FGITD wrote:johns624 wrote:What some seem to be forgetting is that Baldwin IIRC, was also the producer. In that role, he was more responsible for who was on the set and how they performed their jobs than he would be as just an actor. If the armorer wasn't doing her job, it was up to him to correct her. If there were negligent discharges, he should've found out why. It was HIS movie.
I think that's exactly right. He's being charged not because he pulled the trigger, but because it was his production and it clearly wasn't meeting safety requirements.
All the talk of gun safety is great, but honestly serves minimal purpose on a hollywood set. Of course they're going to point guns at each other and pull the trigger. It's the land of make believe. You're also not supposed to drive cars off bridges, or motorcycles off ramps while blowing stuff up. Or so driver's ed led me to believe back in the day. So giving the basic rules of gun handling just isn't relevant. And the reason for that goes back to the point of why Baldwin is being charged. Because there are supposed to be so many fail safes that they can break the principle runs of gun handling. In this case, the team failed to follow the necessary steps, ergo and accident happened. Hollywood has been handling weapons pretty much since day 1, and have a pretty impressive track record. It's clear this is an outlier
As noted earlier, Baldwin was but one of many producers in the film, and was not in charge of the armorer. Her emails complaining about conditions, referred to Baldwin only in terms of her lack of training time with him and the other cast. Other producers and staff were responsible for her supervision and assignments, not Baldwin.
The only people being charged here, handled the gun directly. So Baldwin is very definitely NOT being charged solely because he is a producer. He's being charged because he accidently discharged the gun.
His role as a producer is still relevant and will be a part of the trial. We'll have to see what part it plays.