Why you can never be too careful

[JohnKSa]

...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...

The production company does not set the gun rules for on set firearm handling, the armorer is in charge of that aspect of things. There are industry guidelines for movie armorers as discussed in the podcast I linked to earlier.

It's not clear at this point if the production company was behind the problems that resulted in the industry rules being broken or if that was just a failure on the part of the armorer, but what is clear is that the general/normal rules of gun safety do not apply. Instead specific industry gun safety rules are employed.

 

[Metal god]

The production company does not set the gun rules for on set firearm handling, the armorer is in charge of that aspect of things. There are industry guidelines for movie armorers as discussed in the podcast I linked to earlier.

Isn't that a distinction with out a difference as it relates to my point . I don't think 44 was speaking about the 4 rules of gun safety when he was talking about gun safety on set and is all I was trying to get across . I did not mean to say I knew exactly who was responsible for what specifically .

 

[JohnKSa]

Yeah, so now we're arguing about something someone else said and what they meant by it. Oh well, what the heck.

Since he mentioned both industry gun safety rules and general gun safety rules, I think it's safe to say he differentiates between the two and the most reasonable interpretation of "general gun safety rules" is that it means the general gun safety rules.

Isn't that a distinction with out a difference as it relates to my point .

I suppose. However it's pretty relevant to the gist of the discussion in its currently evolved state.

1. The general gun safety rules do not apply on set.
2. The industry gun safety rules are not set by the production company or its head.
3. Neither the general gun safety rules nor the industry gun safety rules are enforced by the production company or its head.
4. The actors are not responsible for gun safety on the set--they are given guns which have been made safe by the armorer for the activity that is required by the screen play and told what to do with them and what not to do with them. As long as they follow instructions, anything that goes wrong is the responsibility of the armorer, not the actor.

I realize that people (like me, for example) don't like Mr. Baldwin and apparently a lot of those people desperately want to somehow make this his fault regardless of what facts they have to ignore or twist to accomplish that goal. The problem is that no matter how you slice or dice it (assuming we stick with the facts), the armorer (or anyone who circumvented the armorer's authority) is responsible for this incident. The whole reason there are armorers on set is to keep incidents like this one from happening and when something goes wrong it's their fault.

NOW, if it turns out that the armorer was incompetent or careless (which looks like the situation at this point) and the production company knew it (or should have known it) but didn't replace them with competent personnel, then there is potentially responsibility by the production company and perhaps its head at that level.

 

[ghbucky]

4. The actors are not responsible for gun safety on the set--they are given guns which have been made safe by the armorer for the activity that is required by the screen play and told what to do with them and what not to do with them. As long as they follow instructions, anything that goes wrong is the responsibility of the armorer, not the actor.

This is directly contradicted by George Clooney:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/16/entertainment/george-clooney-rust-shooting/index.html

Every single time I'm handed a gun on set, I look at it, I open it, I show it to the person I'm pointing it to, we show it to the crew," he said. "Every single take you hand it back to the armorer when you're done, and you do it again.
He said it's been that way since his friend, actor Brandon Lee, was accidentally shot and killed on the set of "The Crow" in 1993.

 

[Metal god]

This is directly contradicted by George Clooney:

1st - No it's not , that just says what one person does ( and from what I've read most actors do ) that does not say the industry requires the actor to do so . In fact why would you want some random actor to be the final official safety check .

2nd - and we all know this . When the gun is loaded regardless of munition . You can't tell the difference between blanks or fully loaded rounds unless they unload the gun and look . NO WAY they want the actor to do this , It's the very reason there is an armorer on set and they are the final safety official .

 

[44 AMP]

Actually, I was referring to general gun safety rules the "four rules" and all the others. I believe they appy any and EVERY time there is a real gun and real live ammunition in one's hands.

I disagree with the phrasing that they "do not apply" on a movie set.

Now, I understand that they ARE not applied on movie sets and the guild/industry rules are used, so that they can create the illusion of danger without putting the actors in actual danger.

I don't think its correct to say basic gun safety rules DO not apply, it is correct to say that they ARE not applied. A small point, perhaps but one that makes a difference to me.

