Morrissey said if new testing of the gun showed it was working, she would recharge Baldwin.

  • @lightnsfw@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    -79 months ago

    Baldwin didn’t receive the gun from the armorer. So he wasn’t even following your rules either. He’s still responsible. If he had followed the rules as you stated, upon being handed the gun by the assistant director he should have said “you’re not the armorer” and refused to handle it until it was verified as safe by the armorer.

    • hiddengoat
      link
      fedilink
      59 months ago

      You’re taking bits and pieces and ignoring the full context, which is a shit thing to do.

      • The firearm should never have been available to an AD in the first place, or to anyone but the armorer.
      • On a set the assumption would be that anything available to someone that wasn’t an armorer would be a non-firing replica.
      • The armorer alone is tasked with firearm safety on the set.

      This is how it works. This is how the entire legality of the situation is established. As long as everyone is acting in good faith the liability does not fall to them, it falls to the armorer. When Baldwin received the weapon he did so believing it to be a non-firing replica, not an actual loaded firearm, as it would not be proper protocol for a loaded firearm to be available to anyone other than the armorer.

      He has already settled the civil liability aspect with the victims and families. That was done rather quickly. As producer, he was liable for the hiring and continual employment of the incompetent armorer. That makes him liable on a civil level.

      He has zero criminal culpability here, no matter how hard the DA tries. His roles as producer and actor are legally distinct.