May be so for the protocols on the set, but not knowing if gun is loaded when you point at someone and pull trigger is criminal to me.
ABC: Judge dismisses Alec Baldwin's 'Rust' case after defense claims evidence was withheld.
- Thread starter wemay
- Start date
- Status
I guess military training needs to be eliminated. Dummy warheads could be live nuclear weapons. Guys in the silos would need to check the missiles 300 miles away before they turn the key.
Yeah, although Baldwin is a douchebag, he had no real responsibility to ensure the "gun" was safe. To him, it was a prop, and there is no reason for him to reasonably conclude that pointing the prop at anything could cause damage to it or them. This is key.
The armorer on the other hand, was at fault.
I wish they had went to a jury though, and found not guilty, as true justice would have been served, whether anyone agreed with it or not.
I can’t just wonder in and buy a functioning weapon without a NICS check. Hence anyone who handles one is responsible for it - armorer or not.
Or they should not use real guns. Simple enough.
I believe the original verdict was correct. I agree the prosecution probably withheld on purpose. Why would there be any incentive to not turn everything over. It was a pretty simple case.
Or they should not use real guns. Simple enough.
I believe the original verdict was correct. I agree the prosecution probably withheld on purpose. Why would there be any incentive to not turn everything over. It was a pretty simple case.
Of course that is completely different, as the intention of the soldier would be to launch with intent. I understand what you are saying though.
They do have practice silos/launch facilities. I’ve been in one.
I’ll add - if I hire an armorer can I have them give me a supposedly unloaded firearm and wonder into a courthouse with it?
If not - then whoever holds that weapon is responsible.
If not - then whoever holds that weapon is responsible.
Murder
I am with you, no doubt. But an intention is present. Baldwin had no intention to kill someone. That is the difference.
That would be like the commander telling airman, "turn the key, it is not a live missle" then after they turn the key, the commander blames the airmen for launching a missile
Because the scene/script called for him to point towards the camera and shoot.
Finally -- now let the man alone....
The account I read said that they weren't filming at the time and Baldwin was practicing his quick draw for the scene. He didn't need to do it in the direction of the two people who where having a conversation at the time.
So as an actor with potentially no knowledge of firearms, are handed a gun during filming, told it is not loaded by the person in charge of that area, told to do XYZ with it/trained on how to look like you know what you are doing, Told you are not to do anything beyond what were instructed (i.e. unloading the blanks, examine all the fake ammo, etc.) and it goes bang and this is now criminal for you personally? Who in their right mind would ever be an actor for anything involving firearms? I suppose the movie producing companies would give lots of training so all the gun scenes were double checked by the actors themselves but the amount of liability that creates is mind-blowing vs. a single person(s) "armorer" that ensures the firearms are safe for use on the set.
I have read accounts to the contrary - that the lady who died told him to do it. Some fuzzy info here but it still stands why was live ammo on the set and why would any actor not assume the protocols were being followed w/r to live ammo/dummy guns/etc. etc.
This is how I understood it - again, how in the world could he be to blame here?
How is this in anyway a reasonable analogy to use for this? In the environment of a movie set (that's all that matters here in this discussion), the armorer has responsibly to ensure the guns are safe to point at people and pull the trigger which happens all the time on movie sets. Whatever the SOPs are for handling firearms by actors, an armorer's position, protocols, industry standards etc. are what matters to this case.
It was a prop to him, not a gun.
That is a good point. Lets play devils advocate.
If in fact there was a hazard, in that there was a dangerous gun on the set, why would those on set feel comfortable enough to be have a conversation, as you put it, seemingly unafraid of being shot? Why would everyone just be "going along" with the flow of the day?
I argue: the gun was not thought of as a gun, it was a prop, and props dont kill, normally.
So, to say that Baldwin committed a crime, you have to make the leap to say that HE put the live rounds in the gun knowingly.
I am very experiecned with firearms and their use, and I am on edge when at a range....why? Because of the potential danger.
These are props on a movie set...
Of course it was, not sure why folks here are struggling to understand about this. You go to work, you are told to do XYZ that involves some piece of gear that is the responsilbity of someone else to check for safe use, you use it. That's a normal occurrence in many work places every day w/r to safety b/c it's not realistic to expect everyone doing a job to be an expert/qualified to check pieces of safety gear. This is gear, not a gun at the gun range in this situation. Clearly this system works well as there have been v. v. few incidents like this over the years with all sorts of actors (without checking them) pointing all sorts of real guns at people and pulling the trigger and those guns were checked to ensure the were safe to do so with by a competent person on set. You have a lot of gun-folks here that are having a hard time separating real-world gun use with the 4 safety rules from a movie set where you pointing and pulling the tigger on prop guns which goes completely against those rules so you can be entertained in a movie theater.
That were fully functional firearms being passed out by a 20 something young woman fresh out of film school.
It's apparent that there is a whole lot of blame to go around. Someone pulled the trigger. Someone brought live ammo into the set. Someone hired an unqualified person to manage those firearms.
- Status
Similar threads