We can split hairs on this, but to me, it's pretty obvious that not only were industry rules broken but so were basic gun safety rules. When the rules are all followed, innocent people do not get shot and killed.

We can look at the different levels of responsibility, legal, moral, ethical, and decide who is responsible for what, in what degree, and despite a personal dislike for Baldwin's personal public persona I don't think I'm twisting facts that he was holding the gun, it fired and a woman was killed (and a guy injured) and he has a personal responsible for that happening. Is he the only one responsible? Hell no. But in my opinion, he does have a responsibility in this matter, and one that, to date, he has not publicly owned up to.

 

[zeke]

Yeah, so now we're arguing about something someone else said and what they meant by it. Oh well, what the heck.

Since he mentioned both industry gun safety rules and general gun safety rules, I think it's safe to say he differentiates between the two and the most reasonable interpretation of "general gun safety rules" is that it means the general gun safety rules. I suppose. However it's pretty relevant to the gist of the discussion in its currently evolved state.

1. The general gun safety rules do not apply on set.
2. The industry gun safety rules are not set by the production company or its head.
3. Neither the general gun safety rules nor the industry gun safety rules are enforced by the production company or its head.
4. The actors are not responsible for gun safety on the set--they are given guns which have been made safe by the armorer for the activity that is required by the screen play and told what to do with them and what not to do with them. As long as they follow instructions, anything that goes wrong is the responsibility of the armorer, not the actor.

I realize that people (like me, for example) don't like Mr. Baldwin and apparently a lot of those people desperately want to somehow make this his fault regardless of what facts they have to ignore or twist to accomplish that goal. The problem is that no matter how you slice or dice it (assuming we stick with the facts), the armorer (or anyone who circumvented the armorer's authority) is responsible for this incident. The whole reason there are armorers on set is to keep incidents like this one from happening and when something goes wrong it's their fault.

NOW, if it turns out that the armorer was incompetent or careless (which looks like the situation at this point) and the production company knew it (or should have known it) but didn't replace them with competent personnel, then there is potentially responsibility by the production company and perhaps its head at that level.

Would have a major concern if local law enforcement has any responsibility not to apply the laws of the applicable jurisdiction because of some industry rules. Local law enforcement is not there to enforce industry rules, guide lines or standards. Would be surprised if there was an exception for a movie set.

The applicable industry should be enforcing their own rules. Whether or not baldweeny gets charged should just depend on did he violate some applicable law? Some degree of homicide comes to mind?

Course it's all other ballgame with civil suits.

 

[ghbucky]

If someone posted this before, apologies.
https://www.sagaftra.org/files/safety_bulletins_amptp_part_1_9_3_0.pdf
2009 SAG safety bulletin.

AS AN ACTOR, YOU ARE ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE fOR
YOUR OWN SAfETY AND THE SAfETY Of YOUR fELLOW
CAST MEMBERS.
Production management and crew are responsible for creating and
maintaining safe conditions, but it is your right and responsibility to double
check the set up to ensure your own Safety

Treat all weapons as though they are
loaded and/or ready to use. Do not play
with weapons and neverpoint one at
anyone, including yourself.

emphasis not added.

So, the same rules we use are what the SAG says to use on set.

[edit] I found this further in:
https://thefiringline.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=114300&stc=1&d=1638822056

 

[HiBC]

This is just my opinion,and it does not matter much.

Halya is gone. She cannot be brought back. The damage cannot be undone.

Thats where we are.

IMO, whatever Baldwin has done,(or not done) I do not believe he had intent to do harm,and I do not believe he is a continuing theat to society.

I,myself,do not need a pound of flesh. I don't need for Baldwin to go to prison.

I don't oppose it,but I don't need it. I don;t need fines or other penalty.

Civil matters? Yes. The injured parties need to be compensated.

Best outcome, IMO,the Movie Makers can keep making shoot-em-up Westerns. They have done that from Tom Mix through Hopalong Cassidy,Stagecoach,Sons of Katy Elder, The Wild Bunch,etc.

They know how to do it without killing people.

