• asdfasdfasdf@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    2 years ago

    People are arguing that both are at fault. The armorer is most clearly responsible. However, more than one person can be responsible for something.

    A common rule of thumb is to never point a gun at something you don’t want to kill. This is pretty clear outside the realm of a movie studio. On a movie set, it also seems pretty clearly 100% on the side of the armorer since pointing a gun at someone is required for acting. But Baldwin pointed the gun for fun, so it’s a major gray area for a lot of people.

    • this_1_is_mine@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      " without absoult certainty do not point at what you are not willing to destroy…" which kind of defeats the idea if you dont for shure fully know without a doubt it wont do exactly that.

      • Serinus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        2 years ago

        That’s a saying for a weapon. What he was handling was not supposed to be a weapon.

        On a film set, prop guns are absolutely going to be pointed at people. Watch any movie and tell me if they practice gun safety while they’re actively shooting people.

        • this_1_is_mine@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          2 years ago

          and who hired those that put live rounds into" not a weapon"… if it was known that he knew this. then he is just as responsible even if he didnt pull the trigger. and even then not weapons eject something. being the wad only is still lethal if close enough. when you throw a punch your not actually supposed to full contact the person. your telling me they had to aim straight at them…