Alec Baldwin

[Rye Miles #13621]

I can't believe it's been 3 years already! Here's the latest!

 

https://fox8.com/news/nexstar-media-wire/alec-baldwin-to-go-on-trial-in-the-death-of-a-cinematographer-key-things-to-know/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR2hL_e27IIKNaFdWE7eP3Ia6HdFE2Ca9FX7rQWM_wgiu4PI-EYM3JMJp0M_aem_Yg7mpFT1Dfejv4okk_pR5A

[Trailrider #896]

I am NOT a lawyer, so I won't comment on the actual case. However, Baldwin's claim that he "only pulled the hammer back, but did not 'pull' the trigger'" may be partially correct in that he may not have intentionally placed his trigger finger fully inside the guard and on the trigger.  I have run several tests using a foreign-made "conversion" Colt's replica, where I only caught the callus pad of my finger where it could press slightly on the trigger, causing it to allow the hammer to fall! In addition, if one cocks the hammer with the thumb cocking the hammer, there is a tendency for the trigger finger to rotate into the guard! An additional factor, which cannot be determined after the FBI tests, is whether there was full engagement of the trigger/sear. What bearing that will have on the jury is up to the defense and the jury to decide.

 

IN ANY EVENT, THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR LIVE AMMO TO HAVE BEEN WITHIN 50 MILES OF THAT SET! Whatever other factors may or may not have been involved is for the jury to decide.  As to the policy of not having actors responsible for whether a gun they are holding to see if it is loaded and with what, I say BRAVO-SIERRA! There were plenty of actors who were familiar with and good with firearms, but sadly it ain't a perfect world.  

[El Chapo]

I am a New Mexico lawyer and have done over 1,500 criminal cases, including homicides.  I don't have any prediction of what should happen other than to say if the armorer was found guilty, Baldwin should certainly be found guilty and sentenced at least as harshly as the armorer.

 

To me the condition of the firearm makes no difference.  Whether he pulled the trigger or not is irrelevant.  If he was charged with a 2nd (or 1st I guess, but that'd be a stretch) degree murder that would be somewhat important.  As charged, it doesn't matter if he pulled the trigger.

[John Kloehr]

Was looking at some Smith revolvers yesterday. Can't remember the model number, but it had an Alec Baldwin trigger in single action. Unbelievably light and short.

 

Of course he pulled the trigger. He also pointed it at people. And he did not personally verify it was unloaded. If he had just not broken all three fundamentals of firearms handling, nobody would have died. If he had just followed any one of the rules, nobody would have died. We expect everyone to follow all the rules.

 

He is absolutely guilty of manslaughter even if he did not pull the trigger. Besides the three rules, there is also the primary principle, always treat every firearm as if it is loaded. He did not comply.

[Rye Miles #13621]

Well his stupidity about firearms certainly plays into this. He was given a gun and they said "It's cold" in other words it's loaded with blanks. He should have checked it to see if there was blanks. I'm sure he was schooled in what to look for by the so called Armourer but she either didn't teach him or his ignorance caused this death! Involuntary manslaughter at the least. I'm not a lawyer but I watch alot of crimes shows on TV!

[Subdeacon Joe]

2 minutes ago, Rye Miles #13621 said:

. He was given a gun and they said "It's cold" in other words it's loaded with blanks

 

As I understood it,  "It's cold" means completely unloaded. Not even supposed to have blanks.

 

3 minutes ago, Rye Miles #13621 said:

he was schooled in what to look for by the so called Armourer but she either didn't teach him or his ignorance caused this death!

 

Arrogance more than ignorance. 

[Major Hazzard, SASS #23254]

38 minutes ago, Trailrider #896 said:

I am NOT a lawyer, so I won't comment on the actual case. However, Baldwin's claim that he "only pulled the hammer back, but did not 'pull' the trigger'" may be partially correct in that he may not have intentionally placed his trigger finger fully inside the guard and on the trigger.  I have run several tests using a foreign-made "conversion" Colt's replica, where I only caught the callus pad of my finger where it could press slightly on the trigger, causing it to allow the hammer to fall! In addition, if one cocks the hammer with the thumb cocking the hammer, there is a tendency for the trigger finger to rotate into the guard! An additional factor, which cannot be determined after the FBI tests, is whether there was full engagement of the trigger/sear. What bearing that will have on the jury is up to the defense and the jury to decide.

 

IN ANY EVENT, THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR LIVE AMMO TO HAVE BEEN WITHIN 50 MILES OF THAT SET! Whatever other factors may or may not have been involved is for the jury to decide.  As to the policy of not having actors responsible for whether a gun they are holding to see if it is loaded and with what, I say BRAVO-SIERRA! There were plenty of actors who were familiar with and good with firearms, but sadly it ain't a perfect world.  

Baldwin killed Halyna Hutchins with a 45 Colt caliber Pietta, either a Cimarron Frontier or an EMF Great Western II, same thing.  It was a new gun.  The FBI evaluated that specific revolver and found it to be in perfect condition.  Their expert witness provided plenty of pictures of the hammer and trigger taken before and after their tests.  There's no debating anything about full engagement of trigger and sear or anything else along the lines of that gun failing to function properly.  It functioned exactly as designed.  It fired because someone loaded it with live ammunition and handed it to Alec Baldwin, who in turn pointed it at his director, cocked and fired it.  He can swear forever he didn't "pull the trigger" and he might even believe it himself, but he's wrong.

[Trailrider #896]

2 hours ago, Major Hazzard, SASS #23254 said:

Baldwin killed Halyna Hutchins with a 45 Colt caliber Pietta, either a Cimarron Frontier or an EMF Great Western II, same thing.  It was a new gun.  The FBI evaluated that specific revolver and found it to be in perfect condition.  Their expert witness provided plenty of pictures of the hammer and trigger taken before and after their tests.  There's no debating anything about full engagement of trigger and sear or anything else along the lines of that gun failing to function properly.  It functioned exactly as designed.  It fired because someone loaded it with live ammunition and handed it to Alec Baldwin, who in turn pointed it at his director, cocked and fired it.  He can swear forever he didn't "pull the trigger" and he might even believe it himself, but he's wrong.

My only point is that there might be a failure mode in addition to a perfectly functioning gun. That does NOT excuse violating the rules of gun safety, which I was taught as soon as I was given a cap (NOT cap-and-ball) gun: NEVER POINT A GUN AT SOMETHING YOU DON'T INTEND TO KILL!  I can still "hear" Roy Rogers on a record I had as a kid, where he sang, "Did you ever see a cowboy how he handles a gun? He never, no never points it at anyone!"

If found guilty, the maximum time he could spend in jail is 18 months! Eighteen months! For causing the death of someone?  That's as bad as the penalty for running a red light in a car and killing a 13-year old boy who was crossing the street on his scooter: a year in jail and $5,000 fine!  Dadgummit! There are light poles with crossarms all over the place! 

[Cypress Sun]

I've heard the pundits claim that it wasn't Baldwin's responsibility to check the real firearm to make sure that it was safe. Really? If the scene had called for him to point the real firearm at his own head and pull the trigger...,do you think that he would have checked it to make sure that it was safe? I think he would have.

 

Complete negligence all the way around, including on Baldwin's part.

Edited July 8 by Cypress Sun

[Eyesa Horg]

I'm still in the "how did a live round get in the gun?" mind set. Never seen Hollywood blanks, but wouldn't they be obvious compared to a live round?

[John Kloehr]

54 minutes ago, Cypress Sun said:

I've heard the pundits claim that it wasn't Baldwin's responsibility to check the real firearm to make sure that it was safe. Really? If the scene had called for him to point the real firearm at his own head and pull the trigger...,do you think that he would have checked it to make sure that it was safe? I think he would have.

 

Complete negligence all the way around, including on Baldwin's part.

 

Baldwin the producer is responsible for the negligence even if Baldwin the actor is not.

 

I have also heard the actor is not responsible for the firearm, the armorer is. Have also read the armorer is to show the actor what state the firearm is in. So the producer is still responsible. The armorer supposedly did not show the actor, the actor should have insisted. But the actor was also the producer and the armorer was inexperienced.

 

35 minutes ago, Eyesa Horg said:

I'm still in the "how did a live round get in the gun?" mind set. Never seen Hollywood blanks, but wouldn't they be obvious compared to a live round?

 

Live rounds got onto the set. Reportedly from some on the set firing the pistol. Responsibility for this would go to the armorer for not capturing the situation, and the producer (Baldwin) for allowing it.

 

Have also heard the producer may have interfered with the armorer.

 

But he did fire the gun killing someone. And to the extent the armorer was present and loaded a live round, she does share responsibility.

 

For all of the above, these are media reports. Not of a quality probably required for admission into evidence.

Edited July 8 by John Kloehr

[Pat Riot]

I was hoping he was dead.

 

Sick of this guy and this subject. 
 

Bye…

[Subdeacon Joe]

19 minutes ago, John Kloehr said:

Live rounds got onto the set. Reportedly from some on the set firing the pistol. Responsibility for this would go to the armorer for not capturing the situation, and the producer (Baldwin) for allowing it.

 

Have also heard the producer may have interfered with the armorer.

 

But he did fire the gun killing someone. And to the extent the armorer was present and loaded a live round, she does share responsibility.

 

From what I recall of the reports, the day before some had taken it out for some plinking.  How it wasn't unloaded and cleaned is beyond me.  The armorer wasn't there, it was an assistant director that picked the revolver up off a table, handed it to Baldwin while saying "Cold Gun."   

Or that was the initial report.  In court he said it was the armorer who handed it to Baldwin.  Interesting is that he had been fired a couple of years before on a different project when "a gun went off" and caused injury to a cast member.  

[Sedalia Dave]

When it comes to movies and TV the Armorer is responsible for verifying the condition of all firearms. NOT the actor or Actress.  YES this is not what we are taught but you have to remember Hollywood has its own rules.

 

We don't have to like it but that is how Hollywood works.

 

How many of us could determine if a round was live or not just by looking at it? 

 

Doesn't matter who was holding the gun when it discharged. It is not their responsibility to verify the condition of a firearm. I'll bet if you could get a copy, there is a union rule against anyone but the armorer inspecting a firearm to verify its condition. It is also likely written into the contract(s) covering the movie. Unions use their muscle to preserve jobs. So anyone doing anything on a set that is not in their job description will result in a grievance being filed. This will cost somebody time and money.

 

Baldwin is guilty because he was the person in charge at the shooting location. As such he is liable for many of the things that happened that led up to the death of a person. He violated a lot of industry safety procedures to save money. This makes him culpable.

Baldwin's lawyers are trying to make this about him holding the gun when it discharged. They are doing this because this is something he can beat in court.

 

What Baldwin cannot beat is the negligence that occurred because he, as the person in charge, failed to follow several well established industry safety practices. 

IMNSHO, the thing that makes him guilty beyond any doubt was his failure to use a mirror so that the person operating the camera was not directly down range. This has been an industry requirement ever since Brandon Lee was shot during the filming of The Crow.

The industry standard requires that the camera be pointed at a mirror set at an angle to the firearm. This ensures that at no time is the camera operator down range when blanks are fired. IMNSHO Baldwin did not do this because of the extra expense of the proper mirror and the additional time it would take to set up and keep clean in a very dusty environment.

[Rip Snorter]

There are theatrical blanks which anyone who has the slightest clue about firearms can differentiate from real ammunition. There are also inert dummies used when they want to show a bullet in a revolver chamber.  Over the years I taught quite a few martial arts classes for LEO where real duty guns were used.  I checked every gun every time and no rounds were present.  Not hard to do.  Never had an issue.  Carelessness? Arrogance?  We will just have to hope for the best outcome for the families of those who were killed. 

[T.K.]

If all he was doing was "pointing the gun to get the proper camera angle" as he stated ealier in the case, why did he cock the gun?

 

1) ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED

2) NEVER POINT YOUR GUN AT ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO DESTROY

3) NEVER PLACE YOUR FINGER ON THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOU HAVE MADE A CONSCIENCE DECISION TO FIRE.

 

The FBI tried and was unable to get the actual gun to fire WITHOUT pulling the trigger. Their forensic analasys indicated there were no internal modifications or damaged  peices.

 

ALEC LIED. HE HAD TO PULL THE TrIGGER!

Edited July 9 by T.K.

[Tex Jones, SASS 2263]

44 minutes ago, Sedalia Dave said:

 

 

 

Baldwin is guilty because he was the person in charge at the shooting location. As such he is liable for many of the things that happened that led up to the death of a person. He violated a lot of industry safety procedures to save money. This makes him culpable.

Baldwin's lawyers are trying to make this about him holding the gun when it discharged. They are doing this because this is something he can beat in court.

 

What Baldwin cannot beat is the negligence that occurred because he, as the person in charge, failed to follow several well established industry safety practices. 

 

Judge threw out the producer issue. 

[Sedalia Dave]

57 minutes ago, Tex Jones, SASS 2263 said:

Judge threw out the producer issue. 

 

Wonder why.

[J-BAR #18287]

IMO the trial is appropriate.

 

I will trust the judge and jury to make the final determination.

[watab kid]

the trial is warranted and ill trust the judge as well l, even tho i have a whole different opinion of judges this year than i did last year , this one is not political - its a matter of law and applying it evenly to all ....................................or so we shall see 

[Dilli GaHoot Galoot]

4 hours ago, Sedalia Dave said:

When it comes to movies and TV the Armorer is responsible for verifying the condition of all firearms. NOT the actor or Actress.  YES this is not what we are taught but you have to remember Hollywood has its own rules.

 

We don't have to like it but that is how Hollywood works.

 

How many of us could determine if a round was live or not just by looking at it? 

 

Doesn't matter who was holding the gun when it discharged. It is not their responsibility to verify the condition of a firearm. I'll bet if you could get a copy, there is a union rule against anyone but the armorer inspecting a firearm to verify its condition. It is also likely written into the contract(s) covering the movie. Unions use their muscle to preserve jobs. So anyone doing anything on a set that is not in their job description will result in a grievance being filed. This will cost somebody time and money.

 

Baldwin is guilty because he was the person in charge at the shooting location. As such he is liable for many of the things that happened that led up to the death of a person. He violated a lot of industry safety procedures to save money. This makes him culpable.

Baldwin's lawyers are trying to make this about him holding the gun when it discharged. They are doing this because this is something he can beat in court.

 

What Baldwin cannot beat is the negligence that occurred because he, as the person in charge, failed to follow several well established industry safety practices. 

IMNSHO, the thing that makes him guilty beyond any doubt was his failure to use a mirror so that the person operating the camera was not directly down range. This has been an industry requirement ever since Brandon Lee was shot during the filming of The Crow.

The industry standard requires that the camera be pointed at a mirror set at an angle to the firearm. This ensures that at no time is the camera operator down range when blanks are fired. IMNSHO Baldwin did not do this because of the extra expense of the proper mirror and the additional time it would take to set up and keep clean in a very dusty environment.

 

[El Chapo]

6 hours ago, Sedalia Dave said:

 

Wonder why.

 

The Judge ruled today that the evidence surrounding the role of the producer violates Rule 403.  The text of Rule 403 states:

 

Quote

The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.

 

Rule 403 is the second most appealed area of criminal trial evidence, although the decisions of judges are overwhelmingly upheld in this area, as it's a discretionary call. 

 

In response to your other comments, "Hollywood" may have its own rules, but we are a sovereign people in New Mexico.  New Mexico, like all states, has the police power, and that grants it the authority to make rules below which one's conduct may not fall.  "Hollywood" does not make our rules.

 

I neither agree with the judge's decision nor do I think it matters that much.  Baldwin shouldn't be found guilty because he was the producer.  He should be found guilty because he is the person most responsible for causing the death of another person.  Nobody is more culpable than the person with the gun in his hand.

The New Mexico murder statute states in relevant part:

Quote

a person who kills another human being without lawful justification or excuse commits murder in the second degree if in performing the acts which cause the death he knows that such acts create a strong probability of death or great bodily harm to that individual or another.

 

Pointing a loaded gun at another person and pulling the trigger or otherwise being physically responsible for its discharge is something every sane adult knows creates a strong probability of death or great bodily harm.  Some movie rule that blames other people for his conduct is not "lawful justification."  The only reason he's not charged with murder is that people believe this was some kind of accident.  There is no accident in having a real firearm on any movie set, loaded or unloaded.  There is no scene where it is justifiable behavior to be pointing a real gun at another person.  I hope that's the lesson that this lady died for in the end, that there is no set of circumstances on a movie set where someone should be pointing a real firearm that is capable of firing a projectile at any person, regardless of what he or she thinks about the contents of the chambers.

 

That the media is trying to spin this as anything else other than a person pointing a gun at another person who is as real life dead as she would have been if it happened in any other place other than a film set is a bunch of nonsense that distracts from the real issue.  If any of us did this, we would have been in prison years ago.  Hollywood rules don't turn an intentional act like this into something else.

