Are people arguing the armorer, who left live ammunition in a gun, ISNâT responsible for the accident?? I donât understand who or what heâs arguing against
Regardless of the failure of physical controls, no one seems to be noting that safety training is also not Baldwinâs responsibility.
I certainly donât look at a rich old hyperlib and think âYeah, he knows this âprop gunâ is just an actual gun.â I donât look at Baldwin and even think âHe knows not to point this at something he isnât willing to destroy.â
I wouldnât assume he knows a single thing about guns I didnât directly tell him and have him repeat back to me.
What armorer?
Alec Baldwin, as producer for the show in question, conducted that shoot without one on the set.
Thus why Baldwin is the one at fault for the shooting - and, funny enough, NOT because he was the one holding the trigger at the time it happened.
Pretty sure there was an armorer named Hannah Gutierrez-ReedâŠ
I think the take away on this is:
As is, currently, actors are not responsible for checking their prop weapons on set. No actor is ever expected to do it, because there are people responsible for it. In the event of an incident, in the current standard practices, no one can reasonably blame the actor.
But, systematically, it shouldnât be that way.
We canât look at one incident and say âclearly the actor was in the wrongâ because culturally, itâs X Y and Z techâs job to check the firearm. But cultures within an industry can shift. Currently, firearm safety on set isnât everyoneâs job. But it should be everyoneâs job. The system should be better, because firearm safety is a demonstrably life-or-death process.
How do you change the system? By holding productions liable when stuff like this happens. You sue the absolute shit out of the producers, so the producers have a crippling fear of NOT improving the system.
You donât hold the actor Alec Baldwin responsible. You hold the producer Alec Baldwin responsible.
you donât change the system. letting the actor check the mag/clear the chamber adds an additional point of failure in the process and reduces safety for everyone on set.
if you want to change things you stop filming with hot weapons entirely.
I donât get why they arenât using altered guns that canât accommodate real ammo? Seems crazy to use a fully functioning gun
âRealismâ
They were testing the shot by pointing it directly at the DP and Director so they could see what it looked like if he drew the gun. There was no reason Baldwin wasnât using either of the two non-firing guns during the rehearsal other than wanting it to seem more real. Yes, the armorer was inexperienced, but who hired the armorer. Yes, the 1st AD called cold gun and supposedly handed it to Baldwin without checking it. But who chose to then point the gun at people while simulating a quick draw motion?
It was completely reckless and there was a pattern of dangerous behavior on Baldwinâs part, which coupled with his role as producer, and the fact that the production had numerous complaints about safety and corner cutting, doesnât look good at all.
The situation was so bad, that the DPs entire camera department WALKED that day, and had previously complained about gun safety being an issue. They were replaced by non-union scabs. When leaving, a producer threatened to call security if they didnât hurry up. Others on set previously complained because prop guns had already accidentally discharged TWICE before the shooting.
Additionally, rather than finding suitable nearby accommodations in Santa Fe, as they were initially promised, crew were forced to travel 50 miles away to Albuquerque every day. For anyone unaware, film set days are usually around 10-15 hours per day of physically and mentally demanding work.
Everything that transpired was because of a perfect storm created by the production department. It shows all the hallmarks of the systemic abuses that occur between above the line and below the line players, and in my opinion the production department is responsible and should be found criminally negligent at the very least.
Currently: Alec Baldwin has gotten to walk away from this mess, all charges dropped. Gutierrez is now the sole person still being charged and being blamed for drinking and smoking weed after her shift, as well as new testimony from an anonymous witness who claims a bag of cocaine was handed off after she was interviewed by police. I guess production has found their lamb.
You donât have the actor check the weapon instead of the armorer. You have them check it in addition to the armorer. You pick up a gun, you check it.
This is basic gun safety. If a gun ever leaves your direct control or observation, no matter how short, you check it.
So now all kinds of people who arenât experts are unloading and loading the gun? Thatâs insane
Whatever happened was horrible but also, and my brain canât stop thinking about this, will the movie ever come out? I donât think it did
They resumed filming after Bladwin was found not guilty and subsequently wrapped, but thereâs no release date or anything yet
He wasnât found ânot guiltyâ, it doesnât even sound like charges were brought against him, his lawyers just started that he wouldnât be charged which means that there is a possibility of charges being brought against him in the future if new evidence comes to light.
Thereâs a few reasons why he was charged, both as an actor and producer. Gun safety just canât be fucked around with.
In the document, prosecutors accused Baldwin of âmany instances of extremely reckless actsâ during the filmâs production.
They wrote that Baldwin âwas not presentâ for mandatory firearms training before filming began. He was instead provided on-set guidance but prosecutors allege he was âdistracted and talking on his cell phone to his family.â The training session was scheduled for an hour but was only 30 minutes long due to Baldwinâs âdistractionâ on the phone.
⊠The prosecutorâs statement described several âacts or omissions of recklessnessâ on the set of Rust. This included foregoing the use of a prop gun during unscheduled rehearsals, willful ignorance toward on-set safety complaints and a lack of armourer-performed safety checks.
https://globalnews.ca/news/9451182/alec-baldwin-rust-manslaughter-charge-phone/amp/
The issue is, as I understand it, that Baldwin was handed the revolver from a producer or someone of similar standing and he should have handed it to the armorer for checking, regardless of what he was told.
Doesnât matter. âPropâ guns donât exist and every gun is unfit unless physically checked by yourself personally.
Actually, prop guns do exist and Iâm not talking about the ones that shoot blanks.
Or have you never seen a cosplayer with a gun?
There are realistic looking guns that are built without a firing mechanism .
OK Rambo.
Alec Baldwin was a producer on the movie and thus was involved in the decision making process to have nonunion crew on set. IATSE armorers have a near-perfect track record with firearms on set. As somebody with the clout to make it happen, Baldwin should have insisted on the shoot being a union set.
deleted by creator
An actor that has to do stunts gets stunt lessons. An actor that has to drive gets driving lessons. An actor that has to box gets boxing lessons. Am actor that has to speak a different language gets language lessons. And on and on and on⊠And then we have: AN ACTOR THAT HAS TO HANDLE GUNS DOES NOT NEED TO HAVE GUN HANDLING AND SAFETY LESSONS!?!
Test
I knew an MOS2111 sgt⊠they had a ND that resulted in the loss of a foot.
Military credentials dont mean shit, son.
Notice he didnât answer the question with a yes or noâŠ
The answer is an automatic yes in itself because weapons safety is taught nonstop in the army, from the moment you join and every single time you are up for weapons requalification.
With all due respect to our servicepeople, just having served in the armed services in no way guarantees youâre an expert with firearms, competent at firearm safety, or qualified to be a professional armorer.
Anyone whoâs been around them knows, the military takes all types.
Then heâs a moron, and Iâm gonna ask my buddy who was in the 82nd Airborne if he happens to know this fool. My dude was actually at my house yesterday and I showed him a new gun, I picked it up, unload and show clear, pass it to him, he shows itâs clear as well, and now it is safe, that is paramount any time you touch a real gun, I donât care what your fucking job title is, I donât care what your experience level is, if you canât do that you DO NOT get to touch real guns, use airsoft until you can learn a modicum of responsibility. It isnât even that hard to do, it is literally âPress button, see bullets? No? Good. Yes? Bad.â It is absolutely basic shit that a fucking 10yo could do (not that they maybe should lol, but they are physically and likely mentally capable of checking for rounds).
And accidents can happen at any level, this âsquat leaderâsâ cavalier attitude towards gun safety is actually pretty fucking dangerous, and I hope heâs not some kind of instructor these days. Heâs liable to have an accident himself with this attitude (âOh I was a squad leader I know what Iâm doing.â BANG, friend at the bbq has a new hole âWhoops sorry Jerry.â) Hell, I know a dude who served as a grunt who recently got fired for having an ND at work (thank god nobody got hurt by that âexperienced soldierâ but all of us who never served and got on him for safety practices ended up being able to finally say I fuckinâ toad-a-so.)
