You have been consistently wrong on gun safety. And charges have been made against Baldwin and others regarding the death of someone from a gunshot wound. I’m not sure where the disconnect is.
What’s the saying? You can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.
No doubt @Magiver would say the ham sandwich is culpable if someone gets food poisoning on a movie set.
Firearms safety. In the context of film and television production. Is not the same. As firearms safety. Outside that context.
Firearms safety. In the context of film and television production. Is not the same. As firearms safety. Outside that context.
Firearms safety. In the context of film and television production. Is not the same. As firearms safety. Outside that context.
But we weren’t solely talking about the law, because you were making arguments about how “the entire crew should receive safety training” and that the armorer should “demonstrate to the entire crew that the weapon is empty”. These “ought to” statements are not statements of the law.
When I’ve asked about training and demonstrations for other things on set which pose a hazard, you’ve refused to answer, because it undercuts your argument.
We’re not talking about other what if’s. Really I don’t understand how hard this is for you to follow. This is about a someone who died as a result of being shot by a deadly weapon. Unless your other scenarios involve the direct use of a deadly weapon they aren’t relevant and would never see the light of day in court as some kind of legal rebuttal.
Do you have a legal precedent that excludes firearm safety in the context of film and television production? Is there a “whoopsie” clause in contracts that’s binding?
Seriously. Previous practices in an industry do not negate responsibility and that’s universial.
I just want to say I stand behind Alec Baldwin.
Safer than standing behind Halyna Hutchins, I suppose.
(sorry, I couldn’t resist)
@Johnny_L.A shoots and misses, only a loud whooshing sound is heard.
Sub-sonic ammo. Good choice.
It’d be best to stand behind Claudine Longet, too.
Why the heck did I immediately remember who it was she shot when I can’t remember what I did last week?
No. This is exactly wrong. That was the responsibility of other people, e.g. the armorer. It’s possible that his producer role included some level of culpability for any general problems/mishaps during the production but I haven’t read that his producer job had those kinds of responsibilities. The title ‘Producer’, like the title ‘Executive Producer’ can mean all sorts of different things, with wildly different assigned duties/responsibilities or none at all. They are catch-all terms.
But just to be clear: when you pointed a gun at someone in a stage production, that gun was rendered incapable of firing, right? Not only rendered incapable of firing, but demonstrated to you that it was? Or did I misunderstand what you wrote?
The much more significant takeaway is to recognize I had to trust the safety framework that the gun being put in my hand was the one that would not fire versus the hot gun that would be needed a few minutes later.
I share the situation because i, as an actor, was required to do something during a performance that all the gun-safety types in this thread should never be done: aim a weapon directly at someone, from point blank range no less. And not just once, but dozens of times through rehearsals and performances. Outside such a context, of course this is something that should never be done: “always assume the gun is loaded,” and all that. But the people in this thread who repeatedly cite that and other generic real-world firearms safety principles clearly have zero experience in the alternative-reality requirements of a performance situation. They stubbornly refuse to accept that those generic principles simply do not translate and have had to be adapted to a professional context with which they have no experience and about which they have no knowledge.
So, yes, when the safety framework worked correctly, the gun that I carried on stage was, indeed, inert. But the important part to understand is the elaborate protocol designed to reassure all parties that it was indeed so, a protocol that I, even as the individual with the potentially dangerous object in my hand, was not ultimately responsible for.
In the Baldwin case, the issue is the broad failure to follow such protocol. It’s not the protocol itself. And for the hundredth time to the nay-sayers in the thread, the safety protocol for firearms in film and television production is not the same as the safety protocol for firearms in the real world.
Oh, I see - you read what I wrote and then made assumptions instead of asking me what I meant in more detail.
An actor looking up what the industry standards for on-set gun safety is self-educating, but not “ad hoc” in any negative sense. Being familiar with how things should run could lead to a person looking around, seeing that safety procedures are NOT being followed, and deciding the job isn’t worth the risk and walking off - as many of the original crew did, due to their concerns about safety.
An actor learning the difference between the different types of rounds (live, dummy, blank) might, when an armorer opens a gun to show it is safe, lead to the actor saying “hey, is that actually right?” and possibly being another set of eyes to spot something wrong. That would not be “messing with” the gun, and is in fact a recommendation from the folks who wrote the industry standards.
But go right ahead and keep making assumptions all on your own, it’s ever so much more fun than actually asking for clarification.
I actually think that’s debatable. I don’t think it was necessary for him to practice drawing the gun for the upcoming shot when there where people down-range of the gun. If it was necessary for him to rehearse it in that exact spot of the set then the area in front of the gun should have been cleared of people. The only time a gun should be pointed in the direction of another person is when it is unavoidable in order to get the images on film/video and only during the actual shot. If that had been done the gun would have fired (and scared the crap out of everyone around) but it would not have harmed anyone. It still would have been a serious safety issue, but no one would be dead or injured.
From what I’ve read of the industry standards, actors being taught what the props look like and what should be used for a particular scene are all common, accepted, and encouraged in the industry.
An actor is not responsible for overall safety but they ARE responsible for following their role in the process. That can include not just taking someone’s word a gun is empty but also asking an armorer to demonstrate that the gun is empty in front of them, as an example. It can include knowing that blanks can be hazardous and not firing them too close to another person, and not at another person, as another example. If an actor knows (because they were shown) that a gun contains a blank round and then the actual mishandles the prop and someone is injured then yes, the actor would in fact bear some responsibility for the injury.
The gun prop lying unsecured and unsupervised on a cart outside the set was, from my limited knowledge, a violation of accepted standards and the responsibility of the armorer. The guy (who was not the armorer) who then picked it up from the cart and carried it into the set saying “cold gun” without either the armorer stating and showing that or he himself checking the prop (assuming he had the training to make such a determination) also bears some responsibility here. Arguably (and I’m sure this will be brought up in court) Baldwin practicing drawing the gun with people down-range was the responsibility of Baldwin, who could have either practice this where there were no people down-range, asked people to move, or waited until they had moved away.
It’s been hammered into my head to treat even unloaded guns as if they were loaded. Now, movie production is a rare situation (for most of us - not so much for actors) where that rule might be violated under certain circumstances. Outside of those very particular circumstances, though, it maximizes safety to follow the “don’t point a gun at anyone” rule. It is the actor’s responsibility to handle props in a safe manner, as instructed by those people hired to keep the props and people safe.
There were safety issues on the set. Again, that’s why a big chunk of the crew had walked off the job. They were worried someone would get hurt or worse. And they were right.
If someone has to wear a harness then they should know how it’s supposed to fit on them, how the buckles work, etc. They aren’t responsible for anyone else’s harness, but they should (IMO) know something about their harness so if it isn’t on right they can yell “STOP!” and have the person responsible for overall harness safety come over and check it.
An actor handling any prop that is potentially dangerous has the responsibility to handle it properly, as directed by the person responsible for overall safety. An actor being asked to do a stunt should be able to ask about safety, whether that’s a harness or something else. An actor filming underwater, for example, should be able to ask about how to signal they’re having trouble, where rescue divers are located and how to signal them, and so forth. That’s not usurping the role of an armorer or a stunt coordinator, that’s acting responsibly within their role as an actor.