Alec Baldwin Shooting

[HappySkeptic]

You NEVER trust the guy who tells you " it' s unloaded".


Never. 

Unless its his fucking legal responsibility to do so, and that's literally the ONLY reason they are on set.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I disagree. Anyone and everyone handling a real gun is responsible for safety. The second you take a gun in your hand, you are responsible.

Nope, it's the job of the props people to make sure props are safe. Not the actors,

Guns are not complicated and safety is not optional. If you use a gun, you own the consequences. No excuses.

[The Grand Nudger]

Exactly, no excuses, go to jail officer friendly!

[HappySkeptic]

Nope, it's the job of the props people to make sure props are safe. Not the actors,

Guns are not complicated and safety is not optional. If you use a gun, you own the consequences. No excuses.

I'm not buying this at all.

If you own a gun, every single thing about it is 100% your responsibility, from deciding to own it, to how its stored, what ordinance is around it and in it, and where you point it.

An actor is literally paid to point a gun at things, including the camera.  It isn't their gun, they aren't the ones legally responsible for checking it, and may not have the expertise to identify the prop bullets vs real ones (this gun was loaded with 4 prop bullets, and one real one).

If every actor has to unload the gun, check the bullets, and then reload, then they would need to be trained and registered as the firearms experts legally responsible for every gun in their hands.

That would result in more shootings, not less, so the responsibility is on the armorer and the person under the armorer's supervision that hands the weapon to the actor.  If the actor ever puts down the weapon, it needs to be checked again before going back into an actor's hands.

[The Grand Nudger]

Nah, the mean man who made fun of trump is at fault.  There's nothing else to this. Absolutely....nothing......

You're dealing with a person who takes personal offense everytime someone makes fun of some other absolute clown. That's OLB, that's who he is, who he's always been. Enjoy.

[Rev. Rye]

If I said he was NOT responsible - you' d be looking for Mr Baldwin' s head on a pike.......

Incidentally - you claim that Mr Baldwin has no legal obligation to ensure that the gun he is using is safe for that use. You have yet to show any such legal ( or moral) precidence.

You are aware that not everyone is as willfully contrarian as you are, right?

Also, how’s this for a practical precedent? On 31 March 1993, Michael Massee shot Brandon Lee with a gun he believed was loaded with blanks. It was for a scene in The Crow, but, it was improperly loaded and he wound up being shot for real. And, for the record, while I have seen a few of the movies he’s in, I cannot remember any of the characters IMDb says he played. The first time I remember hearing his name, it was when he died and the article said something along the line of “the actor who shot and killed Brandon Lee has died.”

So, what happened to him? Was he legally charged? Nope. After several months’ worth of investigations, Los Angeles DA Jerry Spivey decided to not charge him, explaining “there is no evidence pointing to the kind of negligence the criminal law seeks to punish. The kind of negligence the law seeks to punish is the kind described as willful and wanton. You just can’t find that.” While you could argue that there was that kind of negligence on the set of Rust, it doesn’t seem like there’s any of that on Baldwin’s part. Indeed, it doesn’t even seem to have been established that Baldwin intentionally squeezed the trigger. For all we know, it could very well have been an accidental discharge, and, indeed, there had been three cases of accidental discharge on the set of Rust before the fatal shooting, making the possibility all the more plausible.

[onlinebiker]

Guns are not complicated and safety is not optional. If you use a gun, you own the consequences. No excuses.

I'm not buying this at all.

If you own a gun, every single thing about it is 100% your responsibility, from deciding to own it, to how its stored, what ordinance is around it and in it, and where you point it.

An actor is literally paid to point a gun at things, including the camera.  It isn't their gun, they aren't the ones legally responsible for checking it, and may not have the expertise to identify the prop bullets vs real ones (this gun was loaded with 4 prop bullets, and one real one).

If every actor has to unload the gun, check the bullets, and then reload, then they would need to be trained and registered as the firearms experts legally responsible for every gun in their hands.

That would result in more shootings, not less, so the responsibility is on the armorer and the person under the armorer's supervision that hands the weapon to the actor.  If the actor ever puts down the weapon, it needs to be checked again before going back into an actor's hands.