[Rye Miles #13621]

43 minutes ago, El Chapo said:

 

The Judge ruled today that the evidence surrounding the role of the producer violates Rule 403.  The text of Rule 403 states:

 

 

Rule 403 is the second most appealed area of criminal trial evidence, although the decisions of judges are overwhelmingly upheld in this area, as it's a discretionary call. 

 

In response to your other comments, "Hollywood" may have its own rules, but we are a sovereign people in New Mexico.  New Mexico, like all states, has the police power, and that grants it the authority to make rules below which one's conduct may not fall.  "Hollywood" does not make our rules.

 

I neither agree with the judge's decision nor do I think it matters that much.  Baldwin shouldn't be found guilty because he was the producer.  He should be found guilty because he is the person most responsible for causing the death of another person.  Nobody is more culpable than the person with the gun in his hand.

The New Mexico murder statute states in relevant part:

 

Pointing a loaded gun at another person and pulling the trigger or otherwise being physically responsible for its discharge is something every sane adult knows creates a strong probability of death or great bodily harm.  Some movie rule that blames other people for his conduct is not "lawful justification."  The only reason he's not charged with murder is that people believe this was some kind of accident.  There is no accident in having a real firearm on any movie set, loaded or unloaded.  There is no scene where it is justifiable behavior to be pointing a real gun at another person.  I hope that's the lesson that this lady died for in the end, that there is no set of circumstances on a movie set where someone should be pointing a real firearm that is capable of firing a projectile at any person, regardless of what he or she thinks about the contents of the chambers.

 

That the media is trying to spin this as anything else other than a person pointing a gun at another person who is as real life dead as she would have been if it happened in any other place other than a film set is a bunch of nonsense that distracts from the real issue.  If any of us did this, we would have been in prison years ago.  Hollywood rules don't turn an intentional act like this into something else.

Actors point real guns at each other all the time in movies! 

[El Chapo]

6 minutes ago, Rye Miles #13621 said:

Actors point real guns at each other all the time in movies! 

 

If that's true (which I sincerely doubt), and they end up killing someone, they may end up in prison for murder.  It isn't going to happen in deep blue New Mexico, but if this happened in Utah or Oklahoma, Baldwin would already be in prison.

[Rye Miles #13621]

19 minutes ago, El Chapo said:

 

If that's true (which I sincerely doubt), and they end up killing someone, they may end up in prison for murder.  It isn't going to happen in deep blue New Mexico, but if this happened in Utah or Oklahoma, Baldwin would already be in prison.

I’m talking about in the movies! 
I understand what you’re saying if someone is injured or killed but the fact remains that actors point guns at each other all the time. They’re real guns loaded with blanks hopefully. This Baldwin incident was a example of pure ignorance and stupidity! 

[Tex Jones, SASS 2263]

"I understand what you’re saying if someone is injured or killed but the fact remains that actors point guns at each other all the time."

 

As far as shooting is concerned, no,  they don"t  A good example of this is the gunfight at the end of" Geronimo: an American Legend"  All the scenes of individuals shooting were shown in close up without the target/person shot at shown or, the rounds were fired into a plexiglass sheet between two combatants.  Many scenes showing firearms being fired are filmed from a "forced perspective" with the camera placed at an angle behind the person the shooting at a target/person but the muzzle of the weapon is pointed away from the target giving the perspective that the muzzle is on target.

Edited July 9 by Tex Jones, SASS 2263

[Rye Miles #13621]

7 minutes ago, Tex Jones, SASS 2263 said:

"I understand what you’re saying if someone is injured or killed but the fact remains that actors point guns at each other all the time."

 

As far as shooting is concerned, no,  they don"t  A good example of this is the gunfight at the end of" Geronimo: an American Legend"  All the scenes of individuals shooting were shown in close up without the target/person shot at shown or, the rounds were fired into a plexiglass sheet between two combatants.  Many scenes showing firearms being fired are filmed from a "forced perspective" with the camera placed at an angle behind the person the shooting at a target/person but the muzzle of the weapon is pointed away from the target giving the perspective that the muzzle is on target.

I’m aware of that but I was talking about simply pointing the gun at someone!

[Colorado Coffinmaker]

 

"WE" weren't there.  "WE" didn't see it.  "WE" here have NO valid evidence of anything.  What does "Deep Blue" have to do with anything??  There is a Trial and the Prosecutor has to "prove" a crime to a Jury.  If the Prosecutor doesn't do the job . . . . . .

