I agree. But as an EP and the starring actor he will be a target and I do think he was negligent to some degree. The union set left and he had to know that. I also can't imagine he hasn't worked on other sets with guns and knew what the usual protocol was.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Nobody’s giddy about a tragic accident likely caused by the absence of a safety culture around guns. AD Halls is as responsible as anybody. Baldwin shouldn’t and I don’t think will be charged, there will be civil suits, of course. Baldwin has an awful burden to carry for the rest of his life, sometime I wouldn’t wish on him or anyone.

All across all social media platforms, the right is so happy with this. My personal theory is because Baldwin dared make fun of their dear leader on a show that regularly does political satire.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Go look up who is shooting guns illegally and think how likely they’ll pay insurance premiums.

I can think of several who are being defended by 2A people. In this case, we still don't know if any or all of those involved are responsible gun owners. I asked up thread for proof of responsible gun ownership by those involved and got zero response. So, are we sure Baldwin and those on set are not responsible gun owners? Or are they not because of this one incident?

seb146 wrote:

I asked up thread for proof of responsible gun ownership by those involved and got zero response. So, are we sure Baldwin and those on set are not responsible gun owners? Or are they not because of this one incident?

Actually, you did get a response, from me. Baldwin is anti-Second Amendment, so whether he is a gun owner, responsible or not, really depends on how much of a hypocrite he is.

But really, this isn't a Second Amendment issue...it's an issue of the proper handling of firearms. It is absolutely inconceivable to me that anyone would accept a firearm from someone and point it at...well anything...without verifying its condition.

I'm not hung up at the "pointing the gun at someone" issue. It's a movie and a movie set and it's quite possible that the shot they were rehearsing required the firearm be pointed in that direction. That is, I'm not hung up about it after the firearm has been cleared by the guy using it.

Baldwin should have verified the firearm's condition. If he didn't know how to do that with that particular firearm, he should have asked the armorer.

The only time I accept a firearm without myself visually verifying its condition is when I'm at the range and my buddy hands me a firearm with the intent to fire it...he'll tell me it's loaded and ready to fire. I'll accept it and immediately turn downrange...the firearm always being pointed downrange or down at the ground during the transfer.

I won't even get into the "live ammo on the set" issue. Inexcusable.

fr8mech wrote:

Baldwin is anti-Second Amendment, so whether he is a gun owner, responsible or not, really depends on how much of a hypocrite he is.

One can very easily be anti 2A, own a gun, and not be a hypocrite. There is not a connection there.

fr8mech wrote:

I won't even get into the "live ammo on the set" issue. Inexcusable.

There is not a reason to have live ammo on a set.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

fr8mech wrote:

Baldwin is anti-Second Amendment, so whether he is a gun owner, responsible or not, really depends on how much of a hypocrite he is.

One can very easily be anti 2A, own a gun, and not be a hypocrite. There is not a connection there.

That’s way too nuanced for most folks here. Just as most can’t understand supporting women’s right to a choice while at the same time not agreeing with abortion.

scbriml wrote:

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

fr8mech wrote:

Baldwin is anti-Second Amendment, so whether he is a gun owner, responsible or not, really depends on how much of a hypocrite he is.

One can very easily be anti 2A, own a gun, and not be a hypocrite. There is not a connection there.

That’s way too nuanced for most folks here. Just as most can’t understand supporting women’s right to a choice while at the same time not agreeing with abortion.

Be careful now dude - gonna set off the nuance bomb!

scbriml wrote:

That’s way too nuanced for most folks here.

Oh, please. I get the nuance and that the position is more than possible. It’s just that Baldwin’s politics are indicative of someone who does not believe in an individual right to a firearm.

But, I’ll concede the point; being anti-Second Amendment does not preclude the possibility that someone may own a gun.

Let’s explore the possibility that Baldwin is a gun owner…maybe even a responsible gun owner. Then his failing to verify the condition of the firearm is irresponsible on his part, if not negligent. If he is a responsible gun owner, then he should know better.

fr8mech wrote:

Oh, please. I get the nuance and that the position is more than possible.

In that case you don't fall into the "most folks".

Further issues:
https://news.yahoo.com/alec-baldwin-rol ... 59940.html
The Los Angeles Times, citing two crew members it did not name, reported that five days before the shooting, Baldwin’s stunt double accidentally fired two live rounds after being told the gun didn’t have any ammunition.


