Yeesh - Alec Baldwin just plopped into a world of hurt

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by cdcox

If the standard of duty is to "trust no one" then every actor firing should be preparing their own blanks from basic materials and ensure that all fake ammo and fire arms are within secure lock down or line of sight custody from the time of preparing the blanks. No actor does anything close to this. So "trust no one" is clearly not.the standard of duty.

You're referencing protocol, and I'm referencing liability.

Protocols can often be tuned in an effort to minimize liability, but they don't form a shield against liability unless the court sets precedent saying so.

I said from the outset it's a close question, but it's not one that will be avoided by arguing that 'no one else did this.' No one died in those other instances.

The question is how much of a duty of first-person verification remains that cannot be discharged to another when one points a gun at another person and pulls the trigger. This question assumes two things that aren't established beyond doubt as yet, knowledge that someone was in the line of fire and knowing pulling of the trigger. If either of those are contrary to evidence, the specific question is moot [which is why I noted the 'cautious-assed' verbiage above, where Alec's volitional act was pulling the gun from the holster, but the sudden velocity and direction of the ammunition has no impetus identified].

EDIT - also, new info that there were previous misfires around set, if proven, would only enhance the durability of Baldwin's non-dischargable duty to exercise care in handling himself. It's one thing to point a gun in the direction of another and pull the trigger when an expert tells you it's safe to, . . that's bad enough. 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.

[JohnnyV13]

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).