It's not as an actor that this poses any legal risk to him.

As a producer, it may be argued that it's incumbent upon him to hire people who are...and, people who can be responsible for props - especially dangerous ones...like guns....

If I had to guess, he was a producer in that he signed a check, and that would be his inevitable (civil) defense. He'll be able to show that he didn't personally select the team, and didn't personally select them for cutting costs even if he did sign off - and probably argue that he believed they weren't doing a great job for his money. That he, at least as far as the law is concerned, is also a victim in all of this.

If he needs to, ofc, if it escalates that far - full on dirtbag lawyer mode.

The way they do this shit MUST change.

.....

First - the liability SHOULD be on the guy wirh his finger on the trigger.

He has the freedom to NOT point the gun at someone and pull the trigger.

If he is stupid enough to trust someone else telling him that the laws of gun handling are suspended - and he kills someone - stupidity should not be an excuse.

ALL actors should be trained to use each model of gun they are using. The actor should check the loads in the gun he is to use in a scene UNDER THE DIRECT SUPERVISON OF THE ARMORER.

If you don' t know how to handle a gun - DON'T.

There are no accidents. There are no excuses.

No such thing as a gun accident? So I take it we know guns better than the authors of Handbook of Firearms and Ballistics: Examining and Interpreting Forensic Evidence, 2nd Edition, specifically section 4.7?

That' s accidental dischargenin a fire - as in the place is burning down and thebgun goes off -

That too is negligence - not an accident.


You don' t store guns loaded with one in the chamber.


Let' s stick to the subject at hand --

There are no accidents with a loaded gun in a shooter's hand.

Only negligence.

So, guns’ locking mechanisms don’t malfunction, trigger mechanisms don’t get tuned inappropriately low, and safety mechanisms don’t fail unless they’re in a burning building?

(November 2, 2021 at 12:27 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: So, guns’ locking mechanisms don’t malfunction, trigger mechanisms don’t get tuned inappropriately low, and safety mechanisms don’t fail unless they’re in a burning building?

All these excuses apply to Mr Baldwin?


Quit deflecting.


He fucked up.

End of story.

You’re the one who made the categorical statement that there are no accidents with guns, only negligence, not me. And, frankly, given what little information we have about the state of the gun in question, I don’t think we can rule out the fact that there was something wrong with the gun itself.

But go ahead. Assume the worst just because you don’t like him, you’re compulsively contrarian, and you expect literally everyone else to be. I personally couldn’t give two shits about him because he’s kind of an ass. I’m just going by the information I’m finding on the incident (plus the similar shooting of Brandon Lee).

(October 27, 2021 at 5:16 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: Rule #1 of guns - when you pull the trigger - you own the outcome. Period.  Only self defense or the defense of others is a valid reason to shoot someone.

Sure. So by your reasoning if a child gains access to an unsecured gun in the home and accidentally shoots someone, then they are guilty of manslaughter. Period. No exception. Got it.

Does your rule also apply to where actors are told that there is no petrol in the tank when they are supposed to throw their lit cigarette in to cause a delayed CGI explosion, but instead someone filled it up with gas and they blow up the entire set and everyone in it? Of course not. 

Or how about the scene where they throw someone off a cliff and the safety net below is not secured properly? Is it the pushing actor's fault for not double checking that this is safe? No. It's the crew's responsibility. 

How about the actor who hands another actor a poisoned glass of wine - but instead of being benign, this really does contain poison. Is it the actor's fault and he/she should face manslaughter? 

Why should a gun which was provided with the clear instruction that it was not loaded be any different to any other piece of potentially fatal film equipment, but in your opinion come with different responsibilities attached?

(November 2, 2021 at 12:29 pm)onlinebiker Wrote:

(November 2, 2021 at 12:27 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: So, guns’ locking mechanisms don’t malfunction, trigger mechanisms don’t get tuned inappropriately low, and safety mechanisms don’t fail unless they’re in a burning building?

All these excuses apply to Mr Baldwin?


Quit deflecting.


He fucked up.

End of story.

Stfu

I said in the very first postt I liked Mr Baldwin..

Have ever since Beetlejuice.


....

And there was nothing wrong with the gun.

Single actions are notoriously reliable.

If you knew anything about guns you wouldn' t even hazard such an asinine statement.

(November 1, 2021 at 2:55 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: It's not as an actor that this poses any legal risk to him.  

As a producer, it may be argued that it's incumbent upon him to hire people who are...and, people who can be responsible for props - especially dangerous ones...like guns....  

If I had to guess, he was a producer in that he signed a check, and that would be his inevitable (civil) defense.  He'll be able to show that he didn't personally select the team, and didn't personally select them for cutting costs even if he did sign off - and probably argue that he believed they weren't doing a great job for his money.  That he, at least as far as the law is concerned, is also a victim in all of this.

If he needs to, ofc, if it escalates that far - full on dirtbag lawyer mode.

This. Exactly this.

The producer is effectively the CEO of a movie. Ultimate responsibility rests there. It's not him pulling the trigger that is the problem.