Posted on 02/22/2024 8:12:26 AM PST by Leaning Right
I work in electrical distribution.
Our weakness is we’re a monopoly.
Yeah, there’s definitely something to be said for motivation fueled by job loss.
Removing that motivation breeds complacency......an complacency can be deadly in aviation.
And firearms on a movie set
IIRC Baldwin has settled with the dead woman’s family and the NM prosecutor has dropped charges against him.
As a thought experiment, a principal is handed the keys to a bus by a mechanic who knowingly left a brake line disconnected. He exceeds the speed limit by 10 mph, then is unable to slow down and crashes injuring kids. Should he be criminally liable for the crash?
In my opinion there was a lot of negligence to go around but the only criminally negligent person is the one who knowingly put live ammunition into the set.
Your thought experiment is interesting, but I don’t think it applies here. The driver of a school bus would not be expected to get in his back and check the brake lines before every trip. It would be nice if he did, but no one would expect him to.
Should a person who’s handed a gun be expected to always check it for live ammunition? I would think so. But I could see a jury deciding differently, especially since Baldwin could claim he thought the bullets were blanks.
She claims that the bullets came in a shipment of prop bullets from a prop supplier, and what i've read, it seems to indicate the company was aware that they had mixed dummy bullets in with real bullets.
If the supplier of the dummy bullets made the mistake of putting them into her stock, than I can hardly see how it's her fault.
It is a movie industry standard.
When Brandon Lee was killed by a gunfire accident, Hollywood adopted a set of rules that were mandatory for all usage of firearms on any movie set. I have read this list of rules, and if Baldwin had followed the rules, the accident which occurred would not have happened.
One of the rules *REQUIRES* the actor to verify that the gun is safe. He must physically check it to make certain that it is not loaded with real ammunition. He must declare that it is safe in a loud voice so that the rest of the crew can be aware that the gun is safe.
There are a whole set of rules they are required to follow, and they've been posted regarding this topic in the past.
If the trial were in Artesia a person holding a gun would be expected to know if there is live ammunition in it. A jury full of Santa Fe leftists is likely to buy the ignorance argument for Baldwin which is probably why charges were dropped.
I land somewhere in the middle. I have witnessed gun negligences over my lifetime that thankfully never hurt anyone but I would be hesitant to criminalize an accident if they had.
The basic rules of firearm safety are that you don't point real weapons at people unless you intend to destroy those people. If Hollywood wants to use simulated weapons, with obstructions in the barrel that let hot gas escape so that wen fired they appear real, that is fine. If they want to use real handguns that people were plinking and target shooting with before being used for filming, that is a dangerous things.
Yes the armorer has some responsibility for not knowing where all real “live ammo” on set was located, but Baldwin violated to many firearm safety rules he is much more responsible.
The gun was real. They should just call it "a gun." By calling it a prop they are making excuses for Baldwin.
I have heard talk about these “rules” but have yet to see a link to a full copy. Anyone?
You might look at this.
And this:
https://www.csatf.org/production-affairs-safety/safety-bulletins/
Thanks so much.
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.