in charge of the set. But he is the famous lead actor being his typical a-hole self by all accounts.
Regardless, it does not change the fact that according to regulations, he was REQUIRED to “Treat all weapons as though they are loaded and/or ready to use. Do not play with weapons and never point one at anyone, including yourself. Follow the directions of the Property Master and/or Weapons Handler regarding all weapons.”
He failed to follow regulations, blatantly disregarding them, causing the loss of human life. He is at fault.

If you say so. I don't see facts that show that. He said he never pulled the trigger. Maybe his finger slipped unintentionally, that's possible, I don't know. But he seems to have treated the gun as you keep quoting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a reason for the word hair trigger. It means once you Vick the gun it doesn’t take much for it to fire. It shouldn’t have been live in the first place but he should have checked anyway.

But why? If the gun was hair trigger and would shoot anytime after it had been cocked, it didn't really matter because it was a cold gun. There were no live bullets anywhere on the set, certainly none in the gun. They were rehearsing the gun draw, so he would probably draw it multiple times. Every time would be perfectly safe because the prop gun was cold.

Except there was a live bullet in it.

And that's why you should always check before aiming, cocking, etc.

I think that’s an easy accusation to level in hindsight but in a professional environment people assume that other professional are doing their job. I mean that’s basically the core of what an armorer does.

In the interview the fellow that supplies some of the ammo said their job was to shake each round to make sure it was a blank. I think it would be reasonable for the armorer to do the same on the other side of that transaction. Clearly that wasn’t done.

I hear you, but for me it's sort of like coming to a traffic intersection when walking or driving. I never assume other people are followingbtbevrules and signals. I look both ways and allow for human error. Same when boating. Same for guns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Alec Baldwin was in charge of the set. He created the atmosphere that led to this. Many people quit the day before because of conditions, resulting in an untrained “armorer” having a loaded weapon on the scene.
Also, the very first rule of gun safety is to treat EVERY gun as if loaded, and never point a weapon at anyone you don’t intend to shoot. Every person handling the gun is RESPONSIBLE for ensuring the gun is safe - this includes Baldwin.
Also, the screen actors guild regulations make it clear:
“Treat all weapons as though they are loaded and/or ready to use. Do not play with weapons and never point one at anyone, including yourself. Follow the directions of the Property Master and/or Weapons Handler regarding all weapons.”
If Baldwin was following the regulations, no one would be dead. End of story.

When you have more of a grasp of facts, then come back to us.

These are the facts. Sorry it doesn’t support your narrative that Baldwin is innocent.

No, Baldwin wasn't in charge of the set. That's a fake fact. Not a true fact.

No narrative. Stick to facts next time.

Oh, you got me. He wasn’t technically in charge of the set. But he is the famous lead actor being his typical a-hole self by all accounts.
Regardless, it does not change the fact that according to regulations, he was REQUIRED to “Treat all weapons as though they are loaded and/or ready to use. Do not play with weapons and never point one at anyone, including yourself. Follow the directions of the Property Master and/or Weapons Handler regarding all weapons.”
He failed to follow regulations, blatantly disregarding them, causing the loss of human life. He is at fault.

If you say so. I don't see facts that show that. He said he never pulled the trigger. Maybe his finger slipped unintentionally, that's possible, I don't know. But he seems to have treated the gun as you keep quoting.

He pointed a gun towards someone. Didn't check gun first. He bears at least some responsibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Alec Baldwin was in charge of the set. He created the atmosphere that led to this. Many people quit the day before because of conditions, resulting in an untrained “armorer” having a loaded weapon on the scene.
Also, the very first rule of gun safety is to treat EVERY gun as if loaded, and never point a weapon at anyone you don’t intend to shoot. Every person handling the gun is RESPONSIBLE for ensuring the gun is safe - this includes Baldwin.
Also, the screen actors guild regulations make it clear:
“Treat all weapons as though they are loaded and/or ready to use. Do not play with weapons and never point one at anyone, including yourself. Follow the directions of the Property Master and/or Weapons Handler regarding all weapons.”
If Baldwin was following the regulations, no one would be dead. End of story.