[El Chapo]

11 minutes ago, Colorado Coffinmaker said:

 

"WE" weren't there.  "WE" didn't see it.  "WE" here have NO valid evidence of anything.  What does "Deep Blue" have to do with anything??  There is a Trial and the Prosecutor has to "prove" a crime to a Jury.  If the Prosecutor doesn't do the job . . . . . .

 

But I am under no obligation to presume his innocence nor do I get to decide his guilt.  I also was a prosecutor for over 8 years, so you could say I'm familiar with the process as I had a front row seat.

 

  

4 hours ago, Rye Miles #13621 said:

I’m talking about in the movies! 
I understand what you’re saying if someone is injured or killed but the fact remains that actors point guns at each other all the time. They’re real guns loaded with blanks hopefully. This Baldwin incident was a example of pure ignorance and stupidity! 

 

Most movie guns are probably not real guns with the capable of firing a projectile.  If they are, that needs to change.  Although I don't believe that is correct.  Especially since automatics won't cycle with blanks.  But either way, there is no "everyone else does stupid things" defense to murder or manslaughter.

[Colorado Coffinmaker]

 

I personally have no care about Alec Baldwin.  I simply don't care about him one way or the other.  I do know, there is no valid reason to have "live Ammunition" anywhere near a movie set.  I do know, actors are rehearsed and trained NOT to actually "aim" any kind of firearm at another person.  EVER. FOR ANY REASON.  I don't personally "know" if it was an accident, although the circumstances are certainly suspect.  

 

There were obviously failures at every point of safe procedures.  EVERYBODY managed to fail in their responsibility or it would not have happened.  What exactly happened, I have no comment.  I wasn't there.  I was however, a practicing Gunplumber for several decades.  I can say for certain, what Mr. Baldwin says in his defense stinks to high heaven.  DARWIN comes into play here, as does Murphy's Law.  The individual who had "Gun In Hand" was ultimately responsible and has repeatedly excused himself.  Let the Jury decide that issue.

[Rye Miles #13621]

12 minutes ago, Colorado Coffinmaker said:

 

I personally have no care about Alec Baldwin.  I simply don't care about him one way or the other.  I do know, there is no valid reason to have "live Ammunition" anywhere near a movie set.  I do know, actors are rehearsed and trained NOT to actually "aim" any kind of firearm at another person.  EVER. FOR ANY REASON.  I don't personally "know" if it was an accident, although the circumstances are certainly suspect

All the movies I've seen especially westerns they're pointing guns at each other all the time! Matt Dillon does it all the time for example! Watch Gunsmoke and you'll see!

[Colorado Coffinmaker]

 

Sorry Rye.  The camera angles create that illusion.  Most folks have no clue the power of a "Blank" clear out to 10+ yards.  Scary.  If in doubt, just watch the results of "blanks" in Mounted Shooting or fire a "blank" at an empty soda can at CAS target distance.  Scary.

[Rye Miles #13621]

15 minutes ago, Colorado Coffinmaker said:

 

Sorry Rye.  The camera angles create that illusion.  Most folks have no clue the power of a "Blank" clear out to 10+ yards.  Scary.  If in doubt, just watch the results of "blanks" in Mounted Shooting or fire a "blank" at an empty soda can at CAS target distance.  Scary.

I have fired blanks and you’re right. Maybe camera angles are used but they sure look real don’t they ?🤔

[Trailrider #896]

I heard somewhere that actors were told to "aim off" slightly when "shooting" in Westerns at least, and let the camera angles make it look like they were pointing at each other. 

[John Kloehr]

2 hours ago, Trailrider #896 said:

I heard somewhere that actors were told to "aim off" slightly when "shooting" in Westerns at least, and let the camera angles make it look like they were pointing at each other. 

Probably back in the B&W days.

 

No idea which movie, but a bunch of cowboys move to cover behind a hill (dirt pile). As they run up, one lets a round loose into the dirt. Oops. It clearly was not a blank.

 

The rules changed because mistakes happened. I do not agree with any process which purports to make anyone holding a firearm not responsible for it. The fundamentals of safe firearms handling came from many oopses and can not be cast aside.

 

This death was a big oops. Those who make Hollywood policy need to go to NRA basics classes.