Are you going to waste 4 months of your life again making 1000s of posts on this stupid thread? Yeah, I thought so.
If it's such a stupid thread why are you here?
I think The View is the worst show ever but I will occasionally tune in to see what absurd things they are saying and watch Joy, Whoopi and the rest of the clowns make themselves look absolutely stupid.
I think The View is the worst show ever but I will occasionally tune in to see what absurd things they are saying and watch Joy, Whoopi and the rest of the clowns make themselves look absolutely stupid.
You relate a prominent actor being charged with manslaughter with a tv entertainment programme. Yup - stupid fits you well.
I think The View is the worst show ever but I will occasionally tune in to see what absurd things they are saying and watch Joy, Whoopi and the rest of the clowns make themselves look absolutely stupid.
You relate a prominent actor being charged with manslaughter with a tv entertainment programme. Yup - stupid fits you well.
During the last weeks, I counted all your letsrun posts. Currently you are at 26270 (since 2018). You are also interested in many other sports, do you post so much also in other forums? Just wondering.
Here’s an excellent legal analysis of the case that touches on your questions. Anytime a stunt occurs, the production (everyone involved) is at risk of legal jeopardy if something goes wrong. There is no special actors court that absolves them of responsibility if something goes wrong. They mitigate that risk through industry guidelines, protocols, etc that help ensure nothing goes wrong.
Thank you for this. It is quite a comprehensive breakdown of how that writer sees the legal questions. However, I note that it is a perspective that hasn't been shared by other legal experts who have weighed in on this case.
The crucial part of the argument that the writer has identified is that Baldwin was either negligent in his use of the gun on the set (in which case he committed an unlawful act) or acted lawfully but without appropriate caution or introspection, and so in either instance committed involuntary manslaughter.
However, what the writer does not appear to take adequate account of is that there were safety protocols in place that Baldwin would be expected to rely on, which, firstly, were that the armorer was required to ensure that any gun used on the set was disarmed or unloaded, and, secondly, that the director was required to confirm this with the armorer and so with that knowledge communicated this information to the set, which included Baldwin. So Baldwin's actions occurred in the context of an express assurance from the director that the gun was unloaded and Baldwin's knowing also that this was required to be ensured by the armorer. So a double precaution. With that knowledge it changes substantially any legal determination of whether Baldwin was either negligent or acting without appropriate caution or introspection. The safety protocols in place would mean nothing if those on the set, which included the actors, could not rely on them. It thus imposes a different standard of care upon the actors than that of a person using a firearm in a setting without those safety protocols.
To put it as simply as possible, I might use the example of an actor in a Western (let us say Clint Eastwood), who is handed a firearm for use in a shootout and is told the gun is safe by those whose responsibility is to ensure that and taking that assurance on trust the actor, performing as the scene requires, pulls the trigger and shoots another actor - and kills them, because for reasons unknown the gun was loaded with live ammunition. I very much doubt in those circumstances the actor would be found to have been negligent or acting without due caution. There have been shooting fatalities in film sets but I know of no criminal conviction resulting from that.
The number one rule of gun safety is always assume the gun is loaded unless PROVEN otherwise. 1A is never point it at anyone unless you intend to kill them.
As the results of improper gun handling is death, SAG has very good procedures and protocols in place that allow movies to use guns safely - their safety record in this regard is outstanding. The SAG safety record does not help Baldwin case either. The dangerous acts that Baldwin did was:
- Pointing the gun at someone ( you can’t argue this, two people were hit)
- pulling the hammer back ( it wouldn’t have gone off if he didn’t do this. Single action revolvers have very sensitive triggers once the hammer is set)
This can be done safely if extra protocols that Baldwin was trained on were used.
Things that Baldwin was trained on and COULD HAVE DONE:
- “Hey, I’m going to be aiming this gun at someone, can they move out of the way?” - “ Since this is a rehearsal, let’s use the rubber dummy gun instead” - “ Since this is a rehearsal, Ms Armorer, can you come over here and empty it?” - “ Hey, I know you already said the gun was cold, let’s just do another quick double check before I point it at Ms Hutchins”
Reading the Brandon Lee on set killing, the correct rounds were used, but one of them was defective in that it had a small primer charge. It dislodged the bullet to where it was stuck in the barrel, when the next blank round was fired, there was enough charge to propel the bullet out of the barrel.
This post was edited 6 minutes after it was posted.
If this case stands, every actor, young or old, on every movie set needs to become a fire arms expert before they handle a gun.
Baldwin wasn't handed the gun by some random person off the street. He was handed the gun by the armorer who yelled "Cold Gun" and has ONE job on the set of a movie - make sure weapons used on the set are safe to use and do not contain live rounds.
If the case moves forward, every actor needs to check and recheck a gun every time one is handed to them because the armorer saying "Cold Gun" is no protection if the gun does in fact contain live rounds.
If this case stands, every actor, young or old, on every movie set needs to become a fire arms expert before they handle a gun.
Baldwin wasn't handed the gun by some random person off the street. He was handed the gun by the armorer who yelled "Cold Gun" and has ONE job on the set of a movie - make sure weapons used on the set are safe to use and do not contain live rounds.
If the case moves forward, every actor needs to check and recheck a gun every time one is handed to them because the armorer saying "Cold Gun" is no protection if the gun does in fact contain live rounds.
The lady Amorer even said she should not have been an armorer on this set.
NFL defensive back have one job also. To prevent touchdowns but how often do they screw that up. Just because the armorer hands you a gun and assures you it is not live, you still have an obligation to inspect it yourself.
You relate a prominent actor being charged with manslaughter with a tv entertainment programme. Yup - stupid fits you well.
During the last weeks, I counted all your letsrun posts. Currently you are at 26270 (since 2018). You are also interested in many other sports, do you post so much also in other forums? Just wondering.
You've just shown what your obsession is - or who.
Dude, it's been over 2 years Armstrong, wth are you still arguing this stupid crap?? I literally haven't looked at this thread in over 2 years, you're still arguing it like this just happened.
You seem to be unaware that after charges were dropped they have been brought against Baldwin again.
I'm aware, I don't care very much. All the points made 2 years ago stand. There's no point arguing it further. Hopefully it actually gets tried in a court, like it should have been the first time.
A gun is always pointed at something. Aiming a gun is done when you are intentionally firing it.
Aiming a gun is effectively pointing it at something. To be aimed does not require that it be fired. Pointing a gun is intentional. A gun that is simply held is not pointed, without the intention to do so.
You seem to be unaware that after charges were dropped they have been brought against Baldwin again.
I'm aware, I don't care very much. All the points made 2 years ago stand. There's no point arguing it further. Hopefully it actually gets tried in a court, like it should have been the first time.
You care enough to come back to this thread after two years.
"The number one rule of gun safety is always assume the gun is loaded unless PROVEN otherwise. 1A is never point it at anyone unless you intend to kill them."(quote)
It appears that most here have not read any comment by the legal experts, such as the Harvard Law professor, which indicate that the killing was essentially an accident and not a criminal act. But that doesn't meet the prejudices of commenters here.
I'm aware, I don't care very much. All the points made 2 years ago stand. There's no point arguing it further. Hopefully it actually gets tried in a court, like it should have been the first time.
You care enough to come back to this thread after two years.
I just wanted to check that you're okay. I don't care about the thread itself. I care about you baby.
We've updated our BetterRunningShoes.com web site to make it easier to find good deals on the best shoes. To keep it great we need new shoe reviews from you.