Sounds right to me.

The "armorer" on a movie set is responsible for keeping track of all the weapons, whether they're loaded, and so on. She handed Baldwin a loaded gun and told him it was OK to pull the trigger. That's manslaughter.

What is stinky is that Baldwin is being tried at all, since he had no basis for knowing whether the gun was loaded and in the protocol of the movie set pulling the trigger while aiming it at the camera was a completely normal thing to do. It was the armorer's job to make sure everything was safe, and she fucked it up.

Seems hard to think he is legally responsible as the shooter in this case. But as the producer on set he seems like he holds some responsibility in a civil suit.

Last edited Thu Mar 7, 2024, 12:52 PM - Edit history (1)

Baldwin is only civilly liable at worst.


Rocknation

His trial is next up.

or conspired with the armorer to put live bullets in the gun, his liability should only be civil.


Rocknation

And I guarantee the armorer will testify against him.

and there is a lot of evidence that the whole set was a shit show. he seems to have some culpability. she fucked up for sure, but she wasn't the only one.

If she had followed them, she would have found it ahead of time.
Sounds like a clear cut case to me.

1. A functional gun was on set.

2. Someone brought in ammo and used the gun previously for a bit of target shooting.

3. The armourer did not check the weapon before handing it over for a scene.

4. Baldwin did not check the gun. He assumed it was a deactivated weapon and/or unloaded.

5. Baldwin himself said he did not pull the trigger, but just dropped the hammer manually.
That's safe enough, if the gun is deactivated or holding no live ammo.
The scene being filmed probably required him to point the gun at the camera, so most likely he can't be accused of following the rule of never pointing a gun at anyone, no matter how safe you think it is to do so.

A number of people are at fault, and numerous assumptions and mistakes were made.

No live bullets should ever be allowed on set.

happened on this movie set, filming this scene. Yet this doesn't happen in any other filming. This doesn't appear to be a low budget film so they had the means to shoot the scene safely. There should NEVER have been any live bullets anywhere near the filming. Why were there any bullets there in the first place?