Tl;dr I donât fucking care what either of their job titles are, IF YOU TOUCH A REAL GUN, LEARN GUN SAFETY FIRST End of story, that is it, no other details matter, not your job, age, experience level, nothing.
Youâre coming across as argumentative and needlessly aggressive. That kind of behaviour is not welcome in this community. Please take more care to follow the rules if youâd like to continue participating in this community. Thank you.
Just a word of advice, any time youâre talking about gun safety, gun violence, or potential death especially by firearm, itâs going to come off as aggressive. Firearms are aggressive.
As for argumentative, why is that against the rules? You arenât allowed to disagree? What if someone is saying something totally wrong that will cause harm? What if someone says that sucking on the barrel of a gun is a good way to relieve a toothache? Is no one allowed to argue against that?
The number of military people who donât understand firearm safety is amazing. Iâve got a buddy in the navy and one time we were hanging out and drinking. He wanted to show off his gun and everyone around just told him to stop, put his gun somewhere else safe and that he could have it back when he was sober. Why he needed a bunch of civilians to tell him that I donât know.
Complacency kills, accidents can and do happen at any experience level. In fact Iâd argue they may happen more with those who have grown too comfortable with firearms, usually the newbies are appropriatly cautious. Iâd be real interested to see some data on that but idt anyone is compiling it.
If I had my guess as to âwhy,â your buddy sounds like he falls into this trap (at least when drunk, which tends to exacerbate feelings of âAh shut up I know what Iâm doing.â Lol) Hopefully heâs better about it these days!
Having been in the military does not mean that youâre an expert on firearms safety. The military does all kinds of dangerous things with gun, and people can and do get killed with negligent discharges in the military because they donât practice adequate safety.
So thatâs really not the flex he thinks it is.
This is the same mentality that goes into army veterans believing that theyâre a good shot because they qualified as 'âexpertâ with their rifle. Well, bad news; I surpassed âexpertâ and went straight to âsniperâ the first time I tried the old Marine Corps field of fire with my rifle (timed shots, standing, kneeling, prone), and that was functionally untrained. âMarksmanâ is the qualification that you want if youâre going to claim to be a good shot.
Amongst all the huhbub and finger pointing, the actual first rule of guns is always check that the gun is loaded.
You check the chamber and you check the ammo.
At no point should there ever be live ammo on a movie shoot. Whether that Baldwinâs fault for hiring a shitty armorer, I donât know. But there where many failures up and down the line. If the assistant director was also supposed to check, they also failed.
But at the end of the line, Alec Baldwin picked up the gun and didnât or couldnât identify that the gun was loaded with live ammunition and pulled the trigger while it was pointed at someone. And that person died.
You check the chamber and you check the ammo.
So actors, who arenât experts, should be disassembling and unloading/loading the guns theyâre using, after the armorer has declared the gun safe? Is that what you think will make this safer?
Same rules as climbing. Check your own gear, and check your partnerâs gear.
The armorer can unload, check, and reload the gun in front of the actor. Then the actor can unload, check, and reload the gun under the training and supervisions if the armorer. Any actor seeking to hold a real gun should also need independent, verified training that comes from outside the studio. We donât let actors fly planes or perform surgery to make the shot slightly more realistic unless they have valid training, why should guns be any different?
There is also no valid reason (cost is not a valid reason) for why there would be a real bullet that fits in a real gun (the lead projectile part) anywhere on set. Even if you need a shot with one, donât make it out of metal or anything strong enough to survive the blank going off.
Yes, if youâre a rock climber.
If youâre an actor doing a rock climbing scene in a movie, you donât know how the gear should be set up. You rely on the crew and rock climbing expert on set to check your gear. If you check or modify the gear to test it in some way, you may inadvertently make it unsafe because you donât know anything about Rock climbing gear and safety.
He didnât answer the questionâŠ
deleted by creator
