An armourer is though! Why can't he ask the armourer? Is the armourer not qualified?
I'm not sure if the armourer was even present as reports on that seem to conflict... but she should have been.
Again, not about what ideal situations we can dream up, but about what did happen in violation of safety protocols that otherwise work perfectly well.
But no one is arguing they should be trained up to Navy SEAL standards, the point was just about basic competency (like does the firearm really need to be pointed at someone, not in a scene, during a rehearsal? Wouldn't it be useful if an actor had at least some basic familiarity with the weapon used despite the responsibilities of others?
Yes, but that basic competency does not always extend to knowing things like the differences between live wadded ammo and blank wadded ammo. That's why you're supposed to have the armourer doing it, with the actor having the right to watch if they feel the need for extra peace of mind.
So again, down to people on this set not doing their jobs and violating adequate safety protocols.
They could load the weapon in the presence of the actor no?
And indeed should, if safety is that much of a concern. But again, we've already established some lax attitudes in that regard on this set.
Surely if firearms are being used on set then the armourer is one of the people who should be present and indeed should be in charge of those firearms - not leaving them unattended for the AD to simply grab and walk onto set with?
Should be, yes... but as with all the 'shoulds' above, people did not follow safety rules and this is the result.
The AD’s job is to check the gun its part of his core responsibility, the AD is meant to be the last stage of the checks. Not only did the AD bypass the first check by skipping the armorer but the AD is directly responsible for checking the gun in the last stage checks before the gun is passed onto the actor.
I know the AD is responsible for general health & safety on set, but I wasn't aware they had responsibility for specific safety elements over and above the dedicated specialists... ie the armourer or electrician or something could overrule the AD on matters within their specialist area?
I think the biggest difference in opinion here is between those people who have been trained (or educated) in the safe use of firearms whose training tells them that Baldwin bears some responsibility, and those who have no firearms experience and believe that the person pulling the trigger bears absolutely no responsibility if they are told it's OK to do so.
Well, with several decades of military experience behind me, I can quite readily recall numerous exercises where we were issued magazines already loaded with blanks, wherein we were expected to fire without first unloading and reloading upwards of 300 rounds to verify for our own personal peace of mind. Same for live rounds on the range. It was rare we'd get stripper-clipped rounds and even rarer we'd get handed boxed rounds. The only concession is that a couple of guys from your company would have been detailed to do the loading, so as long as you trusted them (or better yet, had been the one detailed yourself that day) it was all good.
While I would generally put the responsibility on the one pulling the trigger, things often work differently on a film set. Some things are off limits to everyone but the specific individuals responsible. You also do some things that are inherrently dangerous, often in front of the camera to help them prep the shot. I'd like to think that's what was happening here, but my cynicism is highly doubtful.
