Stagpanther, I took the link to the NY Times article, got to read the first two lines then a popup required me to create an account and gave me no option to decline, other than exiting the site.
Quote:
|
I just don’t understand, with today’s technology, why are functional firearms even allowed near a movie set?
|
A) because its cheaper
B) because movies have been using functional firearms as props as long as there have been movies. Done right, the risk is minimal. Done wrong, it can be lethal.
Quote:
|
I still think some kind of culpability for Baldwin is inescapable--but we'll see how it goes.
|
There is no doubt in my mind that Baldwin is responsible for what he did. Whether or not those actions and inactions meets the legal standard to be convicted of certain crimes is for the jury to decide.
Yes, had the movie company decided not to allow functional firearms on location the shooting could not have happened the way it did. Regardless of which person made that decision, responsibility comes back to Baldwin, as "captain of the ship" for allowing the decision to stand.
Here's a point I just can't get past, yes the gun should not have been loaded, and yes, under SAG rules Baldwin wasn't required to check it, those rules weren't followed. And it was entirely Baldwin's choice to point the gun at a person and operate the mechanism. THAT makes him responsible for her death, in my view.
IF he had pointed it somewhere else, we'd be looking a news blurb about an accidental discharge on the set, maybe a camera or some other prop damaged or destroyed. But he wasn't pointing the gun at any of those things when it went off. He was aiming at a person.
Circumstances may not warrant a criminal conviction, that's not my call, but conviction or not, nothing changes what he did, and that a death and an injury resulted from what HE DID!