https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/10/hannah-gutierrez-reed-nicolas-cage13.png?w=322

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4950506&forum_id=2#43337290)

LMAO

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4950506&forum_id=2#43337310)

She also walked around with pistols tucked under her armpits such that they were pointing back at people, and allowed firearms to be aimed at people, Brumbaugh told the Wrap."

This chick was a ticking time bomb

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4950506&forum_id=2#43337318)

How do you stay a "rookie" at such a narrow skillset for months and months?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4950506&forum_id=2#43337325)

DON'T POINT IT AT PEOPLE

DON'T STAY A "ROOKIE" AT DOING THIS FOR YEARS AND YEARS

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4950506&forum_id=2#43337351)

*sneaks up behind someone and fires gun*

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4950506&forum_id=2#43337355)

ur a retard if ur so confident the EP hires the armorer himself.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4950506&forum_id=2#43337750)

Tomorrow, she's your surgeon.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4950506&forum_id=2#43337519)

Boomers trying to justify exorbitant salaries.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4950506&forum_id=2#43337748)

Some other actors are saying they always checked or dry fired themselves before pointing a prop gun at anyone.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4950506&forum_id=2#43338545)

my first instinct was that Baldwin acted criminally as an actor and as producer. if those are the official guidelines I'd say Baldwin committed manslaughter.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4950506&forum_id=2#43341162)

Please proceed with your ranting.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4950506&forum_id=2#43339211)

Explain how you aren't a complete fucking imbecile.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4950506&forum_id=2#43339248)

Some people are certainly suggesting it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4950506&forum_id=2#43340330)

Interested to see how that plays out

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4950506&forum_id=2#43338753)

do actors need help not jumping off bridges when told to do so too?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4950506&forum_id=2#43339008)

If you don't care what legal duty of care likely would be in a case like this, why respond in this subthread?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4950506&forum_id=2#43339203)

if my 6yo can check, and draw, etc why can't actors?

who would willingly be on set with someone so retarded that they can't tell if a gun is loaded?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4950506&forum_id=2#43339608)

But I've seen multiple anecdotes posted recently from actors that they they always checked their guns before firing. Thus, you can't just assume the norm that has resulted in really rare accidents is for the actor not to check. The union materials I posted above are not firearm specific, but they do say that it's an actor's responsibility to make sure they are acting safely.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4950506&forum_id=2#43340352)

My point on the norm is that we have people whose job on the set is to manage guns safely. Some combo of these people and whatever level of care actors bring to the table has brought fatal gun accidents on movie sets down to the rate of approximately one per decade (which is far better than almost anything else including activities that are widely perceived as normal everyday things to do like playing golf, going swimming, or driving a car). If we want to bring that rate even closer to zero, let's look at the people whose job is to handle the guns. If I ran the industry I'd put in a strict apprentice system where everything you do is checked by two other proven competent people and after a couple fuck-ups you're gone. You only need to eliminate a few of the worst idiots to get to a zero accident rate - we're already most of the way there! But if we instead gave this responsibility to every random actor cast in a gun scene, I think we would see more accidents rather than fewer. And if a hypothetical rule is not generalizable and would lead to more of what it is meant to prevent, then it shouldn't be the standard of care.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4950506&forum_id=2#43342141)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4950506&forum_id=2#43344005)

I would ask them to consider an analogous situation where Baldwin is filming a scene where he floors the gas pedal of a fully operational vehicle. If the director yells action and a crew member accidentally falls into the vehicle path, Baldwin would have the same "I'm just an actor" defense and still be totally negligent if he hit the gas pedal with his eyes closed.

