Alec Baldwin shoots and kills cinematographer.

Palmpilot said:
I usually give the opinions of attorneys more weight on legal questions than I do the opinions of most non-attorneys.
Click to expand...
As do I, but I give the opinions of attorneys I see on TV "news" sources very little weight. And that applies equally whether the so-called news source is left or right leaning.
 
PPC1052 said:
Disclaimer: I am not licensed to practice law in New Mexico.

I believe that the proper charge, if there will be one (and I am not saying there should be), is involuntary manslaughter:

30-2-3. Manslaughter.

Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice.

A. Voluntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed upon a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion.

Whoever commits voluntary manslaughter is guilty of a third degree felony resulting in the death of a human being.

B. 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.

Whoever commits involuntary manslaughter is guilty of a fourth degree felony.​

NM Stat § 30-2-3 :: Section 30-2-3: Manslaughter. :: 2011 New Mexico Statutes :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia

There has been a case upholding a conviction for an unintentional discharge of a firearm under that statute: State v. Gilliam :: 1955 :: New Mexico Supreme Court Decisions :: New Mexico Case Law :: New Mexico Law :: US Law :: Justia

In that opinion, the court upheld an involuntary manslaughter conviction and explained:

It could have made no difference to the trial of a charge of involuntary manslaughter as to who loaded the gun or whether the person handling the gun was sober or drinking or whether he had loaded the gun while drinking intoxicants. All that it is necessary to establish for involuntary manslaughter by the use of a loaded firearm is that a defendant had in his hands a gun which at some time had been loaded and that he handled it, whether drunk, drinking or sober, without due caution and circumspection and that death resulted. (emphasis added.)​
Click to expand...

Thank you for taking the time to look all this up and post it.
 
DaleB said:
As do I, but I give the opinions of attorneys I see on TV "news" sources very little weight. And that applies equally whether the so-called news source is left or right leaning.
Click to expand...
That seems rather arbitrary.
 
Palmpilot said:
That seems rather arbitrary.
Click to expand...
Not really. And it's not based on an assumption that the "expert" being quoted or interviewed is incompetent, though that seems pretty common. Even if the person giving their opinion isn't incompetent, they are so often misquoted, selectively edited, and/or have comments taken out of context that I give very little weight to what is reported. This is based on personal experience and first hand knowledge.
 
By the way, the article I posted does not appear to be based on TV news interviews.
 
So what type of punishment does Alec deserve for this death? Well, I'm not sure.

Early on I read a report that Alec had been in screaming at the director and this lady an hour or two before this incident. I can't find any mention of that now, so I don't know if it is true, but if it is, I think that changes his culpability a little. If you have ever had a gun pointed at you that you think is real, even if unloaded, you understand that is a stressful thing to have done to you. Was Alec ****ed off? Did he pull the gun, point it at these two, and pull the trigger as kind of an FU to get a rise out of them? Maybe, and if true, the penalty should be appropriate for that level of negligence and malice. Jail time? I don't think so, because I don't think he is enough of a whacko to murder someone and I think he thought the gun was safe, but something more than a wrist slap should happen.

Alec is a hot head, no one can deny that. He has been in many films with guns, and I find it hard to believe that he hasn't been trained, repeatedly, on safety procedures and concerns regarding gun safety and protocol on a set like this. I believe he knew better than to accept that gun being safe on the word of the Asst Director with out checking it himself. I can't figure out why he didn't check it, other than maybe he didn't intend to pull the trigger so he thought it didn't matter. Big mistake if true. Always treat a gun as loaded, even a gun used as a prop on a movie set. I think at a minimum Alec should be charged with involuntary manslaughter or what ever is the least charge for something like this and a jury should decide his guilt.

Will something like this happen? I doubt it, being elite has it's privilege.
 
PPC1052 said:
Are you talking about the product manufacturer/seller's insurance company paying a claim to an injured consumer? If so, then I have never seen it. I have seen indemnity claims, and in some states, there are contribution claims between joint tortfeasors. (If I had to guess, that's probably what you are thinking of.) I have seen claims for coverage as an additional insured on another party's insurance policy. But I have never seen a liability carrier subrogate for a third party claim.
Click to expand...

I know I'm being pedantic here, but do you take issue with the following statement, lifted from an old introductory insurance law text:

"Liability insurance is similar in several respects to property insurance and is often part of the same package policy. As with property insurance, subrogation is allowed with liability insurance, but assignment of the policy is not allowed (unless permission of the insurer is obtained), and intentional losses are not covered."