So not the first live fire on the set...
There should have been a safety standdown.

Lightsaber

fr8mech wrote:

The only time I accept a firearm without myself visually verifying its condition is when I'm at the range and my buddy hands me a firearm with the intent to fire it...he'll tell me it's loaded and ready to fire. I'll accept it and immediately turn downrange...the firearm always being pointed downrange or down at the ground during the transfer.

I won't even get into the "live ammo on the set" issue. Inexcusable.

Well said. No excuse for live ammo on the set. I literally cannot understand not checking the load. I posted above the standard set protocol which requires actors to verify no live ammo after a safety briefing.

I will check when handed a loaded firearm, because I'm curious what I'm shooting. One time it was 9mm loaded in a 45 ACP gun, I didn't say anything, just unloaded the gun and tapped on the correct ammo (newer shooter) and pointed at the engraving on the barrel.

Firearms are about discipline.

Lightsaber

Sounds like this becoming a he said, she said CYA real fast. It will be interesting to see what the investigation turns up.

https://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/rus ... ing-death/

fr8mech wrote:

seb146 wrote:

I asked up thread for proof of responsible gun ownership by those involved and got zero response. So, are we sure Baldwin and those on set are not responsible gun owners? Or are they not because of this one incident?

Actually, you did get a response, from me. Baldwin is anti-Second Amendment, so whether he is a gun owner, responsible or not, really depends on how much of a hypocrite he is.

But really, this isn't a Second Amendment issue...it's an issue of the proper handling of firearms. It is absolutely inconceivable to me that anyone would accept a firearm from someone and point it at...well anything...without verifying its condition.

A person can be a responsible gun owner and also want limits on who can own guns. That does not make a person anti-2A. Responsible gun owners become irresponsible all the time. Look at Kyle Rittenhouse's mother.

If we actually enforced the first four words of 2A, this would not happen. "A well regulated militia" means people actually know how to responsibly handle firearms. All too often, we hear "but I didn't know the gun was loaded" from responsible, 2A supporting gun owners. Why, then, is it not possible at all in any way to think Baldwin is a responsible gun owner? Because of this one incident? If we are going to do that, let's go down the list of "but it only happened that one time" that were excused through history.

seb146 wrote:

Why, then, is it not possible at all in any way to think Baldwin is a responsible gun owner? Because of this one incident? If we are going to do that, let's go down the list of "but it only happened that one time" that were excused through history.

Yes. This one incident caused the death of one person and injured another. Whether he’s criminally liable or not, I doubt it, though folks have been prosecuted for ‘accidents’ before. But, I certainly think he has civil liability. He pulled the trigger.

Just out of curiosity, how many times, do you suppose, Baldwin has taken a firearm from someone and not checked it? This time he got ‘caught’, and it cost someone their life.

Isn’t one of the mantras of the anti-gun folks…everyone is a responsible gun owner until they’re not? Alternatively, everyone is a law-abiding gun owner until they’re not.

I’ll tell you a secret; that’s my position also. It’s an extension of ‘innocent until proven guilty’. But, Baldwin, by his actions has moved into the irresponsible gun user territory, and if he owns a firearm, irresponsible gun-owner.

Am I a perfectly responsible gun owner? I like to think I’m pretty close. Have I always been? Probably not. But, I can assure you, without a doubt, that I have never, not once, pointed a gun at someone without personally verifying the condition of that firearm.

fr8mech wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Why, then, is it not possible at all in any way to think Baldwin is a responsible gun owner? Because of this one incident? If we are going to do that, let's go down the list of "but it only happened that one time" that were excused through history.

Yes. This one incident caused the death of one person and injured another. Whether he’s criminally liable or not, I doubt it, though folks have been prosecuted for ‘accidents’ before. But, I certainly think he has civil liability. He pulled the trigger.

Just out of curiosity, how many times, do you suppose, Baldwin has taken a firearm from someone and not checked it? This time he got ‘caught’, and it cost someone their life.

Isn’t one of the mantras of the anti-gun folks…everyone is a responsible gun owner until they’re not? Alternatively, everyone is a law-abiding gun owner until they’re not.

I’ll tell you a secret; that’s my position also. It’s an extension of ‘innocent until proven guilty’. But, Baldwin, by his actions has moved into the irresponsible gun user territory, and if he owns a firearm, irresponsible gun-owner.

Am I a perfectly responsible gun owner? I like to think I’m pretty close. Have I always been? Probably not. But, I can assure you, without a doubt, that I have never, not once, pointed a gun at someone without personally verifying the condition of that firearm.

By responsible do you imply competent?

Should guns only be handled by responsible people?

Should cars we be able to self determine competence for driving or electrical wiring?

I’m not sure there is an innocent until proven guilty in reality? Is anyone in court found innocent? Or just ‘not guilty’.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

flipdewaf wrote:

By responsible do you imply competent?

Not all all. I, unfortunately, know a person or two who are very competent shooters, but I would not exactly call them responsible. I think complacency play a part in that; or maybe it doesn’t.

I have helped plenty of folks learn to shoot that were fastidious in their gun safety but were less than competent.

flipdewaf wrote:

Should guns only be handled by responsible people?

That would be nice, but alas, that’s not the case. Things get sticky when dealing with constitutional rights.

flipdewaf wrote:

I’m not sure there is an innocent until proven guilty in reality? Is anyone in court found innocent? Or just ‘not guilty’.

Semantics. I believe that you must be disqualified from exercising a constitutional right through your actions, rather than having to ask permission if the state.

fr8mech wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

By responsible do you imply competent?

Not all all. I, unfortunately, know a person or two who are very competent shooters, but I would not exactly call them responsible. I think complacency play a part in that; or maybe it doesn’t.

I have helped plenty of folks learn to shoot that were fastidious in their gun safety but were less than competent.

I am confused by what is meant by responsibility then, specifically as it refers to safety.

fr8mech wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Should guns only be handled by responsible people?

That would be nice, but alas, that’s not the case. Things get sticky when dealing with constitutional rights.

If it weren’t for the constitution you would agree with only allowing those who could demonstrate responsibility/competence the ability to be licensed to own a firearm?

fr8mech wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

I’m not sure there is an innocent until proven guilty in reality? Is anyone in court found innocent? Or just ‘not guilty’.

Semantics. I believe that you must be disqualified from exercising a constitutional right through your actions, rather than having to ask permission if the state.

So it’s the constitution that prevents you thinking access should be controlled more strongly?

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

flipdewaf wrote:

I am confused by what is meant by responsibility then, specifically as it refers to safety.

Responsibility and safety are interrelated. You didn’t ask that. You asked about the relationship between competency and responsibility.

flipdewaf wrote:

If it weren’t for the constitution you would agree with only allowing those who could demonstrate responsibility/competence the ability to be licensed to own a firearm?

flipdewaf wrote:

So it’s the constitution that prevents you thinking access should be controlled more strongly?

Not at all. The Constitution does not grant rights, it guarantees the rights we should all have.

Western cultures are fond of claiming everyone has human rights. Fine, those rights are not granted…they just exist and have to be guaranteed. In the US, The Constitution provides the framework to guarantee those rights by restraining the government.

But, again, this thread is not about The Second Amendment or The Constitution.

At its core, it should be about the appalling lack of controls on that set that lead to a death.

bpatus297 wrote:

Sounds like this becoming a he said, she said CYA real fast. It will be interesting to see what the investigation turns up.

https://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/rus ... ing-death/

One aspect of her account - lack of safety meetings - comports with other reporting that AD Halls skipped or did away with them on previous films. But it’s very curious how an armorer in her 20s can afford two attorneys and expects us to believe she didn’t know weapons were being used for shooting cans off-set.

fr8mech wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

I am confused by what is meant by responsibility then, specifically as it refers to safety.

Responsibility and safety are interrelated. You didn’t ask that. You asked about the relationship between competency and responsibility.

Yes, as it refers to safety. What does responsibility mean with regards to gun safety? How does (or doesn’t) competency with regards to that play into that?

fr8mech wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

If it weren’t for the constitution you would agree with only allowing those who could demonstrate responsibility/competence the ability to be licensed to own a firearm?

flipdewaf wrote:

So it’s the constitution that prevents you thinking access should be controlled more strongly?

Not at all. The Constitution does not grant rights, it guarantees the rights we should all have.

I agree, the way to run a society is to have complete and total freedom and then have those freedoms reduced as is necessary. We should assume that we are permitted to do anything until told otherwise rather than be able to do nothing and then be granted rights to do things individually.

But that’s really just avoiding the question, outside of the constitutional issue, would you prefer if only responsible/competent people with regards to gun safety were able to use/own firearms?

fr8mech wrote:

Western cultures are fond of claiming everyone has human rights. Fine, those rights are not granted…they just exist and have to be guaranteed. In the US, The Constitution provides the framework to guarantee those rights by restraining the government.

Rights most certainly do not “just exist” they are a human construct for society, the owl in my garden does not care about them and does not live by them.

fr8mech wrote:

But, again, this thread is not about The Second Amendment or The Constitution.

At its core, it should be about the appalling lack of controls on that set that lead to a death.

And you think that they way the law regarding the dangerous items used can have no bearing on how this has happened and how incidents like this (and hundreds more every year) could be managed in the future?

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Aaron747 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

That’s way too nuanced for most folks here. Just as most can’t understand supporting women’s right to a choice while at the same time not agreeing with abortion.

Be careful now dude - gonna set off the nuance bomb!

Very true, but I would not have said it if I did not think he would see where I was going there.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Reminds me of the philandering husband who comes home late at night to face his very angry wife. She is pointing a 12 gauge shotgun at him, intent on murder. Blind mad, she pulls the trigger. CLICK, when both expected a BOOM. Lucky for him, she threw a 20 gauge shell in the chamber, now safely lodged in the forcing cone.

Hmmm... To be fair, that is a lot more "attempted murder" than "negligent discharge".

fr8mech wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

I am confused by what is meant by responsibility then, specifically as it refers to safety.

Responsibility and safety are interrelated. You didn’t ask that. You asked about the relationship between competency and responsibility.

Is safety not part of competency or responsibility? It would be difficult to frame the latter as somehow not being almost entirely that.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Sounds like this becoming a he said, she said CYA real fast. It will be interesting to see what the investigation turns up.

https://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/rus ... ing-death/

One aspect of her account - lack of safety meetings - comports with other reporting that AD Halls skipped or did away with them on previous films. But it’s very curious how an armorer in her 20s can afford two attorneys and expects us to believe she didn’t know weapons were being used for shooting cans off-set.

Interesting question that the armorer allowed or participated in using firearms in a manner that compromised safety rules or created a climate that the set’s firearms were toys. Very possible.

A longtime armorer interviewed on CNN today was pretty much aghast at what this young lady was allowing to occur on her watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiVDGgeJV8E

flipdewaf wrote:

Yes, as it refers to safety. What does responsibility mean with regards to gun safety? How does (or doesn’t) competency with regards to that play into that?

Wow, getting deep.

Safety and responsibility are intertwined. In this specific case, as the end-user, Baldwin should have checked the condition of the firearm. That would have been the responsible thing to do, and ultimately, safer.

Safety and competence? As you become more competent, you should become safer, but that is not necessarily the case. I think we start to see complacency set in.

flipdewaf wrote:

But that’s really just avoiding the question, outside of the constitutional issue, would you prefer if only responsible/competent people with regards to gun safety were able to use/own firearms?

And, we get even deeper.

Outside the constitutional issue? Yes, I would prefer that everyone that owned or used a gin would exhibit some minimum level of competency...which should translate to a safer environment.

But, you know what else "I think"? That in order to vote, you should have to demonstrate a minimum knowledge of the issues, the candidates and their respective positions on those issues.

But, the government is, properly, restrained from such actions.

flipdewaf wrote:

Rights most certainly do not “just exist” they are a human construct for society, the owl in my garden does not care about them and does not live by them.

Now, we're swimming in the deep end.

They are a human construct, but they do exist outside the government. We balance those rights within government so that we no longer live in the jungle.

flipdewaf wrote:

And you think that they way the law regarding the dangerous items used can have no bearing on how this has happened and how incidents like this (and hundreds more every year) could be managed in the future?

Nope, this incident is about the movie set and what happened there. You're trying to explode it into a movement against The Second Amendment.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

Is safety not part of competency or responsibility? It would be difficult to frame the latter as somehow not being almost entirely that.

Safety and responsibility go together. Competency and safety are also related, but competent people can most certainly be irresponsible and/or unsafe.

fr8mech wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Why, then, is it not possible at all in any way to think Baldwin is a responsible gun owner? Because of this one incident? If we are going to do that, let's go down the list of "but it only happened that one time" that were excused through history.

Yes. This one incident caused the death of one person and injured another. Whether he’s criminally liable or not, I doubt it, though folks have been prosecuted for ‘accidents’ before. But, I certainly think he has civil liability. He pulled the trigger.

Just out of curiosity, how many times, do you suppose, Baldwin has taken a firearm from someone and not checked it? This time he got ‘caught’, and it cost someone their life.

Isn’t one of the mantras of the anti-gun folks…everyone is a responsible gun owner until they’re not? Alternatively, everyone is a law-abiding gun owner until they’re not.

I’ll tell you a secret; that’s my position also. It’s an extension of ‘innocent until proven guilty’. But, Baldwin, by his actions has moved into the irresponsible gun user territory, and if he owns a firearm, irresponsible gun-owner.

One of the mantras of "anti-gun folks" (of which I am accused constantly but am not) is "force all gun owners to be responsible and take responsibility". How many times has Baldwin pointed a gun at someone? We don't know. Just like we don't know how many firearms he owns while claiming ot be a responsible gun owner. Just like we don't know how many times Dick Cheney pointed a gun at someone. Maybe, if 2A people want everyone to own and carry any guns they want, maybe they should enforce things like insurance and regular training for everyone? Wouldn't this accident underscore needing that?

seb146 wrote:

fr8mech wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Why, then, is it not possible at all in any way to think Baldwin is a responsible gun owner? Because of this one incident? If we are going to do that, let's go down the list of "but it only happened that one time" that were excused through history.

Yes. This one incident caused the death of one person and injured another. Whether he’s criminally liable or not, I doubt it, though folks have been prosecuted for ‘accidents’ before. But, I certainly think he has civil liability. He pulled the trigger.

Just out of curiosity, how many times, do you suppose, Baldwin has taken a firearm from someone and not checked it? This time he got ‘caught’, and it cost someone their life.

Isn’t one of the mantras of the anti-gun folks…everyone is a responsible gun owner until they’re not? Alternatively, everyone is a law-abiding gun owner until they’re not.

I’ll tell you a secret; that’s my position also. It’s an extension of ‘innocent until proven guilty’. But, Baldwin, by his actions has moved into the irresponsible gun user territory, and if he owns a firearm, irresponsible gun-owner.

One of the mantras of "anti-gun folks" (of which I am accused constantly but am not) is "force all gun owners to be responsible and take responsibility". How many times has Baldwin pointed a gun at someone? We don't know. Just like we don't know how many firearms he owns while claiming ot be a responsible gun owner. Just like we don't know how many times Dick Cheney pointed a gun at someone. Maybe, if 2A people want everyone to own and carry any guns they want, maybe they should enforce things like insurance and regular training for everyone? Wouldn't this accident underscore needing that?

You keep claiming or implying that Baldwin was a responsible gun owner. As much as he talks and posts in the media, a cite for that should be easy to find. You made the assertion, it's up to you to back it up. If you can't, quite posting it.
If anything, he's an "elitist" gun owner, like Dianne Feinstein. You know, the "I should be able to own one, but not you peons" people.

fr8mech wrote:

Safety and responsibility are intertwined. In this specific case, as the end-user, Baldwin should have checked the condition of the firearm. That would have been the responsible thing to do, and ultimately, safer.

Should there not be a level of trust in there to?

Please hear me out as I don't own a gun, have no use for a gun, I have fired several types of rifles at a range with a friend that was in the armed forces. So basically I have no gun experience just trying to understand a bit.

If there was someone on the set who, is a professional, trained and hired to do the specific job of making sure its safe when handed out, than why would Baldwin think otherwise that it wasn't? As far as safety goes, shooting off to one side at anyone I assume is the written rule and that part I understand. Could it have been complacency that he has gotten guns before, checked by a professional so he is Trusting the person that it was safe to shoot. I have no idea what I would do when handed a gun, I do know from being told don't point at anything but the ground or target and always assume its loaded. But i,m not in a business that shoots guns in movies and used to getting one in my hand on a regular basis.
I have no other thing to compare it to than me signing off on a slip that says your car has passed safety inspection only to have you blow a brake line on the way home and run over some person waiting for a bus, Its on me not the Driver as they trusted me to check to make sure it was safe, accidents happen. BUT I do see in this case that he had the opportunity to double check the gun, why he did not, only he knows.

From whats coming out, and all the rumors and stories its such a mess right now..

I feel bad for Baldwin as a person just because taking someones life by mistake has got to be pretty hard on the mental state, I feel Worse for the loved ones of the young lady that's dead.

C.

Classa64 wrote:

Should there not be a level of trust in there to?.

Read my post about trust and verification. I’d refer back to it, but I’m on my iPad.

Simply, pilots and mechanics trust each other, but we verify that each other has properly done their jobs, because mistakes do happen. Further, as a mechanic, I provide written evidence that I’ve done my job.

Let’s look at something simple. You get your oil changed at one of those quickie places. I trust that those guys are going to do a good Jon, else I wouldn’t be there. But, they show me the dipstick after the serving is done. And, the topside guy, checks the below guy by checking the oil pressure light.

Trust and verification. They’re dealing with deadly weapons on that set.

fr8mech wrote:

Simply, pilots and mechanics trust each other, but we verify that each other has properly done their jobs, because mistakes do happen. Further, as a mechanic, I provide written evidence that I’ve done my job.

No, we do not.

Pilots do not check that engineers have locked out a valve, pulled a C/B or have correctly performed any of the maintenance procedures called for by the maintenance manual. They just trust that it has been done, by qualified professionals, then accept and fly the aircraft upon checking the written record. The rigid regulatory oversight that permeates the whole industry is what allows this trust system to work, but it is still very much based on trust.

Aviation generally stands above any other industry wen it comes to safety systems and procedures, and certainly way above whatever was going on on this movie set.

Yeah the only reason it can be argued he should have checked is because it's easy enough to do.

If instead he was given a prop rocket launcher, was supposed to pull the trigger, and told the rocket was a dummy, we wouldn't be arguing he should have checked the rocket or the electronics or whatever.

Francoflier wrote:

No, we do not.

Pilots do not check that engineers have locked out a valve, pulled a C/B or have correctly performed any of the maintenance procedures called for by the maintenance manual. They just trust that it has been done, by qualified professionals, then accept and fly the aircraft upon checking the written record. The rigid regulatory oversight that permeates the whole industry is what allows this trust system to work, but it is still very much based on trust.

Aviation generally stands above any other industry wen it comes to safety systems and procedures, and certainly way above whatever was going on on this movie set.

So, you don’t preflight your aircraft?

Preflight is part of trust, but verify.

Francoflier wrote:

then accept and fly the aircraft upon checking the written record.

I wonder if there is a written record of everyone who handled that gun. Specifically, the person whose job it was to ensure it was safe for use on the set.

Alec Baldwin in Vermont speaks on the death of Halyna Hutchins for the first time on camera, after the fatal shooting that occurred on the set of his latest film, "Rust."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jen6_mZMfg4

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Alec Baldwin in Vermont speaks on the death of Halyna Hutchins for the first time on camera, after the fatal shooting that occurred on the set of his latest film, "Rust."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jen6_mZMfg4

His wife is very protective of him, and they were very protective of the memory of Ms. Hutchins. It’s nice to know they’re in regular contact with her husband.

Aaron747 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Sounds like this becoming a he said, she said CYA real fast. It will be interesting to see what the investigation turns up.

https://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/rus ... ing-death/

One aspect of her account - lack of safety meetings - comports with other reporting that AD Halls skipped or did away with them on previous films. But it’s very curious how an armorer in her 20s can afford two attorneys and expects us to believe she didn’t know weapons were being used for shooting cans off-set.

Oh, I'm not saying who do what or placing blame yet (I'm sure there will be plenty to go around). Just adding this to the discussion. It will be interesting to read the report of investigation when its done.

seb146 wrote:

fr8mech wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Why, then, is it not possible at all in any way to think Baldwin is a responsible gun owner? Because of this one incident? If we are going to do that, let's go down the list of "but it only happened that one time" that were excused through history.

Yes. This one incident caused the death of one person and injured another. Whether he’s criminally liable or not, I doubt it, though folks have been prosecuted for ‘accidents’ before. But, I certainly think he has civil liability. He pulled the trigger.

Just out of curiosity, how many times, do you suppose, Baldwin has taken a firearm from someone and not checked it? This time he got ‘caught’, and it cost someone their life.

Isn’t one of the mantras of the anti-gun folks…everyone is a responsible gun owner until they’re not? Alternatively, everyone is a law-abiding gun owner until they’re not.

I’ll tell you a secret; that’s my position also. It’s an extension of ‘innocent until proven guilty’. But, Baldwin, by his actions has moved into the irresponsible gun user territory, and if he owns a firearm, irresponsible gun-owner.

One of the mantras of "anti-gun folks" (of which I am accused constantly but am not) is "force all gun owners to be responsible and take responsibility". How many times has Baldwin pointed a gun at someone? We don't know. Just like we don't know how many firearms he owns while claiming ot be a responsible gun owner. Just like we don't know how many times Dick Cheney pointed a gun at someone. Maybe, if 2A people want everyone to own and carry any guns they want, maybe they should enforce things like insurance and regular training for everyone? Wouldn't this accident underscore needing that?

I think everyone responsible for the weapon on this set was supposed to have training and I bet the studio has insurance.

Francoflier wrote:

fr8mech wrote:

Simply, pilots and mechanics trust each other, but we verify that each other has properly done their jobs, because mistakes do happen. Further, as a mechanic, I provide written evidence that I’ve done my job.

No, we do not.

Pilots do not check that engineers have locked out a valve, pulled a C/B or have correctly performed any of the maintenance procedures called for by the maintenance manual. They just trust that it has been done, by qualified professionals, then accept and fly the aircraft upon checking the written record. The rigid regulatory oversight that permeates the whole industry is what allows this trust system to work, but it is still very much based on trust.

Aviation generally stands above any other industry wen it comes to safety systems and procedures, and certainly way above whatever was going on on this movie set.

I'm not a pilot, but to me is seems like the pre-flight is the verification part. Don't you check that all flight control surfaces move correctly, check the gauges and computer to ensure all systems are operating correctly? Obviously you can't check things that are deep inside other systems like a valve, but doesn't your instruments show you the status to the overall system? That to me is the verification part.

bpatus297 wrote:

I think everyone responsible for the weapon on this set was supposed to have training and I bet the studio has insurance.

Lots of good questions from that statement.

Is there a training requirement for those handling firearms on a movie/tv/theatre set?
Who does the requirement apply to?
Is it an industry wide standard, an employer standard, a union standard, a director/producer standard?
Were the folks that are supposed to be trained…if there is a standard…actually trained?
Is there a record of the training?

fr8mech wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

I think everyone responsible for the weapon on this set was supposed to have training and I bet the studio has insurance.

Lots of good questions from that statement.

Is there a training requirement for those handling firearms on a movie/tv/theatre set?
Who does the requirement apply to?
Is it an industry wide standard, an employer standard, a union standard, a director/producer standard?
Were the folks that are supposed to be trained…if there is a standard…actually trained?
Is there a record of the training?

I was assuming about the training, but you what they say about assuming........it makes an ASS of U and ME.

bpatus297 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

fr8mech wrote:

Yes. This one incident caused the death of one person and injured another. Whether he’s criminally liable or not, I doubt it, though folks have been prosecuted for ‘accidents’ before. But, I certainly think he has civil liability. He pulled the trigger.

Just out of curiosity, how many times, do you suppose, Baldwin has taken a firearm from someone and not checked it? This time he got ‘caught’, and it cost someone their life.

Isn’t one of the mantras of the anti-gun folks…everyone is a responsible gun owner until they’re not? Alternatively, everyone is a law-abiding gun owner until they’re not.

I’ll tell you a secret; that’s my position also. It’s an extension of ‘innocent until proven guilty’. But, Baldwin, by his actions has moved into the irresponsible gun user territory, and if he owns a firearm, irresponsible gun-owner.

One of the mantras of "anti-gun folks" (of which I am accused constantly but am not) is "force all gun owners to be responsible and take responsibility". How many times has Baldwin pointed a gun at someone? We don't know. Just like we don't know how many firearms he owns while claiming ot be a responsible gun owner. Just like we don't know how many times Dick Cheney pointed a gun at someone. Maybe, if 2A people want everyone to own and carry any guns they want, maybe they should enforce things like insurance and regular training for everyone? Wouldn't this accident underscore needing that?

I think everyone responsible for the weapon on this set was supposed to have training and I bet the studio has insurance.

Right. So why should it be any different for any other American? Or, conversely, why is everyone all upset this tragic accident happened when the average American "responsible gun owner" is not held to these standards?

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Alec Baldwin in Vermont speaks on the death of Halyna Hutchins for the first time on camera, after the fatal shooting that occurred on the set of his latest film, "Rust."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jen6_mZMfg4

Just watched it. I think he would be better served keeping quiet. I don't think he will be charged and wish the media would leave him alone. He has been put through enough.

seb146 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

One of the mantras of "anti-gun folks" (of which I am accused constantly but am not) is "force all gun owners to be responsible and take responsibility". How many times has Baldwin pointed a gun at someone? We don't know. Just like we don't know how many firearms he owns while claiming ot be a responsible gun owner. Just like we don't know how many times Dick Cheney pointed a gun at someone. Maybe, if 2A people want everyone to own and carry any guns they want, maybe they should enforce things like insurance and regular training for everyone? Wouldn't this accident underscore needing that?

I think everyone responsible for the weapon on this set was supposed to have training and I bet the studio has insurance.

Right. So why should it be any different for any other American? Or, conversely, why is everyone all upset this tragic accident happened when the average American "responsible gun owner" is not held to these standards?

Because one is for commercial purposes and the other for recreational purposes. Airlines are held to a higher standard than some guy banging out circuits in a 172. Courts like when you say "I screwed up" they don't like it when you say "I was trying to make money and screwed up"

meecrob wrote:

seb146 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

I think everyone responsible for the weapon on this set was supposed to have training and I bet the studio has insurance.

Right. So why should it be any different for any other American? Or, conversely, why is everyone all upset this tragic accident happened when the average American "responsible gun owner" is not held to these standards?

Because one is for commercial purposes and the other for recreational purposes. Airlines are held to a higher standard than some guy banging out circuits in a 172. Courts like when you say "I screwed up" they don't like it when you say "I was trying to make money and screwed up"

Having a deadly weapon involved should have some responsibility. Just like owning a car or flying, there should be some responsibility. Other movies and TV shows have firearms. Any one of them could have had this accident. They still can. Why should they be held to a higher standard than the average American? It is still a weapon.

seb146 wrote:

Why should they be held to a higher standard than the average American? It is still a weapon.

I’m not sure they are being held to a higher standard. Yes, it’s in the news quite a bit, but that’s because of the people involved. When Cheney shot his buddy in that hunting incident, it was in the news cycle for weeks. That’s just the way news works…the higher the profile of the ‘participants’ the more coverage. Also, the circumstances are out of the norm…you don’t hear about shootings on movie sets, so this is a rare occurrence being reported and commented on.

All ‘accidental’ shootings are investigated. Sometimes there is prosecution (and a little persecution, depending on the parties) and sometimes there is a conviction. It’s the circumstances that determine the response.

As I said earlier, I can’t see criminal charges against Baldwin, but there will certainly be a civil suit…which is normal in these cases, and is up to the individuals involved, or their estate, and does not involve the State.

Will anyone else see criminal charges? I think it’s a stretch, but having read about how and by how many the firearm in question was handled, I think it’ll be a tough sell to get a conviction, especially if there isn’t a paper trail. But, civil suit, that’s going to happen.

fr8mech wrote:

As I said earlier, I can’t see criminal charges against Baldwin, but there will certainly be a civil suit…which is normal in these cases, and is up to the individuals involved, or their estate, and does not involve the State.

Which will likely be covered by whatever insurance policy was in place.

Tugg

This is going to get wild.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ru ... l-n1283092

An attorney for the armorer on the movie set where actor Alec Baldwin fatally shot a cinematographer said Wednesday that he believes someone might have been trying to sabotage the set by putting a live round in a box of dummy ammunition.

This article points out that there were two hours where the guns were left unattended, and that the bullets were loaded from a box labeled as dummy The Armorer loaded the weapons, and apparently from another article I read, spun the rounds when handing it to Baldwin claiming that it was Cold.



The Armorer seems likely to take the fall unless they can find out if there was indeed tampering.