![[FnG]magnolia](/styles/overclockers/avatars/9.png){kind=avatar}
Caporegime
1. That isn't what was said.
2. There's always something to discuss *thumbs up*
Alec Baldwin fatally shoots woman with prop gun on movie set
- Thread starter NVP
- Start date
2. There's always something to discuss *thumbs up*
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,308
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.
Of course, the 'show me' version technically still relies on the actor knowing what they're looking at and being able to tell if the armourer is blagging their way through, or not, but that just muddies the point further.
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.
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 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.
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
To be clear I'm not talking about them replacing the armourer but rather the actor having some familiarity with the weapon themselves too.
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.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,308
Even with an armourer present, they would still need far more than just 'familiarity' with each individual weapon. 'A little knowledge' and all that...
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.
AD - Responsible for ensuring all safety experts are on set and doing their jobs, thus ensuring the safety of the set overall.
Baldy - Went ahead without the approval of the safety specialist and then behaved in a manner resulting in ND, killing one and wounding another.
It's possible the Covid restrictions could play a factor, but I really hope not.
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
It's not contrarian. Much of the commentary elsewhere from people supposedly in the biz have said that introducing responsibility to more people is actually detrimental to safety, and I would tend to agree. Too many cooks and all that. It's why they specifically have someone who's job it is to be responsible for firearm safety on set (someone who should be very well trained and experienced). In this instance that person failed MASSIVELY.
You have to appreciate how organisations work and why people have specific responsibilities.
Soldato
Because you've got your pages sizes in pussy format?
Because you are one of the "weirdos" who doesnt have 100 posts per page set on this forum?
Because people are discussing things on a discussion forum?
Mostly because the two positions being discussed are unlikely to ever meet in the middle.
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.
The analogies being pulled out are getting more and more interesting the longer it goes on
Please this, at least until the police release their actual findings. Until then this whole discussion is a complete dumpster fire.
And which do you agree with?
I think there ought to be a responsibility that the person handling the firearm should be satisfying themselves it's safe, even if just by a 'show me' check, that being said, i'd be wholly unsurprised if the current 'industry standard' in the movies is not that strict and so in this particular case, assuming Alec Baldwin has genuinely been told all was safe, I doubt he'll face much comeback legally.
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.
Its ok to have some actors as partly responsible when suitable but other actors should have zero responsibility.
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.
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.
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)
It’s got nothing to do with political leaning or who he is. From what I can see the correct procedure and rules have been broken but not by Baldwin. It looks like at this stage that if those correct procedures and rules had been followed and Baldwin did nothing different everything would have been ok. From that point of view, it is not negligence on Baldwins part.
I am not ruling out possible negligence on Baldwins part, just not convinced it is based on what we know so far. To me it looks like the negligence came from the AD.
This all reminds me what my uncle used to tell me when he was in the Police Force when at scenes. 5 witnesses with 5 different stories.
Everybody has been getting little snippets from what the press puts out when nobody really knew or saw what actually took place. Then there are people who were there that screwed up but try to spin things to save their ass. So you get even more conflicting stories.