Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 1:56:04 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2021 22:07:53 GMT
If you are going to handle a weapon you treat it as if it were a real weapon. Period. They will tell you this in gun safety classes over and over and over. This was a preventable accident. Alec Baldwin had the responsibility to check that weapon, along with the producer and the armorer. Mr. Baldwin's role or location do not really matter. What does matter at the most basic level is Alec Baldwin was handling a weapon that has the potential to kill a person. Because due diligence was not performed, one person was killed and another injured. If you are an actor and your role means you will handling weapons, you attend gun safety classes until you can demonstrate you know how to safely check and handle the weapons you will be working with. Passing the responsibility of weapon safety off to someone else other than the person holding the gun is irresponsible. Relying on untrained/semi-trained actors for understanding the intricacies of all the different guns and setups for guns on set would be even more of a disaster than what happened in Rust. There are safety protocols set up by professionals who are responsible for all the guns and those protocols should be followed by everyone on set. The actor is simply a hand on a movie set when there are guns involved, and the gun is the responsibility of the armorer. Baldwin was not responsible for the gun, the armorer was. And that's the safest way to handle it on a set with dozens of guns, dozens of actors, and different shots going on all the time. That's why they set it up that way. Obviously the protocols weren't followed, and that is why this accident occurred. This is a perfect example of passing the buck. When it comes to weapons, if you don't know how to handle it yourself you do.not.handle.it. It is that simple. Anyone who touches that gun is responsible for it. Thinking it is another person's responsibility because "I'm an actor/actress" is wrong. Just because you are in front of the screen does not mean your actions and lack of knowledge have no responsibility to the people around you. That's like telling an unlicensed driver who has never passed a driving exam "It's OK you killed four people by driving your car upon a curb where they were standing. The Department of Public Safety should have taught you how to drive, or been steering the wheel for you, for everyone else's safety." Another thing Alec should have noticed if he had checked and been trained properly - prop guns that are automatic cannot hold real/live ammunition. However, revolvers (like those used in westerns) don't always follow that rule which makes it even more important that the person holding the weapon knows exactly what they are holding. They would have taught in basic gun training - "this is live ammunition, this is blank ammunition" - and had Alec checked the gun, he would have been able to ascertain that (1) the ammunition in the gun was live due to the difference in shape of the bullet/blank, and (2) the weapon was a real gun because prop guns cannot hold live ammunition. So yes, actors/actress are part of the chain of safety when they choose to take a role that handles firearms and now we see what happens when everyone fails to do their due diligence. I agree there were drops in how the safety protocols were handled, and Alec Baldwin was part of the chain of failures. |
|
|
|
Post by questioning on Oct 27, 2021 22:10:02 GMT
I remember reading earlier they were setting up the shot, and at time of filming the Director and group would retreat to a shed to the side to watch the action on monitors.
Was supposed to be filled with a blank?
After reading about past accidents, it seems firing a blank would be almost as dangerous with them close to the cameras. Why did Alec B fire if that was the case?
I"m not blaming him, just pointing out another place where safety protocols ignored/ failed.
