|
Trillhouse posted:really curious how this happened and who hosed up. i assume they're not using real guns, so it might be like how brandon lee died: something got lodged in the barrel and then he shot a blank, which pushed it with enough force to fatally wound him. You can gently caress somebody up with blanks just in general. Debris from the blank, squibs or obstructions of any kind in the barrel, or just plain being too close to somebody. Edit: Also using old, hot loaded, or incorrect types of blanks. There are pretty hot loaded blanks meant to do things like lob rifle grenades long distances that you REALLY do not want to be out in front of. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 04:39 on Oct 22, 2021 |
#
¿
Oct 22, 2021 04:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 20:00 |
|
|
Wendigee posted:just no. prop director super hosed up or alec baldwin is insane. this wasn't just a normal blank killing 2 people OR a grenade propellant you twit. He didn't kill two people. He killed one and injured a second. And yeah, that's pretty much the list of ways you injure or kill somebody with blanks - all of which have happened in the past and most of which would fall into the category of the prop director loving up and could happen with "normal" blanks.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2021 05:09
|
|
|
If live rounds were present at all on this set - much less loaded into a firearm and left sitting around - the armorer is extremely at fault. Especially if the claim about multiple negligent discharges taking place earlier is true. Criminal negligence here at best. Baldwin is at least somewhat at fault too because you should never, ever be pointing a gun at somebody and pulling the trigger. Even if you "know" it's not loaded. Especially if you think it has blanks in it. Extra especially if you didn't even have to do it and were loving around. The other producers and managers are also absolutely at fault if their staff complained about dumb, unsafe poo poo being done with the firearms on set and they chose to ignore it. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 16:32 on Oct 23, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2021 16:01
|
|
|
nvidiagouge posted:It's going to end up being some lame poo poo like "we needed real bullets on set for realistic shots of Alec shooting cans in the intro". Yeah, there really aren't any great reasons to have real bullets on a set, even fewer to have them actually loaded into a gun. Leaving a gun sitting around loaded on a table or whatever will get you ejected from the average shooting range for being a dipshit - it's just such an easy thing to avoid for such obvious safety reasons.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2021 22:11
|
|
|
Sophy Wackles posted:This is now all sounding suspicious af if the reporting is true about the gun being loaded with live ammo and placed on the cart unattended. And right before that particular scene. Probably just people being lazy and careless.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2021 07:50
|
|
|
FoolyCharged posted:Shoot with what we know now, that's not even the issue. He had the experience to know that a really important safety protocol was being skipped and the clout to be able to demand said protocol. His behavior was negligent the second he accepted the "cold" gun from someone not the armorer. At a minimum I see three issues suggesting negligence on Baldwin's part: 1) Accepting the gun from the wrong person, ignoring safety protocols. As you point out he had the power to demand correct procedure. 2) Not bothering to check the gun to confirm it was safe or address the above safety protocol violation. This would take all of 2 minutes and at least suggests he wasn't too concerned about #1. 3) Pointing a gun directly at somebody and pulling the trigger, ignoring all basic firearm safety rules. *removed as article was bullshit* Warbadger fucked around with this message at 14:02 on Oct 24, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2021 13:33
|
|
|
Superrodan posted:What I mean is the "reports of him joking" that you brought up, because the only reports I have personally heard of that are the jokes in this thread that gave it its title. That was apparently originating from a edit of a Variety article that made the rounds before being debunked. Not seeing any other article about him actually joking about it, so hopefully that part is bullshit. punishedkissinger posted:in order to shoot someone with a gun it's basically necessary to point the gun at and pull the trigger. unless the gun was a legit antique without modern safety mechanisms. it's possible the trigger snagged on something too i suppose. It's a single action gun, apparently, which makes sense for old cowboy revolvers. The trigger is going to have to snag pretty hard on something to pull the trigger.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2021 14:01
|
|
|
