Alec Baldwin fatally shoots woman with prop gun on movie set

MartinPrince said:
There you go conflating how simple a task is with what is required. The two are not the same.

I know an actor who worked on a movie which required him using a gun. No where in his contract was he required or expected to know the difference between live rounds and blanks in the gun he was operating; which is in effect exactly what you et al are saying is/should be the case.

So unless you can provide some actual evidence where actors are required to know the difference between a gun with blanks or live ammunition then I'll leave you to pontificate on it to your hearts content.
Click to expand...
Whether it was live or blank, why was he pointing and shooting at someone? They weren't filming a scene.
 
Werewolf said:
measures specifically because it's needed for the production
Click to expand...
Absolute ignorance on gun safety is required for production? :S What?
MartinPrince said:
Yet again the inanity of extrapolating from lifting a box at Asda to firing a gun on a film set!

The fact is you don't really have a clue what actually goes on and your surplanting your suppostions with the actual facts that happened on that film set or other film sets!
Click to expand...
:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: it is basic workplace safety.
 
Last edited:
dlockers said:
Whether it was live or blank, why was he pointing and shooting at someone? They weren't filming a scene.
Click to expand...
What is it with folks who think they can prove a point by asking a question they themselves don't have the answer to and has no real bearing on the issue at hand. (Tucker Carlson school of journalism)

Here's a better question. Was he required contractually to know the difference between a gun with blanks or live ammunition?
 
MartinPrince said:
Brilliant. So name me the US Safety Regulations he broke.

Take your time, I've got all day.
Click to expand...
There isn't one, but he is a professional in an industry that has its own guidance. None of the Rust production team followed it. So whoever was leading the production needs manslaughter charges, as well as the actor that was directly negligent. In this case, double whammy.
 
Last edited:
MartinPrince said:
There you go conflating how simple a task is with what is required. The two are not the same.

I know an actor who worked on a movie which required him using a gun. No where in his contract was he required or expected to know the difference between live rounds and blanks in the gun he was operating; which is in effect exactly what you et al are saying is/should be the case.
Click to expand...
You seem to be conflating what does actually happen, with what we're all saying should be happening instead...
The actor may well have no such requirement in his contract... but therein lies one of the biggest follies - Everyone who lays a hand on any weapon on set should be required to complete a safety course. The fact that it isn't a requirement is what we're suggesting should be changed.

As for how simple it is - I could teach you the entirety of it in about two hours. Less time, if you're more willing to learn than the average teenage kid.

MartinPrince said:
So unless you can provide some actual evidence where actors are required to know the difference between a gun with blanks or live ammunition then I'll leave you to pontificate on it to your hearts content.
Click to expand...
They aren't... and THIS is the very point we're saying should be changed.
In any other situation where firearms are handled, ultimate responsibility rests with the person who pulls the trigger, even if they're in training and it's their first time. Acting should be no different.
 
dlockers said:
There isn't one.
Click to expand...

This is the only salient bit of what you just wrote. Not laughing quite so much now.

So just to make it abundantly clear to you Baldwin himself did not break any safety regulations on the statues.

He is not the same entity as the production company which was rightly fined the maximum for breaching safely regulations.
 
MartinPrince said:
This is the only salient bit of what you just wrote. Not laughing quite so much now.

So just to make it abundantly clear to you Baldwin himself did not break any safety regulations on the statues.

He is not the same entity as the production company which was rightly fined the maximum for breaching safely regulations.
Click to expand...
The industry self governs; the industry he is part of. He didn't follow their own governance. I know nuance is difficult for your type, but the fact the production "co-lead" and the actor (same person btw) didn't follow or implement any safety guidelines, is on him.
 
ttaskmaster said:
You seem to be conflating what does actually happen, with what we're all saying should be happening instead...
The actor may well have no such requirement in his contract... but therein lies one of the biggest follies - Everyone who lays a hand on any weapon on set should be required to complete a safety course. The fact that it isn't a requirement is what we're suggesting should be changed.

As for how simple it is - I could teach you the entirety of it in about two hours. Less time, if you're more willing to learn than the average teenage kid.


They aren't... and THIS is the very point we're saying should be changed.
In any other situation where firearms are handled, ultimate responsibility rests with the person who pulls the trigger, even if they're in training and it's their first time. Acting should be no different.
Click to expand...

I'm not conflating anything. I'm arguing that Baldwin shouldn't have been charged.

You in effect are arguing that rules need to be changed so that every actor going forward is liable if the gun they are holding injures somebody.

Would you also be advocating for Michael Massee who was holding the gun that killed Brandon Lee also be prosecuted?
 
dlockers said:
The industry self governs; the industry he is part of. He didn't follow their own governance. I know nuance is difficult for your type, but the fact the production "co-lead" and the actor (same person btw) didn't follow or implement any safety guidelines, is on him.
Click to expand...
It seems that juris prudence and the application of the law is hard for you to follow. You can wishcast all you want but I like to stay with factual evidence and the law as it stands.
 
MartinPrince said:
So if manslaughter was just a black and white definition only, why wasn't Claire Freemantle charged with killing those two girls?

It does look like detail and nuance is lost on you after all!
Click to expand...
"there was nothing to suggest she could have predicted or prevented the tragedy having never previously been diagnosed with a medical condition"

It really isn't that difficult.
 
dlockers said:
"there was nothing to suggest she could have predicted or prevented the tragedy having never previously been diagnosed with a medical condition"

It really isn't that difficult.
Click to expand...

My point exactly! But that still doesn't stop the people like you still upset that she wasn't charged and coming up with their own well thought out and (for them ) plausible reasons why she should still be charged and "justice" be done.

Pretty much what you folks are doing now with Baldwin with your own made up rules/laws/regulations as opposed to how they actually are.

So back to my point; Baldwin shouldn't have been charged and the fact the prosecution put up such a weak and tainted case, would tend to support that notion.
 
Last edited:
MartinPrince said:
My point exactly! But that still doesn't stop the people like you still upset that she wasn't charged
Click to expand...
I think you are confusing me for someone else?

MartinPrince said:
Pretty much what you folks are doing now with Baldwin with your own made up rules/laws/regulations as opposed to how they actually are.
Click to expand...
lol manslaughter is pretty clear, no? It isn't a shock a gun can kill people. On a set where there is real bullets. Where the producer is also the actor.

He is clown of grandest proportion and unfortunately that should carry consequence.
 
dlockers said:
I think you are confusing me for someone else?


lol manslaughter is pretty clear, no? It isn't a shock a gun can kill people. On a set where there is real bullets. Where the producer is also the actor.

He is clown of grandest proportion and unfortunately that should carry consequence.
Click to expand...
Not confusing you at all. You are either being obtuse or do not want to conceed a point you've clearly lost.

So please answer this question; do you also say that Michael Massee that was holding the gun that killed Brandon Lee should also have been charged?
 
MartinPrince said:
Not confusing you at all. You are either being obtuse or do not want to conceed a point you've clearly lost.

So please answer this question; do you also say that Michael Massee that was holding the gun that killed Brandon Lee should also have been charged?
Click to expand...
Is that another thread or something?
 
MartinPrince said:
So back to my point; Baldwin shouldn't have been charged and the fact the prosecution put up such a weak and tainted case, would tend to support that notion.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you can conclude the case was weak or that he shouldn't have been charged, the mistrial is the result of a disclosure issue re: some ammunition being handed in. But that doesn't imply the case itself was otherwise weak rather they've had to forfeit it regardless of how strong (or weak) it was because they broke disclosure rules (which was in large part the fault of law enforcement too).
 
Werewolf said:
I wonder are actors also required to inspect the brakes on the car they're asked to drive and make sure the tyres are inflated to the correct level for any minor driving stunt they're doing, with the correct tread depth and type of tyre?

An actor can be given basic safety training but they're also expected to basically ignore that for certain scenes on the understanding that the experts have worked out how it's to be done safely for them and others.
Click to expand...

You'd expect them to have a license to drive a car or indeed to know whether the key was in the ignition or the car was in gear or not in gear or the handbrake was applied or not applied or what would happen if they rev it when it's in gear or not or brakes applied or not applied etc..

If they got into a car with the engine on, floored it and drove into a wall taking a crew member with them then "OMG it was in gear, the AP just handed over the car to me and it's not my job to check anything" would be a lame excuse and poor safety procedures.

Alternatively, if the car isn't capable of being driven and is just mounted on a platform with no engine and a green screen behind it then no issue.

Similarly:

If a real gun capable of firing real bullets is being used then some basic training to use the gun isn't exactly unreasonable.

Alternatively, if a fake/prop gun that doesn't have working parts/can't fire anything is being used then no issue.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom