Why you can never be too careful

Status
Not open for further replies.
For about as long as there have been black and white television Hollywood Westerns there has been the (not recommended) practice of "fanning" the six gun.
There is no distinct "pulling" of the trigger. The trigger is just held to the rear by the trigger finger.No sear "reset" can take place.

The edge or fingers of the non-gun hand pull the hammer back and release it.

Anyone who has watched old westerns or a Clint Eastwood "Man With No Name" movie has seen it.

Duh,Alec. Its the way some practice quick draw,too. Trigger held back,one stroke of the off hand over the hammer.
Its not a new concept,never discovered till Alec showed up.(These practices tend to over stress small ,important internal parts.Its NOT recommended you abuse your six gun this way.)

Oh,and Alec,so you and your victims don't have to learn the hard way, the Winchester 97 pump shotgun and the Ithaca 37 will fire as the slide closes if you hold the trigger back.Watch Peckinpah's "Wild Bunch"

If telling you that only saves one life,its worth it.
 
Last edited:
1. Baldwin say "The trigger wasn't pulled, I didn't pull the trigger."
2. Baldwin says he “I let go of the hammer — bang, the gun goes off."

Baldwin can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...

That ^ assuming :rolleyes: the gun was a replica with those safety's installed . There will be a inspection of the firearm and it will reveal if as Baldwin describes the gun could have fired . If it could not as he describes he's in big trouble . This appears to be a merenda waving interview because he is stating things that go directly to the facts of the case and his actions . I don't see how he is not forced to testify now with the interviews being admissible in court .

He said something like the person ( not sure who) kept asking him to pull the trigger back further and further which I assume :rolleyes: he means so the camera can clearly see it cocked or pulled back :confused: I don't understand this rational or statement . I'm not a movie maker but Unless the scene specifically called for him to start to cock the gun then drop the hammer back down . I don't see a reason to need to see the gun half cocked . It's/you're movie making just cock the damn thing then cut and splice what ever shot you need .
 
..he's in big trouble . This appears to be a merenda waving interview...
Click to expand...

He is in big trouble, he killed a woman and injured a guy.

The famous "Miranda" warning doesn't apply to anything but the police. Because of the decision from the Miranda case, the police are required to inform you of your rights, after they arrest you.

This includes the famous "anything you say may be used against you in a court of law" phrase. And, it is entirely true. However, most folks assume it only applies to things you say after you are arrested. That isn't true. It applies to everything you say or have ever said, anywhere. The police are only required to give the warning after they arrest you. Anything you say to ABC news (EVER) can be used against you in court. NO warning is legally required.

It appears Baldwin is trying to generate sympathy, and is insinuating that the gun malfunctioned, so its not his fault.

The gun has been sent to the FBI for examination and testing. I'm sure, given the publicity involved, they will do an extensive job with all the "i's dotted and t's crossed".

If the report is the gun functions as designed, Baldwin is lying. If they report is that the gun is malfunctioning, Baldwin is still responsible. There's no escaping that basic fact, no matter what he personally believes he did, or didn't do, or what he tells the press, the indisputable fact is that he shot and killed a woman.

I read an opinion piece about the interview, and most of the comments were about risky it was from a legal standpoint. One commenter did state how they thought it might be a good thing for him, because he came off as sincere and genuinely, deeply sorry it happened.

I'm sure he did. He's been an actor for decades. ITs been his life's work to pretend to be something he isn't. OF COURSE he seemed sincere and sorrowful, he's had a lifetime's practice lying for a living.
 
The police are only required to give the warning after they arrest you. Anything you say to ABC news (EVER) can be used against you in court. NO warning is legally required.
Click to expand...

My point and not sure if accurate is that this and other interviews will prohibit Baldwin from claiming the 5th in court and in fact he will be required to testify because he's already spoke about this things on the record .

If they report is that the gun is malfunctioning, Baldwin is still responsible. There's no escaping that basic fact, no matter what he personally believes he did, or didn't do, or what he tells the press, the indisputable fact is that he shot and killed a woman.
Click to expand...

