This Will Put The Cat Amongst The...
News0 min ago
https:/
An actor is given what he must believe is a prop gun, fires it, kills someone. Prosecute the person who gave him the gun, maybe, but the actor? I just don't get it.
// Their one-count indictment was issued on Friday under two alternative legal theories - that Mr Baldwin was either negligent in his use of a firearm or that he acted with "total disregard or indifference for the safety of others" //
How can that ^^^^ be so if the weapon was supposed to be empty. Whether he pulled the trigger or not...he would not have expected there to be actual bullets in it.
So, who loaded the gun?
He was an actor in the scene given a prop gun, he is entitled to trust that the prop people did their job as he was about to do his.
______________________________--
He was ultimately in charge.
He should have sacked some of the cowboys (forgive the pun) working on the set before this fatal shooting happened.
//He was an actor in the scene given a prop gun, he is entitled to trust that the prop people did their job as he was about to do his. Only in America could he possibly be culpable.//
Perhaps they have to determine whether or not he loaded the gun with live ammunition. All avenues have to be explored surely?
He was an actor as far as the scene goes, they are prosecuting him as the actor in the scene, not as director or producer. It centres around the fact he pulled the trigger having previously said he did not. The pulling of the trigger is irrelevant. Why was there live ammunition even on the set, let alone in the gun? If anyone is responsible it's whoever prepared the gun for the scene.
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.