Baldwin. Guilty ? Of what ? BANG. Whoops.

PeatPhreak

Well-Known Member
He could be guilty of negligent homicide because he did not have to aim directly at a human. If this isn't a default gun safety rule on movie sets, it should be. I would never aim a gun and fire blanks directly at someone. Because...wait for it......

THEY MIGHT NOT BE BLANKS !!!
 

GreatwhiteNorth

Global Moderator
Staff member
He could be guilty of negligent homicide because he did not have to aim directly at a human. If this isn't a default gun safety rule on movie sets, it should be. I would never aim a gun and fire blanks directly at someone. Because...wait for it......

THEY MIGHT NOT BE BLANKS !!!
Not to mention at close range a blank can kill just as dead as a real round.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
As he should. Simply put, you don't pull a pistol & pretend to shoot it (at all) - but if you haven't personally cleared the weapon you are now very much culpable.
In almost any other circumstance, I would agree at once. But Mr. Baldwin is an actor, and chances are he never held a gun until the role required it. He had reasonable trust in the armorer.
Now, for you and me and everyone else who has spent time with firearms, what you say approaches axiom. I live it. But I do think that this is a minority, special situation, one in which I believe the blame does not go to the person holding the gun.
 

PeatPhreak

Well-Known Member
I doubt it. He reasonably expected the gun to contain blanks. The folks who need to be jailed and sued are the asses who brought live ammo to the set so they could play with the guns.
If the script did not specifically instruct Baldwin to fire directly at the woman operating the camera, then chose to aim there, which he should not have done under any circumstance. Not even with a gun that allegedly contains no bullets.

One of the basic rules of 'gun safety' is never aim a gun at someone unless you are willing to shoot them. If I'm an actor, there is no fucking way I'm aiming a gun with blanks directly at anyone.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
If the script did not specifically instruct Baldwin to fire directly at the woman operating the camera, then chose to aim there, which he should not have done under any circumstance. Not even with a gun that allegedly contains no bullets.

One of the basic rules of 'gun safety' is never aim a gun at someone unless you are willing to shoot them. If I'm an actor, there is no fucking way I'm aiming a gun with blanks directly at anyone.
You are talking as one who knows guns. Baldwin was in a unique position: he did not come from guns, and his job required him to handle one.
Actors have support staff if the scene calls for a car or a trained animal. Similarly with weapons. As a gun-naive individual, Baldwin had a reasonable expectation to have the designated experts take care of him.
 

Singlemalt

Well-Known Member
I'd be very surprised if Baldwin is convicted of any criminal charges; he may get savaged in civil court. Ms Gutierrez-Reed on the other hand will be convicted at the very least on criminal negligence
 

PeatPhreak

Well-Known Member
You are talking as one who knows guns. Baldwin was in a unique position: he did not come from guns, and his job required him to handle one.
Actors have support staff if the scene calls for a car or a trained animal. Similarly with weapons. As a gun-naive individual, Baldwin had a reasonable expectation to have the designated experts take care of him.
He failed to show up for some mandatory gun safety classes. Then this happens. Hmmm...
 

GreatwhiteNorth

Global Moderator
Staff member

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Who pulled the trigger? Wasn’t the gun acting alone. Wrongful death or manslaughter is appropriate. Will be very interesting to see what’s on his phone he isn’t turning over to authorities.
I don't know, but it looks like Baldwin pointed a loaded gun and pulled the trigger. Whether he knew it was loaded I can't say.
I have a bias, I think Baldwin is a jackass.
 
Top