It is all so sad, and many lives will be altered because of this. Hopefully lessons will be learned.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 1:56:04 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2021 22:20:39 GMT
I remember reading earlier they were setting up the shot, and at time of filming the Director and group would retreat to a shed to the side to watch the action on monitors. Was supposed to be filled with a blank? After reading about past accidents, it seems firing a blank would be almost as dangerous with them close to the cameras. It really depends on the kinds of "blanks" used, how close a person, and where a blank may strike. Blanks are not 100% safe. When a gun is fired with a blank there are still elements discharged from the end of the gun that can cause harm. Movie producers could use special effects to mimic guns firing - the lights, smoke, sound, etc. However, it seems they prefer to use prop guns with blanks so the firing pin creates the closer real-world discharge of a firearm. I know it seems like I am beating a dead horse but this is how instructors drive the point home in gun safety classes - the person holding the weapon is ultimately responsible for it. Alec did not check his weapon and relied on someone else doing what was his job. Many checks in the safety protocol failed, including the person who shot the fatal bullet. Safety is everyone's responsibility. |
|
|
|
Post by gar on Oct 27, 2021 22:25:34 GMT
Relying on untrained/semi-trained actors for understanding the intricacies of all the different guns and setups for guns on set would be even more of a disaster than what happened in Rust. There are safety protocols set up by professionals who are responsible for all the guns and those protocols should be followed by everyone on set. The actor is simply a hand on a movie set when there are guns involved, and the gun is the responsibility of the armorer. Baldwin was not responsible for the gun, the armorer was. And that's the safest way to handle it on a set with dozens of guns, dozens of actors, and different shots going on all the time. That's why they set it up that way. Obviously the protocols weren't followed, and that is why this accident occurred. This is a perfect example of passing the buck. When it comes to weapons, if you don't know how to handle it yourself you do.not.handle.it. It is that simple. Anyone who touches that gun is responsible for it. Thinking it is another person's responsibility because "I'm an actor/actress" is wrong. Just because you are in front of the screen does not mean your actions and lack of knowledge have no responsibility to the people around you. That's like telling an unlicensed driver who has never passed a driving exam "It's OK you killed four people by driving your car upon a curb where they were standing. The Department of Public Safety and the should have taught you how to drive proficiently for everyone else's safety." Another thing Alec should have noticed if he had checked and been trained properly - prop guns cannot hold real/live ammunition. They would have taught in basic gun training - "this is live ammunition, this is blank ammunition" - and had Alec checked the gun, he would have been able to ascertain that (1) the ammunition in the gun was live due to the difference in shape of the bullet/blank, and (2) the weapon was a real gun because prop guns cannot hold live ammunition. So yes, actors/actress are part of the chain of safety when they choose to take a role that handles firearms and now we see what happens when everyone fails to do their due diligence. I agree there were drops in how the safety protocols were handled, and Alec Baldwin was part of the chain of failures. It’s not passing the buck at all. The purpose of having an armourer is precisely so that the buck stops with them…to keep the chain as short as possible. It was one person’s job. It is not the role of the actors to check the safety of anything else on set - fire effects, stunts set-up, runaway trains or otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by chances on Oct 27, 2021 22:30:57 GMT
Some of you are talking about this from the side of a gun-owner. Some of us are not gun owners. I wouldn’t know the difference between a blank and a bullet. If I was actress, I would assume the “prop” handed to me was safe. This incident is so tragic. I believe the fault lies with whomever was responsible for watching over the props. Not only assume, but he was told it was “cold” ie safe. I have major issues with people handling guns irresponsibly but in this case based on currently available information Baldwin was following set protocols in place on movie sets that are supposed to ensure the safety of everyone on set. The person who handed the gun to Baldwin admitted to police that he did not check all chambers and ensure it wasn’t live ammunition before handing the gun to Baldwin and telling him it was cold. Did the person explain why they didn’t check? What on earth were they thinking? |
|
|
|
Post by Zee on Oct 27, 2021 23:22:15 GMT
This is a perfect example of passing the buck. When it comes to weapons, if you don't know how to handle it yourself you do.not.handle.it. It is that simple. Anyone who touches that gun is responsible for it. Thinking it is another person's responsibility because "I'm an actor/actress" is wrong. Just because you are in front of the screen does not mean your actions and lack of knowledge have no responsibility to the people around you. That's like telling an unlicensed driver who has never passed a driving exam "It's OK you killed four people by driving your car upon a curb where they were standing. The Department of Public Safety and the should have taught you how to drive proficiently for everyone else's safety." Another thing Alec should have noticed if he had checked and been trained properly - prop guns cannot hold real/live ammunition. They would have taught in basic gun training - "this is live ammunition, this is blank ammunition" - and had Alec checked the gun, he would have been able to ascertain that (1) the ammunition in the gun was live due to the difference in shape of the bullet/blank, and (2) the weapon was a real gun because prop guns cannot hold live ammunition. So yes, actors/actress are part of the chain of safety when they choose to take a role that handles firearms and now we see what happens when everyone fails to do their due diligence. I agree there were drops in how the safety protocols were handled, and Alec Baldwin was part of the chain of failures. It’s not passing the buck at all. The purpose of having an armourer is precisely so that the buck stops with them…to keep the chain as short as possible. It was one person’s job. It is not the role of the actors to check the safety of anything else on set - fire effects, stunts set-up, runaway trains or otherwise. Yes. I mean, he had one job. And he didn't do it. Though after this I'd certainly be campaigning for and/or requiring, if I was an actor with enough clout, that there be a two-person safety verification for every weapon before every scene. That should be standard if it isn't already. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 1:56:04 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2021 23:26:27 GMT
"According to the warrant, Gutierrez explained that when the crew broke for lunch ahead of rehearsing the scene in the church that all firearms were brought into the on-set prop truck and secured in a safe. The ammo was left on the cart on set and not secured. After lunch, on-set property manager Sarah Zachary retrieved the guns from the safe and handed them to Gutierrez, the warrant said. Gutierrez told authorities that no live ammo is ever kept on set." www.cnbc.com/2021/10/27/alec-baldwin-given-unchecked-gun-on-rust-set-warrant-says.htmlSo I wondered wth it came from?!?! |
|
|
|
Post by katlady on Oct 27, 2021 23:40:23 GMT
"According to the warrant, Gutierrez explained that when the crew broke for lunch ahead of rehearsing the scene in the church that all firearms were brought into the on-set prop truck and secured in a safe. The ammo was left on the cart on set and not secured. After lunch, on-set property manager Sarah Zachary retrieved the guns from the safe and handed them to Gutierrez, the warrant said. Gutierrez told authorities that no live ammo is ever kept on set." www.cnbc.com/2021/10/27/alec-baldwin-given-unchecked-gun-on-rust-set-warrant-says.htmlSo I wondered wth it came from?!?! Yeah, and I thought the recent press conference today said there was live ammo found on the set?! There seemed to have been a lot of protocols and safety measures that were not followed. I don’t blame Alec the Actor, but Alec the Producer needs to looked into. Also Zachary and Gutierrez. I understand Zachary is relatively new. |
|
maryannscraps
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,803
Aug 28, 2017 12:51:28 GMT
|
Post by maryannscraps on Oct 27, 2021 23:40:55 GMT
Relying on untrained/semi-trained actors for understanding the intricacies of all the different guns and setups for guns on set would be even more of a disaster than what happened in Rust. There are safety protocols set up by professionals who are responsible for all the guns and those protocols should be followed by everyone on set. The actor is simply a hand on a movie set when there are guns involved, and the gun is the responsibility of the armorer. Baldwin was not responsible for the gun, the armorer was. And that's the safest way to handle it on a set with dozens of guns, dozens of actors, and different shots going on all the time. That's why they set it up that way. Obviously the protocols weren't followed, and that is why this accident occurred. This is a perfect example of passing the buck. When it comes to weapons, if you don't know how to handle it yourself you do.not.handle.it. It is that simple. Anyone who touches that gun is responsible for it. Thinking it is another person's responsibility because "I'm an actor/actress" is wrong. Just because you are in front of the screen does not mean your actions and lack of knowledge have no responsibility to the people around you. That's like telling an unlicensed driver who has never passed a driving exam "It's OK you killed four people by driving your car upon a curb where they were standing. The Department of Public Safety and the should have taught you how to drive proficiently for everyone else's safety." Another thing Alec should have noticed if he had checked and been trained properly - prop guns cannot hold real/live ammunition. They would have taught in basic gun training - "this is live ammunition, this is blank ammunition" - and had Alec checked the gun, he would have been able to ascertain that (1) the ammunition in the gun was live due to the difference in shape of the bullet/blank, and (2) the weapon was a real gun because prop guns cannot hold live ammunition. So yes, actors/actress are part of the chain of safety when they choose to take a role that handles firearms and now we see what happens when everyone fails to do their due diligence. I agree there were drops in how the safety protocols were handled, and Alec Baldwin was part of the chain of failures. I guess we'll have to agree to completely disagree. There is a clear line of responsibility and safety on a movie set, and as an actor, Baldwin wasn't in it. This is all on the armorer. Unless Baldwin was adding real bullets to this gun, he isn't responsible. |
