America's Gun Violence #2

1356776

Comments

  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 26,117
    mickeyrat said:
    personally not sure the baldwin thing belongs here. yes a terrible thing happened. its missing a critical element. intent.

    aside from the events involving little kids as shooters, the rest involve harm intentions
    true, I wondered the same thing myself if it should be here. I suppose one could argue that it's relevant because of the pervasiveness of gun culture and how that might be somewhat intertwined with this incident, but fair point. 

    a movie,  set in the old west..... not sure I buy it, although the times could be quite violent by gun

    if it were more modern then I could see that argument
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 32,659
    mickeyrat said:
    mickeyrat said:
    personally not sure the baldwin thing belongs here. yes a terrible thing happened. its missing a critical element. intent.

    aside from the events involving little kids as shooters, the rest involve harm intentions
    true, I wondered the same thing myself if it should be here. I suppose one could argue that it's relevant because of the pervasiveness of gun culture and how that might be somewhat intertwined with this incident, but fair point. 

    a movie,  set in the old west..... not sure I buy it, although the times could be quite violent by gun

    if it were more modern then I could see that argument
    this is what I mean; sure, no one is being torn in half by a military grade rifle, but my entire childhood was mimicking these types of movies, pretending to shoot my friends with toy guns. that's all I mean. 
    I think I'll move to Australia


  • hedonisthedonist standing on the edge of foreverPosts: 24,519
    hedonist said:
    hedonist said:
    Funny, all this Alec speculation, and nothing about two people killed and four injured during a mall shooting in Idaho today. 

    Ho hum…just another day, folks. 
    so talk about it. i certainly don't hear about every single shooting in the US. a famous actor killing a person on set of a movie is big news, like it or not. 
    Whoa, reading into my post or just defensive? I’m allowed to opine too, dangnabbit. It IS just another day here.

    Ho hum!
    not defensive at all, but quite possible I read it wrong. I took as you lamenting that we weren't talking about what you thought would be more important. If I was wrong, I apologize. 
    You were indeed incorrect. I appreciate the apology. 
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin LouisPosts: 20,124
    static111 said:
    is anybody really surprised by this?

    if someone would have asked me who on planet earth would be the first to sell such a shirt i would have picked junior.
    There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 32,659
    static111 said:
    is anybody really surprised by this?

    if someone would have asked me who on planet earth would be the first to sell such a shirt i would have picked junior.
    he is such a despicable piece of garbage. 
    I think I'll move to Australia


  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin LouisPosts: 20,124
    static111 said:
    is anybody really surprised by this?

    if someone would have asked me who on planet earth would be the first to sell such a shirt i would have picked junior.
    he is such a despicable piece of garbage. 
    he only did it because baldwin probably won an emmy for his portrayal of daddy trump.
    There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • OnWis97OnWis97 St. Paul, MNPosts: 4,359
    static111 said:
    is anybody really surprised by this?

    if someone would have asked me who on planet earth would be the first to sell such a shirt i would have picked junior.
    he is such a despicable piece of garbage. 
    he only did it because baldwin probably won an emmy for his portrayal of daddy trump.
    SNL's been mimicking presidents since Ford (Nixon?). And nobody complained about it...not even for Ronnie, the most popular president in my memory. But our Alpha Male 45th President, who is tough as nails, can't deal with it. Nobody is softer than the Fuck Your Feelings crowd.
    1995 Milwaukee
    1998 Alpine, Alpine
    2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston
    2004 Boston, Boston
    2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty)
    2011 Alpine, Alpine
    2013 Wrigley
    2014 St. Paul
    2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley
    2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley
    2021 Asbury Park
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 10,739
    Well the thread is titled American gun violence?  Not American intentional gun violence.  Anyone shot and killed by a gun is dying a violent death.  This lady is a victim of gun violence in America…


    Give Peas A Chance…
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 32,659
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    mace1229 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    So who should be charged with firearm negligence?  Alec?  The armory person?  
    I wouldn’t think Baldwin would or should be charged if the industry standard was to have a firearms expert on site and trust his knowledge. I would also think that standard might change to make anyone handling a gun (if they even use real guns after this) be trained and responsible for the final inspection. 
    I get many actors probably don’t own or use guns and just trust the experts working with them. But honestly, even if I was anti-gun, I’d want to take a safety training course and be able to inspect any firearm someone just hands me and says to go point it at someone and pull the trigger, it’s fine. 
    If my first sentence is true, I think the standard should change to include anyone who held the gun in the chain of events be held responsible. Don’t just trust someone a gun is empty and take their word for it.
    If someone gave you a gun and said “don’t worry, it’s not loaded”, and you pointed it at someone and shot them, who would be liable?  In the end, it’s always (with adults anyway)the person holding/pointing/shooting the gun that is responsible for where that bullet lands and the damage it does.  I don’t give him a pass just because he is an actor.  
    But this isn't just any old backyard shenanigans. this is a controlled setting with real experts knowing what is inside the gun and what isn't. Baldwin wouldn't have known just by looking at it. this is one of those cases where the liability, in my view, would only fall on him if:

    a) as the producer, knowingly cut corners with the union and safety protocols
    b) as an actor, pointed it somewhere he shouldn't have been pointing it
    It doesn’t even sound like the person in charge of the guns was very knowledgeable of them.  Not sure about “real experts”…
    And the actor was obviously pointing it at someone’s mid-section.
    My argument is that Baldwin shouldn’t have even had it in his hands if he doesn’t know how to operate it and do his own safety check.
    Simple firearm basic safety rules:
    ”treat every gun as if it were loaded”
    ”never point at something you do not wish to destroy”
    no, there are real experts in this field. from what I've read, there are many variables involved in a prop gun being used safely, so there's a ton of training and expertise involved. 

    it's just the costume guy moonlighting as a prop gun guy. 

    doing a "safety check", as I said, would have been moot if it had been baldwin, or even a trained firearm enthusiast. As I stated, a layman wouldn't know the difference between a real loaded gun and a prop gun loaded with blanks, even opening the chamber, it looks the same apparently; it is virtually indistinguishable just to look at. only the person loading it would know, and you have to trust they did their job correctly. 
    From what I’ve read, it’s a far cry from “a ton of training and expertise”:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2021/10/24/baldwin-rust-shooting-armorer/

    “ In particular, the incident has put a spotlight on the role of a set’s armorer, or a firearms specialist — and the lack of formal training required to become one.” 

    “There is no standard test to become an armorer, according to Tristano, and training mainly consists of internships or other work under master armorers, the industry term for experienced armorers who oversee those with less experience.”

    more evidence has come out that Alec was handed the gun, was practicing removing it from his holster to point at the camera when it discharged. 
    I think I'll move to Australia


  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 6,492
    edited October 2021
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    mace1229 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    So who should be charged with firearm negligence?  Alec?  The armory person?  
    I wouldn’t think Baldwin would or should be charged if the industry standard was to have a firearms expert on site and trust his knowledge. I would also think that standard might change to make anyone handling a gun (if they even use real guns after this) be trained and responsible for the final inspection. 
    I get many actors probably don’t own or use guns and just trust the experts working with them. But honestly, even if I was anti-gun, I’d want to take a safety training course and be able to inspect any firearm someone just hands me and says to go point it at someone and pull the trigger, it’s fine. 
    If my first sentence is true, I think the standard should change to include anyone who held the gun in the chain of events be held responsible. Don’t just trust someone a gun is empty and take their word for it.
    If someone gave you a gun and said “don’t worry, it’s not loaded”, and you pointed it at someone and shot them, who would be liable?  In the end, it’s always (with adults anyway)the person holding/pointing/shooting the gun that is responsible for where that bullet lands and the damage it does.  I don’t give him a pass just because he is an actor.  
    But this isn't just any old backyard shenanigans. this is a controlled setting with real experts knowing what is inside the gun and what isn't. Baldwin wouldn't have known just by looking at it. this is one of those cases where the liability, in my view, would only fall on him if:

    a) as the producer, knowingly cut corners with the union and safety protocols
    b) as an actor, pointed it somewhere he shouldn't have been pointing it
    It doesn’t even sound like the person in charge of the guns was very knowledgeable of them.  Not sure about “real experts”…
    And the actor was obviously pointing it at someone’s mid-section.
    My argument is that Baldwin shouldn’t have even had it in his hands if he doesn’t know how to operate it and do his own safety check.
    Simple firearm basic safety rules:
    ”treat every gun as if it were loaded”
    ”never point at something you do not wish to destroy”
    no, there are real experts in this field. from what I've read, there are many variables involved in a prop gun being used safely, so there's a ton of training and expertise involved. 

    it's just the costume guy moonlighting as a prop gun guy. 

    doing a "safety check", as I said, would have been moot if it had been baldwin, or even a trained firearm enthusiast. As I stated, a layman wouldn't know the difference between a real loaded gun and a prop gun loaded with blanks, even opening the chamber, it looks the same apparently; it is virtually indistinguishable just to look at. only the person loading it would know, and you have to trust they did their job correctly. 
    From what I’ve read, it’s a far cry from “a ton of training and expertise”:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2021/10/24/baldwin-rust-shooting-armorer/

    “ In particular, the incident has put a spotlight on the role of a set’s armorer, or a firearms specialist — and the lack of formal training required to become one.” 

    “There is no standard test to become an armorer, according to Tristano, and training mainly consists of internships or other work under master armorers, the industry term for experienced armorers who oversee those with less experience.”

    more evidence has come out that Alec was handed the gun, was practicing removing it from his holster to point at the camera when it discharged. 
    Saw that, and also a rumor swirling that some were using the guns to plink prior and that there will most likely be criminal charges sought (not sure who for).  
    What a mess, but it really does just boil down to negligence with a firearm.  Still sounds like the armorer was inexperienced and not very well trained.  Maybe they need to re-evaluate the training requirements for anyone handling firearms on movie sets.  There are plenty examples of Hollywood not knowing how firearms work on the big screen alone.  
    I will still hold that Alec should not be handing a real firearm unless he knows basic firearm safety (eg: not pointing at anyone or anything, treat every real gun that is capable of firing real bullets as if it were loaded with real bullets).  Otherwise they should probably stick to rubber prop guns and CGI…
    Honestly, I hope the film industry is hammered over their negligent portrayal and use of firearms. 
    Post edited by PJPOWER on
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 32,659
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    mace1229 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    So who should be charged with firearm negligence?  Alec?  The armory person?  
    I wouldn’t think Baldwin would or should be charged if the industry standard was to have a firearms expert on site and trust his knowledge. I would also think that standard might change to make anyone handling a gun (if they even use real guns after this) be trained and responsible for the final inspection. 
    I get many actors probably don’t own or use guns and just trust the experts working with them. But honestly, even if I was anti-gun, I’d want to take a safety training course and be able to inspect any firearm someone just hands me and says to go point it at someone and pull the trigger, it’s fine. 
    If my first sentence is true, I think the standard should change to include anyone who held the gun in the chain of events be held responsible. Don’t just trust someone a gun is empty and take their word for it.
    If someone gave you a gun and said “don’t worry, it’s not loaded”, and you pointed it at someone and shot them, who would be liable?  In the end, it’s always (with adults anyway)the person holding/pointing/shooting the gun that is responsible for where that bullet lands and the damage it does.  I don’t give him a pass just because he is an actor.  
    But this isn't just any old backyard shenanigans. this is a controlled setting with real experts knowing what is inside the gun and what isn't. Baldwin wouldn't have known just by looking at it. this is one of those cases where the liability, in my view, would only fall on him if:

    a) as the producer, knowingly cut corners with the union and safety protocols
    b) as an actor, pointed it somewhere he shouldn't have been pointing it
    It doesn’t even sound like the person in charge of the guns was very knowledgeable of them.  Not sure about “real experts”…
    And the actor was obviously pointing it at someone’s mid-section.
    My argument is that Baldwin shouldn’t have even had it in his hands if he doesn’t know how to operate it and do his own safety check.
    Simple firearm basic safety rules:
    ”treat every gun as if it were loaded”
    ”never point at something you do not wish to destroy”
    no, there are real experts in this field. from what I've read, there are many variables involved in a prop gun being used safely, so there's a ton of training and expertise involved. 

    it's just the costume guy moonlighting as a prop gun guy. 

    doing a "safety check", as I said, would have been moot if it had been baldwin, or even a trained firearm enthusiast. As I stated, a layman wouldn't know the difference between a real loaded gun and a prop gun loaded with blanks, even opening the chamber, it looks the same apparently; it is virtually indistinguishable just to look at. only the person loading it would know, and you have to trust they did their job correctly. 
    From what I’ve read, it’s a far cry from “a ton of training and expertise”:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2021/10/24/baldwin-rust-shooting-armorer/

    “ In particular, the incident has put a spotlight on the role of a set’s armorer, or a firearms specialist — and the lack of formal training required to become one.” 

    “There is no standard test to become an armorer, according to Tristano, and training mainly consists of internships or other work under master armorers, the industry term for experienced armorers who oversee those with less experience.”

    more evidence has come out that Alec was handed the gun, was practicing removing it from his holster to point at the camera when it discharged. 
    Saw that, and also a rumor swirling that some were using the guns to plink prior and that there will most likely be criminal charges sought (not sure who for).  
    What a mess, but it really does just boil down to negligence with a firearm.  Still sounds like the armorer was inexperienced and not very well trained.  Maybe they need to re-evaluate the training requirements for anyone handling firearms on movie sets.  There are plenty examples of Hollywood not knowing how firearms work on the big screen alone.  
    I will still hold that Alec should not be handing a real firearm unless he knows basic firearm safety (eg: not pointing at anyone or anything, treat every real gun that is capable of firing real bullets as if it were loaded with real bullets).  Otherwise they should probably stick to rubber prop guns and CGI…
    Honestly, I hope the film industry is hammered over their negligent portrayal and use of firearms. 
    in any industry, there's a certain level of trust that goes with inherent risks that are posed. you trust those that are tasked with the safety of any given instrument/action. I don't see how Alec is at all to blame for this. 

    But yes, there is simply no reason to use real firearms anymore, with the technology to make it look like a real firearm is within financial reach of especially big budget films. 
    I think I'll move to Australia


  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 6,492
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    mace1229 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    So who should be charged with firearm negligence?  Alec?  The armory person?  
    I wouldn’t think Baldwin would or should be charged if the industry standard was to have a firearms expert on site and trust his knowledge. I would also think that standard might change to make anyone handling a gun (if they even use real guns after this) be trained and responsible for the final inspection. 
    I get many actors probably don’t own or use guns and just trust the experts working with them. But honestly, even if I was anti-gun, I’d want to take a safety training course and be able to inspect any firearm someone just hands me and says to go point it at someone and pull the trigger, it’s fine. 
    If my first sentence is true, I think the standard should change to include anyone who held the gun in the chain of events be held responsible. Don’t just trust someone a gun is empty and take their word for it.
    If someone gave you a gun and said “don’t worry, it’s not loaded”, and you pointed it at someone and shot them, who would be liable?  In the end, it’s always (with adults anyway)the person holding/pointing/shooting the gun that is responsible for where that bullet lands and the damage it does.  I don’t give him a pass just because he is an actor.  
    But this isn't just any old backyard shenanigans. this is a controlled setting with real experts knowing what is inside the gun and what isn't. Baldwin wouldn't have known just by looking at it. this is one of those cases where the liability, in my view, would only fall on him if:

    a) as the producer, knowingly cut corners with the union and safety protocols
    b) as an actor, pointed it somewhere he shouldn't have been pointing it
    It doesn’t even sound like the person in charge of the guns was very knowledgeable of them.  Not sure about “real experts”…
    And the actor was obviously pointing it at someone’s mid-section.
    My argument is that Baldwin shouldn’t have even had it in his hands if he doesn’t know how to operate it and do his own safety check.
    Simple firearm basic safety rules:
    ”treat every gun as if it were loaded”
    ”never point at something you do not wish to destroy”
    no, there are real experts in this field. from what I've read, there are many variables involved in a prop gun being used safely, so there's a ton of training and expertise involved. 

    it's just the costume guy moonlighting as a prop gun guy. 

    doing a "safety check", as I said, would have been moot if it had been baldwin, or even a trained firearm enthusiast. As I stated, a layman wouldn't know the difference between a real loaded gun and a prop gun loaded with blanks, even opening the chamber, it looks the same apparently; it is virtually indistinguishable just to look at. only the person loading it would know, and you have to trust they did their job correctly. 
    From what I’ve read, it’s a far cry from “a ton of training and expertise”:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2021/10/24/baldwin-rust-shooting-armorer/

    “ In particular, the incident has put a spotlight on the role of a set’s armorer, or a firearms specialist — and the lack of formal training required to become one.” 

    “There is no standard test to become an armorer, according to Tristano, and training mainly consists of internships or other work under master armorers, the industry term for experienced armorers who oversee those with less experience.”

    more evidence has come out that Alec was handed the gun, was practicing removing it from his holster to point at the camera when it discharged. 
    Saw that, and also a rumor swirling that some were using the guns to plink prior and that there will most likely be criminal charges sought (not sure who for).  
    What a mess, but it really does just boil down to negligence with a firearm.  Still sounds like the armorer was inexperienced and not very well trained.  Maybe they need to re-evaluate the training requirements for anyone handling firearms on movie sets.  There are plenty examples of Hollywood not knowing how firearms work on the big screen alone.  
    I will still hold that Alec should not be handing a real firearm unless he knows basic firearm safety (eg: not pointing at anyone or anything, treat every real gun that is capable of firing real bullets as if it were loaded with real bullets).  Otherwise they should probably stick to rubber prop guns and CGI…
    Honestly, I hope the film industry is hammered over their negligent portrayal and use of firearms. 
    in any industry, there's a certain level of trust that goes with inherent risks that are posed. you trust those that are tasked with the safety of any given instrument/action. I don't see how Alec is at all to blame for this. 

    But yes, there is simply no reason to use real firearms anymore, with the technology to make it look like a real firearm is within financial reach of especially big budget films. 
    I’ll agree to disagree on the culpability of Alec.  In any other situation where an adult accidentally shoots someone, the person pulling the trigger is ultimately responsible for the damage caused by that action.  The “he’s just an actor” excuse is non-withstanding in my opinion.  If you handle a real firearm, you are responsible for what happens with it.  Alec had a choice to not use a real firearm, had a choice whether or not to check the chamber himself, made the decision as to where the gun was pointed, and made the decision to pull the trigger.  Once the firearm was in his possession, he was responsible for whatever happened to it.  Yes, the armorer is also to blame, but she did not point the gun or pull the trigger.  There are multiple points of irresponsible behavior, but I do think Alec is partly to blame.  The industry should change its protocols or use fake guns if they want to avoid this type of accident, plain and simple. 
    Is there another example where the person pointing a firearm and pulling the trigger would not be held at least partially liable for what happens when that trigger is pulled?
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 32,659
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    mace1229 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    So who should be charged with firearm negligence?  Alec?  The armory person?  
    I wouldn’t think Baldwin would or should be charged if the industry standard was to have a firearms expert on site and trust his knowledge. I would also think that standard might change to make anyone handling a gun (if they even use real guns after this) be trained and responsible for the final inspection. 
    I get many actors probably don’t own or use guns and just trust the experts working with them. But honestly, even if I was anti-gun, I’d want to take a safety training course and be able to inspect any firearm someone just hands me and says to go point it at someone and pull the trigger, it’s fine. 
    If my first sentence is true, I think the standard should change to include anyone who held the gun in the chain of events be held responsible. Don’t just trust someone a gun is empty and take their word for it.
    If someone gave you a gun and said “don’t worry, it’s not loaded”, and you pointed it at someone and shot them, who would be liable?  In the end, it’s always (with adults anyway)the person holding/pointing/shooting the gun that is responsible for where that bullet lands and the damage it does.  I don’t give him a pass just because he is an actor.  
    But this isn't just any old backyard shenanigans. this is a controlled setting with real experts knowing what is inside the gun and what isn't. Baldwin wouldn't have known just by looking at it. this is one of those cases where the liability, in my view, would only fall on him if:

    a) as the producer, knowingly cut corners with the union and safety protocols
    b) as an actor, pointed it somewhere he shouldn't have been pointing it
    It doesn’t even sound like the person in charge of the guns was very knowledgeable of them.  Not sure about “real experts”…
    And the actor was obviously pointing it at someone’s mid-section.
    My argument is that Baldwin shouldn’t have even had it in his hands if he doesn’t know how to operate it and do his own safety check.
    Simple firearm basic safety rules:
    ”treat every gun as if it were loaded”
    ”never point at something you do not wish to destroy”
    no, there are real experts in this field. from what I've read, there are many variables involved in a prop gun being used safely, so there's a ton of training and expertise involved. 

    it's just the costume guy moonlighting as a prop gun guy. 

    doing a "safety check", as I said, would have been moot if it had been baldwin, or even a trained firearm enthusiast. As I stated, a layman wouldn't know the difference between a real loaded gun and a prop gun loaded with blanks, even opening the chamber, it looks the same apparently; it is virtually indistinguishable just to look at. only the person loading it would know, and you have to trust they did their job correctly. 
    From what I’ve read, it’s a far cry from “a ton of training and expertise”:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2021/10/24/baldwin-rust-shooting-armorer/

    “ In particular, the incident has put a spotlight on the role of a set’s armorer, or a firearms specialist — and the lack of formal training required to become one.” 

    “There is no standard test to become an armorer, according to Tristano, and training mainly consists of internships or other work under master armorers, the industry term for experienced armorers who oversee those with less experience.”

    more evidence has come out that Alec was handed the gun, was practicing removing it from his holster to point at the camera when it discharged. 
    Saw that, and also a rumor swirling that some were using the guns to plink prior and that there will most likely be criminal charges sought (not sure who for).  
    What a mess, but it really does just boil down to negligence with a firearm.  Still sounds like the armorer was inexperienced and not very well trained.  Maybe they need to re-evaluate the training requirements for anyone handling firearms on movie sets.  There are plenty examples of Hollywood not knowing how firearms work on the big screen alone.  
    I will still hold that Alec should not be handing a real firearm unless he knows basic firearm safety (eg: not pointing at anyone or anything, treat every real gun that is capable of firing real bullets as if it were loaded with real bullets).  Otherwise they should probably stick to rubber prop guns and CGI…
    Honestly, I hope the film industry is hammered over their negligent portrayal and use of firearms. 
    in any industry, there's a certain level of trust that goes with inherent risks that are posed. you trust those that are tasked with the safety of any given instrument/action. I don't see how Alec is at all to blame for this. 

    But yes, there is simply no reason to use real firearms anymore, with the technology to make it look like a real firearm is within financial reach of especially big budget films. 
    I’ll agree to disagree on the culpability of Alec.  In any other situation where an adult accidentally shoots someone, the person pulling the trigger is ultimately responsible for the damage caused by that action.  The “he’s just an actor” excuse is non-withstanding in my opinion.  If you handle a real firearm, you are responsible for what happens with it.  Alec had a choice to not use a real firearm, had a choice whether or not to check the chamber himself, made the decision as to where the gun was pointed, and made the decision to pull the trigger.  Once the firearm was in his possession, he was responsible for whatever happened to it.  Yes, the armorer is also to blame, but she did not point the gun or pull the trigger.  There are multiple points of irresponsible behavior, but I do think Alec is partly to blame.  The industry should change its protocols or use fake guns if they want to avoid this type of accident, plain and simple. 
    Is there another example where the person pointing a firearm and pulling the trigger would not be held at least partially liable for what happens when that trigger is pulled?
    so if I'm playing a terrorist in a movie, strap a bomb to my kidnap victim, being assured that, while the bomb looks real, it absolutely is not, and I click the little red button, and it somehow explodes, I'm culpable for homicide? gimme a break. 
    I think I'll move to Australia


  • nicknyr15nicknyr15 Posts: 6,358
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    mace1229 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    So who should be charged with firearm negligence?  Alec?  The armory person?  
    I wouldn’t think Baldwin would or should be charged if the industry standard was to have a firearms expert on site and trust his knowledge. I would also think that standard might change to make anyone handling a gun (if they even use real guns after this) be trained and responsible for the final inspection. 
    I get many actors probably don’t own or use guns and just trust the experts working with them. But honestly, even if I was anti-gun, I’d want to take a safety training course and be able to inspect any firearm someone just hands me and says to go point it at someone and pull the trigger, it’s fine. 
    If my first sentence is true, I think the standard should change to include anyone who held the gun in the chain of events be held responsible. Don’t just trust someone a gun is empty and take their word for it.
    If someone gave you a gun and said “don’t worry, it’s not loaded”, and you pointed it at someone and shot them, who would be liable?  In the end, it’s always (with adults anyway)the person holding/pointing/shooting the gun that is responsible for where that bullet lands and the damage it does.  I don’t give him a pass just because he is an actor.  
    But this isn't just any old backyard shenanigans. this is a controlled setting with real experts knowing what is inside the gun and what isn't. Baldwin wouldn't have known just by looking at it. this is one of those cases where the liability, in my view, would only fall on him if:

    a) as the producer, knowingly cut corners with the union and safety protocols
    b) as an actor, pointed it somewhere he shouldn't have been pointing it
    It doesn’t even sound like the person in charge of the guns was very knowledgeable of them.  Not sure about “real experts”…
    And the actor was obviously pointing it at someone’s mid-section.
    My argument is that Baldwin shouldn’t have even had it in his hands if he doesn’t know how to operate it and do his own safety check.
    Simple firearm basic safety rules:
    ”treat every gun as if it were loaded”
    ”never point at something you do not wish to destroy”
    no, there are real experts in this field. from what I've read, there are many variables involved in a prop gun being used safely, so there's a ton of training and expertise involved. 

    it's just the costume guy moonlighting as a prop gun guy. 

    doing a "safety check", as I said, would have been moot if it had been baldwin, or even a trained firearm enthusiast. As I stated, a layman wouldn't know the difference between a real loaded gun and a prop gun loaded with blanks, even opening the chamber, it looks the same apparently; it is virtually indistinguishable just to look at. only the person loading it would know, and you have to trust they did their job correctly. 
    From what I’ve read, it’s a far cry from “a ton of training and expertise”:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2021/10/24/baldwin-rust-shooting-armorer/

    “ In particular, the incident has put a spotlight on the role of a set’s armorer, or a firearms specialist — and the lack of formal training required to become one.” 

    “There is no standard test to become an armorer, according to Tristano, and training mainly consists of internships or other work under master armorers, the industry term for experienced armorers who oversee those with less experience.”

    more evidence has come out that Alec was handed the gun, was practicing removing it from his holster to point at the camera when it discharged. 
    Saw that, and also a rumor swirling that some were using the guns to plink prior and that there will most likely be criminal charges sought (not sure who for).  
    What a mess, but it really does just boil down to negligence with a firearm.  Still sounds like the armorer was inexperienced and not very well trained.  Maybe they need to re-evaluate the training requirements for anyone handling firearms on movie sets.  There are plenty examples of Hollywood not knowing how firearms work on the big screen alone.  
    I will still hold that Alec should not be handing a real firearm unless he knows basic firearm safety (eg: not pointing at anyone or anything, treat every real gun that is capable of firing real bullets as if it were loaded with real bullets).  Otherwise they should probably stick to rubber prop guns and CGI…
    Honestly, I hope the film industry is hammered over their negligent portrayal and use of firearms. 
    in any industry, there's a certain level of trust that goes with inherent risks that are posed. you trust those that are tasked with the safety of any given instrument/action. I don't see how Alec is at all to blame for this. 

    But yes, there is simply no reason to use real firearms anymore, with the technology to make it look like a real firearm is within financial reach of especially big budget films. 
    I’ll agree to disagree on the culpability of Alec.  In any other situation where an adult accidentally shoots someone, the person pulling the trigger is ultimately responsible for the damage caused by that action.  The “he’s just an actor” excuse is non-withstanding in my opinion.  If you handle a real firearm, you are responsible for what happens with it.  Alec had a choice to not use a real firearm, had a choice whether or not to check the chamber himself, made the decision as to where the gun was pointed, and made the decision to pull the trigger.  Once the firearm was in his possession, he was responsible for whatever happened to it.  Yes, the armorer is also to blame, but she did not point the gun or pull the trigger.  There are multiple points of irresponsible behavior, but I do think Alec is partly to blame.  The industry should change its protocols or use fake guns if they want to avoid this type of accident, plain and simple. 
    Is there another example where the person pointing a firearm and pulling the trigger would not be held at least partially liable for what happens when that trigger is pulled?
    so if I'm playing a terrorist in a movie, strap a bomb to my kidnap victim, being assured that, while the bomb looks real, it absolutely is not, and I click the little red button, and it somehow explodes, I'm culpable for homicide? gimme a break. 
    I can’t stand Alec. I think he’s insufferable and a notorious hot head. I think it’s so  stupid to defend or go against him based on his fuckin politics. Not saying it’s happening here but it’s definitely happening on he internet. Can people form an opinion without their political
    alignment interfering? I personally think it’s ridiculous to put the blame on him for this. 
  • PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    mace1229 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    So who should be charged with firearm negligence?  Alec?  The armory person?  
    I wouldn’t think Baldwin would or should be charged if the industry standard was to have a firearms expert on site and trust his knowledge. I would also think that standard might change to make anyone handling a gun (if they even use real guns after this) be trained and responsible for the final inspection. 
    I get many actors probably don’t own or use guns and just trust the experts working with them. But honestly, even if I was anti-gun, I’d want to take a safety training course and be able to inspect any firearm someone just hands me and says to go point it at someone and pull the trigger, it’s fine. 
    If my first sentence is true, I think the standard should change to include anyone who held the gun in the chain of events be held responsible. Don’t just trust someone a gun is empty and take their word for it.
    If someone gave you a gun and said “don’t worry, it’s not loaded”, and you pointed it at someone and shot them, who would be liable?  In the end, it’s always (with adults anyway)the person holding/pointing/shooting the gun that is responsible for where that bullet lands and the damage it does.  I don’t give him a pass just because he is an actor.  
    But this isn't just any old backyard shenanigans. this is a controlled setting with real experts knowing what is inside the gun and what isn't. Baldwin wouldn't have known just by looking at it. this is one of those cases where the liability, in my view, would only fall on him if:

    a) as the producer, knowingly cut corners with the union and safety protocols
    b) as an actor, pointed it somewhere he shouldn't have been pointing it
    It doesn’t even sound like the person in charge of the guns was very knowledgeable of them.  Not sure about “real experts”…
    And the actor was obviously pointing it at someone’s mid-section.
    My argument is that Baldwin shouldn’t have even had it in his hands if he doesn’t know how to operate it and do his own safety check.
    Simple firearm basic safety rules:
    ”treat every gun as if it were loaded”
    ”never point at something you do not wish to destroy”
    no, there are real experts in this field. from what I've read, there are many variables involved in a prop gun being used safely, so there's a ton of training and expertise involved. 

    it's just the costume guy moonlighting as a prop gun guy. 

    doing a "safety check", as I said, would have been moot if it had been baldwin, or even a trained firearm enthusiast. As I stated, a layman wouldn't know the difference between a real loaded gun and a prop gun loaded with blanks, even opening the chamber, it looks the same apparently; it is virtually indistinguishable just to look at. only the person loading it would know, and you have to trust they did their job correctly. 
    From what I’ve read, it’s a far cry from “a ton of training and expertise”:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2021/10/24/baldwin-rust-shooting-armorer/

    “ In particular, the incident has put a spotlight on the role of a set’s armorer, or a firearms specialist — and the lack of formal training required to become one.” 

    “There is no standard test to become an armorer, according to Tristano, and training mainly consists of internships or other work under master armorers, the industry term for experienced armorers who oversee those with less experience.”

    more evidence has come out that Alec was handed the gun, was practicing removing it from his holster to point at the camera when it discharged. 
    Saw that, and also a rumor swirling that some were using the guns to plink prior and that there will most likely be criminal charges sought (not sure who for).  
    What a mess, but it really does just boil down to negligence with a firearm.  Still sounds like the armorer was inexperienced and not very well trained.  Maybe they need to re-evaluate the training requirements for anyone handling firearms on movie sets.  There are plenty examples of Hollywood not knowing how firearms work on the big screen alone.  
    I will still hold that Alec should not be handing a real firearm unless he knows basic firearm safety (eg: not pointing at anyone or anything, treat every real gun that is capable of firing real bullets as if it were loaded with real bullets).  Otherwise they should probably stick to rubber prop guns and CGI…
    Honestly, I hope the film industry is hammered over their negligent portrayal and use of firearms. 
    in any industry, there's a certain level of trust that goes with inherent risks that are posed. you trust those that are tasked with the safety of any given instrument/action. I don't see how Alec is at all to blame for this. 

    But yes, there is simply no reason to use real firearms anymore, with the technology to make it look like a real firearm is within financial reach of especially big budget films. 
    I’ll agree to disagree on the culpability of Alec.  In any other situation where an adult accidentally shoots someone, the person pulling the trigger is ultimately responsible for the damage caused by that action.  The “he’s just an actor” excuse is non-withstanding in my opinion.  If you handle a real firearm, you are responsible for what happens with it.  Alec had a choice to not use a real firearm, had a choice whether or not to check the chamber himself, made the decision as to where the gun was pointed, and made the decision to pull the trigger.  Once the firearm was in his possession, he was responsible for whatever happened to it.  Yes, the armorer is also to blame, but she did not point the gun or pull the trigger.  There are multiple points of irresponsible behavior, but I do think Alec is partly to blame.  The industry should change its protocols or use fake guns if they want to avoid this type of accident, plain and simple. 
    Is there another example where the person pointing a firearm and pulling the trigger would not be held at least partially liable for what happens when that trigger is pulled?
    so if I'm playing a terrorist in a movie, strap a bomb to my kidnap victim, being assured that, while the bomb looks real, it absolutely is not, and I click the little red button, and it somehow explodes, I'm culpable for homicide? gimme a break. 
    Yeah, I agree w you.

    Like in any other setting where a trained professional is doing the main work for you, you would be relying on his expertise.
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 32,659
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    mace1229 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    So who should be charged with firearm negligence?  Alec?  The armory person?  
    I wouldn’t think Baldwin would or should be charged if the industry standard was to have a firearms expert on site and trust his knowledge. I would also think that standard might change to make anyone handling a gun (if they even use real guns after this) be trained and responsible for the final inspection. 
    I get many actors probably don’t own or use guns and just trust the experts working with them. But honestly, even if I was anti-gun, I’d want to take a safety training course and be able to inspect any firearm someone just hands me and says to go point it at someone and pull the trigger, it’s fine. 
    If my first sentence is true, I think the standard should change to include anyone who held the gun in the chain of events be held responsible. Don’t just trust someone a gun is empty and take their word for it.
    If someone gave you a gun and said “don’t worry, it’s not loaded”, and you pointed it at someone and shot them, who would be liable?  In the end, it’s always (with adults anyway)the person holding/pointing/shooting the gun that is responsible for where that bullet lands and the damage it does.  I don’t give him a pass just because he is an actor.  
    But this isn't just any old backyard shenanigans. this is a controlled setting with real experts knowing what is inside the gun and what isn't. Baldwin wouldn't have known just by looking at it. this is one of those cases where the liability, in my view, would only fall on him if:

    a) as the producer, knowingly cut corners with the union and safety protocols
    b) as an actor, pointed it somewhere he shouldn't have been pointing it
    It doesn’t even sound like the person in charge of the guns was very knowledgeable of them.  Not sure about “real experts”…
    And the actor was obviously pointing it at someone’s mid-section.
    My argument is that Baldwin shouldn’t have even had it in his hands if he doesn’t know how to operate it and do his own safety check.
    Simple firearm basic safety rules:
    ”treat every gun as if it were loaded”
    ”never point at something you do not wish to destroy”
    no, there are real experts in this field. from what I've read, there are many variables involved in a prop gun being used safely, so there's a ton of training and expertise involved. 

    it's just the costume guy moonlighting as a prop gun guy. 

    doing a "safety check", as I said, would have been moot if it had been baldwin, or even a trained firearm enthusiast. As I stated, a layman wouldn't know the difference between a real loaded gun and a prop gun loaded with blanks, even opening the chamber, it looks the same apparently; it is virtually indistinguishable just to look at. only the person loading it would know, and you have to trust they did their job correctly. 
    From what I’ve read, it’s a far cry from “a ton of training and expertise”:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2021/10/24/baldwin-rust-shooting-armorer/

    “ In particular, the incident has put a spotlight on the role of a set’s armorer, or a firearms specialist — and the lack of formal training required to become one.” 