Workers comp issues and paucity of subro targets in this case aside, if the above is true what would prevent the production companies insuror, after meeting it's contractual obligation to pay any covered claims on behalf of the insured, to pursue any at-fault 3rd party for compensation?

I don't understand your claim that liability payments are not eligible for subrogation.
 
PaulS said:
So what type of punishment does Alec deserve for this death? Well, I'm not sure.

Early on I read a report that Alec had been in screaming at the director and this lady an hour or two before this incident. I can't find any mention of that now, so I don't know if it is true, but if it is, I think that changes his culpability a little. If you have ever had a gun pointed at you that you think is real, even if unloaded, you understand that is a stressful thing to have done to you. Was Alec ****ed off? Did he pull the gun, point it at these two, and pull the trigger as kind of an FU to get a rise out of them? Maybe, and if true, the penalty should be appropriate for that level of negligence and malice. Jail time? I don't think so, because I don't think he is enough of a whacko to murder someone and I think he thought the gun was safe, but something more than a wrist slap should happen.

Alec is a hot head, no one can deny that. He has been in many films with guns, and I find it hard to believe that he hasn't been trained, repeatedly, on safety procedures and concerns regarding gun safety and protocol on a set like this. I believe he knew better than to accept that gun being safe on the word of the Asst Director with out checking it himself. I can't figure out why he didn't check it, other than maybe he didn't intend to pull the trigger so he thought it didn't matter. Big mistake if true. Always treat a gun as loaded, even a gun used as a prop on a movie set. I think at a minimum Alec should be charged with involuntary manslaughter or what ever is the least charge for something like this and a jury should decide his guilt.

Will something like this happen? I doubt it, being elite has it's privilege.
Click to expand...

Between 1-18 years sounds right

“Under the new Guidelines, Judges are provided with a spectrum of 'culpability', with consequent custodial sentences ranging between 1 to 18 years”

https://dwfgroup.com/en/news-and-insights/insights/2018/9/manslaughter-sentencing-guidelines
 
Chip Sylverne said:
I know I'm being pedantic here, but do you take issue with the following statement, lifted from an old introductory insurance law text:

"Liability insurance is similar in several respects to property insurance and is often part of the same package policy. As with property insurance, subrogation is allowed with liability insurance, but assignment of the policy is not allowed (unless permission of the insurer is obtained), and intentional losses are not covered."

Workers comp issues and paucity of subro targets in this case aside, if the above is true what would prevent the production companies insuror, after meeting it's contractual obligation to pay any covered claims on behalf of the insured, to pursue any at-fault 3rd party for compensation?

I don't understand your claim that liability payments are not eligible for subrogation.
Click to expand...

It's ok to be pedantic. We're talking legal concepts. Sometimes that's necessary.

I guess I do take issue with that statement, but I also do not have access to the citations to support that assertion, or the context. (Do you know which text that came from?) Perhaps they are referring to a situation like an auto policy that has both liability and collision. If so, sure, the carrier can subrogate for payments made under the collision coverage. But that payment is made not because of the fault of its insured, but because it has contracted with its insured to accept the risk of loss to the vehicle regardless of who caused the loss.

I am not versed in the law in all 50 states, so I have tried to refrain from absolutes. (And remember, every time a lawyer tells the judge the law is one way, you can be sure there is a lawyer on the other side who says the exact opposite.) But I do not see how under the typical modern law a liability carrier would subrogate. The issue is that the insurance carrier steps into the shoes of its insured. That means that the fault of the insured is imputed to the insurance carrier. Most states have comparative fault now, such that each defendant is only liable for their own fault. That means the insurance carrier that is paying a third party under liability coverage is just paying out for the fault of its own insured. There would be no basis to subrogate against another for a claim based on the fault of the insured. So, I don't see how it would happen as a practical matter. If some third party might be at fault, you would either third party claim them in, name them as a non-party, or take some other action in the underlying claim. So, there is nothing to subrogate.
 
PPC1052 said:
It's ok to be pedantic. We're talking legal concepts. Sometimes that's necessary.

I guess I do take issue with that statement, but I also do not have access to the citations to support that assertion, or the context. (Do you know which text that came from?) Perhaps they are referring to a situation like an auto policy that has both liability and collision. If so, sure, the carrier can subrogate for payments made under the collision coverage. But that payment is made not because of the fault of its insured, but because it has contracted with its insured to accept the risk of loss to the vehicle regardless of who caused the loss.

