Alec Baldwin shoots and kills cinematographer.

[Lindberg]

There are numerous professional situations where guns are pointed at people with no intent to shoot. I have personally done it hundreds of times. Proper control measures ensure the weapons used are in safe condition for such activity.

No human activity is 100% flawless. Mistakes are made, even by the most highly skilled weapons handlers.

View attachment 131337

Holy ****, Baldwin is a SEAL?

 

[Baked Potato]

Holy ****, Baldwin is a SEAL?

I hate to break it to you, but neither is Bradley Cooper.


Maybe you're all eagerly awaiting our future dystopia where AI is able to generate entire movies for us that don't need real actors or props so that this whole thing can be avoided. But I still question the assertion that no actor should ever point a gun at other cameras/actors, when it's been done on controlled sets, probably millions of times, for a century.

 

[Lindberg]

I hate to break it to you, but neither is Bradley Cooper.
View attachment 131341

That rifle isn't pointed at anyone.

Maybe you're all eagerly awaiting our future dystopia where AI is able to generate entire movies for us that don't need real actors or props so that this whole thing can be avoided. But I still question the assertion that no actor should ever point a gun at other cameras/actors, when it's been done on controlled sets, probably millions of times, for a century.

It really hasn't, and that's been thoroughly covered in this thread.

 

[Baked Potato]

That rifle isn't pointed at anyone.

Dude, besides the point. Fine:


What rules are Keanu breaking here?

Also, here's the guy that directed Bradley Cooper in American Sniper:

 

[Bob Noel]

there is no difference between pointing a functional gun at someone and pointing a rubber prop gun, eh?

 

[Lindberg]

Dude, besides the point. Fine:
View attachment 131342

What rules are Keanu breaking here?

Also, here's the guy that directed Bradley Cooper in American Sniper:
View attachment 131343

Neither of those need to be pointed at anyone. It's called "cheating."

 

[Domenick]

Regardless of the legalities involved, he was guilty of violating two rules with regard to safe handling of firearms that I learned as a youngster (decades ago). The first is that there is no such thing as an empty gun. The second is to never point a gun at anyone and anything you are not willing to kill or destroy. He may have skated from a legal point of view, but he is still guilty of mishandling a firearm and as a result an innocent person is dead.

The NRA rules, while essential to know and follow are not LAW.

I too thought the idea of Baldwin being directly responsible for the death and wounding was a stretch. His culpability as a producer in setting the work conditions and the set's overall approach to safety was more problematic to me.

In my mind Baldwin's sin was his obvious lie. Of course he pulled the trigger! Guns do not fire unless the trigger is pulled.

 

[Baked Potato]

Neither of those need to be pointed at anyone. It's called "cheating."

A lot of "cheating" going on in Clint Eastwood movies!

 

[Lindberg]

A lot of "cheating" going on in Clint Eastwood movies!
View attachment 131347
View attachment 131348

Go back and read thread please.

 

[geezer]

A lot of "cheating" going on in Clint Eastwood movies!

Just from that relatively clear bottom picture above, that appears to be a cap and ball revolver, has no caps, and the hammer is down. Since it is single action, even pulling the trigger will not cause a hammer fall.

This is a fine example of how a real, safe, movie is made. The actor himself can determine that the gun is un fireable. Forget the nitpicking viewers such as my self who see the discrepancy. A good movie is important, but all the participants alive and well at the end is more important.

 

[Baked Potato]

Go back and read thread please.

I'm sure that the 38 pages proceeding this are absolutely riveting, but no

 

[Baked Potato]

A lot of "cheating" going on in Clint Eastwood movies!

Just from that relatively clear bottom picture above, that appears to be a cap and ball revolver, has no caps, and the hammer is down. Since it is single action, even pulling the trigger will not cause a hammer fall.

This is a fine example of how a real, safe, movie is made. The actor himself can determine that the gun is un fireable. Forget the nitpicking viewers such as my self who see the discrepancy. A good movie is important, but all the participants alive and well at the end is more important.

Correct - they are not "rubber". And this is all tangential to my original post where I was differentiating people like me, who will never point a firearm at another person, from actors, who will.

 

[Bob Noel]

Gotta love monkey-see, monkey-do

I’m kind of hoping people have learned from the mistakes made in the past

 

[Lindberg]

I'm sure that the 38 pages proceeding this are absolutely riveting, but no

Then don't expect other posters to answer questions they've already answered.

 

[Palmpilot]

Not a lawyer, either, but I don't really think this is a double jeopardy situation. The jury being sworn in is either here nor there. If the trial ends in a hung jury or the judge declares a mistrial, the original jurors are dismissed and the case is re-tried in front of a brand-new jury. No double jeopardy until a jury finds him or her guilty or not guilty....

At the 4:25 mark in the video I posted of the judge's explanation of the dismissal, she stated "The jury has been sworn, jeopardy has attached."

 

[Palmpilot]

This was a low budget production.They didn't even pay the armorer to work through all the production days when firearms were being used. Some of the days she was paid as a prop assistant.

Veteran armorer turned down 'Rust' job over 'red flags'​