Originally Posted by Chief Pagan:
As an actor, I'm not really seeing anything that Baldwin did morally wrong. He relied on the gun being 'cold'.
But there had already been a number of people quit over safety and working conditions. There seems to me that there was criminal mismanagement on somebody's part. And Baldwin seems a prime suspect in that.
Agreed. He is at least responsible for being part of the team that allowed this to happen. In addition, I wonder if even pointing a "cold" gun in someone's face is still negligence. Can't dummy rounds even cause injury? If there is a gun in your hand it is your responsibility not to point it at someone wether it is live or not. Wether he pulled the trigger or not is insignificant to me. [Reply]
There are plenty of prohibitions on ever pointing a gun at someone, I understand that. And he can still be held liable for civil damages.
But I still wouldn't hold him criminally negligent for the direct shooting although I can understand why some might.
But to the extent that I have followed the case, it sounds like the production was cutting corners on safety to the point crew members were quitting before the accidental shooting happened.
Maybe there wasn't any clear law to charge him with, but Baldwin seemed like he could have been criminally mismanaging the safety of the production. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Chief Pagan:
There are plenty of prohibitions on ever pointing a gun at someone, I understand that. And he can still be held liable for civil damages.
But I still wouldn't hold him criminally negligent for the direct shooting although I can understand why some might.
But to the extent that I have followed the case, it sounds like the production was cutting corners on safety to the point crew members were quitting before the accidental shooting happened.
Maybe there wasn't any clear law to charge him with, but Baldwin seemed like he could have been criminally mismanaging the safety of the production.
The production, of which Baldwin was a big part as he put up big money, cutting corners is the big reason I thought he should be held criminally liable. [Reply]
Originally Posted by lawrenceRaider:
The production, of which Baldwin was a big part as he put up big money, cutting corners is the big reason I thought he should be held criminally liable.
If I'm understanding it right, the prosecution tried that angle, but it got thrown out pretty quickly. He's part of a production team, yes, but that doesn't mean he's intimately involved in everyday decisions.
It'd be like pressing criminal charges against the Boeing CEO for their manufacturing issues. Is he theoretically responsible? Yes. Is it enough for criminal liability? Nah. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DaFace:
If I'm understanding it right, the prosecution tried that angle, but it got thrown out pretty quickly. He's part of a production team, yes, but that doesn't mean he's intimately involved in everyday decisions.
It'd be like pressing criminal charges against the Boeing CEO for their manufacturing issues. Is he theoretically responsible? Yes. Is it enough for criminal liability? Nah.
I was literally about to post something almost exactly like this. Producers are rarely even on set about 90% of the time. Only difference here is Baldwin was there because his main role on this production was as an actor. He had very little to do with hiring or any of the day to day operations on set. [Reply]
Originally Posted by vonBobo:
Agreed. He is at least responsible for being part of the team that allowed this to happen. In addition, I wonder if even pointing a "cold" gun in someone's face is still negligence. Can't dummy rounds even cause injury? If there is a gun in your hand it is your responsibility not to point it at someone wether it is live or not. Wether he pulled the trigger or not is insignificant to me.
Sorry, but you’re not looking at it the right way.
Imagine if it was a stunt gone wrong. Say they needed Baldwin to be driving a car and couldn’t use a stunt driver because they needed the actor for closeups, and they have a camera operator in the car. But the stunt goes wrong, maybe a safety harness is compromised or something mechanical with the car leading to death or injury of either the operator, actor or someone on set. All Baldwin was doing was driving the car as he was supposed to be doing. Again, not his fault. Does that make sense? [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
I vaguely remember that now. He said he was holding the gun and it just went off or something?
That's kind of a questionable defense. I think you have to charge the guy who was holding the gun when the gun killed someone, even if he claims that "people don't kill people, guns kill people". Otherwise, every hoodlum in South Chicago gets to walk because, hey, they were just holding the gun and it fired on its own. The jury can then decide if it was an accident or whatever. But I think you need to charge the person just to figure out what happened.
If I'm remembering correctly, it's actually a technicality with how old revolver guns work. They have what's called a hammer, which is the part of the gun that makes direct contact with the bullet to make it shoot. When you pull the trigger of one of these guns, it will cause the hammer to pull back. But you can also manually pull the hammer back itself without ever touching the trigger. If you pull the hammer back and let it go, it's the same result as pulling the trigger even though you didn't technically touch the trigger. [Reply]
I've seen plenty of movies where it appears the actor is shooting a gun directly at the camera - and presumably the crew members behind the camera. Baldwin is far from the first actor to be in this physical position of shooting towards someone. There should be established trade protocols for this activity. It isn't be the actors responsibility. The actor is doing what the director instructs. The person who brought live bullets on set is responsible, followed possibly by whomever hired the imbecile. [Reply]
Originally Posted by GabyKeepsMeWarm:
Sorry, but you’re not looking at it the right way.
Imagine if it was a stunt gone wrong. Say they needed Baldwin to be driving a car and couldn’t use a stunt driver because they needed the actor for closeups, and they have a camera operator in the car. But the stunt goes wrong, maybe a safety harness is compromised or something mechanical with the car leading to death or injury of either the operator, actor or someone on set. All Baldwin was doing was driving the car as he was supposed to be doing. Again, not his fault. Does that make sense?
I'm sure Brandon Lee's death has been brought up a number of times already. There's honest mistakes, cutting corners, bad luck and timing, and possibly even ill will.
What I wonder is if Baldwin's the one pushing to get the job done and corner's were cut because of it. It's no secret that these shoots often push the line due to constraints on time and money. He's a very influential guy. Not known for being the nicest fella' in the world either.
Who was driving this shoot? Who's decisions led to this person's death? It'll be interesting to find out... [Reply]
