The problem with the movie set scenario is that the entire purpose of an armorer is that they are responsible for the condition and care of the firearms on a set. Often times these weapons are loaded in such a way, for special effects, that tampering with them after the armorer has prepped them can make them dangerous. Movie sets have code terms to let everyone on set know exactly what type of weapon is on set at any time -- cold gun, hot gun, etc. The problem on this set was that the armorer was an inexperienced rookie who was in way over her head. There was absolutely no reason for live ammo to be on that set at any time for any reason. Period.
The movie was being run on a shoestring to save money. The workers were being worked long hours against union rules and scabs were being brought in to make deadlines. The crew was using the prop guns for horsing around and plinking and such, when they should never have had access to those weapons under any circumstances. Especially after hours. Everything about this situation was a disaster waiting to happen.
Is Baldwin a douche? Yes. Was he acting like an ass with the weapon when he should not have? Probably. Does he deserve to be charged with manslaughter? I don't think so. Ultimately it is the armorer's responsibility to ensure those weapons are safe to handle on set. The AD is responsible for ensuring that the set is orderly and should probably have stopped Baldwin from brandishing the pistol in the direction of the director. There's a lot of blame to be handed out here. I don't know if there is a clear cut response to this tragedy. Perhaps there will be a series of civil suits in response to what happened. Who knows. I'm just not sure about actual criminal prosecution of Baldwin.
Just my humble opinion.
Also . . . no opinion about the Hocus Pocus sequel