    “There is no standard test to become an armorer, according to Tristano, and training mainly consists of internships or other work under master armorers, the industry term for experienced armorers who oversee those with less experience.”

    more evidence has come out that Alec was handed the gun, was practicing removing it from his holster to point at the camera when it discharged. 
    Saw that, and also a rumor swirling that some were using the guns to plink prior and that there will most likely be criminal charges sought (not sure who for).  
    What a mess, but it really does just boil down to negligence with a firearm.  Still sounds like the armorer was inexperienced and not very well trained.  Maybe they need to re-evaluate the training requirements for anyone handling firearms on movie sets.  There are plenty examples of Hollywood not knowing how firearms work on the big screen alone.  
    I will still hold that Alec should not be handing a real firearm unless he knows basic firearm safety (eg: not pointing at anyone or anything, treat every real gun that is capable of firing real bullets as if it were loaded with real bullets).  Otherwise they should probably stick to rubber prop guns and CGI…
    Honestly, I hope the film industry is hammered over their negligent portrayal and use of firearms. 
    in any industry, there's a certain level of trust that goes with inherent risks that are posed. you trust those that are tasked with the safety of any given instrument/action. I don't see how Alec is at all to blame for this. 

    But yes, there is simply no reason to use real firearms anymore, with the technology to make it look like a real firearm is within financial reach of especially big budget films. 
    I’ll agree to disagree on the culpability of Alec.  In any other situation where an adult accidentally shoots someone, the person pulling the trigger is ultimately responsible for the damage caused by that action.  The “he’s just an actor” excuse is non-withstanding in my opinion.  If you handle a real firearm, you are responsible for what happens with it.  Alec had a choice to not use a real firearm, had a choice whether or not to check the chamber himself, made the decision as to where the gun was pointed, and made the decision to pull the trigger.  Once the firearm was in his possession, he was responsible for whatever happened to it.  Yes, the armorer is also to blame, but she did not point the gun or pull the trigger.  There are multiple points of irresponsible behavior, but I do think Alec is partly to blame.  The industry should change its protocols or use fake guns if they want to avoid this type of accident, plain and simple. 
    Is there another example where the person pointing a firearm and pulling the trigger would not be held at least partially liable for what happens when that trigger is pulled?
    so if I'm playing a terrorist in a movie, strap a bomb to my kidnap victim, being assured that, while the bomb looks real, it absolutely is not, and I click the little red button, and it somehow explodes, I'm culpable for homicide? gimme a break. 
    Yeah, I agree w you.

    Like in any other setting where a trained professional is doing the main work for you, you would be relying on his expertise.
    exactly. 
    I think I'll move to Australia


  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 32,659
    nicknyr15 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    mace1229 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    So who should be charged with firearm negligence?  Alec?  The armory person?  
    I wouldn’t think Baldwin would or should be charged if the industry standard was to have a firearms expert on site and trust his knowledge. I would also think that standard might change to make anyone handling a gun (if they even use real guns after this) be trained and responsible for the final inspection. 
    I get many actors probably don’t own or use guns and just trust the experts working with them. But honestly, even if I was anti-gun, I’d want to take a safety training course and be able to inspect any firearm someone just hands me and says to go point it at someone and pull the trigger, it’s fine. 
    If my first sentence is true, I think the standard should change to include anyone who held the gun in the chain of events be held responsible. Don’t just trust someone a gun is empty and take their word for it.
    If someone gave you a gun and said “don’t worry, it’s not loaded”, and you pointed it at someone and shot them, who would be liable?  In the end, it’s always (with adults anyway)the person holding/pointing/shooting the gun that is responsible for where that bullet lands and the damage it does.  I don’t give him a pass just because he is an actor.  
    But this isn't just any old backyard shenanigans. this is a controlled setting with real experts knowing what is inside the gun and what isn't. Baldwin wouldn't have known just by looking at it. this is one of those cases where the liability, in my view, would only fall on him if:

    a) as the producer, knowingly cut corners with the union and safety protocols
    b) as an actor, pointed it somewhere he shouldn't have been pointing it
    It doesn’t even sound like the person in charge of the guns was very knowledgeable of them.  Not sure about “real experts”…
    And the actor was obviously pointing it at someone’s mid-section.
    My argument is that Baldwin shouldn’t have even had it in his hands if he doesn’t know how to operate it and do his own safety check.
    Simple firearm basic safety rules:
    ”treat every gun as if it were loaded”
    ”never point at something you do not wish to destroy”
    no, there are real experts in this field. from what I've read, there are many variables involved in a prop gun being used safely, so there's a ton of training and expertise involved. 

    it's just the costume guy moonlighting as a prop gun guy. 

    doing a "safety check", as I said, would have been moot if it had been baldwin, or even a trained firearm enthusiast. As I stated, a layman wouldn't know the difference between a real loaded gun and a prop gun loaded with blanks, even opening the chamber, it looks the same apparently; it is virtually indistinguishable just to look at. only the person loading it would know, and you have to trust they did their job correctly. 
    From what I’ve read, it’s a far cry from “a ton of training and expertise”:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2021/10/24/baldwin-rust-shooting-armorer/

    “ In particular, the incident has put a spotlight on the role of a set’s armorer, or a firearms specialist — and the lack of formal training required to become one.” 

    “There is no standard test to become an armorer, according to Tristano, and training mainly consists of internships or other work under master armorers, the industry term for experienced armorers who oversee those with less experience.”

    more evidence has come out that Alec was handed the gun, was practicing removing it from his holster to point at the camera when it discharged. 
    Saw that, and also a rumor swirling that some were using the guns to plink prior and that there will most likely be criminal charges sought (not sure who for).  
    What a mess, but it really does just boil down to negligence with a firearm.  Still sounds like the armorer was inexperienced and not very well trained.  Maybe they need to re-evaluate the training requirements for anyone handling firearms on movie sets.  There are plenty examples of Hollywood not knowing how firearms work on the big screen alone.  
    I will still hold that Alec should not be handing a real firearm unless he knows basic firearm safety (eg: not pointing at anyone or anything, treat every real gun that is capable of firing real bullets as if it were loaded with real bullets).  Otherwise they should probably stick to rubber prop guns and CGI…
    Honestly, I hope the film industry is hammered over their negligent portrayal and use of firearms. 
    in any industry, there's a certain level of trust that goes with inherent risks that are posed. you trust those that are tasked with the safety of any given instrument/action. I don't see how Alec is at all to blame for this. 

    But yes, there is simply no reason to use real firearms anymore, with the technology to make it look like a real firearm is within financial reach of especially big budget films. 
    I’ll agree to disagree on the culpability of Alec.  In any other situation where an adult accidentally shoots someone, the person pulling the trigger is ultimately responsible for the damage caused by that action.  The “he’s just an actor” excuse is non-withstanding in my opinion.  If you handle a real firearm, you are responsible for what happens with it.  Alec had a choice to not use a real firearm, had a choice whether or not to check the chamber himself, made the decision as to where the gun was pointed, and made the decision to pull the trigger.  Once the firearm was in his possession, he was responsible for whatever happened to it.  Yes, the armorer is also to blame, but she did not point the gun or pull the trigger.  There are multiple points of irresponsible behavior, but I do think Alec is partly to blame.  The industry should change its protocols or use fake guns if they want to avoid this type of accident, plain and simple. 
    Is there another example where the person pointing a firearm and pulling the trigger would not be held at least partially liable for what happens when that trigger is pulled?
    so if I'm playing a terrorist in a movie, strap a bomb to my kidnap victim, being assured that, while the bomb looks real, it absolutely is not, and I click the little red button, and it somehow explodes, I'm culpable for homicide? gimme a break. 
    I can’t stand Alec. I think he’s insufferable and a notorious hot head. I think it’s so  stupid to defend or go against him based on his fuckin politics. Not saying it’s happening here but it’s definitely happening on he internet. Can people form an opinion without their political
    alignment interfering? I personally think it’s ridiculous to put the blame on him for this. 
    leaving a voice mail on your daughters cell phone calling her a pig shows who you really are. 

    same with the traffic ticket incident. I agree with you. He seems like a real piece of work. 
    I think I'll move to Australia


  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 15,542
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    mace1229 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    So who should be charged with firearm negligence?  Alec?  The armory person?  
    I wouldn’t think Baldwin would or should be charged if the industry standard was to have a firearms expert on site and trust his knowledge. I would also think that standard might change to make anyone handling a gun (if they even use real guns after this) be trained and responsible for the final inspection. 
    I get many actors probably don’t own or use guns and just trust the experts working with them. But honestly, even if I was anti-gun, I’d want to take a safety training course and be able to inspect any firearm someone just hands me and says to go point it at someone and pull the trigger, it’s fine. 
    If my first sentence is true, I think the standard should change to include anyone who held the gun in the chain of events be held responsible. Don’t just trust someone a gun is empty and take their word for it.
    If someone gave you a gun and said “don’t worry, it’s not loaded”, and you pointed it at someone and shot them, who would be liable?  In the end, it’s always (with adults anyway)the person holding/pointing/shooting the gun that is responsible for where that bullet lands and the damage it does.  I don’t give him a pass just because he is an actor.  
    But this isn't just any old backyard shenanigans. this is a controlled setting with real experts knowing what is inside the gun and what isn't. Baldwin wouldn't have known just by looking at it. this is one of those cases where the liability, in my view, would only fall on him if:

    a) as the producer, knowingly cut corners with the union and safety protocols
    b) as an actor, pointed it somewhere he shouldn't have been pointing it
    It doesn’t even sound like the person in charge of the guns was very knowledgeable of them.  Not sure about “real experts”…
    And the actor was obviously pointing it at someone’s mid-section.
    My argument is that Baldwin shouldn’t have even had it in his hands if he doesn’t know how to operate it and do his own safety check.
    Simple firearm basic safety rules:
    ”treat every gun as if it were loaded”
    ”never point at something you do not wish to destroy”
    no, there are real experts in this field. from what I've read, there are many variables involved in a prop gun being used safely, so there's a ton of training and expertise involved. 

    it's just the costume guy moonlighting as a prop gun guy. 

    doing a "safety check", as I said, would have been moot if it had been baldwin, or even a trained firearm enthusiast. As I stated, a layman wouldn't know the difference between a real loaded gun and a prop gun loaded with blanks, even opening the chamber, it looks the same apparently; it is virtually indistinguishable just to look at. only the person loading it would know, and you have to trust they did their job correctly. 
    From what I’ve read, it’s a far cry from “a ton of training and expertise”:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2021/10/24/baldwin-rust-shooting-armorer/

    “ In particular, the incident has put a spotlight on the role of a set’s armorer, or a firearms specialist — and the lack of formal training required to become one.” 

    “There is no standard test to become an armorer, according to Tristano, and training mainly consists of internships or other work under master armorers, the industry term for experienced armorers who oversee those with less experience.”

    more evidence has come out that Alec was handed the gun, was practicing removing it from his holster to point at the camera when it discharged. 
    Saw that, and also a rumor swirling that some were using the guns to plink prior and that there will most likely be criminal charges sought (not sure who for).  
    What a mess, but it really does just boil down to negligence with a firearm.  Still sounds like the armorer was inexperienced and not very well trained.  Maybe they need to re-evaluate the training requirements for anyone handling firearms on movie sets.  There are plenty examples of Hollywood not knowing how firearms work on the big screen alone.  
    I will still hold that Alec should not be handing a real firearm unless he knows basic firearm safety (eg: not pointing at anyone or anything, treat every real gun that is capable of firing real bullets as if it were loaded with real bullets).  Otherwise they should probably stick to rubber prop guns and CGI…
    Honestly, I hope the film industry is hammered over their negligent portrayal and use of firearms. 
    in any industry, there's a certain level of trust that goes with inherent risks that are posed. you trust those that are tasked with the safety of any given instrument/action. I don't see how Alec is at all to blame for this. 

