• ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    This means that idiots on film sets can grab a revolver intended as a prop, put real live ammo in and target shoot in between takes and eventually mix up live and dummy ammo, causing people to be killed.

    I thought they were arguing that the gun that was supposed to come with fake ammo actually came with real ammo? To me it sounds like the gun supplier should be held liable?

    • sploosh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      4 months ago

      The person who supplied the gun, the armorer, was held responsible. It was her job to make sure the guns were kept safe and she failed. She was found guilty already. Baldwin was on trial because statements he made to police regarding the incident were found to be inconsistent with the facts found through investigation, which were concerning enough to warrant a trial. The prosecution then fucked up so hard he can’t be retried.

      • ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        I meant I thought the prop supplier should be held liable, since the article I read about it previously, had said that a box of ammo came from the prop supplier, Seth Kenney, and that it matched the ammo that was used that killed Hutchins, and that’s why I was thinking the prop supplier should be held liable.

        That was my understanding of it anyway.

        • sploosh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          If that’s the case I agree. Bringing live ammo onto a movie set is a huge no-no, and if it was his round that killed the AD he certainly bears some responsibility.