Banjo Hangout Logo
Banjo Hangout Logo

Premier Sponsors

645
Banjo Lovers Online


Discussion Forum

Hide these ads: join the Players Union!

 All Forums
 Other Topics
 Off-Topic (Not Banjo Related)
 ARCHIVED TOPIC: I didn’t pull the trigger


Please note this is an archived topic, so it is locked and unable to be replied to. You may, however, start a new topic and refer to this topic with a link: http://www.banjohangout.org/archive/379498

Page: 1  2  3  4  

Tommy5 - Posted - 12/02/2021:  20:28:34


Baldwin says he didn’t pull the trigger in the fatal shooting on his movie set. I thought that was significant until he explained in his interview that he took the single action revolver, pulled the hammer back as the camera lady asked, then he released the hammer, which of course slammed down and hit the firing pin and the live round in the chamber went off. So it doesn’t really matter if he pulled the trigger, he further explained that the prop / armor people asked him not to check the weapons that he was being handed , since they didn’t want him playing with the gun, other actors claim they always check weapons handed to them, of course half cocking the revolver releases the cylinder so one can spin the cylinder and check all of the chambers , it was suggested that the armor person may have just checked three chambers when he / she opened the gate. I know we discussed this before, but this is new info.

SimonSlick - Posted - 12/03/2021:  03:29:14


The ABC interview by Baldwin was nothing but a PR maneuver, carefully scripted, produced, and acted. He is both indirectly (as a producer) and directly (he fired the pistol) responsible for killing another person.

DC5 - Posted - 12/03/2021:  03:34:17


Much like the press tries to convict before a trial, Baldwin is trying to get ahead of the situation to get an acquittal. How does one serve as an impartial juror after watching that interview?

Banjonewguy - Posted - 12/03/2021:  04:06:25


I have a serious question for folks who are quick to jump on the "It's Baldwin's fault" wagon. I'm not defending him, just playing devil's advocate, but if you take your car to a mechanic and they give it back to you saying it's good-to-go, and the wheel they just worked on falls off and you kill someone with the car, are you guilty of murder/manslaughter/vehicular homicide?



The film sets hire professional armorers that are responsible for the gun safety on the set. Most actors aren't gun safety experts so when the expert, who gets paid for having the overall responsibility for weapon safety on the set, tells them something is safe to use, they go along with it. Now, I know I'm going to get the "He should have checked it too" or "I always check...", but your safety education and his is probably different. Just like your ability to work on your car's wheel is different than that of the mechanic. When you hire a professional to do a job you don't expect to have to run behind them and double check everything they do.



Hindsight and blame are perfect 20/20, but considering these types of accidental shootings happen about once every what, 15 or more years, the gun safety record on movie sets seems to be pretty good and there doesn't seem to be a lot of reason actors shouldn't trust their armorers when they say something is safe.



Having said that, I have never worked on a movie set and if there was a safety protocol violated by the actor that I'm not aware of, this whole post may be moot, but if Baldwin was following direction from the experts on the set, I would think they shoulder way more blame than he does for failing at their job.


Edited by - Banjonewguy on 12/03/2021 04:07:29

Wet Spaniel - Posted - 12/03/2021:  04:56:03


quote:

Originally posted by Banjonewguy

I have a serious question for folks who are quick to jump on the "It's Baldwin's fault" wagon. I'm not defending him, just playing devil's advocate, but if you take your car to a mechanic and they give it back to you saying it's good-to-go, and the wheel they just worked on falls off and you kill someone with the car, are you guilty of murder/manslaughter/vehicular homicide?



The film sets hire professional armorers that are responsible for the gun safety on the set. Most actors aren't gun safety experts so when the expert, who gets paid for having the overall responsibility for weapon safety on the set, tells them something is safe to use, they go along with it. Now, I know I'm going to get the "He should have checked it too" or "I always check...", but your safety education and his is probably different. Just like your ability to work on your car's wheel is different than that of the mechanic. When you hire a professional to do a job you don't expect to have to run behind them and double check everything they do.



Hindsight and blame are perfect 20/20, but considering these types of accidental shootings happen about once every what, 15 or more years, the gun safety record on movie sets seems to be pretty good and there doesn't seem to be a lot of reason actors shouldn't trust their armorers when they say something is safe.



Having said that, I have never worked on a movie set and if there was a safety protocol violated by the actor that I'm not aware of, this whole post may be moot, but if Baldwin was following direction from the experts on the set, I would think they shoulder way more blame than he does for failing at their job.






Bill,  i do agree with you.  My initial reaction was based on my own experience of firearms handling and always knowing if I wanted to shoot someone that i knew my weapon was in a state to do so, and vice versa.  With that in mind my initial reaction was that he was completely to blame.   I have no Idea what the protocols are on a film set, or what his experience was with firearms.  That said, if the armourer was paid to be the expert  to look after the weapons, I would expect the armourer to hand be the gun, and advise me what state it was in and be able to trust them - not a producer further down the chain.  However every fibre in me is still screaming why didn't he check it himself.

phb - Posted - 12/03/2021:  05:25:33


Guilt can easily be shared. Baldwin as a producer was at least partly responsible for the inexperienced / inexpensive people that were hired for the film. He took the gun not out of the hands of the armourer but of the assistant director which in itself probably was a violation of the rules. There had been previous incidents that would have required actions from the producers (i.e. fire the assistant director). On the other hand, there was the armourer not taking care of the guns, allowing one to be taken by the assistant director when the guns should have exclusively been handled by the armourer. There was the assistant director passing on a gun as cold when he didn't know for sure (and had caused a previous dangerous incident). And there was the yet to be determined person that brought real ammunition to the set and mixed it with blanks.

SimonSlick - Posted - 12/03/2021:  05:32:14


Your car is built to transport you from one place to another. A firearm is designed to give you the ability to injure or kill.

Baldwin during the interview claimed, "I would never point a gun at someone and pull the trigger." Yet he was willing to point a single-action revolver (he had not personally checked) at someone, retract and release the hammer.

Little Georgie Stephanopoulos, were he a real journalist, would have had the same model firearm available for the interview and had Baldwin demonstrate how, and why, the accidental firing happened.

restreet - Posted - 12/03/2021:  05:46:02


Only an idiot would hand Baldwin a gun and ask him to fire it.

RB3 - Posted - 12/03/2021:  07:09:50


I was taught a long time ago that you can delegate authority, but you can't delegate responsibility. Taking or assuming responsibility is an act of personal volition that may or may not be associated with delegated authority.

The sole authority for the control of the weapons on the set was vested in the armorer. When the assistant director told Baldwin that it was a "cold gun", he took responsibility for doing something he was not authorized to do. When the armorer allowed him to do so, she abdicated the responsibility that should have been associated with her vested authority.

Any blame lies with both the armorer and the assistant director.

YellowSkyBlueSun - Posted - 12/03/2021:  07:24:40


Who cares? (((Celebrity))) tabloid nonsense meant to distract you all from things that actually matter.

banjo bill-e - Posted - 12/03/2021:  07:25:30


So he is claiming that the gun was defective? Guns do not just "go off", unless defective. If the hammer is pulled back and released on a properly functioning Single Action Revolver, and the trigger is not touched, then the gun will not fire as the hammer will be caught by one of the four notches designed to prevent just such an accidental firing. But if he drew the gun with his finger on the trigger and then pulled the hammer and released it, then it will fire as designed. So either he put his finger on the trigger or he did not, and I would bet that he did. Or else someone on the set deliberately created the situation that led to a death, which would be murder.
I do believe that this was lawyer talk, and an acting job, for the benefit of future jurors.

heavy5 - Posted - 12/03/2021:  08:10:17


quote:

Originally posted by YellowSkyBlueSun

Who cares? (((Celebrity))) tabloid nonsense meant to distract you all from things that actually matter.






The only celebrity driven appreciation I've ever taken note of is the Loar that Monroe chose .   



 



 


Edited by - heavy5 on 12/03/2021 08:15:29

Banjonewguy - Posted - 12/03/2021:  08:19:05


quote:

Originally posted by phb

Guilt can easily be shared. Baldwin as a producer was at least partly responsible for the inexperienced / inexpensive people that were hired for the film. He took the gun not out of the hands of the armourer but of the assistant director which in itself probably was a violation of the rules. There had been previous incidents that would have required actions from the producers (i.e. fire the assistant director). On the other hand, there was the armourer not taking care of the guns, allowing one to be taken by the assistant director when the guns should have exclusively been handled by the armourer. There was the assistant director passing on a gun as cold when he didn't know for sure (and had caused a previous dangerous incident). And there was the yet to be determined person that brought real ammunition to the set and mixed it with blanks.






From what I have read, that is exactly how it was supposed to have been done. They said there was a two person check of each prop gun before it was handed to an actor: The armorer and the assistant director. I've worked in a lot of places where twp person integrity is required and if anything goes wrong, one or both of those two people are the ones who are responsible, not the third party who took both of their words.



I agree that there had been previous incidents, even including this particular armorer, but at the end of the day, even though he was a producer on the film, Baldwin may not have had the final say in hiring and firing.



As I said, I've never worked in the film industry but I do know that it takes more than one producer to finance a film and many times in the credits you see a half dozen producers, exec producers, assistant producers and second assistant producers given credit.

Richard Hauser - Posted - 12/03/2021:  08:31:32


I think lots of the suggestions of what should have been done are are made by people familiar with handling firearms. People who have not received training or are familiar with weapons would probably not even know how to make sure a weapon is not loaded. Somebody hands an actor any type of weapon, they most likely just start using it. I am guessing that actors don't check guns to make sure they are not loaded, check swords to make sure they are harmless, check supposed poisoned drinks to make they are not dangerous, etc..

Banjonewguy - Posted - 12/03/2021:  08:37:33


quote:

Originally posted by SimonSlick

Your car is built to transport you from one place to another. A firearm is designed to give you the ability to injure or kill.



Baldwin during the interview claimed, "I would never point a gun at someone and pull the trigger." Yet he was willing to point a single-action revolver (he had not personally checked) at someone, retract and release the hammer.



Little Georgie Stephanopoulos, were he a real journalist, would have had the same model firearm available for the interview and had Baldwin demonstrate how, and why, the accidental firing happened.






What does a boilerplate gun control argument have to do with the actual question that was asked? Since the comparison to a car seems to have triggered you, let's change that to a lawn mower. What if a professional mechanic told you that he changed out the blade and it flew off and killed someone? Are you guilty or responsible for that person's death?



What if you order pufferfish for a friend and the chef doesn't cut it right and the friend is poisoned? Is their death your fault or is it the fault of the expert in that field failing to do their job?

phb - Posted - 12/03/2021:  08:37:55


quote:

Originally posted by banjo bill-e

So he is claiming that the gun was defective? Guns do not just "go off", unless defective. If the hammer is pulled back and released on a properly functioning Single Action Revolver, and the trigger is not touched, then the gun will not fire as the hammer will be caught by one of the four notches designed to prevent just such an accidental firing.






Wasn't this a historical weapon? Can we assume that such a weapon would operate like you say?



 

phb - Posted - 12/03/2021:  08:43:08


quote:

Originally posted by Banjonewguy

quote:

Originally posted by phb

Guilt can easily be shared. Baldwin as a producer was at least partly responsible for the inexperienced / inexpensive people that were hired for the film. He took the gun not out of the hands of the armourer but of the assistant director which in itself probably was a violation of the rules. 






From what I have read, that is exactly how it was supposed to have been done. They said there was a two person check of each prop gun before it was handed to an actor: The armorer and the assistant director.






I'm not sure I understand. I heard a comment that only the armourer is supposed to hand out guns directly to the actor and then to collect it immediately after the scene was shot. This implies that an actor may only receive a gun from the armourer and no other person on the set. Thus, accepting a gun from any other person than the armourer would be violating this rule or rather implies that the rule was violated when the assistant director got his hands on the gun. If this rule really applies (I don't know whether it is true), then Baldwin had to realise that protocols weren't being followed. As I said, I believe the guilt is shared. The exact details of the case will determine how much guilt each person has.



 

ChunoTheDog - Posted - 12/03/2021:  08:46:49


It's impossible that he didn't pull the trigger. It's a single action revolver. Those do not fire unless the user means to fire it. Those triggers have probably a 5lbs + pull on top of that.

Mr. Baldwin must really think we're all as dumb as he is.

Banjonewguy - Posted - 12/03/2021:  08:52:17


quote:

Originally posted by ChunoTheDog

It's impossible that he didn't pull the trigger. It's a single action revolver. Those do not fire unless the user means to fire it. Those triggers have probably a 5lbs + pull on top of that.



Mr. Baldwin must really think we're all as dumb as he is.






I guess both you and Bill were either unaware of, or have forgotten the lawsuit against Ruger for the design of their Super Blackhawk .44 magnum handguns. They were single action and used a half cock cylinder lock. In order to rotate the cylinder for loading the weapon had to be placed in the half cock position. Well, they had a habit of dropping the hammer unexpectedly when in that position so Ruger was forced to redesign the gun using the cylinder gate as the locking mechanism.

BanjoLink - Posted - 12/03/2021:  08:56:07


quote:

Originally posted by Richard Hauser

I think lots of the suggestions of what should have been done are are made by people familiar with handling firearms. People who have not received training or are familiar with weapons would probably not even know how to make sure a weapon is not loaded. Somebody hands an actor any type of weapon, they most likely just start using it. I am guessing that actors don't check guns to make sure they are not loaded, check swords to make sure they are harmless, check supposed poisoned drinks to make they are not dangerous, etc..






...... or check valuable guitars before they smash them.  Let;s face it, many (not all) actors are not all that bright.

BanjoLink - Posted - 12/03/2021:  09:00:47


quote:

Originally posted by Banjonewguy

quote:

Originally posted by ChunoTheDog

It's impossible that he didn't pull the trigger. It's a single action revolver. Those do not fire unless the user means to fire it. Those triggers have probably a 5lbs + pull on top of that.



Mr. Baldwin must really think we're all as dumb as he is.






I guess both you and Bill were either unaware of, or have forgotten the lawsuit against Ruger for the design of their Super Blackhawk .44 magnum handguns. They were single action and used a half cock cylinder lock. In order to rotate the cylinder for loading the weapon had to be placed in the half cock position. Well, they had a habit of dropping the hammer unexpectedly when in that position so Ruger was forced to redesign the gun using the cylinder gate as the locking mechanism.






All of my single action Rugers (I'm not going to count them wink) are pre-safety design ..... but then again I don't point them at or near anyone when I am loading, un-loading, checking the cylinder, pulling back the hammer, or pulling the trigger.  But that's just me!

Banjonewguy - Posted - 12/03/2021:  09:01:04


quote:

Originally posted by phb

quote:

Originally posted by Banjonewguy

quote:

Originally posted by phb

Guilt can easily be shared. Baldwin as a producer was at least partly responsible for the inexperienced / inexpensive people that were hired for the film. He took the gun not out of the hands of the armourer but of the assistant director which in itself probably was a violation of the rules. 






From what I have read, that is exactly how it was supposed to have been done. They said there was a two person check of each prop gun before it was handed to an actor: The armorer and the assistant director.






I'm not sure I understand. I heard a comment that only the armourer is supposed to hand out guns directly to the actor and then to collect it immediately after the scene was shot. This implies that an actor may only receive a gun from the armourer and no other person on the set. Thus, accepting a gun from any other person than the armourer would be violating this rule or rather implies that the rule was violated when the assistant director got his hands on the gun. If this rule really applies (I don't know whether it is true), then Baldwin had to realise that protocols weren't being followed. As I said, I believe the guilt is shared. The exact details of the case will determine how much guilt each person has.



 






Like I said, I don't know all of the rules but what I read on it said that the armorer opened the gun and the Assistant Director inspected the cylinder and declared it a cold gun. I don't know if their procedure is a two person check or not, but it appears that they were doing an inspection by the armorer and the assistant director on this weapon. However, the director is the one who handed Baldwin the gun and I do believe that it is supposed to be the armorer.

ChunoTheDog - Posted - 12/03/2021:  09:19:10


quote:

Originally posted by Banjonewguy

quote:

Originally posted by ChunoTheDog

It's impossible that he didn't pull the trigger. It's a single action revolver. Those do not fire unless the user means to fire it. Those triggers have probably a 5lbs + pull on top of that.



Mr. Baldwin must really think we're all as dumb as he is.






