quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:

quote:

Originally posted by DSgrouse:
Baldwin is 100% at fault. My question is who, else down the line was on the scene, set, and also at 100% at fault. There are enough questions for me to wonder if Mrs. Reed was on set prior to Baldwin being handed the firearm. IF she was, then she's 100% at fault just like the assistant director.

That’s not how percentages work. I’m not even sure what you’re trying to say, here.

They can't all be 100% at fault. The numbers don't add up.


.

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
Armorer Hannah Gutierrez Reed

And this matters how?

quote:

Originally posted by sigcrazy7:

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
Armorer Hannah Gutierrez Reed

And this matters how?

Oh, I think the implication is that we’re supposed to make judgements about her based on her appearance. Millennial with a nose ring and a tattoo, or something along those lines.

When I was in theater (in college) our prop gun was an 7mm or something and the only known ammo for it was the actual 'blank' ammo. but yes, put it up close it will still kill/ harm.

But even then I always checked to see if it was loaded and with what type of ammo (live theater gets real funny when the gun just clicks and you have to ad lib, especially when the guy fall down 'shot') it was funny

but yes, clearly this was a handling issue, but with a real firearm. Some procedure somewhere broke down that allowed the gun to be loaded with live ammo in the first place.

I doubt anything will be done, and it will go down as a unfortunate accident. It is sad that she lost her life because an easy to follow procedure broke down.

and no matter how it is spun, the rule remains, "all guns are loaded" And the fact that they were using real weapons and not 'props' just adds to the onus of responsibility of any who's job it was to handle the weapon up to and including Mr. Baldwin.

I would argue that the origin of the true mistake came when they were thinking of 'real' firearms as ' props'.

"That isn't a prop, that is a Colt Army shooting a .44 caliber ball you ignorant wretch"

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
Armorer Hannah Gutierrez Reed

What does that picture demonstrate?
Is it her appearance? If so, what does that demonstrate about the incident?

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
Armorer Hannah Gutierrez Reed

What does that picture demonstrate?
Is it her appearance? If so, what does that demonstrate about the incident?

Or perhaps it just puts a face to the name.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
Armorer Hannah Gutierrez Reed

What does that picture demonstrate?
Is it her appearance? If so, what does that demonstrate about the incident?

I think her shirt says a lot.That is why I posted it.

quote:

I would argue that the origin of the true mistake came when they were thinking of 'real' firearms as ' props'

Redstone - I think that's it in a nutshell.

Can’t link it now but I read a story on Breitbart stating Baldwin wasn’t acting in a scene when he fired the gun. He was describing what he intended to do when the scene was recording. This makes his discharge even more negligent since he had no need for the booger hook and the bang switch.

The next John Wick installment is going to be real interesting with everyone pointing finger guns at each other and saying "Pew Pew".

This thread demonstrates why some jury verdicts are a bizarre headscratcher, and how lynch mobs happen, and why government is so fucked, and why so many disparate groups will never reconcile... watching everyone here try to sort it out, everyone so thoroughly convinced, conclusions flying around every which way, one could teach univeristy level classes using this exchange and its machinations.

Scary.

fuck Alec aldwin, to be sure, but damn. Humans are funny creatures (myself included).

quote:

Originally posted by GrumpyMCO:
The next John Wick installment is going to be real interesting with everyone pointing finger guns at each other and saying "Pew Pew".

The difference is Keanu Reeves actually knows a thing or two about guns. So, apparently, does Halle Berry.

quote:

This thread demonstrates why some jury verdicts are a bizarre headscratcher, and how lynch mobs happen, and why government is so fucked, and why so many disparate groups will never reconcile... watching everyone here try to sort it out, everyone so thoroughly convinced, conclusions flying around every which way, one could teach univeristy level classes using this exchange and its machinations.

Scary.

fuck Alec aldwin, to be sure, but damn. Humans are funny creatures (myself included).

No shit, some of the stuff posted, Just have to shake my head and wonder wtf.....

Bet if this happened to Eastwood or some non anti gun actor, it wouldn't be how he killed someone, it'd be about what left wing hollywood anti gun nut loaded a round in the gun to frame him...

That's just how these stories run, take on a life of their own....

A humble proposition:

When you speak to the uninitiated about guns, friends, relatives, the media, whoever, and the subject of unintended and negligent discharges comes up, call it "a Baldwin," let him have the eternal fame he desires. For example: "He was playing with his gun and had a Baldwin, now his wife is in the hospital."

