And once again, we have to ask if pointing the gun at the camera was part of the shot.
Normally, you never point a gun at another person, but in film, if you don't, no one will buy into the scene. A gunfight where I can easily tell nobody is pointing the gun anywhere near the person they are supposed to be shooting at? Sounds like a very bad movie, like Battlefield Earth bad.
Dark does not mean deep.
Which is the exact reason that Shannon said that you do not put your finger inside of the trigger guard.
That takes if the gun's trigger is X/Y/Z out of the equation entirely.
Never mind that there is absolutely no need for someone's finger to be in the trigger guard when the crew is simply setting up a shot.
There is no reason his finger should have been where it obviously was. Simple as that.
There came a time when the Old Gods died! The Brave died with the Cunning! The Noble perished locked in battle with unleashed Evil! It was the last day for them! An ancient era was passing in fiery holocaust!
No, we don't really have to ask that at all, the shooting did NOT occur during actual filming, but during the set-up for the scene. He should not have been using a prop gun given his stated intent, his hand as a gun would have sufficed. Or a stick. And he certainly did not have to have his hand on the trigger.
There came a time when the Old Gods died! The Brave died with the Cunning! The Noble perished locked in battle with unleashed Evil! It was the last day for them! An ancient era was passing in fiery holocaust!
Which can obviously be done without putting one's finger into the trigger guard.
There are things here that are entirely impossible to get around...
- If you are lining up a shot, and not actually filming for a take? There is no justifiable reason that your finger should be inside of the trigger guard.
- If one's finger is not inside of the trigger guard? Every other mistake made up until that point becomes practically a non-issue in this instance.
The armorer was convicted of involuntary manslaughter. What that means for Baldwin remains to be seen, especially since shifting blame to him was a key part of the defense strategy. However, the prosecution consistently claimed that they would get to him later, so I can't claim to have any idea of what's going to happen next.
Last edited by Gray Lensman; 03-06-2024 at 07:32 PM.
Dark does not mean deep.
A reminder of what Baldwin is precisely charged with now:
aaaf1.jpg
I think the prosecution will really struggle establishing the mens rea (the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing) regarding the "without due caution" invol man, that's where they probably have to try to bring in the past gun mishaps on the set and Baldwin's role as a producer, his general influence on what was happening with the film. Negligent use of a firearm seems to be the relatively easier count to prove perhaps.
Last edited by JBatmanFan05; 03-07-2024 at 06:37 AM.
Things I love: Batman, Superman, AEW, old films, Lovecraft
Grant Morrison: “Adults...struggle desperately with fiction, demanding constantly that it conform to the rules of everyday life. Adults foolishly demand to know how Superman can possibly fly, or how Batman can possibly run a multibillion-dollar business empire during the day and fight crime at night, when the answer is obvious even to the smallest child: because it's not real.”
Considering the circumstances, I can't see a jury finding Baldwin guilty.
Every day is a gift, not a given right.