quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
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.

Oh, he's definitely going to be sued into oblivion. Not for his role as an Actor pulling the trigger on a gun while rehearsing on set, but as the Producer who allowed this clusterfuck to happen.

The Armorer might actually be pinned down with criminal charges depending on the actual facts. Some jurisdictions allow manslaughter charges for gross negligence/wanton disregard etc. We don't know enough about the specific circumstances on how live ammo made it on set, but if she was involved, she may be found directly responsible for those deaths even.

If you look at it from a criminal standpoint, a person who fills a wine bottle with poison knowing that the bottle will be passed around at dinner doesn't absolve herself of responsibility simply because she didn't pour the fatal drink. If the bottle was filled intentionally, you'd call that person a murderer. If that bottle was filled by a person acting with gross negligence/wanton disregard for human life/etc., That person may be liable for manslaughter.

quote:

Originally posted by Pyker:

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:

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.


.

To you and smudge, sure as hell they can. Every person who handled that firearm had a responsibility to check if it was loaded. That is a minimum of 3 failures if we have the facts,

1 the armorer, 100% failure to check if it was loaded then handed the gun off.
2 The assistant Director, 100 % failure to check and see if it was loaded then handed the gun off.
3 The actor/producer alec, 100% failure to check to see if the gun was loaded, took someone at their word instead of verifying. Killed someone, wounded a second.

Any one of those three people would have stopped this incident from happening if they had simply done the singular act of checking the gun. They are all, if we have accurate facts, equally culpable for her death. Even though, alec is the asshat who pulled the trigger.

bullets like words can never be taken back
Aint that right, alex?

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:

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.

Like it or not, humans place value on appearance. If I walked into a bank CEO's office in flip flops, shorts, and a t-shirt, sporting tats, instead of a suit and tie, there'd likely be an push made to replace me. Though it likely shouldn't, credibility/capability is often tied to appearance.

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:

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.

But did they function/safety check every gun handed to them on the sets of the Wick movies? Who knows, but I'd doubt it. I think all of us need to re-think our positions given a movie set is not the reality we all deal with daily. Case in point. Would you allow anyone to handle, load, and manage your guns for you? I damn sure wouldn't. Way too much risk involved. But on a movie set, that appears to be the norm. And again, I'm not suggesting what's right or wrong, just that this environment is not the environment we live in, and as such, different rules are in play.

quote:

Originally posted by darkest2000:

quote:

Originally posted by Aeteocles:
Look at it like this.

Supposed an actor is to drive a vehicle directly at the camera and camera man. (Like pointing a gun at someone.)

The vehicle is supposed to be set up expressly for this purpose such that the vehicle is prevented from actually hitting the camera and camera operator. In this case, the vehicle is supposed to be attached to an arresting wire that will safely stop the car 12 inches from the camera. (Like the gun was supposed to be made safe/cold whatever)

The Actor gets in the car and does exactly as directed and rehearsed. The car was never made safe, and tragically, the camera operator is struck by the vehicle and is killed. (Like Alec pointing and pulling the trigger)

Who is at fault? The Actor who depressed the gas pedal on a real car with it pointed at a person? Or the special effects master who is literally hired expressly to create this stunt safely?

It's unbelievable that some people on this forum can't even grasp this concept.

From what I can tell they grasp the concept just fine, they just disagree with the premise that someone who will be aiming and firing a real firearm at another person can delegate to someone else the responsibility to ensure that the weapon is safe. It's not unreasonable to suggest that the person handling and "firing" the firearm is responsible for determining whether it is safe even if others are too, given that this is the rule we all live by.

The analogy above assumes that the actor is competent to determine whether the arresting cable will function properly, which is a dubious proposition. Regardless, you do not have to be a mechanical engineer to determine whether a firearm is loaded and I agree that anyone who will be using one in the manner Baldwin did should be charged with that responsibility (independent of who else may also be responsible). It would be foolish to do what these people were doing without having multiple layers of safety in place, up to and including the person firing the gun.

Several sources suggest that the cast/crew's reference to a "live round" being in the pistol means a blank, not a bullet. Even blanks have to be treated with respect, but knowing what round was in the gun is pretty critical to figuring out who is culpable here and we don't even know that. The analysis is very different if this was a live round (loaded with a bullet, like we understand the term) as opposed to, say, a blank with a hardened wad and a heavy powder charge.

There is no doubt that Baldwin is a bad guy and it's very likely that he was negligent here. Whether his conduct was criminal is impossible to know at this point.

quote:

Originally posted by DaveL:
The analysis is very different if this was a live round (loaded with a bullet, like we understand the term) as opposed to, say, a blank with a hardened wad and a heavy powder charge.

I think, given the information we do know thus far, that the round fired was indeed a 'real' round. Again, per the info provided, the round passed through the body of the woman videographer and into the producer standing behind her. I doubt a blank round could behave in that manner.

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:...
That’s not how percentages work. I’m not even sure what you’re trying to say, here.

2 yutes, walk into the sack-o-suds and one of them shoots Jimmy with a .357 magnum revolver, and then drive away, in great haste.

Then, later are arrested, by Sheriff Tillman in Jasper County, Georgia, for driving a stolen metallic mint green 1963 Pontiac Tempest, with a white convertible top, Michelin Model XGV tires, size 75-R-14.

And both charged with first degree murder.

One gun, one shot, one person killed and two charges of 100% first degree murder.

Now, tell the class again, how math works.

Becuase you are not understanding what those saying about all involved being 100% responsible for their own actions.

It is not a pie, it's a full course meal.

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:...
That’s not how percentages work. I’m not even sure what you’re trying to say, here.

2 yutes, walk into the sack-o-suds and one of them shoots Jimmy with a .357 magnum revolver, and then drive away, in great haste.

Then, later are arrested, by Sheriff Tillman in Jasper County, Georgia, for driving a stolen metallic mint green 1963 Pontiac Tempest, with a white convertible top, Michelin Model XGV tires, size 75-R-14.

And both charged with first degree murder.

One gun, one shot, one person killed and two charges of 100% first degree murder.

Now, tell the class again, how math works.

Becuase you are not understanding what those saying about all involved being 100% responsible for their own actions.

It is not a pie, it's a full course meal.

Did you say yutes?

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:...
That’s not how percentages work. I’m not even sure what you’re trying to say, here.

2 yutes, walk into the sack-o-suds and one of them shoots Jimmy with a .357 magnum revolver, and then drive away, in great haste.

Then, later are arrested, by Sheriff Tillman in Jasper County, Georgia, for driving a stolen metallic mint green 1963 Pontiac Tempest, with a white convertible top, Michelin Model XGV tires, size 75-R-14.

And both charged with first degree murder.

One gun, one shot, one person killed and two charges of 100% first degree murder.

Now, tell the class again, how math works.

Becuase you are not understanding what those saying about all involved being 100% responsible for their own actions.

It is not a pie, it's a full course meal.

Did you say yutes?

Excuse me, your honor.

Two YOUTHS.

Of course Hannah Montana would remove the spent casing prior to giving the gun to the sheriff.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
I doubt a blank round could behave in that manner.

If it did, it wasn’t a “blank” regardless of what it was intended to be. And no, I don’t believe that anything that performed like that was intended to be a blank in any case.

I would bet a nickel that what happened was that the gun wasn’t properly cleared of live ammunition after it was previously used with live rounds. Just speculation at this point, but it seems most likely. Single Action Army type revolvers are probably the most difficult handguns to fully unload and clear if one doesn’t know what they’re doing. I was present at the execution of a search warrant when an ATF agent had to ask a member of the Army CID crime lab how to unload and check a Colt SAA. If the movie armorer had to ask for help from her father about just loading blank rounds, the fact she wasn’t familiar with the operation of that type of revolver would hardly be surprising. (That’s not to excuse her negligence, BTW. Undertake a job, and you’re responsible to know how to perform it.)

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by DaveL:
The analysis is very different if this was a live round (loaded with a bullet, like we understand the term) as opposed to, say, a blank with a hardened wad and a heavy powder charge.

I think, given the information we do know thus far, that the round fired was indeed a 'real' round. Again, per the info provided, the round passed through the body of the woman videographer and into the producer standing behind her. I doubt a blank round could behave in that manner.

Do we? Has a report been issued with details of the slug that was fired, what its composition was, the shell casing, were the rest of the rounds in the gun actual blanks or live rounds?, who loaded them, who made them, how were they marked or labeled, as blanks? Were any of them improperly manufactured or labeled. How far away from the camera and cinematographer was Baldwin when he fired the round, 20 feet, 10 feet, 5 feet, was the armorer present when the assistant director grabbed the gun off the table, was she asked which gun to use, is there film of the event,
Yes he pulled the trigger, no question, he's admitted that no doubt.

All kinds of information is needed to make a decent conclusion on culpability of one or all involved.

The thread direction is consistent with the innuendo and conjecture that occurs in shooting threads that start before the results are in. If not for the shooter being Alec Baldwin, would we normally be discussing this at this early point?

To date there are zero confirmed facts, just what we read in the open press, nothing but quotes from "observers who were present". Ask a dozen people who see an accident what happened and you're likely to get a dozen different recounts of what occurred, many wrong .


Once the ME and State of NM release the findings we'll know what happened

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:

It is not a pie, it's a full course meal.

It's not a full course meal if they use instant grits.

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by bigdeal:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by DaveL:


If not for the shooter being Alec Baldwin, would we normally be discussing this at this early point?

Yeah, what if it was Michael Moore?

According to this article, crew members were spending off time shooting the guns for target practice while waiting around.

The guns keep being referred to in the press as blank guns, as if they don't shoot real bullets.

Apparently that's not what they were, but real guns that were supposed to be fitted with blanks. This also shows where the live ammo likely came from. Baldwin was practicing his cross-draw technique for a scene and obviously not using even the most basic gun handling safety procedures, including using real people to practice his aiming.

https://nypost.com/2021/10/24/...-set-for-fun-report/

Apparently Baldwin was practicing his crossdraw when he shot two crew members.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertai...-know-165452345.html

.

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:
Now, tell the class again, how math works.

Becuase you are not understanding what those saying about all involved being 100% responsible for their own actions.

It is not a pie, it's a full course meal.

Then we should probably forego the percentage stuff. There’s only 100% of a pie, and for me, the guy who pulled the trigger is the guy who owns all of it. It truly does not matter how many others screwed up before he did, he was the one who pulled the trigger. Sure, others contributed but we wouldn’t be having this thread had he checked the gun.

Jones was right, and I need to actually be done with this debate as nobody is going to convince me otherwise, nor vice-versa.

quote:

Originally posted by RichardC:

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by bigdeal:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by DaveL:


If not for the shooter being Alec Baldwin, would we normally be discussing this at this early point?

Yeah, what if it was Michael Moore?

As the cinematographer? Sure. Let's imagine that

For some reason I feel like more than 1 person can be 100% responsible in something like this. If you take a gallon of water and divide it amongst 4 quart containers, each container is 100% full. It doesn’t mean you now have 400% of the original amount. It’s the same gallon of water.

Maybe basic math doesn’t work in matters of culpability?

quote:

Originally posted by kkina:
For some reason I feel like more than 1 person can be 100% responsible in something like this. If you take a gallon of water and divide it amongst 4 quart containers, each container is 100% full. It doesn’t mean you now have 400% of the original amount. It’s the same gallon of water.

Maybe basic math doesn’t work in matters of culpability?

It's semantics.

Say the prop master, armorer, and Baldwin were all in charge of making sure the gun was safe so one was shot. If any one of them had done their job properly this wouldn't have happened so all 3 were 100% negligent in their respective duties because they 100% failed to do their job. That's one way of looking at culpability -- as a practical matter.

As a civil legal matter, the fact that someone was shot and killed on a movie set means there was negligence. They can all point fingers at each other and the jury will determine who bears what percent of the responsibility and, consequently, who pays which portion of the judgment, but the fault will be allocated among the defendants in proportion to their respective degree of fault. That only adds up to 100% because that's how the law deals with situations where multiple people's negligence contributes to a harm. That doesn't mean the above point isn't valid, it's just a different way of looking at culpability.