|
|
|
Post by questioning on Oct 27, 2021 23:51:02 GMT
I know it seems like I am beating a dead horse but this is how instructors drive the point home in gun safety classes - the person holding the weapon is ultimately responsible for it. Alec did not check his weapon and relied on someone else doing what was his job. Many checks in the safety protocol failed, including the person who shot the fatal bullet. Safety is everyone's responsibility. Not a dead horse, but I think you are talking about what could or should, rather than what is. It's two different conversations, and irrelevant to whether or not you or I handle guns. WHAT IS: There are people on the set who's job is to check the guns and ensure safety. (I assume) the actor is not to pull the trigger until he is told to do so. (I also assume) this is like other type of projects, this behavior is a contractual obligation. In no way is this passing the buck. These have nothing to do gun practices in other situations. In the future, the actor could become a standard check and schedules adjusted for it. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 1:56:04 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2021 23:53:58 GMT
And that is one reason why the accident happened. They kept the chain too short. The armorer lacked proper experience and was rushed. The next in line didn't do their due diligence and Alec didn't do his. Usually you can overcoming one short in a "chain check". We see what happens with multiple failures. maryannscraps - Yes, you and will have to disagree. Handling weapons is NEVER another person's job. Gun safety, regardless of what type of gun it is (toy, prop, real, etc.) always has and always will be the responsibility of the person holding the weapon. It's unfortunate it was Alec Baldwin. Proper training and proper checks would have prevented this accident. |
|
|
|
Post by questioning on Oct 27, 2021 23:56:07 GMT
I guess we'll have to agree to completely disagree. There is a clear line of responsibility and safety on a movie set, and as an actor, Baldwin wasn't in it. This is all on the armorer. Unless Baldwin was adding real bullets to this gun, he isn't responsible. Unless he pulled the trigger before he was supposed to? That could include him in the chain of failure, but perhaps not the bigger issue of live round. |
|
|
|
Post by amp on Oct 28, 2021 0:01:00 GMT
It’s not passing the buck at all. The purpose of having an armourer is precisely so that the buck stops with them…to keep the chain as short as possible. It was one person’s job. It is not the role of the actors to check the safety of anything else on set - fire effects, stunts set-up, runaway trains or otherwise. Yes. I mean, he had one job. And he didn't do it. Though after this I'd certainly be campaigning for and/or requiring, if I was an actor with enough clout, that there be a two-person safety verification for every weapon before every scene. That should be standard if it isn't already. Alec Baldwin has enough clout to do this!!! You made a great point. If I were him, I'd start campaigning for weapons reforms on all sets now. I would want (as a minimum) two person safety verification as you mentioned and training for any actors who have to shoot a weapon. I don't have that much gun training, but even I know to check my own gun... Also, as with the safety training on my job, the shock factor (if included in the training) would help. We have to drive or at least work around huge trucks at my job on occasion. At first, I was super-excited to drive one. Then in the mandatory three day training we had to take just to walk around the trucks, they showed a film where a guy who was having a bad day and was distracted violated safety protocol...and ran over and killed his BFF. OMG. I work with my BFF. I don't want to kill him. THAT thought keeps me calm and focused.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 1:56:04 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2021 0:15:44 GMT
Yes, there are people who's one job is to check guns and ensure safety. I can see where you are coming from with the contractual perspective. When it comes to gun safety I see it as not only contractual but a personal responsibility, too. Gun safety is not exclusive to one environment. Gun safety encompassees ALL environments.
The four very basic rules of gun safety are:
#1 Treat all guns as if they are always loaded.
#2 Never let the muzzle cover anything that you are not willing to destroy.
#3 Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on target and you have made the decision to shoot.
#4 Be sure of your target and what lies beyond it.
All four basic rules were ignored.
Yes, I understand that a movie set is a bit different which means a higher level of precautions must be taken. That does not mean any person handling a weapon gets to shirk their responsibility by assuming. If you are going to put a weapon in your hands it is your responsibility - for your own safety and the safety of others around you - to know not only the basics of gun safety but also have the ability to identify what is a real weapon, prop weapon, real ammo, or blanks. The stakes are higher on a movie set (more people around) so the training and ability to show competency with gun safety should correspond.
|
|
|
|
Post by lesserknownpea on Oct 28, 2021 4:56:34 GMT
I stopped reading in disgust a while ago in this thread.
I have zero patience for anybody who suggests that Alec bears any responsibility for this terrible foul up.
I typed a bunch of stuff, then erased it all, because really, that’s all I need to say.
|
|
|
|
Post by katlady on Oct 28, 2021 5:08:31 GMT
This is an interesting article about the armorer and the assistant director. I cut and pasted a couple of lines from the article. www.yahoo.com/entertainment/rust-assistant-director-david-halls-said-he-should-have-checked-gun-more-thoroughly-before-giving-it-to-alec-baldwin-but-didnt-warrant-224803705.htmlHannah Gutierrez-Reed, the armorer for the film Rust, says she checked the ammunition prior to Alec Baldwin being given the gun and "ensured they were not 'hot' rounds." But assistant director David Halls, who was supposed to check her work, admitted that he didn't check all her work. Meanwhile, Stu Brumbaugh, who served as key grip on The Old Way, told TheWrap that Gutierrez-Reed upset Cage and other crew members on the set by failing to follow basic gun safety protocols — like announcing to the cast and crew that a gun was about to be fired. There have been complaints made about Halls in the past over safety protocols. He was fired from the set of the film Freedom’s Path in 2019, after a gun unexpectedly discharged, causing a minor injury to a crew member. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 1:56:04 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2021 11:28:16 GMT
This is an example of why gun safety is a misnomer. You can have plenty of training, keep your gun locked up, never point it at someone you don't intend to kill...but humans are human, we forget, we get enraged, we get suicidal, we get paranoid and decide we need it loaded at the bedside we get drunk, careless, we get stolen from and kids and innocent people die all the time so that people can fantasize about shooting bad guys and self defense. For every bad guy where that works there are lots of good guys who go down. I don't know the solution but I object to gun culture on the grounds that most humans aren't in their right minds at least 1% of the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by sabrinae on Oct 28, 2021 12:23:17 GMT
Not only assume, but he was told it was “cold” ie safe. I have major issues with people handling guns irresponsibly but in this case based on currently available information Baldwin was following set protocols in place on movie sets that are supposed to ensure the safety of everyone on set. The person who handed the gun to Baldwin admitted to police that he did not check all chambers and ensure it wasn’t live ammunition before handing the gun to Baldwin and telling him it was cold. Did the person explain why they didn’t check? What on earth were they thinking? Not in the article I read. According to other articles this guy was known to skip/disregard some safety measures— that’s where Baldwin as producer bears responsibility in my opinion |
|
|
|
Post by Susie_Homemaker on Oct 28, 2021 12:44:36 GMT
I know it seems like I am beating a dead horse but this is how instructors drive the point home in gun safety classes - the person holding the weapon is ultimately responsible for it. Alec did not check his weapon and relied on someone else doing what was his job. Many checks in the safety protocol failed, including the person who shot the fatal bullet. Safety is everyone's responsibility. I'm beating the dead horse with you! Gun safety, regardless of what type of gun it is (toy, prop, real, etc.) always has and always will be the responsibility of the person holding the weapon. It's unfortunate it was Alec Baldwin. Proper training and proper checks would have prevented this accident. Clearly those saying that Alec should not have checked the weapon have not had any gun safety instruction. |
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Oct 28, 2021 13:23:38 GMT
It’s not passing the buck at all. The purpose of having an armourer is precisely so that the buck stops with them…to keep the chain as short as possible. It was one person’s job. It is not the role of the actors to check the safety of anything else on set - fire effects, stunts set-up, runaway trains or otherwise. This is a point that is left consistently unanswered. There are plenty of similar non-actor safety checks/protocols for props, modified props, equipment and safety equipment that are used in non-gun stunts on sets. Things actors are often handling or using around others. Things about which they have received no training. There is a special and singular reverence for guns that is sociologically interesting in, I suspect, a very American way. |
|
|
|
Post by gar on Oct 28, 2021 13:46:16 GMT
Suppose the actor had been English/Australian anything other than American…it’s unlikely they would be familiar with guns in the way it’s assumed an American actor is. Would they still have been expected to have checked the gun bearing in mind they most likely wouldn’t have known what they were looking for really and never had any gun safety training?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 1:56:04 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2021 13:51:26 GMT
