Morrissey said if new testing of the gun showed it was working, she would recharge Baldwin.
I thought this was an onion article and Baldwin wouldn’t agree to stop playing trump on snl, so they charged him again.
This is literally what happened. Someone took satire personally and it wasn’t even about them.
Worse: they are saying that he, rather than the weapons handler, is somehow responsible as if he should know more than an expert.
He and his production team hired the “expert.” They are responsible for vetting and overseeing employees and contractors.
Even if (big if) he’s not guilty for pulling the trigger (actors take weapons safety courses), he’s completely guilty of negligently surrounding himself with unqualified people in positions that are of life and death importance.
Gross negligence can and should be brought up in a civil case. But criminal law is a different animal. People get killed all the time, but you don’t get charged for murder when it’s obviously an accident. Even involuntary manslaughter probably has too high a bar for a rich person to get convicted. Remember the afluenza kid?
A weapons safety course doesn’t mean anything when it comes to criminal liability on a movie set. All that does is absolve the studio if stupid shit happens because an actor did stupid shit. It was not an actor that did stupid shit here, it was the armorer.
The armorer that Baldwin hired and continued to employ long after she was shown to be ill suited for the job, which made him and the company civilly liable.
Baldwin and the production company already came to a civil settlement with the deceased’s family.
Exactly. This should be a civil issue for him, not a criminal one. The criminality screams of it being political.
This is just the Lemmy thread where everybody defends the scummy boss who took shortcuts on his employees safety.
Worse: they are saying that he, rather than the weapons handler, is somehow responsible as if he should know more than an expert.
A bus driver who drives a bus trusting the mechanics kept the brakes in working order and runs over someone doesn’t get to blame the mechanics. They’re supposed to pretrip the bus and check that it’s in working order.
A maintenance tech doesn’t get to blame the the operator when the operator tells them an industrial machine has been de-energized after opening it up and getting their partner fried. They’re supposed to verify the system is in fact de-energized.
You shoving a friend out an airplane hatch without a parachute because your sky diving instructor said it was safe…. You don’t get to blame the sky diving instructor.
You don’t get to hold a firearm and blame the person that handed it to you when you fail extremely basic gun safety. Criminal law doesn’t account for job descriptions.
If you pick a firearm, you have a duty of care to handle it in a safe manner, Baldwin didn’t. Further, even if the armrorer said it was safe he should have had prior experience handling fire arms screaming “nuhuh”.
It’s pretty blatantly self evident that Baldwin failed duty of care - evidence exhibit a: the dead body he put in the morgue.
This is literally the opposite of true. We have actually real world cases where airplane engineers fuck up and cause the plane to crash and they are found to be at fault, not the pilots.
Now go back ro truth social you fucking loser.
Confidentlyincorrect post of the year lol.
You just gave an entire list of false equivalencies. That was frankly amazing.
Ok question, how would alec check?
Gubs on a set can very very realistic looking gun shaped objects, same bullets, blanks, dummy rounds, non functional bulleted shaped objects. This is why on movie sets you have firearm experts.
The simplest and surest way is to use a clearing station. basically, they’re steel containers with… stuff… inside that the bullet slows and is caught. I’ve never been to a gun range anywhere that didn’t have one… and that model in the link is meant to be portable. For a revolver, you just dry-fire through the cylinder, and maybe an extra time or two to be sure. any live rounds would go off, and somebody would get bitched at, maybe fired… but nobody would be dead. That is, if Baldwin was running a safe set.
Baring that, Colt .45 SAA’s are pretty easy to check. You open the loading gate, see the cartridges, so you pull them out and check the cartridges. if you want to check the entire cylinder, the process is fairly simple, and you can see that briefly in this video (which is demonstrating how to carry an antique single action revolver safely. this was the historic method of carry, by the way. And you can see why at the end of video.)
Generally, props are all marked in a variety of ways that indicate- and obviously so, even if it’s not obvious to the camera- that they’re distinct from real. Cartridges for example are loaded with BB’s so they rattle (and frequently will have holes drilled in the side, and used primers so there’s a giant divot,) non-firing prop guns come in a large variety of differing levels of functionality, and are usually pretty obvious when you’re actively holding it.