I guess both you and Bill were either unaware of, or have forgotten the lawsuit against Ruger for the design of their Super Blackhawk .44 magnum handguns. They were single action and used a half cock cylinder lock. In order to rotate the cylinder for loading the weapon had to be placed in the half cock position. Well, they had a habit of dropping the hammer unexpectedly when in that position so Ruger was forced to redesign the gun using the cylinder gate as the locking mechanism.






From what I understand the revolver in question is not a modern piece.

250gibson - Posted - 12/03/2021:  09:21:57


Everybody keeps citing the common practice of checking the gun to see if it is loaded or not. This gun was supposed to be loaded. It was supposed to be loaded with blanks. It is a moot point to keep placing blame on who was supposed to check the gun and if they did or not. Whoever would have checked it, would have seen it was loaded, which it was supposed to be. The blame lies with whomever loaded real live rounds instead of blanks.

banjos-n-beer-boy - Posted - 12/03/2021:  09:26:55


its obvious some people want him to be guilty just because they hate is political views.

Banjonewguy - Posted - 12/03/2021:  09:32:02


quote:

Originally posted by 250gibson

Everybody keeps citing the common practice of checking the gun to see if it is loaded or not. This gun was supposed to be loaded. It was supposed to be loaded with blanks. It is a moot point to keep placing blame on who was supposed to check the gun and if they did or not. Whoever would have checked it, would have seen it was loaded, which it was supposed to be. The blame lies with whomever loaded real live rounds instead of blanks.






That is kind of the whole point though. It is up to the armorer to make sure that it isn't loaded with live rounds. If the gun was out of her sight, as it was over lunch, she should have fully unloaded it, inspected the ammunition and the barrel, and reloaded it with the proper rounds: either blanks or dummy rounds.

Banjonewguy - Posted - 12/03/2021:  09:34:57


quote:

Originally posted by ChunoTheDog

quote:

Originally posted by Banjonewguy

quote:

Originally posted by ChunoTheDog

It's impossible that he didn't pull the trigger. It's a single action revolver. Those do not fire unless the user means to fire it. Those triggers have probably a 5lbs + pull on top of that.



Mr. Baldwin must really think we're all as dumb as he is.






I guess both you and Bill were either unaware of, or have forgotten the lawsuit against Ruger for the design of their Super Blackhawk .44 magnum handguns. They were single action and used a half cock cylinder lock. In order to rotate the cylinder for loading the weapon had to be placed in the half cock position. Well, they had a habit of dropping the hammer unexpectedly when in that position so Ruger was forced to redesign the gun using the cylinder gate as the locking mechanism.






From what I understand the revolver in question is not a modern piece.






That's what I was saying. The older guns that used the half cock cylinder lock have been known to malfunction. I'm not saying that is what happened, but it is possible.

Mad Hornet - Posted - 12/03/2021:  09:39:34


I wonder if he would have cocked and released the hammer had it been a suicide scene?

Also find it interesting that he tweeted how he wonders what it feels like to wrongfully kill someone.

My personal opinion is he's a calculating cold blooded killer who had motive.

SimonSlick - Posted - 12/03/2021:  09:50:50


quote:

Originally posted by Banjonewguy

quote:

Originally posted by SimonSlick

Your car is built to transport you from one place to another. A firearm is designed to give you the ability to injure or kill.



Baldwin during the interview claimed, "I would never point a gun at someone and pull the trigger." Yet he was willing to point a single-action revolver (he had not personally checked) at someone, retract and release the hammer.



Little Georgie Stephanopoulos, were he a real journalist, would have had the same model firearm available for the interview and had Baldwin demonstrate how, and why, the accidental firing happened.






What does a boilerplate gun control argument have to do with the actual question that was asked? Since the comparison to a car seems to have triggered you, let's change that to a lawn mower. What if a professional mechanic told you that he changed out the blade and it flew off and killed someone? Are you guilty or responsible for that person's death?



What if you order pufferfish for a friend and the chef doesn't cut it right and the friend is poisoned? Is their death your fault or is it the fault of the expert in that field failing to do their job?






Baldwin did not kill that woman with a lawnmower or a pufferfish (whatever the hell that is). He pointed a loaded firearm at her and caused it to discharge. If he does not know how to properly and safely handle a firearm, he has no business acting like he does.  

rcc56 - Posted - 12/03/2021:  09:58:43


"I do believe this was lawyer talk . . . for the benefit of future jurors."

If so, he'd better get a different attorney.
I served on a homicide jury some years ago. I learned two things:

1] Real homicide trials are very different from what is portrayed on TV and movie screens.
2] Although our jurors were of all sizes, shapes, philosophies, and backgrounds, none of us were dummies.

AndrewD - Posted - 12/03/2021:  10:27:41


He's an actor. It's not his responsibility to ensure that props are safe. If I were in his position I would have no clue how to check a handgun for safety as I've never touched one. It was an accident waiting to happen as soon as live bullets got anywhere near a prop gun. Could it be that some of the the 'experts' here are influenced by the fact that Baldwin is known for disrespecting a particular politician ?

250gibson - Posted - 12/03/2021:  10:29:01


quote:

Originally posted by Banjonewguy

quote:

Originally posted by 250gibson

Everybody keeps citing the common practice of checking the gun to see if it is loaded or not. This gun was supposed to be loaded. It was supposed to be loaded with blanks. It is a moot point to keep placing blame on who was supposed to check the gun and if they did or not. Whoever would have checked it, would have seen it was loaded, which it was supposed to be. The blame lies with whomever loaded real live rounds instead of blanks.






That is kind of the whole point though. It is up to the armorer to make sure that it isn't loaded with live rounds. If the gun was out of her sight, as it was over lunch, she should have fully unloaded it, inspected the ammunition and the barrel, and reloaded it with the proper rounds: either blanks or dummy rounds.






I agree with this. It is the armorers responsibility to load the gun and make sure everthing is working as it should. My comment was in reference to people placing blame on Baldwin and or the director/assistant director for not checking the guns themselves.  

banjo bill-e - Posted - 12/03/2021:  11:53:42


Andrew, I do not believe that it is Mr. Baldwin's position on any politician as much as that he is well known for his political opposition to private individuals owning firearms, and it draws ire among shooters because he claims that they are too dangerous for anyone to own and then violates all basic gun safety protocols as if to somehow prove his point.

Banjonewguy Bill I do not believe that there was anything defective about Ruger's original Single Action design. The problem was that a traditional design was being purchased by modern shooters lacking understanding of how they must be handled. Those earlier Rugers are still highly sought after by the knowledgeable shooter because they desire the qualities of that traditional design. That would not be the case if the gun were "defective". Those guns are quite safe------in safe hands.

chuckv97 - Posted - 12/03/2021:  12:01:17


“if somehow to prove his point”…? Are you implying…..?

DC5 - Posted - 12/03/2021:  12:31:04


quote:

Originally posted by Richard Hauser

I think lots of the suggestions of what should have been done are are made by people familiar with handling firearms. People who have not received training or are familiar with weapons would probably not even know how to make sure a weapon is not loaded. Somebody hands an actor any type of weapon, they most likely just start using it. I am guessing that actors don't check guns to make sure they are not loaded, check swords to make sure they are harmless, check supposed poisoned drinks to make they are not dangerous, etc..






Which is why I stated in another thread on this topic, Everyone on a set where guns will be used should be required to take, and pass, an NRA firearms safety course.  Also, no one should take on any other person's responsibility on the set.  The armorer did not hand out the gun, and the gun was not shown to Baldwin that it was empty.  This was NOT Baldwin's first movie, and he knows how things are supposed to be done.  Corners were cut, mistakes were made, Baldwin is not totally at fault, but he is not blameless either. 

DC5 - Posted - 12/03/2021:  12:41:10


quote:

Originally posted by AndrewD

He's an actor. It's not his responsibility to ensure that props are safe. If I were in his position I would have no clue how to check a handgun for safety as I've never touched one. It was an accident waiting to happen as soon as live bullets got anywhere near a prop gun. Could it be that some of the the 'experts' here are influenced by the fact that Baldwin is known for disrespecting a particular politician ?






