Beaver was also a Doper, under the name Jumble Jim.
What do you mean by “but still…”? If he was ignorant because Gutierrez never showed and explained that dropping the hammer on this particular antique gun could fire the weapon, how is that Baldwin’s fault?
but still, he let a hammer drop while it was still pointed at someone. It sounds like they had their angles or whatever already. He could have pointed it anywhere while letting the hammer drop.
I would bet they are taking a good look at him after this:
Kenney’s interview with GMA contradicts with what he told investigators on Oct 29, which was that the dummy bullets could have been mixed with “reloaded ammunition” he obtained from a friend a couple of years ago. The reloaded rounds would have had a Starline Brass logo, which is similar to the branding on the blank and dummy rounds PDQ supplies to film productions.
Not only that, but he has twice been accused publicly now for stealing gun related supplies. Once from the company he worked at before he started his own company and once by the father of the armorer on the Rust set.
Finally, in one of the articles linked earlier, he had a text message conversation with Hannah Gutierrez-Reed when the prop master (another inexperienced 24 year old) fired a blank into her foot on the set. He advised her not to report it so she wouldn’t be blamed, and these things happen all the time on sets. It seems like safety isn’t high on his list at all.
I know this has been discussed a thousand times already in this thread, but I still don’t understand why they put together and use dummy rounds as they do. Maybe just because that’s the way it’s always been done.
Now they take empty brass and bullets and used primers, then drill a hole in the brass, inserting BBs, and put the whole thing together. Why not just use foam rubber dummies? They are there for looks only, they are not meant to ever be fired. They would easy to differentiate from a live round just by feel. Heck, it would probably help with this particular gun that you aren’t supposed to dry fire, giving the firing pin something to punch into for resistance. You could probably turn out millions of them cheaper and faster than someone hand reloading regular brass.
Yeah, I started watching the video, then clicked it off within a few seconds, after he described Baldwin’s actions as negligent. For my part, the question of whether Baldwin was negligent is sufficiently obscured by circumstances that I wouldn’t make that pronouncement absent a trial. Not, mind you, because I object to ever reaching such conclusions absent trial. I’m happy to conclude the armorer was negligent, for instance, but it’s not clear to me what level of care is reasonable for an actor handling a gun on set.
I don’t understand the logic behind the idea that someone doesn’t have any responsibilities while handling a firearm because they’re an actor.
If you don’t know how to safely handle a weapon then you shouldn’t be using it. It doesn’t matter who you are or what you do for a living.
Would you let someone operate heavy equipment without training? No. Does using it as a prop in a movie change that? No.
Do you feel the same way about guns in the general population? Pretty much anyone can go into a sporting goods store and buy a gun with no training or verification about proper safe gun usage. I don’t disagree with you, but the effort to single out Baldwin for lack of training when millions of yahoos can buy a gun no-questions-asked seems a bit misplaced.
Yeah but millions of other yahoos weren’t mean to Trump…
The number of things any person, including actors, don’t know anything about is in the millions. That’s why you have experts on the set, to insure the safety rules are followed so it’s safe to have an actor play out a scene.
Hitting people over the head with bottles, throwing someone thru a window, pushing someone off a bridge - all that requires the actor to take the word of the experts that what they are doing is safe.
No kidding. The Detroit shooting where the parents bought a 15 year old a handgun for x-mas, seemingly not worried that he was drawing pictures of shooting classmates and asking for help to stop him. I’m a wee bit more worried about the general public being able to buy guns with no training or experience than by Baldwin not being an expert in a 150 year old weapon.
Yes, The responsibility falls on you to handle a gun safely. And the same goes for chain saws and any other tool that poses a hazard.
Baldwin is no more singled out than anybody else. And any of the millions of yahoos would be held liable if they killed someone after being handed a gun.
There are degrees of liability in a case like this and it’s going to spill down from the armorer first and then the person who said the gun was “cold”. Gun safety isn’t rocket science and people make mistakes all the time. Redundancy is the best part of safety procedures. The more people involved the better the chances are that a mistake is caught.
I’ve personally seen the most senior of airline pilots who were absolutely anal about safety procedures make a mistake that could have gone really bad. I’ve made some stupid mistakes in my life that I am eternally grateful didn’t end badly. Most people would embrace the actions of another who stopped a bad mistake from happening.
In Baldwin’s case imagine a safety protocol where the gun is demonstrated to the entire crew that it is safe to use. It could be done in less than a minute so it’s not going to impact the movie financially. Any member of the crew could have said one of the cartridges looks different and caught the mistake.
On a completely different note, even though they weren’t “filming” at the time (do they still use film?). I would think that the people lining up the shot were recording it so they could see how it framed up and could review it in real time. That seems like the logical thing to do in a world where digital photography provides such an obvious advantage to do so with no waste of film.
If that’s the case then the whole thing would have been recorded.
Good question, about recording the lining up – but considering all the various signs of a fly-by-night production, who knows. The answer is probably going to come up in discovery of any suit or charge.
Meanwhile, however, let’s be fair, the matter with Baldwin is not whether he has any more liability than anyone else, but that we all are giving the matter far more attention and offering far more speculation than would be the case with nearly anyone else. Because the incident itself would not be getting so much attention outside the industry and the authorities directly involved, if it weren’t for the celebrity.
A couple of posts upthread there is a link to a tweet that does allude to something I have observed though – what Jim Beaver is speaking about is a large amount of “2A Community” Twitter/YouTube/news item comment sections/etc. content that has been generated just ragging hard on Baldwin over everything he does or says. That is of course the “price of celebrity”, but there are some who seem to be simply too delighted at his predicament, driven by specific animosity.
If I were his people I’d tell him to just clam up. His is an “if you’re explaining, you are losing” situation.
Like someone else said: many performers have to simulate executing something they know jacksquat about. So we design the staging so they do not have to really take the risk. In the end, maybe Dwayne Johnson is right, and maybe it will have to be, that henceforth film and TV must only use true prop guns that are incapable by design of causing fatal injury and whatever identifier that this is such a fake gun is what gets erased in post-prod. That is a decision that will have to be made by the industry and more likely by their insurers and financers.
We would agree on the need for experts on the set. We disagree on the role actors have in the process.
Yes, you do, because you’ve already stated all of those reasons before. You have already said that we shouldn’t put the blame Baldwin several times. You already said that the rules on a set are clearly different than normal gun handling. Yes, you did later come back and indignantly argue that the rules weren’t different, but that’s just more of your inconsistency.
If you can’t remember what you’ve written before, I wish you would go back and read what you have to say before posting. It’s extremely frustrating coming back here to read the thread to find out more information, just to have to deal with someone arguing a position that we’ve already ironed out earlier in the thread.
There is no reason to argue with you because there is no reason to think you won’t randomly take a different position later. Sorry.
You’re right that his celebrity drags this to the front page. But that can be a good thing if it gets people to realize the process of safety. Take Baldwin and the gun out of the conversation for a moment. Safety transcends industry and occupation.
You can see the crossover from aviation to medicine. After 9/11 there was a downsizing in aviation that moved people who specialized in safety over to medicine. the last time I was at a hospital I saw physical checkoffs mounted to the entrance of each room. Checklists are the bread and butter of aviation safety.
Safety is a concept that will ultimately generate practices specific to an industry but it’s not something that exists in a vacuum of those practices. What you want is for people to actively participate in the process.
You really don’t understand the concept of safety procedures.
What happened in this situation is that safety protocols existed, but were not followed.
Do you think you can design a safety protocol that works even when most of the participants ignore it? Will there be an oversight protocol to ensure the safety protocol doesn’t get skipped, and a backup protocol to make sure the oversight protocol doesn’t get skipped?
I’m in the IT industry. This is exactly what happens when nobody has the balls to say “Bobby fucked up, we fired him, and we’re filing a criminal complaint against him.” Procedures without accountability just ends up creating endless layers of counterproductive procedures. Either stop using guns, or start sending people to jail for violating gun safety procedures, even if there was no injury.
This seems pretty likely to me now. The supplier previously said that he “may know” where the live rounds came from and noted that his dummy rounds use the same somewhat distinctive cases (with a Starline logo) as some reloaded live rounds he obtained from another person. Presumably, he wouldn’t have described these particularly unusual rounds if they didn’t match the one that killed Ms. Hutchins. And also presumably he was concerned that he may have mixed up some live rounds with some dummy rounds, which would be his insight into how the rounds got on set.
He’s might be backing away from that statement now because he realizes he all but admitted to being partly responsible for Ms. Hutchins’s death,
It’s all or nothing. The hammer will either hit with enough force to trigger the primer and you a full force explosion or nothing happens. If Baldwin was dropping the hammer on a live primer repeatedly before the gun went off, I wonder whether he could have softened the primer a bit (through metal fatigue) to make an explosion increasingly likely with each hammer drop. That’s definitely speculation on my part and I truly don’t know whether it would have made a difference. I also stick by my statement that, human memory in the face of tragedy being as flawed as it is, I doubt Baldwin can accurately say whether he pulled the trigger. It also shouldn’t matter. The gun should have been rendered safe before the rehearsal began.
Agreed. The gun was supposed to be safe for him to pull the trigger, point at other actors, etc. The breakdown happened before he started rehearsing with it.
I think liability may now be shared by the supplier that, perhaps, mixed live rounds into a lot of dummy rounds.
Perhaps redundancy is good only up to the point where there are so many people are involved in ensuring safety that no one feels personally responsible. In this case we have safety responsibility split from [Ammo supplier]->[Armorer]->[Assistant director]->[Actor]. Maybe that was too many people.
Early on there was a report of cast members or others working on the production shooting at targets (tin cans or whatever) during breaks in production. Is this still believed to have happened and considered an explanation for what went wrong?
Or at least black balling them. The list of actors who can no longer find work because they were difficult is endless and I would imagine the same for crew except we don’t hear about them. It’s not like the film industry is all that large word can’t get around.