It’s not passing the buck at all. The purpose of having an armourer is precisely so that the buck stops with them…to keep the chain as short as possible. It was one person’s job. It is not the role of the actors to check the safety of anything else on set - fire effects, stunts set-up, runaway trains or otherwise. This is a point that is left consistently unanswered. There are plenty of similar non-actor safety checks/protocols for props, modified props, equipment and safety equipment that are used in non-gun stunts on sets. Things actors are often handling or using around others. Things about which they have received no training. There is a special and singular reverence for guns that is sociologically interesting in, I suspect, a very American way. Fear has a strange way of making people not want to take responsibility, make assumptions, and/or push the problem to someone else. You just can't do that when you consciously accept that you will be handling a firearm of any kind because when you don't take responsibility is when accidents happen. There is no arguing the point that this was an unfortunate accident. There is no arguing that Alec Baldwin was the one who pulled the trigger. We have multiple verification steps to launch nuclear weapons, including the person who pushes the last button. Why should Alec Baldwin not have to be part of those validation steps when he is the one who is pulling the trigger on a firearm? The saying "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" applies so wholeheartedly here. |
|
|
|
Post by gar on Oct 28, 2021 13:58:51 GMT
This is a point that is left consistently unanswered. There are plenty of similar non-actor safety checks/protocols for props, modified props, equipment and safety equipment that are used in non-gun stunts on sets. Things actors are often handling or using around others. Things about which they have received no training. There is a special and singular reverence for guns that is sociologically interesting in, I suspect, a very American way. Fear has a strange way of making people not want to take responsibility, make assumptions, and/or push the problem to someone else. You just can't do that when you consciously accept that you will be handling a firearm of any kind because when you don't take responsibility is when accidents happen. There is no arguing the point that this was an unfortunate accident. There is no arguing that Alec Baldwin was the one who pulled the trigger. We have multiple verification steps to launch nuclear weapons, including the person who pushes the last button. Why should Alec Baldwin not have to be part of those validation steps when he is the one who is pulling the trigger on a firearm? The saying "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" applies so wholeheartedly here. And how would you answer the question about stunt cars/pyrotechnics etc etc? |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 1:56:04 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2021 14:19:06 GMT
I know it seems like I am beating a dead horse but this is how instructors drive the point home in gun safety classes - the person holding the weapon is ultimately responsible for it. Alec did not check his weapon and relied on someone else doing what was his job. Many checks in the safety protocol failed, including the person who shot the fatal bullet. Safety is everyone's responsibility. I'm beating the dead horse with you! Gun safety, regardless of what type of gun it is (toy, prop, real, etc.) always has and always will be the responsibility of the person holding the weapon. It's unfortunate it was Alec Baldwin. Proper training and proper checks would have prevented this accident. Clearly those saying that Alec should not have checked the weapon have not had any gun safety instruction. But he had no reason to have to do so. It wasn't his job to do it. On every film set there are employees. Some of these employees are employed because of their expertise - the armourer, the health and safety person that covers all safety on set including, I would imagine, guns. On this occasion it was also the responsibility of the assistant director who has admitted that he should have checked the gun but that he didn't. Yet he informed Alex Baldwin that it was a " cold" gun meaning that it was safe to use. If this had been an electrocution by touching, as an example, a live light switch would you have blamed the actor for not checking the wiring to make sure it wasn't live or would you have accepted that the expertise of the electrician would have been sufficient to assume it was safe to touch? There are two people that we know of from what has been reported so far that is to blame for this - the inexperienced armourer and the assistant director = both were negligent and didn't carry out their job to the standard of what was expected of them. |
|
oh yvonne
Prolific Pea
Posts: 8,064
Jun 26, 2014 0:45:23 GMT
|
Post by oh yvonne on Oct 28, 2021 14:26:19 GMT
This is an interesting article about the armorer and the assistant director. I cut and pasted a couple of lines from the article. www.yahoo.com/entertainment/rust-assistant-director-david-halls-said-he-should-have-checked-gun-more-thoroughly-before-giving-it-to-alec-baldwin-but-didnt-warrant-224803705.htmlHannah Gutierrez-Reed, the armorer for the film Rust, says she checked the ammunition prior to Alec Baldwin being given the gun and "ensured they were not 'hot' rounds." But assistant director David Halls, who was supposed to check her work, admitted that he didn't check all her work. Meanwhile, Stu Brumbaugh, who served as key grip on The Old Way, told TheWrap that Gutierrez-Reed upset Cage and other crew members on the set by failing to follow basic gun safety protocols — like announcing to the cast and crew that a gun was about to be fired. There have been complaints made about Halls in the past over safety protocols. He was fired from the set of the film Freedom’s Path in 2019, after a gun unexpectedly discharged, causing a minor injury to a crew member. I just googled her. Boy, she's feeling herself as some sort of badass, isn't she? All those poses with guns, what a poor decison to hire her, did they not vet her? MG. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 1:56:04 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2021 14:34:04 GMT
We have multiple verification steps to launch nuclear weapons, including the person who pushes the last button. Why should Alec Baldwin not have to be part of those validation steps when he is the one who is pulling the trigger on a firearm? The saying "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" applies so wholeheartedly here. Alec Baldwin in particular or every actor on a film set? Do you really believe that Daniel Craig inspected the gun every time he used one on the the Bond sets over the years? Of course he didn't no more than he checked the brakes of his getaway cars so why would you expect anything different from Alec Baldwin.  |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 1:56:04 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2021 14:35:58 GMT
I posted 15 hours ago this quote: "After lunch, on-set property manager Sarah Zachary retrieved the guns from the safe and handed them to Gutierrez, the warrant said. Gutierrez told authorities that no live ammo is ever kept on set." www.cnbc.com/2021/10/27/alec-baldwin-given-unchecked-gun-on-rust-set-warrant-says.htmlI predict this case will hang on who brought that live ammo onto the set, why, and what they did with it. If there's not supposed to be live ammo on the set and someone brings it on, I would guess they are criminally negligent at least. I also posted before that about "target practice" and the rumors that some of the cast or crew were playing sharpshooter between takes. I'm hoping it all comes out. I have a feeling it will be a bunch of #($*9#($*s acting like idiots that led to this tragic outcome. |
|
|
|
Post by Susie_Homemaker on Oct 28, 2021 14:46:08 GMT
But he had no reason to have to do so. It wasn't his job to do it. On every film set there are employees. I agree. But I think that GUN safety is in a category by itself. I think those of us who handle guns safely will agree with that. You're right that it wasn't currently his job to do it. I think my point to all of this is that it should be different. The actor firing the gun should inspect it, they should be trained and that should be a part of the chain of safety. I realize it's not that way now, but I hope it can be so in the future. |
|
|
|
Post by LiLi on Oct 28, 2021 14:49:35 GMT
But he had no reason to have to do so. It wasn't his job to do it. On every film set there are employees. I agree. But I think that GUN safety is in a category by itself. I think those of us who handle guns safely will agree with that. You're right that it wasn't currently his job to do it. I think my point to all of this is that it should be different. The actor firing the gun should inspect it, they should be trained and that should be a part of the chain of safety. I realize it's not that way now, but I hope it can be so in the future. You know what I hope? I hope that it stops being normal to have guns around. |
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Oct 28, 2021 14:50:56 GMT
This is a point that is left consistently unanswered. There are plenty of similar non-actor safety checks/protocols for props, modified props, equipment and safety equipment that are used in non-gun stunts on sets. Things actors are often handling or using around others. Things about which they have received no training. There is a special and singular reverence for guns that is sociologically interesting in, I suspect, a very American way. Fear has a strange way of making people not want to take responsibility, make assumptions, and/or push the problem to someone else. You just can't do that when you consciously accept that you will be handling a firearm of any kind because when you don't take responsibility is when accidents happen. There is no arguing the point that this was an unfortunate accident. There is no arguing that Alec Baldwin was the one who pulled the trigger. We have multiple verification steps to launch nuclear weapons, including the person who pushes the last button. Why should Alec Baldwin not have to be part of those validation steps when he is the one who is pulling the trigger on a firearm? The saying "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" applies so wholeheartedly here. Your reply doesn’t really address my post, but I’ll answer your points - and ask (see bold at bottom) again. Answers: -Alec Baldwin (the actor) has abdicated responsibility simply out of hindsight fear and its strange psychological manifestation? No, like thousands of other actors, he shouldn’t claim responsibility for a much more concrete reason: because his employer/his industry INSTRUCTED him not to take responsibility. That’s the defense. That’s not pushing the problem to someone else. Those Someone Elses literally had responsibility. -Unlike the industry standards followed with nuclear weapons, he is not part of the verification process because that is the standard in his industry. -Ounce of protection? The protocols are set up to provide professional, specialized pounds of prevention. The sheer tonnage of blame belongs there. -Should the validation steps change? I didn’t know. But any change shouldn’t be applied retroactively. Questions: -My daughter is an actor and a SAG member. (side note: She’s never seen a gun or knows a thing about them. Most people I know don’t, but that is seldom believed in this forum by some, so I’ve given up. Regardless,) I assume you would blame her for a similar tragedy on set? You would claim that she wrongly abdicated the responsibility that she was explicitly instructed was not hers to assume? That she should not assume? -And again: if she also followed the safety protocols on set and didn’t check the collapsible fender on the stunt car she was driving, would you also blame her for any accident/injury/damage?
|
|