uXs posted:If they were only rehearsing, he shouldn't have had an actual gun in his hands, no? A (rubber) prop gun would do just as well. It also seems reckless to have him pointing it directly at a camera with crew standing in his line of fire during a shoot where he not just points, but fires the gun. You don't need to do that, and even shooting blanks with a lovely plexiglass barrier in front of them introduces the potential to injure/kill somebody if something unexpected happens. Use a proper barrier or angle things slightly and keep the people out of the line of fire.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2021 14:26
|
|
|
punishedkissinger posted:Baldwin didn't gently caress up by hitting his mark and following his stage directions. he hosed up by staying on after a huge portion of the crew walked out due to a series of serious safety violations. I don't think he was supposed to be hitting any marks. Or, hopefully, using a person as a mark when aiming a firearm. But yeah, He could have demanded a resolution to the gun related safety violations that just resulted in the union staff walking out. He's management here. He could have turned down the mystery gun handed to him by the wrong person in yet another clear safety violation. He had the authority to do that. He could have taken a few minutes and checked the gun himself as per basic gun safety rules. Granted he might be completely firearms illiterate, but... He could have demanded the gun actually be cleared by somebody more knowledgeable before shooting as the professional armorer indicated is common practice - with the barrel and ammunition checked in view of the crew so they wouldn't have to fear for their lives when the actors wave guns around while pretending to be cowboys. He could have aimed the gun at a *not person* near the camera as per basic gun safety. If that wasn't possible, he could have demanded the people move the gently caress out of the way or a proper barrier be used.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2021 15:00
|
|
|
Big Beef City posted:that isn't what 'hitting a mark' means when it comes to acting instructions It did that day, in that scene. MrQwerty posted:lots of people itt assuming they'd be insubordinate as gently caress in their work environment while they have been in situations where something totally horrific could happen but didn't I mean the union walked out over less, so...
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2021 15:09
|
|
|
MrQwerty posted:how many of you are in a union Have you never told a manager to go gently caress themselves over safety concerns or even to cover your own rear end? Not even in a nice way?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2021 15:17
|
|
|
wa27 posted:The most annoying part of this story is literally every comment section elsewhere online is filled with gun nut geniuses repeating the rules of gun safety and saying "never point a gun at something you don't intend to destroy" as if any of that poo poo applies in movies where people point guns at each other all the time. It always applies. And it sounds like movies generally follow the rule, either pointing the gun slightly off center to a safe barrier or using a proper barrier to shield people and equipment in the direction the gun will be firing. Also checking the ammunition, chamber, and barrel of the guns before firing them on set because people have been killed with both live ammunition and blanks during filming in the past. Because you might loving kill somebody if you don't follow basic safety rules. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 15:26 on Oct 24, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2021 15:22
|
|
|
MrQwerty posted:Plenty of times, I went full Nick Nolte in Hotel Rwanda on the entire bullpen one morning when incoming supe had my "friend" and his crew ambush me getting out of a cleanroom 20 minutes after I was supposed to clock out over a misinterpretation of a santization procedure for a cytoxoic drug that was discussed for 3 hours and implemented at 5:45AM (I supposedly left at 6). I believe I grabbed my dick and balls through my scrubs and shook it at all of them looking like a wet dog on camera, actually. So why is it so hard to believe others might do the same? Do you think it would have may have gone better for you if you'd been a high level manager who they literally could not fire because doing so would make whatever project you were working on impossible to complete? wa27 posted:Almost every gun movie has a scene or two where someone puts a gun to some else's (or their own) temple. How many times do you suppose they fire the gun or have blanks loaded in those shots? Warbadger fucked around with this message at 15:36 on Oct 24, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2021 15:30
|
|
|
MrQwerty posted:poo poo rolls downhill until OSHA is involved. There was a cytotoxic drug spill at that plant created by an overpressure disconnecting the line from the pump manifold to the pressurized reservoir because the dude running the line insisted on keeping a manual valve open. I had just come back from lunch and had taken over line operator, was talking to the dude running the line then there was a pop and everything in the RABS was wet. It took 15 minutes to get approval to start *plating people to leave the room* after multiple screaming fights over a phone about procedure, specifically that we don't do any of that. Everyone was informed if they didn't follow procedure they would be fired, fix the good drugs and then get out in an orderly fashion. Alec Baldwin isn't getting fired from the cowboy movie he's upper management for and also starring in.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2021 15:42
|
|
|
Big Beef City posted:If you read through this thread (and theres an actual set worker posting about in the Trump thread as well, with a few long write ups on this topic), you'll find that actors on a set are told specifically do NOT do anything with the gun. Right, because somebody else is usually doing that part for the actors. The armor or prop master should be making sure the guns are clear and the shots should be set up so they aren't pointing guns at a person when they fire them. This doesn't mean they aren't following firearms safety rules - it means they're supposed to be following those same rules as part of established safety procedures. Keep in mind the actual, professional armorer's video is saying it's standard procedure to do an on-set safety check for guns before the shot so nobody on the set has to be worried about the guns and there is never a question like "is this the gun the armorer was drunkenly shooting coyotes with last night??" The problem is when you don't see the safety check performed and the shot is set up so you are firing a gun directly at a crowd of people, then you probably should be ensuring the basic rules are followed even if it means doing it yourself before you shoot somebody dead. "I did this patently and obviously dangerous thing without following any established safety procedures because this random idiot told me it'd be fine" still makes you responsible. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 16:04 on Oct 24, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2021 16:01
|
|
|
Big Beef City posted:an OSHA handbook that somehow pertains to movie set guidelines? So... just a normal OSHA handbook?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2021 17:17
|
|
|
MrQwerty posted:Guess who got in trouble for that, it wasn't operators or OSHA. Based on all the movie set related incidents listed on the OSHA website I'm gonna stick with the idea that normal OSHA guidelines already apply to working conditions on a movie set. oh dope posted:How many hundreds of times has Alec Baldwin been handed a gun on a movie set without incident? Why would he think twice about it? From what I've gathered so far, there's at least a half dozen other people at multiple different points of the process who are responsible for ensuring this exact thing doesn't happen. There were, necessarily, several gargantuan gently caress ups here, none of which are attributable to Baldwin without very tenuous reasoning. Really seems like he should have been familiar with the normal safety procedures given how many times he dealt with them, then. You'd think he'd have noticed that all these normal things weren't happening on his set - especially after a bunch of people walked off it for that exact reason. But yeah, I'm sure complacency born of familiarity played a role in the negligence. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 17:52 on Oct 24, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2021 17:46
|
|
|
Robo Reagan posted:remember how in 90s/early 2000s action movies everyone kept fingers on the trigger always? wonder how many misfires your average movie had Probably more. Then again, you don't have to keep any ammunition in the prop gun except for those brief shots where someone is actively shooting it. No ammo, no negligent discharge.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2021 20:06
|
|
|
MrQwerty posted:just gonna keep using this gun that constantly misfires because I, a chuddy person that makes gun their personality, knows best It's not a misfire kinda thing, it's that rapidly drawing guns from holsters can easily lead to your finger or part of the holster pulling the trigger. Especially for old style guns without a trigger guard. It's a great way to shoot yourself in the foot/leg. Hell of a thing that they kept doing it after the first ND - I can't tell from the wording but it may be suggesting that was also a live round fired on set?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2021 22:29
|
|
|
MrQwerty posted:I'm gonna go ahead and believe the people on set who said the gun kept loving misfiring instead of someone that wants Alec Baldwin pilloried, thanks That's not how guns work. First off, misfiring generally means a gun fails to fire - which is the most common failure state with guns. Mechanical failure actually firing a bullet, however, is pretty drat rare because it requires striking the back end of a cartridge really hard right on the bit that sets it off - and the only thing in a position to do that is the firing mechanism which is imparted with force (initially, at least) by pulling the trigger of the gun. That sort of failure requires something like a free floating firing pin combined with a sharp impact to slam it home, a double action mechanism capable of storing energy (think cocking a trigger) that is so poorly designed that it releases its stored energy when shaken/bumped/whatever (Taurus!), or an automatic mechanism where it starts firing normally but fails to STOP firing until it runs out of ammo (the firing of the gun is providing the force needed to work the mechanism and fire the next round). In 99.99% of cases where "the gun just went off" somebody accidentally pulled or snagged the trigger, then regretted it. With a single action revolver like they're describing, though, you have a pretty simple trigger mechanism that pulls a hammer back then releases it to strike the back of a cartridge really hard. You can't cock the hammer or otherwise store energy in the firing mechanism - every shot requires pulling the trigger or the hammer. The hammer itself is also the same part striking the cartridge so no need to worry about a firing pin bumping around in there. Firing the gun does not work this firing mechanism in any way, so it can't go full auto. Thus no hammer pulling back = no bang. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 12:46 on Oct 26, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2021 05:22
|
|
|
Scherloch posted:You've got double and single action mixed up. This was most likely a single action revolver, and would have required you to cock the hammer, before pulling the trigger, to get a shot off. Yep, you're correct. Either way, same result. It does seem like this particular AD has a history when it comes to safety procedures in general and guns specifically. Things like "throwing a fit because an actress requests a gun be cleared before pointing it at her own head and pulling the trigger". https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/24/entertainment/rust-shooting-assistant-director-halls-complaints/index.html
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2021 13:25
|
|
|
punishedkissinger posted:personally I would clear any firearm that is in my hands at all, but i don't think it's reasonable to expect the same from actors who are at best given rudimentary training. especially since the person who handed them the gun loudly proclaimed that it was clear. I agree that the actors should not be expected to be gun experts or expected to be checking the guns themselves under normal circumstances - you don't want them messing with the gun and there's no reason to do it themselves when it's already been done in front of them. I even agree that the actor is much less responsible than the armorer and assistant director here. However, I don't agree that they have zero responsibility insofar as they should recognize when normal mandatory safety procedures are being disregarded and should refuse to do blatantly unsafe things when they haven't seen any of these normal precautions being taken. Given the statements of people who worked with this AD before it's not unheard of for the actors to be handed a gun and say "no, we're doing the gun safety stuff before I point it at myself and pull the trigger". Seems like the "normal" process, as far as the actor is concerned, is for the armorer or prop master to walk in with the gun, then conduct a safety brief for themselves and the other workers on set so that everyone present is aware of the gun and its status. During this brief they display and inspect the ammunition (or lack thereof) and put a rod down the barrel to show that nothing is in the gun(s). That's a pretty easy to understand and very visible way to clear a gun that would be pretty hard for an actor to miss. In addition it's common to either place barriers between the crew and the actor and/or to provide a safe point of aim for them to point the gun so they aren't pointing it directly at people. Also pretty reasonable, easy, and observable for the actor. When none of this happens and the actor doesn't get the safety brief, doesn't see the gun cleared, takes the gun from the wrong person, shrugs off the lack of precautions on the set, then points the gun directly at a group of people and squeezes the trigger I'd say the actor was also being negligent. This is doubly the case when they are both experienced enough to be familiar with normal safety procedures, had several recent close calls during this production in this exact circumstance to demonstrate the danger of disregarding them, and are also acting management for the production. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 16:04 on Oct 26, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2021 16:00
|
|
|
