339
Alec Baldwin indicted for involuntary manslaughter in fatal gunfire on film set
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 19 Jan 2024
339 points (95.7% liked)
News
23308 readers
5135 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think any reasoning person would say the answer is "yes". Ultimately you are responsible for your own actions.
Think about it like this, remove the context of this being a movie. Your friend hands you a gun and says it's not loaded, should you check before firing the gun at someone? Your friend hands you a bucket of "not acid" and tells you to throw it on someone. Do you check that it's really not acid first?
It seems like the suggestion is that the film set is removing these base line responsibilities for our own actions and I don't think that's very reasonable.
There's a specific reason the actors aren't supposed to check the gun. They cannot do anything that might fuck with a prop and fucking kill someone. They are to only use the weapon they've been given as instructed. It's the job of the master armorer to ensure that all weapons, prop or otherwise, are properly handled.
This is protocol so it's clear who's at fault when an incident like this happens because they can just trace chain of custody. If Baldwin had checked the gun or handled it in any way other than instructed, he would be liable.
By that logic, if someone drives a car with poor brakes and those defective brakes fail causing an accident, the driver is at fault.
Hey I've seen that movie! Wait, it was a pickup truck in a parade and if I remember correctly, the driver got charged.
In a commercial situation like a monster truck exhibition, there is president that the operator can be held liable for foreseeable mechanical failure that injures people.
This wasn't a kid playing with his mom's gun. It was a commercial production.
Say you're an actor, and I hand you a revolver, assuring you that it is not loaded. The scene it's involved in requires that the hammer is already pulled back (as the character in question is threatening someone at gunpoint).
Should you, the actor, check the chamber? With the hammer back and the cylinder locked, doing this would require a complex maneuver of blocking the hammer with your finger, PULLING THE TRIGGER, and then rotating the cylinder to look at the one that was chambered - then rotating it back, and re-cocking it.
Now imagine, being an actor that is a novice with revolvers, you mix up which spot you're meant to block with your finger. If, as you suggest, there is any chance at all that there's a live round in the chamber, aren't you introducing further risk with this maneuver?
Yes, you should that's like the number one rule of handling actual firearms.
I feel like we are minimizing the fact they were using actual fully functional fire arms on a set which is absolutely not normal.
Sounds like a great argument for the actor first receiving a gun where the hammer is not pulled back.
If you get the gun in a state where safety checks cannot be done safely, someone has fucked up.
It's far better for the actor to know how to cock a hammer, have them go through the safety checks to make sure everything checks out, and then cock the hammer.
Basic gun safety involves handling guns as if they were loaded, so a gun should only be passed to someone without the hammer cocked and also with the safety on, because the gun will be assumed to be loaded by whoever receives it, and handing someone a gun that's loaded with the hammer cocked is a monumentally stupid idea.
Is your friend a professional armorer whose job it is to keep everyone involved safe?