I just want to make clear, because it appears some are itching to draw contrary conclusions. 'Baldwin' has nothing to do with anything I've said regarding liability. I'm IDing and trying to weigh the factors regarding liability, irrespective of the individuals involved.
[Reply]

Exactly. Then the argument runs that Baldwin "should have known" that the armorer on this picture was unreliable. In this situation, he has an enhanced duty of care...especially since he was also a producer of the film.

The other thing I read is that movie firearm safety protocols indicate that no one should be in the line of fire. To make it look like you're pointing a gun at someone either you need something that isn't an actual weapon or u need to use camera angles to make the gun appear to be pointing at someone when it really isn't.

If this is the case, an actor would seem to still have a duty to avoid pointing a gun at someone he or she can clearly see is in the line of fire. This is because the actor has the gun in their hands and has the opportunity to avoid this problem. The question becomes much more blurry if the actor reasonably believed no one was in the line of fire (such as there was an intervening obstruction that interefered with line-of-sight).
[Reply]

That's a succinct summation of what I'm referring to as non-dischargeable duty.

At the end of the day, when you are handling a gun and someone dies, what YOU did is primary. If you point it at someone and pull the trigger, does it shield you from responsibility if someone else told you that was a safe thing to do, even if that representation was the only steps you took to verify safety?

And please don't make me 'babble' to establish why handling a gun is not the same as driving a car in terms of inherent danger.
[Reply]

It wouldn't a common individual such as myself. I don't know if it has actually been stated or not but, I would presume that some of the angst directed towards Baldwin here is because many believe that his position in the circle of "elites" will see to it that he is let mostly, if not completely, off the hook. "He's an actor, it's not his job to make sure the gun is safe." Actors are human beings same as the rest of us, and should be subject to the same standards of responsibility the rest of us are.
[Reply]

Not sure about this. Going back to Michael Massee, the actor who shot and killed Brandon Lee, I don't think he was ever held criminally or financially liable for the incident. Of course, there hadn't been several gun-related incidents on the set of The Crow prior to the shooting. I think that's the kicker here. Everybody should have been hyper-vigilant regarding firearms handling in light of all the shit that was going on and obviously that didn't happen.

That being said, despite my personal feelings about Baldwin, I don't think he should go to jail. He will likely be held financially liable to some degree, but he clearly had no intent to shoot and kill a woman who he knew and was probably friends with. And carrying that around for the rest of his life will be punishment enough.
[Reply]

Yeah, some of the stuff I shorthand without explaining. But nothing I've said is about wilful conduct. Baldwin's not up for murder [unless some blockbuster evidence emerges about some reason Baldwin could have done this purposefully]. I'm talking about liability for negligence or recklessness with an inherently dangerous instrument.
[Reply]

If this was some instructional course on gun safety and he just popped off a round and killed someone I might have beef with the man. But we are talking about a movie prop that was seemingly loaded with live ammunition. Even if he was fucking inspecting the gun are we to assume that an actor is going to identify blank rounds vs live?
[Reply]

If he'd been responsibly checking his prop guns through out his career, yes.

But again, different standards for us and "them".
[Reply]

Its also film vs reality.

If Baldwin was the one complaining about having unqualified people handling the guns because of a strike and they continued with production, because according to some people he was on a panel of 6 or 7 producers, then how the fuck do we lay the blame on him?

The person responsible for this shit is the one storing the guns in a refrigerator to get them cold.
[Reply]

Take everything else out of it, someone, . . . perhaps a very expert and very learned someone, but someone besides you is the point, . . . someone hands you an operational weapon and tells you to point it at your child and pull the trigger, . . . it's OK it's safe to do so.

What do you do?
[Reply]

did someone die in a refrigerator?
[Reply]

Not even close to the same thing.

But like I said earlier, some people can't seem to separate a film prop from reality.

Enjoy.
[Reply]

It's very hard to believe this level of incompetence made it through so many hoops. I really wouldn't doubt if this comes out as some sort of malicious and intentional act on someone's part.

Or maybe it was just a bunch of people so unfamiliar with firearms they honestly had no idea what they were doing.

It takes about 30 seconds to inspect the rounds and ensure the chamber is clear. Was the armorer 8 years old?

Got a feeling we'll never get the full story and some plebe is going to take the fall.
[Reply]

Yep that's how I see it as well. I just don't get how this happens on movie sets. I get that they want it to look as real as possible but they should use a prop that is 100% impossible to kill someone.
[Reply]

Because he was the holding the fucking gun when the tragedy happened.

Add in the possibility he might have been complaining about unqualified armorers on set and his responsibility goes way up. If he thought they were unsafe it is even more incumbent on him to check the weapon himself.

LOL @ the idiotic notion that calling out unsafe practices is enough by itself to absolve someone of responsibility.
[Reply]