Klyith posted:I dunno poo poo about guns myself, but all the gun experts and armourers talking about this on twitter make it seem like it's kinda touchy. To make the gun action work with blanks you have to use more energetic powder, which increases the risk of the whole thing blowing up if you do it wrong. And I bet dealing with antique guns is even worse because they're a lot less consistent. A lot of replica guns are generally easier to deal with blanks because the blank doesn't need to cycle the action like it would in a semi-automatic or automatic gun. With a revolver or bolt action gun, for example, you just load a blank round into an unmodified gun. You manually cycle the gun so you can load the blanks as light as you want - basically just worrying about safety vs. what it looks like when fired. As you say they also need to carefully consider the power of the blank as a quicker burning powder gives you great cinematic fireballs but can also create too much pressure in the chamber and blow the gun up if you overdo it. Usually, as I understand it, movie blanks are loaded to be less powerful than military blanks. With newer guns they're often semi-automatic or automatic, which means the blank needs enough power to cycle the gun. That usually means using special blank adapters or welding an obstruction into the barrel so a lower powered blank can still create enough pressure in the chamber to cycle the action, ejecting the spent casing and loading the next one. Notably if the weld is done wrong on the barrel obstruction it may come loose and be fired out of the gun like a bullet. So yeah, you don't want to discharge blanks in the direction of people or expensive things you don't want broken. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 16:42 on Oct 26, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2021 16:38
|
|
|
Computer Serf posted:rumors on the tiktok internets were claiming the armoror was literally shooting real bullets for fun off set I mean apparently other people were plinking with her guns so it makes sense she would be too.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2021 12:39
|
|
|
If they're going with the old "the gun just went off" bullshit defense he really must have hosed up. It's a cowboy gun, not a Taurus with a complex "shake gun to make bang" trigger mechanism.
Warbadger fucked around with this message at 03:10 on Dec 2, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2021 03:08
|
|
|
Mozi posted:whether he pulled the trigger or not seems pretty inconsequential. if the AD gave him a gun and said cold gun he should have been able to leave it in a room full of children and the worst thing that could happen is they hit each other with it Not true, and definitely would be negligent as gently caress to do that. Normally there is a safety check done to verify the gun is unloaded (or verify what it IS loaded with) before people play cowboy with it. This is normally done in front of the actors and people working on the set so everyone can be certain nobody is going to be shot. This check does not seem to have been performed, despite the previous accidental discharges, and they went ahead and played cowboy anyways. That's part of at least one of the lawsuits and there's at least one actress who told this exact AD to gently caress right the hell off when he attempted to skip said safety check, so it's apparently not a wholly alien concept to actors to not wave mystery guns around. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 23:26 on Dec 2, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2021 23:20
|
|
|
Mozi posted:ok, sure, whatever, if you want to use more words to say 'cold gun' then that's fine More about having somebody (AD, prop master, armorer) unload and check the ammunition, push a rod down the barrel to confirm the barrel and chamber are clear, and display it for everyone on set to see.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2021 23:28
|
|
|
dr_rat posted:Apparently there was a loving live round put into a gun -that wasn't even meant to be firing blanks at the time- and given to an actor on set, which they were lead to be had been deemed safe. Everything after that really shouldn't matter. The, seemingly many, crimes of negligence were all from before the actor had the gun in his hands. Most of the negligence took place before the actor was handed the gun, but not all of it. An actor accepting a gun and proceeding to point it at people after skipping the safety precautions they'd normally have witnessed was also negligent. Especially given multiple negligent discharges had already taken place, including during a previous shoot of the same scene, the union walkout mentioning the lack of gun safety, and Alec being an executive in zero danger of repercussions for pushing back. Unlucky7 posted:Is it easy to inadvertently pull a trigger on a gun? I have never fired an actual gun before, but I would think that there would be a little bit of resistance that would make it obvious to the person that they are pushing their finger on a trigger? Or am I wrong in that assumption (I probably am)? Depends on the gun and what you're doing with it. In this case he was supposedly quickdrawing the gun, which is a pretty infamously great way to accidentally pull the trigger.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2021 14:00
|
|
|
