bpatus297 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

BUT, he should not have been pointing the weapon at anyone. I'm sure Hollywood has figured out camera angels to make it appear that someone is point the gun at another person when in fact they are not. He should have never been pointing that weapon at anyone, period.

You obviously have not seen many movies. And this statement is just simple ignorance of the various types of shots used in filmmaking. There is a type of POV shot in which the character looks directly at the camera (to establish the audience's ability to see from an opposing character's POV). In that case the gun would be pointed at the camera and whoever is operating it. A famous use of this is in 'Silence of the Lambs', and another is the 'gun barrel' opener to 007 films - though that POV shot is at a much longer distance than is normally used.

Really, I obviously haven't seen many movies because I am capable of reasoning that Hollywood has tricks to simulate pointing a weapon at someone? Just because a shot has the weapon pointed towards a camera doesn't mean someone was behind the camera when that was done. It also doesn't mean the weapon in that shot was capable of firing a round. I guess the whole idea of movie magic goes out the window. They have been doing it safely since Brandon Lee was shot. Pretty sure that showed why you don't point guns at people, prop or not.

I am not laying blame with Baldwin. I don't know enough about the industry to say if he was following SOP or not. If he was, he will be fine (from a liability stand point), if not, the chips will fall where they do. Someone has a liability issue, whether or not that warrants criminal charges has yet to be seen.

Just because people on here are saying that some cardinal rules of weapons safety was not followed is not the same as saying that Baldwin needs thrown in jail, but again we disagree, so we are wrong (that is a cardinal rule of non-av).

If I were to go through a risk assessment on the situation as I expect it to stand through the 6 tier hierarchy of controls. ERICPD (Eliminate, Reduce, Isolate, Control, Personal protection, Discipline).
Risk = Hazard x likelihood
Likelihood = the chance or frequency of the hazard occurring
Hazard = an even that causes energy to be absorbed by a person, animal or object and have lasting damage.

First you try to stop the hazard, failing that you reduce the hazard, then you move the hazard away from the at risk parties, then you reduce the effects of the hazard and finally you train people.
1. Elimination.
Can we reasonably remove the hazard from the situation. Can we use a fake gun and add effects later? Ultimately this is very difficult to achieve the same outcome and we see time and time again that films 'special effects' look more and more 'special' as time progresses. This, in a lot of circumstances means that it cannot be done.
2. Reduce
Can we replace the hazard with something less hazardous. Can we use a blank? I don't think we need to actually shoot something so this seems reasonable (are there times on set where one might need a live round for something?
3.Isolate
Can it be done in an contained environment away from users and subjects of the hazard. Can the shooting be done in separate place? does it have to be on the set. do the people need to be near by? can you control who is there.
4. Controls (Engineered)
Can we physically control the hazard in such a way that likelihood of the hazard occurring is reduced. can the gun be made to only fire when shooting in a certain direction? Can any projectiles be bound to the weapon? (Like we would for livestock killing) Can it be done in an contained environment.
5. Personal protection
What additional safety items can be provided to keep people safe, bullet proof screens, safety shoes, high viz vests.
6. Discipline.
make sure that all controls are monitored reviewed and enforced.
Discipline is making sure the other controls are followed (normally involves documentation). This is not the self discipline of an individual and how they perform.
This involves training ans skills. People are normally the most fallible part of the system and we control outside of people as far as is practicable.


You always do the list from top to bottom, those at the top are more effective than those at the bottom, guns are not special and do not magically sit outside this. (neither do planes) If you can reasonably make it so that someone can shoot a real gun, with live rounds all day long and no,one gets hurt then the lower ones on the list don't really matter. After having written this list down I am convinced that the best way to have controlled this would have been to remove anyone who doesn't need to be in the vicinity away and use remote systems where possible.

Having dealt with accidents at work places I can tell you that the old adage is true: if you think safety is expensive, try having an accident.

Fred

They certainly are far from the top of the list judging from most sensible metrics.

bpatus297 wrote:

M564038 wrote:

No actually, at least in civilized parts of the world, you hire an expert to do and certify your electricity-system. Doing otherwise would be illegal, and you are not allowed to second guess, modify or re-do the experts work in any way. Someone manage to electrocute themselves on that system? There is no way to eliminate accidents completely from any system, but at least there is no liability.