    But yes, there is simply no reason to use real firearms anymore, with the technology to make it look like a real firearm is within financial reach of especially big budget films. 
    I’ll agree to disagree on the culpability of Alec.  In any other situation where an adult accidentally shoots someone, the person pulling the trigger is ultimately responsible for the damage caused by that action.  The “he’s just an actor” excuse is non-withstanding in my opinion.  If you handle a real firearm, you are responsible for what happens with it.  Alec had a choice to not use a real firearm, had a choice whether or not to check the chamber himself, made the decision as to where the gun was pointed, and made the decision to pull the trigger.  Once the firearm was in his possession, he was responsible for whatever happened to it.  Yes, the armorer is also to blame, but she did not point the gun or pull the trigger.  There are multiple points of irresponsible behavior, but I do think Alec is partly to blame.  The industry should change its protocols or use fake guns if they want to avoid this type of accident, plain and simple. 
    Is there another example where the person pointing a firearm and pulling the trigger would not be held at least partially liable for what happens when that trigger is pulled?
    so if I'm playing a terrorist in a movie, strap a bomb to my kidnap victim, being assured that, while the bomb looks real, it absolutely is not, and I click the little red button, and it somehow explodes, I'm culpable for homicide? gimme a break. 
    Agree.  That is nonsense.  The actors are professionals in regards to firearms and explosives, etc.  The movie has them...they are responsible as well as leadership for the movie set to ensure a safe environment.  The actors shouldn't be careless, and it doesn;t seem like he was, but they shouldn;t be responsible for gun safety on set either.  Nightmare scenario with more issues then the current setup.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 6,492
    edited October 2021
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    mace1229 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    So who should be charged with firearm negligence?  Alec?  The armory person?  
    I wouldn’t think Baldwin would or should be charged if the industry standard was to have a firearms expert on site and trust his knowledge. I would also think that standard might change to make anyone handling a gun (if they even use real guns after this) be trained and responsible for the final inspection. 
    I get many actors probably don’t own or use guns and just trust the experts working with them. But honestly, even if I was anti-gun, I’d want to take a safety training course and be able to inspect any firearm someone just hands me and says to go point it at someone and pull the trigger, it’s fine. 
    If my first sentence is true, I think the standard should change to include anyone who held the gun in the chain of events be held responsible. Don’t just trust someone a gun is empty and take their word for it.
    If someone gave you a gun and said “don’t worry, it’s not loaded”, and you pointed it at someone and shot them, who would be liable?  In the end, it’s always (with adults anyway)the person holding/pointing/shooting the gun that is responsible for where that bullet lands and the damage it does.  I don’t give him a pass just because he is an actor.  
    But this isn't just any old backyard shenanigans. this is a controlled setting with real experts knowing what is inside the gun and what isn't. Baldwin wouldn't have known just by looking at it. this is one of those cases where the liability, in my view, would only fall on him if:

    a) as the producer, knowingly cut corners with the union and safety protocols
    b) as an actor, pointed it somewhere he shouldn't have been pointing it
    It doesn’t even sound like the person in charge of the guns was very knowledgeable of them.  Not sure about “real experts”…
    And the actor was obviously pointing it at someone’s mid-section.
    My argument is that Baldwin shouldn’t have even had it in his hands if he doesn’t know how to operate it and do his own safety check.
    Simple firearm basic safety rules:
    ”treat every gun as if it were loaded”
    ”never point at something you do not wish to destroy”
    no, there are real experts in this field. from what I've read, there are many variables involved in a prop gun being used safely, so there's a ton of training and expertise involved. 

    it's just the costume guy moonlighting as a prop gun guy. 

    doing a "safety check", as I said, would have been moot if it had been baldwin, or even a trained firearm enthusiast. As I stated, a layman wouldn't know the difference between a real loaded gun and a prop gun loaded with blanks, even opening the chamber, it looks the same apparently; it is virtually indistinguishable just to look at. only the person loading it would know, and you have to trust they did their job correctly. 
    From what I’ve read, it’s a far cry from “a ton of training and expertise”:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2021/10/24/baldwin-rust-shooting-armorer/

    “ In particular, the incident has put a spotlight on the role of a set’s armorer, or a firearms specialist — and the lack of formal training required to become one.” 

    “There is no standard test to become an armorer, according to Tristano, and training mainly consists of internships or other work under master armorers, the industry term for experienced armorers who oversee those with less experience.”

    more evidence has come out that Alec was handed the gun, was practicing removing it from his holster to point at the camera when it discharged. 
    Saw that, and also a rumor swirling that some were using the guns to plink prior and that there will most likely be criminal charges sought (not sure who for).  
    What a mess, but it really does just boil down to negligence with a firearm.  Still sounds like the armorer was inexperienced and not very well trained.  Maybe they need to re-evaluate the training requirements for anyone handling firearms on movie sets.  There are plenty examples of Hollywood not knowing how firearms work on the big screen alone.  
    I will still hold that Alec should not be handing a real firearm unless he knows basic firearm safety (eg: not pointing at anyone or anything, treat every real gun that is capable of firing real bullets as if it were loaded with real bullets).  Otherwise they should probably stick to rubber prop guns and CGI…
    Honestly, I hope the film industry is hammered over their negligent portrayal and use of firearms. 
    in any industry, there's a certain level of trust that goes with inherent risks that are posed. you trust those that are tasked with the safety of any given instrument/action. I don't see how Alec is at all to blame for this. 

    But yes, there is simply no reason to use real firearms anymore, with the technology to make it look like a real firearm is within financial reach of especially big budget films. 
    I’ll agree to disagree on the culpability of Alec.  In any other situation where an adult accidentally shoots someone, the person pulling the trigger is ultimately responsible for the damage caused by that action.  The “he’s just an actor” excuse is non-withstanding in my opinion.  If you handle a real firearm, you are responsible for what happens with it.  Alec had a choice to not use a real firearm, had a choice whether or not to check the chamber himself, made the decision as to where the gun was pointed, and made the decision to pull the trigger.  Once the firearm was in his possession, he was responsible for whatever happened to it.  Yes, the armorer is also to blame, but she did not point the gun or pull the trigger.  There are multiple points of irresponsible behavior, but I do think Alec is partly to blame.  The industry should change its protocols or use fake guns if they want to avoid this type of accident, plain and simple. 
    Is there another example where the person pointing a firearm and pulling the trigger would not be held at least partially liable for what happens when that trigger is pulled?
    so if I'm playing a terrorist in a movie, strap a bomb to my kidnap victim, being assured that, while the bomb looks real, it absolutely is not, and I click the little red button, and it somehow explodes, I'm culpable for homicide? gimme a break. 
    I would say that the police would probably look at everyone, from the pyrotechnics professional, to the person that pushed the button to determine who was culpable.  I’m not familiar with bombs, but I know firearm laws pretty well and in any other case, accidental or intentional, the person pulling the trigger is responsible for what happens next.  It’s why the “I didn’t know it was loaded” never holds up in court.  You are responsible for checking that gun yourself.  Once a firearm is placed in your hands, you are responsible for it.  Firearm safety 101 is never assuming a gun is not loaded with live rounds. We agree, though, that the easiest solution to this is to avoid using real guns on set.
    Question, are there any reasonable actions Alec could have taken to avoid this tragedy?  If yes, then I think he could face negligent homicide charges at least.
    Post edited by PJPOWER on
  • cblock4lifecblock4life Posts: 899
    edited October 2021
    nicknyr15 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    mace1229 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    So who should be charged with firearm negligence?  Alec?  The armory person?  
    I wouldn’t think Baldwin would or should be charged if the industry standard was to have a firearms expert on site and trust his knowledge. I would also think that standard might change to make anyone handling a gun (if they even use real guns after this) be trained and responsible for the final inspection. 
    I get many actors probably don’t own or use guns and just trust the experts working with them. But honestly, even if I was anti-gun, I’d want to take a safety training course and be able to inspect any firearm someone just hands me and says to go point it at someone and pull the trigger, it’s fine. 
    If my first sentence is true, I think the standard should change to include anyone who held the gun in the chain of events be held responsible. Don’t just trust someone a gun is empty and take their word for it.
    If someone gave you a gun and said “don’t worry, it’s not loaded”, and you pointed it at someone and shot them, who would be liable?  In the end, it’s always (with adults anyway)the person holding/pointing/shooting the gun that is responsible for where that bullet lands and the damage it does.  I don’t give him a pass just because he is an actor.  
    But this isn't just any old backyard shenanigans. this is a controlled setting with real experts knowing what is inside the gun and what isn't. Baldwin wouldn't have known just by looking at it. this is one of those cases where the liability, in my view, would only fall on him if:

    a) as the producer, knowingly cut corners with the union and safety protocols
    b) as an actor, pointed it somewhere he shouldn't have been pointing it
    It doesn’t even sound like the person in charge of the guns was very knowledgeable of them.  Not sure about “real experts”…
    And the actor was obviously pointing it at someone’s mid-section.
    My argument is that Baldwin shouldn’t have even had it in his hands if he doesn’t know how to operate it and do his own safety check.
    Simple firearm basic safety rules:
    ”treat every gun as if it were loaded”
    ”never point at something you do not wish to destroy”
    no, there are real experts in this field. from what I've read, there are many variables involved in a prop gun being used safely, so there's a ton of training and expertise involved. 

    it's just the costume guy moonlighting as a prop gun guy. 

    doing a "safety check", as I said, would have been moot if it had been baldwin, or even a trained firearm enthusiast. As I stated, a layman wouldn't know the difference between a real loaded gun and a prop gun loaded with blanks, even opening the chamber, it looks the same apparently; it is virtually indistinguishable just to look at. only the person loading it would know, and you have to trust they did their job correctly. 
    From what I’ve read, it’s a far cry from “a ton of training and expertise”:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2021/10/24/baldwin-rust-shooting-armorer/

    “ In particular, the incident has put a spotlight on the role of a set’s armorer, or a firearms specialist — and the lack of formal training required to become one.” 

    “There is no standard test to become an armorer, according to Tristano, and training mainly consists of internships or other work under master armorers, the industry term for experienced armorers who oversee those with less experience.”

    more evidence has come out that Alec was handed the gun, was practicing removing it from his holster to point at the camera when it discharged. 
    Saw that, and also a rumor swirling that some were using the guns to plink prior and that there will most likely be criminal charges sought (not sure who for).  
    What a mess, but it really does just boil down to negligence with a firearm.  Still sounds like the armorer was inexperienced and not very well trained.  Maybe they need to re-evaluate the training requirements for anyone handling firearms on movie sets.  There are plenty examples of Hollywood not knowing how firearms work on the big screen alone.  
    I will still hold that Alec should not be handing a real firearm unless he knows basic firearm safety (eg: not pointing at anyone or anything, treat every real gun that is capable of firing real bullets as if it were loaded with real bullets).  Otherwise they should probably stick to rubber prop guns and CGI…
    Honestly, I hope the film industry is hammered over their negligent portrayal and use of firearms. 
    in any industry, there's a certain level of trust that goes with inherent risks that are posed. you trust those that are tasked with the safety of any given instrument/action. I don't see how Alec is at all to blame for this. 

    But yes, there is simply no reason to use real firearms anymore, with the technology to make it look like a real firearm is within financial reach of especially big budget films. 
    I’ll agree to disagree on the culpability of Alec.  In any other situation where an adult accidentally shoots someone, the person pulling the trigger is ultimately responsible for the damage caused by that action.  The “he’s just an actor” excuse is non-withstanding in my opinion.  If you handle a real firearm, you are responsible for what happens with it.  Alec had a choice to not use a real firearm, had a choice whether or not to check the chamber himself, made the decision as to where the gun was pointed, and made the decision to pull the trigger.  Once the firearm was in his possession, he was responsible for whatever happened to it.  Yes, the armorer is also to blame, but she did not point the gun or pull the trigger.  There are multiple points of irresponsible behavior, but I do think Alec is partly to blame.  The industry should change its protocols or use fake guns if they want to avoid this type of accident, plain and simple. 
    Is there another example where the person pointing a firearm and pulling the trigger would not be held at least partially liable for what happens when that trigger is pulled?
    so if I'm playing a terrorist in a movie, strap a bomb to my kidnap victim, being assured that, while the bomb looks real, it absolutely is not, and I click the little red button, and it somehow explodes, I'm culpable for homicide? gimme a break. 
    I can’t stand Alec. I think he’s insufferable and a notorious hot head. I think it’s so  stupid to defend or go against him based on his fuckin politics. Not saying it’s happening here but it’s definitely happening on he internet. Can people form an opinion without their political
    alignment interfering? I personally think it’s ridiculous to put the blame on him for this. 
    I agree with you about the politics bullshit but get used to it because I don’t see it changing soon no matter what the subject is. As for how the investigation goes they’ll have to look at his FF’s portrayal as motive/revenge.  As for blame I believe there’s only been one (felony?) conviction rendered in all the sets using guns that had issues. But I’m gonna double check that myself.  So based on that (if I’m correct) baldwin may face harsher charges more so as one of the producers but may never see any charges filed.  

