Do you all really think the person pointing and pulling a trigger has zero responsibility to check to see if the gun is loaded?
I have no idea. I dont touch guns. And certainly not on set as an actor with a professional armorer.
What I’m saying is that private defense attorneys in smallish districts are in cahoots with the prosecutors and don’t really care all that much about what’s in the best interest of their clients. They just wanna make quick plea deals and get to their next case
Well…maybe try to use a little common sense.
You are holding a weapon that can end someone’s life.
Someone hands it to you and says it’s not loaded.
You don’t double check?
You can’t be that stupid right?
My understanding (and I’m happy to be corrected), is that most people couldn’t tell the difference between a live bullet and a dummy round, which is why they never allow live bullets on movie sets.
I’ve never been an actor pointing and shooting a gun at someone either
Well if that’s the case I’m the idiot and will leave the chat room
I wouldn’t even know how to check if it’s loaded dude. I especially wouldn’t know if it was a live round or not. So yeah I guess I am that stupid
Yeah, that’s mostly it. But he should have checked to see if there was a ‘bullet’ in it, too, in my opinion. Why is he pointing the gun at the camera? He should have used his hand as a test for the shot if they were trying to rehearse something. It’s wild to me that the director and cinematographer didn’t know just having a blank in a gun in a situation like that is very dangerous. I can’t remember the exact detail now, but I seem to think this was a live round and not a blank that was in the gun.
If what JonnyA said is true I’m the stupid one.
That being said if you had a part with a gun I bet you would go through some basic training with an expert to show you how to use it and handle it correctly.
So the gun was supposed to have dummy rounds, not blanks, but instead somehow the armourer (or someone else) had brought a handful of live rounds and mixed them in with the dummy rounds (they found like 5 more live rounds, so there could have been even more deaths).
A professional armorer means nothing if that armorer is not safe. That armorer was not safe and I’m fairly sure was convicted for his role in that shooting. I don’t know what kind of grudge you have against me, but you should really let it go.
Who is the actor or actress he shot? Did they lose the draw? If they were quicker would Baldwin be dead instead?
You’re an actor on a set. But instead of guns, you’re dealing with explosives. The explosive expert tells the crew not to worry. Everyone can walk thru the door because he hasn’t armed the tripwire yet. You’re rehearsing a scene that calls for you to open the door. If there’s an explosion that kills someone should you be charged with murder?
I know it’s not a perfect example. Maybe combining chemicals with one supposed to be inert is a better example. My point is, these are actors. Not soldiers or firearm professionals
Your original argument was about Baldwin being negligent, not sure why you’re shifting goalposts to the armorer
You’re a novice hunter on a guided trip. The guide hands you a gun and says don’t worry it’s not loaded.
You point it at a professional camera person taking a picture of you and shoot them.
What are you suppose to check the gun?
Again this isn’t a weapons expert. It’s someone with zero experience hunting.
They’re both negligent wtf are you talking about?
I’m sure you are right, I’m not gonna argue with you
I edited my post to make it more like what actually happened
A guide on a hunting trip isn’t an armourer. The SOLE job of an armourer on a movie set is to keep the crew safe and make sure the guns are safe. That’s literally their entire job. Don’t you think an actor should be able to trust them if they hand them a prop and say it isn’t loaded?