I am not versed in the law in all 50 states, so I have tried to refrain from absolutes. (And remember, every time a lawyer tells the judge the law is one way, you can be sure there is a lawyer on the other side who says the exact opposite.) But I do not see how under the typical modern law a liability carrier would subrogate. The issue is that the insurance carrier steps into the shoes of its insured. That means that the fault of the insured is imputed to the insurance carrier. Most states have comparative fault now, such that each defendant is only liable for their own fault. That means the insurance carrier that is paying a third party under liability coverage is just paying out for the fault of its own insured. There would be no basis to subrogate against another for a claim based on the fault of the insured. So, I don't see how it would happen as a practical matter. If some third party might be at fault, you would either third party claim them in, name them as a non-party, or take some other action in the underlying claim. So, there is nothing to subrogate.
Click to expand...

Introduction to the Law of Property, Estate Planning and Insurance.
Mayer, Warner, Seidel and Lieberman 2012. Ch 15 sec 2

Let me see if I can find a case. For some reason I recall a case from some seminar where a candy store sold tainted product to a customer whe became very I'll. The store was sued for a substantial sum for compensatory damages far in excess of actual damages, and the stores lliabity insuror settled with the customer, then successfully subrogated against the manufacturer and recovered the loss.

Edit : Got it a little twisted. Customer gets I'll from candy and sues manufacturer. Manufacturer's insuror settles liability claim based on known facts. It's discovered some time after settlement the shopkeeper improperly stored the product causing it to spoil. Manufacturers insuror then subrogates against the shopkeeper and collects the amount of the original liability settlement it paid on behalf of manufacturer.

Hence, successful subrogation of a liability claim.
 
Last edited:
Chip Sylverne said:
Introduction to the Law of Property, Estate Planning and Insurance.
Mayer, Warner, Seidel and Lieberman 2012. Ch 15 sec 2

Let me see if I can find a case. For some reason I recall a case from some seminar where a candy store sold tainted product to a customer whe became very I'll. The store was sued for a substantial sum for compensatory damages far in excess of actual damages, and the stores lliabity insuror settled with the customer, then successfully subrogated against the manufacturer and recovered the loss.

Edit : Got it a little twisted. Customer gets I'll from candy and sues manufacturer. Manufacturer's insuror settles liability claim based on known facts. It's discovered some time after settlement the shopkeeper improperly stored the product causing it to spoil. Manufacturers insuror then subrogates against the shopkeeper and collects the amount of the original liability settlement it paid on behalf of manufacturer.

Hence, successful subrogation of a liability claim.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Do you have the case citation? (Or even a name, jurisdiction, and date?) I'll look it up.
 
PPC1052 said:
Disclaimer: I am not licensed to practice law in New Mexico.

I believe that the proper charge, if there will be one (and I am not saying there should be), is involuntary manslaughter:

30-2-3. Manslaughter.

Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice.

A. Voluntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed upon a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion.

Whoever commits voluntary manslaughter is guilty of a third degree felony resulting in the death of a human being.

B. 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.

Whoever commits involuntary manslaughter is guilty of a fourth degree felony.​

NM Stat § 30-2-3 :: Section 30-2-3: Manslaughter. :: 2011 New Mexico Statutes :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia

There has been a case upholding a conviction for an unintentional discharge of a firearm under that statute: State v. Gilliam :: 1955 :: New Mexico Supreme Court Decisions :: New Mexico Case Law :: New Mexico Law :: US Law :: Justia

In that opinion, the court upheld an involuntary manslaughter conviction and explained:

It could have made no difference to the trial of a charge of involuntary manslaughter as to who loaded the gun or whether the person handling the gun was sober or drinking or whether he had loaded the gun while drinking intoxicants. All that it is necessary to establish for involuntary manslaughter by the use of a loaded firearm is that a defendant had in his hands a gun which at some time had been loaded and that he handled it, whether drunk, drinking or sober, without due caution and circumspection and that death resulted. (emphasis added.)​
Click to expand...
Isn't the difference here that in Gilliam it was a real gun that was not expected to be loaded with a blank or fake charge and in the Baldwin case it was a prop gun never intended (on the set at least) to fire live rounds? In Gilliam, one could conceive the gun could at some time be loaded with a bullet and thus lethal. In the Baldwin case, would he have expected the prop gun to be lethal? The answer is not usually, though it could be loaded with real cartridges if it was a real gun.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59006905

A prop gun could mean a range of items, from non-functioning weapons to cap guns.

