Do you check the water you drink know it's safe before drinking, or do you rely on the training and skill of others who have been employed for such a task before you get handed the end product?
Alec Baldwin fatally shoots woman with prop gun on movie set
- Thread starter NVP
- Start date
Do you check the water you drink know it's safe before drinking, or do you rely on the training and skill of others who have been employed for such a task before you get handed the end product?
To address your whole "how could he not know" comment.
Well, funny thing with prop replica's... they often look and feel identical to the real thing. Shocking revelation I know...
Baldwin may well have had extensive training in the handling of firearms on previous movies (or personally) and as such felt no additional training was required by said armorer. (Supposition, I do not know this, just theorizing)
Baldwin was indeed the producer, but to expect him to "babysit" every single employee below him (including the armorer) to ensure they actually carried out the job they were employed for correctly is asking a bit much, don't you think?
Last edited:
If there was potential for my water to blow up and kill someone around me I'd probably check it before messing with it :s
Baby sitting every aspect would be a bit much - but the footage from the scene shows a significant level of chaos, with no one really knowing what anyone else was doing, huge amounts of incompetence and H&S breaches clearly in evidence, etc. etc. you'd expect those higher up to take some responsibility for things being run properly...
Last edited:
There is potential for your tap water to be contaminated and poison or kill everyone in your household or your entire street / neighborhood. Do you still test it yourself to be sure, or do you rely on the procedures and processes in place and the individuals employed for the task of ensuring it is safe to drink?
Not really.. People are insinuating that he *should have known* and *should have checked* himself before handling the firearm, while completing disregarding the fact that every single day in their own lives, they routinely trust others with their (and others) own safety and do not actually "check" or "know" themselves. - Hence my water example above.
There are many, MANY situations in which we trust our lives (and the lives of others) to someone other than ourselves, so I think the constant barrage of "he should have known" or "he should have checked" is fundamentally flawed.
What many are essentially suggesting (and blaming him for) is that he should have (and didn't) effectively taken on the role of the armorer himself, checking the firearm etc... which is precisely what he had employed and paid a (supposedly) trained individual to do for him.
Why would he do that?
Would you do that?
Do you do that with your water?
Last edited:
The gun might well have been a prop replica but it was also the real thing! There were reports of the crew plinking targets etc.. on set.
The bullets were distinguishable though, the guy who took the plea deal admitted to only briefly checking 3 of them by spinning the barrel, He, the armourer and Baldwin could and should have checked properly, if just one of them did that their coworker would still be alive today.
Last edited:
There is a reasonable degree of precaution for anything.
I don't entirely agree with the lengths some are saying he should have gone to, but there are basic level precautions you can and should take when handling a firearm or even imitation firearm in a context like this which were not followed and it isn't unreasonable to expect them to be followed - especially on a set where there was mixed real and fake firearms.
Agreed, if unsafe procedures were being used and appropriate H&S / risk management not being done then there absolutely should be some level of responsibility laid at the feet of those "in charge".
But the way many people have been acting / commenting in recent posts, He's single-handedly to blame because of any number of flawed reasons such as "he should have known" or "he should have checked" or "he pulled the trigger" or "he's in charge".
None of these are remotely valid or realistic comments and seem to stem from people's desire to simplify everything down to "it's his fault" rather than consider the multitude of issues that played into this tragedy.
*Edit* With regard to the 2nd part...
He employed an armorer that was (supposedly) trained and proficient in this task, for just that very purpose. I think it would be fair to assume that part of the armorer's duties would be both to maintain the firearms and keep track of every firearm and piece of ammo there is, to ensure accidents like this cannot happen.
I'm not exactly sure what else he was meant to do in that regard? Hire a 2nd armorer to watch the first armorer to make sure it's done right? Watch the armorer himself to ensure it's done right? - Now we're back to "babysitting" territory again.
To be clear... I'm not saying he's exonerated from any wrongdoing or responsibility, but many posters seem to think he should have either been doing the work of other trained professionals whom he had specifically employed for certain tasks or should bare all the responsibility for what happened just because "he was the producer".
Last edited:
.
"he should have checked" isn't flawed though, he really should as should the AD and the armourer.
Why would you think that is flawed? I bet every actor will be checking in this sort of instance if Baldwin gets 18 months for this.