Alec Baldwin's suggestion the Movie Co needs to hire an off duty cop to oversee production precisely defines that he does not get it. Its not about another layer of abdicated responsibility.

I get,and support the idea "If its everyone's responsibility,its no ones responsibility." The best way to have the grease gun see no use is a vague "somebody needs to grease the bucket pins" No. "Joe,you are lube man this week. Initial the lube chart"
I support the idea of Range Safety Officer,Armorer, etc.

But equally important is the fact that safety is EVERYONES responsibility. And ANY individual can fail that responsibility.

I worked in a Manufacturing facility where policy was the lowest paid assembly line worker could SHUT DOWN PRODUCTION over an observed unsafe condition. It happened. On one occasion,someone saw copper conductor not overmolded by insulating plastic with vendor supplied power cords. The line was shut down. Capturing/quarantining product became job #1.

This movie set had people walking off due to lack of firearm safety. Someone made the judgement call to continue production.Replace the staff.

I DO NOT BELIEVE Alec Baldwin was inside an insulated bubble and unaware that firearms safety practices had been identified as a serious issue.

It that point, IMMEDIATELY, its "Time Out" Whatever cost that might incur is NOTHING compared to Halya's Life and the injuries of the AD.

EVEYBODY gets on the same page via on the spot training, the policy,the process,and everyones responsibility.

There were articles where a Grip/ Electrician,and Halya's friend, testified to ongoing firearm safety issues. I think he has filed suit. THAT GUY should have had the power to say "HEY! NO! Stop!"

Certainly,at the point of the walk off, corrective action was essential,and EVERY person in the firearm chain,including actor Alec Baldwin ,should have had a clear standard to work to. Maybe a Screen Actor's standard,but a standard.

In day to day Life, we all suffer injuries and transgressions. And we all make them.

I can forgive someone who comes to me and honestly says "Hey, I screwed up. I hurt you. I truly regret it. I'm sorry. How can I make it up? What shall I do differently?

I can forgive that person. And I can have some degree of faith they MAY (or may not) change their behavior. I can give them a chance.

But if someone behaves in a way that injures me,and says" I don't know what happened,not my fault. "

At that point,I cannot forgive them. Without taking ownership,they will do it again.

MAYBE,it has to be proven to them. IMO,Baldin either needs to get honest ,hide nothing,and concede "OK,I'm gun ignorant. I guess I may have had pressure on the trigger and slip fired the gun,and to have hit Halya,I must have been pointing at her"
It takes that much.
Bingo. I can start with that. Now, with zero CYA, lets talk about that ammo that does not exist the Sheriff found....

They have to start with Whatever is True

Honest people can work together to correct a situation. Learn Change, Move on.

Lie,play CYA,OK. It takes an investigation,evidence,proof,a trial ,a conviction,and then that person needs to be taken out of society. Prison.

 

[mehavey]

Baldwin... needs to get honest, hide nothing, and concede ...
"OK, I'm gun ignorant.
I guess I may have had pressure on the trigger and slip fired the gun,
and to have hit Halya,I must have been pointing at her"
....
Bingo. I can start with that"

^^^ THIS ^^^
and we have a constructive point of departure to move forward.






Of course the lawyers will never allow that, telling the Gov't to "prove it"
But I would offer that barring design flaw/broken components/altered hammer...
... fairly straightforward.

 

[Doc Intrepid]

There is at least one other possibility which is seldom mentioned.

Someone could have inserted the live round into the firearm deliberately.

With hopes perhaps that it would be construed as an 'accident', and that no one would be injured, but more than one report notes discontent and dissatisfaction with various aspects of the production prior to the incident.

It may not be very likely, but I suspect it could be at least plausible.

 

[HiBC]

Doc Intrepid
See post #99.

I agree,its unlikely. But I'd check it out.

 

[JohnKSa]

I believe they appy any and EVERY time there is a real gun and real live ammunition in one's hands.

I disagree with the phrasing that they "do not apply" on a movie set.

I get that, but your belief and disagreement have absolutely no effect on reality. I provided adequate information to back the assertions in my post. The facts do not alter themselves because of someone's beliefs or disagreement with them.

So, the same rules we use are what the SAG says to use on set.