Same with brakes. If I have adhered to service protocol and not modified anything post the EU check every vehicle must undergo for road worthiness, I have very limited liability if I didn’t do anything wrong to cause the accident.

bpatus297 wrote:

Regardless of if you checked your house's electrical system, if some dies of electrocution in your house, you bear some reasonability/liability. So what is your point? A gun is made to fire a projectile, its a much different thing that the electricity in your house. If you kill someone in a car accident because you didn't check your brakes, its your fault. Whether or not you knew how to or not. These are all very different examples from a gun though.

Well I guess the States are not civilized.

We could easily get to #2– take a real gun of the correct appearance, put a custom cylinder that has small chambers holding a very small (.22 Short) cartridges that make enough noise. The cylinder could not chamber a live round. Hamilton Bowen and others do custom work on revolvers to change the caliber. A couple of grand and instant safe, impossible to load live round “prop”. Might need to dub in real sounds.

Gun sounds are amongst those hard effect sounds, that is almost always made into what the audience expect it to sound like, rather than what it actually sound like. Same with telephones, sirens, the way a microphone always makes a slight feedback squeel when someone says something hich is supposed to be embarrasing etc.

Maybe he should get lessons from Michelek

https://youtu.be/WzHG-ibZaKM

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Maybe he should get lessons from Michelek

https://youtu.be/WzHG-ibZaKM

Let's repeat - a movie set is not competitive shooting, competitive shooting is not a movie set. A movie set is not a shooting range, a shooting range is not a movie set. Gun hobbyists have established best practices and procedures, movie sets have established best practices and procedures. Let's stop with the conflation and employ nuance.

It’s true, sarcasm is lost on the dull and humorless.

I never said there was any comparison OTHER THAN the basic rules of safe gun handling. It would harm no one to have armorers show actors the status of any firearms, not just affirm it’s safe by saying “cold gun”. Trust and verify.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

It would harm no one to have armorers show actors the status of any firearms, not just affirm it’s safe by saying “cold gun”. Trust and verify.

You're right - it wouldn't, but it would be a procedural change a lot of people and the union would have to get used to. As for sarcasm - we all know how poorly it often comes across online.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

We could easily get to #2– take a real gun of the correct appearance, put a custom cylinder that has small chambers holding a very small (.22 Short) cartridges that make enough noise. The cylinder could not chamber a live round. Hamilton Bowen and others do custom work on revolvers to change the caliber. A couple of grand and instant safe, impossible to load live round “prop”. Might need to dub in real sounds.

To be honest this would make total sense. making it so that a gun can only take a specific type of ammo (that in itself could be custom made?) such that only blanks can be loaded seems reasonable. I can't imagine that it would be that expensive either (not for film budgets anyway).

I imagine there are fairly rigorous risk assessments done on the use of guns on set but as is often the case for these things the rigor is pointed toward the dangerous thing and the operation of using it rather than in the context and environment that its being done, when people see safety as a tick box exercise that gets in the way of getting things done the phrase "have we got a risk assessment for XXX?, okay lets go" rather than: "lets review the risk assessment for this as it looks to have changed".

I know you will be familiar with this galaxy because of your flying experience in terms of "can the plane can lift XX tons" and the actual answer is its how far do you need to lift it, what is the weather, how big is it, what are the ground conditions, what is the status of the aircraft, where am i going to land. Same with lifting anything manually. but people expect the answer to be "you can lift 15kg". on the film set with a gun it should be the same: Where is it going to be pointing, how many people are there, what are the noise levels, what are the ground conditions, what are you going to be wearing, whats the visibility. All too often the environmental and circumstantial risks are missed because they have a piece of paper that says they have assessed it.

Fred

Like with many airplane crashes that are a major reason for this site, a series of events that led to the death of someone. We must learn from it, improve safety standards and take actions to reduce such a circumstances from happening again. Some posters have discussed the series of events as what should have or could have been done. Also like with plane crashes, we may have to avoid criminal prosecution to get a proper and honest investigation that will lead to industry reforms to reduce the risk in the future.

Aaron747 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

It would harm no one to have armorers show actors the status of any firearms, not just affirm it’s safe by saying “cold gun”. Trust and verify.

You're right - it wouldn't, but it would be a procedural change a lot of people and the union would have to get used to. As for sarcasm - we all know how poorly it often comes across online.

It shocks me that showing the person holding the firearm the status isn't part of the procedure. I thought that was just a given as... it is standard at a gun range. In particular since actors will handle many different firearms and most do not seem the type to retain firearm knowledge for long (no interest).

Sarcasm is very... regional and often has subcultural aspects, so online... is a challenge to do well.

lightsaber wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

It would harm no one to have armorers show actors the status of any firearms, not just affirm it’s safe by saying “cold gun”. Trust and verify.

You're right - it wouldn't, but it would be a procedural change a lot of people and the union would have to get used to. As for sarcasm - we all know how poorly it often comes across online.

It shocks me that showing the person holding the firearm the status isn't part of the procedure. I thought that was just a given as... it is standard at a gun range. In particular since actors will handle many different firearms and most do not seem the type to retain firearm knowledge for long (no interest).

Sarcasm is very... regional and often has subcultural aspects, so online... is a challenge to do well.

It’s probably because on a film set there are a couple of baseline expectations about firearm use:

1. There will not be bullets in use
2. The talent will receive the prop from staff and be told by the director, AD, or an instructor how they will use it in scene
3. Actual use will only constitute a few seconds at a time in whatever fashion is scripted

I can’t think of a more different environment from that than a civilian or military gun range

CNN just reported but won't verify that there was live ammo on set. Apparently the crew did something with this ammo on their own time with a game they played or something along the lines of target shooting or something. Nothing to do with the Movie. Wow.

NIKV69 wrote:

CNN just reported but won't verify that there was live ammo on set. Apparently the crew did something with this ammo on their own time with a game they played or something along the lines of target shooting or something. Nothing to do with the Movie. Wow.

Just read that too, using the same weapons during down time with live ammo! I cannot imagine taking a safety critical device away from work to use fir personal stuff. Imagine taking a 10ton lifting strop away to use for yourself and it being damaged, I’d be sacked (fired).

Apparently ‘plinking’ (I like the name) shooting beer cans away from the set. I used to do the same with my target pistols, once you get to the end of the tin of 500 you put the tin on the top of the target frame and ‘plink’ them off. TBH the fun of that seems to be used up by age 11 or 12.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Aaron747 wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

You're right - it wouldn't, but it would be a procedural change a lot of people and the union would have to get used to. As for sarcasm - we all know how poorly it often comes across online.

It shocks me that showing the person holding the firearm the status isn't part of the procedure. I thought that was just a given as... it is standard at a gun range. In particular since actors will handle many different firearms and most do not seem the type to retain firearm knowledge for long (no interest).

Sarcasm is very... regional and often has subcultural aspects, so online... is a challenge to do well.

It’s probably because on a film set there are a couple of baseline expectations about firearm use:

1. There will not be bullets in use
2. The talent will receive the prop from staff and be told by the director, AD, or an instructor how they will use it in scene
3. Actual use will only constitute a few seconds at a time in whatever fashion is scripted

I can’t think of a more different environment from that than a civilian or military gun range

Its a different environment, but the cardinal rules of firearms are the same. Had they been followed, no one would have died.

bpatus297 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

It shocks me that showing the person holding the firearm the status isn't part of the procedure. I thought that was just a given as... it is standard at a gun range. In particular since actors will handle many different firearms and most do not seem the type to retain firearm knowledge for long (no interest).

Sarcasm is very... regional and often has subcultural aspects, so online... is a challenge to do well.

It’s probably because on a film set there are a couple of baseline expectations about firearm use:

1. There will not be bullets in use
2. The talent will receive the prop from staff and be told by the director, AD, or an instructor how they will use it in scene
3. Actual use will only constitute a few seconds at a time in whatever fashion is scripted

I can’t think of a more different environment from that than a civilian or military gun range

Its a different environment, but the cardinal rules of firearms are the same. Had they been followed, no one would have died.

Absolutely, but how fallible are humans? If you can maintain safety with physical and procedural controls as well as personal discipline and training then to argue that the later is all that is needed is is to misunderstand how accidents happen. If you can control to an acceptable level of risk with procedural and physical controls then the latter should not be needed. If it is suitable to control risk only using training then why do aircraft have takeoff configuration warnings? Can we not just put accidents down to 'stupid pilots not following procedure'. I mean we can but then we have to make sure that we don't have 'stupid' pilots, is that what you advocate? Unless of course you are saying that you accept the risk?

Fred

NIKV69 wrote:

CNN just reported but won't verify that there was live ammo on set. Apparently the crew did something with this ammo on their own time with a game they played or something along the lines of target shooting or something. Nothing to do with the Movie. Wow.

I read that too, plus the Assistant Director Halls had been fired from another set in 2019 for an accidental discharge. Clearly, a certain casualness toward firearms was present.

flipdewaf wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

It’s probably because on a film set there are a couple of baseline expectations about firearm use:

1. There will not be bullets in use
2. The talent will receive the prop from staff and be told by the director, AD, or an instructor how they will use it in scene
3. Actual use will only constitute a few seconds at a time in whatever fashion is scripted

I can’t think of a more different environment from that than a civilian or military gun range

Its a different environment, but the cardinal rules of firearms are the same. Had they been followed, no one would have died.

Absolutely, but how fallible are humans? If you can maintain safety with physical and procedural controls as well as personal discipline and training then to argue that the later is all that is needed is is to misunderstand how accidents happen. If you can control to an acceptable level of risk with procedural and physical controls then the latter should not be needed. If it is suitable to control risk only using training then why do aircraft have takeoff configuration warnings? Can we not just put accidents down to 'stupid pilots not following procedure'. I mean we can but then we have to make sure that we don't have 'stupid' pilots, is that what you advocate? Unless of course you are saying that you accept the risk?

Fred

Yes, a custom ammunition is possible, cheap.

Folks, baiting one side or the other with topics designed to ignite arguments will result in a bad for either side of the isle.

Lightsaber

The WSJ (paywall) just posted an interesting article which included the fact armorers are supposed to display to the talent that gun is empty. This is the standard protocol used in shooting everywhere when handing off a weapon.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/on-set-of- ... lead_pos13

Quoted part below,

Hannah Gutierrez Reed, the movie’s 24-year-old firearms expert, who had recently completed her first film as head armorer, wasn’t the person who handed the gun that was fired to actor Alec Baldwin, according to the affidavits. That deviates from standard practice, say other armorers and film-industry veterans.

Dave Halls, the assistant director who handed Mr. Baldwin the gun, according to the affidavits, shouldn’t have been the one to do so, the experts say. Mr. Halls, Ms. Gutierrez Reed and Mr. Baldwin didn’t follow the typical standard protocols to ensure a gun’s safety on set, according to film-weapons experts and people with industry experience who reviewed the public details.

“Every time we hand off a gun on set to talent, we show the chamber, bore and magazine,” said Chandler Cornblum, vice president of Movie Armaments Group, a Toronto-based weapons supplier. “The actor has to signal they accept the gun is empty. Only then do I hand the gun off.”

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

The WSJ (paywall) just posted an interesting article which included the fact armorers are supposed to display to the talent that gun is empty. This is the standard protocol used in shooting everywhere when handing off a weapon.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/on-set-of- ... lead_pos13

Quoted part below,

Hannah Gutierrez Reed, the movie’s 24-year-old firearms expert, who had recently completed her first film as head armorer, wasn’t the person who handed the gun that was fired to actor Alec Baldwin, according to the affidavits. That deviates from standard practice, say other armorers and film-industry veterans.

Dave Halls, the assistant director who handed Mr. Baldwin the gun, according to the affidavits, shouldn’t have been the one to do so, the experts say. Mr. Halls, Ms. Gutierrez Reed and Mr. Baldwin didn’t follow the typical standard protocols to ensure a gun’s safety on set, according to film-weapons experts and people with industry experience who reviewed the public details.

“Every time we hand off a gun on set to talent, we show the chamber, bore and magazine,” said Chandler Cornblum, vice president of Movie Armaments Group, a Toronto-based weapons supplier. “The actor has to signal they accept the gun is empty. Only then do I hand the gun off.”

So, the classic "I thought the chamber was empty" and passing the blame.

Again I ask: how many who handled the gun that day are self proclaimed "gun owners" and self proclaimed "safe gun handlers"? Do we actually know or are we just speculating based on how people feel about Baldwin? Perhaps he is a gun owner and 2A rights advocate? Do we know? Facts, please.

Criminal charges ARE on the table in Alec Baldwin shooting case, say prosecutors - as it emerges crew were using actor's gun to shoot cans with live ammo just HOURS before tragic death on set

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... eport.html

The prosecutor added that an 'enormous amount of bullets' had been found on the set and an investigation was needed into the nature of that ammunition. It follows reports that the gun the 63-year-old actor used to accidentally kill Hutchins was used by crew members to shoot at beer cans just hours before the incident.

According to an insider with knowledge of the set, several crew members on the set had taken several prop guns out the morning of the incident to go 'plinking' - a hobby in which people shoot at beer cans with live ammunition to pass the time. The individual, who spoke on condition of anonymity to The Wrap, added that the round of unsanctioned target practice occurred last Thursday, just hours before Baldwin discharged one of the weapons and shot both Hutchins and Souza.

There's lots of things to be uncovered. I doubt that Baldwin will be the scapegoat. I don't think that Baldwin was negligent in his handling of the prop gun given to him. But, as Producer on the film, I don't know how much of the other things happening on the set could get him into trouble. We'll see where the personal injury lawsuits land.

seb146 wrote:

So, the classic "I thought the chamber was empty" and passing the blame.

Again I ask: how many who handled the gun that day are self proclaimed "gun owners" and self proclaimed "safe gun handlers"? Do we actually know or are we just speculating based on how people feel about Baldwin? Perhaps he is a gun owner and 2A rights advocate? Do we know? Facts, please.

Just wanted to pop back into this thread and say, no he is not a Second Amendment advocate. Whether he is a gun owner or not depends on how much of a hypocrite he is.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/alec-baldwin ... 21230.html

It won't be long, likely after the preliminary investigations are done, that family of the dead and still living victim get a top personal injury attorney to file civil lawsuits on everyone in the movie for many millions. Hopefully soon prosecutors will seek charges on key people who likely led to the misused gun. We are hearing more disclosures of the stupidly awful lack of proper procedures as to guns on the movie set being used and someone has to pay the price for the harm that happened.

There is no doubt minimu, a civil lawsuits will be done. Now, we will see if there a penal judgment and this is going to be more painful

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Criminal charges ARE on the table in Alec Baldwin shooting case, say prosecutors - as it emerges crew were using actor's gun to shoot cans with live ammo just HOURS before tragic death on set

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... eport.html

The prosecutor added that an 'enormous amount of bullets' had been found on the set and an investigation was needed into the nature of that ammunition. It follows reports that the gun the 63-year-old actor used to accidentally kill Hutchins was used by crew members to shoot at beer cans just hours before the incident.

According to an insider with knowledge of the set, several crew members on the set had taken several prop guns out the morning of the incident to go 'plinking' - a hobby in which people shoot at beer cans with live ammunition to pass the time. The individual, who spoke on condition of anonymity to The Wrap, added that the round of unsanctioned target practice occurred last Thursday, just hours before Baldwin discharged one of the weapons and shot both Hutchins and Souza.

There's lots of things to be uncovered. I doubt that Baldwin will be the scapegoat. I don't think that Baldwin was negligent in his handling of the prop gun given to him. But, as Producer on the film, I don't know how much of the other things happening on the set could get him into trouble. We'll see where the personal injury lawsuits land.

That's a very fair take. About as much as can be gleaned/predicted based on what we know so far.

seb146 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

The WSJ (paywall) just posted an interesting article which included the fact armorers are supposed to display to the talent that gun is empty. This is the standard protocol used in shooting everywhere when handing off a weapon.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/on-set-of- ... lead_pos13

Quoted part below,

Hannah Gutierrez Reed, the movie’s 24-year-old firearms expert, who had recently completed her first film as head armorer, wasn’t the person who handed the gun that was fired to actor Alec Baldwin, according to the affidavits. That deviates from standard practice, say other armorers and film-industry veterans.

Dave Halls, the assistant director who handed Mr. Baldwin the gun, according to the affidavits, shouldn’t have been the one to do so, the experts say. Mr. Halls, Ms. Gutierrez Reed and Mr. Baldwin didn’t follow the typical standard protocols to ensure a gun’s safety on set, according to film-weapons experts and people with industry experience who reviewed the public details.

“Every time we hand off a gun on set to talent, we show the chamber, bore and magazine,” said Chandler Cornblum, vice president of Movie Armaments Group, a Toronto-based weapons supplier. “The actor has to signal they accept the gun is empty. Only then do I hand the gun off.”

So, the classic "I thought the chamber was empty" and passing the blame.

Again I ask: how many who handled the gun that day are self proclaimed "gun owners" and self proclaimed "safe gun handlers"? Do we actually know or are we just speculating based on how people feel about Baldwin? Perhaps he is a gun owner and 2A rights advocate? Do we know? Facts, please.

Mr. Cornblum is, in fact, in the business of working firearms in movie sets; what he describes is exactly how it is done—armorer shows the actor the gin is empty by opening the action and checking the note with the actor. The blame is back to the set, the armorer who didn’t act like a responsible person and show empty to the Mr. Baldwin. He didn’t ask to see it, apparently, and the armorer was clearly negligent in enforcing the rules and letting a set firearm to be used as a gun for plinking. Confusing the to uses led to carelessness in checking for empty.

seb146 wrote:

So, the classic "I thought the chamber was empty" and passing the blame.

Again I ask: how many who handled the gun that day are self proclaimed "gun owners" and self proclaimed "safe gun handlers"? Do we actually know or are we just speculating based on how people feel about Baldwin? Perhaps he is a gun owner and 2A rights advocate? Do we know? Facts, please.

Regardless how you feel there were many breakdowns. I don't think a third party clearing the gun is a good idea and any actor that will be handling any gun (if its a real firearm its not a prop) should be trained and should clear the gun themselves before any rehearsal or take.

NIKV69 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

So, the classic "I thought the chamber was empty" and passing the blame.

Again I ask: how many who handled the gun that day are self proclaimed "gun owners" and self proclaimed "safe gun handlers"? Do we actually know or are we just speculating based on how people feel about Baldwin? Perhaps he is a gun owner and 2A rights advocate? Do we know? Facts, please.

Regardless how you feel there were many breakdowns. I don't think a third party clearing the gun is a good idea and any actor that will be handling any gun (if its a real firearm its not a prop) should be trained and should clear the gun themselves before any rehearsal or take.

No one expects a fake gun to have live ammo. Baldwin could be a responsible gun owner anyway. No one thought to ask in the days and hours leading up to this tragic accident.

seb146 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

So, the classic "I thought the chamber was empty" and passing the blame.

Again I ask: how many who handled the gun that day are self proclaimed "gun owners" and self proclaimed "safe gun handlers"? Do we actually know or are we just speculating based on how people feel about Baldwin? Perhaps he is a gun owner and 2A rights advocate? Do we know? Facts, please.

Regardless how you feel there were many breakdowns. I don't think a third party clearing the gun is a good idea and any actor that will be handling any gun (if its a real firearm its not a prop) should be trained and should clear the gun themselves before any rehearsal or take.

No one expects a fake gun to have live ammo. Baldwin could be a responsible gun owner anyway. No one thought to ask in the days and hours leading up to this tragic accident.

No No No! you can only lament after the fact if someone isn't responsible. You cannot reasonably expect a demonstration of expertise, competency and mental well-being to a prescribed legal standard prior to be allowed to operate an item designed kill, only for things like electrical work or civil engineering.

Fred

seb146 wrote:

No one expects a fake gun to have live ammo.

It wasn't a fake gun it was real.

Quick summary, Alec Baldwin's production company could be liable, not the actor as the trigger puller.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ru ... uxbndlbing

I do not know as the producer he could be made personally liable. Lost earnings could be big.

Movie insured for $6 million for death/liability:
https://www.wikirise.com/en/rust-insura ... occurrence.

https://www.castanet.net/news/Entertain ... -continues

She also stressed that it was incorrect to refer to the weapon as a "prop gun" as some media outlets had been doing, as it was a "legit gun."


The way you turn a legit gun into a prop is remove the firing pin. This gun is so old, the firing pin is probably part of the hammer, so unfortunately removing (or filling down) the firing pin would be visually obvious.

Note, I don't suggest destroying an antique, but 3D printing a new, firing pin free (or short enough) hammer and use acid to age it.

Lightsaber

Other live rounds found on set (note: ignore the quantities as that includes dummy rounds and blank rounds):
https://www.syracuse.com/entertainment/ ... utType=amp

I literally cannot stop myself from checking a gun to see if it is loaded (or with what). So I am baffled by this slip.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

She also stressed that it was incorrect to refer to the weapon as a "prop gun" as some media outlets had been doing, as it was a "legit gun."


The way you turn a legit gun into a prop is remove the firing pin. This gun is so old, the firing pin is probably part of the hammer, so unfortunately removing (or filling down) the firing pin would be visually obvious.

Note, I don't suggest destroying an antique, but 3D printing a new, firing pin free (or short enough) hammer and use acid to age it.

Lightsaber

I said this earlier in the thread

NIKV69 wrote:

Couple of things jump out at me here, why is the media and everyone calling it a "prop" gun. It's a real gun. Saying Prop should only be used if the gun is fake.

The media keeps reciting the term "prop gun' as a way to take culpability off of Baldwin

NIKV69 wrote:

The media keeps reciting the term "prop gun' as a way to take culpability off of Baldwin

https://www.google.com/search?q=definit ... e&ie=UTF-8

See definition 2.

a portable object other than furniture or costumes used on the set of a play or movie.

Any object, functioning or non-functioning can be a prop.

Now, I won’t say the media doesn’t have a motive for using the term ‘prop gun’, but they are grammatically, and surprisingly, factually correct.

fr8mech wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

The media keeps reciting the term "prop gun' as a way to take culpability off of Baldwin

https://www.google.com/search?q=definit ... e&ie=UTF-8

See definition 2.

a portable object other than furniture or costumes used on the set of a play or movie.

Any object, functioning or non-functioning can be a prop.

Now, I won’t say the media doesn’t have a motive for using the term ‘prop gun’, but they are grammatically, and surprisingly, factually correct.

They were using a gun as a prop. That is correct.
All firearms should be respected.
This was a horrible breakdown in safety. I can understand some scenes could require live cartridges, but why were more found on the set?

Lightsaber

A lead bullet was recovered from the director:
https://deadline.com/2021/10/alec-baldw ... 63531/amp/

For those unfamiliar with firearms:
Cartridge is the "live round" with a
brass case holding a
primer (sets off powder on impact, enough to lightly propel bullet),
gunpowder which is the main propellant, and
bullet (usually lead) that is shot out.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

I do not know as the producer he could be made personally liable.

Unlikely. There is a huge misunderstanding in this thread about what the term "producer" means, and it is far to complicated to get into here. But the long and short of it is that it is a title that can mean almost anything when it comes to levels of responsibility in these matters. It is not uncommon for the title to be given to someone who has merely invested money in the project. That is a far extreme from an Executive Producer who oversees almost everything.

It is difficult to imagine Baldwin wearing an EP and principle actor hat on the same gig. That really does not happen much.

His company, on the other hand, may be liable if it can be shown that well known safety standards were being shorted.

fr8mech wrote:

Now, I won’t say the media doesn’t have a motive for using the term ‘prop gun’.

Exactly, they don't need a dictionary they have their own. They are running cover for Baldwin who should bear some reasonability for this. I don't believe he should be charged. Watching that poor woman die in front of him will be enough as he won't ever forget it.

NIKV69 wrote:

Watching that poor woman die in front of him will be enough as he won't ever forget it.

And there with that little sentence - you already proved more decent and empathetic than the right wing media that is just salivating to ‘own the libs’ and totally ignores that a person watched a colleague they worked with every day die in a terrible accident.

People mentioned earlier that in movie making the gun will be pointed some degrees outside of someone so as to limit risk. It's still in the general direction of that someone, though. Is it that far of a stretch to imagine that an actor, not a trained shooter, would move his arm a bit while pulling the trigger ?

I know that in this case he wasn't pointing at another actor but it seems at equipment. It's very possible that the victims didn't even need to be in the direction he was pointing at.

As for those saying Baldwin should have checked himself, that's not how it's done. I wouldn't be surprised if this accident has consequences and leads to many changes including this one, but hindsight is 20/20.

Aaron747 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

Watching that poor woman die in front of him will be enough as he won't ever forget it.

And there with that little sentence - you already proved more decent and empathetic than the right wing media that is just salivating to ‘own the libs’ and totally ignores that a person watched a colleague they worked with every day die in a terrible accident.

I think Alec Baldwin is a lowlife personally, but he is a great actor and a professional. I think the bigger picture here is gun safety on the production set. Of course both sides of the aisle are going to try to make hay with this but it's really not political. Wishing someone get arrested etc because you hate them politically just drags you into the same cesspool.

Aesma wrote:

As for those saying Baldwin should have checked himself, that's not how it's done. I wouldn't be surprised if this accident has consequences and leads to many changes including this one, but hindsight is 20/20.

First, it must have been terrible knowing killed a coworker.

But the above doesn't follow modern practice.
One of my direct reports used to be a cameraman before switching to aerospace engineering.

He detailed the process followed on 5 films he was the cameraman that had firearms.

0. armorer reviews scripts and with art director and director determines gun pointing directions, when drawn and modifies how scenes are shot for safety
1. A safety meeting is called
2. The armorer shows the firearms, all completely unloaded
3. The armorer describes how the guns will be used in the upcoming scene, including where the gun is pointed and when triggers are pulled
4. The armorer then loads the dummy rounds (no blanks were used as CGI takes care of that)
4a: Assistant director verifies the dummy load
5. The actors are issued their guns and must each personally verify the gun has no live rounds
6. Scene is filmed
7. Armorer immediately collects firearms and does a post scene safety review

Blanks are no longer used as CGI or true "prop guns" that replace pistols (vs. revolvers)

If live rounds are shot, all actors are removed from scene, armorers put on costumes and they do the shooting (e.g., fire a gun to show it breaking a plate or cutting grass). This coworker had never worked a shot with live rounds and every set had zero live rounds. They are only brought on for special scenes, usually no actors, tiny crew (which excluded a junior cameraman, his role), and the live ammo is very tightly controlled.

This issue is when management (the producer) rushes things. Recall the film crew complained their were no safety briefings and quit the production. To them that was a huge red flag that the normal process wasn't followed. The safety review is when the armorer coaches where to point the gun.

So industry standard practice is already to have the actors verify the gun safety. At least 4 years ago (before he went to get his engineering degree).

I've had to bring managers in for pressuring teams to speed up and "simplify" safety procedures. I see no reason that wouldn't happen on a film set.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

Aesma wrote:

As for those saying Baldwin should have checked himself, that's not how it's done. I wouldn't be surprised if this accident has consequences and leads to many changes including this one, but hindsight is 20/20.

First, it must have been terrible knowing killed a coworker.

But the above doesn't follow modern practice.
One of my direct reports used to be a cameraman before switching to aerospace engineering.

He detailed the process followed on 5 films he was the cameraman that had firearms.

0. armorer reviews scripts and with art director and director determines gun pointing directions, when drawn and modifies how scenes are shot for safety
1. A safety meeting is called
2. The armorer shows the firearms, all completely unloaded
3. The armorer describes how the guns will be used in the upcoming scene, including where the gun is pointed and when triggers are pulled
4. The armorer then loads the dummy rounds (no blanks were used as CGI takes care of that)
4a: Assistant director verifies the dummy load
5. The actors are issued their guns and must each personally verify the gun has no live rounds
6. Scene is filmed
7. Armorer immediately collects firearms and does a post scene safety review

Blanks are no longer used as CGI or true "prop guns" that replace pistols (vs. revolvers)

If live rounds are shot, all actors are removed from scene, armorers put on costumes and they do the shooting (e.g., fire a gun to show it breaking a plate or cutting grass). This coworker had never worked a shot with live rounds and every set had zero live rounds. They are only brought on for special scenes, usually no actors, tiny crew (which excluded a junior cameraman, his role), and the live ammo is very tightly controlled.

This issue is when management (the producer) rushes things. Recall the film crew complained their were no safety briefings and quit the production. To them that was a huge red flag that the normal process wasn't followed. The safety review is when the armorer coaches where to point the gun.

So industry standard practice is already to have the actors verify the gun safety. At least 4 years ago (before he went to get his engineering degree).

I've had to bring managers in for pressuring teams to speed up and "simplify" safety procedures. I see no reason that wouldn't happen on a film set.

Lightsaber

Combine that with two things we already know: the AD was known for skimping on safety (skipping meetings entirely on his last production) and the armorer was an inexperienced beneficiary of nepotism on her second production. Recipe for disaster.

Go look up who is shooting guns illegally and think how likely they’ll pay insurance premiums.

Nobody’s giddy about a tragic accident likely caused by the absence of a safety culture around guns. AD Halls is as responsible as anybody. Baldwin shouldn’t and I don’t think will be charged, there will be civil suits, of course. Baldwin has an awful burden to carry for the rest of his life, sometime I wouldn’t wish on him or anyone.

While I think Baldwin was negligent (he was a producer and from all accounts this was a very haphazard set with everything done on the cheap) I agree that this is one hell of a burden to impose on anyone. BTW the armorer was fired from a Nicolas Cage set for unsafe activity- presumably they got her at low cost and no one did any due diligence.

Discuss the topic, not other users.
What happened, we used to be a "walk a mile in the other's shoes" culture and now it is straight to school yard taunts.

This is a serious topic. Please post respectfully.

Lightsaber

cairns wrote:

While I think Baldwin was negligent (he was a producer and from all accounts this was a very haphazard set with everything done on the cheap) I agree that this is one hell of a burden to impose on anyone. BTW the armorer was fired from a Nicolas Cage set for unsafe activity- presumably they got her at low cost and no one did any due diligence.

There were six producers not counting the EPs. As previously posted upthread, ‘producer’ doesn’t always mean what people think. In a lot of cases A-list producer credit is given for simply putting up money for the production - it is unlikely Baldwin was involved in day to day production sourcing and management.