I'll give you the old army saying...If he was under the assumption that the gun was unloaded. . . .
But the person in charge of firearms didn't hand it to him. She was elsewhere, doing something else -- and he knew that, because he was one of the people who made the decision to not pay for the armorer to be just an armorer.shafter said:If he was under the assumption that the gun was unloaded because he is on a movie set that involves scenes were people are shooting at each other, and the person in charge of the firearm hands it to him during filming, then I don't think he should be on the hook for the shooting. He would have to know that it was loaded with live ammunition and not blanks.
Under the protocols adopted by the film industry decades ago, there are at least three people responsible. The protocol for loading a revolver with dummy rounds calls for the armorer -- in the presence of the assistant director AND the actor who will be handling the gun in that scene -- to manually shake each round before loading it, to allow all present to hear the BBs that are placed in dummy rounds to indicate that they are dummies. Only then is the armorer supposed to hand the gun to the actor.The person who gave it to him is responsible for checking and verifying no live ammunition is anywhere near the area. That's the person to hold responsible.
I'll go further: Had Baldwin seen ANYthing loaded in the gun -- assumed blank or not -- he shouldBaldwin should not have accepted the gun without having witnessed
the checking of each round before it was placed in the gun.
I don't think he should be on the hook for the shooting. He would have to know that it was loaded with live ammunition and not blanks.
The person who gave it to him is responsible for checking and verifying no live ammunition is anywhere near the area. That's the person to hold responsible.
Wrong. There is a different set of rules on movie/TV sets. There has to be. Obviously.'ll give you the old army saying...
Don't assume anything.
It makes an A$$ out of U and Me.
To pick up a gun and "assume" it's unloaded violates every rule, ever taught, by any one, and any time.
The fact that the armorer was not in place doing her job doesn't make the actor responsible. The actor is handed a firearm and is told what can and can't be done with it. If they follow the instructions, and something goes wrong, it's the responsibility of the person who handed it to them. That person should be the armorer or one of the armorer's staff and they are the ones responsible for firearm safety on set.But the person in charge of firearms didn't hand it to him. She was elsewhere, doing something else -- and he knew that, because he was one of the people who made the decision to not pay for the armorer to be just an armorer.
You have supporting evidence for this claim?As an actor and member of the Screen Actors Guild, Baldwin should not have accepted the gun without having witnessed the checking of each round before it was placed in the gun.
When you become the king of the motion picture industry, you can tell them how to run their business. Until then, their rules apply. The bottom line is that making movies often requires actors to point guns at people. There are professionals hired to insure that safety is maintained in spite of the fact that the normal rules of gun safety obviously don't apply on set and in this case, the person paid to perform that function did not insure that safety was maintained.Had Baldwin seen ANYthing loaded in the gun -- assumed blank or not -- he should
never have pointed it at an unprepared/unprotected human being and fired it, no matter what
Since that is exactly what the discussion is about and in fact, it is the crux of the matter, it can't be a red herring. A red herring is an irrelevant point brought up as a distraction.I think all arguments about Baldwin not being responsible because as an actor he was not required to personally check the gun, and, as an actor is allowed to point a gun at others on set, are, while true, a red herring.
Maybe a good lawyer can make an argument like this fly, I don't know but you never know what a jury will do. The point is that he had been handed an object that he was told was inert, that he knew he was going to point at people in the scene. Holding him responsible for pointing it at people doesn't make sense....the reason she got shot was because Baldwin pointed the gun AT HER.
If it goes to trial, Baldwin will have a more expensive, higher power lawyer than either Hanna Guttierez or the assistant director can afford, so I don't hold out a lot of hope that Baldwin's full degree of responsibility will be shown in a trial.44 AMP said:IF this goes to trial (and I hope it does) the trial will determine who is legally responsible, and to what degree.
John KSa said:You have supporting evidence for this claim?As an actor and member of the Screen Actors Guild, Baldwin should not have accepted the gun without having witnessed the checking of each round before it was placed in the gun.
Carpenter explains that there are several types of rounds used on TV and film productions. One type is blank cartridges, which are rounds that contain gunpowder but no projectile. Depending on what look the director wants, the rounds can contain one-quarter, one-half or the full amount of powder. Another type is dummy rounds, which look like real bullets and are used for shots in which the director wants to see a firearm up close — while being loaded, for instance.