    Post edited by cblock4life on
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 32,659
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    mace1229 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    So who should be charged with firearm negligence?  Alec?  The armory person?  
    I wouldn’t think Baldwin would or should be charged if the industry standard was to have a firearms expert on site and trust his knowledge. I would also think that standard might change to make anyone handling a gun (if they even use real guns after this) be trained and responsible for the final inspection. 
    I get many actors probably don’t own or use guns and just trust the experts working with them. But honestly, even if I was anti-gun, I’d want to take a safety training course and be able to inspect any firearm someone just hands me and says to go point it at someone and pull the trigger, it’s fine. 
    If my first sentence is true, I think the standard should change to include anyone who held the gun in the chain of events be held responsible. Don’t just trust someone a gun is empty and take their word for it.
    If someone gave you a gun and said “don’t worry, it’s not loaded”, and you pointed it at someone and shot them, who would be liable?  In the end, it’s always (with adults anyway)the person holding/pointing/shooting the gun that is responsible for where that bullet lands and the damage it does.  I don’t give him a pass just because he is an actor.  
    But this isn't just any old backyard shenanigans. this is a controlled setting with real experts knowing what is inside the gun and what isn't. Baldwin wouldn't have known just by looking at it. this is one of those cases where the liability, in my view, would only fall on him if:

    a) as the producer, knowingly cut corners with the union and safety protocols
    b) as an actor, pointed it somewhere he shouldn't have been pointing it
    It doesn’t even sound like the person in charge of the guns was very knowledgeable of them.  Not sure about “real experts”…
    And the actor was obviously pointing it at someone’s mid-section.
    My argument is that Baldwin shouldn’t have even had it in his hands if he doesn’t know how to operate it and do his own safety check.
    Simple firearm basic safety rules:
    ”treat every gun as if it were loaded”
    ”never point at something you do not wish to destroy”
    no, there are real experts in this field. from what I've read, there are many variables involved in a prop gun being used safely, so there's a ton of training and expertise involved. 

    it's just the costume guy moonlighting as a prop gun guy. 

    doing a "safety check", as I said, would have been moot if it had been baldwin, or even a trained firearm enthusiast. As I stated, a layman wouldn't know the difference between a real loaded gun and a prop gun loaded with blanks, even opening the chamber, it looks the same apparently; it is virtually indistinguishable just to look at. only the person loading it would know, and you have to trust they did their job correctly. 
    From what I’ve read, it’s a far cry from “a ton of training and expertise”:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2021/10/24/baldwin-rust-shooting-armorer/

    “ In particular, the incident has put a spotlight on the role of a set’s armorer, or a firearms specialist — and the lack of formal training required to become one.” 

    “There is no standard test to become an armorer, according to Tristano, and training mainly consists of internships or other work under master armorers, the industry term for experienced armorers who oversee those with less experience.”

    more evidence has come out that Alec was handed the gun, was practicing removing it from his holster to point at the camera when it discharged. 
    Saw that, and also a rumor swirling that some were using the guns to plink prior and that there will most likely be criminal charges sought (not sure who for).  
    What a mess, but it really does just boil down to negligence with a firearm.  Still sounds like the armorer was inexperienced and not very well trained.  Maybe they need to re-evaluate the training requirements for anyone handling firearms on movie sets.  There are plenty examples of Hollywood not knowing how firearms work on the big screen alone.  
    I will still hold that Alec should not be handing a real firearm unless he knows basic firearm safety (eg: not pointing at anyone or anything, treat every real gun that is capable of firing real bullets as if it were loaded with real bullets).  Otherwise they should probably stick to rubber prop guns and CGI…
    Honestly, I hope the film industry is hammered over their negligent portrayal and use of firearms. 
    in any industry, there's a certain level of trust that goes with inherent risks that are posed. you trust those that are tasked with the safety of any given instrument/action. I don't see how Alec is at all to blame for this. 

    But yes, there is simply no reason to use real firearms anymore, with the technology to make it look like a real firearm is within financial reach of especially big budget films. 
    I’ll agree to disagree on the culpability of Alec.  In any other situation where an adult accidentally shoots someone, the person pulling the trigger is ultimately responsible for the damage caused by that action.  The “he’s just an actor” excuse is non-withstanding in my opinion.  If you handle a real firearm, you are responsible for what happens with it.  Alec had a choice to not use a real firearm, had a choice whether or not to check the chamber himself, made the decision as to where the gun was pointed, and made the decision to pull the trigger.  Once the firearm was in his possession, he was responsible for whatever happened to it.  Yes, the armorer is also to blame, but she did not point the gun or pull the trigger.  There are multiple points of irresponsible behavior, but I do think Alec is partly to blame.  The industry should change its protocols or use fake guns if they want to avoid this type of accident, plain and simple. 
    Is there another example where the person pointing a firearm and pulling the trigger would not be held at least partially liable for what happens when that trigger is pulled?
    so if I'm playing a terrorist in a movie, strap a bomb to my kidnap victim, being assured that, while the bomb looks real, it absolutely is not, and I click the little red button, and it somehow explodes, I'm culpable for homicide? gimme a break. 
    I would say that the police would probably look at everyone, from the pyrotechnics professional, to the person that pushed the button to determine who was culpable.  I’m not familiar with bombs, but I know firearm laws pretty well and in any other case, accidental or intentional, the person pulling the trigger is responsible for what happens next.  It’s why the “I didn’t know it was loaded” never holds up in court.  You are responsible for checking that gun yourself.  Once a firearm is placed in your hands, you are responsible for it.  Firearm safety 101 is never assuming a gun is not loaded with live rounds. We agree, though, that the easiest solution to this is to avoid using real guns on set.
    Question, are there any reasonable actions Alec could have taken to avoid this tragedy?  If yes, then I think he could face negligent homicide charges at least.
    if, as producer he was responsible for cutting corners budget-wise, or giving direction in some way that lead to negligence, maybe I could see something like that, but as the actor who had the gun discharge on him, no. this is a closed setting, again, not someone's back yard. these situations simply aren't comparable. 
    I think I'll move to Australia


  • Hilarious that some folks want more “responsibility” regarding firearms and “responsibleness” on a movie set than they do out in public. What a joke.

    Like “responsible” gun owners who have shot and/or killed someone have always been held accountable or “responsible?” Haha, good one!
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 6,492
    edited October 2021
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    mace1229 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    So who should be charged with firearm negligence?  Alec?  The armory person?  
    I wouldn’t think Baldwin would or should be charged if the industry standard was to have a firearms expert on site and trust his knowledge. I would also think that standard might change to make anyone handling a gun (if they even use real guns after this) be trained and responsible for the final inspection. 
    I get many actors probably don’t own or use guns and just trust the experts working with them. But honestly, even if I was anti-gun, I’d want to take a safety training course and be able to inspect any firearm someone just hands me and says to go point it at someone and pull the trigger, it’s fine. 
    If my first sentence is true, I think the standard should change to include anyone who held the gun in the chain of events be held responsible. Don’t just trust someone a gun is empty and take their word for it.
    If someone gave you a gun and said “don’t worry, it’s not loaded”, and you pointed it at someone and shot them, who would be liable?  In the end, it’s always (with adults anyway)the person holding/pointing/shooting the gun that is responsible for where that bullet lands and the damage it does.  I don’t give him a pass just because he is an actor.  
    But this isn't just any old backyard shenanigans. this is a controlled setting with real experts knowing what is inside the gun and what isn't. Baldwin wouldn't have known just by looking at it. this is one of those cases where the liability, in my view, would only fall on him if:

    a) as the producer, knowingly cut corners with the union and safety protocols
    b) as an actor, pointed it somewhere he shouldn't have been pointing it
    It doesn’t even sound like the person in charge of the guns was very knowledgeable of them.  Not sure about “real experts”…
    And the actor was obviously pointing it at someone’s mid-section.
    My argument is that Baldwin shouldn’t have even had it in his hands if he doesn’t know how to operate it and do his own safety check.
    Simple firearm basic safety rules:
    ”treat every gun as if it were loaded”
    ”never point at something you do not wish to destroy”
    no, there are real experts in this field. from what I've read, there are many variables involved in a prop gun being used safely, so there's a ton of training and expertise involved. 

    it's just the costume guy moonlighting as a prop gun guy. 

    doing a "safety check", as I said, would have been moot if it had been baldwin, or even a trained firearm enthusiast. As I stated, a layman wouldn't know the difference between a real loaded gun and a prop gun loaded with blanks, even opening the chamber, it looks the same apparently; it is virtually indistinguishable just to look at. only the person loading it would know, and you have to trust they did their job correctly. 
    From what I’ve read, it’s a far cry from “a ton of training and expertise”:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2021/10/24/baldwin-rust-shooting-armorer/

    “ In particular, the incident has put a spotlight on the role of a set’s armorer, or a firearms specialist — and the lack of formal training required to become one.” 

    “There is no standard test to become an armorer, according to Tristano, and training mainly consists of internships or other work under master armorers, the industry term for experienced armorers who oversee those with less experience.”

    more evidence has come out that Alec was handed the gun, was practicing removing it from his holster to point at the camera when it discharged. 
    Saw that, and also a rumor swirling that some were using the guns to plink prior and that there will most likely be criminal charges sought (not sure who for).  
    What a mess, but it really does just boil down to negligence with a firearm.  Still sounds like the armorer was inexperienced and not very well trained.  Maybe they need to re-evaluate the training requirements for anyone handling firearms on movie sets.  There are plenty examples of Hollywood not knowing how firearms work on the big screen alone.  
    I will still hold that Alec should not be handing a real firearm unless he knows basic firearm safety (eg: not pointing at anyone or anything, treat every real gun that is capable of firing real bullets as if it were loaded with real bullets).  Otherwise they should probably stick to rubber prop guns and CGI…
    Honestly, I hope the film industry is hammered over their negligent portrayal and use of firearms. 
    in any industry, there's a certain level of trust that goes with inherent risks that are posed. you trust those that are tasked with the safety of any given instrument/action. I don't see how Alec is at all to blame for this. 

    But yes, there is simply no reason to use real firearms anymore, with the technology to make it look like a real firearm is within financial reach of especially big budget films. 
    I’ll agree to disagree on the culpability of Alec.  In any other situation where an adult accidentally shoots someone, the person pulling the trigger is ultimately responsible for the damage caused by that action.  The “he’s just an actor” excuse is non-withstanding in my opinion.  If you handle a real firearm, you are responsible for what happens with it.  Alec had a choice to not use a real firearm, had a choice whether or not to check the chamber himself, made the decision as to where the gun was pointed, and made the decision to pull the trigger.  Once the firearm was in his possession, he was responsible for whatever happened to it.  Yes, the armorer is also to blame, but she did not point the gun or pull the trigger.  There are multiple points of irresponsible behavior, but I do think Alec is partly to blame.  The industry should change its protocols or use fake guns if they want to avoid this type of accident, plain and simple. 
    Is there another example where the person pointing a firearm and pulling the trigger would not be held at least partially liable for what happens when that trigger is pulled?
    so if I'm playing a terrorist in a movie, strap a bomb to my kidnap victim, being assured that, while the bomb looks real, it absolutely is not, and I click the little red button, and it somehow explodes, I'm culpable for homicide? gimme a break. 
    I would say that the police would probably look at everyone, from the pyrotechnics professional, to the person that pushed the button to determine who was culpable.  I’m not familiar with bombs, but I know firearm laws pretty well and in any other case, accidental or intentional, the person pulling the trigger is responsible for what happens next.  It’s why the “I didn’t know it was loaded” never holds up in court.  You are responsible for checking that gun yourself.  Once a firearm is placed in your hands, you are responsible for it.  Firearm safety 101 is never assuming a gun is not loaded with live rounds. We agree, though, that the easiest solution to this is to avoid using real guns on set.
    Question, are there any reasonable actions Alec could have taken to avoid this tragedy?  If yes, then I think he could face negligent homicide charges at least.
    if, as producer he was responsible for cutting corners budget-wise, or giving direction in some way that lead to negligence, maybe I could see something like that, but as the actor who had the gun discharge on him, no. this is a closed setting, again, not someone's back yard. these situations simply aren't comparable. 
    From New Mexico law:

    https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/2013/chapter-30/article-2/section-30-2-3/

    “Involuntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to felony, or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection.”

    Due caution and circumspection=not pointing a real gun at someone, checking chamber, etc.
    I honestly don’t see how he would not be somewhat culpable here with the way the law is written.