And what is better, training everyone on set to tell the differences between all these kinds if bulletes and guns or have a small number of people?
Also which one of those things was not done? The armorer is supposed to check the gun and make sure only the proper type of round is loaded.
I don’t get how casual people are with machines designed solely to kill. It may be perfectly a cut and dry case of self defense, but it was designed to kill.
That being said, I am pro 2a generally, though I wish proper handling of firearms was taught at different age levels in school. From elementary where, just no, to high school. Additionally, a better system to screen for mental health issues (of which I might not be able to own a firearm) but that would rely on the US having any sort of infrastructure for mental health care.
My insurance is so shit I could go to a practitioner down the road and pay less, with no insurance taken at all. That’s just for mental health.
I like the place I’m at, but the shitty insurance really has me looking.
Of course there is a whole other dialogue on how the US has fallen behind most of the civilized world in medical care, under a variety of parameters - part of that being insurance is tied to your employer. I can accept it or look elsewhere for work.
Interesting that you are pro 2a yet recognize that US healthcare has fallen behind the rest of the civilized world. You probably don’t realize these are related.
As the producer and the actor pulling the trigger, he is ultimately responsible for this. He hired the “professional” who was supposed to make sure there was no live ammo on set, and he was responsible for checking the chamber and magazine before they started the shoot.
If my friend handed me a gun and I pointed it at someone thinking it was empty and killed someone, I would still be charged with at least manslaughter. I don’t see how this is any different.
If that was literally their job that they are being paid to do and you were specifically using the gun to film a movie involving you pointing that gun at someone and pulling the trigger under the pretense it was cleared and verified by a professional prior to the filming, they should definitely shoulder some burden.
Arguments can be made about working conditions not being suitable causing mistakes to be made and those conditions were brought on by Baldwin, but then he should be treated almost as two separate people. If it had been a different actor to pull the trigger, would that actor be liable? Would the producer, or whatever role Baldwin had outside of acting, be liable?
If it was a different actors then yes, they should still be held accountable in some way. Anyone who has ever taken even a basic gun safty course knows the first thing you do when you are given a gun is to check the chamber to see if it is loaded every single time.
Every time I go so a shooting range with friends and it is their turn to shoot I place my handgun on the bench unloaded with the chamber/Cylinder open and the mag/rounds next to it. Complacency kills and this movie is a perfect example of extreme negligence from the top down.
False equivalency. Those are completely different situations. This gun was MEANT to be loaded and chambered because THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO FIRE IT IN FRONT OF A CAMERA. But go on with your “oh I’m so good because I know gun safety and am the expert of the experts now reee”.
That isn’t a good example because your friend isn’t an expert and didn’t certify its safety prior to handing it to you.
Doesn’t matter who hands it too you. People fuck up. That’s why these rules are in place. Your argument is bad anyway because it wasn’t the armorer that handed it to him. It was an assistant director (who is also not an expert)
As others have explained better than I, you specifically don’t follow the same rules on set as you do at a range. Your arguments are empty.
Assuming the rules they use on movies are different he still didn’t follow them because the gun was given to him by someone who was not an expert. He should have had the armorer check it before he used it if he was not qualified to do so himself.
lol you admit that you don’t know by then say he’s wrong. I know that your feels are going here but you don’t need to be desperate
Anyone that has ever taken even a basic gun safty course knows that 1 you never hand someone a loaded and chambered gun and 2 when you are handed a gun the first thing you do is check to see if it is loaded/chambered.(the real first rule is never point your gun at anything you do t want to destroy but that does not apply to this situation)
This was extreme negligence from top to bottom and if even 1 person on set that day that handled that gun(especially the last peraon to have it the actor) did their job correctly no one would be dead.
The gun was meant to be loaded and chambered because he was supposed to fire it in front of a camera. The problem was that it was a bad blank.
deleted by creator
Is your friend a firearms expert who you specifically hired to provide you a safe weapon?
“I don’t see how this is any different”.
Smh
You pull a firearm’s trigger you bear responsibility for what happens. Period.
