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

Bald Always Win wrote:

Only if they knew it was loaded? My buddy hands me a gun and tells me that it is unloaded and I point it at him and pull the trigger and kill him. No crime? According to you, I can walk away. No big deal because I thought it was unloaded. Oh well. It's only a human life.

These "I had no reason to believe the gun was loaded" situations unfortunately arise frequently, and often result in criminal charges. Trying to draw absolute legal distinctions between Baldwin's situation (movie sets, actors, assurances, careless underlings, etc.) and dozens of other cases, like the fake lawyer is doing, is flawed legal reasoning. The movie set operations are factors to be considered, not bright-line legal rules like the fake lawyer and others are pretending.

Was Michael Massee found criminally accountable for shooting and killing Brandon Lee?

Another part of the analysis that the fake lawyer and others deliberately ignore is that, even if Baldwin has good reasons to believe the gun was not loaded, he still aimed his gun at another person. Most Americans (but not liberals apparently) are taught as children not to aim their gun, even if you believe its not loaded, at anyone (or anything) unless you want to shoot them. It's considered a common sense safety procedure when handling guns.

As the one who aimed and fired the gun, Baldwin alone - not his employees - faces scrutiny there. My subjective and personal opinion on that is no matter what he was told about the gun, he would have to be crazy to point his gun at the people he ended up shooting. Why do that? Did he have no appreciation of how dangerous guns are? Had he never heard of gun "accidents" like Brandon Lee before? Crazy behavior by Baldwin. Reckless, in fact.

danube steak wrote:

Tatar.. wrote:

If the guy in charge of the guns handed you a disabled weapon and told you when to point it and pull the trigger then I'd say it's the responsibility of the guy in charge if something goes wrong, no?

If Baldwin has followed the instructions of the people who were being paid to make sure things like this don't happen, it's not right they get to blame it on him.

TRUST BUT VERIFY. The verification onus fell on Baldwin's lap.

I honestly couldn't verify a gun was loaded with blanks or bullets or tell a fake gun from a real one, so would need an expert to confirm it for me. If I was an actor I'd need full training before taking any roles which feature gunfire. This isn't currently a requirement but I suspect it will be after this incident.

danube steak wrote:

Tatar.. wrote:

If the guy in charge of the guns handed you a disabled weapon and told you when to point it and pull the trigger then I'd say it's the responsibility of the guy in charge if something goes wrong, no?

If Baldwin has followed the instructions of the people who were being paid to make sure things like this don't happen, it's not right they get to blame it on him.

TRUST BUT VERIFY. The verification onus fell on Baldwin's lap.

Does the same logic apply for a 15-year old actor? How about 12 years old? If not, that means the prop manager's responsibility in contingent who the actor is?

Again, the prosecuter saying something like, "Trust But Verify" will not get a conviction. If most actors do not do a final check of a weapon, Baldwin not doing so was reasonable behavior.

When it comes to guns, my rule is not to touch them and I haven't done so since I went to a shooting range in HS with my N.R.A. member dad. He was a fanatic about safety and always kept the ammunition locked in a safe. He would have never had a loaded gun in the house for prrotection.

His was an accident. He didn't shoot him with a loaded gun like Baldwin did. This incident was negligence as opposed to an accident.

Bald Always Win wrote:

His was an accident. He didn't shoot him with a loaded gun like Baldwin did. This incident was negligence as opposed to an accident.

Please elaborate on the differences that make Massee's actions an accident but Baldwin's actions criminally accountable.

That is a good common sense rule for almost every scenario, but it should be beyond obvious that it's not going to happen when filming a movie about people who point guns at each other.

If by "scrutiny" you mean any kind of legal consequences, I believe you will be proven incorrect. He may get sued, but even in that case, there's no way it's "Baldwin alone".

I may or may not agree with you, depending on what details emerge. If I was an actor, I'd definitely get some firearms training and personally check any gun that was handed to me.

BTW, it you really want to make this a republican vs democrat thing, I would focus on the dumb covid protocols that seem to have played a role, not this "only liberals point guns at people" claptrap.

Guns are dangerous. Liberals like to make strict rules about guns but the gun rules in the most liberal industry seem to be extremly lax

In both cases, the actors were told that the guns were harmless.

In both cases, the actors were handed functional guns that contained primer, propellant, and projectile.

In both cases, the actors inadvertently shot and killed people.

For the the purposes of judging the actors, it makes no difference whether the bullet was in the casing or slightly in front of it; the gun was lethal either way. Either it is the actors' job to determine if the gun will fire a round, or it's not.

From the perspective of the victims, it makes no difference either.

Yes, it does sound like the film industry needs to better regulate workplace safety.

It has nothing to do with politics. Liberals, like Republicans, do not want fatalities on the set and are very concerned about being sued.

Tatar.. wrote:

Bald Always Win wrote:

Only if they knew it was loaded? My buddy hands me a gun and tells me that it is unloaded and I point it at him and pull the trigger and kill him. No crime? According to you, I can walk away. No big deal because I thought it was unloaded. Oh well. It's only a human life.

