Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 28 of 28

Thread: Something doesn't add up

  1. #16
    Join Date
    05-01-11
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    1,751
    The news just stated that there were .....many...... live rounds on the set.

    I don't see how he gets anything but negligent homicide . No matter how many people said " Cold gun " he was the one that did not check it before the TWO actions that resulted in a death . It was a single action revolver . He had to cock it then pull the trigger . He did so accepting the word of other people and did not check himself. .
    Individual rights are protected only as long as they don't conflict with the desires of the state .

  2. #17
    Join Date
    10-14-01
    Location
    TEXAS!
    Posts
    11,703
    Quote Originally Posted by Independent Voter View Post
    The news just stated that there were .....many...... live rounds on the set.

    I don't see how he gets anything but negligent homicide . No matter how many people said " Cold gun " he was the one that did not check it before the TWO actions that resulted in a death . It was a single action revolver . He had to cock it then pull the trigger . He did so accepting the word of other people and did not check himself. .
    I agree!!!
    The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible - Arthur C. Clarke

  3. #18
    Join Date
    11-22-03
    Location
    In the Village...
    Posts
    40,666
    From what I've read elsewhere, the set armorer has total responsibility over all firearms, whether inert props or operable guns...Only the armorer can hand a gun to an actor and tell the actor "this gun is safe in your hands"...Immediately afterward the armorer recovers the gun until the next take...In this case there was no armorer present, and the assistant director gave Baldwin the gun, which was loaded with dummy rounds and a live round...The low budget cost cutting practices initiated by the production staff (of which Baldwin is a member) bear the ultimate responsibility for the negligent discharge which killed one and wounded another......Ben
    The future is forged on the anvil of history...The interpreter of history wields the hammer... - Unknown author...

  4. #19
    Join Date
    10-14-01
    Location
    TEXAS!
    Posts
    11,703
    Quote Originally Posted by Truckman View Post
    ........The low budget cost cutting practices initiated by the production staff (of which Baldwin is a member) bear the ultimate responsibility for the negligent discharge which killed one and wounded another......Ben
    I can agree partly with that, but I believe the ultimate responsibility falls on Baldwin because he is the one who accepted the weapon and failed to check the loads before firing the weapon. Anyone who handles a firearm is responsible for checking the loads first and foremost before taking any other action with the weapon. Fault is also on whoever handed the weapon to Baldwin and whoever placed the weapon in service for use on the set. They both failed to check the loads. In my mind they are all negligent. Whether anyone other than Baldwin should be criminally charged is beyond my ability to determine, but Baldwin was the last person to hold the weapon before discharging it. He had the responsibility to check. That responsibility cannot be transferred to another.
    The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible - Arthur C. Clarke

  5. #20
    Join Date
    10-30-01
    Location
    Salt Lake City
    Posts
    25,919
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike View Post
    That responsibility cannot be transferred to another.
    Sadly, I agree.

    I do so sadly because those people responsible for this tragedy will probably not get over it. Taking a life, even indirectly or through negligence, is not what most people want to do.

    Hunter
    Now is the time, if ever there was one, for us to care selflessly about one another. - Dr. Anthony Fauci

  6. #21
    Join Date
    04-29-17
    Posts
    5,300
    For me, there's only one rule when it comes to handling a firearm. If you don't point it at someone you can never shoot someone. So many failures here that I also agree somebody must be held criminally liable. I haven't made my mind up as to whether it should be Baldwin or not but it certainly should be somebody.
    OPINION....a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    10-21-01
    Location
    Columbia, S.C.
    Posts
    14,500
    It's a horrible tragedy that can never be made right, In the name of money and budget corners were taken and innocent people will once again suffer the consequences
    This is your mind on drugs!

  8. #23
    Join Date
    11-22-03
    Location
    In the Village...
    Posts
    40,666
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike View Post
    I believe the ultimate responsibility falls on Baldwin because he is the one who accepted the weapon and failed to check the loads before firing the weapon.
    My limited reading suggests that since the armorer has the ultimate control and responsibility over the firearms, then only the armorer may open it to verify its status...Actors and extras are in most cases not certified armorers, and therefore unqualified in these instances to do anything unscripted...But at a minimum, the actors should at least watch the armorer's action in the verification to insure knowledge of what is being handed to them...Once the firearm (whether functional or an inert prop) is in the hands of the actor, no unscripted action involving it is permitted...

    This incident in which someone lost her life due to improper set procedures should, in my opinion, lead to a new filming standard in which certified armorers check the status of each firearm as it is placed in the hands of the actor or extra...This action should be captured on timestamped film or video in case it needs to be verified later...In any case, I still believe that only the certified armorer should be the last one to verify the firearm's status, and not the unqualified (and in Baldwin's case, moronic) actor or extra...

    It might also be helpful to note the term "armorer" as used in the film industry does not describe a person in a military occupation, nor a person employed in the firearm industry...In the film industry an entirely different standard is set to qualify under union rules as an "armorer"......Ben
    The future is forged on the anvil of history...The interpreter of history wields the hammer... - Unknown author...

  9. #24
    Join Date
    10-20-02
    Location
    16 miles west of the White House, Northern Virginia..
    Posts
    3,310
    A combination of things..

    There was live ammunition on the set, the firearm had been used for target practice (play) by crew.. never ever should have happened.(anyone who “played” with the firearms should not work in the industry again.)

    The Armor on the crew was not doing her job, chain of custody had been broken.. she should never work in the business again (including clerk in a store that sells firearms, any department in the store)

    Assistant director was involved in chain of custody and gave Baldwin the “cold gun” announcement, assistant director should not have been involved, should have been armor.. Assistant director should have no further employment in the industry above selling popcorn.

    Baldwin is not knowledgeable about firearms, he is an actor. Armor should have assisted him in rehearsals..

    Just my opinion, I could be wrong.

    With today’s technology, movie firearms should be props and effects added in post production..

  10. #25
    Join Date
    11-22-03
    Location
    In the Village...
    Posts
    40,666
    Quote Originally Posted by Sandman View Post
    The Armor on the crew was not doing her job
    Joe, I feel I should point out again that the armorer has stated she was not present on the set the day of the incident...Granted, she was not doing her job, but her absence has not been explained......Ben
    The future is forged on the anvil of history...The interpreter of history wields the hammer... - Unknown author...

  11. #26
    Join Date
    10-20-02
    Location
    16 miles west of the White House, Northern Virginia..
    Posts
    3,310
    Quote Originally Posted by Truckman View Post
    Joe, I feel I should point out again that the armorer has stated she was not present on the set the day of the incident...Granted, she was not doing her job, but her absence has not been explained......Ben
    If the armor is not present.. there should be no firearms, except non functional “toys”, in use..

    Agree.. a lot of ‘splaining needed..

  12. #27
    Join Date
    10-21-01
    Location
    Columbia, S.C.
    Posts
    14,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Truckman View Post
    My limited reading suggests that since the armorer has the ultimate control and responsibility over the firearms, then only the armorer may open it to verify its status...Actors and extras are in most cases not certified armorers, and therefore unqualified in these instances to do anything unscripted...But at a minimum, the actors should at least watch the armorer's action in the verification to insure knowledge of what is being handed to them...Once the firearm (whether functional or an inert prop) is in the hands of the actor, no unscripted action involving it is permitted...

    This incident in which someone lost her life due to improper set procedures should, in my opinion, lead to a new filming standard in which certified armorers check the status of each firearm as it is placed in the hands of the actor or extra...This action should be captured on timestamped film or video in case it needs to be verified later...In any case, I still believe that only the certified armorer should be the last one to verify the firearm's status, and not the unqualified (and in Baldwin's case, moronic) actor or extra...

    It might also be helpful to note the term "armorer" as used in the film industry does not describe a person in a military occupation, nor a person employed in the firearm industry...In the film industry an entirely different standard is set to qualify under union rules as an "armorer"......Ben
    Brandon Lee was killed by a prop gun in 1993 before Alec ..
    We've been there done that. Brandon Lee Bruce lee's son was killed in 1993 with a blank gun on set. New rules new standards were set BS!!
    This is your mind on drugs!

  13. #28
    Join Date
    11-22-03
    Location
    In the Village...
    Posts
    40,666
    I saw this posted elsewhere today:
    If the scene called for Baldwin to place the muzzle to his temple and fire, would he have checked the gun himself before . . . ?
    I'd like to see a reporter ask Baldwin that on live TV......Ben
    The future is forged on the anvil of history...The interpreter of history wields the hammer... - Unknown author...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •