Morrissey said if new testing of the gun showed it was working, she would recharge Baldwin.

  • VelvetStorm@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    64
    ·
    1 year ago

    As the producer and the actor pulling the trigger, he is ultimately responsible for this. He hired the “professional” who was supposed to make sure there was no live ammo on set, and he was responsible for checking the chamber and magazine before they started the shoot.

    If my friend handed me a gun and I pointed it at someone thinking it was empty and killed someone, I would still be charged with at least manslaughter. I don’t see how this is any different.

    • meco03211@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If that was literally their job that they are being paid to do and you were specifically using the gun to film a movie involving you pointing that gun at someone and pulling the trigger under the pretense it was cleared and verified by a professional prior to the filming, they should definitely shoulder some burden.

      Arguments can be made about working conditions not being suitable causing mistakes to be made and those conditions were brought on by Baldwin, but then he should be treated almost as two separate people. If it had been a different actor to pull the trigger, would that actor be liable? Would the producer, or whatever role Baldwin had outside of acting, be liable?

      • VelvetStorm@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        22
        ·
        1 year ago

        If it was a different actors then yes, they should still be held accountable in some way. Anyone who has ever taken even a basic gun safty course knows the first thing you do when you are given a gun is to check the chamber to see if it is loaded every single time.

        Every time I go so a shooting range with friends and it is their turn to shoot I place my handgun on the bench unloaded with the chamber/Cylinder open and the mag/rounds next to it. Complacency kills and this movie is a perfect example of extreme negligence from the top down.

        • stolid_agnostic@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          False equivalency. Those are completely different situations. This gun was MEANT to be loaded and chambered because THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO FIRE IT IN FRONT OF A CAMERA. But go on with your “oh I’m so good because I know gun safety and am the expert of the experts now reee”.

    • stolid_agnostic@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That isn’t a good example because your friend isn’t an expert and didn’t certify its safety prior to handing it to you.

      • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Doesn’t matter who hands it too you. People fuck up. That’s why these rules are in place. Your argument is bad anyway because it wasn’t the armorer that handed it to him. It was an assistant director (who is also not an expert)

        • stolid_agnostic@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          As others have explained better than I, you specifically don’t follow the same rules on set as you do at a range. Your arguments are empty.

          • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Assuming the rules they use on movies are different he still didn’t follow them because the gun was given to him by someone who was not an expert. He should have had the armorer check it before he used it if he was not qualified to do so himself.

            • stolid_agnostic@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              lol you admit that you don’t know by then say he’s wrong. I know that your feels are going here but you don’t need to be desperate

              • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                Nobody has pointed to a source of what the movies rules actually are so I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. It’s beside the point anyway as he himself has already admitted he was wrong by settling the civil case.

      • VelvetStorm@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        27
        ·
        1 year ago

        Anyone that has ever taken even a basic gun safty course knows that 1 you never hand someone a loaded and chambered gun and 2 when you are handed a gun the first thing you do is check to see if it is loaded/chambered.(the real first rule is never point your gun at anything you do t want to destroy but that does not apply to this situation)

        This was extreme negligence from top to bottom and if even 1 person on set that day that handled that gun(especially the last peraon to have it the actor) did their job correctly no one would be dead.

        • stolid_agnostic@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          The gun was meant to be loaded and chambered because he was supposed to fire it in front of a camera. The problem was that it was a bad blank.

    • Rusticus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Is your friend a firearms expert who you specifically hired to provide you a safe weapon?

      “I don’t see how this is any different”.

      Smh