Comments by "Stuart Brown" (@stuartbrown8259) on "A year later, newspapers finally catch up with this channel and question the guilt of Lucy Letby" video.

@rogerthatt7217 I understand what you are saying, however, the person who has the gun in their hands is responsible for it. It's basics with anyone who is holding a firearm, to check things. You certainly don't rely on others to tell you the state of that firearm, as in is it loaded etc. At minimum, if he wasn't already, he should of been trained in any safety aspects of the firearm used, be able to tell the difference between live or blank munitions, and his duty to check it, when taking charge of it.
5
@rogerthatt7217 Again I hear exactly what you say and mean. I'm basing my opinion, not that he is directly guilty of murder or manslaughter, or whatever he is charged with, as I'm not really invested in the case. However, coming from a military background, UK, I was a weapons instructor, and responsible for training recruits on occasions. I have worked with other Armies from around the world, and as you would expect, we had a chance to use their weapons on the ranges etc, or on exercises overseas, as they did ours. Regardless which country the soldiers came from, weapon handling was pretty much standard across the board. Granted we all knew the difference between live and blank ammunition, but for example when we were on the shooting range, we handed our weapons over to each other to fire, we carried out safety precautions on said weapon to ensure and satisfy ourselves it was safe. Then after that we personally loaded up the magazines, then loaded the weapon and fired it. At no point did we just assume that the weapon we were given was in a safe state, just because someone handed it to us, or even said it was. Without knowing the process on a film set, or even what training the actors etc get on weapons, I find it difficult for someone to just say, here's the gun, you shoot the bad guy in this scene, and that's that. Surely the actor firing the weapon, would seek some assurances that the weapon was safe, and as you say on a film set, live ammunition should never be near it, however, my main point, is the actor should be shown how to make it safe, load it, fire it etc, plus checking out the ammunition being used, not simply taking someone else's word for it. I understand your analogy with the airline pilot, yes we assume they are qualified to fly us safely to our destination etc, but surely even they get checked for competence regularly? Or they wouldn't be able to fly. The people in charge just don't take their word for it or do they? I'm sure they don't as they are responsible for others. Hope you understand the points I'm trying to make.
2
@rogerthatt7217 I'm personally no fan of weapons, hate them tbh, coming from my background. I just used them for 23 years, for different reasons. Again personally, I actually hated firing live rounds as they cost x amount every time fired them. As my money down the drain. Honestly nice to have a decent conversation with you, maybe different opinions, but never called names etc. Nice one.
2
@rogerthatt7217 As I said I know very little about the goings on, on a film set. Like yourself I agree, replica weapons can be used, they look pretty real to the untrained eye which lets face that is most people. As for even blank ammunition, especially in this day and age, they shouldn't even be required, nevermind live ammunition. If they really require a real weapon, say for authentic purposes, fair enough, but I'm sure it doesn't need to be used to be fired, they can do the sound effects etc. As I originally said I'm not fully invested in the case, and obviously don't know the ins or outs about it, but whatever went on in reality should be the responsibility of all involved. As for Baldwin I do have sympathy for him, as it appears he put all his trust in this Armourer person. Not fully sure the court will see it that way? Perhaps the prosecution will be pushing that regardless of the Armourer assuring everything was safe etc for Baldwin to fire the weapon, it might boil down to, that the person who pulled the trigger is ultimately responsible for whatever is fired from the weapon? That's how I see it panning out, but could be totally barking up the wrong tree, I don't know. Been a good discussion Roger.
1