Aguila Blanca
Staff
I agree.44 AMP said:The rest of the information will come out, if the case goes to trial, and my personal opinion is that it should go to trial.
I agree.44 AMP said:The rest of the information will come out, if the case goes to trial, and my personal opinion is that it should go to trial.
I don't think "whoever pulls the trigger" is going to stick (even though it does for the general public and LE) because of film practice and precedent.
You're splitting hairs here--either you DO allow pointing at people--or you DON'T as you say in the beginning. I personally agree with you on this; but as a practical matter I don't think a jury is going to convict him on that point alone.She was a member of the film crew, NOT an actor. Even if you accept that "actors point guns at each other all the time, its in the script" pointing a gun at crew members is NOT in the script, and is a clear violation of safety and industry rules and practices.
That's been the biggest burning question(s) in my mind.Who loaded the live round(s) in the gun and why?"
I agree. To use the Swiss cheese analogy currently in vogue in the aviation industry, in this incident the holes lined up on a LOT of slices of the cheese. The point of having redundant safety protocols is so that a lapse on one protocol still shouldn't result in a mishap. In this case, a great many safety protocols were ignored or intentionally violated.HiBC said:IMO, there is a chain of irresponsibility and incompetence , and every link in the chain is pointing at another link to blame.
The shooting was a team effort.
Unfortunately, this is also true. Basically, I suspect this boils down to complacency. After all, how long had it been since anyone was accidentally killed by a firearm on a movie set? Jon-Erik Hexum shot himself while playing Russian roulette in 1984. The Brandon Lee incident (which was the impetus for most of the film industry safety protocols that are supposed to be followed today was in 1993, so it had been 29 years. Halyna was still a child and not even living in the U.S. when the Brandon Lee incident happened. There may have even been a mental disconnect to the effect that the safety rules apply when actually shooting a scene, but not when setting up to shoot the scene.I'll even suggest the cinematographer who died should have said "Hey! DO NOT POINT THAT GUN AT ME!!" I'm not blaming her, but we are all esponsible for our own safety.
Who loaded the live round(s) in the gun and why?"
Baldwin also claims that he didn't pull the trigger, but he also stated that he pulled the hammer as far back as it would go, and then let it drop. As we all know, unless the firearm is broken, with a SAA (or clone) when you take your thumb off the hammer at full cock ... nothing happens. If take your thumb off the hammer at some point short of full-cock, the hammer drops to the half-cock position.44 AMP said:I heard that Baldwin was practicing drawing and cocking the pistol, repeatedly at the rehearsal. He does admit to cocking the hammer the time the gun fired, but claims he did not pull the trigger.
As we all know, unless the firearm is broken, with a SAA (or clone) when you take your thumb off the hammer at full cock ... nothing happens. If take your thumb off the hammer at some point short of full-cock, the hammer drops to the half-cock position.
As this moron is an ACTOR and literally in the process of acting out a scene in a movie, he *SHOULD* point this thing at people and he *SHOULD* pull a trigger while doing so.
Aren't those two options actually the same thing?44 AMP said:yep, that's what happens,
UNLESS
You are holding the gun in such a way that you are holding the trigger back. And, that is something an undereducated idiot could easily do and not even realize they were doing it.
Of you are gripping the gun so the trigger is held back, when you pull the hammer back and release it, it falls ALL THE WAY and fires the gun if there is a live round under the hammer.
I haven't seen the script, I won't see the script. Plenty of movies (especially low budget bad movies, as this one has the reputation for) will show an actor pointing a gun at the camera. And if he's pointing it the way most (bad) actors and (bad) scripts call for, he's not taking careful aim and using the sights, he's pointing from the hip or some version of a low hold.Agreed, to a point. He should be pointing and shooting ONLY what the script calls for. Show me the script that says the actor should point his gun at the cinematographer next to the camera, and not at another actor in the scene, and I'd say Baldwin followed the script. I don't think he did.
It's my opinion that you are splitting hairs by suggesting the script doesn't have this (bad) actor pointing this gun in the general direction of a camera and thus a cinematographer and anyone near her.
No, not special consideration. It's that they operate in a different world where the normal gun safety rules do not apply while on set. That's why they have an expert whose full time job is to make sure that things remain safe on set when guns are involved....some people have argued that actors should get special consideration because of their job...
Or maybe the person who wasn't willing to pay what an experienced expert wanted, or hire TWO people because of the number of guns involved, as most of the armorers they approached said was necessary.JohnKSa said:If something goes wrong, the expert is responsible. And, possibly, if the expert wasn't really an expert and that should have been (or became) obvious, the person who hired (or didn't fire) the expert.
One veteran prop master previously told The Times that he declined offers to join the film’s crew, in part, because he was concerned about producers’ insistence to combine two important jobs — armorer and props assistant — saying “this is an accident waiting to happen.”
It's that they operate in a different world where the normal gun safety rules do not apply while on set.