Caporegime
1. That isn't what was said.If you closed every thread like that we'd have nothing left.
2. There's always something to discuss *thumbs up*
1. That isn't what was said.If you closed every thread like that we'd have nothing left.
And my point is that this should be the only course of action. The mere idea of an actor conducting their own NSPs, especially on weapons in which they're not trained, opens up far more routes for accidents and liabilities for both them and the crew who already are responsible.And I addressed that, a few times now and pointed it out again in the previous post too - that in such circumstances they could ask an armourer surely?
No, each individual's actions contributed directly to a death, therefore each individual bears full responsibility. All three should be prosecuted, yes, but 'full' as in there's no degree of diminished responsibily or anything.Well, I think this is getting muddled by semantics a bit - when you're referring to someone as bearing full responsibility I'd read that as blaming them not sharing the blame among three different people. If you feel all three have responsibility here then I agree.
Negligent weapon handling, for starters. Most weapons will not accidentally discharge, so would likely have been mishandled in order to fire. In addition, there's the element of always keeping the weapon pointed in a safe direction, so in this case if Baldy wanted to practice his crossdraw the entire arc covered by the weapon during the move should have been a designated safe direction.However, despite people repeatedly stating in this thread that he should face charges for not checking the gun, I have still not seen anything to suggest that an actor is actually responsible for checking the ammunition in a prop gun after being told that it is cold/safe when they are given it on a movie set. On what grounds would an actor be charged in this situation?
Not claiming to be an expert, but if it makes any difference to you I have worked on a few sets with prop weapons. My experience is obviously limited and likely with some differences to Hollywood laws, but the fundamentals will probably be close enough.I haven't noticed posters claiming that no one in this thread has any experience with firearms, or disputing that guns are dangerous, or that there are established practices for safe gun use, or that things went badly wrong on this occasion. However, as far as I'm aware none of the expert posters here have experience of actually working on a modern movie set with prop guns and what we do know is that in such a situation an armourer is employed expressly to be in control of gun safety. Generally actors are expected to do what the director tells them and the bottom line is not that the actor should personally check the ammo or refuse to use a prop as directed. The bottom line is that the process failed and they need to find out why and whether it should be changed.
I don't see that ever happening, or at least not much of it, as it then opens up the gates to hold them responsible for anything and everything else they might touch, too.If change does come following this, will it be along the lines of making actors responsible for the props they are told to use on set and liable for any incidents that result from them failing to personally check ammunition etc?
Good job this wasn't a firearm that Alec owned and was using in a recreational setting with friends or something then isn't it...?
Once again, conflating ordinary usage of something in a more civilian setting with usage of things within a totally different scenario with proper protocols and responsible people in place is silly.
And my point is that this should be the only course of action. The mere idea of an actor conducting their own NSPs, especially on weapons in which they're not trained, opens up far more routes for accidents and liabilities for both them and the crew who already are responsible.
No, each individual's actions contributed directly to a death, therefore each individual bears full responsibility. All three should be prosecuted, yes, but 'full' as in there's no degree of diminished responsibily or anything.
Even with an armourer present, they would still need far more than just 'familiarity' with each individual weapon. 'A little knowledge' and all that...To be clear I'm not talking about them replacing the armourer but rather the actor having some familiarity with the weapon themselves too.
Armourer - Either not allowed to do her job, or was voluntarily not present. Either way, as the primary point of safety, it's her job to make those weapons and the people handling them safe.Yeah, I agree with that. I'm not sure it will be the case though, I suspect perhaps that the armourer would be at greatest risk as they're the expert + the AD is perhaps at greater risk than Baldwin as he's seemingly lied to in declaring the gun to be "cold". But all three have failed here which is part of the original point I was making.
Not at all. Other actors have already stated that they routinely check themselves. It's basic safety, I've concluded you're just a contrarian, bye
Can someone please summarise why this thread is now at 40 pages?
Can someone please summarise why this thread is now at 40 pages?
Can someone please summarise why this thread is now at 40 pages?
Can someone please summarise why this thread is now at 40 pages?
No but I'm seriously wondering if a mod should close this thread because it's just going round and round in circles, achieving absolutely nothing.
Person handling the firearm should be either partly or fully responsible for ensuring it is safe to handle (via self check or show me check etc.) VS person handling the firearm should simply be able to trust that the experts responsible for firearm safety have ensured the firearm is safe to handle.
And which do you agree with?
That’s clearly never going to work. Some actors who handle firearms are not suitable or remotely able to be responsible for ensuring the firearm is safe to use yet need to use the firewarm. That’s the entire point I having specialist’s on site.“Person handling the firearm should be either partly or fully responsible for ensuring it is safe to handle (via self check or show me check etc.)”
Can someone please summarise why this thread is now at 40 pages?
Is it negligence though if he is following the correct procedure he is meant to use on set? If there are a set of rules and if he followed the rules to the letter then how is it still his negligence? (Assuming he did follow the rules which it looks like he did for that set)Baldwin's been an actor for over 40 years, with multiple movies under his belt with guns being used, this isn't an actor shooting his 1st ever film with weapons.
The amount of people defending his negligence is outstanding, I can't help but wonder if these people would be doing the same if his political leanings differed to theirs.
Baldwin's been an actor for over 40 years, with multiple movies under his belt with guns being used, this isn't an actor shooting his 1st ever film with weapons.
The amount of people defending his negligence is outstanding, I can't help but wonder if these people would be doing the same if his political leanings differed to theirs.