Well, the FBI disagrees with what test you are referencingIIRC a subsequent inspection of the gun found it not working properly. So a firing without the pulling of the trigger was possible.
Baldwin is guilty of hiring the wrong armorer.
If that makes him guilty of manslaughter then every gun dealer who sold to the wrong person is as well.
If a gun is NOT LOADED... then how is it loaded?Wow, unreal....lol. Please never purchase, borrow, or use a gun for all of our sakes.
It seems pretty simple. If the gun is not loaded then the gun is not loaded.Why don't you answer the question. I give up.
If a gun is NOT LOADED... then how is it loaded?
That was not the point. He said that the gun is always loaded. But if the gun is not loaded then how can it be loaded?How do you know it's not loaded?
That was not the point.
But to answer your question... somebody checked it.
I edited my response as you answered that.Pretty sure that is the point.....
I edited my response as you answered that.
Agreed.You always assume a gun is loaded until you check to make sure it isn't.
Agreed.
It is amazing that you can articulate in one or two posts what those two can't after a dozen posts. LOL
That is what I was trying to say... I worded it poorly, I guess.I understood it from the beginning…
Apparently, moviemakers for the last 100 years disagree with you, but ok.There's NO reason whatsoever to point that gun at another human being, period......especially on a movie set......camera angles can easily show it's not necessary.
On a movie set, yes. Just like they throw fake grenades at each other, and dangle actors off buildings.So, in your opinion an unloaded gun is perfectly fine to point towards people, pull and squeeze the trigger, because after all, it's unloaded......correct?
What makes him guilty is picking up a loaded weapon and mortally wounding someone. It is his responsibility to make sure the gun was not a danger.Baldwin is guilty of hiring the wrong armorer.
If that makes him guilty of manslaughter then every gun dealer who sold to the wrong person is as well.
This!!!!! Yes!!!!So, in your opinion an unloaded gun is perfectly fine to point towards people, pull and squeeze the trigger, because after all, it's unloaded......correct?
Sorry, but you are wrong. Baldwin being an actor does not change the natural properties of real guns. There is no magic movie wand that makes something that is by it's very nature lethal, non lethal. And this is why all of us who handle guns know that ALL guns are ALWAYS loaded.By an actor on a movie set where the gun was maintained by a gun prop manager whose literal job it is to care for the gun, and then he points the gun at the camera because that is what he was told to do as part of the movie production? It's not reckless or particularly unreasonable, IMO.
Pointing a REAL gun at somebody and pulling the trigger is not in your mind a significant risk?.
No it doesn't - because CRIMINAL negligence, as opposed to simple negligence, is recklessness with a wilful disregard for safety - i.e., doing something knowing that one is putting another person at significant risk.
Again you are failing to comprehend the levels of culpability in criminal offenses. At the top of the culpability ladder in criminal offenses is intent. At the bottom is negligence. Negligence is not necessarily defined as "egregious", it may simply be defined as a failure to provide duty or care. I think you need to look this up for yourself. I keep explaining it to you, but you keep inserting your subjective interpretation, which is not how laws are written.Civil negligence means a person failed to exercise reasonable care in their actions. Criminal negligence, on the other hand, typically involves a negligent act that is so egregious, it's likely to result in the risk of death or serious bodily harm.
Why would Baldwin think that someone handing him a gun as a prop in a scene was "likely to result in the risk of death or serious bodily harm."
That doesn't matter, but it has happened. Once is too many.This kind of thing has hardly ever happened before.
Really stupid thing to do. Not just to point a real gun at your own head, loaded or not. But to ignore the fact that a blank is still an explosion of hot powder, gasses, and force. Nobody would explode a firecracker next to their own skull, why would they fire a blank next to their own skull? Darwin award much?I am aware of one incident in 1984 where an actor died as a result of playing Russian Roullette with a gun that had a blank loaded into it,
To be more specific, the Brandon Lee incident was the result of a 'squib load' situation. So, different than the Baldwin incident.and then The Crow where Brandon Lee was shot because a bullet was accidentally left in the gun
In the Vic Morrow death (Twilight Zone filming) where a helicopter crash killed Morrow and two child actors. The director and several others on that production were charged with involuntary manslaughter. They were acquitted by a jury of their peers, so maybe that may happen with Baldwin as well. Some sappy jurors may disregard obvious criminal negligence as what happened in the Twilight Zone film, and then Baldwin will get a pass.. On the other hand, there have been a total of 37 deaths in Hollywood and Television accidents in like the last 100+ years, and 24 of them were from helicopter accidents. That would seem to make, based on your logic, the use of helicopters on a movie set that causes death to be involuntary manslaughter by definition.
The usual protocol is that the actor is not permitted to open the action of any gun given to him or her to inspect it. That's the job of the armorer, prop master or designated director. Besides they're actors. Not firearm experts They don't want actors to be mucking with the guns. Even if they were to open them they necessarily wouldn't even know what the heck it is they are suppose to be looking for.He should have checked to see if the gun was loaded with bullets before accepting the gun.
The unique reality is that in the movie business a gun is not a real gun, or firearm, until it is loaded with live ammunition. Until then it's a prop. And it's not the actor's job to make sure that it isn't loaded with live ammunition. That is for the hired experts to determine. Even if an actor were to open a gun, which they are pretty much prohibited from doing, they wouldn't have the expertise to know if they were looking at the backend of a blank, a dummy round, or a live round. So it's kind of a pointless exercise. If an actor wants some further reassurance he or she can ask the armorer to check for it again before proceeding. But for whatever reason it seems she wasn't around to do so. But other than that they have rely on the expertise of those charged with responsibility of handling those guns and making sure that they are safePointing a REAL gun at somebody and pulling the trigger is not in your mind a significant risk?
Your argument that if the gun is not loaded, then that is not a significant risk. But first you would need to be certain is what not loaded, right? Something Baldwin did not do.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?