Once again we have to go to the UK press to get more details:

quote:

Alec Baldwin was practicing a cross draw in a church pew when he accidentally shot and killed cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the set of Rust on Thursday and was 'inconsolable for hours' afterwards, search warrants from the local sheriff's department have revealed.

Alec Baldwin was practicing a cross-draw when he accidentally killed cinematographer: Halyna Hutchins 'stumbled backwards' and 'couldn't feel her legs' after being shot in the chest - as cops seize Baldwin's blood-stained Western costume

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
My wife feels as many of you do. Baldwin is guilty of murder etc. I’m truly trying to understand this POV.

Alex Baldwin is an ignorant, arrogant, hypocritical backside of a donkey who want guns taken away from you and me because they’re dangerous, but he wants to continue to pretend to use them because he thinks he is special.

If some renegade Indian tribe came back, grabbed him, and staked him out over an anthill in the desert I would shed zero tears.

The laws, culture, and legal system being what they currently are, I don’t see him getting a criminal conviction for pulling the trigger, and it is probably even less likely that he’d catch a criminal conviction as a producer. Civilly, he is likely in a world of hurt. Couldn’t happen to a more deserving guy.

If I were king the laws would be changed. Anyone handling a gun on a movie set would be held criminally liable for anything going wrong. Actors would be required to understand how guns work, know “the four universal rules” plus, and know that every time they break one of those rules they are 100% criminally liable if things go wrong. Armorers who set the weapon up and anyone handling the weapon between the armorer and the actor would be 100% criminally liable as well. Guns are not toys. Don’t play with them. If you are going to handle them (on a set or anywhere else), you had better know how they work and how to be safe with them.

Movies probably wouldn’t have as cool scenes as the actors would be busy trying not to piss themselves while doing something dangerous even though they had checked the gun three times themselves after the armorer checked and handed it to them. Tough.

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
This thread demonstrates why some jury verdicts are a bizarre headscratcher, and how lynch mobs happen, and why government is so fucked, and why so many disparate groups will never reconcile... watching everyone here try to sort it out, everyone so thoroughly convinced, conclusions flying around every which way, one could teach university level classes using this exchange and its machinations.

Indeed.

As I've read this thread and reviewed what scant information so far available, my suspicion is this will probably end up a case of contributory negligence. Certainly Baldwin, the guy who actually pulled the trigger, shares a degree of the blame, but so too, IMO, does the armorer and the movie's producers.

But IANAL, so what do I know?

In the larger sense the entire Hollyweird culture shares some of the blame--though the Hollyweird "culture" can hardly be named in a lawsuit or criminal action, I imagine.

On the one hand the Hollyweird "culture" decries "gun violence" and on the other exploits it for fame and profit. If Hollyweird, as a "culture," really wanted to do something positive to reduce "gun violence," they'd produce fewer movies glorifying it and they'd soft-pedal what gun-play was necessary for the plots.

That ain't likely to happen. Too much money to be made. So perhaps curing the Hollyweird "culture"s ignorance regarding firearms is a solution? Sort of an "Eddie Eagle for Hollyweird" kind of a program?

It occurs to me one thing Hollyweird could do to improve safety on the set where firearms are part of the story: Require any actor or actress that will be handling firearms to be well-versed in The Real Deal. As I noted in my prior post: I suspect Keanu Reeves probably wouldn't have been caught-out like Alec Baldwin was. Probably not Halle Berry, either. They both trained with The Real Deal.

In the instant case: Had Alec Baldwin participated in Cowboy Action Shooting, would he not have been far less likely to have handled a revolver so imprudently?

This is not likely to happen, either, but perhaps it should?

quote:

Originally posted by ulsterman:
Someone explain why you would have a real, loaded gun on a movie/TV set?

To protect yourself from leftist actors?

Those guys can be dangerous.

I just want the responsibility to be placed where it belongs. Charges, consequences whatever they be are not my first concern. Selfish bullies like Alec try to escape the consequences of their behaviors by displacing, denying or ignoring blame. To the extent they successfully escape consequence they continue to be destructive having never learned and likely never wanting to learn. So I’m not declaring him a murderer. Clearly he didn’t intend to kill the cinematographer. Not sure prison time is even appropriate. But I’d like to see him write a fat check and have to wear a shameful seal over his mouth until the end of his days. His tail should hang low from now on.

If this was your friends house and he handed you a gun and and you shot someone with it, whose fault would it be? Is the gun owner the "armorer" in this case since its his gun and house? Would you still be liable?