this post was submitted on 25 May 2024
100 points (97.2% liked)
Movies and TV Shows
2119 readers
36 users here now
A community for entertainment industry news and general discussion about movies and TV shows.
Rules:
- Be civil.
- Please do not link to pirated content.
- No spoilers in the title of submissions. And please use spoiler MarkDown in the body of discussions. This is a courtesy to other users.
- Comments solely criticizing headlines and/or journalism will be removed for being off-topic.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The only "condition" that is relevant is the fact that he was handling the firearm at the time it was fired. Yes, he was fully and solely in charge of that condition.
He failed to take any safety precautions whatsoever. He failed to abide by the layers of multiple precautions of normal gun use, let alone the heightened precautions necessary for film.
Standard operating procedure when picking up or being handed a gun is to immediately check if it is loaded. He failed to do a proper check. He failed to do any check at all. Had he pointed the gun at the ground and pulled the trigger 6 times, it would have fired, but nobody would have gotten hurt.
If someone blew through a red light in a school zone at 80mph, without bothering to check that there was no cross traffic, let alone that the roads had been closed, the fact that he had a cameraman in the passenger seat would not absolve him of any injuries he caused in the process. The way Baldwin used that revolver was far more reckless.
Even if the armorer had deliberately tried to murder her by telling him the gun was safe when she knew it wasn't, his actions would still rise to the level of criminal negligence.