I remember early on there being some uncertainty as to whether it had been a blank round and the wadding penetrated the victim, or an actual live round but I do not recall what the actual result was. Any chance you could (if it's known) refresh my aging brain?
Main reason I ask is that as previously mentioned and demonstrated in a post earlier from someone else, not all ammo is distinguishable. Blanks are distinguishable, but live rounds vs replica rounds are not.
Given this was a western movie where revolvers would have been used (and as such, the bullets can be seen from the front of the gun) it's highly likely they would have been using replica rounds for much of the filming where the front of the gun(s) may be visible.
This would have made it extremely difficult / impossible for anyone that was not a trained professional to distinguish replica round from live round, certainly not something the average assistant director or actor may be able to determine from a quick inspection of the firearm - which is something they no doubt specifically employ an armorer for, so I'm not entirely sure how 2 untrained individuals (actor / assistant director) would be expected to tell the difference or do the job of the armorer (keep track of guns / ammo and check firearms before scene).
Last edited:
They aren't that similar. The other 2 guns were non-functioning or plastic.
Well as long as Baldwin thought he had enough training then, that's fine. He's absolved of responsibility.
It's not a question of if unsafe procedures were being used, the production has already been fined the maximum possible because of the safety violations stemming from this event. Baldwin is not entirely responsible, but he shares the blame of a completely avoidable incident, hence the charges filed. If he is not guilty, great, but there seems to be enough for the prosecutor to determine that he at the very least might have been negligent in his actions.
"He employed an armour"... yes, who wasn't even in the church, he didn't receive the firearm from her. At no point did he stop anything.
That's not true and as I already mentioned a few posts back he did check, he just didn't do it thoroughly. The rounds were distinguishable but he only looked at 3 of them. All three of them really ought to have checked and made sure for themselves that the gun was safe.
Surely it only takes a few seconds for the armourer or AD to hand over the firearm to Baldwin and show it: "6 rounds, all these have a notch in them indicating they're dummies" and have him see the state the firearm is in, it just seems madness that something as basic as that wasn't done.
Assistant Director Davis Halls told police that when Rust armourer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed “showed him” the gun later used by Mr Baldwin “before continuing rehearsal, he could only remember seeing three rounds,” an affidavit filed on Wednesday in Santa Fe County Magistrate Court shows.Mr Halls “advised he should have checked all of them, but didn’t and couldn’t recall” if Ms Gutierrez-Reed “spun the drum”, the legal document stated.
Assistant director tells police he didn’t check all rounds before giving Baldwin gun
‘We know there was one live round, as far as we’re concerned, on set,’ sheriff sayswww.independent.co.uk
I misremembered that bit, I thought he had claimed to have spun the drum:
Last edited:
There are practical levels of taking responsibility for everything, you can't realistically check every part of a car for safety before giving someone a lift, etc. but you can take basic responsibility for handling a firearm. It also should be fairly clear that procedures, etc. weren't being followed anything close to an acceptable level - the video footage is carnage - not just in reaction to the event happening, some has been published from before that as well, but showing significant issues with just about everything - many people were clearly well out of their depth.
Seems like the right result, he should have checked, the armorer should have checked, everybody who handled that weapon bares some responsibility.
He's still claiming he never pulled the trigger and the gun malfunctioned somehow, which is nuts.
He's still claiming he never pulled the trigger and the gun malfunctioned somehow, which is nuts.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 28,314
- Location
- Boston, Lincolnshire
I am sure he will want to go through with making the movie too and have it as some sort of "tribute". It will definitely make more at the box office then it otherwise would and he will be rubbing his hands to the bank.
Me personally he needs to be made an example of. It seems to me that Hollywood has H&S which is non-existant.
It's America and he's establishment, I will be very surprised if they don't give his wrist a little tickle.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 13,000
- Location
- La France
The local law enforcement had that pistol stripped down by experts who found no significant wear or traces of damage/modification to the hammer and trigger mechanism which means the trigger was pulled or held back when the hammer was fully cocked. Unless you lock one in a vice and start belting the hammer spur with an FOGB hammer, you can’t make this model of revolver fire without something or someone pulling or push the trigger rrearward.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 13,000
- Location
- La France
This is a very good point. There was zero need for a fully functional firearm to be pointed at humans when one converted for blank firing use would have looked and sounded identical.