“For all intents and purposes, dummy rounds look like a real round but commonly have BBs inside instead of gunpowder. All the powder has been taken out and cleaned. The BBs are used so you can hear the shaking and rattling,” says Carpenter. “As an armorer myself, I bring my own dummy rounds that I have secured from reputable sources and I have checked them multiple times before taking them to several on-set sources, including the director, AD, DP, so you can get double verification before we let those things go out on set and in the hands of actors.”
Preponderance, not "...beyond a reasonable doubt"If it goes to trial, Baldwin will have a more expensive, higher power
lawyer than either Hanna Guttierez or the assistant director. . . .
Yes, the armorer is responsible for checking the rounds -- in the presence of the assistant director, the actor who will be handling that gun in that scene, and (if they wish) any other actors who will be involved in that scene.John KSa said:Your claim was that the SAG requires the actor to be witness to the checking of each round. The sources are about the armorer or weapons master being responsible for checking them.
zeke said:...who actually enforces, and what are the penalties for the movie "guidelines"? Imo, that's all they are, is just guidelines....
Worse than that--the gun was handed to him as being cold--empty. Not loaded with dummies--completely empty. The gun was supposed to be empty per the person responsible for such things at the scene.The result was that instead of a minimum of three people listening for the rattling of BBs to indicate that the rounds in the gun were dummies -- NOBODY did.
Absolutely positively terminally incorrect.Wrong. There is a different set of rules on movie/TV sets.
I'm not clear whether a gun loaded with dummies is considered to be a "cold" gun, a "hot" gun, or a "warm" gun. Dummies aren't supposed to fire -- not even smoke and muzzle flash. Hollywood uses dummies for precisely the kind of shot that was being set up when the incident occurred -- a shot in which the gun is pointing at or near the camera, so that the front of a revolver's cylinder is clearly visible. They need to have bullets visible in the chambers. That's basically the only use for dummy rounds on a set -- other than to take up space in the loops of a gunbelt.John KSa said:Worse than that--the gun was handed to him as being cold--empty. Not loaded with dummies--completely empty. The gun was supposed to be empty per the person responsible for such things at the scene.
If they had told him it was loaded with dummies, maybe he would have asked to witness the loading maybe not, But since they told him it was empty, the point is moot.
You didn't read the articles you provided as sources. One of them provided a clear definition.I'm not clear whether a gun loaded with dummies is considered to be a "cold" gun, a "hot" gun, or a "warm" gun.
Right. According to the source you provided, a gun is not called "cold" unless it is completely unloaded. No blanks, no live ammo, and no dummies. Completely unloaded.Dummies aren't supposed to fire -- not even smoke and muzzle flash. Hollywood uses dummies for precisely the kind of shot that was being set up when the incident occurred -- a shot in which the gun is pointing at or near the camera, so that the front of a revolver's cylinder is clearly visible. They need to have bullets visible in the chambers. That's basically the only use for dummy rounds on a set -- other than to take up space in the loops of a gunbelt.
What rounds? According to your source, the actor was told the gun was cold. That means there were no rounds in the gun--no live rounds, no blanks, no dummies.And this is exactly the kind of scene where the industry guidelines call for the armorer to shake each round in front of the actor
Well, this is partially correct. They didn't verify that the rounds were dummies, but more importantly, according to your source, when they told him the gun was cold, they were telling him there were no rounds at all in the gun. No live rounds, no blanks and no dummies. But the responsibility definitely falls on the armorer/weapons master.The AD was negligent for picking up a gun from the cart and calling it "cold" without verifying that the dummy rounds were dummies
Wrong. The gun was handed to the actor as a cold gun and according to your source that means it is not loaded. What is the "proper loading protocol" for a gun that is not loaded?...Baldwin was negligent for accepting the gun from the AD without insisting that the proper loading protocol be followed.
You can say this all you want but it will never be true. Aquila Blanca provided a number of sources just a few posts up the thread explaining how movie sets are run. But even without that, common sense makes it clear that in an environment where guns must be pointed at persons, the context is completely different from the norm.Absolutely positively terminally incorrect.