Was the armorer also at fault? Absolutely. Doesn’t matter: Baldwin still failed a duty to check it. Further, as a producer, he was responsible for ensuring the armrorer…. Was competent
Edit to add: yes, this is absolutely partisan politics, but it doesn’t change that he should have been charged the first time around
You pull a firearm’s trigger you bear responsibility for what happens. Period.
Utterly wrong. The ONLY person that bears any responsibility for firearm safety on the set of a movie is the armorer.
- Unless absolutely necessary, no live or blank firing arms should be accessible to actors.
- When needed, the armorer will verify the safety of the blank or live firearm and hand it to the actor. Depending on the armorer and the situation they may not even allow the actor to do something as simple as turn the safety off.
- After firing the weapon, the armorer will take the firearm from the actor, clear it, and remove it from the set.
One person has that responsibility. In situations where there are multiple live or blank firing arms there may be multiple individuals with those same resposibilities, but ultimately it will still come down to the one in charge.
Repeat after me: A MOVIE SET IS NOT A GUN RANGE. You are not dealing with even twice a year hobbyist shooters. You are not in a controlled environment. The protocols that are used for firearms on set have been developed after decades of trial and error, and these are situations where said error ends in death. Trying to apply range logic to a movie set is what gets people killed, which is why sets do not work like that. You have one dedicated professional whose job is ensuring the safety of everyone on set WRT firearms. At no point did Baldwin have any responsibility to check any weapon as any weapon available to him at that time, by protocol, should have ONLY been a “weapon shaped object.” That is, a chunk of rubber or plastic molded from a real weapon that’s used for doing things like blocking shots (which is what Baldwin was doing) and generally carrying around a scene. Instead, the armorer had zero control over where firearms ended up and Baldwin picked up what he thought was a prop gun. Instead, it was a loaded live firearm. The scene involved Baldwin pointing a gun at the camera and pulling the trigger.
In no way is Baldwin criminally liable here.
Note I say nothing about civil liability. In my opinion, he’s is absolutely responsible for helping create a lax working environment by continuing to employ an armorer that clearly did not give a shit about doing their job properly.
EDIT to mention that Baldwin and the production company VERY quickly came to a settlement agreement with the family of the deceased. They were always going to win so it basically just skipped over a meaningless trial.
Might be a good argument for using clearly fake stuff in movies further on. Just hand the actor a TV remote and CGI in a hand gun or a plastic sci-fi “gun” that has no means of firing anything.
George Lucas turned guns into walkie talkies for the E.T. rerelease. Going the other way should be possible.
Baldwin didn’t receive the gun from the armorer. So he wasn’t even following your rules either. He’s still responsible. If he had followed the rules as you stated, upon being handed the gun by the assistant director he should have said “you’re not the armorer” and refused to handle it until it was verified as safe by the armorer.
You’re taking bits and pieces and ignoring the full context, which is a shit thing to do.
- The firearm should never have been available to an AD in the first place, or to anyone but the armorer.
- On a set the assumption would be that anything available to someone that wasn’t an armorer would be a non-firing replica.
- The armorer alone is tasked with firearm safety on the set.
This is how it works. This is how the entire legality of the situation is established. As long as everyone is acting in good faith the liability does not fall to them, it falls to the armorer. When Baldwin received the weapon he did so believing it to be a non-firing replica, not an actual loaded firearm, as it would not be proper protocol for a loaded firearm to be available to anyone other than the armorer.
He has already settled the civil liability aspect with the victims and families. That was done rather quickly. As producer, he was liable for the hiring and continual employment of the incompetent armorer. That makes him liable on a civil level.
He has zero criminal culpability here, no matter how hard the DA tries. His roles as producer and actor are legally distinct.
When your holding a firearm, You don’t get to “not my job” basic fucking gun safety.
Professionally, as an actor, it wasn’t Baldwins job. The criminal code doesn’t care what was in his job description
Criminally, it doesn’t matter. There is a long sequence of actions that Baldwin should have taken that he did not take, any one of which would have prevented this from happening.
That sequence:
- hiring a competent armorer who: didn’t have live ammo, who cleared fired arms, ensured all staff handling the weapon were trained in firearm safety, and that a multi-layered safety protocol was strictly adhered to.
