Alec Baldwin facing prison and shouldnt be.

[John T]

And finally Baldwin for missing the mandatory training as well as being the one to pull the trigger.

Baldwin claims he never pulled the trigger.....

he must think we are all idiots.

 

[fried1765]

So should the actor go to jail if he yanks the controls and crashes the plane after being told by a "pro" who set the plane up that the controls are not operational? Actors arent pros at whatever they are pretending to do and rely on a real pro to guide them.

Just WHO would be "flying" a plane with the controls not hooked up.
"Flying" cannnot be done without active flight controls
That airplane, would at best be "flying" down a taxiway.

 

[D2Cat]

Observing posts made over the few years Motionclone has been a member, I'm guessing this thread has a bit of sarcasm in it!

The topic is like discussing if referees do a bad job in an NFL game after the game is over. Who really cares?

Dealing with an obnoxious actor with an enlarged ego is not worth anyone's time that I know of.

 

[DaveFromMi]

I taught firearms safety at the PPC course for the police dept I worked at.

I’m NOT a movie producer, director, or actor tho’.

And there’s no reason to turn this into a hateful ad hominem attack.

Firearms and hunter safety training should be taught in the schools in order to prevent other Baldwin's from getting out there.

 

[GeoHorn]

From 39 years of professional flying I can tell you that any/every pilot will do several control checks before takeoff.
Yours is a very weak analogy.

That’s because a real pilot about to fly a real airplane does flight-control checks. But a “pretend pilot” operating a “movie-prop” airplane probably will not.

I think your distaste for Baldwin is unduly influencing your opinion when you accuse him of arrogant-lying. In the moment of “pretending to shoot a pretend-gun at a camera-lens”…and being Shocked when the damn thing actually goes OFF…. He likely (and subconsciously) knows he did NOT intend for the gun to actually Discharge a Live Round and kill someone…. and HAD to be SHOCKED.

It is not uncommon for disaster-victims to have no clear recollection of their actions. IN fact it is quite common for them to recall events INcorrectly.
I believe him when he “believes” he did not intend to shoot a person by pulling a trigger.

 

[motionclone]

Just WHO would be "flying" a plane with the controls not hooked up.
"Flying" cannnot be done without active flight controls
That airplane, would at best be "flying" down a taxiway.

Whether its an airplane or a real life flying dragon, or a pistol, the actor relys on a professional trained to deal with that specific prop because its the kind of prop that can be dangerous.

 

[fried1765]

That’s because a real pilot about to fly a real airplane does flight-control checks. But a “pretend pilot” operating a “movie-prop” airplane probably will not.

I think your distaste for Baldwin is unduly influencing your opinion when you accuse him of arrogant-lying. In the moment of “pretending to shoot a pretend-gun at a camera-lens”…and being Shocked when the damn thing actually goes OFF…. He likely (and subconsciously) knows he did NOT intend for the gun to actually Discharge a Live Round…. and HAD to be SHOCKED.

It is not uncommon for disaster-victims to have no clear recollection of their actions. I believe him when he “believes” he did not intend to shoot a person by pulling a trigger.

So: The conclusion one should draw is:
Because an actor is not a regular gun user, he should not check a gun for being "clear"
when it is handed to him?
Who briefed him on the use of that firearm?
Stupidity = involuntary manslaughter....at an absolute minimum !

Baldwin may certainly have said that he did not intended to shoot the victim.
You are muddying the water!
Baldwin very arrogantly stated that HE DID NOT PULL THE TRIGGER!
He did not say that he did not "remember" pulling the trigger.
Obviously, he told a bold faced lie!

 

[GeoHorn]

So: The conclusion one should draw is:
Because an actor is not a regular gun user, he should not check a gun for being "clear"
when it is handed to him?
Stupidity = involuntary manslaughter....at an absolute minimum !

Baldwin may certainly have said that he did not intended to shoot the victim.
You are muddying the water!
Baldwin said that HE DID NOT PULL THE TRIGGER!
Obviously, a bold faced lie!

It may NOT be a lie. I may be his recollection because of his SHOCK. If you flew then you know that airplane accidents are COMMONLY seen by the participants completely erroneously in their beliefs.

I think HE BELIEVES it…that he did not pull the trigger. That would not be a lie. It would probably be an erroneous recollection.

 

[fried1765]

It may NOT be a lie. I may be his recollection because of his SHOCK. If you flew then you know that airplane accidents are COMMONLY seen by the participants completely erroneously in their beliefs.

I think HE BELIEVES it…that he did not pull the trigger. That would not be a lie. It would probably be an erroneous recollection.

Yep.....that's it.....erroneous recollection !
But: Baldwin did not just "see" the gun, he was actually holding it in his hand!

 

[GreensvilleJay]

re: the actor cranks the yoke over thinking the controls aren't really hooked but they are and the plane crashes should that actor go to jail?

yes, as he WAS the 'pilot in command'. maybe not jail, but HE is responsible,MUST be punished.
It took me 9 hours of 'dual' before I got to 'solo', more than 1/2 century ago


1st I don't care what occupation the person has... it is NOT relevant
2nd 'thinking is NOT the same as 'knowing'..there IS a BIG difference

3rd EVERYONE handing a firearm HAS to have training or safety course or whatever you want to call it BEFORE actually holding a firearm in 'movieland'.

 

[North Idaho Wolfman]

Has anyone here handled or shot an OLD single action pistol or rifle?
I have and it's quite possible to "drop the hammer" and have it go off.
I watched an interview with video footage that he did exactly that.
So yes it's possible to fire a gun without pulling the trigger.

Now they have already settled the civil suit (money suit), this suit is about accountability.

I'm not a lawyer or any part of the legal system, so these are just thoughts or opinions:

Was his actions reckless pointing a gun at a camera, not really, you see it all the time in the movies.
As an actor, you do what the director / camera operator/ cinematographer tell you to do.

Was his actions reckless is hiring someone under / non qualified to do a job YES!

Was the armorer at fault for any part of this 1000% YES!
It was her job to make sure the armor was safe to be used as it was being used!

 

[Alfred_2345]

So yes it's possible to fire a gun without pulling the trigger.

The Probable Cause statement that I linked to earlier says the FBI tested the gun and it was NOT possible to discharge it without pulling the trigger. See page 3. I have seen other analysis that this particular model of revolver cannot be discharged as you suggest.

Was his actions reckless pointing a gun at a camera, not really, you see it all the time in the movies.

Actually yes it was reckless as it should not have been a real gun. A "rubber or replica" gun should have been used in a rehersal. (See page 8, end of 4th paragraph)
If you read the entire document, many safety protocols were viloated.

BTW: There were two prior negligent discharges on the set. Bottom of page 6 / top of pg 7.

 

[North Idaho Wolfman]

The Probable Cause statement that I linked to earlier says the FBI tested the gun and it was NOT possible to discharge it without pulling the trigger. See page 3. I have seen other analysis that this particular model of revolver cannot be discharged as you suggest.


Actually yes it was reckless as it should not have been a real gun. A "rubber or replica" gun should have been used in a rehersal. (See page 8, end of 4th paragraph)
If you read the entire document, many safety protocols were viloated.

BTW: There were two prior negligent discharges on the set. Bottom of page 6 / top of pg 7.

Well I stand corrected.
Did not read all the info, my bad, I don't have a pony in this race.

 

[Alfred_2345]

@North Idaho Wolfman
Thank you for the reponse. These days too many folks just want to shout at each other and won't actually listen to what is being said or to look at the facts.

 

[aaluck]

I taught firearms safety at the PPC course for the police dept I worked at.

Given your quote below please tell me didn't teach firearms safety.

No, he did not aim it an another person. He aimed it at a camera-lens. The director stood behind he camera lens to see what the camera would see.

If I aim at a deer and a person is standing behind the deer.... My weapon IS aimed at that person.

I can just picture the firearms safety class you taught. Did you teach that if there are good guys standing behind the bad guys.. DON'T SHOOT or FIRE?

 

[aaluck]

I think she porked up a bit.... might be a big spider....

Nothing screams gun expert like purple hair!!

 

[mcmxi]

Brandon Lee was killed on the set of The Crow in a similar manner in that the set armorer was criminally negligent. If I remember correctly, a bullet was lodged in the barrel and a blank fired which forced the bullet out of the barrel and into Brandon Lee. Was the actor in that scenario responsible for the death of Brandon Lee? Should the actor have looked down the barrel to make sure that no object was lodged in the barrel?

Acting with firearms violates one of the tenets of firearms safety i.e. "never point a firearm at anyone or anything that you don't intend to kill". It also violates other firearms safety tenets such as "know what's beyond your target" or "keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot". All of this talk about firearms safety is ludicrous within the context of movie making. Many rules are violated downstream, but it's the responsibility of the armorer and others to make sure that none of the rules are violated upstream to ensure a safe working environment.

I'm not a fan of Alec Baldwin either but I don't consider him to be responsible for this tragedy, unless it can be proven that he was criminally negligent in some way such as hiring an incompetent individual to handle firearms safety on set. If he believed the armorer to be competent, or he delegated the hiring of the armorer then he's certainly not responsible for what happened. He is not a firearms expert so naturally would defer to the on-set expert or armorer.

 

[D2Cat]

That’s because a real pilot about to fly a real airplane does flight-control checks. But a “pretend pilot” operating a “movie-prop” airplane probably will not.

I think your distaste for Baldwin is unduly influencing your opinion when you accuse him of arrogant-lying. In the moment of “pretending to shoot a pretend-gun at a camera-lens”…and being Shocked when the damn thing actually goes OFF…. He likely (and subconsciously) knows he did NOT intend for the gun to actually Discharge a Live Round and kill someone…. and HAD to be SHOCKED.

It is not uncommon for disaster-victims to have no clear recollection of their actions. IN fact it is quite common for them to recall events INcorrectly.
I believe him when he “believes” he did not intend to shoot a person by pulling a trigger.

Remember his occupation. He's a professional at making others believe what he does and says.

 

[fried1765]

Has anyone here handled or shot an OLD single action pistol or rifle?
I have and it's quite possible to "drop the hammer" and have it go off.
I watched an interview with video footage that he did exactly that.
So yes it's possible to fire a gun without pulling the trigger.

Now they have already settled the civil suit (money suit), this suit is about accountability.

I'm not a lawyer or any part of the legal system, so these are just thoughts or opinions:

Was his actions reckless pointing a gun at a camera, not really, you see it all the time in the movies.
As an actor, you do what the director / camera operator/ cinematographer tell you to do.

Was his actions reckless is hiring someone under / non qualified to do a job YES!

Was the armorer at fault for any part of this 1000% YES!
It was her job to make sure the armor was safe to be used as it was being used!

"So yes it's possible to fire a gun without pulling the trigger"

Yes...it is possible to fire SOME guns with out pulling the trigger, but......
The FBI report stated, that it was not possible for the gun that Baldwin used, to fire without pulling the trigger!

 

[mcmxi]

Has anyone here handled or shot an OLD single action pistol or rifle?
I have and it's quite possible to "drop the hammer" and have it go off.

I've owned a few single action revolvers over the years. I had a pair of sequentially numbered USFA Rodeos chambered in .45 Colt which were Colt SAA clones, as well as a pair of sequentially numbered Ruger Blackhawks, also chambered in .45 Colt. I sold them because I realized that they were interesting but impractical for me.

Lowering the hammer on a SAA revolver without setting off a round does require pulling the trigger and lowering the hammer in a controlled manner. Many have had an unintended discharge doing just that, with 1911s too. A half cock notch helps reduce the chance of an accident. I don't know if Alec Baldwin discharged the firearm in question in an attempt to lower the hammer, or whether he simply pulled the trigger believing the firearm to be unloaded, loaded with blanks, or loaded with casings only.

No doubt there will be civil suits, but a criminal case against Baldwin has a higher burden of proof so I doubt he'll do any prison time.