Comments by "" (@thehumanity0) on "BREAKING: Alec Baldwin Charged With Manslaughter" video.

@uncomfortabletruth5915 It's not supposed to be a tool though, it's supposed to be a prop, in other words, it's supposed to be fake
2
@nmk5003 I also think this is a reasonable argument, specifically because actors aren't required to get licensed for firearms, certified, etc. (at least I don't believe so), that's literally the case with the Armorer though, who is supposed to be the certified professional on the set that handles those logistics. Maybe actors receive some training by said professionals, but there doesn't seem to be some official document certifying or licensing them for use of live rounds or even real firearms that have cold rounds - maybe that's just one big oversight of the entertainment industry and perhaps after this court case, they'll require actors to take gun safety courses and get certified to be able to use Real guns on set, but that's just not the case now. I think the main issue in the case will be to determine how responsible and liable Baldwin was as a producer of the show. None of the other producers are being charged with anything, so I would assume Baldwin's charges are simply coming from being the actor who had the gun in hand, and in this case, I do think Baldwin will be acquitted for the charges, since he was not the certified professional on set and did not have any formal training to be culpable for an accident like this. We can only hope they change the laws for something like this in the future
1
@uncomfortabletruth5915 Yeah, I'm aware of that now. I do think it's more a failing of the certified professional on the set however aka the Armorer that's the licensed person meant to handle the weapons and ensure they're safe. Yes, Baldwin could've done safety checks, but in the end, I think he'll get acquitted of the charges simply because he's not the one licensed/certified on that set. Perhaps in the future they'll start making actors take gun safety courses to get certified to even work with working weapons, but I don't believe that's the case now. They probably have the Armorer give some form of training to prepare them, but it's not licensed and it's not any type of formal safety regulation that places red tape around the actor's own liability to be working with actual weapons on set. Imo, it's a major oversight and failure of the entertainment industry regarding safety regulations and overall you gotta blame it on negligence of the one person on that set who was certified to deal with those weapons. I guess the assistant director too since they pleaded guilty of the charges as well, but I would imagine the certified professional is the one whose really liable in this case.
1
@nmk5003 I didn't really do research. I just think it makes sense. It's possible I'm wrong and actors really are supposed to take some certified training, but as someone whose gotten a Hunter's license multiple times before, you're not allowed to participate in hunting with a rifle until you take the proper safety courses. Yes, you can still go to the shooting range without a hunting license in most states, but I would imagine using live weapons on a production set is just as or more important as using live weapons when hunting, since you'd literally be waving the gun around for cinematic shots when filming. It only makes sense they would make actors do the same thing if they really thought they would be using live weapons - and since there isn't any formal training like that (at least not to my knowledge), I imagine that that gun somehow winding up with live rounds in it is just gross negligence of the Armorer, as the actor shouldn't be coming anywhere near a weapon with live rounds when they're not certified in some way, especially not handling it without proper training.
1
I mean, he was the producer so it really depends on how much he was responsible for managing the role of the armorer, but as an actor, he's likely under the assumption the gun is just a prop. If he knew the gun was real and had the ability to shoot live ammunition, I guess that's a different scenario and should be investigated for negligence, but it really just depends on how much knowledge Baldwin had of the situation. We're all kind of just assuming things, but it really should come down to a court case and jury to determine IF Baldwin is guilty of criminal negligence on that set from any or all angles.
1
@MCWaffles2003-1 Even so, he's not the professional on the set whose certified to handle the firearms and ensure they're not loaded. I'm sure actors usually get some type of informal training for how to handle guns in an action movie, but to my knowledge, they don't have to go through some form of regulated firearm training like Hunters do and especially not what Armorers go through. I think morally, there is an argument that he's at fault and anyone who handles a firearm should absolutely check to make sure it's not loaded, but legally I think he's in the clear simply because he's not licensed to make those definitive calls whether a weapon has a cold round or not.
1