- could have used a non-firing replica for the blocking shots
- could have cleared the firearm
- could have not pointed the weapon at other people
- could have not pulled the trigger.
But nope. Apparently it’s not his job and now someone is fucking dead.
You know literally nothing about anything. I already explained to you why none of your points are relevant. Stop making yourself look like more of an an idiot by continuing to post your ignorance to the world.
Says the guy quoting civil litigation in a discussion of criminal charges. I wasn’t going to go there even if it is like 6th grade civics level…. But now your just being insulting.
Just because another person also had a duty of care- doesn’t mean Baldwin didn’t.
It’s simple tragic fact that Baldwin failed in his obligation to handle a weapon that was fundamentally designed to kill humans in a safe manner. If he had done anything to even half ass checking that weapon Hutchinson would still be alive.
That the armorer failed to do their job, doesn’t change that simple fact. When you’re dealing with things that have “death” as a likely consequence… you don’t rely on a single person, which is why the armrorer is also guilty. They both are.
Nothing you are saying actually changed that Baldwin’s own actions lead directly to it- and if we swap out literally any other actor, that don’t change.
Because he still pointed a weapon fundamentally designed to murder people, at Hutchinson, and pulled the trigger.
Reasonable people don’t do that without excessive amounts of paranoia- including checking a firearm that takes ten seconds to safely check.
I find some humor in the wiki link you provided for duty of care, the first sentence starts with “In tort law” as you keep trying to use it for criminal law.
There are no legal requirements for firearm handling that requires someone to check for a load. When you, and many others, say “the first rule of firearms” I invite you to provide us with a legal definition of these rules.
There is no expectation for a non-expert to identify the differences between blanks, dummy, and live rounds.
While there was likely gross negligence on the set, I’m not sure it rises to the level of criminal liability. A film set is a unique situation where there are different rules to firearm handling. This is a simple fact that cannot be overlooked. The rules of firearms as you have been trained on and as you understand them simply don’t apply.
Wow, your feelings got so hurt that you went ad hominem. Congratulations on proving that you don’t have a point to stand on.
Baldwin’s defense just needs one juror*. If they are able to define this is case as partisan politics, I bet all 12 vote to acquit in less than an hour.
Only internet weirdos would want to spend days arguing over this case, normie jurors want to go home.
*takes one juror to hang a jury not acquit.
Just one juror would make it a hung jury, not an acquittal.
true
The only reason Baldwin hasn’t been already found guilty of inv. manslaughter is because people like his movies. You’re right, though.
This is a prime example of tiered justice. If any normal worker was handed a firearm, and told it was unloaded when it wasn’t they’d be held criminally liable along with the idiot who didn’t. And that doesn’t even account for it bejng the boss being handed the firearm
Nobody was charged in Brandon Lee’s death. Just a civil suit against the production company like they already settled in this case.
That isn’t true! I liked him on 30 Rock.
Wow that DA can’t get over the fact that someone dared to make fun of papa maga.
What does this have to do with the orange turd?
When your entire personality is worshipping a conman, everything is directly because of or against the shit Oompa Loompa.
how many times do you think about trump everyday?
Only when the news mentions him. He’s irrelevant and will be forgotten.
not if you have anything to say about it
That makes no sense whatsoever.
- You: Do you think about it?
- Me: No
- You: Not if you have anything to say about it
How in the world is that coherent?
Nobody has yet explained why live ammunition was on a movie set???
They were in a desert so some of the staff thought they would get some shooting in. That simple, that dumb.
OTOH, even then, how did live ammo find it’s way into the prop gear? One of those things where there had to be several dumb mistakes.
The staff was shooting the prop gun. That’s how live ammo ended up in that gun.
But like… How the fuck was that something that was allowed. I think that is the question.
I see Alec responsible as a producer, not as an actor. He should be no more or less responsible than any other producer involved UNLESS his role somehow was more related to guns/safety than other producers.
There’s an armorer who was completely derelict in her duties. She’s been charged with involuntary manslaughter. It was specifically her job not to let this happen.
“C’moooon, it’ll be fiiiiiiine, what’s the worst that could happen?”
Had the script called for him to shoot himself, he would have checked the firearm.
More to the point: Why didn’t Alec Baldwin check the firearm?
If the script called for him to shoot himself, you know he would have.
Good idea. He’s looking a bit low on battery.
Would be great if all the pro 2a trolls in this thread had the same outrage for all the dead kids in the US from firearms. Smh.
The right has been pretty open about what kind of America they want to live in and what they’re willing to do to get there. We should all believe them and take them seriously, because they are fucking serious.
Fascist militias are popping up left and right, and the only gun control measures that pass end up restricting the rights of citizens in blue states while red states continue expanding their own. Unless you can magically disarm the entire nation simultaneously that cat is out of the bag.
I’m optimistic about the future and hold no deluded fantasies of armed conflict, but there may come a time where you’ll wish you had access to normal capacity magazines and non-nerfed rifles. Jon Stewart is not going to come rescue you when they have you on your knees in front of a ditch.
Disarming the working class under the current hyper-capitalist regime doesn’t really work in our favor either, and in most instances gun control is proven to be a political loser that equals to nothing more than a waste of time/effort and only serves to cripple a campaign.
Pro 2a isn’t a single sided issue and should not be treated as such.
Listen, I get it. I’m a multiple gun owner. I grew up with guns and have shot competitively. But make no mistake, as a country we have decided that the right to own a weapon designed to kill people is more important than the children that are killed every year by gun violence. Gun deaths are not a mental health problem, nor a magazine problem, nor a “scary looking rifle” problem. It’s a gun problem. I highly recommend Malcolm Gladwell’s recent 6 part podcast series on this topic. And for the record, while I am a gun owner, I would happily accept common sense gun regulations or even a ban if our country ever collectively decided that they give a shit about human lives and each other. Will it happen? No.
lost me at Scamwell
Typical 2a er - too fucking lazy to lift a finger so just defaults to party line comments.
Thanks for confirming for all of use that you believe your right to own a deadly weapon is more important than a few thousand children’s lives. POS.
Fuck guns and fuck the 2a but isn’t Gladwell known to be a bit trash?
Let us all know with sauce why you think “Gladwell known to be a bit trash”?
Would love some supported argument as opposed to opinionated trash.
Nah, you can search for yourself; the problem is we can’t understand it for you.
Gladwell has always been pseudointellectual trash, but you’re not gonna change your mind. You’d rather believe anyone who criticizes him is a “2A-er” or whatever-the-fuck
Ok, bud. Keep eating up what any pseudo-intellectual digests and throws up into your mouth like a good little birdie. It’s ok to tout the virtues of grifters when they agree with you.
Uh huh. Whatever you say must be reasonable. You’re the guy that believes their right to own a deadly weapon is more important than the lives of thousands of children. Who can argue with that?
Assumptions, assumptions. Part of that is why you listen to Scamwell.
stupid comment:
- people who have different opinions that you are not “trolls” they just disagree with you
- do you think pro 2A folks think that people that commit gun crimes shouldn’t be punished?
One thing they rightfully always bring up is that in many of these shootings, the existing laws weren’t even being followed, yet they always spur cries for new laws that would only hurt law abiding citizens.
I am going to ask you to actually consider the following situation. Let’s say in the future hate speech is criminalized. If someone goes and says something very evil, would you support removing the first amendment rights of all citizens based on their actions?
Hate speech is currently criminalized, in certain situations. And it hasn’t resulted in the first amendment rights of all citizens being removed.
So why would “well regulat[ing]” purchases of fire arms lead to the removal of 2nd amendment rights?
No, it is not.
Sorry, I said hate speech as an example, but you are correct, hate speech is generally only used as a way to increase sentences of people that commit other hate crimes.
However, there are many instances that speech is limited by the government, and they don’t violate the first amendment.
So, I ask again with the new context:
We currently have limitations on free speech, and yet we still have free speech. And we currently have limitations on the second amendment (you can’t own a nuclear or biological weapon legally).
So how would a couple more limitations completely remove the right to own arms?
So how would a couple more limitations completely remove the right to own arms?
it is an obvious slippery slope.
there will never be a time in which people who seek to restrict the 2A will go:
“ah, yes, this is enough limitations, we are done”
that’s why it’s important to put your foot down and stop it in its tracks.