I am an actor. Actors are ultimately responsible for the props that they use.  Just as a stunt man is responsible for the final check on his rigging, even though everything was set up by the stunt coordinator.  And as I've stated, any person on a movie set where real guns will be used should be required to take, and pass, an NRA gun safety course.  No one that does not know anything about guns has no business being anywhere near them. 

ChunoTheDog - Posted - 12/03/2021:  12:47:29


quote:

Originally posted by AndrewD

He's an actor. It's not his responsibility to ensure that props are safe. If I were in his position I would have no clue how to check a handgun for safety as I've never touched one. It was an accident waiting to happen as soon as live bullets got anywhere near a prop gun. Could it be that some of the the 'experts' here are influenced by the fact that Baldwin is known for disrespecting a particular politician ?






couple points:



-Blanks can seriously injure or kill. Up here in Canada years ago we had an actor think it would be hilarious to point a blank-loaded pistol at his own head and pull the trigger as a joke. He died where he stood.



-Alec's shooting incident wasn't even during a real scene being filmed. There is still no reason to point a blank-loaded firearm at anyone, especially if the situation literally does not call for it. 

flyingsquirrelinlay - Posted - 12/03/2021:  13:01:29


Hind sight is always 20/20; moreover, this is an accident involving an actor. Why not talk about the kid in Michigan who killed four classmates after his parents bought him a handgun. That was no accident, and the only discussion we should have is about restricting the availability of guns; but we all know where that leads don't we, and that is to a posted topic that will be quickly locked.

ChunoTheDog - Posted - 12/03/2021:  13:04:15


quote:

Originally posted by flyingsquirrelinlay

Hind sight is always 20/20; moreover, this is an accident involving an actor. Why not talk about the kid in Michigan who killed four classmates after his parents bought him a handgun. That was no accident, and the only discussion we should have is about restricting the availability of guns; but we all know where that leads don't we, and that is to a posted topic that will be quickly locked.






Feel free to start that thread if that's what we should be talking about.

Michigan Lefty - Posted - 12/03/2021:  13:08:39


quote:

Originally posted by flyingsquirrelinlay

Hind sight is always 20/20; moreover, this is an accident involving an actor. Why not talk about the kid in Michigan who killed four classmates after his parents bought him a handgun. That was no accident, and the only discussion we should have is about restricting the availability of guns; but we all know where that leads don't we, and that is to a posted topic that will be quickly locked.






That is a sad story.

That high school is about 30 miles from me.   Our County prosecutor just charged both parents with 4 counts of manslaughter and they are fleeing from police.

5B-Ranch - Posted - 12/03/2021:  13:23:25


Someone needs to hand Alec the same style gun when he’s not paying attention unloaded of course while holding the barrel and see how he grabs it. Why you ask? To see if he places his index finger in the trigger. Muscle memory or not paying attention. If he grabbed it as he placed his finger in the trigger guard and was asked to cock it, it’s possible he was unaware of how he was handling the firearm. Cocking a singles action revolver while having your finger on the trigger is akin to fanning . It’s how speed shooter squeeze the trigger while “fanning” the hammer.



en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanning_(firearms)


Edited by - 5B-Ranch on 12/03/2021 13:27:21

flyingsquirrelinlay - Posted - 12/03/2021:  14:18:28


I think the KEY question is where did the live round come from? If there is any question about whether the round was live, let's wait and see what the autopsy says.


Edited by - flyingsquirrelinlay on 12/03/2021 14:19:44

Tommy5 - Posted - 12/03/2021:  15:25:30


quote:

Originally posted by ChunoTheDog

quote:

Originally posted by AndrewD

He's an actor. It's not his responsibility to ensure that props are safe. If I were in his position I would have no clue how to check a handgun for safety as I've never touched one. It was an accident waiting to happen as soon as live bullets got anywhere near a prop gun. Could it be that some of the the 'experts' here are influenced by the fact that Baldwin is known for disrespecting a particular politician ?






couple points:



-Blanks can seriously injure or kill. Up here in Canada years ago we had an actor think it would be hilarious to point a blank-loaded pistol at his own head and pull the trigger as a joke. He died where he stood.



-Alec's shooting incident wasn't even during a real scene being filmed. There is still no reason to point a blank-loaded firearm at anyone, especially if the situation literally does not call for it. 






