- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 4/16/24 at 8:11 am to OzonaOkapi
quote:
Check the indictment. Both counts relate to the actual “use“ of the firearm.
Hank, why did Baldwin lie about pulling the trigger?
Posted on 4/16/24 at 8:29 am to Diamondawg
quote:
Not at the time he pointed a real gun at an innocent bystander and pulled the trigger on said real gun. So had some other person that was not an actor had done this, they would be responsible? That's nonsense.
Baldwin’s PR team has done a masterful job convincing the masses that there is some sort of special actor’s court that absolves them from responsibility when they commit a crime.
That is 100% false. All activities on a movie set must comply with the laws of the jurisdiction they operate in. It’s just like any other job site.
Posted on 4/16/24 at 8:40 am to BradBallard
quote:The case against Baldwin one is one for “negligent homicide.“ It is not a matter of having a “special rule“ for actors, but rather an examination of the definition of “negligence.”
Baldwin’s PR team has done a masterful job convincing the masses that there is some sort of special actor’s court that absolves them from responsibility when they commit a crime.
That is 100% false. All activities on a movie set must comply with the laws of the jurisdiction they operate in. It’s just like any other job site.
From time immemorial, reasonable reliance has been a de facto defense to negligence. the argument is that it is entirely “reasonable“ for an actor to rely upon the expertise of someone who has been retained and paid to assure the safe use of firearms on the set, just like it is entirely reasonable for you to trust your auto mechanic to properly change your brake pads (without crawling under the car yourself, to check his work).
Whether that reliance was indeed “reasonable” is the matter that will be assessed at trial.
This post was edited on 4/16/24 at 1:14 pm
Posted on 4/16/24 at 9:21 am to WPBTiger
I hate Alec Baldwin but it was negligence on the armorer’s part here, not Baldwin’s. Surely he didn’t expect LIVE frickING AMMO to be in this prop gun. She didn’t do her job and someone died.
Posted on 4/16/24 at 9:26 am to OzonaOkapi
quote:
From time in memorial, reasonable reliance has been a de facto defense to negligence. the argument is that it is entirely “reasonable“ for an actor to rely upon the expertise of someone who has been retained and paid to assure the safe use of firearms on the set.
Yup, this is a nuance many are missing.
Imagine he does check the gun.
He looks and it has a bullet.
"Hey I see a bullet in here."
"Correct Mr. Baldwin, that's a blank, I checked 47x before I gave it to you. They look like real bullets because this is Hollywood and we have the best props money can buy."
So he says "idk man im not sure why don't you check it again"?
How realistic does that actually sound in that situation??
People are arguing hindsight & theory, where you just check a gun and automatically know it's a bullet instead of a blank. In reality, you're an actor (on a busy set) getting paid to ACT, and there is a professional paid SOLELY to check this stuff for you, and there is already loads of policy in place that's supposed to catch this.
Now if you want to argue policy, I'll listen. I can't imagine why a live round was permitted to begin with, or any process that could lead to it getting mixed in with blanks.
This post was edited on 4/16/24 at 9:29 am
Posted on 4/16/24 at 9:44 am to OzonaOkapi
quote:Pointing a gun at another actor while shooting a scene and gun and is irresponsibly managed is different than "playfully" pointing a real gun at a non-actor and discharging killing the non-actor by another non-actor at that time.
Whether that reliance was indeed “reasonable” is the matter that will be assessed at trial.
Posted on 4/16/24 at 9:47 am to Diamondawg
quote:Perhaps. That is why we have trials.
Pointing a gun at another actor while shooting a scene and gun and is irresponsibly managed is different than "playfully" pointing a real gun at a non-actor and discharging killing the non-actor by another non-actor at that time.
Posted on 4/16/24 at 9:51 am to mmcgrath
quote:
She is 100% responsible.
So, if somebody hands you a real, functioning gun and tells you it is perfectly safe, are you going to aim it at your loved one and pull the trigger?
(Full disclosure: This is a trick question. He doesn't have any "loved ones".)
Posted on 4/16/24 at 1:08 pm to OzonaOkapi
Hi Hank. How you been?
Posted on 4/16/24 at 1:15 pm to OzonaOkapi
quote:
It is a term of art (shorthand) on a movie set, and the judge utilized that term in a trial about the use of a weapon on a movie set You see that as some sort of blanket indictment of the judiciary?
Sure. I think oxymorons are stupid.
Posted on 4/16/24 at 1:20 pm to wareaglepete
quote:Fair enough.
It is a term of art (shorthand) on a movie set, and the judge utilized that term in a trial about the use of a weapon on a movie set You see that as some sort of blanket indictment of the judiciary?quote:
Sure. I think oxymorons are stupid.
I shoot in a pasture, not a range, but I think that the "range terminology" is to call a weapon "cold" when it is not loaded, correct? Maybe the film industry should adopt that terminology.
FYI, here is an interview with a guy who seems to be a VERY responsible set armorer. He goes into great detail as to the proper manner to handle weapons on the set. Guess what terminology he uses ... "safe weapon."
This post was edited on 4/16/24 at 1:40 pm
Posted on 4/16/24 at 1:21 pm to OzonaOkapi
quote:
I shoot in a pasture
How is the ranch doing? Illegals hurting anything?
Posted on 4/16/24 at 1:24 pm to BradBallard
quote:
Baldwin’s PR team has done a masterful job convincing the masses that there is some sort of special actor’s court that absolves them from responsibility when they commit a crime.
That is 100% false. All activities on a movie set must comply with the laws of the jurisdiction they operate in. It’s just like any other job site.
Pretty sure the guy that accidentally shot and killed Branon Lee on set was never charged with anything
Posted on 4/16/24 at 2:02 pm to BradBallard
quote:Your own link says that the armored is the only person allowed to load and unload a firearm. It also talks about production requirements for a firearm to be pointed at a person or camera.
Taken directly from SAG guidelines which are attached below:
- always assume a weapon is loaded and dangerous
- never point it at anyone
- never put finger on trigger unless ready to shoot
- anyone issued a firearm must be fully trained on the weapon
Posted on 4/16/24 at 2:06 pm to jcaz
quote:
I hate Alec Baldwin but it was negligence on the armorer’s part here, not Baldwin’s
Except he violated every safety rule in the book pointing and pulling the trigger, then lying about it.
His reputation on set was of a bully, and prima donna, which isnt shocking to anyone.
He literally thought he could do what he wanted and violated ages held safety rules.
Posted on 4/16/24 at 2:11 pm to OzonaOkapi
quote:
FYI, here is an interview with a guy who seems to be a VERY responsible set armorer
Hank, let me teach you something about human nature.
Baldwin didnt lie about pointing the gun at her and pulling the trigger because he was ignorant. He did so because he knew he was wrong.
Page 5 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News