Why did Alex Baldwin aim the gun at the assistant director in the first place? The assistant is not an actor in the movie

reckless endangerment

Good question to ask

I was wondering that a few hours ago, she is in the back or behind the camera so why? Unless it was a freak accident and she was just in that place for that split second ... SUS a f

You never play "pew pew" or other shooting games?

Remember, the majority of career big-money actors are just overlarge children. Dude's an idiot, but I think people are overthinking this whole thing.

Someone gives you your car back from the shop saying brakes are good, so you get out and drive somewhere you don't need to drive and you run someone down because the brakes failed - that's on the shop, not you, legally. Care and control only count so far when you have prior responsibility at play.

Why should it be any different here?

The story makes no sense in any scenario.

I don't buy a word of it in its present narrative form.

That's why I'm ignoring it.

Suspicious, knowing the psychopathic egomaniacal internal rages of the brothers ... and she was intelligent and very strikingly beautiful and had a strong professional ethic and sense of her own worth, so... she no doubt did not fawn, fall all over herself at the guy's feet.

Yet of course it may have truly been an accident
But they are who they are so we ARE suspicious

as he no doubt was used to, and thinks is his due. Bad situ poor woman
Truth will be known about all one day and that will be a shocker

She was the director of photography and was behind the camera getting the desired frontal"shot"--into the camera scene.

I would bet he has a history of waving guns around on set with no concern for others.

It was a camera angle where the gun is shooting at the camera.

There are not supposed to be real guns on the set, only prop guns that cannot fire, also no real bullets.

So that gun that he was waiving around was from some other source.

Pointing a gun at someone is different than driving on the road. Both can cause injury but the similarities stop there

Where do people come up with this stupidity??

Real guns are MOSTLY used on big budget sets, and have been forever - it's cheaper than making an ultrarealistic dummy. Typically, blanks or dummy rounds are used, but to create certain effects live ammo is used, and is available to the armorer on set for any of the weapons in use for the production.

Having known a production armorer, I can tell you this with GREAT authority.

Brian Laundrie found dead.
Next distraction is this?

That is the Question. On its face--criminally negligent manslaughter. "they" will find a fall guy/gal and excuses to muddy the water.

Not really. Both are tools, both are dangerous, and both are to be used responsibly.

AND both cause fatalities on film sets. Director says "It's clear, point this way and shoot...?" Actor follows direction. Director says "Brakes were checked, drive at the stunt person..." Actor follows direction.

Like I said, I'm no fan of the dude, but trying to make it something it's not makes no more sense than me needing a vax so someone else's will work.

He followed direction, an accident happened. If fault lays anywhere it's with the AD that was supposed to clear the weapon and didn't. If your mechanic says your brakes are fine, do you get your car up on a lift and bleed the lines just to be sure, or do you pull out of the bay as instructed?