Here’s the full list of Cooper’s Rules:
#3, in particular, seems absolutely incompatible with filmmaking.
Please follow the context. Of course I’m not disputing that these are standard safety protocols for everyday gun handling. What I’m saying is that applying these simplistically to movie sets is the fantasy of amateur gun owners who like to see themselves as firearms experts.
It absolutely does not enhance safety to have an amateur who thinks they are a ruggedly individual firearms expert “double checking” anything in an ad hoc manner that deviates from formally specified safety protocols.
If a gun is being pointed at me on set, I want another actor “double checking” that a gun is safe in some ad hoc manner to the same extent that I want another amateur jumper opening up my backpack and “double checking” that my parachute is packed correctly, or another passenger fiddling with the handle to “double check” that the door on an aircraft is closed correctly.
Only if you take it for granted, as apparently so many have, that they need to use real guns in filmmaking. That there are no reasonable alternatives.
This is tangential to the Rust incident, since it is standard practise in the industry to use real guns. And there is no evidence that industry safety protocols are unsafe. The evidence would support repealing the 2nd Amendment (or reinterpreting it in a far more sensible way) as a much higher safety priority than banning the use of guns on movie sets.
But either way, with real guns or without, Cooper’s Rules do not govern movie sets.
Exactly. What’s the point of checking? It’s supposed to be loaded. What would be needed is a way to clearly distinguish real from fake ammo.
OSHA did an investigation and concluded it was not his job.
The initial prosecutors, Mary Carmack-Altwies and Andrea Reeb, held Baldwin responsible not only for pulling the trigger, but also for a series of management lapses that led to relaxed safety standards on set. However, the New Mexico division of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration concluded that Baldwin — though he was a producer on the film — was not in a position of management authority, and was not culpable for the lack of oversight.
(This was already posted to the thread but nobody seemed to read it.)
Pedant warning: there is some evidence that industry safety protocols are unsafe. Specifically, the deceased cinematographer. Shot dead on a film set in part because the “standard practice in the industry” is to use real guns that can accommodate real bullets.
You don’t judge a system by its successes or even by what happens when people strictly adhere to it. You judge it according to its failure, and not least of which are those failures attributable to human error where, for whatever reason, a real live human failed to strictly comply with all system requirements. You judge systems not simply according to how they are, but how they could be.
The evidence I’m aware of is that basic industry safety protocols were not followed.
Sure, robustness of protocols is an isssue. How many times has this happened?
That’s true, but to my point about judging systems not only by how they work (or don’t) when adhered to, but how they they work (or don’t) when they are not, as here, strictly adhered to, it is equally true that, had industry safety protocols precluded the use of real firearms capable of firing real bullets, there’s every likelihood that even with live rounds on set and a host of other failure, this would not have culminated in the death of a wife, mother, and cinematographer.
If she were unmarried with no children and was only responsible for making coffee, I guess it would have been okay.
That is a fair question, but not the only one: it’s also worth asking how many times does it need to happen to justify changing industry protocols to preclude the use of real guns capable of firing real bullets on a film set?
This is a stunningly false dichotomy.
How about any one of dozens of other changes that could be made, like more stringent training/licensing of armorers?
[Moderating]
This isn’t what was meant, and you know it.
And you should also know that I wasn’t implying that was literally what was meant. It was obviously rhetorical, mocking the weakness of the appeal to emotion in the argument.
ETA: I don’t know if you edited your comment, but it turned green with the “Moderating” tag after I posted.
It is the actor’s job to verify that the gun is safe. The way that is supposed to happen is that the armorer shows the actor that the gun is safe. The actor doesn’t do it, but they are not supposed to accept a gun where the armorer has not demonstrated that it’s safe.
One of the problems on this set was that, at least from some reports the armorer had vanished, leaving the guns outside unattended. The other producer went out to find her, couldn’t, but saw the table with ‘safe’ guns on it. He grabbed one, walked back in and handed it to Baldwin, saying “Safe Gun”. Baldwin did not check, or ask for a check, because he knew that the guy giving him the gun wasn’t trained. But he may have assumed that the armorer demonstrated the safe gun to the producer before he brought it in.
I think another complication is that Covid protocols were in place, and the set was closed. Some reports say the armorer wasn’t allowed in, so Baldwin may have thought the situation was totally normal.
But we are all undoubtedly missing details that may be important. And a lot of early reports turned out to be completely wrong, so this is a pretty murky situation.
One thing is certain: Baldwin pulled the trigger. That gun they were using is a very high quality replica of a Colt Peacemaker. They are very simple guns. My guess is that Baldwin already had the trigger pulled and didn’t know it when he thumbed back the hammer, then when he releassed it the gun went off, surprising him.
I don’t think he belongs in jail. That would be ridiculous for a movie set accident. But he could be guilty of manslaughter through reckless behavior or indifference to the risks, which should get him a felony conviction and probation and a heavy fine. But jail? I don’t see it.
I think much should be based on Baldwin’s behavior. Was it outside the norm for actors? There are a lot of practices that are mandatory on paper, but over the years get watered down or forgotten. If it’s common for actors to skip the ‘safe gun’ check, or if actors commonly wave around prop guns and pull the trigger, then I can’t see charging Baldwin with much. But if other actors are more creful and it’s unheard of to accept a gun without checking, then Baldwin should be in trouble. Maybe @Cartooniverse knows what the actual real world practices are like.
No, it’s not. No more than it’s the actor’s job to make sure that anything else on set is safe.
It is the actor’s job to follow safety protocols, established by safety professionals whose job it is to ensure that guns on set are safe.
Perhaps Baldwin (and others on set) should have refused to proceed if it was apparent that the armorer was incompetent or that the usual industry safety protocols were not being followed. But that potential fault should be clearly distinguished from the nonsense the cause here was an actor on a film set not following Cooper’s Rules.
If I hand you a gun and say it is unloaded and you turn around and point the gun at others and pull the trigger and kill someone that is only on me and not you too?
I’m sure that would be a devastating gotcha if you could explain why it’s remotely relevant to safety protocols on a movie set.
Well…consider what a jury will think at Baldwin’s trial.
I think they will conclude it wasn’t his fault