As talent he did nothing wrong, assuming he was firing when he was directed to.
Either way the fact that there was ANY live ammo anywhere near set is insane. The fact that they’d already had multiple misfire incidents is insane. The AD apparently yelling out “cold gun” is insane, you treat all prop guns, particularly actual guns, like they’re “hot.”
As producer he’s totally to blame, but actors aren’t even supposed to check if a pistol is properly loaded or unloaded. You don’t want actors doing ANYTHING with actual firearms other than using them as directed on camera and handing them back to the armorer or prop assistant on set or whatever. They WILL shoot themselves in the head as a goof.
>As producer he’s totally to blame
This, he made some young girl with no idea about anything the armorer and never replaced her after a ND on set, it was negligence of the highest order.
If they let him and the AD off while railroading the armorer, I'm done with the US legal system. It will prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that our system is broken beyond repair.
https://i.imgur.com/Y4xKD1F.jpg
Give me a rundown idk.
But my point is still that it’s essentially never the talent’s fault with this kind of shit in terms of legal liability and insurance and everything else other than not being a sloppy piece of shit. Armorers spend a lot of money on production insurance because they’re the ones assuming personal responsibility over the use of every firearm in the production. ADs typically aren’t supposed to touch hero props at all, and they’re absolutely never ever supposed to be handling firearms. And live ammo should never ever be on set at all, much less loaded into a hero prop at any time during the production. Thesbians should always treat firearms like they’re real but they also should have every reason to believe that the prop they’ve been handed isn’t loaded with fricken live rounds.
Reminder that the armorer had directly caused a negligent discharge on the set of a Nicholas Cage film a few months earlier (literally by discharging a gun in his presence without announcing it), enraging him to the point where he spent 90 minutes screaming at her and then walked off the set.
This still wasn't enough to get the message through to her.
I wasn't saying she was blameless, because keeping live ammo on set is fricking stupid, but she wasn't the only person that caused a negligent homicide.
>assuming he was firing when he was directed to
He wasn't.
Shut the frick up you moronic dweeb, imagine writing this much with no idea about the situation.
But my point is still that it’s essentially never the talent’s fault with this kind of shit in terms of legal liability and insurance and everything else other than not being a sloppy piece of shit. Armorers spend a lot of money on production insurance because they’re the ones assuming personal responsibility over the use of every firearm in the production. ADs typically aren’t supposed to touch hero props at all, and they’re absolutely never ever supposed to be handling firearms. And live ammo should never ever be on set at all, much less loaded into a hero prop at any time during the production. Thesbians should always treat firearms like they’re real but they also should have every reason to believe that the prop they’ve been handed isn’t loaded with fricken live rounds.
nah, I think he's right. there's no way a multi-million production, multi-billion industry would rely on actors (their most valuable asset, often literal drugged-out morons) not to frick up.
You bet your ass they have a clause saying "if something goes wrong it's not our problem", so it's on the production to keep the set moron-proof, there's no sense in taking any kind of risk on something as unstable as an actor insurance-wise.
Assuming legal responsibility and signing off on everything is literally what the armorers job is.
It's like a building inspector signing off that an industrial building is structurally sound enough for it's purpose. If it suddenly collapses while being used for that purpose then it's not on the people using the building because they're not expected to also be structural engineers.
>literally what the armorers job is
Yes but the producers need to make sure the armorer is qualified during hiring, in this case he took a young girl out of costumes and said "you are the armorer now" making this negligence of the producers.
>post some will smif cringe shit
He’s an armorer’s worst nightmare irl. Other than maybe Keanu, the actors that get all uppity about the gun safety class they took and think they don’t need to hand over the weapons they’re playing with are the ones most likely to frick something up.
Depends on type of dummy rounds in the gun. There are firing blanks , dummy real lookalikes with no primer and dummy real lookalikeswith a """primerlooking"""" substitute (i will refer to it as primer mk 2) and they are used depending on the camerashot required. The gun he was using was a SAA most likely : if the actor was handed a gun by the armorer and opend the loading gate , spun the cilindre he would only see A primer/primer mk2 or NO primer , and would have to unload all 6 cartriges and load them back in after checking for any sneaky reall bullets
AT WHICH POINT the armorer can not guaranty the actor did not sneak in a real cartrige due to complex unload and reload procedure (complex for somebodyes eyes to follow for any "slight of hand" the actor might accidentally or intentionally do)
If he was supposed to be using blanks - those have a primer and WITH the SAA handgun the actor can only practically check the back of the case due to the mechanical limitations of the gun.
If he was using mk2 primer cartriges (real looking dummyes) he would not be able to tell the difference.
Was he playing with the gun or practicing the scene, that makes a difference in his liability. There are ways to mitigate risk. Using a 45 lc with no firing pin for dummy lookalikes. And a SAA in another caliber modifyed for blanks only (blocked barrel).i think, The mayority of failure lied with whoever hired the shitty armorer, considering a prop was used for target practice and he did not fire anybody , and the armorer herself who I assume chose which """weapons""" to use.
Nah he's right. The armorer is responsible for weapon prep. A gun could be empty, loaded with blanks, loaded with dummies, or a combination. Imagine wrangling a bunch of moron actors together for some huge WW2 battle scene and they all start dropping mags and clearing blanks all over the place because they need to feel smart. No. You put them together the way they're needed for the shot, and you tell them what to do.
He was told he had a gun loaded with fake cartridges. There was live ammo on set, which is absolutely fricking insane. As an actor, it wasn't his fault, but as producer he hired that b***h so it once again becomes his fault.
So what, if I'm an actor I can just shoot someone and say "whoopsie, good thing this is a movie set, otherwise this would probably been manslaughter. You guys want some Denny's?" Like obviously Alec Baldwin is high profile and a democrat, of course HE's not going to be charged with a crime, but I haven't heard of a case where shooting someone wasn't at least prosecuted if it wasn't a clear cut case of self-defense, and even then there are weird cases that should never have been brought up in the first place. And it doesn't really help that more of the union safety tips were ignored than put into practice on this occasion.
Like if some lawgay can clear up why this wasn't manslaughter and if this would have happened at a gunrange for example if that would make a difference?
NTA, but: >armorer out at lunch >talent, aka the producer, demands gun for practice >AD breaks set guidelines, grabs gun, announces clear >talent/producer kills someone
If you can't figure out that alec baldwin isn't just 'talent' in this scenario, you might be a moron. He hired the armorer, used his status as producer to break protocol, and then pulled the trigger. >hurr durr
>hey jamal wanna check out my gun? >yeah bro, cool piec-*BANG* AH SHEEEIT AH SHEEIT AH SHEEIT >nah it's all good, I handed you the gun, you didn't do nuthin wrong
unironically yes that is my question? Like if I go to a gun range and the range is cold and I get handed a gun and I shoot a guy changing targets downrange, that's a negligent discharge and if the guy dies this would get me charged with involuntary manslaughter. isn't it my responsibility to make sure it's unloaded? Am I not supposed to look where I point the gun before I press the trigger? Am i not being willfully reckless by disregarding all of that?
Not when the guy handing you the gun is "professionally responsible" for it's safety and assumes all responsibility for what happens when that gun leaves their hand assuming it's used exactly as directed.
Genuinely, and actor doing anything with the gun that the armourer didn't specifically tell him to do including "checking it" would immedietly put the responsibility for any occurance onto the actor and away from the armourer essentially negating the armourers sole purpose for existing.
I honestly really don't understand why you would give a child who's never touched a gun before a fully automatic machine pistol that she wouldn't be able to hold properly even if she knew the technique due to lack of muscle mass.
Really, you should start kids out with some like a weapon that's single shot or uses a manual action and work your way up from there.
If you really want to have your kid shoot an automatic weapon it should be a static gun like an M60 mounted on a tripod, where they don't have to actually hold it and the gun is bulky enough at it wouldn't able to swing in an incorrect direction on its own.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Everyone should start with only a single round loaded for any semi-auto / full-auto / dual-action, I have seen so many morons act moronic the first time they fire a gun you should make it impossible for them to fire a second time without a delierate act (running a bolt / reloading).
1 year ago
Anonymous
>Really, you should start kids out with some like a weapon that's single shot or uses a manual action and work your way up from there.
Yeah, pump action seems optimal. For training muscle memory and eliminating the flinching, it wouldn`t even have to be a weapon...
1 year ago
Anonymous
Everyone should start with only a single round loaded for any semi-auto / full-auto / dual-action, I have seen so many morons act moronic the first time they fire a gun you should make it impossible for them to fire a second time without a delierate act (running a bolt / reloading).
>Really, you should start kids out with some like a weapon that's single shot or uses a manual action and work your way up from there.
Yeah, pump action seems optimal. For training muscle memory and eliminating the flinching, it wouldn`t even have to be a weapon...
Everybody knows children should be taught on crew served weapons to instill teamwork and the christian spirit of sharing things in them.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Giving any knownothing kid an automatic weapon is a big ol goof lol. I shot a pre-ban ak a bunch as a kid and typically was only allowed to shoot it prone or propped on the table.
My dad started us off with a 22 target pistol which is probably the best way to do it.
Weird attempt at a frailer equivalence but there’s this concept called intent. > good thing this is a movie set, otherwise this would probably been manslaughter.
That would typically apply more to a situation if an actor was intentionally firing a gun they thought was unloaded, than accidentally firing a gun they thought was unloaded. If Baldwin was like “haha bang bang I’m shooting you” that would be a much better case for manslaughter but a good faith accident where there are professionals being paid to ensure that doesn’t happen isn’t really ever going to lead to successful charges and conviction against the actor.
But yeah as the producer he could totally be charged with and convicted of stuff most likely.
Also would you have such an emotional opinion on this if it wasn’t some politics gay you don’t like? Why would you want to establish an anti-gun legal precedent that would mostly lead to movies being shittier?
> assuming he was firing when he was directed to
he was drawing and wienering the hammer and accidentally pulled the trigger. this would ordinarily not be an issue if not for all the other failures you mentioned leading to a live round making its way into the gun.
If they let him and the AD off while railroading the armorer, I'm done with the US legal system. It will prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that our system is broken beyond repair.
>If they let him and the AD off while railroading the armorer, I'm done with the US legal system. It will prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that our system is broken beyond repair.
Didn't the AD already take a plea deal?
But it was always going to be a random guess what a jury would think. He's an actor in a scene that was supposed to point the gun at the camera as we see in plenty of movies. Big thing is why there was any live ammo near the set.
Sounds like most sets going forward are sticking with airsoft, not sure what the options are for revolvers though, maybe all just completely inert fakes and they do the gunshots in post. Saves them having to deal with hearing damage too.
The first post was right that as an actor, it's not his fault, but Baldwin wasn't just the actor, he was also the producer who hired the armorer and kept her on despite earlier frickups, so he should end up being liable to some extent though I'm not reading through the penal code to figure out if he qualifies for manslaughter or not.
Alec Baldwin wasn't just an actor, he was the lead producer for the film, had been directly responsible for hiring Hannah Gutierrez-Reed (despite her lack of qualifications), and had failed to act upon receiving complaints about her negligent behavior. Even if he hadn't pulled the trigger, he'd still be on the hook.
Moreover, whenever someone hands you a gun under any circumstance, YOU are responsible for what happens. It's YOUR that's on that trigger. YOU are the last line of defense in preventing any accidents. YOU have the responsibility, more than any other person, to do YOUR due diligence to prevent one.
The person who is first and foremost responsible for preventing an ND is YOU, the triggerman.
>can travel wherever you want, whenever you want >shoot whatever guns you want >buy slaves >never have to work if you don't want to >can now apparently gun someone down in front of a bunch of people while larping as a cowboy
Truly the rich live in a completely different world
Baldwin looks like such a douche bag, and his wife is some bawd who larps as Spanish.
My favorite Nigerian-American Colion Noir did a video about it, when you aim the prop gun you angle it away from the other actor, and the camera won’t pick it up.
there are so many leftist npcs who say shit like "I wouldn't own a gun because I would hurt myself or others". Never understood this mentality of constantly being on the verge of suicide or snapping or whatever. Makes me think that the mental illness / moronation of leftists goes deeper than is easy to imagine. What is easy to imagine is a libtard butthole having an on-purpose accident because they were upset about something. Not saying it happened
As talent he did nothing wrong, assuming he was firing when he was directed to.
Either way the fact that there was ANY live ammo anywhere near set is insane. The fact that they’d already had multiple misfire incidents is insane. The AD apparently yelling out “cold gun” is insane, you treat all prop guns, particularly actual guns, like they’re “hot.”
As producer he’s totally to blame, but actors aren’t even supposed to check if a pistol is properly loaded or unloaded. You don’t want actors doing ANYTHING with actual firearms other than using them as directed on camera and handing them back to the armorer or prop assistant on set or whatever. They WILL shoot themselves in the head as a goof.
He fired twice.
>As producer he’s totally to blame
This, he made some young girl with no idea about anything the armorer and never replaced her after a ND on set, it was negligence of the highest order.
Reminder that the armorer had directly caused a negligent discharge on the set of a Nicholas Cage film a few months earlier (literally by discharging a gun in his presence without announcing it), enraging him to the point where he spent 90 minutes screaming at her and then walked off the set.
This still wasn't enough to get the message through to her.
I wasn't saying she was blameless, because keeping live ammo on set is fricking stupid, but she wasn't the only person that caused a negligent homicide.
>assuming he was firing when he was directed to
He wasn't.
Shut the frick up you moronic dweeb, imagine writing this much with no idea about the situation.
Give me a rundown idk.
But my point is still that it’s essentially never the talent’s fault with this kind of shit in terms of legal liability and insurance and everything else other than not being a sloppy piece of shit. Armorers spend a lot of money on production insurance because they’re the ones assuming personal responsibility over the use of every firearm in the production. ADs typically aren’t supposed to touch hero props at all, and they’re absolutely never ever supposed to be handling firearms. And live ammo should never ever be on set at all, much less loaded into a hero prop at any time during the production. Thesbians should always treat firearms like they’re real but they also should have every reason to believe that the prop they’ve been handed isn’t loaded with fricken live rounds.
>but actors aren’t even supposed to check if a pistol is properly loaded or unloaded
get fricked
anyone who picks up a gun is responsible for it being loaded or unloaded
nah, I think he's right. there's no way a multi-million production, multi-billion industry would rely on actors (their most valuable asset, often literal drugged-out morons) not to frick up.
You bet your ass they have a clause saying "if something goes wrong it's not our problem", so it's on the production to keep the set moron-proof, there's no sense in taking any kind of risk on something as unstable as an actor insurance-wise.
Assuming legal responsibility and signing off on everything is literally what the armorers job is.
It's like a building inspector signing off that an industrial building is structurally sound enough for it's purpose. If it suddenly collapses while being used for that purpose then it's not on the people using the building because they're not expected to also be structural engineers.
>literally what the armorers job is
Yes but the producers need to make sure the armorer is qualified during hiring, in this case he took a young girl out of costumes and said "you are the armorer now" making this negligence of the producers.
He is production, executive production in fact
Never mind the fact that safety is everyone’s job, that’s workplace health and safety 101
>post some will smif cringe shit
He’s an armorer’s worst nightmare irl. Other than maybe Keanu, the actors that get all uppity about the gun safety class they took and think they don’t need to hand over the weapons they’re playing with are the ones most likely to frick something up.
Depends on type of dummy rounds in the gun. There are firing blanks , dummy real lookalikes with no primer and dummy real lookalikeswith a """primerlooking"""" substitute (i will refer to it as primer mk 2) and they are used depending on the camerashot required. The gun he was using was a SAA most likely : if the actor was handed a gun by the armorer and opend the loading gate , spun the cilindre he would only see A primer/primer mk2 or NO primer , and would have to unload all 6 cartriges and load them back in after checking for any sneaky reall bullets
AT WHICH POINT the armorer can not guaranty the actor did not sneak in a real cartrige due to complex unload and reload procedure (complex for somebodyes eyes to follow for any "slight of hand" the actor might accidentally or intentionally do)
If he was supposed to be using blanks - those have a primer and WITH the SAA handgun the actor can only practically check the back of the case due to the mechanical limitations of the gun.
If he was using mk2 primer cartriges (real looking dummyes) he would not be able to tell the difference.
Was he playing with the gun or practicing the scene, that makes a difference in his liability. There are ways to mitigate risk. Using a 45 lc with no firing pin for dummy lookalikes. And a SAA in another caliber modifyed for blanks only (blocked barrel).i think, The mayority of failure lied with whoever hired the shitty armorer, considering a prop was used for target practice and he did not fire anybody , and the armorer herself who I assume chose which """weapons""" to use.
Nah he's right. The armorer is responsible for weapon prep. A gun could be empty, loaded with blanks, loaded with dummies, or a combination. Imagine wrangling a bunch of moron actors together for some huge WW2 battle scene and they all start dropping mags and clearing blanks all over the place because they need to feel smart. No. You put them together the way they're needed for the shot, and you tell them what to do.
He was told he had a gun loaded with fake cartridges. There was live ammo on set, which is absolutely fricking insane. As an actor, it wasn't his fault, but as producer he hired that b***h so it once again becomes his fault.
So what, if I'm an actor I can just shoot someone and say "whoopsie, good thing this is a movie set, otherwise this would probably been manslaughter. You guys want some Denny's?" Like obviously Alec Baldwin is high profile and a democrat, of course HE's not going to be charged with a crime, but I haven't heard of a case where shooting someone wasn't at least prosecuted if it wasn't a clear cut case of self-defense, and even then there are weird cases that should never have been brought up in the first place. And it doesn't really help that more of the union safety tips were ignored than put into practice on this occasion.
Like if some lawgay can clear up why this wasn't manslaughter and if this would have happened at a gunrange for example if that would make a difference?
>armorer hands actor a real knife
>actor stabs cast member during scene and they die
>durr, why actor not murderer?
NTA, but:
>armorer out at lunch
>talent, aka the producer, demands gun for practice
>AD breaks set guidelines, grabs gun, announces clear
>talent/producer kills someone
If you can't figure out that alec baldwin isn't just 'talent' in this scenario, you might be a moron. He hired the armorer, used his status as producer to break protocol, and then pulled the trigger.
>hurr durr
>hey jamal wanna check out my gun?
>yeah bro, cool piec-*BANG* AH SHEEEIT AH SHEEIT AH SHEEIT
>nah it's all good, I handed you the gun, you didn't do nuthin wrong
unironically yes that is my question? Like if I go to a gun range and the range is cold and I get handed a gun and I shoot a guy changing targets downrange, that's a negligent discharge and if the guy dies this would get me charged with involuntary manslaughter. isn't it my responsibility to make sure it's unloaded? Am I not supposed to look where I point the gun before I press the trigger? Am i not being willfully reckless by disregarding all of that?
Not when the guy handing you the gun is "professionally responsible" for it's safety and assumes all responsibility for what happens when that gun leaves their hand assuming it's used exactly as directed.
Genuinely, and actor doing anything with the gun that the armourer didn't specifically tell him to do including "checking it" would immedietly put the responsibility for any occurance onto the actor and away from the armourer essentially negating the armourers sole purpose for existing.
I honestly really don't understand why you would give a child who's never touched a gun before a fully automatic machine pistol that she wouldn't be able to hold properly even if she knew the technique due to lack of muscle mass.
Really, you should start kids out with some like a weapon that's single shot or uses a manual action and work your way up from there.
If you really want to have your kid shoot an automatic weapon it should be a static gun like an M60 mounted on a tripod, where they don't have to actually hold it and the gun is bulky enough at it wouldn't able to swing in an incorrect direction on its own.
Everyone should start with only a single round loaded for any semi-auto / full-auto / dual-action, I have seen so many morons act moronic the first time they fire a gun you should make it impossible for them to fire a second time without a delierate act (running a bolt / reloading).
>Really, you should start kids out with some like a weapon that's single shot or uses a manual action and work your way up from there.
Yeah, pump action seems optimal. For training muscle memory and eliminating the flinching, it wouldn`t even have to be a weapon...
Everybody knows children should be taught on crew served weapons to instill teamwork and the christian spirit of sharing things in them.
Giving any knownothing kid an automatic weapon is a big ol goof lol. I shot a pre-ban ak a bunch as a kid and typically was only allowed to shoot it prone or propped on the table.
