Alec Baldwin fatally shoots woman with prop gun on movie set

dowie said:
Exactly - so like I said it's not some ideal situation we're talking about but it's a basic safety issue potentially.
Click to expand...
Basic safety in principle, yes, but not with the burden falling on the actor to make up for the dereliction of someone else.

dowie said:
What additional rules are you referring to?
Click to expand...
The bit earlier on where you were basically asserting that actors should have a level of competency equal to the safety specialist. It took a few pages, but several people pointed out that not all firearms are the same and it often takes a specialist with far more than just 'basic safety' training to provide a sufficiently qualified declaration of safety. Actors will almost never have that level of competency, and neither will anyone else who would generally need to know a weapon was safe.
Therefore, if you wanted to hold actors fully responsible, you would need additional regulations and training put upon them.

dowie said:
He's not some inexperienced novice actor - if the armourer is supposed to be present etc.. and isn't then that's something he and the AD both know isn't right.
Click to expand...
And their only course of action in that situation should be to halt production until a competent armourer can come take responsibility for weapon safety.
 
visibleman said:
Appreciate that you have done firearm training/safety but is it standard procedure for the actor to check to see if the prop is live on a film set?

I get that it probably should be but just wondered if that is the case typically or by default.....
Click to expand...

I'd say that is whats causing most of the arguments, as some would say "the firer should always check regardless" and others believe differently. I'd guess that, due to the lack of this being far more common, whatever procedures used on set seem to be usually enough, but once in a while enough failed safety issues will line up and you get an accident like this. I mean it could be that these incidents are extremely common but a last second check has prevented things going further and they've never been reported widely, or the sets could be extremely safe, I've no idea unfortunately.

ttaskmaster said:
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.
Click to expand...

From what I remember we always had to upload/download our own Live mags under supervision a Range Warden/NCO/Officer whilst another detail was on point, 20rd boxed usually (oh how I wished for stripper's on a cold range day :D) but IIRC for exercises with BFA's and blanks you had to give a pre-shoot statement (the old "no live rounds in my possession etc" one) whilst your kit/pockets was inspected for any Live rounds/mags which may have snuck in. Only after that could you get access to the blanks and mags but, again it was load your own but our group size was usually <30 with just IW's making it far easier to control than doing say a full company assault with SF fires etc.

ttaskmaster said:
Basic safety in principle, yes, but not with the burden falling on the actor to make up for the dereliction of someone else.

Therefore, if you wanted to hold actors fully responsible, you would need additional regulations and training put upon them.
Click to expand...

I don't think Dowie said that "full" responsibility was with Baldwin, only that he a responsibility to check. Again there maybe a little blurring of previous posts as I don't think anyone has said "Only Baldwin is to blame" but instead ""Baldwin is also to blame, alongside the others" although with hundreds of replies that may be difficult to go back through to confirm.
 
ttaskmaster said:
Basic safety in principle, yes, but not with the burden falling on the actor to make up for the dereliction of someone else.
Click to expand...

No one said they should make up for it.

The bit earlier on where you were basically asserting that actors should have a level of competency equal to the safety specialist.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that - which post are you referring to?

ttaskmaster said:
Actors will almost never have that level of competency, and neither will anyone else who would generally need to know a weapon was safe.
Therefore, if you wanted to hold actors fully responsible, you would need additional regulations and training put upon them.
Click to expand...

That also isn't what I claimed.

And their only course of action in that situation should be to halt production until a competent armourer can come take responsibility for weapon safety.
Click to expand...

Yes, not just carry on and take the word of the non-armourer then... I mean that's part of what I'm objecting to here. You seem to have been arguing against some points I didn't make though.
 
RIP to the poor woman.

It seems that massive negligence caused this tragedy; why were they using real guns, how did a real bullet get anywhere near the set and what was Baldwin doing pointing a real gun towards anyone...
 
I can understand how people who are firearms trained can point the finger at Alec for being negligent, but it's an actor's job to wave prop guns around, point them at people and discharge them while pointed at them.
 
bainbridge said:
I can understand how people who are firearms trained can point the finger at Alec for being negligent, but it's an actor's job to wave prop guns around, point them at people and discharge them while pointed at them.
Click to expand...

Is it a prop if it can fire?

If Baldwin was aware that this was a real gun - what was he doing?
 
bainbridge said:
I can understand how people who are firearms trained can point the finger at Alec for being negligent, but it's an actor's job to wave prop guns around, point them at people and discharge them while pointed at them.
Click to expand...

It's a hauliers job to drive a wagon, doesn't mean they don't need a driving licence...
 
mburn_83 said:
RIP to the poor woman.

It seems that massive negligence caused this tragedy; why were they using real guns, how did a real bullet get anywhere near the set and what was Baldwin doing pointing a real gun towards anyone...
Click to expand...
This may answer that question of why there was real guns and ammo on the site/set
Last known photo of Halyna Hutchins emerges showing inside chapel where Alec Baldwin fired fatal shot (msn.com)
It came as it emerged that crew members used guns with live ammunition for target practice the morning of the incident, it has been reported, with spent casings later discovered by detectives.

The crew would regularly take guns off the set at Bonanza Creek Ranch near Santa Fe, New Mexico, to shoot at beer cans nearby in a pastime known as "plinking", CNN and The Wrap website reported.

One of the guns used was later handed to Baldwin, who fired the shot that killed Hutchins, 42, and injured director Joel Souza. The star believed he was handed a “cold gun”, meaning it did not contain any live bullets.

"There's this pastime that crew members sometimes do, it's called 'plinking,' and they go out into the rural areas and they shoot at beer cans. This is with live ammunition. We learned that this happened the morning of the day that Halyna Hutchins was killed," Sharon Waxman, founder and CEO of The Wrap, told CNN. Ms Waxman said the activity is common when there's downtime during a shoot.
Click to expand...
 
I know this is slightly off topic but every time one of these threads comes up it reminds me to make the pitch for my new TV show (it is called Expert versus Dickspert) which revolves around a panel of genuine, accredited experts in their field pitted against a bunch of armchair enthusiasts with far too much time and too little knowledge. Each week the teams discuss a new topic and the entertainment comes from the utter belief the non-experts have in their own opinion and the real experts crushing them with facts. BUT - and here is the kicker, my dudes - every now and again the non-experts just about come up with a new angle where their opinion isn't just utter, utter garbage and it gives the real experts something to think about. This is what will keep the viewers coming back.

I'm pretty pumped about this one so I'll let you know how I go.
 
[FnG]magnolia said:
I know this is slightly off topic but every time one of these threads comes up it reminds me to make the pitch for my new TV show (it is called Expert versus Dickspert) which revolves around a panel of genuine, accredited experts in their field pitted against a bunch of armchair enthusiasts with far too much time and too little knowledge. Each week the teams discuss a new topic and the entertainment comes from the utter belief the non-experts have in their own opinion and the real experts crushing them with facts. BUT - and here is the kicker, my dudes - every now and again the non-experts just about come up with a new angle where their opinion isn't just utter, utter garbage and it gives the real experts something to think about. This is what will keep the viewers coming back.

I'm pretty pumped about this one so I'll let you know how I go.
Click to expand...
Lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom