Well, no, I think it’s wrong to call it this, although from the rest of your post I think you just intended to say that Baldwin as an actor wasn’t responsible. The people who were responsible for firearm safety on set were horribly negligent. So that isn’t something I’d call just an “accident”.
The includes some combination of the proximate safety expert (the armorer), the AD who pled, and whoever in the administration and management sit above the armorer. It seems to be a moot point whether that administration includes Baldwin himself in his nominal role as producer.
Regardless of what status Baldwin might have had on paper, he was the biggest name involved with the production. Had he insisted on strict adherence to safety protocols it would have been much more likely to happen whether he was speaking as the star actor or the producer or what have you.
Yes, that might be the prosecutor’s best argument - the he was both nominal producer and de facto held a significant degree of control over management of the production deriving from his star status.
So what? It should not be any part of film set safety protocol that an actor who is distracted with any number of things and who is not a professional armorer is responsible for firearm safety. And the professional safety expert who has ensured that a weapon is safe should not allow an actor to subsequently mess with it beyond the requirements of usage as a prop in the take. A formal procedure where as part of the handover the armorer opens the gun and (say) demonstrates to actor what bullets are in there would make sense, but no part of this procedure should be dictated by the actor.
I don’t really have a dog in this race, but it’s entirely possible to have multiple levels of responsibility here. Obviously, the armorer should have the greatest responsibility but I don’t think it unreasonable for actors to know what a safe gun looks like so when someone shows them the gun they can identify what they’re being shown. Would be great if an actor could say “Hey, wait a minute - that’s not the dummy round planned for this shot - what IS that?” and someone more knowledgeable then takes a look/confirms safety, etc. That’s just one more layer of safety. That’s a good thing. Actors should also be trained to never point a prop gun of any sort at anyone except when explicitly doing a particular shot.
Also, some actors are, in fact, gun owners/users and not blithering idiots. Let’s not treat them as such. It may still be the case on set that it’s the armorer who clears the gun and checks it, but there’s nothing wrong with the concept of educating others regarding safety as well.
But is it “one more layer”, or should it be left to the professional safety expert?
Earlier I drew the analogy with the fact that an actor may (for example) be required to push a stunt man off a roof to simulate killing him. Should the actor be in any way responsible for ensuring that the landing cushion is correctly positioned and inflated? Of course not - a stunt safety expert should be doing this. So do you think it would enhance or diminish safety for the actor to learn about stunt safety cushions and start checking for himself and second-guessing the professional safety expert?
Why is gun safety different? If an actor starts messing with a gun after it has been demonstrated safe in the formal procedure of the handover, should the armorer just let the actor do that? How does the armorer know if this particular actor has any expertise at all in firearms?
All actors should be formally trained in the correct gun safety procedures by professionals, and actors must do their part in following those safety procedures on set. But it’s quite another thing to suggest that it’s appropriate that some actors who are not safety experts (but think they are) should be following their own ad hoc procedures on set. That does not add “another layer of safety”. It’s downright dangerous.
No doubt he did the right thing, I’m just surprised the DA that’s so gung ho to convict Baldwin would let the guy that personally brought the unsafe gun on set and told Baldwin it was safe skate with a fine. That in itself should weaken her case about responsibility.
Jurors are lectured to by people all day long, it’s part of the job. Do you have reason to believe that New Mexicans are especially unable to judge testimony coming from famous people?
I don’t think that will happen. First, it’s rarer than hen’s teeth to have a fatal shooting on a set. Second, many movie companies will never film in New Mexico again if producers can be charged with negligent death from someone else’s actions. There are plenty of desert areas in the US.
I would guess that bar was low. IIRC, Jensen Ackles said the fact that he could remove the magazine from a gun was enough to pass the firearms knowledge on set. And, I’m sorry, I don’t believe actors empty out magazines with up to 30 rounds in them to check that they all have a hole drilled in them and they can hear the BBs shake.
I’m not a fan at all. I think the only thing I’ve ever seen him in is The Hunt For Red October. That was a long time ago and all I remember is that it was a crappy movie.
That’s if he knew there were safety problems. Remember, Baldwin had no money invested in this film. His producer credit is probably just a way to draw two paychecks and having his name may draw investors. I’ve seen nothing that said he was involved in the day to day decision making.
Well put. Gun safety failed three times before it even got to Baldwin.
Live rounds on the set where there should be none.
