Alec Baldwin kills someone in movie accident

[WillBrink]

Gets better and better, armorer likely drunk and high and or hung over much of the time:

[mRad]

On a movie set, yes absolutely 100%. That's not the actors job, it's the armorers. Multiple industry established safety checks were ignored and violated.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

Industry may have standards but law is the law.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jsbhike]

He wants to control everyone else so going to go with he should be viewed as an expert.

https://www.businessinsider.com/alec...ivists-2021-10

I will agree with blanks shouldn't be on set, but no CGI either. Finger guns yelling "bang" or something obviously not a real weapon(ie, Nerf).

[Heavyweight]

Playing pretend absolves people of pointing a gun at somebody and pulling the trigger?

Won’t be long and that defense could make it to the streets.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actors work in an environment that you and I can’t even fathom. Baldwin has probably worked in 100 movies where someone drops a pistol in his hand on set and says go to it. He takes for granted the gun is safe because not only are there a million rules and protocols in place to ensure that but he’s done it hundreds of times before. Baldwin is a narcissistic shit bag…..but the criminal action is on the armorer.

As for the “we were just playing cops and robbers officer….I didn’t know the gun was loaded” defense? It’s probably already been tried!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mRad]

Actors work in an environment that you and I can’t even fathom. Baldwin has probably worked in 100 movies where someone drops a pistol in his hand on set and says go to it. He takes for granted the gun is safe because not only are there a million rules and protocols in place to ensure that but he’s done it hundreds of times before. Baldwin is a narcissistic shit bag…..but the criminal action is on the armorer.

As for the “we were just playing cops and robbers officer….I didn’t know the gun was loaded” defense? It’s probably already been tried!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Please, quote me the law that dissolves actors of responsibility of their actions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WillBrink]

Good intel on how corners cut to save $, she was both the prop master and armorer. Normally there's a prop master and an armorer, and the prop master highers the armorer. Just hours before the event, members had walked off set due to unsafe work etc. What a cluster F that got someone killed. There's also rumor she was high and drunk much of the time, likely hungover that day too.

[Hush]

Industry may have standards but law is the law.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Think about that door you want to open. Say an actor is in a movie about the French Revolution, and is instructed to pull the lever on a "prop", guillotine, but one of the people people put an actual blade on it to slice watermelons for fun. They forget to switch it back, the actor pulls the lever and lops another actors head off. You're saying the actor who pulled the lever is liable because he didn't personally inspect every detail of the prop to ensure it's safe?
On a set, when a gun handed to an actor for a scene, it's someone else's responsibility to render it safe. It's not a range, it's not a gun store, it's a controlled environment where guns are deliberately used in an unsafe manner because they are not firearms at that moment they are props. If a scene doesn't absolutely require a live gun, a live gun shouldn't be on set. Again, industry established norms and standards that were ignored by an inexperienced ARMORER who should bear the brunt of the responsibility.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

[Heavyweight]

Please, quote me the law that dissolves actors of responsibility of their actions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is no such thing as a law that absolves you of breaking the law. It’s called a defense and it’s already been laid out clearly. He is charged with manslaughter. His defense is he thought the gun was cold. He had no other responsibility when the gun was put in his hand. The movie industry safety standards and protocols seem to clearly support him. If I’m on that jury I wouldn’t convict him. It pains me to saw all of this because the guy is a duche.

I would hold him accountable as a producer for hiring an incompetent armorer and running a completely unsafe movie set….but not pulling the trigger.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mRad]

There is no such thing as a law that absolves you of breaking the law. It’s called a defense and it’s already been laid out clearly. He is charged with manslaughter. His defense is he thought the gun was cold. He had no other responsibility when the gun was put in his hand. The movie industry safety standards and protocols seem to clearly support him. If I’m on that jury I wouldn’t convict him. It pains me to saw all of this because the guy is a duche.

I would hold him accountable as a producer for hiring an incompetent armorer and running a completely unsafe movie set….but not pulling the trigger.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You agree that there is no law that following industry standards are an affirmative defense. At the same time, why would make-believe standards trump the universal rules of gun safety? Those industry standards matter, too.

He knowingly took a real gun and pointed it at somebody and pulled the trigger. Then he lied about pulling the trigger. He broke all four rules. Simply using a fake gun would have solved it. Simply not pulling the trigger would have solved it. Simply treating it as if it were loaded would have solved it. Simply not pointing it at somebody would have solved it. After all, it was a make-believe practice for more make-believe

If I’m on the jury, his ass is guilty. Just because he was playing make-believe doesn’t make it ok.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mrbieler]

On a jury with the charges as presented, I’m finding him not guilty.

I think he ran lousy production with a shitty crew and he has liability in that regard, but as the actor with the prop in his hand, I am finding him not guilty.

There is over 100 years of industry standards backing him. That does mean a lot. On the set I’ve been on, a firearm is not a firearm. It’s a prop and treated as such. The prop master/armor is responsible. They don’t want actors dropping magazines, spinning cylinders, etc. unless it’s part of a scene. Don’t mess with the props is one of the top rules.

Westerns have been using real guns since the beginning. Blank only semi and full autos are common, but revolvers have usually been live with blanks / dummy rounds. Maybe that will change.