Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. Someone DIED! A child friend mom wife.

The sad truth is that 15 Americans die every day in on the job accidents. I do not blame Baldwin at all; he was handed a prop by the armorer and just doing his job (like hundreds of other actors do every year in firearm-related scenes).

The armorer was negligent.

+1. I don't like Baldwin but he clearly was not at fault. He was clearly told that it was a cold gun. He had no reason to believe otherwise. They're just going after a big fish, as PP says, to get press.

If I hand you a gun and say it's not loaded, would you put it to your own head, or would you verify first? the person that fired the gun is always the one responsible.

If it’s a prop gun I probably wouldn’t check. A real gun is another story.

Well this was not a prop gun

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. Someone DIED! A child friend mom wife.

The sad truth is that 15 Americans die every day in on the job accidents. I do not blame Baldwin at all; he was handed a prop by the armorer and just doing his job (like hundreds of other actors do every year in firearm-related scenes).

The armorer was negligent.

+1. I don't like Baldwin but he clearly was not at fault. He was clearly told that it was a cold gun. He had no reason to believe otherwise. They're just going after a big fish, as PP says, to get press.

If I hand you a gun and say it's not loaded, would you put it to your own head, or would you verify first? the person that fired the gun is always the one responsible.

If it’s a prop gun I probably wouldn’t check. A real gun is another story.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. Someone DIED! A child friend mom wife.

The sad truth is that 15 Americans die every day in on the job accidents. I do not blame Baldwin at all; he was handed a prop by the armorer and just doing his job (like hundreds of other actors do every year in firearm-related scenes).

The armorer was negligent.

+1. I don't like Baldwin but he clearly was not at fault. He was clearly told that it was a cold gun. He had no reason to believe otherwise. They're just going after a big fish, as PP says, to get press.

If I hand you a gun and say it's not loaded, would you put it to your own head, or would you verify first? the person that fired the gun is always the one responsible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. Someone DIED! A child friend mom wife.

The sad truth is that 15 Americans die every day in on the job accidents. I do not blame Baldwin at all; he was handed a prop by the armorer and just doing his job (like hundreds of other actors do every year in firearm-related scenes).

The armorer was negligent.

+1. I don't like Baldwin but he clearly was not at fault. He was clearly told that it was a cold gun. He had no reason to believe otherwise. They're just going after a big fish, as PP says, to get press.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This will probably go the same way the John Landis/Twilight Zone Movie trial went. They’ll be charged but found not guilty.

I wonder if he'll plead a lesser charge, say reckless endangerment, which is apt. Hard to see how the armorer isn't guilty af.

He pointed a loaded gun at a woman and pulled the trigger. If there are any responsible gun owners on the jury, he's screwed.

There’s an argument to be made that he didn’t know it had real bullets. In an interview he also claimed the gun went off on its own.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. Someone DIED! A child friend mom wife.

The sad truth is that 15 Americans die every day in on the job accidents. I do not blame Baldwin at all; he was handed a prop by the armorer and just doing his job (like hundreds of other actors do every year in firearm-related scenes).

The armorer was negligent.

Baldwin as Producer and main Funder of the movie was negligent in either not hiring a better armorer or not letting her do her job with appropriate resources.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This will probably go the same way the John Landis/Twilight Zone Movie trial went. They’ll be charged but found not guilty.

I wonder if he'll plead a lesser charge, say reckless endangerment, which is apt. Hard to see how the armorer isn't guilty af.

He pointed a loaded gun at a woman and pulled the trigger. If there are any responsible gun owners on the jury, he's screwed.

There’s an argument to be made that he didn’t know it had real bullets. In an interview he also claimed the gun went off on its own.

Yes well hence the manslaughter and not murder charge. He still killed someone, knowingly or not. That is what manslaughter is. It’s an appropriate charge. You can’t kill someone, even by accident, and not suffer a consequence. Actors and actresses put themselves at risk to when they agree to handle a gun.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. Someone DIED! A child friend mom wife.

The sad truth is that 15 Americans die every day in on the job accidents. I do not blame Baldwin at all; he was handed a prop by the armorer and just doing his job (like hundreds of other actors do every year in firearm-related scenes).

The armorer was negligent.

Anonymous wrote:The reality is that there was a serious problem with safety on that set and Alec and the armorer were both responsible to a degree for the safety, and Alec was certainly responsible for pulling the trigger.

The reason why there is even an armored is because there is a consensus that having a gun, even with dummy bullets or blacks, is hugely risky on a set. If it wasn’t there would be no need for safety protocol. The safety protocol protects everyone, not just a potential victim that is shot. It also protects the bystanders and the gun holder too! It is risky to be handling a gun, loaded or not, just because it is inherently a killing machine and weapon. An actor/actress puts themselves at risk of injuring and killing some one when they handle a gun. Again, hence the reason for an armorer and safety protocols.

What happened here is that those safety protocols were not revered to a T and the consequence is on everyone. A women is dead, someone else suffered an injury, someone else killed someone (it doesn’t matter what you call it in the court of law he killed her, accident or not). This was all avoidable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This will probably go the same way the John Landis/Twilight Zone Movie trial went. They’ll be charged but found not guilty.

I wonder if he'll plead a lesser charge, say reckless endangerment, which is apt. Hard to see how the armorer isn't guilty af.

He pointed a loaded gun at a woman and pulled the trigger. If there are any responsible gun owners on the jury, he's screwed.

He pointed an unloaded gun that some idiot loaded. They need to charge the person that loaded the gun.

No gun owner is going to buy the 'I didn't know it was loaded' excuse.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This will probably go the same way the John Landis/Twilight Zone Movie trial went. They’ll be charged but found not guilty.

I wonder if he'll plead a lesser charge, say reckless endangerment, which is apt. Hard to see how the armorer isn't guilty af.

He pointed a loaded gun at a woman and pulled the trigger. If there are any responsible gun owners on the jury, he's screwed.

He pointed an unloaded gun that some idiot loaded. They need to charge the person that loaded the gun.