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

HughFreakingDillon 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. 

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon 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.

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon 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?

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon 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.

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon 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?

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon 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. 

HughFreakingDillon said:

well I'm not going to go by the word of the lawyer who obviously has a vested interest in being right. 

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon 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. 

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon 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.