The reason the pistol was pointed at the camera women is because they were setting up a film shot, the camera lady was standing next to the camera monitor and looking at the film shot and directing Alec as to where he should point or hold the gun to get the desired shot. The gun wasn't supposed to be loaded with real bullets and wasn't supposed to be discharged, Alec claims he just pulled back the hammer as he was asked to and when he released the hammer the pistol discharged and struck two people. It is possible that Alec inadvertently had the trigger depressed although he said his finger wasn't even inside the trigger guard. It's possible the pistol fired because it the hammer wasn't stopped, perhaps the revolver malfunctioned, or the older replica was designed to fire anytime the hammer is released, we shall see.

1935tb-11 - Posted - 12/03/2021:  16:05:24


according to reports (take'm or leave'm) it was an antique COLT 45. had it been modified somewhere in the last 130 years or what? maybe it was a gunslingers weapon with a fan hammer,, who knows..but you don't point one at somebody till you check it... you would think they would practice or rehearse somewhere other then on the set of the scene ,,,,,

O.D. - Posted - 12/03/2021:  17:46:36


It was reported that the gun was used for target practice at an off sight location prior to use at the film location.
That may explain the live
round in the gun.
The article is on the web,look it up
Everett

Tommy5 - Posted - 12/03/2021:  21:06:27


quote:

Originally posted by O.D.

It was reported that the gun was used for target practice at an off sight location prior to use at the film location.

That may explain the live

round in the gun.

The article is on the web,look it up

Everett






Exactly, I read those reports too, of course bringing live ammo on to the movie set is a big no- no, Yes tragedies and accidents often stem from a chain of incidents which add together and spell disaster , any break in the chain would have prevented the accident just like most airplane crashes, as other posters noted there is most likely a shared responsibility for this tragedy,

DC5 - Posted - 12/04/2021:  04:27:51


quote:

Originally posted by ChunoTheDog

quote:

Originally posted by AndrewD

He's an actor. It's not his responsibility to ensure that props are safe. If I were in his position I would have no clue how to check a handgun for safety as I've never touched one. It was an accident waiting to happen as soon as live bullets got anywhere near a prop gun. Could it be that some of the the 'experts' here are influenced by the fact that Baldwin is known for disrespecting a particular politician ?






couple points:



-Blanks can seriously injure or kill. Up here in Canada years ago we had an actor think it would be hilarious to point a blank-loaded pistol at his own head and pull the trigger as a joke. He died where he stood.



-Alec's shooting incident wasn't even during a real scene being filmed. There is still no reason to point a blank-loaded firearm at anyone, especially if the situation literally does not call for it. 






It was a rehearsal, there was no reason to have anything loaded in the gun, blanks or otherwise.  The call "Cold Gun" implies an empty gun.  The gun was never checked to see if it was empty by the ass. (t left out intentionally) director who called "Cold Gun" and handed it to Baldwin.  The gun was not cold, it was hot, and never should have been used in the rehearsal scene. 

DC5 - Posted - 12/04/2021:  04:31:44


quote:

Originally posted by Tommy5

quote:

Originally posted by O.D.

It was reported that the gun was used for target practice at an off sight location prior to use at the film location.

That may explain the live

round in the gun.

The article is on the web,look it up

Everett






Exactly, I read those reports too, of course bringing live ammo on to the movie set is a big no- no, Yes tragedies and accidents often stem from a chain of incidents which add together and spell disaster , any break in the chain would have prevented the accident just like most airplane crashes, as other posters noted there is most likely a shared responsibility for this tragedy,






Guns don't kill people, cutting corners and carelessness does.

O.D. - Posted - 12/04/2021:  05:38:03


I suspect the reported tension and risky conditions on location possibly served as a distraction, becoming a contributing factor

John_j - Posted - 12/04/2021:  06:22:38


I've been using firearms since I was 12 and was ALWAYS taught that YOU are responsible for any firearm you pick up.... It is YOUR responsibility to check that the gun is loaded or not and the only way to know is to unload it, dry fire it, then personally reload it with shells yourself....

Baldwin is responsible.....

Page: 1  2  3  4  

Hide these ads: join the Players Union!

Hangout Network Help

View All Topics  |  View Categories

0.0625