If the guy in charge of the guns handed you a disabled weapon and told you when to point it and pull the trigger then I'd say it's the responsibility of the guy in charge if something goes wrong, no?

If Baldwin has followed the instructions of the people who were being paid to make sure things like this don't happen, it's not right they get to blame it on him.

A. Baldwin was the last person in the chain of custody of this firearm. He pulled the trigger. He owns the out come.

You could claim, "it's not right they get to blame it on him." However he was the last person responsible for that lethal weapon that took a life. What, does he get a pass? How about the person who handed it to him, do they get a pass as well?

Where does the accountability begin or end? A young women is dead. Someone now needs to pay the piper. Or should this be swept under the rug as a terrible accident? There are no accidents involving fire arms because they are designed to kill. As what happened in this case. The courts almost always find "negligence" in cases like this. No free passes in cases like this. The def. of negligence is, "failure to take proper care in doing something." Somebody/s dropped the ball and will have to be held accountable.

Friends, guns aren't toys. Don't play with them or handle them if you don't know if they are loaded or not. A. Baldwin thought he had a "cold gun" and found out the hard way he didn't.

No, it is not "beyond obvious" that people filming a movie about people pointing guns at each other actually need to aim guns at each other. What basis do you have for suggesting that? Or that it was required in this circumstance? Movies about people physically assaulting each other don't require that people actually physically assault each other.

And even if it were "beyond obvious" that needs to happen, which it is not, Baldwin didn't aim his gun at another actor - he aimed it at the photographer. Why is it "beyond obvious" that actors in movies about people who point guns at each other necessarily need to aim their guns at the photographer? Why is it "beyond obvious" that Baldwin needed to aim his gun at his photographer?

And, furthermore, whether you know it or not, you are actually arguing that actors involved in movies where people are shooting at each other should have heightened responsibilities - like double-checking the gun that you allege must be aimed at another person. If you really believe that Baldwin was somehow obligated to aim his gun at the photographer (or another actor), it would appear to be even more reckless that he failed to check whether it was loaded.

You deliberately misunderstand. With respect to the part of the analysis regarding aiming of the gun, as opposed to who loaded it, Baldwin ALONE faces those issues. He is the only one who aimed and fired his gun, even if he had reason to believe it was not loaded. His decision ALONE to aim his gun at the person who was killed, not the "armorer" or the assistant director. Baldwin's decision alone, and common sense suggests that was a reckless decision. Aim the gun somewhere else, FFS.

Every liberal on this thread seems to be unaware, or is deliberately ignoring, the common sense gun safety rule that you don't aim a gun, whether you believe it is loaded or not, at anyone that you don't want to shoot. I did not invent that intellectual divide between liberals and everyone else.

I am unaware what role Covid protocols played in the shooting deaths on the Rust movie-set.

Bald Always Win wrote:

There is no source other than a few people circulating it.

Ever notice how the media never addresses the most basic details on stories like this?

1. How many times did he pull the trigger?

2. Why was he firing the gun?

No answers

Chauvin was clearly unaware that his actions would kill someone or he wouldn't have done them while being filmed yet the three guys on Letsrun defending Baldwin for not knowing were the ones crucifying Chauvin. All Baldwin had to do was take 1 second to check and a person would be alive today. There was no rush because he was merely practicing. Liberals are okay with guns if it is their personal body guard with it or apparently on a movie set. Otherwise, don't dare even point a poptart at them if it shaped like a gun.

Tatar.. wrote:

Bald Always Win wrote:

Only if they knew it was loaded? My buddy hands me a gun and tells me that it is unloaded and I point it at him and pull the trigger and kill him. No crime? According to you, I can walk away. No big deal because I thought it was unloaded. Oh well. It's only a human life.

If the guy in charge of the guns handed you a disabled weapon and told you when to point it and pull the trigger then I'd say it's the responsibility of the guy in charge if something goes wrong, no?

If Baldwin has followed the instructions of the people who were being paid to make sure things like this don't happen, it's not right they get to blame it on him.

As a country boy I'm giving a double face palm to this post. We, country boys/girls have all been trained to not aim a gun at something we don't want to kill. City boys who don't know the difference between quail shot, 00buck or goose loads seem to think guns are toys and there's no repercussions for when things go wrong. Go figure.

nahbrah wrote:

Was Michael Massee found criminally accountable for shooting and killing Brandon Lee?

I looked it up. It seems as though the answer is "no". I expect the same will be true in this case.

There's obviously somebody accountable but I'm not entirely sure it's Baldwin. Obviously if more details come out then the situation changes.

As I've said before, on a film set they aren't pranking or shooting for fun - they're doing it because that's their job for the day. It's entirely feasible the script requires them to point towards each other or the camera at the instruction of the director. If the actor or director is unsure about safety, someone needs to be employed to ensure it and whoever's job it is to do that has failed.

I've been shooting and the instructor told us to follow everything said, couldn't so much as take your earmuffs off without permission. Which is fine but actually if it turns out they aren't responsible and you should be making your own decisions, I don't know how sensible that is as a message.