Reply to Alec Baldwin fatally shot someone on movie set with gun mishap

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "Alec Baldwin fatally shot someone on movie set with gun mishap"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I hope Baldwin also gets found guilty and sentenced, but I know he won't. He always gets off clean.[/quote]

I have no love for Baldwin but there is no way I would hold an actor responsible for firing a gun that was supposed to be empty of live ammo, or throwing a dummy grenade that turned out to be real, or stabbing someone with a blade that was supposed to retract. This was a movie set and Hall or the armorer handed him a loaded weapon and told him it was safe to fire. The jury will not convict him. [/quote]
I agree. And I think he pulled the trigger because he didn’t think it was loaded. It was not supposed to be. (I know he says he didn’t pull the trigger). [/quote]

Every gun is a loaded gun until you verify otherwise. Any responsible gun owners on the jury, and he's toast if that's the defense [/quote]
Hundreds of pages on this and you all still don’t get it. It’s not the actor’s responsibility to do this - the actor may or may not know ANYTHING about guns. When an actor on a set is handed a gun it’s not different than being handed any other prop. It was the armorer’s responsibility to make sure that the gun was safe and the armorer was just found guilty of not doing that. Baldwin may have civil liability as one of the many producers of the movie that hired this recklessly incompetent armorer, but he should not be criminally responsible.[/quote]

The reason people don't "get it" is that it's not true. Movie sets are not some kind of magical exclusionary zone where people can ignore basic safety.  People who work in the film industry deserve the same safety protocols as people in any other industry.  [/quote]

Do other industries that use guns have a requirement that there always be a professional whose sole job is to make sure the guns are safe, and you only touch the gun if they hand it to you after they check it?

Because, to me that's a reasonable requirement for Hollywood, but it isn't the requirement for my family member who carries a gun at work.  So, saying "well they should follow the same rules" doesn't make sense to me, since Hollywood's rules are equally or more stringent, and designed for their specific situation.

I think the million dollar question here is whether there's evidence that Baldwin knew that the armorer hadn't been following the rules before he accepted the gun.  If he saw the people playing around with guns, or heard the gunshots, or otherwise knew that the rules weren't being followed, then he had a responsibility to stop production, raise the concerns, and refuse to continue till they were addressed. The New Mexico definition of Involuntary Manslaughter includes situations where someone doesn't exercise "due care", and I would think that continuing production when the armorer is not doing their job is not exercising "due care".

On the other hand if he didn't know that she wasn't doing her job, then I think that normally someone who handles a gun handed to him by a professional who tells him that it has been checked and is safe to use is exercising due care, just as much as my family member is exercising due care when he takes his gun out of a safe where he put it, and whose access he has protected, and checks it himself.  [/quote]

[b]Every range has a range master and the expectation is still on the person handling the weapon to verify that it is loaded or unloaded[/b]. The most basic gun safety rule is that every gun is loaded until you personally verify that it isn't. In gun safety classes, there are no exceptions to that rule. It will be up to Baldwin to convince a jury that hollywood is special [/quote]

You're talking about something else, here.  Can you see that your example is a contrast to the situation at Rust? [/quote]

Can you come up with any example outside of Hollywood where it's acceptable to treat a gun as unloaded without verifying? Look at the bailiff in the Gutierrez trial- even though he was 100% certain the gun being handled by the witness was unloaded, he still treated it as loaded when it was pointed at the judge. What constitutes reasonable will be up to the jury. Maybe if the trial was in LA, he'd get people who view his actions as reasonable. Good luck in New Mexico  [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics