Agreed. This was gross negligence, although there's still important details which are not clear, so there are definitely remaining questions about what exactly happened, and who bears primary responsibility, both in the legal sense and in the ethical sense.
Alec Baldwin shoots 2 on set of western, 1 dead
- Thread starter LindyAF
- Start date
Agreed. This was gross negligence, although there's still important details which are not clear, so there are definitely remaining questions about what exactly happened, and who bears primary responsibility, both in the legal sense and in the ethical sense.
Actually, there's a huge difference between a squib and a blank.
-a squib will have a 'bullet' attached to the case
-a blank will NOT have a bullet attached to the case
There's no question that criminal negligence exists in this situation. What I'm saying is that the big legal/ethical question appears to fall along these lines:
"There's plenty of legal precedent stating that safe practices established by custom and experience are enforceable as the standard of care even when those practices are not written into the law itself. But do the specialized safety rules unique to the context of movie-making mean that the persons guilty of negligence are the people responsible for safety checks under those rules, or is the person who actually operated the firearm strictly liable even when the safety rules they were conforming to say they weren't responsible for the safety check?"
"There's plenty of legal precedent stating that safe practices established by custom and experience are enforceable as the standard of care even when those practices are not written into the law itself. But do the specialized safety rules unique to the context of movie-making mean that the persons guilty of negligence are the people responsible for safety checks under those rules, or is the person who actually operated the firearm strictly liable even when the safety rules they were conforming to say they weren't responsible for the safety check?"
Without knowing all the details, Baldwin's culpability (ethically and legally) is the most up in the air.
The director supposedly told him it was a cold gun as he handed it to Baldwin, and industry standards don't expect actors to practice gun safety when handling "cold guns". So you have Baldwin going "And I'll draw like this and pull the trigger." as they work to properly stage the scene, only for a live round to be fired at the camera.
Absent some extenuating circumstances, it gets really hard to say that Baldwin is liable for the shooting.
Honestly, the Director is the one most at fault. He picked up a gun off the armorers bench/cart/area without the armorers express permission, failed to check that it was actually a cold gun, and handed it to the actor telling him it was a cold gun for a scene where it was intended that the actor would pull the trigger.
Why the armorer left a live gun where someone could grab it is another question. As is how a live gun ended up on set in the first place.
But absent the armorer saying to the director "yeah, grab that one. It's cold." or words to that effect, it's hard to say that the armorer is liable. I mean the director took the gun from her area without permission.
Honestly? If I was on all three juries. Baldwin gets found innocent of anything (absent any liability related to his role as producer). The Director is guilty of manslaughter as his negligent actions directly and foreseeably resulted in a death (especially given the previous issues with gun safety on the set). The Armorer might or might not be guilty of something depending on the specifics, but short of her expressly telling the director it was a cold gun she isn't liable for murder or manslaughter.
The director supposedly told him it was a cold gun as he handed it to Baldwin, and industry standards don't expect actors to practice gun safety when handling "cold guns". So you have Baldwin going "And I'll draw like this and pull the trigger." as they work to properly stage the scene, only for a live round to be fired at the camera.
Absent some extenuating circumstances, it gets really hard to say that Baldwin is liable for the shooting.
Honestly, the Director is the one most at fault. He picked up a gun off the armorers bench/cart/area without the armorers express permission, failed to check that it was actually a cold gun, and handed it to the actor telling him it was a cold gun for a scene where it was intended that the actor would pull the trigger.
Why the armorer left a live gun where someone could grab it is another question. As is how a live gun ended up on set in the first place.
But absent the armorer saying to the director "yeah, grab that one. It's cold." or words to that effect, it's hard to say that the armorer is liable. I mean the director took the gun from her area without permission.
Honestly? If I was on all three juries. Baldwin gets found innocent of anything (absent any liability related to his role as producer). The Director is guilty of manslaughter as his negligent actions directly and foreseeably resulted in a death (especially given the previous issues with gun safety on the set). The Armorer might or might not be guilty of something depending on the specifics, but short of her expressly telling the director it was a cold gun she isn't liable for murder or manslaughter.
Unless something really nasty comes out about how this came to be, I don't really expect there to be any prosecution. This was an accident, plain and simple. Now, there is likely to be some lawsuits thrown about given the walk-offs that led to the unsafe environment, but that's probably it.
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
One thing I do want to point out is that Hollywood's gun safety record isn't bad in spite of this. There are dozens of movies made per year with gunfights in them, often firing hundreds of rounds in a single movie, but actual persons shot is extremely rare in comparison. Like, once a decade or less.
Which makes it all the more likely that Baldwin shot them on purpose.
That's just absolutely ridiculous.
If someone like Baldwin wanted someone killed he wouldn't just do it on a live movie set.
What's the motive?
A 4chan theory because her husband was apparently a lawyer for the clintons and something about letting it known about either the Clintons or HollyWood sex stuff.
IDK.
There's just too many coincidences in this whole thing to not be suspect. The woman who died was the wife of a lawyer working against the Clintons, for Christ's sake.
And why would he shoot the director as well?
So they hire Alec fucking Baldwin to carry out a hit?
Not fucking buying it for a second. Rich people don't do hit jobs, they hire people to do hit jobs.
She was hired onto his movie so this could happen obviously duh
Shit luck, bad timing, the director was at the wrong place at the wrong time. You can plan a murder all you want, there's always going to be some unexpected factor.
It literally makes no sense for this yo be a hit
Dude, come off it; this was an accident that happened because of multiple layers of mistakes and miscommunication.
Trying to tie this to the Clinton's based on some 4chan bullshit is just pissing in the pool.
Typhonis
Well-known member
Wrong this was not an accident. This was something that could have been prevented. Accidents usually aren't.