I think you may have missed the connection to the first amendment.
I assumed you believed in the conspiracy theory “slippery slope”, I was wondering why you think the slope isn’t slippery for the first amendment, but just the second?
“conspiracy theory”
my brother, it is simple pattern recognition.
finally, some reasonable thoughts
Oh, the gun violence, and failure to have a more modern and inclusive health care (including mental health) are absolutely entwined.
The US is failing its citizens every day. In so many ways.
Yet on the right they’re dicking about without a speaker and heading the US to a government shutdown.
There’s a problem with our two party system, and there is no good solution that I can see. I live in the south. Die hard cult members around here, and this is the suburbs of a major city that leans more to the left (just like any urban center tends to) but leaning left from fascism is not enough.
I am a lefty on most things, just not 2a. Sadly the group that likes guns also seems to like the christofascist political folks.
The brainwashing is real. Went through some myself, and it still troubles my thoughts. Do I believe in something because I actually believe it, or was it instilled in me at a young age and I don’t recall the source? I try to challenge my perception of things frequently, some efforts more successful than others.
Sir, this is a Wendy’s
Nope, this is a discussion thread and he’s discussing his thoughts.
deleted by creator
That is true. Now if only his thoughts had any connection whatsoever to the article under discussion.
Meh, he hit the wrong reply button and didn’t continue the thread he was in.
This is so bizarre, why repeatedly go after him for what was obviously just an awful accident?
I don’t feel like anybody would be rushing to defend him as being not at fault if he wasn’t a movie star. When I took gun safety I was told that it was my responsibility to check the status of the firearm I was holding every single time. Nobody said “unless you’re an actor on set and they hired an armorer then you’re absolved of all responsibility.” Like I’m not saying “send him to jail for the rest of his life” but I am saying that he was partly responsible for a woman’s death and there should be consequences for that. The armorer was definitely the bigger fuckup though what a mess.
Edit: His victim was a lady
He’s not criminally responsible as the person that was holding the gun. There is a huge argument for him being responsible as one of the producers that was cutting corners on production costs.
this is the correct take. there should be no expectation of actors to be responsible for their own safety around guns on set. That is literally the job of the armorer (who should be responsible), and depending on how negligent Baldwin was as the director for hiring her, Baldwin could also hold responsibility.
Imagine if an actor was performing a stunt and the rope snapped and they died.
Would people be talking about how he didn’t practice correct rope safety?
I live near location, that girl was not. qualified.
He’s responsible as Producer, not Actor. And his victim was a woman.
That doesn’t make him criminally liable unless he can be proven to be criminally negligent.
That’s a very high bar to clear, even as producer, he would have had to personally, knowingly hired someone who clearly was not qualified.
She had other jobs as armorer before, that’s pretty much a solid defense (unless people died there too).
I said “responsible” as I am not personally a court of law.
The normal gun safety rules like ‘don’t point it at anything you’re not willing to shoot’ don’t apply to movies. You’re not qualified to know if a weapon on set is safe. The experts are supposed to be responsible because with all the fake guns, fake bullets, blanks, etc. it’s easy to mix stuff up.
Your gun safety course teaches the basics. But it’s not an exhaustive list of all possible scenarios that someone may find themselves in possession of a firearm.
Your course will go over the rules for your safe handling in the majority of situations you may find yourself, i.e. the range and self defense. A film set is a fundementally different environment with its own ruleset. Many of the rules are similar, but not exact. A production set should have its own firearms safety training before filming with firearms.
The situation does have consequences. It’s not clear if the situation rises to the degree of criminal consequences. There have already been civil consequences that he has had to meet. I know many don’t see civil liabilities equitable to the consequences we’d face when they are applied to someone who is wealthy. The same civil liabilities would be impossible for myself to pay.
However, if you or I were places into the same situation I don’t think we’d be facing criminal charges either.
Was it reckless to point the gun at the camera? I don’t think so, even with someone behind the camera. While working on a film, there are times when you’ll want to record a shot from that angle. It’s pretty unavoidable if you want that shot.
Is it reckless to do so with a loaded gun? Yes, but he was led to believe the gun was safe. And this may not mean unloaded, because particularly when we talk about revolvers, it may have dummy rounds which are designed to give the appearance of the gun being loaded while not having the ability to fire a bullet.
Would an actor be able to differentiate between live and dummy rounds? Maybe. But I’d argue it’s not something they would have the training and experience to do so reliably.
I don’t think the accident rises to the level of criminal charges.
What’s the problem with “this movie will have firearms, we will teach you how to safely check each gun type and what to look for”
And then an actor, if they forget how when the armorer is handling them, be obligated to ask “how do I check this gun safely?”
People took shortcuts and didn’t ask questions. Iff that’s just the way it’s done on movie sets, the behavior needs to change.
Like I said, they should be having safety trainings already. This will make the actor familiar with the firearm, it’s functions, and the onset procudures to use it and to do so safely. It should include a briefing on the different types of ammo on set but I don’t feel that making an actor aware how to tell every single one apart can be expected. The breadth of knowledge would be too great to reliably expect someone with minimal training to reliably identify a round and to continue to do so throughout an extended production.
Personally, I feel a chain of custody from an expert or experts which can do so makes more sense. If anyone in that chain of custody questions the procedure in which they are handed a firearm it would start over. Additionally, that chain of custody should be witnessed at all times by the expert. It should also include a verbal description of what is being handed over and what it’s load is and that the person receiving it should repeat it back during a verification.
In this case, the armorer didn’t hand him the gun. Which I don’t know what that productions proper procedures. But since it wasn’t the armorer, the actor wouldn’t have had that immediate face to face availability to ask the armorer. I can only assume the armorer was on set and available for questions though.
However, is this policy safe, is this how it should be done, and does having done it this way rise to the level of criminal charges are all independent questions.
I’m sure this shooting will change and has changed how firearms are handled on set. That said, these types of industry activity procedures aren’t regulated through law, and will still largely rely on production companies, studios, and armorers policies and procedures.
My argument isn’t that the safe handling of firearms is already sufficient and doesn’t need to be changed. Very clearly this incident shows a gap in training and procedures.
I’m only saying that my opinion is that this negligent discharge doesn’t meet the requirements to consider criminal charges and that Alec Baldwin isn’t getting special treatment due to his fame or status as a film star.
Exactly. Anyone who handles firearms in any capacity should be able to do so safely. The four rules of safe gun handling are ubiquitous throughout the firearm industry; it is patently absurd to even suspect that Baldwin was ignorant of the risks or rules. As the person actually handling the gun, it was his responsibility to ensure it was handled safely. If he wants to point it at a person and pull the trigger, he better be damn sure it’s not going to discharge, regardless of what the armorer had to say about it.
Moreover, why would you want to hold a gun unless you knew you were able to verify you weren’t putting anyone or anything at risk?
Was it reckless to point the gun at the camera? I don’t think so, even with someone behind the camera. While working on a film, there are times when you’ll want to record a shot from that angle. It’s pretty unavoidable if you want that shot.
It is certainly possible to point a gun at a camera or a person and it not be an act of recklessness. However, it is also possible to point a gun at a camera in a reckless manner.
The “industry standard” of safe gun handling includes four rules. Breaking any of those rules makes the person handling the gun responsible for any harm arising from their handling of that gun. It’s not necessarily reckless to break the rules: I pull the triggers on my Glocks without intending to fire them, because pulling the trigger is required to field strip them. I point revolver barrels at my eye while cleaning them, because I can’t observe the barrel from the breech. I accept the consequences when I break the rules. If any harm were to occur while I was breaking the standards of safe gun handling, I would be directly and personally responsible. I can only be absolved of responsibility for a firearm accident if I was following the rules at the time of the accident.
The first rule of safe gun handling is “Treat every gun as if it were loaded until proven otherwise.”
“Every gun is loaded” means that if I haven’t personally observed the chamber to be empty, I must assume it is loaded. If I want to treat it as unloaded, I have to positively verify it is unloaded. It is reckless for me to assume that it is unloaded. It is reckless for me to use a random gun in any manner in which it would be reckless to handle a loaded gun.
