this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2023
1495 points (96.7% liked)

Don’t You Know Who I Am?

3807 readers
2 users here now

Posts of people not realising the person they’re talking to, is the person they’re talking about.

Acceptable examples include:

Discussions on any topic are encouraged but arguements are not welcome in this community. Participate in good faith - don’t be aggressive and don’t argue for arguments sake.

The posts here are not original content, the poster is not OP and doesn’t necessarily agree with or condone the views in the post. The poster is not looking to argue with you about the content in the post.

Rules:

This community follows the rules of the lemmy.world instance and the lemmy.org code of conduct. I’ve summarised them here:

  1. Be civil, remember the human.
  2. No insulting or harassing other members. That includes name calling.
  3. Censor any identifying info of private individuals in the posts. This includes surnames and social media handles.
  4. Respect differences of opinion. Civil discussion/debate is fine, arguing is not. Criticise ideas, not people.
  5. Keep unrequested/unstructured critique to a minimum. If you wish to discuss how this community is run please comment on the stickied post so all meta conversations are in one place.
  6. Remember we have all chosen to be here voluntarily. Respect the spent time and effort people have spent creating posts in order to share something they find amusing with you.
  7. Swearing in general is fine, swearing to insult another commenter isn’t.
  8. No racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia or any other type of bigotry.
  9. No incitement of violence or promotion of violent ideologies.

Please report comments that break site or community rules to the mods. If you break the rules you’ll receive one warning before being banned from this community.

PLEASE READ LEMMY.ORG’S CITIZEN CODE OF CONDUCT: https://join-lemmy.org/docs/code_of_conduct.html

PLEASE READ LEMMY.WORLD’S CODE OF CONDUCT: https://lemmy.world/legal

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I don't get why they aren't using altered guns that can't accommodate real ammo? Seems crazy to use a fully functioning gun

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"Realism"

They were testing the shot by pointing it directly at the DP and Director so they could see what it looked like if he drew the gun. There was no reason Baldwin wasn't using either of the two non-firing guns during the rehearsal other than wanting it to seem more real. Yes, the armorer was inexperienced, but who hired the armorer. Yes, the 1st AD called cold gun and supposedly handed it to Baldwin without checking it. But who chose to then point the gun at people while simulating a quick draw motion?

It was completely reckless and there was a pattern of dangerous behavior on Baldwin's part, which coupled with his role as producer, and the fact that the production had numerous complaints about safety and corner cutting, doesn't look good at all.

The situation was so bad, that the DPs entire camera department WALKED that day, and had previously complained about gun safety being an issue. They were replaced by non-union scabs. When leaving, a producer threatened to call security if they didn't hurry up. Others on set previously complained because prop guns had already accidentally discharged TWICE before the shooting.

Additionally, rather than finding suitable nearby accommodations in Santa Fe, as they were initially promised, crew were forced to travel 50 miles away to Albuquerque every day. For anyone unaware, film set days are usually around 10-15 hours per day of physically and mentally demanding work.

Everything that transpired was because of a perfect storm created by the production department. It shows all the hallmarks of the systemic abuses that occur between above the line and below the line players, and in my opinion the production department is responsible and should be found criminally negligent at the very least.

Currently: Alec Baldwin has gotten to walk away from this mess, all charges dropped. Gutierrez is now the sole person still being charged and being blamed for drinking and smoking weed after her shift, as well as new testimony from an anonymous witness who claims a bag of cocaine was handed off after she was interviewed by police. I guess production has found their lamb.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Baldwin wasn’t using either of the two non-firing guns during the rehearsal other than wanting it to seem more real. Yes, the armorer was inexperienced, but who hired the armorer.

Baldwin wasn't using a prop gun because the armorer was incompetent and allowed him to handle an actual firearm that had been loaded with real ammunition. "Inexperience" means nothing here. No armorer should be "inexperienced." By the time you're an armorer you should have been working as an assistant for years.

Does Baldwin's assholishness as a producer and refusal to answer the concerns of his crew regarding firearms make him in some way culpable? Yes, but not criminally. Did he intentionally murder someone? No. Does this even reach the level of manslaughter? No, it does not. There has to be some level of intent or effort on the part of the shooter. See the idiot that handed a small child an Uzi then got shot in the fucking face when the SMALL CHILD couldn't handle the recoil of an automatic weapon. Did she pull the trigger? Yes. Was she responsible for the man's death? No. His stupidity got him killed, nothing more.

As an actor, Baldwin is not in any way criminally liable for someone handing him a loaded gun.

As a producer, he is absolutely liable for creating an environment where incompetence could thrive.

There is absolutely no way any criminal charges apply to his actions.

He will absolutely get skullfucked in the civil case.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Came here looking for this comment. There should be no reason to have a functional firearm anywhere on set. It must work that way for films made in countries where firearms are illegal (i.e. outside the U.S.).

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

in countries where firearms are illegal (i.e. outside the U.S.).

Fyi, there's plenty of countries in Europe where firearms are legal. And some of them make it even easier to legally buy automatic weapons than the US does

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Yes, I know. Lazy choice of words.

My point stands. No reason to have a real gun on set.