• oNevia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    9 months ago

    Could be mistaken, but I think people were going after Baldwin for this because he was a producer? As in, he funded and hired the armourer so ultimately it was his fault.

    • WarmSoda@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      No, they’re blaming him for physically pointing the gun.

      • Blankmann@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        Average Joe because he pulled the trigger.
        The prosecutor because he was the one on site, in charge, and allowed unsafe conditions to persist even after many employees walked out due to the dangerous conditions.

      • rtxn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        23
        ·
        9 months ago

        He didn’t just point the gun. He had his finger on the trigger, and actually pulled it. Ask any responsible gun owner and you’ll get an earful about it.

        Even if the armourer was found to be responsible, that does not absolve Baldwin’s grossly negligent behaviour.

        • assembly@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          37
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Dude it’s a movie set not a firing range. That’s like saying that since it’s dangerous to drive fast that car chase scenes can’t exceed 25mph. It’s a movie set where the scene calls for people shooting at each other. Of course the actor would assume that the group responsible for making sure the weapons are safe did their job and made sure the weapons were safe. I wouldn’t assume an actor has any idea of how a gun works if it was my job to make sure they have something to point and shoot. The job of the actor is literally to point and shoot in a scene.

          • BrotherL0v3@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            9 months ago

            I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.

            1. It was a gun. An actual, functioning firearm. He knew it was a gun & told the police as much afterwards. There is never any good reason to point a gun at someone you are not currently trying to kill. Even if you ignore the common sense and assume there are somehow different rules for movie sets & using blanks, the other armorer they brought in testified that no one should ever be in the line of fire. He absolutely roasted Reed for not telling Baldwin to not point the gun at people in the footage they played for him.

            2. The scene did not call for him to draw his gun, let alone shoot it. He wasn’t pointing it at another actor and playing a scene where he shoots someone, he was pointing it at someone behind the camera for no good goddamn reason. We saw from the BTS footage played in court that this was not the first time he pointed a gun at the camera and shot it outside the actual filming of the movie.

            3. Baldwin neglected to do the training for the seated cross draw, the same maneuver he was doing when he killed someone. No doubt Reed was negligent, but even she tried to get him to do that.

            I simply do not understand why people are letting Baldwin off the hook. He pointed a loaded gun at someone and pulled the trigger. People fucking die when that happens.

            • PopcornTin@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              9 months ago

              But, you see, he’s one of the good ones. We must rationalize any way we can to save him. Don’t listen to other actors saying they were taught to verify the guns and ammo. Don’t listen to crazy gun nuts who say you don’t point a gun at people no matter what.

              This was purely her fault. Case closed. Do not look any further into it.

          • ITGuyLevi@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            9 months ago

            They do, but not that scene, and they typically stop performing the scene when the director yells cut. On this day though, the scene ended, and a dude decided to play with a gun. That’s just my opinion of the event though, and I haven’t read anywhere near enough about it to make a real decision. From the little I did read though, he wasn’t even supposed to draw the gun in that scene, and the actual shooting took place after the scene was over.

            Had he accidentally pushed over a prop house while rough housing and it crushed a person, would we be blaming the carpenter? Its definitely possible, but I think goofing around and playing with weapons should never be tolerated.

        • cosmicrookie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          In real life yes. In movies, you have armorers who make sure that guns are not loaded or incapable of shooting, so that people can actually do point guns and pull the trigger while pointing at the baddies