These pro Baldwin guys really want to impress upon us their special insight that actors are mere puppets who turn their brains off while the director pulls the string. But the profession of actor doesn't magically wash away the basic duty of care to other humans under the law or basic common sense.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4950506&forum_id=2#43345352)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10130717/The-armorer-set-Rust-Baldwin-killed-cinematographer-pictured-home.html

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4950506&forum_id=2#43338490)

Especially a tattoo, which is permanent and you want to look good

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4950506&forum_id=2#43338875)

I thought you guys were lawyers, how about a little objectivity.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4950506&forum_id=2#43339223)

https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/10/legal-analysis-alec-baldwin-situation-beginning-to-look-a-lot-like-manslaughter/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4950506&forum_id=2#43340466)

"All guns are presumed to be loaded until the gun handler personally verifies otherwise—and that verification becomes invalid the moment the gun leaves the handler’s control."

where is he getting these rules from? they're seemingly not NM statutes or jury instructions or case law. he says they're "These rules are well established and widely recognized"

while these rules make inherent sense in every other gun context, are these really the rules of gun safety on the hollywood set? perhaps the rule is to trust the armorer and ensure that you receive the gun directly from the armorer and receive clear confirmation that the fun is unloaded.

in his "BUT HE’S AN ACTOR!" analysis, he doesn't address this. he just says that being an actor isn't an excuse for unsafe gun handling. but he doesn't address what is considered safe gun handling on the hollywood set

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4950506&forum_id=2#43340797)

I think he is doing so based on years of experience with firearm training.

I think his argument that you don't get to ignore the generally established rules of gun safety just 'cause you're working on a movie is a pretty good one, but there are going to be obvious exceptions.

You may need to point a gun at someone on a movie set, for example.

But even if you accept that there are modified rules of "due caution" on a move set, I'm increasingly convinced that "the assistant director (not the armoroer) hands you a gun, tells you it's "cold," nobody shows you and you don't check yourself, and you point it at someone and shoot" does not constitute due caution.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4950506&forum_id=2#43344029)

i think you and i would agree that "due caution" on a movie set may be strictly following specially established rules of gun safety on the set that are industry standard and have avoided fatalities for decades. the Q here is whether those rules were followed.

the other pumo ITT makes really good points that there's a very good reason for having special gun rules in movies -- because you trust actors less than professionals.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4950506&forum_id=2#43344120)

Relevant para:

From more of a legal perspective, however, there’s nothing about being an actor that entitles someone to create an unjustified risk of killing someone, disregarding that risk, and then killing that person. There’s no involuntary manslaughter “freebie” for actors. If they kill someone recklessly, they are as guilty of involuntary manslaughter as is the fellow down the street who drunkenly runs over the nun in the crosswalk. There’s no special “actor” court.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4950506&forum_id=2#43343117)

I'm not sure about that, the more we learn about accepted procedures and the particular facts of this case.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4950506&forum_id=2#43344207)

There's nothing wrong with defending Baldwin against weak claims.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4950506&forum_id=2#43344205)

I am a big gun guy and I can't think of a reason why a movie set would need live bullets lying around when there are blanks being used. Especially if the set has security on site.

Just a birdbrain dumbass idea.

I heard on NPR another "movie armorer" who also did firearms training as another side gig. He went so far as to drive two different trucks to work depending on which job he was going to (movie vs firearm training) specifically so that ammo wouldn't accidentally get mixed in together.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4950506&forum_id=2#43340542)

[Morgan Freeman voice]: "there were wrong hands on the set that day."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4950506&forum_id=2#43343411)

The dumb woman put a live round in the gun at some point thinking it was a blank. The AD asked for a "cold" gun and she forgot it had a blank or just didn't check when he took the gun. The AD announced COLD GUN, but failed to confirm the gun had no blanks or live rounds and handed the gun to Alec Baldwin who fired the weapon during a rehearsal thinking it was a cold gun.

That's the story. Based on industry practices, they are going to charge the woman and the AD for involuntary manslaughter. If Baldwin is charged at all (doubtful) it will be in conjunction with the other EPs being charged.

Obviously, they are all going to be sued.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4950506&forum_id=2#43344108)

And on my dumbest, shittiest day, I am easily three times smarter than you, pumo.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4950506&forum_id=2#43344157)