Alec Baldwin fatally shot someone on movie set with gun mishap
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Any gun is a loaded gun until you know otherwise. If there are any gun owners on the jury, Baldwin is screwed. They don’t have to be gun owners just people with common sense. I’ve never touched a gun in my life and have no plans to, and I know that you always treat guns as if they’re loaded and don’t point them at other people. |
Anonymous
That's why I prefaced with "guilty or not." |
Anonymous
They don’t have to be gun owners just people with common sense. I’ve never touched a gun in my life and have no plans to, and I know that you always treat guns as if they’re loaded and don’t point them at other people. I disagree. A movie set isn't just regular every day life with gun owners in charge of their guns. There was someone there literally in charge of gun safety whose entire job was to make sure guns were safe to handle. There was also absolutely NO reason for live ammunition to be on the set, unlike life outside of a set where guns would have live rounds. |
Anonymous
I disagree. A movie set isn't just regular every day life with gun owners in charge of their guns. There was someone there literally in charge of gun safety whose entire job was to make sure guns were safe to handle. There was also absolutely NO reason for live ammunition to be on the set, unlike life outside of a set where guns would have live rounds. +1 there are rules for safety in handling weapons on a set and that is ultimately the responsibility of the armorer. She was just found guilty, as she should have been. It was her responsibility that a gun was loaded with live ammo instead of blanks. |
Anonymous
+1 there are rules for safety in handling weapons on a set and that is ultimately the responsibility of the armorer. She was just found guilty, as she should have been. It was her responsibility that a gun was loaded with live ammo instead of blanks. Those are industry rules. Whether or not they absolve him is up to the jury. If the jury has gun owners, I doubt they care much about industry rules |
Anonymous
+1 there are rules for safety in handling weapons on a set and that is ultimately the responsibility of the armorer. She was just found guilty, as she should have been. It was her responsibility that a gun was loaded with live ammo instead of blanks. Was it explained why she brought live ammo onto the set? |
Anonymous
Those are industry rules. Whether or not they absolve him is up to the jury. If the jury has gun owners, I doubt they care much about industry rules Gun owner for over twenty years. I would care. Do you really think that the actors in saving private Ryan checked their weapons for live rounds every time Spielberg called action, you’re nuts. It’s not possible, imaginable or feasible. The movie would never get made. That’s why you hire experts to do their jobs, so the actors can do theirs. |
Anonymous
|
I know this is the prosecutors take, but Baldwin sounds like a total rage monster.
Gift link: https://wapo.st/4aM7QVJ |
Anonymous
Those are industry rules. Whether or not they absolve him is up to the jury. If the jury has gun owners, I doubt they care much about industry rules I think it's going to come down to whether Baldwin knew that she was incompetent. If he knew people were target shooting on the set, for example, then he knew that she wasn't doing her job, and the only possible excuse for him not checking is that he knew someone else was doing that job. So, to me, it comes down to what Baldwin knew at the time he picked up the gun. |
Anonymous
Gun owner for over twenty years. I would care. Do you really think that the actors in saving private Ryan checked their weapons for live rounds every time Spielberg called action, you’re nuts. It’s not possible, imaginable or feasible. The movie would never get made. That’s why you hire experts to do their jobs, so the actors can do theirs. I was held accountable to this standard as a literal teenager in the US Army. We would prosecute a soldier or a cop for what Alec did. And they wouldn't be able to afford competent defense. |
Anonymous
They don’t have to be gun owners just people with common sense. I’ve never touched a gun in my life and have no plans to, and I know that you always treat guns as if they’re loaded and don’t point them at other people. That's absurd. The allegation is not that Baldwin was reckless with his own firearm, or even that he was reckless with a firearm that was intended to be used with live ammunition. |
Anonymous
I was held accountable to this standard as a literal teenager in the US Army. We would prosecute a soldier or a cop for what Alec did. And they wouldn't be able to afford competent defense. Yes dummy. Because you were handling a weapon not a prop. |
Anonymous
|
I don't expect the actors to check if they are handed the gun and shoot it only once the director calls action, in the direction they are told.
Screwing around and pointing it at people and pulling the trigger is completely different. Certainly negligence and maybe reckless indifference to human life. |
Anonymous
Yes dummy. Because you were handling a weapon not a prop. You are an ass! To the previous poster, thank you for your service. |
Anonymous
|
I think the armorer should be punished. The actor expects to be given a clean weapon. It's why every set pays good money for the armorer, whose job it is to manage weapons on set and make sure they're safe.
I don't think a random actor who pulls a trigger should be held responsible, but Alec Baldwin could be, as producer of Rust and because he fostered an atmosphere of unprofessionalism on set. I'm not sure about that last part, though. Is there someone else responsible for weapons and props who could also be responsible? |