I don't agree or maybe I'm mis-reading that quote . If the gun malfunctioned it would seem reasonable that would be a legal defense . Especially If there was an armorer involved who's responsibility was to be sure the firearm functions correctly and was loaded with the correct ammo . Keeping in mind the 4 rules of gun safety are not legal laws to be followed . Couple that with the fact this is a movie set where you actually are required to violate just about every rule in order to get the "shot"

I'll add what is the actor to do with the gun prior to the scene to be safe . Keeping in mind they'll be breaking every rule of firearms safety once they hear action . Ok check to see if it's loaded , yeah and ....? So he looks and "sees" the cartridges in the gun yes ? How does he know they are blanks or live rounds ? Is he supposed to unload it then reload it ? I'd think the rule is the actors don't get to do that and it's actually what the armorer is on set for . I'm not trying to excuse what he did but this is not like hanging out with a buddy and you accidently shoot them , this is very different IMHO .
 
Last edited:
Metal god said:
I don't agree or maybe I'm mis-reading that quote . If the gun malfunctioned it would seem reasonable that would be a legal defense . Especially If there was an armorer involved who's reasonability was to be sure the firearm functions correctly .
Click to expand...
As an actor, perhaps he can claim that it wasn't his responsibility to ensure that the weapon was safe. Others in the industry don't agree. George Clooney commented that his experience is that any time a firearm is handed to an actor, it is handed to him by the armorer, and that right then they both go through the exercise of first showing that the gun is clear, then they both verify what ammunition is going to be loaded, and then the armorer proceeds to load the gun and hand it to the actor. I have watched multiple videos, by multiple different Hollywood armorers and prop masters, that ALL report the same thing as being industry standard protocol. But Baldwin, being the arrogant boobie that he is, says he has always followed his protocol, and it has never failed him.

Except that this time it DID fail him.

But on this film Baldwin was more than an actor. He was also one of the producers. That means he bears some responsibility for the hiring and supervision of the armorer. And I saw an interview with at least one experienced armorer who said he had been offered the job for this film and he turned it down, because they wanted him to be both the armorer and the prop master, and he said there were too many guns in the film to be able to do both jobs. Ms. Gutierrez wasn't smart enough to turn it down.

Keeping in mind the 4 rules of gun safety are not legal laws to be followed . Couple that with the fact this is a movie set where you actually are required to violate just about every rule in order to get the "shot"
Click to expand...
Actually, if you pay attention to the cinema weapons experts, they don't violate all the rules. In fact, variations of the four rules are written into industry contracts. One of the basics is NOT pointing guns directly at people -- even guns you have verified are "cold." When guns aimed at the camera, they either use a remote camera, or they have a lexan screen between the gun and the camera.

But this film was lax on safety, and industry standard protocols were not followed. That's going to hurt Baldwin as producer.
 
There IS no gun failure real or imagined that can load a round of live ammo into a gun on a movie set .

If,after Halya was shot, you tell me "There is no live ammo on the set" you have zero credibility.

Nothing you say can be taken as true.

Including your claim,Alec,that you would never point a gun at her. So where WAS the gun pointed?

These arguements are all red herring distractions that have no merit other than distraction.

To which I say "So what?" and "Your point is?

There is NO mitigation to work with until AFTER Baldwin assumes responsibility for UNINTENTIONALLY shooting and killing Halya.

Fines,jail,lawsuits,I don;t care. They won't undo anything.

I don't really care if he never spends a day in jail.

I want the arrogant POS to own what he did. "I did not intend to,but I screwed up and I killed Halya"

That,IMO,is where mitigation can begin.

If it takes a court and a jury to get there,lets get busy.
 
Last edited:
If,after Halya was shot, you tell me "There is no live ammo on the set" you have zero credibility.
Click to expand...

Why ? and I'm starting to hate defending this guy but....

If as the producer you have told everyone including the armorer that very thing . It would seem reasonable to think he actually believes that . There was to be NO live ammo on set . Just because there was doesn't mean that was not the rule . Last I heard you can't speed on the freeway and can't rob banks either and yet....

The one thing I think he said that rings true was actually a question . How did a live round get put in that gun "if" the scene did not call for it ? Yes there is lots of other things to consider but I think the live round in the gun on a movie set has to be pretty dang important question that must be answered .
 
This is a good observation:
I read an opinion piece about the interview, and most of the comments were about risky it was from a legal standpoint. One commenter did state how they thought it might be a good thing for him, because he came off as sincere and genuinely, deeply sorry it happened.

I'm sure he did. He's been an actor for decades. ITs been his life's work to pretend to be something he isn't. OF COURSE he seemed sincere and sorrowful, he's had a lifetime's practice lying for a living.
Click to expand...

I expect Baldwin's best performance is about to come from this incident.
 
