I agree with Shark, TBH.
To be fair, I can see where Shark's coming from, as well. The questions around this case revolve around all sorts of issues to do with the culture on set, whether Baldwin (as both the person firing the gun and also one of the producers of the film) is partially culpable, whether anyone else is and so on.
I still think there's a valid point to be made (and it has been already of course) regarding one's personal responsibility where the safety of something has been guaranteed to you by a trusted expert. It was perhaps frivolous of me to link to an A-Team clip, but on the other hand do you really think Howling Mad Murdoch (I realize he's acting) was checking each clip before firing his automatic rifle out of a bullet-proof dustbin?
"I was told it was safe," does not allow you to abdicate responsibility in other situations.
Doesn't it, though? I got sold a car and was told it had never been in an accident. Later, it broke down, and the mechanic let me know the problem - the radiator was bust because it had been in an accident. He also discovered that the driver's airbag was non-operational for the same reason. I contacted the seller, who I persuaded to pay for all the repairs. They did so because (well, because they realized they were lucky I wasn't suing them) it was their responsibility - because they'd told me it was safe (in writing, on official-looking paper and signed by their trained mechanics).
If the worst had happened, and I or someone else had died because of the failed airbag, your argument is that it would be my own fault? Have you checked the validity of the airbag in your car? Or do you just trust that it's operational?
---
That U-Toob lawyer guy goes on about the Rust case
here. (Of course, he makes money from views, so from one perspective he's just enriching himself by jumping on board the gossip bandwagon. He even uses gunfire SFX on his vid, which is, kindly, tasteless.)
Show Posts