Horse pucky.

If an "expert" determines a gun is "safe" - hands it to.me - and I check it - how the hell could that result in more shootings?

---

If I said he was NOT responsible - you' d be looking for Mr Baldwin' s head on a pike.......

Incidentally - you claim that Mr Baldwin has no legal obligation to ensure that the gun he is using is safe for that use. You have yet to show any such legal ( or moral) precidence.

You are aware that not everyone is as willfully contrarian as you are, right?

Also, how’s this for a practical precedent? On 31 March 1993, Michael Massee shot Brandon Lee with a gun he believed was loaded with blanks. It was for a scene in The Crow, but, it was improperly loaded and he wound up being shot for real. And, for the record, while I have seen a few of the movies he’s in, I cannot remember any of the characters IMDb says he played. The first time I remember hearing his name, it was when he died and the article said something along the line of “the actor who shot and killed Brandon Lee has died.”

So, what happened to him? Was he legally charged? Nope. After several months’ worth of investigations, Los Angeles DA Jerry Spivey decided to not charge him, explaining “there is no evidence pointing to the kind of negligence the criminal law seeks to punish. The kind of negligence the law seeks to punish is the kind described as willful and wanton. You just can’t find that.” While you could argue that there was that kind of negligence on the set of Rust, it doesn’t seem like there’s any of that on Baldwin’s part. Indeed, it doesn’t even seem to have been established that Baldwin intentionally squeezed the trigger. For all we know, it could very well have been an accidental discharge, and, indeed, there had been three cases of accidental discharge on the set of Rust before the fatal shooting, making the possibility all the more plausible.

No such thing as an accidental discharge.

Only negligent ones.

[The Grand Nudger]

But he made fun of the fuhrer, how is that not intentional?

Again, good rule, negligence is a thing I think we should be charging cops with. You too?

[Rev. Rye]

Accidental discharge should be rare, assuming the gun is in working order, but it has been known to happen. Just ask any ballistics expert. Or, if you don’t have the time, read the sections of Handbook of Firearms and Ballistics: Examining and Interpreting Forensic Evidence, 2nd Edition that talk about it, specifically section 4.7.

[Spongebob]

Alec Baldwin shot the cinematographer on set of his new movie.

https://www.cnn.com/entertainment/live-n...index.html

I like Alec. He is an entertaining, funny guy and actually seems like a decent human being.

But - if he doesn' t do prison time over this - something ain' t right.

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.

Baldwin cannot blame anyone else.

He should have checked the gun to see it was safe for his intended use. End of story.

If he didn' t know how to check - he has no business handling the gun.

He is guilty of manslaughter and should do prison time.

Film crews actually pay someone to do all of that and that someone apparently failed.  That's the someone who should be held responsible.  I'm certain there are laws that cover situations such as this and those laws will be what determine who, if anyone, is charged.  And this has happened before.  In Brandon Lee's case a gun was loaded with prop bullets that were manufactured improperly and resulted in his death.  In that case I doubt any average person would have been able to see the problem beforehand, but a firearm's expert would if it had been examined properly.  So that's why I say it should be there responsibility.

Because of these incidents, I've read several articles about why they use real guns with blanks on set.  There are some legitimate reasons, but my opinion is that none of them are more important than the safety of everyone on set.  Even with blanks there is a slight chance of injuring someone.  With special effects we have today, I don't think it makes sense to put people in harms way with real firearms.  I can say that if I were working on a set and a firearm was about to be discharged in my general direction, I would demand someone check and recheck that thing first.  I'm not anti-gun at all but I am pro gun-respect.

Did anyone watch Mythbusters?  Those guys went to pretty elaborate lengths for safety but to my knowledge no one ever got hurt on set by a blast or gun.

---

There's another angle to this if the actor using the weapon is to be held responsible. In action films with stunts and effects, actors are often expected to handle all sorts of items they don't usually handle, from knives to guns to swords to baseball bats...lots of things. Any one of those things could accidentally result in another actor or set person being injured. It seems unreasonable to hold the actor accountable for a prop failure in every case and I see no reason why this gun incident is any different.