When you have more of a grasp of facts, then come back to us.

These are the facts. Sorry it doesn’t support your narrative that Baldwin is innocent.

No, Baldwin wasn't in charge of the set. That's a fake fact. Not a true fact.

No narrative. Stick to facts next time.

Oh, you got me. He wasn’t technically in charge of the set. But he is the famous lead actor being his typical a-hole self by all accounts.
Regardless, it does not change the fact that according to regulations, he was REQUIRED to “Treat all weapons as though they are loaded and/or ready to use. Do not play with weapons and never point one at anyone, including yourself. Follow the directions of the Property Master and/or Weapons Handler regarding all weapons.”
He failed to follow regulations, blatantly disregarding them, causing the loss of human life. He is at fault.

If you say so. I don't see facts that show that. He said he never pulled the trigger. Maybe his finger slipped unintentionally, that's possible, I don't know. But he seems to have treated the gun as you keep quoting.

If he didn’t point the weapon at the victims, how did the bulllet hit them? Another mystery just like how he doesn’t know how the gun went off?
No, he pointed it AT THEM, in blatant disregard of the regulations.
The regulations actually go into detail on what the precautions are if the scene requires pointing the gun at a person (cameraman) to get the right camera angle. The person is required to be behind a barrier that would prevent injury. In scenes where it appears the actor is pointing the gun at another actor, they are required to not aim at the the person - they are to aim for over the shoulder so it creates the image that the gun is pointed at the person.
This did not happen.
Not sure why you are defending him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Alec Baldwin was in charge of the set. He created the atmosphere that led to this. Many people quit the day before because of conditions, resulting in an untrained “armorer” having a loaded weapon on the scene.
Also, the very first rule of gun safety is to treat EVERY gun as if loaded, and never point a weapon at anyone you don’t intend to shoot. Every person handling the gun is RESPONSIBLE for ensuring the gun is safe - this includes Baldwin.
Also, the screen actors guild regulations make it clear:
“Treat all weapons as though they are loaded and/or ready to use. Do not play with weapons and never point one at anyone, including yourself. Follow the directions of the Property Master and/or Weapons Handler regarding all weapons.”
If Baldwin was following the regulations, no one would be dead. End of story.

When you have more of a grasp of facts, then come back to us.

These are the facts. Sorry it doesn’t support your narrative that Baldwin is innocent.

No, Baldwin wasn't in charge of the set. That's a fake fact. Not a true fact.

No narrative. Stick to facts next time.

Oh, you got me. He wasn’t technically in charge of the set. But he is the famous lead actor being his typical a-hole self by all accounts.
Regardless, it does not change the fact that according to regulations, he was REQUIRED to “Treat all weapons as though they are loaded and/or ready to use. Do not play with weapons and never point one at anyone, including yourself. Follow the directions of the Property Master and/or Weapons Handler regarding all weapons.”
He failed to follow regulations, blatantly disregarding them, causing the loss of human life. He is at fault.

If you say so. I don't see facts that show that. He said he never pulled the trigger. Maybe his finger slipped unintentionally, that's possible, I don't know. But he seems to have treated the gun as you keep quoting.

If he didn’t point the weapon at the victims, how did the bulllet hit them? Another mystery just like how he doesn’t know how the gun went off?
No, he pointed it AT THEM, in blatant disregard of the regulations.
The regulations actually go into detail on what the precautions are if the scene requires pointing the gun at a person (cameraman) to get the right camera angle. The person is required to be behind a barrier that would prevent injury. In scenes where it appears the actor is pointing the gun at another actor, they are required to not aim at the the person - they are to aim for over the shoulder so it creates the image that the gun is pointed at the person.
This did not happen.
Not sure why you are defending him.