Sentient Data posted:I'm sad because this latest spin means the general public is even dumber than i want to believe. In a sane world his defense should be "of course i pulled the trigger, that was literally my job and what everyone expected me to do, and i only did so because we had multiple experts whose entire job was to make sure it would be safe to do so, and literally moments earlier we were reassured by the entire team that it was a perfectly safe course of action" It's a classic way to absolve everyone of responsibility/guilt by blaming an inanimate object. Nobody can be sued, it was all the gun's fault, we did everything right and the darned gun just went off and shot somebody all on its own! It probably means either Baldwin's lawyers think he personally looks liable, or that they're circling the wagons to protect the armorer, AD, and/or production.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2021 00:06
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:I'm just a d umb country boy, but it sounds like Alec Baldwin is an actor and not someone who knows even the first things about gun safety. That's why there are prop masters and armorers and safety people to make sure dumbass actors can't accidentally shoot someone. It's multiple people's entire jobs to make sure that nobody gets shot for real in a cowboy movie by doing simple things like "not having real bullets on set" and "checking that guns aren't loaded because an actor is gonna gently caress that up." The guns are made safe in front of the actors in normal conditions, not just "behind the scenes". The actors are not responsible for making the gun safe but they are responsible for seeing that the gun has been made safe by the expert before they play with it. If the safety checks get skipped and the actor just goes with it because, hey, it's easier/saves time/not my problem then they've been negligent. If the actor is also a producer who is at least partially responsible for the management of the film and they've already had multiple negligent gunshots on set... Warbadger fucked around with this message at 02:53 on Dec 4, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2021 02:50
|
|
|
dividertabs posted:It's been explained many times in this thread that they aren't. Really, where? We've had multiple videos of armorers discussing how normal safety procedure includes a safety check done in front of the actors and crew when a gun comes on set, we've had an account of this specific assistant director being told to gently caress off by an actress for skipping said safety check, we've got a link to a lawsuit claiming negligence over this incident including the bit where the actor accepted the gun without the safety check, but I haven't seen anyone post anything proving actors have zero responsibility for gun safety so long as somebody else hands them the gun. Edit: Also worth mentioning that actors pretty frequently have to go through at least basic gun safety courses because being a complete idiot walking around with a gun loaded with blanks is actually really dangerous. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 03:15 on Dec 4, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2021 02:57
|
|
|
dividertabs posted:If I missed such a detail than I apologize. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1Cdc_7M8p4 Skip to 4:10 There's a bunch of similar videos from other armorers claiming the same about visible safety checks being carried out in front of the actors and crew on set when a gun is brought in. The actors and crew are all in a position to see when safety checks are (or are not) being performed - and the habit of skipping checks by this assistant director came up both in historical complaints against them and in the complaints causing the union walkout on this set. It's pretty reasonable, in my opinion, to expect the actors to not wave around guns when they can plainly see that the normal safety procedures are not happening. Even more reasonable after multiple accidental gunshots already happened on set. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 03:30 on Dec 4, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2021 03:21
|
|
|
dividertabs posted:What he said at 4:10 isn't new information; the people on set "are let to see." Being the person to handle the gun doesn't make Baldwin more responsible as you mentioned earlier. Being a person in a position of power might. Yeah, and he's let to see that it didn't happen, too. It'd be pretty drat hard for anybody to reasonably confuse "guy rushing into the set with a gun, yelling COLD GUN and handing it me" with the safety check process the armorers describe. And when normal safety checks clearly don't happen and he plays cowboy with the gun anyways, he's being negligent. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 03:38 on Dec 4, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2021 03:31
|
|
|
