Quote:
Originally Posted by Baby Lee
But do it when those same experts are handing guns to others and saying they are safe and the guns are discharging payloads, and you are aware of this failure of protocol . . that is an enhanced situation.
|
Exactly. Then the argument runs that Baldwin "should have known" that the armorer on this picture was unreliable. In this situation, he has an enhanced duty of care...especially since he was also a producer of the film.
The other thing I read is that movie firearm safety protocols indicate that no one should be in the line of fire. To make it look like you're pointing a gun at someone either you need something that isn't an actual weapon or u need to use camera angles to make the gun appear to be pointing at someone when it really isn't.
If this is the case, an actor would seem to still have a duty to avoid pointing a gun at someone he or she can clearly see is in the line of fire. This is because the actor has the gun in their hands and has the opportunity to avoid this problem. The question becomes much more blurry if the actor reasonably believed no one was in the line of fire (such as there was an intervening obstruction that interefered with line-of-sight).