The armorer was so bad she couldn’t tell a live round from a dummy. Besides the live round in the gun and others in the armory, Baldwin apparently had live rounds in his gun belt also.
The DA just couldn’t be bothered to follow protocol. I don’t think anyone on set has disagreed that the DA announcing the gun as cold was taken as having been thru a safety check.
Re-read what I wrote. I spoke of training actors. Of the armorer still having primary responsibility. How could the armorer know which actors were knowledgeable and which weren’t? Gosh, I dunno - talking to them maybe? Nowhere did I suggest the untrained should “mess with” anything.
Here’s the analogy I would use: I’m a licensed pilot. I do my own pre-flight and I would not permit a passenger to take on that responsibility. However, I don’t see anything wrong with answering a passenger’s questions about what I’m looking for/at, and if a passenger DID ask “what’s that, is that normal, is that supposed to be that way?” I’d take another look and not dismiss their question out of hand.
Likewise, I’d expect the armorer on a set to have the primary responsibility (just as a pilot does) but educating the people who will actually be holding/using the props should only increase safety, and allowing questions is not “messing with” anything.
Or, to go back to your example of an actor pushing a stuntman off a cliff - sure the stuntmaster (or whatever the person is called) has primary responsibility, but I would also expect anyone else involved to be taught basics like “this is how to buckle yourself into a safety harness and this is what it looks like/feels when it’s done properly” or whatever else is appropriate to the situation. That wouldn’t be “messing with” stuff, either, that’s being part of the safety team. You still have the stunt coordinator buckle the actor(s) into a safety harness, or do the set up for the safety net/mat/whatever, but having the actor know what’s what means another set of eyes on the process.
A rich, powerful star actor is a gun user with a lot of expertise with firearms. They treat the armorer with little respect, they think they know better than the armorer. At first, no harm done - they start doing their own checks after the armorer does theirs. The next day, things are running late on set. You don’t see how this goes wrong?
You said you were not talking about ad hoc safety procedures, yet this is exactly what you are defending here.
Yeah, I can’t know what was going through Baldwin’s head but it were me on the set in his position and there were two accidental discharges, after the second one I’d put on my producer hat and be asking what the hell was going on.
You’re proposing a worst case scenario. Here’s another - a young, inexperienced armorer is on a set where she fails to exercise proper control over the weapons and ammo in her custody. Maybe if Mr. Baldwin actually knew something about firearms beyond “it’s a prop I’m told to do something with in the script” he might have been a lot more cautious in using it, or been able to open it and see it’s not the correct load for the purpose (which, following protocol the actual opening should be done by a competent armorer, but Mr. Baldwin might catch it was not the proper load).
Of course, that requires someone able to look the Big Star in the face and say “we do this according to the rules” and not let the Big Star get away with shit. Being a safety officer can really suck at times.
Industry standards - which have been published and linked to multiple times around this matter - state that the opening/clearing/checking of the firearm is to be done by the armorer. How is any harm done by having the armorer do this in the presence of the actor?
You do realize that as some point the gun will be handed to the actor, right?
No, that is YOUR scenario, not mine. Please stop putting words in my mouth or twisting what I say.
You do know the reason all the union people walked off the set and things were in disarray the day of the shooting was because of the LACK of proper safety and the non-adherence to industry norms, right? They voted with their feet. Should we disregard them, too? Even though they clearly were in the right to leave an unsafe set?
I don’t know how much it matters, but this revolver was more complicated to load and unload then more modern revolves. There is no swing out mechanism of the cylinder to load and unload cartridges. You have to load them one by one with the hammer in a half-cocked position, rotating the cylinder each time. For unloading, you have to use an ejector pin mounted to the bottom, once again one by one.
It’s been explained, I’m sure, but I just can’t fathom how live ammunition ended up on the set. If I was writing contracts for a firearm-intensive movie I damn well would put in that no ammunition or personal firearms would be allowed, period, even in personal vehicles. The only person with live ammo on site should be a security guard (and only in specific instances).
Yes but you were were responding to a 2 part statement, Producer AND shooter. Not just that he was a Producer. He was on set and literally the one person who should uphold firearms standards.
Sure, and the point is indeed that the usual formal safety procedures failed.
Do you disagree that gun safety on movie sets should be governed by formal safety procedures and training implemented/supervised by professional armorers?
This was not a personal failure by Baldwin as an actor unless he failed to follow standard safety procedures and training for actors on movie sets, which do not (and should not) include “check the bullets yourself” or “never point a gun at anyone”.