I agree with you, it is not reckless to point an unloaded gun at a camera. If you want a picture of the muzzle end of a gun, you need to point that gun at a camera. That’s not a problem.
The problem is that he assumed the gun was unloaded. He made no effort to verify the gun was unloaded. The industry standard for safety gun handling requires him to assume the gun is loaded, and to personally verify a gun is unloaded before treating it as unloaded.
By the time he got around to actually pointing the gun at the camera, he had already committed the acts of recklessness that resulted in her death. He is guilty of criminally negligent homicide due to his mishandling of the firearm.
When you say “industry standard” what industry are you referring to?
The “first rule of safe gun handling” is written in what legal document?
I don’t disagree that this is the first rule I reach anyone when we go to the range. But the crux of this argument is that it is not a written rule in any code of law. It’s an axiom that we follow and we teach but does that make it a legally binding rule where failure to follow it makes the resulting action criminal? I’m just not sure it does.
Would a reasonable person check the firearm in this very unique and specific scenario on a film set where controls are supposed to be put in place and followed?
When working with a revolver specifically it’s common to have dummy rounds which are inert but look real. Even if an actor did check the gun would they be able to reasonably discern between a dummy round and a live round?
If such a distinction cannot be easily done by an actor and if there is a prohibition on live ammunition would a reasonable person assume the gun is “safe” even if they saw ammunition loaded in the firearm?
If such an environment exists where there are dummy rounds and a prohibition on live ammunition is it still reckless?
If an actor personally checks and believes it to be dummy rounds is it reckless?
If this goes to court, it will be interesting to see the arguments made. I’m not convinced it is criminally reckless, but at the same time I am not convinced it isn’t.
All of your arguments tolerate ignorance on the part of the person actually handling the gun. You’ve allowed for the actor to be ignorant of whether the gun is loaded. You’ve allowed for the actor to be ignorant of the distinction between real and dummy ammunition. You’ve allowed for the actor to be ignorant of the safety standards expected of reasonable people.
This is completely and totally unacceptable. The risks associated with firearm use demand a higher standard of care among actors than typical gun users, not the total abdication of reasonable safety standards.
Ignorance of the difference between live and dummy rounds is indicative of negligence and recklessness. That ignorance is a condemnation of the actor, not a mitigation.
Ignorance of whether a gun is loaded or not is a condemnation of the actor, not an exoneration.
Baldwin’s handling of that weapon was well beyond simple negligence. This was extremely reckless behavior.
I
He actually shot 2 people. It went through the lady and stopped in a guy.
The armorer was definitely the bigger fuckup
The, ah, armorer he hired, knowing he was a total fuck up? That armorer?
There were a lot of egregious safety issues on that set. Even if he didn’t pull the trigger, he would still have some responsibility.
But I guess an actor can turn on the crocodile tears and “not my job” basic gun safety, and everybody’s all like… “yeah!”
Wasn’t the armourer a woman?
Maybe you should know simple facts about the case before you weigh in.
Ooo. Caught me in a typo!
Maybe you shouldn’t be a grammar Nazi… I’ll apologize for my typo when Baldwin accepts his role in and apologizes for killing another person.
Fugly’s deleted comment.
This was my reply.
The, ah, armorer he hired, knowing he was a total fuck up? That armorer?
The first he is Baldwin, the second is the armourer though.
Yup. I deleted that comment when I realized my error.
Let’s keep this on topic though. People make mistakes. People should own up to them. Especially when they cost some one else’s life.
Congratulations on a convincing argument though! I totally see how a guy who pulled the fucking trigger has absolutely no responsibility. None. At all. (/s…)
I didn’t argue one way or the other and I didn’t delete comments to hide my mistakes.
I simply pointed out yours and told you to figure out the details before you weighted in.
Why are you so invested in this story? I’m curious to see what the ruling is and that’s where it ends for me.
deleted by creator
The, ah, armorer he hired, knowing he was a total fuck up? That armorer?
The first he is Baldwin, the second is the armourer though.
The, ah, armorer he hired, knowing he was a total fuck up?
is there any proof of this?
Aside from the DA saying it? And the fact she wasn’t on-site when the incident happened? I’ve got none,
