Why you can never be too careful

Status
Not open for further replies.
Self inflicted is a completely different matter, as is the 2yr old finding a loaded gun, they are not valid comparisons to the Rust movie shooting.

And, I don't think that "industry practices /standards" should be the center point or main focus of the trial. That would be a red herring, and only serve to direct attention away from the person who was responsible for the shooting and the death that resulted.

I have my doubts that this will be hung around Baldwin's neck, ultimately, at least for having simply pulled the trigger.
Click to expand...

this is one of the reasons we keep having this discussion, the idea that he "simply pulled the trigger". As if simply pulling the trigger was not the final step in the chain of events that led to a tragic needless death.

A lot of the discussion boils down to what I consider the difference between being responsible (criminal or not) and being "guilty".

And I don't mean guilty in the legal sense at this point, a court will determine that. What I mean is guilty in the sense that he did it. There is no question, no reasonable doubt here. He did it. He admitted he did it. Multiple witnesses saw it happen. Whether he realized he was doing it or not, he DID IT.

Not realizing you could cause harm (like the 2yr old) or not believing harm could happen (this incident) doesn't change the facts of what happened, it can only modify the legal penalty and punishment for those responsible.

ANY one person in the entire chain of events doing the right thing would have prevented the killing. The last person with the ability to do that was Baldwin. He did not. He admits he did not.

he's guilty.
(in my opinion)
why he didn't do the right thing (or ANY of the right things) doesn't matter to me.

Putting the industry "on trial" in an actual court or just in the court of public opinion is, I think, the wrong approach. Its easy for people to say the industry didn't do enough, but I think that unfair. There must be tens of thousands (if not an even higher number) of times in movies where guns are used and NO ONE gets shot with a real bullet.

One screwed up situation, where industry rules were IGNORED resulting in a fatality is not enough to condemn the industry as a whole. In my opinion.

will the industry change things? Probably. They'll try to do better, perhaps they can, but remember it wasn't the industry or their rules that created the problem it was individual people doing the wrong things (repeatedly) in the sequence needed to cause a tragic death.

thought?
 
There are any number of industries that work with relative safety if the protocols are followed.
The reason the protocols were established is often " People are dying. We have to do something different"

Some coal mines were done properly. Some collapse and kill people.

My local news publish a Health Dept restaurant inspection summary. The ones violating approved processes get "reinspected" or shut down.

Most of these are routinely audited or inspected for compliance.

I loath the idea of any further bureaucracy. I have to admit "fear of failing inspection" can be a more effective motivator than the sense of responsibility.
I don't think it would need to be a government inspector.
The motion picture industry has a high stakes interest in the safety of guns in movies. The industry (or their Insurance Company)could establish "Inspectors" that visit the sets and make sure things are correct. They could have he "teeth" to Red Tag an
Armorer and shut production down.
Remember people did have firearm safety complaints and no one to listen and act. How about a dime drop number 1-800-GUN- SAFE ."Hi,We have a problem"
"Thank you for calling. See you in the morning"

The Sheriff handling the investigation revealed the gun was a Pietta clone of a SAA. Cartridge 45 Colt (I think he said "Long 45 Colt)

The 3 guns on the cart: One was an inert dummy. One had a "modified cylinder" I assume blank firing only or unable to accept ammo.

And one was the functioning Pietta.
 
Baldwin was in two different roles. Actor and Producer.

Whatever the Actor can blame on procedural shortcomings of the System....

The Producer is accountable for. The Producer manages the System.

If Baldwin the Actor is a Victim, he is a Victim of Baldwin the Producer.
 
I suspect there is enough blame to go around that either everyone or no one will wind up facing charges.

A simple example is the fact that the armorer was not on the set, which protocol suggests is required. In the chain of events there are (per reporting) overlapping responsibilities precluding a clear identification of any one single point of failure. There were multiple points of failure:

Nolasco 10-28-91 said:
” When the crew broke for lunch, the guns used for filming were locked in a safe inside a large white truck where props were kept, (Reed) said. The ammunition, however, was left unsecured on a cart. There was additional ammo inside the prop truck. After lunch, the film’s prop master, Sarah Zachry, removed the guns from the safe and handed them to Reed, she told investigators”.

A search warrant affidavit released last Friday revealed that Reed set three guns on a cart outside the church used for filming. Assistant director Dave Halls then took one from the cart and handed it to Baldwin. The document released Wednesday said the armorer sometimes handed the gun to Baldwin, and sometimes to Halls.

Halls told detectives he would examine the barrel for obstructions and have Reed open the hatch and spin the drum where the bullets go, confirming none of the rounds are live. This time, Halls reported, he could only remember seeing three of the rounds, and he didn’t remember if the armorer had spun the drum. Nevertheless, he yelled out "cold gun," indicating it was safe to use. It’s unclear whether Baldwin deliberately pulled the trigger during rehearsal or if the gun went off inadvertently.”
Click to expand...

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainme...ing-hollywood-weapons-armorer-firearm-western

It's a ████-show of fail. Nevertheless, the possibility that someone deliberately loaded a round into the revolver to cause an incident cannot simply be dismissed.
 
We sure know a lot of details about an investigation that is only days old.

I’m don’t agree one bit with the notion that because a person is employed by the entertainment industry is given a free pass. A person pointed a gun at someone pulled the trigger and killed them. Intentional or not.

I disagree with the premise that being told a gun is safe by someone else also gives you a pass.

This is a wrongful death, and the responsibility lies with anyone who touched that gun that day. I think a heavier responsibility belongs to the person manipulating the firearm in the end.

I was disgusted with the people in the background of the 911 call discussing who was at to blame while the women dying.
 
stagpanther said:
How long would it have taken Baldwin to flip open the loading gate and rotate the cylinder to verify that it was a "cold" gun before holstering it? Five seconds? Maybe ten seconds at most?
Click to expand...
My guess? He wouldn't even know what a "live" round is--and probably would put everyone at risk being the one to check if he did not have adequate training.
Click to expand...
A "cold" gun is unloaded. Even Alec Baldwin should be able to see the difference between "something" and "nothing."
 
Jim Watson said:
This isn't the first time such a thing has happened on set. It's been a few decades but an actor named Jon Eric Hexum was playing with a pistol on set that was loaded with blanks for want of a better term. He held the gun up to his head and pulled the trigger.
Click to expand...
Apples and oranges. Hexum did it to himself. A harsh person might recall Heinlein's dictum: Stupidity is the only real capital crime.
Click to expand...
Definitely not at all the same. Hexum was playing Russian roulette. The gun he used was loaded with a blank, and he knew it was loaded with a blank. What he didn't know was that a blank at contact distance could (literally) scramble his brain.
 
44 AMP said:
Putting the industry "on trial" in an actual court or just in the court of public opinion is, I think, the wrong approach. Its easy for people to say the industry didn't do enough, but I think that unfair. There must be tens of thousands (if not an even higher number) of times in movies where guns are used and NO ONE gets shot with a real bullet.

One screwed up situation, where industry rules were IGNORED resulting in a fatality is not enough to condemn the industry as a whole. In my opinion.

will the industry change things? Probably. They'll try to do better, perhaps they can, but remember it wasn't the industry or their rules that created the problem it was individual people doing the wrong things (repeatedly) in the sequence needed to cause a tragic death.

thought?
Click to expand...

Your question leads me to wonder: Suppose the person who died wasn't an attractive, blonde, rising star of a chief cinematographer, but a lowly "production assistant" (i.e. gopher), and the shooter was an unknown stunt man or stand-in rather than a big-name star. Would the incident have created anywhere near the amount of discussion and contention that it has?

Methinks the answer to that is, "No."
 
"nobodies" (and ugly people) mostly aren't newsworthy beyond the initial reports. How often have we seen stories about "regular" people being shot and killed and by the next day its out of the headlines and within a few days, out of the news entirely? A lot! But if there some special angle the press can focus on race/sex/ hate crime, etc., then it stays in the news cycle lots longer because THAT SELLS NEWS, too!

this one is being played and spun for all its worth because Baldwin is a big name star, and is seriously disliked by a lot of people, and that combination SELLS NEWS (and advertising $ in the news)

(and also his personal arrogance appears to be the primary reason it happened) Those that like him are going to read every bit to see if they can defend him, and those that don't like him are going to read every bit to see if he gets what they feel he has coming, or not. For the news industry its a win/win no matter how it turns out.
 
What I find most interesting about this thread is that certain people who insist Baldwin is absolutely guilty--also maintain Rittenhouse is absolutely innocent.
 
Most reasonable gun owners would be of the opinion that Mr. Baldwin shares a good chunk of the blame.

We know what little effort and time a final check would have taken.
 
Rittenhouse was being chased by a group of people who knocked him down, threatened him with physical harm, and heard a shot go off (not knowing it wasn't aimed at him). Like it or not, he has a strong self-defense case.

As for Baldwin's shooting, it doesn't matter if other people are more at fault. Everyone who was at fault (including him) should be held accountable.
 
The Baldwin matter is an accidental shooting, no one has made any mention of anything else. The Rittenhouse matter involves a claim of self defense.

Apples and oranges at the least. (in other words, NOT a valid comparison)
 
"Accident"

. . . vs . . .

"Involuntary manslaughter is negligently causing the death of another person."

"A failure to behave with the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would
have exercised under the same circumstances."

"A legal standard applied to defendants in negligence cases to ascertain their liability.
All members of the community owe a duty to act as a reasonable person in undertaking
or avoiding actions with the risk to harm others. If an individual fails to act as a
reasonable person and their failure injures someone, they may be liable to that person
for such injuries. Whether a person met the standard of a reasonable person is often a
question of fact for the jury to determine—thus leaving the determination of whether an
individual acted reasonably for twelve members of the community."




"Boom"
... Burma Shave...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top