- The armorer not ensuring gun empty
- Armorer not educating baldwin on the specifics of hammer on the antique pistol
- Baldwin not ensuring gun empty
- Baldwin pointing gun at people while practising draw
- Live rounds being on the set in the first place
- other
It's the live rounds for sure. There hasn't even been an explanation for that yet. When the story first broke they said the crew would often go shoot at a nearby gun range, but that's the last that was ever said about it.
shareThe prosecutor has laid out their prima facie case in public as to why the charges were brought. Per rules, he IS supposed to check the gun, not cancel and disregard safety meetings and not be distracted on his cellphone during a special safety briefing just for him.share
Then he pulled the trigger and fired a gun at someone resulting in their death.
by Anonymous reply 68 February 2, 2023 11:02 PM
So not "keep live rounds the hell of your movie set" then ?
shareAs much as I cant' stand Baldwin, I really don't think it's his responsibility to check the gun.
It's a movie prop. I think you're safe to assume the gun is safe. When you're given a car to drive, do you demand to take it for a test drive first to make sure the brakes are working, and that the seatbelts are secure? Certain things you just take for granted.
The gun nuts will be along any second to teach you the gun handling code , which in their eyes must be obeyed as completely and strictly on a movie set as it would be in the real world .
Which I reckon is impossible.
How the hell did they film The Deer Hunter ?
he had that gun pointed right at his head! (code violation #1)
AND he didnt insist on checking it when the movie character handed it to him! (code violation #2)
Wow, most moronic comment I've read yet. If you're somewhere where there's a real, fully operable gun, even if it's a movie set, that is the real world. I'm not even a "gun nut", but I know one of the basic rules is that no matter who hands you a gun, and what they tell you, you always check it yourself. To do otherwise is stupid and irresponsible. If that's not protocol on movie sets, then movie set protocol is stupid and wrong and needs to be changed. You can be damned sure while they were filming "The Deer Hunter" Walken and whichever actor handed him the revolver confirmed for themselves, with the participation of the armorer, that is was not loaded with live rounds or blanks before the camera rolled. Any intelligent, rational person would want to do that, whether it was a formal rule on the set or not. If Baldwin had done it, nobody would have got shot, but he failed. I don't expect you to to be able to comprehend any of that.
shareI've just given you a crystal clear example of where the "real world" rules HAVE to differ from the movie set rules .
I cant put it any clearer so I wont bother typing it again .
ok , summary:
-gun pointed at head
-gun not checked when given
These vioklations of the "real world" rules were unavaoidable because they were exactly what the script called for.
I've no doubt they mitagated these risks by ensuring bullets were dummy before the scene started - and not fucking off to the shooting range to play with live ammo , as seems to have occured in baldwin's case.
I'm not suggesting movie sets should bot have safety , I'm saying the system that they do have HAS to be different.
Heres another example .
In the "Real world" one of the rules on driving a car is to not drive it faster than 70 mph
In a movie , when depicting a scene where somone is illegally driving a car over 70 mph , it may be neccassary to drive a car over 70 mph.
To achieve this SAFELY they employ a DIFFERENT set of safety rules .
I would say, in general, all of the above, but ultimately the "live rounds..." part is the ultimate catalist in this tragic event. That would fall on the aurmouer, but some amount of responsibility has to fall on Baldwin himself.
shareBaldwin not verifying the gun was empty.
Never accept a weapon without knowing if it's loaded or not. It's your responsibility once it's in your hands. He's been in movies with guns for decades. This is standard practice and he knows better. It takes a second to verify if a gun is loaded.
If the actor opens the weapon to inspect, the armorer must then take the weapon back and reinspect it. The armorer is the last person allowed to close the weapon. If I'm the armorer, no actor opens a weapon I certify unless I take it back and make sure some loon actor didn't put in a live round and blame it on me.
If the process wasn't followed, I see it as Baldwin failing. Even if she said it was fine and he believed her, he still accepted a loaded weapon without checking.
It's a fair disagreement between us. I'm sure that's how the investigation looks at it.
Live rounds. I still think Baldwin was negligent, but the armorer is definitely the most at fault imo. It's a movie set with weapons, it's 100% the armorer's job and expertise to ensure the upmost safety for all those on the set and they should be checking the rounds they put into the weapon. The actor is the last line of defense and should check the weapon once received and practice good gun safety and not point a gun at a living thing. Baldwin, as a producer, and the director are also negligent for not ensuring proper safety practices were not enforced on the set. However I can see the armorer's lawyer arguing that they weren't properly trained thus blaming those in charge.
share