Alec Baldwin just shot and KILLED a woman on a movie set

You should be able to see the difference between all those examples, and any other hypotheticals you make up, and a situation where a person actually aims a gun at someone and pulls the trigger. In the latter, there is a significantly higher chance of immediate, direct and substantial harm, direct rather than indirect involvement in the harm (proximate cause), and much less effort involved in safety checking. FFS, all he had to do was check what the gun was loaded with before he aimed it at someone and pulled the trigger. Imposing that duty of care in that situation doesn't seem unreasonable at all compared to, for example, requiring a person not directly involved in food preparation to check all the ingredients. You exaggerate to make a point, and it was unpersuasive.

HappyJack wrote:

You raise some very interesting points. But A. Baldwin wasn't just an actor. He was also a producer on this set. Harry Truman had a sign on his desk that read, "The buck stops here." Again, I don't like A. Baldwin, however I wouldn't wish this homicide on my worst enemy. But who's desk is this buck going to stop on? A stagehand on a running set cannot be shot to death without someone being held accountable.

I don't think anyone commenting on this thread either has all of the facts nor have they applied the appropriate laws and policies and procedures which may be used in this case.

You're right that Baldwin may have more culpability for the accident as producer however whether that ends up being criminal or civil remains to be seen. Those criminally charged in the death of Vic Morrow and 2 child actors were acquitted. I can't imagine how that would go in today's social media world.

The initial reaction from the woman's family seems as if they do not publicly place the blame on Baldwin. That is at least not at the moment.

Nice that your enjoyment is more important than a human life. I wonder what your position is on social distancing and masking. In the case of pointing a real gun at someone, do you think they use real dinosaurs in movies and real aliens? Do you think spaceships in movies are real? But you need to see a real gun fired at someone?

The someone who will be held accountable is the someone who had the responsibility to make sure the firearm was properly prepared and safe for the actor to handle. That someone is the armorer.

Yessiree Bob wrote:

The someone who will be held accountable is the someone who had the responsibility to make sure the firearm was properly prepared and safe for the actor to handle. That someone is the armorer.

Whatever the armorer did is not what I think is important. There are reports that Alec was playing with the gun and pretending to shoot people on the set.

If I pay you to check if my gun is loaded and then I turn it on someone and fire and kill them, you think that you are the only one in trouble? You are crazy. The law doesn't exempt actors or movie companies from killing people.

danube steak wrote:

Yessiree Bob wrote:

The someone who will be held accountable is the someone who had the responsibility to make sure the firearm was properly prepared and safe for the actor to handle. That someone is the armorer.

Whatever the armorer did is not what I think is important. There are reports that Alec was playing with the gun and pretending to shoot people on the set.

Source?

The reports indicate that the AD called “cold gun” just before handing the gun to Baldwin.

Yes. Quite funny. The people who think you are a murderer If you dont wear mask and take the vaccine are the same who think killing a Person with a gun is fine If you dont mean it. The hypocrisy is real

Jon James is really stubborn wrote:

If I pay you to check if my gun is loaded and then I turn it on someone and fire and kill them, you think that you are the only one in trouble? You are crazy. The law doesn't exempt actors or movie companies from killing people.

I get that this is a difficult concept for you to comprehend, but on a film set, where job roles and responsibilities are narrowly and strictly defined, the actor has no responsibility to insure the safety of hand props. It’s beyond ridiculous to expect the actor to be a weapons expert. In this particular instance, Baldwin is also a victim.

Nope. Actors are NOT expected to be firearms experts. They HAVE to rely on those who are hired to do that. NOT HIS JOB to inspect the gun, know the difference between a live round and a blank, etc. To blame him in any way for this is ridiculous.

Jon James is really stubborn wrote:

If I pay you to check if my gun is loaded and then I turn it on someone and fire and kill them, you think that you are the only one in trouble? You are crazy. The law doesn't exempt actors or movie companies from killing people.

While I do not bet, you wanna find someone who does and make a SUBSTANTIAL MONETARY BET ON THAT? Unless Baldwin was in charge of the props or the management of the movie and so he is found negligent in that way, there is no freakin' way he will be criminally charged here. It is not his fault. You people pushing that are insane.

I have already accounted for the possibility that he might be responsible IF he had a position that actually put him in charge of such things. IF that turns out to be the case, then he may be charged with negligence in some way. When actors are "producers", that is usually an empty title given in lieu of additional pay. We will see how this all shakes out.

Just the fact that he pulled the trigger on this prop gun that killed someone does NOT make him guilty of anything.

A person's job is what ever is in the job description the law doesn't exempt an actor or movie company from shooting someone just because they hired somebody to inspect the gun. Like I said, I can sign a contract and pay you to inspect my gun and inform me that it is cold. But when I pick it up and shoot someone, I am not exempt from murder charges. You can't write an employment contract that then allows you to kill somebody. What if Baldwin intentionally hired a moron who didn't know one end of gun from the other? Maybe he did that intentionally thinking the DA and judge would view it like you do. He's an actor so he is allowed to point loaded guns at people if somebody tells him it isn't loaded. I just don't understand how some of you think the laws don't apply to him.

No one likes Alec Baldwin

That movie would’ve made zero dollars

The owner of the gun is not relevant. Calling it a prop gun merely means that it is theatrical property. It is a gun. Why use the word "prop" to confuse people into assuming it was manufactured by a stage hand like a set? It is a real gun that he carelessly killed someone with. He is going to jail. He is 100 times more guilty than the murderer of Floyd, and he was guilty.

hire the guy wrote:

The owner of the gun is not relevant. Calling it a prop gun merely means that it is theatrical property. It is a gun. Why use the word "prop" to confuse people into assuming it was manufactured by a stage hand like a set? It is a real gun that he carelessly killed someone with. He is going to jail. He is 100 times more guilty than the murderer of Floyd, and he was guilty.

You’re right but Libby’s don’t like that responsibility word. They think criminals can do whatever they want. They think you kill babies if you forget your condom. They think you can take other people’s tax dollars if you’re too lazy to work. They think you can sacrifice American soldiers to meet a arbitrary time table.

When I get behind the wheel of a car it’s my responsibility to make sure I don’t run over people. When I pick up a weapon it’s my responsibility that I don’t harm people. This is common sense but that’s a rare commodity in the democratic party nowadays.

It’s hilarious that some of y’all think AB will face any sort of consequences other than civil. Bruce Jenner literally committed homicide and had no issues. This will be settled out of court for a couple million $$ and will be forgotten within a couple weeks.

You're changing the topic (and pretending you are a movie set operations expert). Your examples above were poor and not persuasive. Once again, you should be able to see the difference between all those examples you listed above and a situation where a person actually aims a gun at someone and pulls the trigger.

When you change the topic and deflect like you just tried to do, it makes it look like you can't see the difference. Can you see the difference? I'm asking.

Runningart2004 wrote:

There is a set of procedures in place to prevent accidental death. There is likely contracts involved and the OK from police to not go after the actor. This is also probably why the actor doesn't check the weapon himself. The blame or negligence is then shifted to another entity...armorer, studio, etc.

1. If procedures were followed then I don't see anyone being charged. If anything maybe a civil suit.

2. If procedures were NOT followed then negligence was at play and someone will be charged.

There is a professional on set to ensure these accidents don't happen. If there is blame then it shifts to him/her.

Alan

Very professional!