I'm not defending him. I'm trying to keep the discussion grounded in the known facts. There are facts that we don't know. But some of the facts that we do know, you are ignoring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a reason for the word hair trigger. It means once you Vick the gun it doesn’t take much for it to fire. It shouldn’t have been live in the first place but he should have checked anyway.

But why? If the gun was hair trigger and would shoot anytime after it had been cocked, it didn't really matter because it was a cold gun. There were no live bullets anywhere on the set, certainly none in the gun. They were rehearsing the gun draw, so he would probably draw it multiple times. Every time would be perfectly safe because the prop gun was cold.

Except there was a live bullet in it.

And that's why you should always check before aiming, cocking, etc.

I think that’s an easy accusation to level in hindsight but in a professional environment people assume that other professional are doing their job. I mean that’s basically the core of what an armorer does.

In the interview the fellow that supplies some of the ammo said their job was to shake each round to make sure it was a blank. I think it would be reasonable for the armorer to do the same on the other side of that transaction. Clearly that wasn’t done.

I hear you, but for me it's sort of like coming to a traffic intersection when walking or driving. I never assume other people are followingbtbevrules and signals. I look both ways and allow for human error. Same when boating. Same for guns.

Not the same when boating. Each person has their job, the captain or the pilot doesn't do or check all of them. It wasn't the actor's job to load the gun or to keep track of the live bullets. The actor trusts that others clean the guns, keep track of the live bullets, etc. Here, the armorer seems to have failed on all counts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a reason for the word hair trigger. It means once you Vick the gun it doesn’t take much for it to fire. It shouldn’t have been live in the first place but he should have checked anyway.

But why? If the gun was hair trigger and would shoot anytime after it had been cocked, it didn't really matter because it was a cold gun. There were no live bullets anywhere on the set, certainly none in the gun. They were rehearsing the gun draw, so he would probably draw it multiple times. Every time would be perfectly safe because the prop gun was cold.

Except there was a live bullet in it.

And that's why you should always check before aiming, cocking, etc.

I think that’s an easy accusation to level in hindsight but in a professional environment people assume that other professional are doing their job. I mean that’s basically the core of what an armorer does.

In the interview the fellow that supplies some of the ammo said their job was to shake each round to make sure it was a blank. I think it would be reasonable for the armorer to do the same on the other side of that transaction. Clearly that wasn’t done.

I hear you, but for me it's sort of like coming to a traffic intersection when walking or driving. I never assume other people are followingbtbevrules and signals. I look both ways and allow for human error. Same when boating. Same for guns.

Not the same when boating. Each person has their job, the captain or the pilot doesn't do or check all of them. It wasn't the actor's job to load the gun or to keep track of the live bullets. The actor trusts that others clean the guns, keep track of the live bullets, etc. Here, the armorer seems to have failed on all counts.

PP here. I'm talking boating as in other families and people all around. Perhaps on a holiday. Perhaps drinking. My point is I don't care who has right of way or who has the responsibility. I'm going to be extra cautious and not take chances. And I would never point a gun in another person's direction and not check for ammunition first. That girl died because she was in the path of a bullet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Alec Baldwin was in charge of the set. He created the atmosphere that led to this. Many people quit the day before because of conditions, resulting in an untrained “armorer” having a loaded weapon on the scene.
Also, the very first rule of gun safety is to treat EVERY gun as if loaded, and never point a weapon at anyone you don’t intend to shoot. Every person handling the gun is RESPONSIBLE for ensuring the gun is safe - this includes Baldwin.
Also, the screen actors guild regulations make it clear:
“Treat all weapons as though they are loaded and/or ready to use. Do not play with weapons and never point one at anyone, including yourself. Follow the directions of the Property Master and/or Weapons Handler regarding all weapons.”
If Baldwin was following the regulations, no one would be dead. End of story.

When you have more of a grasp of facts, then come back to us.

These are the facts. Sorry it doesn’t support your narrative that Baldwin is innocent.

No, Baldwin wasn't in charge of the set. That's a fake fact. Not a true fact.

No narrative. Stick to facts next time.

Oh, you got me. He wasn’t technically in charge of the set. But he is the famous lead actor being his typical a-hole self by all accounts.
Regardless, it does not change the fact that according to regulations, he was REQUIRED to “Treat all weapons as though they are loaded and/or ready to use. Do not play with weapons and never point one at anyone, including yourself. Follow the directions of the Property Master and/or Weapons Handler regarding all weapons.”
He failed to follow regulations, blatantly disregarding them, causing the loss of human life. He is at fault.

If you say so. I don't see facts that show that. He said he never pulled the trigger. Maybe his finger slipped unintentionally, that's possible, I don't know. But he seems to have treated the gun as you keep quoting.

If he didn’t point the weapon at the victims, how did the bulllet hit them? Another mystery just like how he doesn’t know how the gun went off?
No, he pointed it AT THEM, in blatant disregard of the regulations.
The regulations actually go into detail on what the precautions are if the scene requires pointing the gun at a person (cameraman) to get the right camera angle. The person is required to be behind a barrier that would prevent injury. In scenes where it appears the actor is pointing the gun at another actor, they are required to not aim at the the person - they are to aim for over the shoulder so it creates the image that the gun is pointed at the person.
This did not happen.
Not sure why you are defending him.

I'm not defending him. I'm trying to keep the discussion grounded in the known facts. There are facts that we don't know. But some of the facts that we do know, you are ignoring.

You are ignoring facts and regulations. He clearly violated the regulations.
https://www.sagaftra.org/files/safety_bulletins_amptp_part_1_9_3_0.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Alec Baldwin was in charge of the set. He created the atmosphere that led to this. Many people quit the day before because of conditions, resulting in an untrained “armorer” having a loaded weapon on the scene.
Also, the very first rule of gun safety is to treat EVERY gun as if loaded, and never point a weapon at anyone you don’t intend to shoot. Every person handling the gun is RESPONSIBLE for ensuring the gun is safe - this includes Baldwin.
Also, the screen actors guild regulations make it clear:
“Treat all weapons as though they are loaded and/or ready to use. Do not play with weapons and never point one at anyone, including yourself. Follow the directions of the Property Master and/or Weapons Handler regarding all weapons.”
If Baldwin was following the regulations, no one would be dead. End of story.

When you have more of a grasp of facts, then come back to us.

These are the facts. Sorry it doesn’t support your narrative that Baldwin is innocent.

No, Baldwin wasn't in charge of the set. That's a fake fact. Not a true fact.

No narrative. Stick to facts next time.

Oh, you got me. He wasn’t technically in charge of the set. But he is the famous lead actor being his typical a-hole self by all accounts.
Regardless, it does not change the fact that according to regulations, he was REQUIRED to “Treat all weapons as though they are loaded and/or ready to use. Do not play with weapons and never point one at anyone, including yourself. Follow the directions of the Property Master and/or Weapons Handler regarding all weapons.”
He failed to follow regulations, blatantly disregarding them, causing the loss of human life. He is at fault.

If you say so. I don't see facts that show that. He said he never pulled the trigger. Maybe his finger slipped unintentionally, that's possible, I don't know. But he seems to have treated the gun as you keep quoting.

If he didn’t point the weapon at the victims, how did the bulllet hit them? Another mystery just like how he doesn’t know how the gun went off?
No, he pointed it AT THEM, in blatant disregard of the regulations.
The regulations actually go into detail on what the precautions are if the scene requires pointing the gun at a person (cameraman) to get the right camera angle. The person is required to be behind a barrier that would prevent injury. In scenes where it appears the actor is pointing the gun at another actor, they are required to not aim at the the person - they are to aim for over the shoulder so it creates the image that the gun is pointed at the person.
This did not happen.
Not sure why you are defending him.

I'm not defending him. I'm trying to keep the discussion grounded in the known facts. There are facts that we don't know. But some of the facts that we do know, you are ignoring.

DP. He says he did not pull the trigger, but he said he pulled the hammer back and when he released it, the gun fired. His words, not an assumption. Pulling the trigger on that type of gun makes the hammer go back, and release, to fire the gun. He did not pull the trigger, he bypassed it. He did the job of the trigger with his hand. The gun did not fire for no reason, he made it fire.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Alec Baldwin was in charge of the set. He created the atmosphere that led to this. Many people quit the day before because of conditions, resulting in an untrained “armorer” having a loaded weapon on the scene.
Also, the very first rule of gun safety is to treat EVERY gun as if loaded, and never point a weapon at anyone you don’t intend to shoot. Every person handling the gun is RESPONSIBLE for ensuring the gun is safe - this includes Baldwin.
Also, the screen actors guild regulations make it clear:
“Treat all weapons as though they are loaded and/or ready to use. Do not play with weapons and never point one at anyone, including yourself. Follow the directions of the Property Master and/or Weapons Handler regarding all weapons.”
If Baldwin was following the regulations, no one would be dead. End of story.

When you have more of a grasp of facts, then come back to us.

These are the facts. Sorry it doesn’t support your narrative that Baldwin is innocent.

No, Baldwin wasn't in charge of the set. That's a fake fact. Not a true fact.

No narrative. Stick to facts next time.

Oh, you got me. He wasn’t technically in charge of the set. But he is the famous lead actor being his typical a-hole self by all accounts.
Regardless, it does not change the fact that according to regulations, he was REQUIRED to “Treat all weapons as though they are loaded and/or ready to use. Do not play with weapons and never point one at anyone, including yourself. Follow the directions of the Property Master and/or Weapons Handler regarding all weapons.”
He failed to follow regulations, blatantly disregarding them, causing the loss of human life. He is at fault.

If you say so. I don't see facts that show that. He said he never pulled the trigger. Maybe his finger slipped unintentionally, that's possible, I don't know. But he seems to have treated the gun as you keep quoting.

If he didn’t point the weapon at the victims, how did the bulllet hit them? Another mystery just like how he doesn’t know how the gun went off?
No, he pointed it AT THEM, in blatant disregard of the regulations.
The regulations actually go into detail on what the precautions are if the scene requires pointing the gun at a person (cameraman) to get the right camera angle. The person is required to be behind a barrier that would prevent injury. In scenes where it appears the actor is pointing the gun at another actor, they are required to not aim at the the person - they are to aim for over the shoulder so it creates the image that the gun is pointed at the person.
This did not happen.
Not sure why you are defending him.

I'm not defending him. I'm trying to keep the discussion grounded in the known facts. There are facts that we don't know. But some of the facts that we do know, you are ignoring.

DP. He says he did not pull the trigger, but he said he pulled the hammer back and when he released it, the gun fired. His words, not an assumption. Pulling the trigger on that type of gun makes the hammer go back, and release, to fire the gun. He did not pull the trigger, he bypassed it. He did the job of the trigger with his hand. The gun did not fire for no reason, he made it fire.

So you're saying that once a gun is cocked, once the hammer has been pulled back, then a shot is inevitable, there's no other possible outcome? Only gunfire, nothing else could possibly happen? Gee, someone should have told him that, right? Besides not putting any live bullets in the gun, of course, that pesky detail also had a little bit to do with what happened. A little bit = around 100%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a reason for the word hair trigger. It means once you Vick the gun it doesn’t take much for it to fire. It shouldn’t have been live in the first place but he should have checked anyway.

But why? If the gun was hair trigger and would shoot anytime after it had been cocked, it didn't really matter because it was a cold gun. There were no live bullets anywhere on the set, certainly none in the gun. They were rehearsing the gun draw, so he would probably draw it multiple times. Every time would be perfectly safe because the prop gun was cold.

Except there was a live bullet in it.

And that's why you should always check before aiming, cocking, etc.

