Alec Baldwin...

[Moonhawk]

7 minutes ago, TexasProud said:

Before they start filming, I would check it.

I think regular protocol is that the armourer checks the gun in front of the actor, then hands it to them. This is *after* multiple other checks. I don't see how the standard can really be improved at this point.

The problem isn't what *should* happen, the problem is what *did* happen. This set and crew (looking not union, not experienced, and underpaid) were where the fails happened.

[KSera]

21 minutes ago, Idalou said:

It's not the NRA of your early years.

QFT. Reading the history and evolution of the NRA might be eye opening for some. 
 

I’m not an Alec Baldwin fan, but I still feel terrible for him to have to live with this. Not as bad as I do for the deceased and her family, of course, but what a horrifying thing to be the one who accidentally fired the shot. 

[SKL]

Brought up in a family with guns, the first and most important lesson learned is that you treat EVERY gun as if it's loaded and deadly.  You NEVER point ANY gun, toy or otherwise, at something you shouldn't shoot/kill.

Every human needs to be taught gun safety.  I don't care whether they think the 2nd amendment is crap.

Obviously even more training is necessary for people on a set that may involve actual guns.

I am sure this guy didn't mean to kill anyone, but he still acted recklessly and deserves the consequences.

[Katy]

It will be interesting to see if anyone is charged with murder. Blanks don’t travel through someone and injure the person behind them. How did a live round end up in the gun at all?

[WildflowerMom]

47 minutes ago, Moonhawk said:

I think regular protocol is that the armourer checks the gun in front of the actor, then hands it to them. This is *after* multiple other checks. I don't see how the standard can really be improved at this point.

The problem isn't what *should* happen, the problem is what *did* happen. This set and crew (looking not union, not experienced, and underpaid) were where the fails happened.

Yes, and him being producer is not going to end well for him.    This was supposedly a cheap film and it looks like they jumped at the chance to cut corners, with disastrous results.   
 

I don't know enough about 'live' rounds on a set to really comment on that.   If he had checked it, would that have compromised the 'bullet' since I think it's packed with different materials?

 

I think the political talk is silly.  It insinuates that had he belonged to another party, he would automatically be a gun expert, which we know is bananas.    I mean, hello, Dick Cheney shot his hunting partner in the chest.  🙄

[Moonhawk]

On 10/23/2021 at 9:30 AM, Katy said:

It will be interesting to see if anyone is charged with murder. Blanks don’t travel through someone and injure the person behind them. How did a live round end up in the gun at all?

There are unconfirmed reports that either the armourer and/or someone on the periphery of the movie (someone not directly involved with the actual movie but local to the area) did pleasure shooting with the gun prior to the day's filming. If that's true that's a huge huge deal. On so many levels. You don't bring real live ammo to a set. You don't put real live ammo into a gun that's supposed to be used in a film. You don't shoot with that gun. And if you do all these things you aren't supposed to do, you DON'T then forget to unload the weapon afterwards.

I really frankly hope this is not what happened because it's beyond all fathomable sense, but it would explain the amount of damage done; a blank couldn't have pulled that off at much distance, at least as far as I am aware.

eta: this has been confirmed as of Tuesday 10/26 😞 

Edited October 26, 2021 by Moonhawk

[mommyoffive]

4 minutes ago, Moonhawk said:

There are unconfirmed reports that either the armourer and/or someone on the periphery of the movie (someone not directly involved with the actual movie but local to the area) did pleasure shooting with the gun prior to the day's filming. If that's true that's a huge huge deal. On so many levels. You don't bring real live ammo to a set. You don't put real live ammo into a gun that's supposed to be used in a film. You don't shoot with that gun. And if you do all these things you aren't supposed to do, you DON'T then forget to unload the weapon afterwards.

I really frankly hope this is not what happened because it's beyond all fathomable sense, but it would explain the amount of damage done; a blank couldn't have pulled that off even if only a couple feet away, at least as far as I am aware.

Wow.  I haven't heard that.  It does explain the damage done more than the blank. 

[TexasProud]

13 minutes ago, WildflowerMom said:

 

I think the political talk is silly.  It insinuates that had he belonged to another party, he would automatically be a gun expert, which we know is bananas.    I mean, hello, Dick Cheney shot his hunting partner in the chest.  🙄

I don't care if they are red, blue, purple, black or white; libertarian, Republican, Democrat, socialist, communist or whatever. If you handle a gun, are responsible for what it does. It is why I will no longer touch them.  It is why they should find other ways to do this on a stupid movie set for heaven's sake. For a movie that doesn't even mean anything? Is it worth a life? No, it isn't. 

 

[AnotherNewName]

1 hour ago, Pawz4me said:

I don’t have a dog in this fight but it seems looney tunes to me to make the argument that in the course of making a movie an actor filming a scene should (somehow) check the weapon he’s using. I mean—how would that work?? They stop filming while each actor checks each weapon? Or edit out all that. Or what?

It makes zero sense and ignores the purpose of checking the firearm.  The gun Baldwin was using isn't supposed to be unloaded but people are thinking his mistake was thinking that it was.

Edited October 23, 2021 by AnotherNewName

[ktgrok]

2 hours ago, PeterPan said:

. He spent years saying the NRA was PILING UP BODIES when NRA members are extremely gun safety conscious and would NEVER let their loved ones touch a weapon without training and would NEVER assume what they were told was correct but would check the weapon themselves.

 

This is absolute BS. What you say is true of responsible gun owners, but that does NOT equal NRA member. There are NRA members that my husband knows personally, from work situations, who leave unloaded weapons out, unsecured, where any visitor could pick it up. Who are total IDIOTS with guns. 

And there are responsible gun owners, including my own family, who wouldn't pay the NRA a membership fee if, pun intended, held at gun point. 

1 hour ago, TexasProud said:

I am sorry but anyone who knows ANYTHING about guns knows you check them yourself.

Thats to see if it is loaded. But a gun loaded with blanks is still loaded. So checking it only shows it has rounds - not what kind of rounds. 

1 hour ago, Idalou said:

 

There is a difference between anti gun and pro gun control. 

 

Yup. 

[WildflowerMom]

8 minutes ago, TexasProud said:

I don't care if they are red, blue, purple, black or white; libertarian, Republican, Democrat, socialist, communist or whatever. If you handle a gun, are responsible for what it does. It is why I will no longer touch them.  It is why they should find other ways to do this on a stupid movie set for heaven's sake. For a movie that doesn't even mean anything? Is it worth a life? No, it isn't. 

 

I don't handle them either.  I've been around them all my life and still don't like them.  We have them in the house, but I don't touch them (and they're put away and bullets are somewhere else.   Dh hid the key from me a long time ago when I was unwell, so I couldn't do anything but throw it at someone now, lol).   I don't understand why Hollywood continues to make violent films anyway.   It's very hypocritical, IMO.    But then again, not surprising, that the top of the food chain gets to do what they want.  🤷🏻‍♀️  

[wendyroo]

7 minutes ago, WildflowerMom said:

I don't understand why Hollywood continues to make violent films anyway.

So, in your opinion, no movies should have any violence? No war? No suicide? No gang violence? No violent historical dramas? None of those are stories worth telling?

I see no logical connection between "Hollywood is pro-gun control" and "Hollywood should stop making movies portraying gun violence." Eliminating images of staged gun violence from the public sphere will not eliminate real life gun violence...it will just make it, and its victims, easier to ignore.

[WildflowerMom]

56 minutes ago, wendyroo said:

So, in your opinion, no movies should have any violence? No war? No suicide? No gang violence? No violent historical dramas? None of those are stories worth telling?

I see no logical connection between "Hollywood is pro-gun control" and "Hollywood should stop making movies portraying gun violence." Eliminating images of staged gun violence from the public sphere will not eliminate real life gun violence...it will just make it, and its victims, easier to ignore.

Gratuitous violence?  No.   I doubt we'll ever know if this film had gratuitous violence.    It baffles me when I hear actors talk about violence and guns and then be in a film where they're shooting someone throughout.   Desensitization is a thing.   

[AnotherNewName]

2 hours ago, Katy said:

It will be interesting to see if anyone is charged with murder. Blanks don’t travel through someone and injure the person behind them. How did a live round end up in the gun at all?

Murder is unlikely barring evidence of some kind of intentional act.  

[SKL]

2 hours ago, WildflowerMom said:

I don't handle them either.  I've been around them all my life and still don't like them.  We have them in the house, but I don't touch them (and they're put away and bullets are somewhere else.   Dh hid the key from me a long time ago when I was unwell, so I couldn't do anything but throw it at someone now, lol).   I don't understand why Hollywood continues to make violent films anyway.   It's very hypocritical, IMO.    But then again, not surprising, that the top of the food chain gets to do what they want.  🤷🏻‍♀️  

The bolded is what I've been saying for years.

[Katy]

55 minutes ago, AnotherNewName said:

Murder is unlikely barring evidence of some kind of intentional act.  

1st or 2nd degree is unlikely.  3rd seems highly likely, unless the laws about negligent homicide are remarkably different in that state.

[melmichigan]

4 hours ago, Moonhawk said:

I think regular protocol is that the armourer checks the gun in front of the actor, then hands it to them. This is *after* multiple other checks. I don't see how the standard can really be improved at this point.

The problem isn't what *should* happen, the problem is what *did* happen. This set and crew (looking not union, not experienced, and underpaid) were where the fails happened.

The standard is also that you never aim a gun at actors or crew.  A lot changed after Brandon Lee was killed. I'm reading the affidavit states Baldwin was behind Hutchins when he discharged the firearm.  There should always be a clear line of fire. People are offset, shields are used, camera angles manipulated, etc., but you don't aim directly at people.

There is even a rule about horseplay, like that should need to be written, but it obviously did after Jon-Erik Hexum shot himself. 

Edited October 23, 2021 by melmichigan

[wendyroo]

1 hour ago, WildflowerMom said:

Gratuitous violence?  No.   I doubt we'll ever know if this film had gratuitous violence.    It baffles me when I hear actors talk about violence and guns and then be in a film where they're shooting someone throughout.   Desensitization is a thing.   

But gratuitous just means uncalled for...and who is the arbiter of what artistic violence is warranted?

Saving Private Ryan is very violent...but also conveys a very strong message. Same with Schindler's List. Are those gratuitous or warranted? And while clearly every movie watcher should vote with their dollars, who are we to decide for others if the simulated gun violence is gratuitous or meaningful for them.

[WildflowerMom]

12 minutes ago, wendyroo said:

But gratuitous just means uncalled for...and who is the arbiter of what artistic violence is warranted?

Saving Private Ryan is very violent...but also conveys a very strong message. Same with Schindler's List. Are those gratuitous or warranted? And while clearly every movie watcher should vote with their dollars, who are we to decide for others if the simulated gun violence is gratuitous or meaningful for them.

Both of those are true stories.  I think the violence was ‘real’ in those real-life stories, so not gratuitous.  
 

I can’t imagine a fiction story’s use of gun violence (or any violence) as being ‘meaningful’ for someone.  I am just not a proponent of violence.   I do understand that sometimes violence is desired to tell a story.   I don’t think it’s a black and white issue, but it’s not nearly a gray area as people make it.   For example, there’s a difference between a gun shot a few times in a film vs say, a beheading and stabbing where the gore is shown.   Insinuating violence is also not the same as showing it constantly.   

 

I am opposed to violence for the sake of violence.  

[AnotherNewName]

1 hour ago, Katy said:

1st or 2nd degree is unlikely.  3rd seems highly likely, unless the laws about negligent homicide are remarkably different in that state.

3rd seems extremely unlikely considering I don't believe New Mexico has a statute for that.  You most likely would get at most involuntary manslaughter but truly accidental shootings are not prosecuted that heavily.

[Idalou]

For those that believe it's hypocritical that Hollywood makes violent movies, are you able to understand that "Hollywood" does not equal " anti gun spouting liberals? That there could be conservative, Repub voting, NRA cardholding actors and cameramen and producers and directors and millions of Repub, conservative,  pro-gun 2nd amendment loving people that will gladly pay what ever the price to view movies with an assortment of violence? To boil this down to the take that liberals = Hollywood= anti-gun= violent movie hypocrites is absolutely laughable. 

Case in point- Actor, director, producer Clint Eastwood. The epitome of violence, and I'm pretty sure he doesnt identify as the anti-gun liberal Hollywood personality that is continually being bashed on conservative outlets. 

 

Edited October 23, 2021 by Idalou

[WildflowerMom]

2 minutes ago, Idalou said:

For those that believe it's hypocritical that Hollywood makes violent movies, are you able to understand that "Hollywood" does not equal " anti gun spouting liberals? That there could be conservative, Repub voting, NRA cardholding actors and cameramen and producers and directors and millions of Repub, conservative,  pro-gun 2nd amendment loving people that will gladly pay what ever the price to view movies with an assortment of violence? To boil this down to the take that liberals = Hollywood= anti-gun= violent movie hypocrites is absolutely laughable. 

Yes, I’m aware there are conservatives in Hollywood.   (I don’t actually know which actors are d vs r.  Frankly, I couldn’t care less.  🤷🏻‍♀️).   Yes, of course they will sell tickets.   The US (in general) loves their violence.  Like big puffy heart.  Doesn’t mean for a second that I should (or will) adopt that attitude.  

[wendyroo]

14 minutes ago, WildflowerMom said:

I can’t imagine a fiction story’s use of gun violence (or any violence) as being ‘meaningful’ for someone. 

Shakespeare included an awful lot of violence. And Dickens, Homer, Orwell, the brothers Grimm, ancient mythology, etc. People have been reading, listening to, and watching that content for thousands of years...I think because they find it meaningful.

And really, Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List are based on real-life stories, but they are dramatizations of them, not documentaries. "While Saving Private Ryan is unquestionably inspired by true events, the film's story of Captain Miller's risky mission to save one man is entirely fictional." 

So, no, Rust is not a Wild West documentary, but it is clearly a historical fiction that could lose authenticity and narrative power if it did not include firearms:

Quote

Rust
A 13 year-old boy, left to fend for himself and his younger brother following the death of their parents in 1880's Kansas, goes on the run with his long estranged grandfather after he's sentenced to hang for the accidental killing of a local rancher.

source: IMDB

I am 100% in favor of stricter regulations about firearms on sets, and hopefully shifting away from fireable prop guns to adding all effects in post-production. But, I am 100% against restricting violence in movies. Violence is part of the human experience, part of the human psyche - I think human art (of all types) has always included violence because artists are driven to help people grapple with hard, important, morally ambiguous topics.

I think society would be much worse off if we didn't let people make art about ideas that we find too uncomfortable.

[Idalou]

12 minutes ago, WildflowerMom said:

Yes, I’m aware there are conservatives in Hollywood.   (I don’t actually know which actors are d vs r.  Frankly, I couldn’t care less.  🤷🏻‍♀️).   Yes, of course they will sell tickets.   The US (in general) loves their violence.  Like big puffy heart.  Doesn’t mean for a second that I should (or will) adopt that attitude.  

No, you don't. I don't enjoy most violent or gory or sex laden movies, either. But you do need to be aware that across the web and airwaves, the mindset being driven, for years,  is that Hollywood is a bunch of commie liberal hypocrites that hate all the god fearing people and want to turn us all into them. Spend a few hours on Fox& Friends or OAN or the really extreme right politicians Twitter accounts and it's evident. They may not convince you, but they've convinced millions of others.

Edited October 23, 2021 by Idalou

[Excelsior! Academy]

John Schneider talks about why there should never be a loaded gun on set.  Skip to 2:21 to hear the discussion.

[WildflowerMom]

What Shakespeare did is not comparable to the violence on set now.   I mean to circle back around to the original topic, the violence is supposed to look so real they use a real gun and something similar to real ammunition.   But even with that, I don’t know that the violence in this movie would’ve been gratuitous or not.  I don’t think we’ll ever know.  

[WildflowerMom]

5 minutes ago, Idalou said:

No, you don't. I don't enjoy most violent or gory or sex laden movies, either. But you do need to be aware that across the web and airwaves, the mindset being driven, for years,  is that Hollywood is a bunch of commie liberal hypocrites that hate all the god fearing people and want to turn us all into them. Spend a few hours on Fox& Friends or OAN or the really extreme right politicians Twitter accounts and it's evident. They may not convince you, but they've convinced millions of others.

Umm, no, that will never happen.  😆

 

[Danae]

Here is a thread from a professional film armorer explaining why this would not have been possible if they had been following industry standard procedures for guns on set.

 

[gardenmom5]

8 hours ago, PeterPan said:

So the news is finally digging in on the obvious issue here, that a population (Hollywood) has spent so much time in anti-gun rhetoric that when they idiotically put one in their uneducated, hick hollywood hands, they don't know what they're doing.

https://www.newsweek.com/alec-baldwin-nra-guns-rights-activists-gun-control-halyna-hutchins-rust-1641671

Of COURSE he's at fault? Why should he get some pass?? He wasn't giving anyone a pass with his anti-gun rhetoric over the years. Read his quotes. NRA people are PILING UP BODIES and no one has a right to so many guns. But if it's Hollywood, oh that's occpational hazard, look the other way. 

You don't let a chimpanzee drive a car and then complain when it crashes. 

He was a PRODUCER on this movie.  Producers *are* in charge of safety on the set. There were two gun "incidents" over the weekend. They were considered dangerous enough - crew walked off the set and refused to come back until the safety issues were appropriately dealt with. (and that the producers were housing them an hour away from the set.)

Instead of fixing the problem - the producers hired a local crew, that likely had little training.

eta: I have had a pretty low opinion of him for years. Especially starting when the recording of him calling his 11 yo daughter profane names was made public.  He doesn't have a good record.  parking lot fights . . . .

Edited October 23, 2021 by gardenmom5

[Farrar]

To the folks saying that you never handle a gun without checking it and that everyone handling it should be qualified to do so... I feel like so many things happen on movie sets where the actors are told to do things and they rely on outside safety procedures that have been long established. So that's working with weapons, working with animals, working with all kinds of trick and stunt equipment. There are supposed to be a million layers there to prevent this from happening. If you've been on movie sets as long as Baldwin and you know that's how things are done, you would trust the system. You're not the one checking because a ton of other people have to check it. Should that actually be the procedure? I have no idea. Maybe it should be that the person holding the gun should additionally check or be in charge. But insurance and industry standards have developed that have told everyone, nope, not how it works. So why would Baldwin go against that and do his own check when he's not qualified? All the armorers are saying that's not how it works and you're not supposed to do that.

[Pawz4me]

12 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

He was a PRODUCER on this movie.  Producers *are* in charge of safety on the set.

According to the excellent tweet thread that @Danaeposted the first assistant director is the person who is in charge of safety on a film set.

And an article which corresponds with the tweet thread -- The 24 yo head armourer of Alec Baldwin's movie told a podcast she almost didn't take her last job because she wasn't sure if she was ready

It's looking more and more clear to me that the armourer and the first assistant director likely have some 'splaining to do.

[Farrar]

Even if the first AD is the person who is supposed to oversee safety, I can see that the producers might have a role because they're part of the funding chain that may have been putting pressure on everyone to cut corners. Of course, some producer credits are apparently just that - a credit and no hands on role.

[WildflowerMom]

I think because of the walkout/being sent packing of the union workers this week, the producers are going to have some explaining to do, as well.   Really, everyone from the top down needs to be questioned.   

[Terabith]

I am pretty liberal, pro gun control, and I really rather enjoy action movies with violence.  

[sassenach]

This thread took a weird turn. This isn't rocket science. There's got to be a way to keep guns in movies AND not have a young mom lose her life. Geez. There was a way before this accident and there is a way going forward. The path likely involves huge civil liabilities and maybe criminal charges. 

[Shoeless]

57 minutes ago, sassenach said:

This thread took a weird turn. This isn't rocket science. There's got to be a way to keep guns in movies AND not have a young mom lose her life. Geez. There was a way before this accident and there is a way going forward. The path likely involves huge civil liabilities and maybe criminal charges. 

There's really no reason any more for fully functioning guns to be used in a movie. We have the ability to make realistic looking fakes. They can edit in sound effects so it sounds real. 

Instead of multiple layers of safety protocols that can, (and will), eventually fail, just get rid of the damn guns. 

[Guest]

30 minutes ago, MissLemon said:

There's really no reason any more for fully functioning guns to be used in a movie. We have the ability to make realistic looking fakes. They can edit in sound effects so it sounds real. 

Instead of multiple layers of safety protocols that can, (and will), eventually fail, just get rid of the damn guns. 

Totally 100% agree. The best way to prevent an accident is to make it impossible. 
 

Not only do we have the ability to make realistic fakes, we even have the ability to put computer - generated guns in the hands of actors, the same way as we make Harry Potter fly through London on a broomstick. Not that I’m saying it has to be done the VR way; just that we have the technology to “shoot” a gun that does not even exist IRL and put it in via digital editing. 
 

That anyone thinks Alec Baldwin should be charged with murder because he’s a liberal Hollywood Democrat is stunning af. For him to check the gun given to him by prop managers who are paid to do the job correctly and safely would be complete nonsense. It would be like me, as a mom, when I took my kid to the hospital, checking the medications they were giving my kid just to make sure they didn’t accidentally use the wrong medication and kill him. I don’t check what nurses and doctors are doing because they are medical experts and I am not. 

[SKL]

2 hours ago, Quill said:

That anyone thinks Alec Baldwin should be charged with murder because he’s a liberal Hollywood Democrat is stunning af. For him to check the gun given to him by prop managers who are paid to do the job correctly and safely would be complete nonsense. It would be like me, as a mom, when I took my kid to the hospital, checking the medications they were giving my kid just to make sure they didn’t accidentally use the wrong medication and kill him. I don’t check what nurses and doctors are doing because they are medical experts and I am not. 

Do you think it is OK for anyone to point any gun at another person and pull the trigger?  Even if he thought it was unloaded?

Recklessness is a thing.  If I ran over 3 kids because I sped past a stopped school bus, I don't get to blame it on the kids or the bus for being inconveniently in my way.

I had a relative who (as a teen) was incarcerated for 5 years because he shot a gun recklessly at the ground, and the bullet ricocheted and hit a kid.  Nobody thought he meant to hurt anyone.  But there is a standard of care when you are holding a gun.  Nobody can say Baldwin or any other adult is unaware of gun accidents involving "I thought it wasn't loaded."

Edited October 24, 2021 by SKL

[AnotherNewName]

26 minutes ago, SKL said:

Do you think it is OK for anyone to point any gun at another person and pull the trigger?  Even if he thought it was unloaded?

Recklessness is a thing.  If I ran over 3 kids because I sped past a stopped school bus, I don't get to blame it on the kids or the bus for being inconveniently in my way.

I had a relative who (as a teen) was incarcerated for 5 years because he shot a gun recklessly at the ground, and the bullet ricocheted and hit a kid.  Nobody thought he meant to hurt anyone.  But there is a standard of care when you are holding a gun.  Nobody can say Baldwin or any other adult is unaware of gun accidents involving "I thought it wasn't loaded."

He didn't think it was "unloaded". He was told it was a gun prepped by an expert to be safe to be used on set. And yes, actors point guns at others and pull the triggers on set.

[chiguirre]

45 minutes ago, SKL said:

I had a relative who (as a teen) was incarcerated for 5 years because he shot a gun recklessly at the ground, and the bullet ricocheted and hit a kid.  Nobody thought he meant to hurt anyone.  But there is a standard of care when you are holding a gun.  Nobody can say Baldwin or any other adult is unaware of gun accidents involving "I thought it wasn't loaded."

The standard of care for an actor on a movie set should be that they get the gun from the responsible prop master and point the gun where the director tells them to when they discharge it. They're not the gun owner, they're not the ones who are responsible for cleaning and loading the gun. They're not the ones responsible for blocking out the scene. If Alec Baldwin was an active producer instead of just someone who put up money or accepted a smaller salary for an equity stake, then he may well be financially on the hook. 

Did your relative really only get 5 years for shooting someone? That feels like a very light sentence given the harm they inflicted.

[Selkie]

21 minutes ago, AnotherNewName said:

He didn't think it was "unloaded". He was told it was a gun prepped by an expert to be safe to be used on set. And yes, actors point guns at others and pull the triggers on set.

I read an interview with a veteran armorer and he said actors are never supposed to point a gun at anyone. They are given an aim to point at and then it is edited to make it look like they were pointing at their co-actor.

[AnotherNewName]

25 minutes ago, Selkie said:

I read an interview with a veteran armorer and he said actors are never supposed to point a gun at anyone. They are given an aim to point at and then it is edited to make it look like they were pointing at their co-actor.

I have read so many things from alleged experts I don't know if there is a consensus out there on what happens on each set. Based on various scenes I have seen in action TV shows and movies I struggle to believe actors never point guns at another person.

[AnotherNewName]

32 minutes ago, chiguirre said:

The standard of care for an actor on a movie set should be that they get the gun from the responsible prop master and point the gun where the director tells them to when they discharge it. They're not the gun owner, they're not the ones who are responsible for cleaning and loading the gun. They're not the ones responsible for blocking out the scene. If Alec Baldwin was an active producer instead of just someone who put up money or accepted a smaller salary for an equity stake, then he may well be financially on the hook. 

Did your relative really only get 5 years for shooting someone? That feels like a very light sentence given the harm they inflicted.

Without knowing any details, if it was an accidental discharge 5 years is definitely on the high side.  If it was a reckless discharge 5 years can still be high but would be dependent upon the cirumstances.

Edited October 24, 2021 by AnotherNewName

[Carrie12345]

3 hours ago, SKL said:

Recklessness is a thing.  If I ran over 3 kids because I sped past a stopped school bus, I don't get to blame it on the kids or the bus for being inconveniently in my way.

True. But a bus driver would be hugely responsible if, in that incident, they had neglected their protocol to switch on lights/signs/arms.
 

I’ve witnessed a lot of questionable bus driver action this school year, including one who likes to pull over near a limited sight corner and wave me around. My “trained” instinct is to never pass a stopped bus... but I need to trust the driver is doing their job.

[Laura Corin]

13 hours ago, WildflowerMom said:

What Shakespeare did is not comparable to the violence on set now.   

I refer you to Titus Andronicus and the final scene of Hamlet. Oh, and slaughter of men, women and children in Macbeth. Not to mention the battle scenes in the history plays. Oh and Lear - putting out eyes anyone?

Edited October 24, 2021 by Laura Corin

[Guest]

6 hours ago, SKL said:

Do you think it is OK for anyone to point any gun at another person and pull the trigger?  Even if he thought it was unloaded?

Recklessness is a thing.  If I ran over 3 kids because I sped past a stopped school bus, I don't get to blame it on the kids or the bus for being inconveniently in my way.

I had a relative who (as a teen) was incarcerated for 5 years because he shot a gun recklessly at the ground, and the bullet ricocheted and hit a kid.  Nobody thought he meant to hurt anyone.  But there is a standard of care when you are holding a gun.  Nobody can say Baldwin or any other adult is unaware of gun accidents involving "I thought it wasn't loaded."

It’s not the same thing, SKL. On a movie set an actor *is* going to point guns and pull the trigger; that is the point of there being a gun at all. 
 

It’s not the same thing as it would be if I walked up to the table with guns on it when my husband and his brothers shoot skeet, picked up a gun and shot my BIL because I thought that was the unloaded gun table not the prepared gun table. 
 

An actor on a movie set has no reason at all to behave as though a prop gun handed to him by a set manager has a live round in it. No gun provided on set by prop experts should ever be expected to kill someone on set. That’s the entire point of having expert prop managers. 
 

 

[Laura Corin]

9 minutes ago, Quill said:

It’s not the same thing, SKL. On a movie set an actor *is* going to point guns and pull the trigger; that is the point of there being a gun at all. 
 

It’s not the same thing as it would be if I walked up to the table with guns on it when my husband and his brothers shoot skeet, picked up a gun and shot my BIL because I thought that was the unloaded gun table not the prepared gun table. 
 

An actor on a movie set has no reason at all to behave as though a prop gun handed to him by a set manager has a live round in it. No gun provided on set by prop experts should ever be expected to kill someone on set. That’s the entire point of having expert prop managers. 
 

 

But the armorer I heard talking on the radio said that the area in front of a gun is cleared of people before a shot is discharged. The camera is set and the camera operator also walks away. There should be no one there.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Laura Corin said:

But the armorer I heard talking on the radio said that the area in front of a gun is cleared of people before a shot is discharged. The camera is set and the camera operator also walks away. There should be no one there.

The armorer I saw on the news was indicating all the steps that are supposed to happen to ensure there is never a live round. If all these procedures are standard, why the hell are they even using real guns at all? (Rhetorical question.)

 

[KungFuPanda]

20 hours ago, TexasProud said:

I am sorry but anyone who knows ANYTHING about guns knows you check them yourself. I hate guns, but have fired a few, even got my concealed gun license because hubby wanted me to. Though it has now lapsed because I will never, ever carry one. You always check. Always. 

That said, I feel for him. Because another rule of gun safety is you never point it at anything you are not willing to shoot. However, on a movie, you are pointing it at the camera because they want that camera angle.  So I would think you often point at things you don't really want to shoot. 

Just a sad situation. But yes, you are responsible the minute you put your hand on a gun. It is why I hate them and am nervous even though I have triple checked they are empty. I could never, ever pull the trigger on a person, so I really don't need to have 

Edited October 24, 2021 by KungFuPanda

[KungFuPanda]

Just now, KungFuPanda said:

NM. I read something wrong and babbled