Yeah. But wouldn't the director herself be partially responsible for contributory negligence if she instructed actor to do so? Further, director knew of the safety problems on set and chose to remain.
The director did not instruct Alec Baldwin to shoot at Helena Hutchins. Are you insane? Where are using reading that?
Alec has been proposing that Helena Hutchins is the one who told him to aim the camera at her and pull the hammer back. Which is also an insane presupposition.
So you don't have a source? Well I can assure you, wherever you read that, it was not credible.
After all, NO GUNS were to be used while in the absence of the armorer for ANY scene. Therefore even I the wild scenario that they were "practicing a scene" (even though cameras weren't even rolling), the fact that they used a firearm without the armorer's presence shows complete and utter disregard for even the most basic level of gun safety on a movie set.
bottom line the mfer pointed the gun and pulled the trigger without following any basic gun safety or common sense ....done...nuff said
Lol he claims he never pulled the trigger. Only that he pulled the hammer back. Can you believe this fucking guy?
Yeah. But wouldn't the director herself be partially responsible for contributory negligence if she instructed actor to do so? Further, director knew of the safety problems on set and chose to remain.
if i told you to jump off out of a plane without a parachute...would ya??? :)
No. But the crew was rushed. tired. And everyone was trying to finish on a shoestring budget. The director told an actor to shoot at her. He complied.
there is no excuse for not following basic gun safety...i was a range training officer for over 25 years....no excuse......
The director did not instruct Alec Baldwin to shoot at Helena Hutchins. Are you insane? Where are using reading that?
Alec has been proposing that Helena Hutchins is the one who told him to aim the camera at her and pull the hammer back. Which is also an insane presupposition.
I read it somewhere. And a new director might give such instruction thinking it will provide a dramatic shot if audience looking down gun barrel.
So you don't have a source? Well I can assure you, wherever you read that, it was not credible.
After all, NO GUNS were to be used while in the absence of the armorer for ANY scene. Therefore even I the wild scenario that they were "practicing a scene" (even though cameras weren't even rolling), the fact that they used a firearm without the armorer's presence shows complete and utter disregard for even the most basic level of gun safety on a movie set.