But it can also mean a real weapon, or one adapted for firing blanks.

Together they add authenticity to productions - fire a blank using a prop gun and you'll get a loud bang, a recoil and what's known as a muzzle flash, the visible light created by the combustion of the powder.
Click to expand...
 
David7700 said:
Isn't the difference here that in Gilliam it was a real gun that was not expected to be loaded with a blank or fake charge and in the Baldwin case it was a prop gun never intended (on the set at least) to fire live rounds?
Click to expand...

No. There is no such thing as a “fake gun”, every gun is real and loaded.

Besides which, in the Baldwin case, it was also a real gun. After all, Baldwin killed someone by firing it. Not intentional for sure, which is what makes it manslaughter, not murder.
 
Like "The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft," "The person with his finger on the trigger is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the safe utilization of that firearm."
 
LesGawlik said:
Like "The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft," "The person with his finger on the trigger is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the safe utilization of that firearm."
Click to expand...

They taught me that every bullet that leaves the barrel has my name on it as the owner ...
 
David7700 said:
Isn't the difference here that in Gilliam it was a real gun that was not expected to be loaded with a blank or fake charge and in the Baldwin case it was a prop gun never intended (on the set at least) to fire live rounds? In Gilliam, one could conceive the gun could at some time be loaded with a bullet and thus lethal. In the Baldwin case, would he have expected the prop gun to be lethal? The answer is not usually, though it could be loaded with real cartridges if it was a real gun.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59006905
Click to expand...

Yes, I would say that's may be a difference, and that may be significant enough to result in a different out.
 
bflynn said:
Besides which, in the Baldwin case, it was also a real gun.
Click to expand...

What if Baldwin thought the gun was fake, not capable of firing real rounds? Say they had a non-firing replicas on set, which he thought was what he was given, but the AD handed him a real gun by mistake.
 
PPC1052 said:
What if Baldwin thought the gun was fake, not capable of firing real rounds?
Click to expand...

Then you will have identified another way that he messed up. You never assume a gun is unloaded because one day it isn't. This was his day.
 
Daleandee said:
They taught me that every bullet that leaves the barrel has my name on it as the owner ...
Click to expand...
I teach my students that they are responsible for every bullet they fire until it stops moving. If they aren’t sure of their backstop, they could be responsible for it for the rest of their life.
 
LesGawlik said:
Like "The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft,"
Click to expand...
Let's assume you're shooting a movie with an actor as a hot-shot pilot. You're shooting a sequence in formation with the camera plane. The actor does not have a medical, in fact, has no pilot qualifications at all. There's a fully-qualified pilot in the right/rear seat, doing the actual flying, but the actor has his or her hands on the stick for the sequence being shot.

Who is the pilot in command in this case? If the actor jerks the stick and the planes collide, how responsible is the fully-qualified pilot who was assigned to actually fly the airplane?

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
Let's assume you're shooting a movie with an actor as a hot-shot pilot. You're shooting a sequence in formation with the camera plane. The actor does not have a medical, in fact, has no pilot qualifications at all. There's a fully-qualified pilot in the right/rear seat, doing the actual flying, but the actor has his or her hands on the stick for the sequence being shot.

Who is the pilot in command in this case? If the actor jerks the stick and the planes collide, how responsible is the fully-qualified pilot who was assigned to actually fly the airplane?

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...


Closer comparison would be that the real pilot tells the actor, “Your airplane,” and releases the controls, after which the actor heads his plane toward the camera plane. Lots of blame to go around.
 
wanttaja said:
Let's assume you're shooting a movie with an actor as a hot-shot pilot. You're shooting a sequence in formation with the camera plane. The actor does not have a medical, in fact, has no pilot qualifications at all. There's a fully-qualified pilot in the right/rear seat, doing the actual flying, but the actor has his or her hands on the stick for the sequence being shot.

Who is the pilot in command in this case? If the actor jerks the stick and the planes collide, how responsible is the fully-qualified pilot who was assigned to actually fly the airplane?

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

Very obviously the one manipulating the controls, or in this case the one who pulled the trigger.

How is this even a question?
 
BladeSlap said:
Very obviously the one manipulating the controls, or in this case the one who pulled the trigger.

