replace the Co2 with a flammable gas and that’s what I’m talking about. It’s just taking the already modified guns for the movie industry in a slightly new direction.
Oh, ok. I thought you were saying Baldwin announced it and that that meant something.
I can speak to this. As a member of IATSE Local 600- the Cinematographer Guild- we have been participating in discussions with the Producers ( writ very large here, the AMPTP).
The timing of this shooting is grim. We were in the middle of facing a strike vote, being handed a lousy insulting and dangerous deal, and debating if we should indeed strike.
RIGHT in and around this, a cheapo movie being made in a Right-To-Abuse State has a fatal shooting. I need to believe nobody planted a live round. I just need to believe that no working crew member would plan the murder of another person on set.
But angry people do bad things…
Nope. My apologies for lousy wording.
We should all get off the Baldwin train. Of all the people in the chain of responsibility, he is the least culpable. And he’s the only one who didn’t have a formal responsibility for on-set safety. No one should ever have put a gun with a live round in his hands. Yes, he should have insisted on a physical check, but with the Armorer outside and an angry AD shoving the gun into his hands,you can understand why he decided to let it go.
I looked a bit into any stories about Alec Baldwin bad/unsafe behaviour on other sets, and couldn’t find any. I found a quote from someone who worked with him another time he ised a prop gun, and said Baldwin acted very carefully and safely.
This was a dysfunctional set, with procedures being rushed, inexperienced people running around, COVID rules breaking the normal chain of responsibility, etc. The perfect environemt for this kind of safety breakdown to occur. That’s on the pros who let it get out of hand, not the actor who just happened to be last in the chain that led to the shooting.
The ultimate responsibility is on the armorer and whoever mixed live rounds with dummies on a set, if it was someone else. The armorer should have checked rhe bullets before loading them. And the AD is probably liable for civil damages since he was the ultimate responsible person for on-set safety.
I doubt anyone planned the murder of anyone (there’s no reason the gun would’ve been fired), but someone may have planted a live round with the expectation that the gun safety procedures would’ve discovered it and it would disrupt the film shoot while an investigation was carried out.
The spent cartridges would be problematic – but not a factor in a period movie like this one was. Loading or unloading would, like I said above, likely be shown in an insert which could be shot in a different time, different place, and even with a different crew and actor.
I suggested that idea a while back
IF it turns out and can be proven the live round was indeed inserted into the gun by a disgruntled crew member, I imagine this would go a long way toward exonerating Baldwin and the rest of the production crew…if not legally, then at least in the court of public opinion.
This event is an excellent example of how multiple people can be 100% at fault. Assistant Director: failed to maintain safety discipline. Armorer: failed to maintain positive control of weapons. Whoever brought live round onto set: failed to maintain set safety. If any single one of them had acted correctly, the incident would not have occurred–that is, each could have 100% prevented the tragedy and so are 100% at fault.
In highly safe industries, when there are accidents it’s almost always the case that multiple screwups were involved, because the system is safety engineered to catch a single screwup.
I read a lot of aviation accident reports, and it’s almost always the case that multiple failures led to the crash. For example, someone misread a fuel guage and didn’t put enough fuel in the plane, AND the person who ‘dips’ the tank with a stick to check it made a calculation error that hid the problem, AND the fuel gauges in the plane were inoperative, That sort of thing.
And that’s what we have here.
I agree.I was going to say almost the exact same thing you said about aviation accidents. They’re almost always a series of failures that add up to a disaster. Baldwin is the last of 3 people who could have intervened. if I was assigning blame it would be 60% Armorer, 35% Director, 5% Actor.
That’s not how law will look at it but that’s how I see it. If you’re going to handle a real gun then you should be invested in the safe use of it.
You don’t think? It would shock the heck out of me for charges to be filed against Baldwin. Seems the way you laid it out is exactly the way it will go.
If it goes in front of jury it might in fact end up like that. Juries can be funny things.
As I mentioned a couple thousand posts ago, historically actors in these situations are NOT charged with a crime. Past performance is no guarantee of future results, 'tis true, but it’s often a decent bet.
Yeah, that sounds about right to me.
From what we know at this time, I don’t see Baldwin having much liability at all. He wasn’t the professional who signed off on safety.
If it turned out that he was throwing his weight around on set, refusing to follow safety procedures, maybe brandishing the gun at people for fun or stuff like that, he might have some liability. But from the sounds of it he was just doing his job, practicing for the scene, and the AD DID declare ‘cold gun’ before handing it to him.
Yes, he should have been shown the state of the gun. But the armorer was outside due to Covid rules, and I doubt the AD even knew HOW to show the state of the gun to Baldwin. You can see how in those circumstances an actor might just say, “well, I’ll take your word for it.” Especially if the actor isn’t a gun person steeped in gun safety.
The post that restarted this aspect of the conversation was mine. I said his lawyer probably wasn’t happy he spoke to the family, the press, the police… Lawyers don’t want any statements floating around admitting any level of culpability. They don’t want any statements at all that they don’t control.
But the human and morally right thing to do was meet with the family.
Why the director? What about the assistant director who handed the gun to Baldwin? How about someone from the production company or any of the producers?
I believe he meant the AD (Halls), just wrote too quickly.
AD not only is the one in charge of overall operational logistics on set, but in this case is the specifc person who declared “cold gun”.
Yes, thanks for the correction.
Like I said three weeks ago, 60% armorer, 35% assistant director, 5% actor.
