Tragic event in which Alec Baldwin 'discharged' prop gun that left cinematographer dead.

12346»

Comments

  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 6,492
    edited February 16
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    so if I'm driving a car and the brakes fail and I get into an accident and kill someone....it's my fault? I would say it's more all the people that were responsible for how that car operated properly were more at fault than the driver. 
    Watch the recreation video and tell me you still think Baldwin was not at fault. 
    And the difference is that the gun didn’t “fail”.  It operated exactly as a gun should have.  The safety measures were what were ignored by this “driver”.
    ok, first, the recreation video was created by the victim's family. how is anyone supposed to take that as fact and not predudicial? has baldwin's claim that the victim's instruction to him to point it at her armpit been refuted/corroborated by anyone? the gun was announced as a cold gun to baldwin. if that is in fact true, I have no idea how (general) you hold him at fault for this. 
    Because, as stated in the video, industry standards (and general firearm safety standards) are that you should never point a real firearm at anyone.  The safety standards were ignored by Baldwin as well as others.  
    Plainly, you should “treat every firearm as if it were loaded (with a live round).  And you should never point a firearm at something you do not wish to destroy.  
    Even the most basic firearm safety courses cover this in depth.
    so the person who was shot told him to point the gun at her. 

    I've seen countless movies where guns are held to people's heads. in their mouths. or pointed in their general direction. are you saying they weren't supposed to do that in these thousands of movies/tv shows?
    If it were a real firearm being used, that is exactly what I’m saying.
    but in reality, do you think that's what happened? or every time a gun was pointed at someone, it was a fake firearm?
    And we are seeing the consequences of bending those gun safety rules…and it’s not the first time.
    Ask any firearm expert if it is okay to ever point a gun at someone, whether or not it is assumed to be unloaded or deemed “safe”.  Pretty sure they will all give the same answer.
    Post edited by PJPOWER on
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 32,022
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    as we've already noted, I am ignorant when it comes to guns. I've never held one, I don't know the safety features of them and how they work. You claim they 100% can't just go off by themselves. I find it hard to believe that there is 0 margin for error in any machinery. of any kind. that just doesn't exist in reality. I've read conflicting statements by gun "experts" all over the place that have claimed as you do, but just as many have claimed as Alex is. So I don't know what to believe. 
    So, if by what you are saying, there is a 1% chance of a firearm malfunctioning, doesn’t that further prove why you should NEVER point it at someone?
    “NEVER”
    Very basic firearm safety….
    yes, but if you are told it was checked and verified as empty, and the cinematographer instructs you to point it at her, you'd logically assume all the protections needed were in place. 

    personally? being somewhat fearful of guns, if one was put in my hand, I'd have it pointed at the ground at all times and I'd probably check the chamber about 400 times before I did anything with it at all. But I'm guessing Baldwin has been in this position hundreds of times on movie sets. he trusted the people he hired to do their jobs. 
    So, if I’m at a gun range and I have several professional people say a gun is unloaded and someone tells me to point it at them, would that be logical or safe to do so?  If it were a plastic or fake gun, sure, but NEVER a real one.
    General safety standards apply whether you are on a movie set or at a gun range.  
    The video above really spells this all out pretty well.  
    it's also not logical in "real life" to be told it's ok to jump through a hoop on fire in a speeding mustang. but people do it in movies because there are assurances that it has passed the requisite safety checks. at a gun range there would be no purpose to doing pointing a gun at someone, unloaded or not. for a movie there's obviously a purpose. 

    I'm not saying this should be the norm on movie sets. quite the opposite. I just think that baldwin was most likely operating within the normal parameters of the industry. will the industry change now? I'm guessing it already has. I just don't see this as baldwin's fault. you do. I guess we'll just have to leave it at that. 
    I think I'll move to Australia


  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 6,492
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    as we've already noted, I am ignorant when it comes to guns. I've never held one, I don't know the safety features of them and how they work. You claim they 100% can't just go off by themselves. I find it hard to believe that there is 0 margin for error in any machinery. of any kind. that just doesn't exist in reality. I've read conflicting statements by gun "experts" all over the place that have claimed as you do, but just as many have claimed as Alex is. So I don't know what to believe. 
    So, if by what you are saying, there is a 1% chance of a firearm malfunctioning, doesn’t that further prove why you should NEVER point it at someone?
    “NEVER”
    Very basic firearm safety….
    yes, but if you are told it was checked and verified as empty, and the cinematographer instructs you to point it at her, you'd logically assume all the protections needed were in place. 

    personally? being somewhat fearful of guns, if one was put in my hand, I'd have it pointed at the ground at all times and I'd probably check the chamber about 400 times before I did anything with it at all. But I'm guessing Baldwin has been in this position hundreds of times on movie sets. he trusted the people he hired to do their jobs. 
    So, if I’m at a gun range and I have several professional people say a gun is unloaded and someone tells me to point it at them, would that be logical or safe to do so?  If it were a plastic or fake gun, sure, but NEVER a real one.
    General safety standards apply whether you are on a movie set or at a gun range.  
    The video above really spells this all out pretty well.  
    it's also not logical in "real life" to be told it's ok to jump through a hoop on fire in a speeding mustang. but people do it in movies because there are assurances that it has passed the requisite safety checks. at a gun range there would be no purpose to doing pointing a gun at someone, unloaded or not. for a movie there's obviously a purpose. 

    I'm not saying this should be the norm on movie sets. quite the opposite. I just think that baldwin was most likely operating within the normal parameters of the industry. will the industry change now? I'm guessing it already has. I just don't see this as baldwin's fault. you do. I guess we'll just have to leave it at that. 
    Well the lawyer for the family is saying he did not follow industry standards.  We can agree to disagree on this.  I think Baldwin is mostly at fault here.
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 32,022
    edited February 16
    well I'm not going to go by the word of the lawyer who obviously has a vested interest in pushing a specific narrative. 
    I think I'll move to Australia


  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 6,492
    edited February 16
    well I'm not going to go by the word of the lawyer who obviously has a vested interest in being right. 
    The lawyer has plenty firearm experts to back him.  Baldwin has plenty vested interest in saying he was not at fault too, but little backing him in the form of experts.
    Again, I’ll agree to disagree with you here, let’s see how this plays out.
    Post edited by PJPOWER on
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 32,022
    PJPOWER said:
    well I'm not going to go by the word of the lawyer who obviously has a vested interest in being right. 
    The lawyer has plenty firearm experts to back him.  Baldwin has plenty vested interest in saying he was not at fault too, but little backing him in the form of experts.
    well I think he'll probably get said backing if he needs it in the court of law. it would be weird of him to recruit them at this stage. But hey, you absolutely could be right. I don't know. I think we'll have to wait until testimony is presented. 
    I think I'll move to Australia


  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 6,492
    PJPOWER said:
    well I'm not going to go by the word of the lawyer who obviously has a vested interest in being right. 
    The lawyer has plenty firearm experts to back him.  Baldwin has plenty vested interest in saying he was not at fault too, but little backing him in the form of experts.
    well I think he'll probably get said backing if he needs it in the court of law. it would be weird of him to recruit them at this stage. But hey, you absolutely could be right. I don't know. I think we'll have to wait until testimony is presented. 
    Good luck to him…and fair enough.
  • dankinddankind I am not your foot. Posts: 20,329
    “Sue everybody.”
    —Sol Rosenberg
    I SAW PEARL JAM
  • Ledbetterman10Ledbetterman10 Posts: 15,890
    PJPOWER said:
    as we've already noted, I am ignorant when it comes to guns. I've never held one, I don't know the safety features of them and how they work. You claim they 100% can't just go off by themselves. I find it hard to believe that there is 0 margin for error in any machinery. of any kind. that just doesn't exist in reality. I've read conflicting statements by gun "experts" all over the place that have claimed as you do, but just as many have claimed as Alex is. So I don't know what to believe. 
    So, if by what you are saying, there is a 1% chance of a firearm malfunctioning, doesn’t that further prove why you should NEVER point it at someone?
    “NEVER”
    Very basic firearm safety….
    yes, but if you are told it was checked and verified as empty, and the cinematographer instructs you to point it at her, you'd logically assume all the protections needed were in place. 

    personally? being somewhat fearful of guns, if one was put in my hand, I'd have it pointed at the ground at all times and I'd probably check the chamber about 400 times before I did anything with it at all. But I'm guessing Baldwin has been in this position hundreds of times on movie sets. he trusted the people he hired to do their jobs. 
    That’s the right way to do it whether you’re someone that’s fearful of guns, or someone that wears a pistol on his hip at the local diner. It’s outrageous that a woman was shot and killed like this. Off-the-charts negligence. 
    2000: Camden 1, 2003: Philly, State College, Camden 1, MSG 2, Hershey, 2004: Reading, 2005: Philly, 2006: Camden 1, 2, East Rutherford 1, 2007: Lollapalooza, 2008: Camden 1, Washington D.C., MSG 1, 2, 2009: Philly 1, 2, 3, 4, 2010: Bristol, MSG 2, 2011: PJ20 1, 2, 2012: Made In America, 2013: Brooklyn 2, Philly 2, 2014: Denver, 2015: Global Citizen Festival, 2016: Philly 2, Fenway 1, 2018: Fenway 1, 2, 2021: Sea. Hear. Now.

    Pearl Jam bootlegs:
    http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 37,312
    Human nature often means when something bad happens to a loved one, somebody has to take the blame.  I feel badly for both Baldwin and the family.  It sure seems to me that who ever was responsible for the props/equipment is the one who blew it.  And who doesn't make mistakes?  Obviously it is time to stop using guns on movie sets.  No brainer.
    "I believe in the mystery, and I don't want to take it any further than that. Maybe what I mean by that is love."
    -John Densmore











  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 6,492
    edited February 17
    brianlux said:
    Human nature often means when something bad happens to a loved one, somebody has to take the blame.  I feel badly for both Baldwin and the family.  It sure seems to me that who ever was responsible for the props/equipment is the one who blew it.  And who doesn't make mistakes?  Obviously it is time to stop using guns on movie sets.  No brainer.
    I think the use of real guns on movie sets will be very scrutinized after this….hopefully anyways.  I feel bad for Baldwin too, but it does seem like he carries a portion of the responsibility here.  The family deserves compensation for the safety negligence.  I, for one, fear what kind of precedence would be set if he wasn’t held at least partially responsible.  The “I didn’t know it was really loaded” excuse would be used at every trial involving firearm gross negligence.
    Post edited by PJPOWER on
  • Merkin BallerMerkin Baller Posts: 6,850
    brianlux said:
    Human nature often means when something bad happens to a loved one, somebody has to take the blame.  I feel badly for both Baldwin and the family.  It sure seems to me that who ever was responsible for the props/equipment is the one who blew it.  And who doesn't make mistakes?  Obviously it is time to stop using guns on movie sets.  No brainer.
    Yeah, there are people employed by the film companies to make sure an incident like this never occurs. That's why they are there. 

    Blaming Baldwin for this doesn't make sense to me, but with that being said, there's not much that DOES make sense to me these days. 
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 6,492
    edited February 17
    brianlux said:
    Human nature often means when something bad happens to a loved one, somebody has to take the blame.  I feel badly for both Baldwin and the family.  It sure seems to me that who ever was responsible for the props/equipment is the one who blew it.  And who doesn't make mistakes?  Obviously it is time to stop using guns on movie sets.  No brainer.
    Yeah, there are people employed by the film companies to make sure an incident like this never occurs. That's why they are there. 