I think that’s an easy accusation to level in hindsight but in a professional environment people assume that other professional are doing their job. I mean that’s basically the core of what an armorer does.

In the interview the fellow that supplies some of the ammo said their job was to shake each round to make sure it was a blank. I think it would be reasonable for the armorer to do the same on the other side of that transaction. Clearly that wasn’t done.

I hear you, but for me it's sort of like coming to a traffic intersection when walking or driving. I never assume other people are followingbtbevrules and signals. I look both ways and allow for human error. Same when boating. Same for guns.

I do as well but driving about the city I assume everybody else is a careless idiot whereas in a professional environment I assume others are professionals. Of course IRL that often proves to not be the case so I suppose point taken.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Alec Baldwin was in charge of the set. He created the atmosphere that led to this. Many people quit the day before because of conditions, resulting in an untrained “armorer” having a loaded weapon on the scene.
Also, the very first rule of gun safety is to treat EVERY gun as if loaded, and never point a weapon at anyone you don’t intend to shoot. Every person handling the gun is RESPONSIBLE for ensuring the gun is safe - this includes Baldwin.
Also, the screen actors guild regulations make it clear:
“Treat all weapons as though they are loaded and/or ready to use. Do not play with weapons and never point one at anyone, including yourself. Follow the directions of the Property Master and/or Weapons Handler regarding all weapons.”
If Baldwin was following the regulations, no one would be dead. End of story.

When you have more of a grasp of facts, then come back to us.

These are the facts. Sorry it doesn’t support your narrative that Baldwin is innocent.

No, Baldwin wasn't in charge of the set. That's a fake fact. Not a true fact.

No narrative. Stick to facts next time.

Oh, you got me. He wasn’t technically in charge of the set. But he is the famous lead actor being his typical a-hole self by all accounts.
Regardless, it does not change the fact that according to regulations, he was REQUIRED to “Treat all weapons as though they are loaded and/or ready to use. Do not play with weapons and never point one at anyone, including yourself. Follow the directions of the Property Master and/or Weapons Handler regarding all weapons.”
He failed to follow regulations, blatantly disregarding them, causing the loss of human life. He is at fault.

If you say so. I don't see facts that show that. He said he never pulled the trigger. Maybe his finger slipped unintentionally, that's possible, I don't know. But he seems to have treated the gun as you keep quoting.

If he didn’t point the weapon at the victims, how did the bulllet hit them? Another mystery just like how he doesn’t know how the gun went off?
No, he pointed it AT THEM, in blatant disregard of the regulations.
The regulations actually go into detail on what the precautions are if the scene requires pointing the gun at a person (cameraman) to get the right camera angle. The person is required to be behind a barrier that would prevent injury. In scenes where it appears the actor is pointing the gun at another actor, they are required to not aim at the the person - they are to aim for over the shoulder so it creates the image that the gun is pointed at the person.
This did not happen.
Not sure why you are defending him.

I'm not defending him. I'm trying to keep the discussion grounded in the known facts. There are facts that we don't know. But some of the facts that we do know, you are ignoring.

DP. He says he did not pull the trigger, but he said he pulled the hammer back and when he released it, the gun fired. His words, not an assumption. Pulling the trigger on that type of gun makes the hammer go back, and release, to fire the gun. He did not pull the trigger, he bypassed it. He did the job of the trigger with his hand. The gun did not fire for no reason, he made it fire.

So you're saying that once a gun is cocked, once the hammer has been pulled back, then a shot is inevitable, there's no other possible outcome? Only gunfire, nothing else could possibly happen? Gee, someone should have told him that, right? Besides not putting any live bullets in the gun, of course, that pesky detail also had a little bit to do with what happened. A little bit = around 100%.

Not when cocked, when released, either by pulling the trigger, or letting it go by hand, as he did. Do you think he is not responsible at all? Not a little?

This gun did not magically fire. Alec Baldwin pointed it at someone and caused it to fire. Others are not blameless, but neither is he.