This is what I always though, as an actor on an acting / movie set, you expect to be given props and not lethal weapons unless told otherwise. Didn’t Brandon Lee also die because he was handed a real gun or something instead of a prop? If Baldwin had put the gun at his own head and pull the trigger as a joke, knowing it’s a prop, would it still be on him?
yeah it’s really awkward to call him reckless over this. are actors also reckless when handling bomb props and knives? there’s obviously safety rules on a set with prop weapons, one of which undoubtedly not to mix loaded firearms among the props. how exactly is this on Baldwin @wincenworks?
1 Like
Basic discipline enforcement: people always play a bit with the highest rules they think the can cat and mouse with. And the one “beneath” them are followed. Especially in this kind of all encompassing situation.
By acting as if the more seemingly overbearing rules of how to act with the props on scenes can be outright ignored, discipline gets shifted down one level. And now the more fundamental rules of prop handling outside the scene are the one toyed with.
what are these rules of handling prop guns? I really don’t understand how you can shoot movie scenes if you’re not allowed to aim your prop gun at other people.
Worth remembering that at this point, we have pretty much no information and historically - a lot of people who have attempted high profile assassinations have done so not for any real logical reason but rather to attain infamy.
Only time may reveal something about what is going on, so it’s not helpful to go all in on the speculation.
There are in fact a lot of safety rules regarding handling guns.
There is a standard on filming of sets that armourers have the right to veto shooting of film if an actor is acting improperly as it is an area which can lead to loss of human life.
That’s because you’re only seeing the finished product.
You’re not seeing the armourer who babysat the gun in between takes, who checked it wasn’t loaded multiple times - who ensured it’s in a locked box when not being used, who made sure that in scenes where it was to be fired there was sufficient distance etc that no mishap could occur.
Movies get to make gun fight scenes look amazing and reckless because of the diligence involved in this. The director for the John Wick movies, for example, is a huge advocate for safety involving these kinds of things and that is part of why he can get such amazing talent to work for him and to agree to such amazing action sequences.
Baldwin was ignoring safety directions, changing how scenes were shot with no regard for safety, discharging his weapon outside of when directed to etc. Those are all things which are just an accident waiting to happen as even blanks are perfectly capable of killing people.
To elaborate further, I recommend Ian Runkle, a pro-gun Canadian firearms lawyer:
2 Likes
but aren’t you then saying the fault is of the armourer and not Baldwin?
Actually I’d say both are. This is pretty common in accidental death cases, multiple people play a key role in the cause of death.
Baldwin wasn’t just an actor - he was a showrunner producer who had authority over the film and who was highly experienced in making movies, so knew that the behaviour was not acceptable and would have had coaching regarding safety thousands of times in his career.
He approved hiring a rookie armourer (who frankly couldn’t afford to quit), he overruled her and he acted in ways that he knew were not safe because he was excited and just wanted the scene to go the way he wanted.
1 Like
but isn’t he on trial for manslaughter and not mismanagement? you’re saying the armourer is a rookie so maybe that’s where the problem lies and not with the actor, acting with guns he would logically assume are safe to act with.
He was on trial for manslaughter which means he had a causative role in the death of a person, but without intent - it’s been dismissed with prejudice so we will never get the full trial investigation.
In these cases, part of the investigation to review the cause of events. Baldwin was holding an unsafe weapon (loaded with a live round) and pointing it at someone without supervision or direction from the armourer - he knew he shouldn’t be doing that.
He was able to do it, because he had immense power on the set and hence could basically do whatever he wanted. Therefore, his producer status is relevant to his ability and control of the situation. A regular actor wouldn’t have been able to do it, without doing other crime as well or without someone else making possible (at which point that person would probably also be on the hook).
wasn’t the gun handed to him?
this would be like a taxi driver being guilty for running over someone when his garage supplied him a car with faulty brakes.
Presumably at some point, there are still rules he had to follow as an actor and a producer - evidence indicates that he a long history of disregarding rules and overruling people who wanted him to follow them.
Can happen, depends on the circumstances.
Did the taxi driver already know the brakes were faulty?
Did the taxi driver have a history of ignoring these issues?
Did the garage warn him the brakes weren’t working, only to be told he didn’t care?
As I said, in cases of wrong death they look at the chain of causality - what caused these event that killed someone to die and did someone breach their duties or act maliciously?
Baldwin had a duty to hire a quality armourer, to set a good example for the crew, to maintain the standards he knew from experience were industry standard, etc. He didn’t. That’s how he got handed a loaded weapon, which he ended up pointing at someone who would die from the gunshot.
He was a direct cause of the incident, though since the full trial will not go ahead we will never find out all the factors involved and thus if there were other people who should be accountable.
1 Like
why are you changing my example about an innocent taxi driver into a very guilty one lmao. this is dumb.
only way that is relevant is if Baldwin was told “this gun is very much loaded with live ammo” and he answered “I don’t care” and shot someone. a thing that never happened.
Because your example was not compatible.
Baldwin was not an innocent actor who showed up on set, did not know better, was handed a loaded gun by people he was assured he could trust and happened to shoot someone.
He was an experienced actor who was an active producer of the movie, ignored safety concerns, hired a rookie armourer and ignored people expressing their concerns over her laxity, did plenty of things he knew he was not allowed to do and that he knew were dangerous, and ultimately contributed to the standards slipping so was given a gun loaded with live rounds.
I, and the law, disagree with you.
Why are you so determined that Baldwin and other people like him should not be accountable for decisions that they get to make due to their power and wealth?
1 Like
This thread is moving on really fast from Trump almost getting assassinated. I can only hope it’s foreshadowing for this election.
3 Likes
To be fair, I expect there’s going to be very little on that for quite a while - it’s not like the Secret Service are going to make a public statement about the details of it until they and the FBI are satisfied they’ve investigated everything thoroughly.
because i disagree that being handed a loaded gun on a movie set and having it accidentally go off on someone is something he should be held accountable for. I’ve said as much already.
@pissfloyd, you are mistaking what was questioned.
The question was not “does Baldwin hold responsibility for pulling the trigger during this scene recording, having trusted the armourer”. (your taxi analogy)
The question was “did Baldwin have an essential and responsible part in the lack of discipline on the set, that resulted in a live ammo being present in his weapon during this recording”.
3 Likes
Well there’s not really a point to posting about that including your weird posts about how you don’t understand how prop guns can kill someone, posting stills from movies, etc.
You don’t care about the rest of the story, ie how did he come to be handed a loaded gun.
Just saying you don’t care about what was, essentially, the entire premise of the charge against him, is not really discussion or relevant.
how many other producers were there on this film? how many of them are on trial?
There were seven producers listed.
Zero were on trial. Importantly: Zero had the finger pointed at them by Baldwin’s defence team.
One was the co-writer of the script and the general showrunner.
One had a starring role and an active role in decision making on set on a daily basis.
One has a documented history of encouraging reckless behaviour on set, and actively engaging in reckless behaviour.
Is it possible that one of the others also contributed to it in a decisive way? Sure.
Will we ever know for sure? Probably not, the dismissal with prejudice means there is no incentive for Baldwin to implicate them, and the time passed means the prosecutors almost certainly can’t do it without that assistance.