Klyith posted:That the actors are shown the safety check during a standard procedure does not mean that it is the actor's responsibility to see that the safety check is done. No, it's not the actor's responsibility to make sure a safety check is done. It's the actor's responsibility, like anyone else, to have a reasonable expectation that what they are doing is safe for those around them. Observing that the safety check took place before playing with a gun provides the actor with a reasonable expectation that the deadly weapon they're about to literally play with is, in fact, safe to play with. Because it's not reasonable or normal to play with a deadly weapon otherwise. The safety procedures are there to protect the actors and corporations involved from liability as much as they are to keep people getting guns pointed at them from getting shot. Do you think he had a reasonable expectation that the weapon placed in his hands was safe and thus what he was doing with said deadly weapon was safe for those around him? Reasons he had to think the gun was safe: +The assistant director with a reputation for disregarding safety procedures told him it was a cold gun as he rushed it onto the set. +Movie set guns are normally made safe, as evidenced through normal, visible safety procedures. Reasons he had to think the gun might not be safe: -He presumably understands guns are deadly weapons. -He presumably could not tell whether this gun was safe through his own observation. -The assistant director skipped the normal, visible safety procedures Alec and everyone else on set would expect to see happen to verify the gun was safe when brought on set. Like many on the crew, as a veteran actor he would presumably know this is not normal. -Guns expected to be safe on this set had turned out to be unsafe on multiple occasions when they were fired unexpectedly. -Union crew had recently walked off the set citing, among other reasons, poor firearm safety practices. Others on the crew were pretty quick to say they noticed the same problem afterwards. -The armorer responsible for the guns/gun safety was not present. With these reasons to consider he had two choices: 1) Ask the assistant director to do his loving job on this production that Alec the actor is also a producer for, lose several full minutes of cowboy playtime while the normal safety check is performed on the gun. Possibly longer if anyone notices the AD pulling live ammo out of the gun! 2) Figure it's not his problem, take the gun, play cowboy, shoot a camerawoman. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 07:12 on Dec 4, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2021 05:48
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:Obviously he's not gonna pin his defense on a malfunctioning gun, he's gonna say whoever's job it was to check that there are not real bullets anywhere on the set, that they not mysteriously loaded in the gun, and that even if they were, they're not handed to do actor that way, is the one at fault. Proper safety isn't to rely on the weapon functioning properly, it's to prevent an accidental discharge from being possible in the first place, and that means Alec couldn't possibly be responsible, since that all happens before the gun gets handed to him. Well, it *should* happen before the gun gets handed to him. Immediately beforehand, by the armorer, and where the actor can observe it under normal circumstances. But it didn't happen. The actor took a gun from the assistant director instead and without seeing any safety check performed. There's a world of difference between playing cowboy with a gun you saw get checked out and provided by the expert hired to guarantee the guns are safe vs. playing cowboy with a gun you saw explicitly *not* get checked out and provided by the assistant director who isn't supposed to be handing you guns. In the first case you can pretty easily claim you aren't responsible - the expert showed you the gun wasn't loaded, assured you the gun was safe, and handed it to you. Your rear end is now covered - you followed established safety procedures that should, if the armorer did their job right, guarantee that the gun is safe. It's reasonable now to assume that this gun is safe - and if the gun isn't safe you can pin it on the armorer who you and others witnessed preparing and checking the gun. In the second case that's not true anymore. No expert showed you the gun wasn't loaded, no expert assured you it was safe, and it was handed to you by somebody unqualified to make that determination and shouldn't be foisting guns on you in the first place. By accepting the gun you did not follow any reasonable safety procedures and have seen nothing to give you any reasonable expectation, personally, that this gun is safe. Now you have a mystery gun in your hands and you're in the same position as any random person whose friend slaps a gun into their hands and tells them it's totally fine - go nuts! The reasonable thing to do here, as other actors did with this particular AD, would be to ask for the safety procedures to be followed before you play cowboy.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2021 03:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 20:00 |
|
|
FoolyCharged posted:https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/20/arts/alec-baldwin-manslaughter-charge-rust.html It was dumb enough that I wouldn't be surprised if everyone involved had a briefcase of cash shoved into the back of their freezers.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2023 22:22
|
|