One of the basics is NOT pointing guns directly at people -- even guns you have verified are "cold." When guns aimed at the camera, they either use a remote camera, or they have a lexan screen between the gun and the camera.
Click to expand...
They most certainly do point guns at people on set.

Until people begin to understand that the normal rules of gun safety do not apply on movie sets, there's no way that any reasonable analysis is going to be achieved.

Here's some information from people who actually do the job. I recommend to anyone who finds this topic interesting that they listen to the entire podcast.

https://internationaltactical.com/podcast.html

Discussing this topic is pointless as long as people keep talking about the way they think things are done or the way they think things should be done on set. The first step is understanding how it IS done on set.
 
How did a live round get put in that gun "if" the scene did not call for it ? Yes there is lots of other things to consider but I think the live round in the gun on a movie set has to be pretty dang important question that must be answered .
Click to expand...

Oh absolutely. Who ever is responsible for the live round being in the gun has a share of the blame for what happened. No question about that.

HOWEVER, what I get from Baldwin's statements (without him saying it directly) is that the person who put (or allowed) the live round in the gun is who they should be going after, not him, the poor untrained actor who was handed a possibly broken gun and told it was unloaded....:rolleyes:

Being the kind of person he has shown himself to be, I expect him to fight any and every accusation of guilt or responsibility tooth and nail, using every nuance of language and expression his decades of acting experience has taught him create a believable image.

I believe he should face trial for (at the very least the lowest of) applicable criminal charges where a death is involved. And I would also support a higher level of charges, IF the investigation produced evidence to so warrant.

And SO SHOULD whoever is responsible for the live round being IN THE GUN.
And those two are NOT mutually exclusive, they should be constantly and totally connected. SOMEONE "set the stage" for this to happen by putting (or leaving) a live round in that gun.

BALDWIN performed the act that lead directly to the death.
BOTH are responsible, and neither should be the sole focus of investigation and punishment.

Baldwin is "caught" there can be no denying what he did. That it happened was the result of what he didn't do, and that is 100% entirely on him.

How the live round got into the gun handed to Baldwin is still under investigation, and at this point there is no mention of who might be the guilty party, literally everyone on the set is a suspect and each one must be throrughly checked. The process is ongoing.

There's a mystery movie of the week plot line possible here, someone with a grudge against Baldwin (or the movie company) slips a live round into a prop gun in the hopes the actor they know will be using it harms someone....

it's not totally impossible, sometimes life imitates art and vice versa, but that doesn't mean Baldwin is innocent of wrongdoing, and a mere dupe or pawn in the "real killer's" mad schemes...

The investigation will find what can be found. Based on what can be proven the justice system will act. when that happens, then yes, I expect Baldwin to give the "performance of his life". I sincerely hope the jury rules on the facts, and not on his performance, but we'll have to wait and see for that.
 
https://www.npr.org/2021/10/24/1048...m-sets-should-look-like-when-weapons-are-invo

https://www.usatoday.com/story/ente...ng-avoidable-gun-safety-protocols/6161048001/

First the weapon is fetched from a safe. It is immediately checked to make sure there is no ammunition in the chamber. This is often done by shining a flashlight into the barrel or by using a thin rod pushed through the chamber.

If the weapon is brought by an armorer to a prop master, the prop master will perform the exact same check and then put the gun back into its protective sleeve. Once on the set, the gun goes through the same check in the presence of the assistant director.
...

Once the weapon is loaded and in the actor’s hand, an assistant director typically yells “Gun’s hot,” and the scene is shot. “If there are delays of any kind, to tweak the lights or anything, I will take that gun back,” Walters says.

Likewise, as soon as the scene is wrapped, the prop master will reclaim the weapon and secure it.

But those aren’t the only safeguards in place. Actors and even sometimes crew will receive training from weapons professionals on gun safety. “You spend time with them, showing how a gun works, how you don’t point it at anyone ever, how you keep your finger off the trigger and always point it down,” Walters says.

To ensure there are no accidents during filming, actors often will be told to “shoot off axis,” Schneider says, which means aiming slightly away from another actor, because camera tricks can compensate for the shift.

If the actor points the weapon in the general direction of crew or the camera, measures are taken. Typically plexiglass shields with holes for the camera lens are crafted to protect operators from any muzzle flashes or gas discharges, even though typically they are never closer than about 15 feet from the weapon. The camera operator might also wear a special suit for protection.
Click to expand...
 
Instead of getting information from art directors or the dean of a film school you can listen to the podcast where armorers who actually do the job explain in their own words how it is done.