How is this even a question?
Click to expand...
But if the person manipulating the controls is completely unaware of how an airplane flies, how does it not fall on the qualified person who was there to keep him/her out of trouble?

If I'm flying a Young Eagle, and let the kid take the controls, is what subsequently happens not my fault?

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
But if the person manipulating the controls is completely unaware of how an airplane flies,....
Click to expand...


Are you trying to say that Baldwin is completely unaware of how a gun is fired?

I'm pretty sure that he is aware that a gun goes off when the trigger is pulled, that a projectile leaves the gun in the direction the barrel is pointed, and that the projectile can inflict serious injury or death to a person in its path. How much more awareness would he need to be negligent?
 
wanttaja said:
But if the person manipulating the controls is completely unaware of how an airplane flies, how does it not fall on the qualified person who was there to keep him/her out of trouble?

If I'm flying a Young Eagle, and let the kid take the controls, is what subsequently happens not my fault?

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

If Baldwin, as a grown man, is completely unaware of what a gun does, he needs to be in a adult care facility, where he isn’t allowed shoe laces and others cut his food into bite size pieces for him, have someone else handling all his banking and so on, also he should not be allowed to be in movies as it would be profiting off a mentally challenged man.
 
Last edited:
This has probably all been said, but here are my thoughts. Why was there any live ammunition anywhere near the set? Giving a loaded gun to an anti-gunner, besides being ironic, is stupid because anyone who is anti-gun does not understand what every responsible gun owner knows instinctively--never ever point a gun that you have not personally confirmed is safe. Not only does an anti-gunner not have that in his DNA, he wouldn't know how to check the gun anyway. I feel sorry for Alec Baldwin. As odious as he is, this is a terrible burden he will bear for the rest of his life. Who knows? Maybe he'll learn something from the experience. I have to admit I'm not impressed by the so-called armorer, either. She is apparently the daughter of a long-time movie armorer, but that means she, of all people, should have known not to let live ammunition be anywhere near the set and should have instructed everyone to never, ever hand a gun to someone else without making sure it's safe, and, if handing it to someone who doesn't know how, demonstrating to them that it's safe. I heard a report that the producers of the TV show, "The Rookie", are not going to allow fireable guns on the set and are going to add muzzle flashes and sound digitally. That's the way it should be done by everyone from now on.
 
Half Fast said:
Are you trying to say that Baldwin is completely unaware of how a gun is fired?
Click to expand...
When I was a 14-year-old CAP cadet getting orientation rides, I knew very well what the airplane should do with certain actions of the controls. Did that make me responsible for anything that happened?

The way I see it,

1. Baldwin was not a professional gun user.
2. He was handed a gun by the person on the set responsible for ensuring the gun prop was safe.
3. He was assured by the person in charge of arming him that the gun was safe to use.

Certainly, there were problems with the processes that day; Baldwin, as a producer on the film, was partially responsible for those failures. Most of us would have checked the weapon ourselves. But, again, he was assured by the person whose job it was to prepare the gun that it was ready for the scene. We pilots, all the time, rely on the professional assurance of others. Few of us check the torque of the spark plugs after an annual.

Comments have been made regarding the need of a full rehearsal with a trigger pull. Let's not forget that this was a Western, and it's very likely the pistol in question was single-action.

This meant, of course, that the scene probably involved pulling the pistol out of the holster (or wherever), thumbing the hammer back, aiming, and pulling the trigger. If Baldwin was playing a gunfighter or sheriff in the scene, it would be expected that he would do this *very* smoothly. I could see the director wanting him to go through the sequence multiple times to ensure it would look natural on camera.

Ron Wanttaja
 
I'll bet that Mr. Baldwin had a bit of experience handling guns from his previous acting gigs. I'm sure they followed some sort of safety protocols on those sets, and he probably had an inkling of why. He wasn't exactly an inexperienced gun handler. Yes, not pro level, but I'd be willing to bet he had some exposure to proper safety protocols. Also, not to nitpick, but technically the gun was not handed to him by the person directly in charge of ensuring the guns were safe...

Frankly, if I were going to point a gun at someone and pull the trigger, I sure am not taking someone else's word for the gun being cold, even though I take the mechanic's word about a plane. If I wasn't comfortable or didn't know how to check the gun, I'd be asking someone who knew how, and I'd want them to check it in front of me and show me it's okay and how they know that. The consequence if something goes wrong is potentially huge, as evidenced, and everyone knows that, whether they know anything about gun safety or not. I knew not to point guns at people and pull the trigger from a very young age, and I didn't even grow up around guns or handle them growing up. Just my two cents.
 
