Alec Baldwin kills one,inures another with Prop Gun on set.

No such thing as a accidental discharge unless the firearm discharges due to a manufacturing error.

 

I don't pay you to shoot anything.

What right might that be?

You are the one running on pure emotion here, not me. And your position is NOT based on law or facts, but personal opinion, and past cases prove it. The shooter of Brandon Lee was not charged. Heck, even Dick Cheney was not charged and HE KNEW his gun was loaded with live ammo. Brandon Lee shooter and Baldwin were told the guns are unloaded. Three actors died in the shooting of Twilight Zone, and the director and four others were charged with involuntary manslaughter. The pilot was not charged. An actor was killed during the filling Midnight Rider and the director pleaded guilty of involuntary manslaughter. As for Baldwin, as I already told you, I don't care. I know nothing about him other than he is an actor, so I have no reason to like him or hate him. You obviously don't like him for some weird reason, which is why you are so emotional about this.

 

Dumb post. Just because so many on the left are ignorant about gun safety doesn’t reflect on us.

Also Baldwin is a terrific actor and funny too. He is just an ass in real life.

 

There is such thing, but there is no law against it, because it is not considered a crime.

Oh, I see.....Now I understand all the emotions about this. I didn't remember he was in SNL. That explains it.

 

Oh. So if I took a firearm safety class and shoot someone it’s the trainer’s fault? Holy Cow.

This guy has been around guns for decades. Saying he isn’t responsible is like saying I could blame my negligence on an instructor from 20 years ago.

 

No you don’t see. I for one will not make excuses for Baldwin’s negligence. I’m not right wing, never voted for Trump, and didn’t know until today Baldwin did Trump on SNL since I don’t follow that anymore. I’ve been posting about Baldwin’s negligence here in this thread for two days.

Has nothing to do with emotions, Trump, or SNL. It’s all about Baldwin’s negligence and hypocrisy for me.

And the law you can’t seem to come up with that absolves actors of negligence I can’t be absolved of.

 

fake guns work fine on the set, no reason for real guns

 

This guy has been around guns on set for decades. His negligence is his own. Not one current armorer.

Apparently not if you think some people should be held responsible for firearm negligence but not others. That’s part of firearm safety. You pull the trigger, you own the consequences. Period.

Of what? Other people who got off with negligence when others can’t?

We all will wait and see what happens. It’s not emotion. I don’t want some clown on PF thinking they can fool around with guns and blame some third party for killing someone. It’s irresponsible. The trigger operator owns the consequences period. If you are an actor or some dude who flips burgers.

 

That is obviously not what I said. How could you not understand the scenario I gave you?

Not even close. If the instructor hands a loaded gun to someone taking a class, and said the gun is empty and safe, then he would be held liable in the court in case there was an accident.

Of firearms instructor and military instructors being responsible for the safety of their students while they are under their instruction during basic firearms training. The other examples I gave were of movie directors who were held liable for deadly mistakes while their movies were being filmed. Even CEOs and politicians and presidents are held accountable for things that happen under their watch.

 

If the above is confirmed you'd have to ask firstly why they were using firearms simultaneously as both props on a movie set and for live firing in or around that set. Used strictly as props? Tick. Used strictly for live firing? Tick. Both at the same time and place? That's just asking for potential accidents to happen because it leads you directly to that second point, having to store live ammunition and blanks at the same physical location. If for some reason it absolutely has to be done (which to the best of my knowledge should be a rare occurrence e.g. a panorama of long range fire in a war movie?) then you'd need to strictly separate storage locations and maintain vert accurate audit/handling logs. And you'd certainly never want both on set at the same location near the same scene at the same time.

I'd end up having to ask what kind of prop team won the contract for the film and what experience did they have.

 

Sounds like this crew was all over the place, and no one was in charge. Target shooting with same guns....? Even the director could be held accountable, but my guess is that in the end it will be settled outside the courts.

 

I was a beach lifeguard and the ocean is where people also do dumb things. You hate to see someone throw their life away.

 

If you buy food, fuel, packaging, personal care products, adhesives, etc. you pay me to shoot stuff.

You said if I want immunity from personal negligence with firearms I can do so by becoming an actor. I want to know what law or right protects them from responsibility but not me. You can’t cite anything.

Have I said Baldwin should be charged with any specific crime? No.

Brandon Lees shooting was negligence. He was sued and settled out of court. I’m not familiar with your other examples but if one pleaded guilty it must have been some law involved. I still so no law absolving actors of negligence but not others.

I know little of Baldwin myself except he’s made a living doing a thing he claims to not like and advocates against others doing. That bothers me. And most of all, I don’t want others thinking you can fool around with firearms and not have to accept responsibility for actions taken with firearms. It goes against tenets of firearm safety and rule of law. I’m no more emotional about it than you are.

I don’t dislike Baldwin at all. I find his ACTIONS to be reprehensible and I find excusing those actions to be reprehensible.

 

I never said that.

Please don't put words in my mouth. Its dishonest.

I dont see how anyone could come out thinking that, and nor did it happen in Brandon Lee's case.

 

He was "practicing" for crying out loud. He didn't examine the cylinder and you don't put your finger inside the trigger guard unless you are going to shoot. You can practice cross draw without doing that and you can aim at an inanimate object.....not a cinemaphotographer!

 

What makes you think I don’t understand? I disagree with you.

Cite the law. Cite the law equivocating an actor to a student.

I missed your case of firearms instructor case law. Is it in this thread? Unless an instructor pulled the trigger I don’t think direct causation could be established. If you can cite an example I’ll reconsider.

I don’t think military instruction has any relevance as it is not subject to the same laws or courts. Again, if you can cite charges by a military plaintiff against a military trainer in civil or criminal court I’ll reconsider.

I’m not aware of a movie case where the trigger man was not liable in either criminal or civil court.

 

It is what it is broheem. I am sure he'd do things differently if he could go back in time. Very tragic.

In the meanwhile, the Trump clan is busy making mockery of the incident, which surprises no one.

Your response proved my point flew a mile over your head.

Criminal negligence. If a firearms instructor knowingly hands over a loaded weapon to a person who has never touched a gun before. And it makes it worse when he says the gun is empty and safe.

"Criminal negligence refers to conduct in which a person ignores a known or obvious risk, or disregards the life and safety of others."

If you invited a young friend over and that person knows nothing about guns, and you hand over a loaded weapon and tell him its empty, do you think he alone would face charges if he accidentally shoots someone?

 

I quote you using the quote function initially. Here is your quote not using the quote function.
“You can become an actor who gets paid for shooting off prop-guns, and if the people responsible for firearm safety screws up, its probably going be their fault. ”

Well you don’t think Baldwin is responsible. You think the armorer is. Or the director. Which is kind of funny since he was the director.

 

I wonder if there was only one live round in the gun? Haven't actually heard that mentioned. It may have just been put up fully loaded after the last target session and issued like that.

 

Your points are neither logical or based on rule of law. I disagree with your point.

 

You can't agree or disagree with a point which you never understood.

I have said several times I will wait and see what happens, so I don't get it that you have to misrepresent everything that has been said. And no, he was not the director. Directors name is Joel Souza

 

Why would there ever be live rounds on a film set?

 

A loaded firearm? I don't think so. Besides, any weapon would be checked--ah, or would it?

I can't see how his company isn't involved.

 

Doesn't explain how/why live rounds were on a film set.

The fact that they could be - in such a casual fashion - it bizarre to me. Like keeping a crocodile on set just for LOLs.

 

A prop never comes into contact with actual bullets?