1911Forum banner
81 - 100 of 136 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
15,979 Posts
It will probably keep happening because Hollywood liberals never accept fault or learn from it. They’d rather as in this case point fingers and blame everyone else.
Sadly, this is probably true.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
96 Posts
What could he possibly be upset about? "Baldwin alleged that the gun he was holding—which he was unaware contained live rounds—fired without him pulling the trigger." It was not his fault. His defense is simple enough. Load the gun and stand back and wait until it fires without its trigger being pulled. Better yet, to be on the safe side, don't load it, just sit around and wait until it snaps on an empty chamber. Same difference.

Either way demonstrates that guns, or at least the gun in question, have minds of their own.

I don't know anything about New Mexico juries but I'm thinking "tough sell."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,012 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
320 Posts
I strongly disagree - you can't bring all of this stupidity down and blame it all on one person ( I suppose a court feels that it has no choice). A huge number of rules were violated on that set - there's enough irresponsibility to go around and be equally distributed. The people who agreed to huddle around a camera and allow a stupid actor to point an unchecked weapon at them were beyond stupid. The woman who was killed could have stopped the stupidity at any time but did not. None of those people were mature enough to be allowed near firearms for the same exact reason we don't allow children to play with firearms.
Stupidity is not a crime. There is an armorer on movie sets to prevent such tragedies. Baldwin is many things, but he is not paid to inspect props, let alone firearms, nor verify safety and operable condition. Is he at fault for negligence? Possibly, but the buck starts and stops with the firearms "expert" for the film who is hired to do one thing: ensure the safe handling and operation of all firearms on location.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,188 Posts
I disagree. ^^^. That is a line right out of the pass the buck playbook. He had the gun, he was responsible to check it. If he is too stupid to check it then a responsible actor with intelligence should be chosen
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
648 Posts
Yes, stupidity can very well be a crime. DUI, Hit & Run, Not being responsible for the projectile you launched, Reclus driving, running a stop sign, etc. on & on stupidity.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,301 Posts
gator-klusky - you actually believe that the job of an armorer is to prevent people from shooting other people? REALLY? Even if that was true (its not) would you personally allow someone else to point a gun at you (or your wife) that you had no idea if it was loaded or not and tell you that it was safe and now I'm going to cock the hammer and pull the trigger but don't worry - its OK - I am an armorer and it's OK - the gun is loaded with blanks? And you cannot check the gun because you're not being paid to do that and you're not an armorer. How many people here would agree to that?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,448 Posts
Movie, prop gun protocols,... are precise and definitive!

Armorer is to inspect and confirm the prop gun to be clear, before putting in a safe, and, after removing it. Then, again, in the presence of the receiving actor, who upon receiving the prop gun, in turn, is to verify the prop gun to be clear, in front of the armorer, and, upon returning to armorer, after the scene/camera shoot is finished. Then, armorer is to clear the prop gun before locking in a safe.

This is what I have read, maybe not word for word, but close enough,...it, having been published, by commenting armorers, in the business.

The armorer in this incident was the daughter of a long time, hollywood armorer considered on of the better, if not one of the best. She was taught by him, from a young age, how to handle firearms, before becoming a movie armorer.

This, I have also read.

For me, these protocols could not have been carried out!

For me, either the armorer failed to follow protocol,... or, Baldwin, a well know ego freak ahole, took a shortcut and flagged her off,..... which is on her and him!

But, I believe this has already been posted here,... I can't believe some of the latest and ignorant posts, from some who obviously have not read up on this,... here, or, in other publications.

I'm afraid, this is turning into the classic,... beating a dead horse scenario!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,448 Posts
Yes, stupidity can very well be a crime. DUI, Hit & Run, Not being responsible for the projectile you launched, Reclus driving, running a stop sign, etc. on & on stupidity.
Actually, no,... not in the strictest legal sense of the word, from what I have learned.

Now,... the resulting damages from stupidity, that is another can of worms,... most likely for a civil court to figure out.

Case in point,.... had a neighbor, about 10 miles across the desert at his nut orchard, who let some clear burning, get away from him on a windy day,... no major structural damages, but,... no charges filed, either. Just being stupid, cleared him on that one.

I heard of another case, where a guy was welding in his garage full of cardboard boxes,... and set his house on fire. Insurance paid, after he basically claimed it as,... just a stupid accident.

Go figure!!! :oops:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,003 Posts
"The buck stops with the armorer as they are supposed to be the "expert" The problem with that logic is that the armorer doesn't get to tell people to stand in front of a person holding a gun and pointing it at them while shooting "blanks". The Director did that. Guns are never ever pointed at people when making films in a professional setting. They are pointed at an "aiming point" - which is usually a mirror that reflects the image to the camera or they are pointed to a remote camera with NOBODY BEHIND IT. A number of stupid people caused this incident to become a needless tragedy. The armorer is only one of those stupid people. People on that set had been complaining loudly for weeks and actual professionals who knew that something very bad was going to happen had walked off the job - but no one listened until someone was killed. Baldwin has no excuse for not knowing better and for not listening to his own people. He is an arrogant ass. The armorer was an irresponsible idiot but she was not the Director and was not in charge of placing people around the scene.
Hmmmm. :unsure: If that armorer simply did her job, that revolver would have been loaded with blanks in the first place. Not live ammunition, which "she"shouldn't have allowed on the set in the first place. And based on "that logic" the DP would still be alive today because the blanks wouldn't have killed anyone. No matter who was standing in front of whom. Jeesh! :rolleyes:

I'm done responding to this thread, which has devolved into total ignorance. :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,003 Posts
!!! ^(y)^ (y)^ (y)^ !!!

Brandon Lee was killed by a blank, on set,.... what more does that industry need to know!!!:mad:
That wasn't a regular blank. It was a squib load that lodged a bullet or some kind of projectile in the barrel. Then the armorer failed to check it and the next time it was fired, the blank forced the lodged projectile into Brandon Lee, killing him.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,301 Posts
Hmmmm. :unsure: If that armorer simply did her job, that revolver would have been loaded with blanks in the first place. Not live ammunition, which "she"shouldn't have allowed on the set in the first place. And based on "that logic" the DP would still be alive today because the blanks wouldn't have killed anyone. No matter who was standing in front of whom. Jeesh! :rolleyes:

I'm done responding to this thread, which has devolved into total ignorance. :rolleyes:
Unbelievable.......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26,631 Posts
So I guess that this is the next stage of the whitewash propaganda. He surrenders his phone in a week. No doubt after having been gone over thoroughly by Dimitri, Boris, and Yuri the guys that took over the Colonial pipeline last year. And they will come back with the statement that no incriminating evidence was found on MR. Baldwins phone. Further vindicating him from any culpability.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,529 Posts
1. First and foremost everyone on set would attend a firearms safety brief covering the basic gun handling rules. If I saw anyone not following my rules for gun handling they wouldnt be able to carry a firearm on or off set. As the armorer My Rules; break any of them…you’re out. I am always right and the final authority about everything Gun related; including loading and unloading the guns.

2. If I were the armorer the guns would have been locked in a safe that I either had the only keys to it or the only one with the combination. The boys and girls would not be shooting live rounds in the desert between takes. Any and all ammo that I did not issue to a character for a particular scene would be issued by me for that scene only.

3. Rule #3 is fairly simple - any questions, refer to Rule #1.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,188 Posts
Hmmmm. :unsure: If that armorer simply did her job, that revolver would have been loaded with blanks in the first place. Not live ammunition, which "she"shouldn't have allowed on the set in the first place. And based on "that logic" the DP would still be alive today because the blanks wouldn't have killed anyone. No matter who was standing in front of whom. Jeesh! :rolleyes:

I'm done responding to this thread, which has devolved into total ignorance. :rolleyes:
How many times have you asked to see a gun at the range, gun shop, etc. and it was given to you. Did you just pull tbe hammer back and check the trigger? Hope not… Anyone receiving a firearm is responsible to verify its loaded/unloaded status before anything else is done with the firearm. From early reports, the set was loosely run and at the time there was no reason to have the gun out…it wasn’t in the scene. IIRC, the subject gun was used for target shooting shortly before the present scene. That is bad juju.

I can attest to Baldwin being accountable for his part (multifaceted) in this incident. One of the hardest things I ever did was playing paint ball and airsoft forthe first time. I cannot state how many times I looked at the marker/airsoft to verify it wasn’t a firearm. I was the one who would pull the trigger, I was responsible when I did pull the trigger on the marker and later, the air soft gun.

Furthermore, if Baldwin ever did personally target shoot with that handgun (he reportedly did) then he demonstrated a certain level operational knowledge. He is responsible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AZdesert1911

·
Registered
Joined
·
96 Posts
I think that anyone commenting on/to this thread really should have read the entire complaint, which is linked to this New York Post article.


It helps to keep in mind two things. Ms. Reed's lawsuit is a civil matter, for money damages, has nothing to do with criminal liability. The standard of proof in a civil case is preponderance of the evidence, i.e., more likely than not. Think of it as a 51% probability. The standard in a criminal case is "beyond a reasonable doubt."

You can read whatever you want into her lawyers filing the lawsuit. But there is one pregnant as all hell fact recited in the complaint that doesn't help her a bit. The "sixth" "dummy round," described in ppg 48, 49, and 56, appears to have been the live round, differed from the other five "dummy rounds" in that it did not have a hole drilled in the case. Ms. Reed "shook" it to ascertain that it was indeed an inert round. I do not know enough about what passes for the state of movie armorers art or skills but a hole in the casing seems to me a pretty good way to ensure no powder is inside. "Shaking?" I dunno. I guess even a hole in the case doesn't mean a live primer wouldn't project a bullet from the piece. But I don't know.

This admission, through her lawyers, in my opinion, doesn't seem to help her avoid prosecution for for negligent homicide at all. Au contraire. As for Mr. Baldwyn. Come on, he pointed the gun, pulled the trigger, killed the victim. Will he be indicted? Do not know. He's an easy guy to hate but that doesn't change the facts. Let's say he did everything right, examined each chamber, saw there were rounds with primers in each. Should he have removed and inspected each round? Would he know enough to shake the one with no hole? What would he be shaking it for? The sound of powder inside? Or merely feeling the powder inside? What if it were stuffed so full of powder such that it neither sounded or felt "wrong?"

Again, Mr. Baldwyn is an easy guy to hate, but Ms. Reed's complaint seems to exculpate him.

The whole bunch of them, Mr. Baldwyn, Ms. Reed, the lawyers who drafted and filed her lawsuit, all come away looking pretty deficient in the brains department.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
96 Posts
So she "shook" it? Really? I have no words for these people......
I'm telling you, what the lawyers are thinking about is a pretty good question. I don't think it counts as a confession. But as a general rule lawyers are not permitted to make material misrepresentations to a court, any court. Note the introductory paragraph of the complaint that says, "upon information and belief." In other words the lawyer doesn't know but is repeating what his/her investigation revealed. How could he/she know Ms. Reed shook the cartridge in question, unless she said so.

Perhaps somebody knows more than I do about live and dummy rounds, and what exactly professional armorers do, but an intact primer would scare me, with or without a hole drilled in the case. I know her dad is a great handgun figure and I don't intend any disrespect to anybody but firearms safety is not genetically-acquired. Everybody can think of a highly skilled professional with a less accomplished kid. The set/production company seems to me at least a fairly slipshod operation.

This horrible tragedy is going to "tried" in the court of public opinion. In other words the actual legality is a side issue. With a well-known fellow like Mr. Baldwyn blithely declaring (through a George Stephanopoulos interview) the weapon discharged on its own without human involvement what are the Saturday Night Live folks going to believe? Obviously he wouldn't lie and they certainly do not know. More grist for the gun control mill.
 
81 - 100 of 136 Posts
Top