Palmpilot said:
Before he handed a revolver that he had declared “cold” to Alec Baldwin on the set of the film “Rust,” Dave Halls, an assistant director, told a detective he should have inspected each round in each chamber, according to an affidavit. But he did not.
​
Click to expand...
And after he received the gun Alec Baldwin should have inspected each round in each chamber. But he did not.
 
The people who believe that all guns on movie sets should be neutered and all muzzle flashes and smoke added with CGI should also advocate for the abolishment of private aviation because someone once took a SR20, flew it VFR into the clouds and killed his family.

There are safety protocols for the use of functional firearms on movie sets. When adhered to by competent individuals, those safety protocols would have prevented this incident from happening. This wasn't an act of god or anything accidental. It was the result of sloppiness and a breakdown in the chain of custody of the functional firearms used on the set.
 
If I understood Dan Millican correctly, the dummy rounds they use in a revolver on set are made from actual rounds, which the armorer pulls apart, empties of powder, and reassembles.

If that’s true, how could Baldwin have known whether a given round was capable of firing?

There have been many analogies offered here, some of them crazy. But here’s one: as an arm-waving anti-gunner, Alec Baldwin probably has no more knowledge of guns or gun safety than a 4-year-old toddler. If you give a gun to a toddler, believing it’s empty, and the toddler shoots someone, the fault is yours, not the toddler’s. It isn’t reasonable to say “that toddler should’ve KNOWN to check the gun!”

It’s a film set; not a firing range.
 
OneCharlieTango said:
If I understood Dan Millican correctly, the dummy rounds they use in a revolver on set are made from actual rounds, which the armorer pulls apart, empties of powder, and reassembles.

If that’s true, how could Baldwin have known whether a given round was capable of firing?

There have been many analogies offered here, some of them crazy. But here’s one: as an arm-waving anti-gunner, Alec Baldwin probably has no more knowledge of guns or gun safety than a 4-year-old toddler. If you give a gun to a toddler, believing it’s empty, and the toddler shoots someone, the fault is yours, not the toddler’s. It isn’t reasonable to say “that toddler should’ve KNOWN to check the gun!”

It’s a film set; not a firing range.
Click to expand...
If Baldwin (or anyone handling an actual firearm, "cold" or not) hadn't been told to never, ever point it at people, I'd be quite surprised. That would be another link in the chain.
BTW, my favorite gun store has a big bucket of sand, for pointing "unloaded" guns into when pulling the trigger. Pretty good insurance.
 
OneCharlieTango said:
Alec Baldwin probably has no more knowledge of guns or gun safety than a 4-year-old toddler. If you give a gun to a toddler, believing it’s empty, and the toddler shoots someone, the fault is yours, not the toddler’s
Click to expand...

Baloney.

He’s not a toddler. He’s a (sorta) mature, (sorta) intelligent adult with decades of real-life experience.

As I wrote above,....

Half Fast said:
I'm pretty sure that he is aware that a gun goes off when the trigger is pulled, that a projectile leaves the gun in the direction the barrel is pointed, and that the projectile can inflict serious injury or death to a person in its path.
Click to expand...

Furthermore he was one of the producers. Yes, he’s responsible for the qualifications and actions of employees on the job.
 
for revolvers, a replacement cylinder that only accepts blanks and has the word 'blank' etched into it. problem solved, gun is real with replacement cylinder, no live rounds, still makes smoke, still goes pew pew pew. same can be done for semi autos.

I know, I know. u still gotta look at it to see that it says blanks.
 
I was reading somewhere else where a movie armorer had been trying to figure out how this happened. One of his comments was that dummy rounds (I forget the movie term) had the powder removed, the primers punched, and a hole drilled in the side.

A lot of things went wrong here, and complacency seems to have played a big part. (Complacency + inexperience) - common sense = bad
 
eman1200 said:
for revolvers, a replacement cylinder that only accepts blanks and has the word 'blank' etched into it. problem solved, gun is real with replacement cylinder, no live rounds, still makes smoke, still goes pew pew pew. same can be done for semi autos.

I know, I know. u still gotta look at it to see that it says blanks.
Click to expand...
The way some people on this thread apparently think, even if it said "blanks," an actor would still be obligated to mic the cylinder and open and repack every round personally.

It'll be interesting to see what the political fallout of this is. . . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top