    Blaming Baldwin for this doesn't make sense to me, but with that being said, there's not much that DOES make sense to me these days. 
    The lawsuit says that he cut corners and refused safety trainings, etc.  Not to mention he was a producer responsible for making sure safety protocols were in place.  Personally, I don’t see how he isn’t liable.  I don’t think his celebrity status is going to absolve his liability here.
    The family lawyer makes some pretty compelling claims, did you watch their video?  I’d like to hear people’s thoughts on their presentation, as it spells out exactly what I’ve been saying in a better, more spelled out way.
    Post edited by PJPOWER on
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 32,022
    as I said before, I think he might be liable as producer, but not as the shooter. 
    I think I'll move to Australia


  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 7,308
    as we've already noted, I am ignorant when it comes to guns. I've never held one, I don't know the safety features of them and how they work. You claim they 100% can't just go off by themselves. I find it hard to believe that there is 0 margin for error in any machinery. of any kind. that just doesn't exist in reality. I've read conflicting statements by gun "experts" all over the place that have claimed as you do, but just as many have claimed as Alex is. So I don't know what to believe. 
    I’m pretty sure this was a single action, being a western movie. That means the trigger can’t be pulled unless it’s fully cocked. Baldwin has said he didn’t cock it all the way. That just can’t happen. A gun just firing off is about as likely as my car starting and driving down the street on its own.
    Now certain things can fail on a gun, I’m sure a safety can fail, the hammer slam down if the gun is dropped, etc. but they just don’t go off. The story he gave in that interview didn’t make any sense to me.
    Im not saying he’s responsible. I just don’t agree 100% with his version. I do think moving forward any person handling a gun needs to be part of the safety check and be the final check. 
    I said it before, we can expect an actor to gain or lose 50 lbs, learn an instrument, train in dancing or fighting 8 hours a day for months and no one thinks twice. But to suggest they should take 5 minutes to learn how to check and operate a firearm they are using people get riled up. I don’t get it. 
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 32,022
    mace1229 said:
    as we've already noted, I am ignorant when it comes to guns. I've never held one, I don't know the safety features of them and how they work. You claim they 100% can't just go off by themselves. I find it hard to believe that there is 0 margin for error in any machinery. of any kind. that just doesn't exist in reality. I've read conflicting statements by gun "experts" all over the place that have claimed as you do, but just as many have claimed as Alex is. So I don't know what to believe. 
    I’m pretty sure this was a single action, being a western movie. That means the trigger can’t be pulled unless it’s fully cocked. Baldwin has said he didn’t cock it all the way. That just can’t happen. A gun just firing off is about as likely as my car starting and driving down the street on its own.
    Now certain things can fail on a gun, I’m sure a safety can fail, the hammer slam down if the gun is dropped, etc. but they just don’t go off. The story he gave in that interview didn’t make any sense to me.
    Im not saying he’s responsible. I just don’t agree 100% with his version. I do think moving forward any person handling a gun needs to be part of the safety check and be the final check. 
    I said it before, we can expect an actor to gain or lose 50 lbs, learn an instrument, train in dancing or fighting 8 hours a day for months and no one thinks twice. But to suggest they should take 5 minutes to learn how to check and operate a firearm they are using people get riled up. I don’t get it. 
    if he in fact refused safety training as PJPower said the lawyer claims, yeah, this doesn't look good for him. 

    for the record, my sister once had a car that wouldn't turn off. haha. it didn't put itself into gear, but still. haha
    I think I'll move to Australia