From the podcast:

"...there's been a lot of talk since this incident in New Mexico. You know you've got a lot of people out there doing interviews and stuff that are reciting the firearms safety rules and asking the question of, you know, pointing guns at people, you know, <saying> they should never point guns at people on a film set. Donny just told you exactly something that is semi-common practice nowadays that is not written in the Safety Bulletin #1, but it's more modern technology that has been developed over the last several yeas tht we've been using. It is one of the most dangerous technologies, as Donny mentioned, just for the fact of if you put the wrong blank in it, you know.

But yeah, to me, I almost want to correct some of the narrative that's out there with potential new legislation and things like that about, you know, we actually do point people at guns at people filming movies under a very controlled environment."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/prop-guns-movie-sets-1.6221637

"To minimize that, one would put a remote camera in that place, or at least, if someone does have to operate the camera, I'm normally protected by safety goggles, a safety visor and often a PERSPEX screen that withstands pretty much anything. Obviously, it wouldn't withstand a real shot from a gun, but it would certainly withstand a blank."

Clearly this means that someone does sometimes operate a camera while a gun is being pointed at it. Also that sometimes it is done without a PERSPEX screen since the screen is only "often" used.

From an armorer:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/25/opinions/film-set-guns-safety-brown/index.html

It's not just about keeping the cast and crew safe when there are firearms present on set. We make sure people know the weapon itself is safe to use. Once we inspect a firearm to make sure it is empty and ready to handle, we show it to both the actor who is going to work with it and any other cast members who may have the empty firearm pointed at them.

There does seem to be agreement that a gun loaded with blanks that does not have the barrel fully occluded should not be pointed at anyone, however, the gun handed to Baldwin was called "Cold" which means it wasn't supposed to be loaded at all--not even with blanks.

The first step in the process of discussing this rationally and constructively is accepting reality. The normal rules of gun safety are broken routinely on movie sets. They have something like 70 rules they follow on set to make up for the fact that they don't use the normal rules.

Trying to discuss this topic as if the same rules apply on set that would apply off set is just going to spread confusion and misinformation.
 
Baldwin shares responsibility, with whomever allowed a live round on set & to be in that gun for the tragedy that happened. This could have and should have not happened, obviously.

Anyone that had a hand in sharing the responsibility on the guns on set for this movie, is partially to blame.
 
Baldwin is responsible on two separate levels. First, and foremost, he is the person who shot and killed someone on the set.

Second, his production company was responsible for the general safety culture on the set, and for numerous industry and general gun safety rules being allowed to be broken, repeatedly.

The general principle is that the Captain is responsible for everything that happens on, to, or with his ship.

Captains of industry are responsible for what their companies do. And what their employees do. Not in exactly the same sense as individual employees who violate laws, rules and regulation, but they do have a degree of responsibility for those employee actions, because they employ them.

In the case of the Rust shooting, Baldwin is both, "captain of the ship" AND the guy who shot and killed a crewmember and wounded another.

That's quite the horrible "two-fer" in every sense of the phrase.
 
That's quite the horrible "two-fer" in every sense of the phrase.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more ! Don't see how he doesn't do at least some jail time . Although I could see a plea bargain down the line of admitting some guilt with no jail time with long probation and large $fine$ . However lol . pleading guilty on any part will open him up for an easier civil suite/s down the road although I think some suites have already been filed .
 
Second, his production company was responsible for the general safety culture on the set, and for numerous industry and general gun safety rules being allowed to be broken, repeatedly.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying he doesn't bear any responsibility, but the highlighted portion is irrelevant to that responsibility.

The "general gun safety rules" are routinely broken on set because they do not apply in that context.

Trying to hold Baldwin (or any actor) responsible for violating the general gun safety rules on set is like giving speeding tickets to race car drivers for driving fast during a race. The normal rules do not apply.
 
The "general gun safety rules" are routinely broken on set because they do not apply in that context.
Click to expand...

I don't want to speak for 44 but I read his post to mean the general rules of gun safety Mr Baldwin put in place for the set/production as a whole , not the general 4 rules of gun safety we all use in are daily use of firearms . My guess is there is a book of safety rules that includes gun safety that must be followed on every set/production . All these industries are unionized ( lighting , actors , props and stage workers etc all have unions . I'm sure they all have safety rules and likely rather extensive ones at that . I'll add that may or may not include any state or local laws/ordnance that may apply . The amount of oops's and my bads are likely numerus as it relates to all of the above
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top