Posted on 12/01/2021 10:06:22 AM PST by Who is John Galt?
One thing that comes to mind, since we're talking about reloads, is whether any of the reloaded ammo was sold commercially (like to Baldwin's movie production company). IIRC, some guy who sold a bunch of reloaded ammo to the Las Vegas "bump stock" killer ended up being charged by the feds, because he didn't have federal approval to manufacture & sell ammunition commercially.
So I guess you could turn yourself in, IF you also manufactured & sold ammo, without the appropriate federal license[s], etc...
;>)
It doesn’t matter where they got the ammo.
They should have had a weapons expert on the job. That sort
of person would never have okayed a live round.
Exculpitory if true but it's a bit weird that they guy who made the ammo is the armorers father.
Even then a live round is easily recognizable, unless you are an incompetent Hollywood idiot with no training for your armorer job.
As many people have already pointed out, (1) the armorer should have checked every chamber in the cylinder (plus the barrel), (2) the assistant director should also have checked for live rounds, and (3) Baldwin should have checked, also. Frankly, the assistant director acted like a drunk or imbecile, when he shouted "cold gun" without checking it.
The source of the live round would definitely matter, in terms of criminal law, if (for example) it was brought to the location as an act of sabotage - and some sources reference disgruntled employees. The source of the round will also definitely matter, if the victims or their survivors bring a civil suit for damages. Courts often divide responsibility in such cases; picture 25% of the blame (& financial responsibility) going to each of the three persons above (who failed to check the firearm), with the last quarter going to whatever nimrod brought a live round to a movie set. Partial responsibility in a wrongful death suit could amount to millions of dollars.
Finally, the description of how the reloads were transferred from Reed to Kenney might very well be 100% truthful; I have no reason to think otherwise. I would suspect, however, that in theory at least, anyone who might be selling reloaded ammunition without appropriate licenses/permits might possibly provide a somewhat similar story, to avoid potential legal difficulties...
NEWS Flash..... somehow, we do not know, a live round made its way into the gun and the gun shot the lady.......case solved.....
In the game of "whose fault is it?" the answer seems to be "all of them". At no point did anyone involved do things correctly, it seems.
John, I still disagree in part. If the gun store is assessed
part of the guilt for simply selling ammunition, it opens up
Pandora’s Box concerning all weapons and ammo purchased.
There would be no gun stores in a matter of months.
No, the shooter and the people who were tasked with making
sure the gun was safe, didn’t do their job. The whole
operation was already being slammed for lax safety.
This was the sad culmination of those influences.
There is no reason whatsoever that a gun has to be pointed
directly at the second individual in a movie.
The shooter could be videoed from the side. He could be
aiming two feet off center, and it would not be noticeable.
A camera could be set up to catch the shot from the target’s
view, with no person there.
This is a story. It doesn’t have to be have a person
risking their life to tell it.
Use real guns, but do it with some common sense.
NEVER point a gun at someone unless you intend to pull
a Baldwin.
The point you made about checking the chain of movement
of the ammo, is a valid one. Someone could have screwed
with the gun.
Hmmm
I thought it was Ford’s fault.
I have .45cal, but it’s ACP, so I’m cleared. Heh.
Everyone who handled the gun up to and including Baldwin was negligent.
If you hand me a gun the first thing I will do is check to see if it is loaded. If you hand me a gun and tell me it is not loaded the first thing I will do is check to see if it is loaded. If I watch you check the gun to confirm that it is not loaded and you then hand me the gun and tell me it is not loaded then the first thing I will do is check to see if it is loaded. After I have personally checked and confirmed that it is not loaded I will still handle the gun as if it were loaded because the first rule of handling guns is that every gun is loaded.
My father taught me the rules for safely handling guns when I was 5 or 6 years old. I realize that most Hollywood liberals are only taught that guns are bad, but that is no excuse. If you do not take the time to learn and practice basic rules of gun safety then you should never handle a gun.
It still doesn’t absolve Baldwin of his responsibility in killing that woman.
I think how it got there is irrelevant.
The idiot that pointed it at someone and pulled the trigger is the one at fault.
Arec barwin claims he didn’t pull the trigger.
rm: Arec barwin claims he didn’t pull the trigger.
"Stupid is as stupid does." And there was a truly massive amount of pure stupidity on that movie set. Unless the live round was maliciously planted by someone, the armorer (Stupid Person #1) let it slip in with the blanks and dummy cartridges - and she should have detected it anyway, even if it was planted, if she actually checked the prop gun before use. The assistant director (Stupid Person #2) also neglected to check the firearm, but shouted "Cold gun!" anyway, just for grins apparently. And Baldwin (Stupid Person #3), like the others, failed to verify that it was really a "cold gun", and then apparently pointed it at two people (ANOTHER safety violation), and then presumably pulled the trigger (YET ANOTHER safety violation).
There was so much stupidity there, maybe they were all high on 'stupid'. Maybe Stupid Person #1 left the pistol cocked, and Stupid Person #2 handed it in that condition to Stupid Person #3, who immediately stuck his finger through the trigger guard and twirled the gun like a 'Real Western Gun Slinger', because "Hey, it's a cold gun!"
Hate to say it, but it will probably end up being one of those "he said, she said" situations, with three incredibly stupid people each claiming something different happened, and everyone pointing their finger at somebody else. Stupid Person #3 knows he's playing to an audience - the public & law enforcement now, and the jury later. Given that he's an experienced actor with a lot more money than Stupid Person #1 and Stupid Person #2 combined, he's likely to get off scot-free (on criminal charges, at least), no matter what really happened...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.