  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 7,308
    I remember this happened close to the time of the Rittenhouse trial. I only watched a few bits, but one I saw was a lawyer (I forget which side) wanted to use his rifle as a prop. The judge asked if it had been checked by the expert, the lawyer said it was. The judge said k“check it again,” he wanted to see the weapon checked in front of him.
    At the very least, how is that not applied to movies? If an actor, director and everyone else  can’t/doesn’t want to learn safety checks, then be a witness to it. Clearly not one person was a witness to this safety check, because it never happened.
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 6,492
    edited February 17
    mace1229 said:
    I remember this happened close to the time of the Rittenhouse trial. I only watched a few bits, but one I saw was a lawyer (I forget which side) wanted to use his rifle as a prop. The judge asked if it had been checked by the expert, the lawyer said it was. The judge said k“check it again,” he wanted to see the weapon checked in front of him.
    At the very least, how is that not applied to movies? If an actor, director and everyone else  can’t/doesn’t want to learn safety checks, then be a witness to it. Clearly not one person was a witness to this safety check, because it never happened.
    I’m not too familiar with the film industry standards, but the family’s lawyer says it is “industry standard” for the actor handling the firearm to do a final safety check, as well as remote camera operation, safety barriers, etc when a real firearm is being used.
     If those things are true, he’s fucked.
    Post edited by PJPOWER on
  • Merkin BallerMerkin Baller Posts: 6,850
    PJPOWER said:
    brianlux said:
    Human nature often means when something bad happens to a loved one, somebody has to take the blame.  I feel badly for both Baldwin and the family.  It sure seems to me that who ever was responsible for the props/equipment is the one who blew it.  And who doesn't make mistakes?  Obviously it is time to stop using guns on movie sets.  No brainer.
    Yeah, there are people employed by the film companies to make sure an incident like this never occurs. That's why they are there. 

    Blaming Baldwin for this doesn't make sense to me, but with that being said, there's not much that DOES make sense to me these days. 
    The lawsuit says that he cut corners and refused safety trainings, etc.  Not to mention he was a producer responsible for making sure safety protocols were in place.  Personally, I don’t see how he isn’t liable.  I don’t think his celebrity status is going to absolve his liability here.
    The family lawyer makes some pretty compelling claims, did you watch their video?  I’d like to hear people’s thoughts on their presentation, as it spells out exactly what I’ve been saying in a better, more spelled out way.
    Lawsuits say all sorts of shit... just because they say it, doesn't mean they can prove it. I'll wait to see it play out in court rather than form an opinion based on a lawyer's allegations. 

    If he's found to be negligent through his direct actions on the spot, or sidestepping safety protocol either as an actor or as a producer, than throw the book at him, I couldn't give a shit about his celebrity status.
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 32,022
    yeah, I really don't know why "celebrity" keeps getting tossed around. 
    I think I'll move to Australia


  • Merkin BallerMerkin Baller Posts: 6,850
    mace1229 said:
    as we've already noted, I am ignorant when it comes to guns. I've never held one, I don't know the safety features of them and how they work. You claim they 100% can't just go off by themselves. I find it hard to believe that there is 0 margin for error in any machinery. of any kind. that just doesn't exist in reality. I've read conflicting statements by gun "experts" all over the place that have claimed as you do, but just as many have claimed as Alex is. So I don't know what to believe. 
    I’m pretty sure this was a single action, being a western movie. That means the trigger can’t be pulled unless it’s fully cocked. Baldwin has said he didn’t cock it all the way. That just can’t happen. A gun just firing off is about as likely as my car starting and driving down the street on its own.
    Now certain things can fail on a gun, I’m sure a safety can fail, the hammer slam down if the gun is dropped, etc. but they just don’t go off. The story he gave in that interview didn’t make any sense to me.
    Im not saying he’s responsible. I just don’t agree 100% with his version. I do think moving forward any person handling a gun needs to be part of the safety check and be the final check. 
    I said it before, we can expect an actor to gain or lose 50 lbs, learn an instrument, train in dancing or fighting 8 hours a day for months and no one thinks twice. But to suggest they should take 5 minutes to learn how to check and operate a firearm they are using people get riled up. I don’t get it. 
    Agree with the boldfaced. 
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 37,312
    brianlux said:
    Human nature often means when something bad happens to a loved one, somebody has to take the blame.  I feel badly for both Baldwin and the family.  It sure seems to me that who ever was responsible for the props/equipment is the one who blew it.  And who doesn't make mistakes?  Obviously it is time to stop using guns on movie sets.  No brainer.
    Yeah, there are people employed by the film companies to make sure an incident like this never occurs. That's why they are there. 

    Blaming Baldwin for this doesn't make sense to me, but with that being said, there's not much that DOES make sense to me these days. 

    Isn't that the truth?!
    "I believe in the mystery, and I don't want to take it any further than that. Maybe what I mean by that is love."
    -John Densmore











  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 7,308
    PJPOWER said:
    mace1229 said:
    I remember this happened close to the time of the Rittenhouse trial. I only watched a few bits, but one I saw was a lawyer (I forget which side) wanted to use his rifle as a prop. The judge asked if it had been checked by the expert, the lawyer said it was. The judge said k“check it again,” he wanted to see the weapon checked in front of him.
    At the very least, how is that not applied to movies? If an actor, director and everyone else  can’t/doesn’t want to learn safety checks, then be a witness to it. Clearly not one person was a witness to this safety check, because it never happened.
    I’m not too familiar with the film industry standards, but the family’s lawyer says it is “industry standard” for the actor handling the firearm to do a final safety check, as well as remote camera operation, safety barriers, etc when a real firearm is being used.
     If those things are true, he’s fucked.
    I don’t know what the industry standards are either. But I do know it will just be all finger pointing and passing the blame. Alec will claim he was told it was cold. The director or whoever gave him the gun will say the same thing. The safety guy will say no one asked him if the gun had been checked and so on. 
    My guess is this case will conclude with since there are so many lose ends no one person can be found at fault. And if that is how it works, then I don’t really disagree this time. Personally I would never take a gun from someone and take their word on I being unloaded. That’s happened to me dozens of times, friends or family buying new guns and want to show me. They always hand it to me saying it’s unloaded and I always check. And I do that without any anticipation of pointing it at anyone or pulling the trigger. I can’t fathom not doing that if your job is to point it at others and pull the trigger.
    But hopefully changes are made to make it clean anyone and everyone in chain of possession is liable.
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 6,492
    edited February 17
    mace1229 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    mace1229 said:
    I remember this happened close to the time of the Rittenhouse trial. I only watched a few bits, but one I saw was a lawyer (I forget which side) wanted to use his rifle as a prop. The judge asked if it had been checked by the expert, the lawyer said it was. The judge said k“check it again,” he wanted to see the weapon checked in front of him.
    At the very least, how is that not applied to movies? If an actor, director and everyone else  can’t/doesn’t want to learn safety checks, then be a witness to it. Clearly not one person was a witness to this safety check, because it never happened.
    I’m not too familiar with the film industry standards, but the family’s lawyer says it is “industry standard” for the actor handling the firearm to do a final safety check, as well as remote camera operation, safety barriers, etc when a real firearm is being used.
     If those things are true, he’s fucked.
    I don’t know what the industry standards are either. But I do know it will just be all finger pointing and passing the blame. Alec will claim he was told it was cold. The director or whoever gave him the gun will say the same thing. The safety guy will say no one asked him if the gun had been checked and so on. 
    My guess is this case will conclude with since there are so many lose ends no one person can be found at fault. And if that is how it works, then I don’t really disagree this time. Personally I would never take a gun from someone and take their word on I being unloaded. That’s happened to me dozens of times, friends or family buying new guns and want to show me. They always hand it to me saying it’s unloaded and I always check. And I do that without any anticipation of pointing it at anyone or pulling the trigger. I can’t fathom not doing that if your job is to point it at others and pull the trigger.
    But hopefully changes are made to make it clean anyone and everyone in chain of possession is liable.
    I agree, there were a lot of mistakes made from the sound of things.  I do still agree with this statement by the family lawyer:
    “ There are many people at fault, but Mr Baldwin was the person holding the gun... if he hadn't fired, she wouldn't have died," lawyer Brian Panish alleged.