My dad started us off with a 22 target pistol which is probably the best way to do it.
Hey Tim, how is the balding head going?
Weird attempt at a frailer equivalence but there’s this concept called intent.
> good thing this is a movie set, otherwise this would probably been manslaughter.
That would typically apply more to a situation if an actor was intentionally firing a gun they thought was unloaded, than accidentally firing a gun they thought was unloaded. If Baldwin was like “haha bang bang I’m shooting you” that would be a much better case for manslaughter but a good faith accident where there are professionals being paid to ensure that doesn’t happen isn’t really ever going to lead to successful charges and conviction against the actor.
But yeah as the producer he could totally be charged with and convicted of stuff most likely.
Also would you have such an emotional opinion on this if it wasn’t some politics gay you don’t like? Why would you want to establish an anti-gun legal precedent that would mostly lead to movies being shittier?
*false equivalence
>intent
it's involuntary manslaughter but you're otherwise right.
> assuming he was firing when he was directed to
he was drawing and wienering the hammer and accidentally pulled the trigger. this would ordinarily not be an issue if not for all the other failures you mentioned leading to a live round making its way into the gun.
I wonder how many 0s were on that check
New Rust Trailer dropped
Okay, I gotta ask, original source?
IIRC most of that came from the victims family’s lawyers or something. It was to establish what happened on set beyond testimony, I think.
No I mean the webm
The judge was a fan of the trailer.
If they let him and the AD off while railroading the armorer, I'm done with the US legal system. It will prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that our system is broken beyond repair.
>If they let him and the AD off while railroading the armorer, I'm done with the US legal system. It will prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that our system is broken beyond repair.
I figured that out back in 1993 lmao
Didn't the AD already take a plea deal?
But it was always going to be a random guess what a jury would think. He's an actor in a scene that was supposed to point the gun at the camera as we see in plenty of movies. Big thing is why there was any live ammo near the set.
Sounds like most sets going forward are sticking with airsoft, not sure what the options are for revolvers though, maybe all just completely inert fakes and they do the gunshots in post. Saves them having to deal with hearing damage too.
The first post was right that as an actor, it's not his fault, but Baldwin wasn't just the actor, he was also the producer who hired the armorer and kept her on despite earlier frickups, so he should end up being liable to some extent though I'm not reading through the penal code to figure out if he qualifies for manslaughter or not.
Alec Baldwin wasn't just an actor, he was the lead producer for the film, had been directly responsible for hiring Hannah Gutierrez-Reed (despite her lack of qualifications), and had failed to act upon receiving complaints about her negligent behavior. Even if he hadn't pulled the trigger, he'd still be on the hook.
Moreover, whenever someone hands you a gun under any circumstance, YOU are responsible for what happens. It's YOUR that's on that trigger. YOU are the last line of defense in preventing any accidents. YOU have the responsibility, more than any other person, to do YOUR due diligence to prevent one.
The person who is first and foremost responsible for preventing an ND is YOU, the triggerman.
>I'm done with the US legal system. It will prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that our system is broken beyond repair.
Is this your first time?
>can travel wherever you want, whenever you want
>shoot whatever guns you want
>buy slaves
>never have to work if you don't want to
>can now apparently gun someone down in front of a bunch of people while larping as a cowboy
Truly the rich live in a completely different world
This doesn't mean he's off the hook for civil liability.
Baldwin looks like such a douche bag, and his wife is some bawd who larps as Spanish.
My favorite Nigerian-American Colion Noir did a video about it, when you aim the prop gun you angle it away from the other actor, and the camera won’t pick it up.
Sounds like they are using "the possibility of the firing mechanism being modified" as an excuse to drop the charges.
there are so many leftist npcs who say shit like "I wouldn't own a gun because I would hurt myself or others". Never understood this mentality of constantly being on the verge of suicide or snapping or whatever. Makes me think that the mental illness / moronation of leftists goes deeper than is easy to imagine. What is easy to imagine is a libtard butthole having an on-purpose accident because they were upset about something. Not saying it happened
Legit wanna see the movie now. Never would have given it a second thought if it wasn't for the shooting.
But I want him to be found guilty and go to prison because he mocked daddy.