    If you were at a gun range (closed setting) and the range master told you your gun was unloaded, and you picked it up without checking it, pointed it at someone (or “practicing your
    draw”) and shot them with a live round, do you think charges would be brought up against you?  
    Post edited by PJPOWER on
  • Hilarious that some folks want more “responsibility” regarding firearms and “responsibleness” on a movie set than they do out in public. What a joke.

    Like “responsible” gun owners who have shot and/or killed someone have always been held accountable or “responsible?” Haha, good one!
    This was supposed to be a trained professional and not Big Hoss from around the Holler.  The professional should be held to a higher standard because he is the hired expert.

    Do you hire the guy from up the block that slept at the Holiday Inn to do your taxes or someone certified?  
  • PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    mace1229 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    So who should be charged with firearm negligence?  Alec?  The armory person?  
    I wouldn’t think Baldwin would or should be charged if the industry standard was to have a firearms expert on site and trust his knowledge. I would also think that standard might change to make anyone handling a gun (if they even use real guns after this) be trained and responsible for the final inspection. 
    I get many actors probably don’t own or use guns and just trust the experts working with them. But honestly, even if I was anti-gun, I’d want to take a safety training course and be able to inspect any firearm someone just hands me and says to go point it at someone and pull the trigger, it’s fine. 
    If my first sentence is true, I think the standard should change to include anyone who held the gun in the chain of events be held responsible. Don’t just trust someone a gun is empty and take their word for it.
    If someone gave you a gun and said “don’t worry, it’s not loaded”, and you pointed it at someone and shot them, who would be liable?  In the end, it’s always (with adults anyway)the person holding/pointing/shooting the gun that is responsible for where that bullet lands and the damage it does.  I don’t give him a pass just because he is an actor.  
    But this isn't just any old backyard shenanigans. this is a controlled setting with real experts knowing what is inside the gun and what isn't. Baldwin wouldn't have known just by looking at it. this is one of those cases where the liability, in my view, would only fall on him if:

    a) as the producer, knowingly cut corners with the union and safety protocols
    b) as an actor, pointed it somewhere he shouldn't have been pointing it
    It doesn’t even sound like the person in charge of the guns was very knowledgeable of them.  Not sure about “real experts”…
    And the actor was obviously pointing it at someone’s mid-section.
    My argument is that Baldwin shouldn’t have even had it in his hands if he doesn’t know how to operate it and do his own safety check.
    Simple firearm basic safety rules:
    ”treat every gun as if it were loaded”
    ”never point at something you do not wish to destroy”
    no, there are real experts in this field. from what I've read, there are many variables involved in a prop gun being used safely, so there's a ton of training and expertise involved. 

    it's just the costume guy moonlighting as a prop gun guy. 

    doing a "safety check", as I said, would have been moot if it had been baldwin, or even a trained firearm enthusiast. As I stated, a layman wouldn't know the difference between a real loaded gun and a prop gun loaded with blanks, even opening the chamber, it looks the same apparently; it is virtually indistinguishable just to look at. only the person loading it would know, and you have to trust they did their job correctly. 
    From what I’ve read, it’s a far cry from “a ton of training and expertise”:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2021/10/24/baldwin-rust-shooting-armorer/

    “ In particular, the incident has put a spotlight on the role of a set’s armorer, or a firearms specialist — and the lack of formal training required to become one.” 

    “There is no standard test to become an armorer, according to Tristano, and training mainly consists of internships or other work under master armorers, the industry term for experienced armorers who oversee those with less experience.”

    more evidence has come out that Alec was handed the gun, was practicing removing it from his holster to point at the camera when it discharged. 
    Saw that, and also a rumor swirling that some were using the guns to plink prior and that there will most likely be criminal charges sought (not sure who for).  
    What a mess, but it really does just boil down to negligence with a firearm.  Still sounds like the armorer was inexperienced and not very well trained.  Maybe they need to re-evaluate the training requirements for anyone handling firearms on movie sets.  There are plenty examples of Hollywood not knowing how firearms work on the big screen alone.  
    I will still hold that Alec should not be handing a real firearm unless he knows basic firearm safety (eg: not pointing at anyone or anything, treat every real gun that is capable of firing real bullets as if it were loaded with real bullets).  Otherwise they should probably stick to rubber prop guns and CGI…
    Honestly, I hope the film industry is hammered over their negligent portrayal and use of firearms. 
    in any industry, there's a certain level of trust that goes with inherent risks that are posed. you trust those that are tasked with the safety of any given instrument/action. I don't see how Alec is at all to blame for this. 

    But yes, there is simply no reason to use real firearms anymore, with the technology to make it look like a real firearm is within financial reach of especially big budget films. 
    I’ll agree to disagree on the culpability of Alec.  In any other situation where an adult accidentally shoots someone, the person pulling the trigger is ultimately responsible for the damage caused by that action.  The “he’s just an actor” excuse is non-withstanding in my opinion.  If you handle a real firearm, you are responsible for what happens with it.  Alec had a choice to not use a real firearm, had a choice whether or not to check the chamber himself, made the decision as to where the gun was pointed, and made the decision to pull the trigger.  Once the firearm was in his possession, he was responsible for whatever happened to it.  Yes, the armorer is also to blame, but she did not point the gun or pull the trigger.  There are multiple points of irresponsible behavior, but I do think Alec is partly to blame.  The industry should change its protocols or use fake guns if they want to avoid this type of accident, plain and simple. 
    Is there another example where the person pointing a firearm and pulling the trigger would not be held at least partially liable for what happens when that trigger is pulled?
    so if I'm playing a terrorist in a movie, strap a bomb to my kidnap victim, being assured that, while the bomb looks real, it absolutely is not, and I click the little red button, and it somehow explodes, I'm culpable for homicide? gimme a break. 
    I would say that the police would probably look at everyone, from the pyrotechnics professional, to the person that pushed the button to determine who was culpable.  I’m not familiar with bombs, but I know firearm laws pretty well and in any other case, accidental or intentional, the person pulling the trigger is responsible for what happens next.  It’s why the “I didn’t know it was loaded” never holds up in court.  You are responsible for checking that gun yourself.  Once a firearm is placed in your hands, you are responsible for it.  Firearm safety 101 is never assuming a gun is not loaded with live rounds. We agree, though, that the easiest solution to this is to avoid using real guns on set.
    Question, are there any reasonable actions Alec could have taken to avoid this tragedy?  If yes, then I think he could face negligent homicide charges at least.
    if, as producer he was responsible for cutting corners budget-wise, or giving direction in some way that lead to negligence, maybe I could see something like that, but as the actor who had the gun discharge on him, no. this is a closed setting, again, not someone's back yard. these situations simply aren't comparable. 
    From New Mexico law:

    https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/2013/chapter-30/article-2/section-30-2-3/

    “Involuntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to felony, or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection.”

    Due caution and circumspection=not pointing a real gun at someone, checking chamber, etc.
    I honestly don’t see how he would not be somewhat culpable here with the way the law is written.

    If you were at a gun range (closed setting) and the range master told you your gun was unloaded, and you picked it up without checking it, pointed it at someone (or “practicing your
    draw”) and shot them with a live round, do you think charges would be brought up against you?  
    Movie set and was told it's a prop gun.

    No way he gets charged.

    I still think there was intent from someone though...
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 10,739
    Hilarious that some folks want more “responsibility” regarding firearms and “responsibleness” on a movie set than they do out in public. What a joke.

    Like “responsible” gun owners who have shot and/or killed someone have always been held accountable or “responsible?” Haha, good one!
    This was supposed to be a trained professional and not Big Hoss from around the Holler.  The professional should be held to a higher standard because he is the hired expert.

    Do you hire the guy from up the block that slept at the Holiday Inn to do your taxes or someone certified?  
    I prefer the tax guy at motel 6.

    You are 100 percent responsible for checking a firearm once it’s in your possession…that’s just common sense.


    Give Peas A Chance…
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 6,492
    edited October 2021
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    mace1229 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    So who should be charged with firearm negligence?  Alec?  The armory person?  
    I wouldn’t think Baldwin would or should be charged if the industry standard was to have a firearms expert on site and trust his knowledge. I would also think that standard might change to make anyone handling a gun (if they even use real guns after this) be trained and responsible for the final inspection. 
    I get many actors probably don’t own or use guns and just trust the experts working with them. But honestly, even if I was anti-gun, I’d want to take a safety training course and be able to inspect any firearm someone just hands me and says to go point it at someone and pull the trigger, it’s fine. 
    If my first sentence is true, I think the standard should change to include anyone who held the gun in the chain of events be held responsible. Don’t just trust someone a gun is empty and take their word for it.
    If someone gave you a gun and said “don’t worry, it’s not loaded”, and you pointed it at someone and shot them, who would be liable?  In the end, it’s always (with adults anyway)the person holding/pointing/shooting the gun that is responsible for where that bullet lands and the damage it does.  I don’t give him a pass just because he is an actor.  
    But this isn't just any old backyard shenanigans. this is a controlled setting with real experts knowing what is inside the gun and what isn't. Baldwin wouldn't have known just by looking at it. this is one of those cases where the liability, in my view, would only fall on him if:

    a) as the producer, knowingly cut corners with the union and safety protocols
    b) as an actor, pointed it somewhere he shouldn't have been pointing it
    It doesn’t even sound like the person in charge of the guns was very knowledgeable of them.  Not sure about “real experts”…
    And the actor was obviously pointing it at someone’s mid-section.
    My argument is that Baldwin shouldn’t have even had it in his hands if he doesn’t know how to operate it and do his own safety check.
    Simple firearm basic safety rules:
    ”treat every gun as if it were loaded”
    ”never point at something you do not wish to destroy”
    no, there are real experts in this field. from what I've read, there are many variables involved in a prop gun being used safely, so there's a ton of training and expertise involved. 

    it's just the costume guy moonlighting as a prop gun guy. 

    doing a "safety check", as I said, would have been moot if it had been baldwin, or even a trained firearm enthusiast. As I stated, a layman wouldn't know the difference between a real loaded gun and a prop gun loaded with blanks, even opening the chamber, it looks the same apparently; it is virtually indistinguishable just to look at. only the person loading it would know, and you have to trust they did their job correctly. 
    From what I’ve read, it’s a far cry from “a ton of training and expertise”:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2021/10/24/baldwin-rust-shooting-armorer/

    “ In particular, the incident has put a spotlight on the role of a set’s armorer, or a firearms specialist — and the lack of formal training required to become one.” 

    “There is no standard test to become an armorer, according to Tristano, and training mainly consists of internships or other work under master armorers, the industry term for experienced armorers who oversee those with less experience.”

    more evidence has come out that Alec was handed the gun, was practicing removing it from his holster to point at the camera when it discharged. 
    Saw that, and also a rumor swirling that some were using the guns to plink prior and that there will most likely be criminal charges sought (not sure who for).  
    What a mess, but it really does just boil down to negligence with a firearm.  Still sounds like the armorer was inexperienced and not very well trained.  Maybe they need to re-evaluate the training requirements for anyone handling firearms on movie sets.  There are plenty examples of Hollywood not knowing how firearms work on the big screen alone.  
    I will still hold that Alec should not be handing a real firearm unless he knows basic firearm safety (eg: not pointing at anyone or anything, treat every real gun that is capable of firing real bullets as if it were loaded with real bullets).  Otherwise they should probably stick to rubber prop guns and CGI…
    Honestly, I hope the film industry is hammered over their negligent portrayal and use of firearms. 
    in any industry, there's a certain level of trust that goes with inherent risks that are posed. you trust those that are tasked with the safety of any given instrument/action. I don't see how Alec is at all to blame for this. 