    The person holding the gun is responsible for where it is pointed, and whether or not it fires (regardless of what they are “told” to do).  It’s hard to get around or disprove that statement.  
    End of the line, who is ultimately responsible for pointing it in a safe direction?
    Post edited by PJPOWER on
  • Merkin BallerMerkin Baller Posts: 6,850
    mace1229 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    mace1229 said:
    I remember this happened close to the time of the Rittenhouse trial. I only watched a few bits, but one I saw was a lawyer (I forget which side) wanted to use his rifle as a prop. The judge asked if it had been checked by the expert, the lawyer said it was. The judge said k“check it again,” he wanted to see the weapon checked in front of him.
    At the very least, how is that not applied to movies? If an actor, director and everyone else  can’t/doesn’t want to learn safety checks, then be a witness to it. Clearly not one person was a witness to this safety check, because it never happened.
    I’m not too familiar with the film industry standards, but the family’s lawyer says it is “industry standard” for the actor handling the firearm to do a final safety check, as well as remote camera operation, safety barriers, etc when a real firearm is being used.
     If those things are true, he’s fucked.
    I don’t know what the industry standards are either. But I do know it will just be all finger pointing and passing the blame. Alec will claim he was told it was cold. The director or whoever gave him the gun will say the same thing. The safety guy will say no one asked him if the gun had been checked and so on. 
    My guess is this case will conclude with since there are so many lose ends no one person can be found at fault. And if that is how it works, then I don’t really disagree this time. Personally I would never take a gun from someone and take their word on I being unloaded. That’s happened to me dozens of times, friends or family buying new guns and want to show me. They always hand it to me saying it’s unloaded and I always check. And I do that without any anticipation of pointing it at anyone or pulling the trigger. I can’t fathom not doing that if your job is to point it at others and pull the trigger.
    But hopefully changes are made to make it clean anyone and everyone in chain of possession is liable.
    I've handled guns probably less than most people here, but same... the few times I've been handed a gun (that I didn't intend to shoot) I've insisted on seeing the chamber rather than take someone's word alone that it's unloaded. 


    My friend's brother is in the film industry, and personally knew the victim here... to say he's broken up about this is an understatement, he's beside himself. 
    Hopefully some meaningful change does come out of this. 
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 6,492
    edited February 17
    This should really be a lesson for everyone handling guns.  Never point it at anyone or anything you do not wish to destroy, even if you 100% “think” it is not loaded.
    Better yet, do not handle guns at all if you haven’t been through a safety course that tells you these things. 
    In my opinion, handling a gun without a basic safety course is gross negligence.
    Post edited by PJPOWER on
  • Merkin BallerMerkin Baller Posts: 6,850

    I can't help but imagine how much safer America might be if every accidental shooting got as much attention as this one. 
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 6,492
    edited February 17

    I can't help but imagine how much safer America might be if every accidental shooting got as much attention as this one. 
    Typically, in other accidental shootings (not involving minors), the person holding the gun when it fires is liable…Pretty cut and dry.
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 7,308

    I can't help but imagine how much safer America might be if every accidental shooting got as much attention as this one. 
    Everything with celebrities gets more attention. Car crashes, divorces, lost dogs, etc.
  • Merkin BallerMerkin Baller Posts: 6,850
    mace1229 said:

    I can't help but imagine how much safer America might be if every accidental shooting got as much attention as this one. 
    Everything with celebrities gets more attention. Car crashes, divorces, lost dogs, etc.
    I'm aware... my point still stands. 


    PJPOWER said:

    I can't help but imagine how much safer America might be if every accidental shooting got as much attention as this one. 
    Typically, in other accidental shootings (not involving minors), the person holding the gun when it fires is liable…Pretty cut and dry.
    Noted, and it's a good point, so I'll modify my statement to include that: 

    I can't help but imagine how much safer America might be if accidental shootings involving minors got as much attention as this one involving Alec Baldwin. 
Sign In or Register to comment.