    But yes, there is simply no reason to use real firearms anymore, with the technology to make it look like a real firearm is within financial reach of especially big budget films. 
    I’ll agree to disagree on the culpability of Alec.  In any other situation where an adult accidentally shoots someone, the person pulling the trigger is ultimately responsible for the damage caused by that action.  The “he’s just an actor” excuse is non-withstanding in my opinion.  If you handle a real firearm, you are responsible for what happens with it.  Alec had a choice to not use a real firearm, had a choice whether or not to check the chamber himself, made the decision as to where the gun was pointed, and made the decision to pull the trigger.  Once the firearm was in his possession, he was responsible for whatever happened to it.  Yes, the armorer is also to blame, but she did not point the gun or pull the trigger.  There are multiple points of irresponsible behavior, but I do think Alec is partly to blame.  The industry should change its protocols or use fake guns if they want to avoid this type of accident, plain and simple. 
    Is there another example where the person pointing a firearm and pulling the trigger would not be held at least partially liable for what happens when that trigger is pulled?
    so if I'm playing a terrorist in a movie, strap a bomb to my kidnap victim, being assured that, while the bomb looks real, it absolutely is not, and I click the little red button, and it somehow explodes, I'm culpable for homicide? gimme a break. 
    I would say that the police would probably look at everyone, from the pyrotechnics professional, to the person that pushed the button to determine who was culpable.  I’m not familiar with bombs, but I know firearm laws pretty well and in any other case, accidental or intentional, the person pulling the trigger is responsible for what happens next.  It’s why the “I didn’t know it was loaded” never holds up in court.  You are responsible for checking that gun yourself.  Once a firearm is placed in your hands, you are responsible for it.  Firearm safety 101 is never assuming a gun is not loaded with live rounds. We agree, though, that the easiest solution to this is to avoid using real guns on set.
    Question, are there any reasonable actions Alec could have taken to avoid this tragedy?  If yes, then I think he could face negligent homicide charges at least.
    if, as producer he was responsible for cutting corners budget-wise, or giving direction in some way that lead to negligence, maybe I could see something like that, but as the actor who had the gun discharge on him, no. this is a closed setting, again, not someone's back yard. these situations simply aren't comparable. 
    From New Mexico law:

    https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/2013/chapter-30/article-2/section-30-2-3/

    “Involuntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to felony, or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection.”

    Due caution and circumspection=not pointing a real gun at someone, checking chamber, etc.
    I honestly don’t see how he would not be somewhat culpable here with the way the law is written.

    If you were at a gun range (closed setting) and the range master told you your gun was unloaded, and you picked it up without checking it, pointed it at someone (or “practicing your
    draw”) and shot them with a live round, do you think charges would be brought up against you?  
    Movie set and was told it's a prop gun.

    No way he gets charged.

    I still think there was intent from someone though...
    Calling it a prop gun is a sidestep.  It was a real gun used as a prop. 
    New Mexico defines a deadly weapon as:
    B. "deadly weapon" means any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded; or any weapon which is capable of producing death or great bodily harm,”
    https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/2011/chapter30/article1/section30-1-12/

    Calling it a “prop gun” is merely semantics.
    So, through negligence, Alec Baldwin pointed a deadly weapon at a cast member without inspecting it himself and pulled the trigger= negligent homicide in the way New Mexico law is written.
    Will he actually get charged?  Well, he is a rich old white guy, Hollywood “elite”, so not likely…
    Post edited by PJPOWER on
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 6,492
    Hilarious that some folks want more “responsibility” regarding firearms and “responsibleness” on a movie set than they do out in public. What a joke.

    Like “responsible” gun owners who have shot and/or killed someone have always been held accountable or “responsible?” Haha, good one!
    This was supposed to be a trained professional and not Big Hoss from around the Holler.  The professional should be held to a higher standard because he is the hired expert.

    Do you hire the guy from up the block that slept at the Holiday Inn to do your taxes or someone certified?  
    I prefer the tax guy at motel 6.

    You are 100 percent responsible for checking a firearm once it’s in your possession…that’s just common sense.


    Exactly.  End of story.
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 31,640
    edited October 2021
    Hilarious that some folks want more “responsibility” regarding firearms and “responsibleness” on a movie set than they do out in public. What a joke.

    Like “responsible” gun owners who have shot and/or killed someone have always been held accountable or “responsible?” Haha, good one!
    This was supposed to be a trained professional and not Big Hoss from around the Holler.  The professional should be held to a higher standard because he is the hired expert.

    Do you hire the guy from up the block that slept at the Holiday Inn to do your taxes or someone certified?  
    Let me know when these two Big Hoss' from around the Holler are held "responsible."

    Police crack mystery of bullet out of nowhere that killed an Everglades fisherman - The Washington Post

    “Both males were cooperative and advised that they both shot multiple guns that day, handing them back and forth,” Palm Beach Sheriff spokeswoman Teri Barbera told the Sun Sentinel. “They both shot Galvan’s .45-caliber gun throughout the afternoon.”

    When ballistics compared Galvan’s gun with the bullet that fatally hit Ramdass, they matched.

    Investigators determined neither men could see beyond the raised bank and vegetation. They did not realize Ramdass was in the line of fire. Detectives also could not prove conclusively who fired the fatal shot. “The victim’s position was concealed from the target range,” Barbara said. “Investigators found no criminal intent and this appears to be a tragic accident.”

    Investigators met with the Palm Beach County State Attorney’s Office and determined there was no probable cause for an arrest or criminal charges. Neither Galvan nor Salcedo immediately responded to a Facebook message for comment.


    Post edited by Halifax2TheMax on
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 32,659
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    mace1229 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    So who should be charged with firearm negligence?  Alec?  The armory person?  
    I wouldn’t think Baldwin would or should be charged if the industry standard was to have a firearms expert on site and trust his knowledge. I would also think that standard might change to make anyone handling a gun (if they even use real guns after this) be trained and responsible for the final inspection. 
    I get many actors probably don’t own or use guns and just trust the experts working with them. But honestly, even if I was anti-gun, I’d want to take a safety training course and be able to inspect any firearm someone just hands me and says to go point it at someone and pull the trigger, it’s fine. 
    If my first sentence is true, I think the standard should change to include anyone who held the gun in the chain of events be held responsible. Don’t just trust someone a gun is empty and take their word for it.
    If someone gave you a gun and said “don’t worry, it’s not loaded”, and you pointed it at someone and shot them, who would be liable?  In the end, it’s always (with adults anyway)the person holding/pointing/shooting the gun that is responsible for where that bullet lands and the damage it does.  I don’t give him a pass just because he is an actor.  
    But this isn't just any old backyard shenanigans. this is a controlled setting with real experts knowing what is inside the gun and what isn't. Baldwin wouldn't have known just by looking at it. this is one of those cases where the liability, in my view, would only fall on him if:

    a) as the producer, knowingly cut corners with the union and safety protocols
    b) as an actor, pointed it somewhere he shouldn't have been pointing it
    It doesn’t even sound like the person in charge of the guns was very knowledgeable of them.  Not sure about “real experts”…
    And the actor was obviously pointing it at someone’s mid-section.
    My argument is that Baldwin shouldn’t have even had it in his hands if he doesn’t know how to operate it and do his own safety check.
    Simple firearm basic safety rules:
    ”treat every gun as if it were loaded”
    ”never point at something you do not wish to destroy”
    no, there are real experts in this field. from what I've read, there are many variables involved in a prop gun being used safely, so there's a ton of training and expertise involved. 

    it's just the costume guy moonlighting as a prop gun guy. 

    doing a "safety check", as I said, would have been moot if it had been baldwin, or even a trained firearm enthusiast. As I stated, a layman wouldn't know the difference between a real loaded gun and a prop gun loaded with blanks, even opening the chamber, it looks the same apparently; it is virtually indistinguishable just to look at. only the person loading it would know, and you have to trust they did their job correctly. 
    From what I’ve read, it’s a far cry from “a ton of training and expertise”:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2021/10/24/baldwin-rust-shooting-armorer/

    “ In particular, the incident has put a spotlight on the role of a set’s armorer, or a firearms specialist — and the lack of formal training required to become one.” 

    “There is no standard test to become an armorer, according to Tristano, and training mainly consists of internships or other work under master armorers, the industry term for experienced armorers who oversee those with less experience.”

    more evidence has come out that Alec was handed the gun, was practicing removing it from his holster to point at the camera when it discharged. 
    Saw that, and also a rumor swirling that some were using the guns to plink prior and that there will most likely be criminal charges sought (not sure who for).  
    What a mess, but it really does just boil down to negligence with a firearm.  Still sounds like the armorer was inexperienced and not very well trained.  Maybe they need to re-evaluate the training requirements for anyone handling firearms on movie sets.  There are plenty examples of Hollywood not knowing how firearms work on the big screen alone.  
    I will still hold that Alec should not be handing a real firearm unless he knows basic firearm safety (eg: not pointing at anyone or anything, treat every real gun that is capable of firing real bullets as if it were loaded with real bullets).  Otherwise they should probably stick to rubber prop guns and CGI…
    Honestly, I hope the film industry is hammered over their negligent portrayal and use of firearms. 
    in any industry, there's a certain level of trust that goes with inherent risks that are posed. you trust those that are tasked with the safety of any given instrument/action. I don't see how Alec is at all to blame for this. 

    But yes, there is simply no reason to use real firearms anymore, with the technology to make it look like a real firearm is within financial reach of especially big budget films. 
    I’ll agree to disagree on the culpability of Alec.  In any other situation where an adult accidentally shoots someone, the person pulling the trigger is ultimately responsible for the damage caused by that action.  The “he’s just an actor” excuse is non-withstanding in my opinion.  If you handle a real firearm, you are responsible for what happens with it.  Alec had a choice to not use a real firearm, had a choice whether or not to check the chamber himself, made the decision as to where the gun was pointed, and made the decision to pull the trigger.  Once the firearm was in his possession, he was responsible for whatever happened to it.  Yes, the armorer is also to blame, but she did not point the gun or pull the trigger.  There are multiple points of irresponsible behavior, but I do think Alec is partly to blame.  The industry should change its protocols or use fake guns if they want to avoid this type of accident, plain and simple. 
    Is there another example where the person pointing a firearm and pulling the trigger would not be held at least partially liable for what happens when that trigger is pulled?
    so if I'm playing a terrorist in a movie, strap a bomb to my kidnap victim, being assured that, while the bomb looks real, it absolutely is not, and I click the little red button, and it somehow explodes, I'm culpable for homicide? gimme a break. 
    I would say that the police would probably look at everyone, from the pyrotechnics professional, to the person that pushed the button to determine who was culpable.  I’m not familiar with bombs, but I know firearm laws pretty well and in any other case, accidental or intentional, the person pulling the trigger is responsible for what happens next.  It’s why the “I didn’t know it was loaded” never holds up in court.  You are responsible for checking that gun yourself.  Once a firearm is placed in your hands, you are responsible for it.  Firearm safety 101 is never assuming a gun is not loaded with live rounds. We agree, though, that the easiest solution to this is to avoid using real guns on set.
    Question, are there any reasonable actions Alec could have taken to avoid this tragedy?  If yes, then I think he could face negligent homicide charges at least.
    if, as producer he was responsible for cutting corners budget-wise, or giving direction in some way that lead to negligence, maybe I could see something like that, but as the actor who had the gun discharge on him, no. this is a closed setting, again, not someone's back yard. these situations simply aren't comparable. 
    From New Mexico law:

    https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/2013/chapter-30/article-2/section-30-2-3/

    “Involuntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to felony, or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection.”

    Due caution and circumspection=not pointing a real gun at someone, checking chamber, etc.
    I honestly don’t see how he would not be somewhat culpable here with the way the law is written.

    If you were at a gun range (closed setting) and the range master told you your gun was unloaded, and you picked it up without checking it, pointed it at someone (or “practicing your
    draw”) and shot them with a live round, do you think charges would be brought up against you?  
    Movie set and was told it's a prop gun.

    No way he gets charged.

    I still think there was intent from someone though...
    Calling it a prop gun is a sidestep.  It was a real gun used as a prop. 
    New Mexico defines a deadly weapon as:
    B. "deadly weapon" means any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded; or any weapon which is capable of producing death or great bodily harm,”
    https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/2011/chapter30/article1/section30-1-12/

    Calling it a “prop gun” is merely semantics.
    So, through negligence, Alec Baldwin pointed a deadly weapon at a cast member without inspecting it himself and pulled the trigger= negligent homicide in the way New Mexico law is written.
    Will he actually get charged?  Well, he is a rich old white guy, Hollywood “elite”, so not likely…
    A) he didn't point it at a cast member. He pointed it at the camera, as the scene likely directed him to. 
    B) even if he inspected it himself, he likely wouldn't have known the difference between blanks and live rounds (nor should he be expected to-why have an armorer if that's the expectation?)
    C) he (allegedly) didn't pull the trigger. he was practicing his draw from his holster and it went off. 

    real life is different from controlled conditions. I'm not really sure how you can keep arguing this. he won't be charged as the person holding the gun. He might get charged as the producer depending on those findings. But not as the person holding the gun. 

    if an actor was supposed to be a firearms expert in a film, knowing they'd be subject to prosecution if an accident happened, we wouldn't have seen one single real gun in a film in decades. it's just not how it works. 
    I think I'll move to Australia


Sign In or Register to comment.