No, they do not. Look at the 14th page of the document where it states:

"Refrain from pointing a firearm at anyone, including yourself. If it is absolutely necessary to do so on camera..."

Clearly the guidelines acknowledge that firearms are sometimes pointed at people on camera. and even provide guidance on what to do in such situations.

The general firearms rules do not apply on set except as general recommendations which even the guideline documents acknowledge are going to be violated.

 

[DT Guy]

I think the disconnect you're making between the production company and the armorer is too distinct; the production company HIRES the armorer.

If you're suggesting my boss doesn't set the 'tone' of my work, I can give you his number.

Larry

 

[ghbucky]

Clearly the guidelines acknowledge that firearms are sometimes pointed at people on camera. and even provide guidance on what to do in such situations.

Yes, it does. But the same section (which I provided in my post) emphasizes this is to be done ON CAMERA, not otherwise.

Baldwin was in violation of multiple sections of the SAG guidelines, so attempting to say that he was only acting as an actor would is wrong. His actions were well outside the industry stated guidelines.

 

[Metal god]

Yes, it does. But the same section (which I provided in my post) emphasizes this is to be done ON CAMERA, not otherwise.

Baldwin was in violation of multiple sections of the SAG guidelines, so attempting to say that he was only acting as an actor would is wrong. His actions were well outside the industry stated guidelines.

I agree however we are all preaching to the quire here . The general public including actors and even more so based on Hollywood culture don't get the firearm safety rules , hell maybe rules in general . I also agree that the boss very much sets the tone of the company .

My point is not to excuse but to explain/point out the likely culture on set/s . Yes Baldwin had some firearms understanding but I think the greater Hollywood culture does not . Some random actor ( general citizen ) doesn't have a clue how to handle a firearm . Even when trained in a class setting the student often breaks those rule mere minutes later on the range . I've seen it in EVERY firearms class I've been in that was not an advanced class and even in a couple of those I have . We all have seen the guy that thinks he knows everything at the range or in the class . It takes time to get that ingrained in your head and you actually do it every time .

Hell I think I'm pretty safe but break "a" rule once and a great while . I've had multiple AD's not ND's but AD's over my 40+ years of shooting . They've happened 100% of the time with firearms that have extremely light triggers and 100% of the time at the range with the firearms pointed down range . 90+% of those where when I was actually ready to shoot I just put a tad more pressure on the trigger then I thought I was BANG . I've done that and thought a blew a really good group only to see the shot went dead center , Yes it was a good shot but still a AD

Yes there are rules and industry standards but how often do we really think they are followed to the letter ? Couple that with multiple people on set which it is there job to be sure the firearm is safe to handle ( safety personnel , armorer etc ) and those people ( actors ) that already don't have a clue will think it's all the other safety personnel responsibility to be sure the firearm/s are safe and ready to play pretend with . Thats another aspect we may not get in all this . When "we" handle firearms it's the real thing no messing around . On set they are playing make believe so the actors already have a lesser expectation of things going wrong and if so that could result in harm or death , Again I'm not making excuses just pointing out the likely reality of the Hollywood culture when it comes to guns on set .

 

[ghbucky]

MG: Other A list actors (George Clooney is one) have said that the sets they have been on are very rigidly run when firearms are in use.

I would posit that if all Hollywood sets were run as poorly as the set of Rust was, we would see a lot more incidences of at the least ND's if not people being shot. The fact that Hollywood does so much gunplay without shooting people means there are people in the business that know what they are doing.

The fact that there were people who left the set over gun safety says to me that their expectations were much higher than what was in place.

 

[rickyrick]

I’m sure he feels responsible or else he wouldn’t be making his rounds trying to convince the public that he’s not responsible.
Privileged I suppose, a lesser known employee wouldn’t have the same opportunity to blab about a fatality event at work.

 

[Metal god]

I would posit that if all Hollywood sets were run as poorly as the set of Rust was, we would see a lot more incidences of at the least ND's if not people being shot. The fact that Hollywood does so much gunplay without shooting people means there are people in the business that know what they are doing.

I agree 100% and those people are not the actors lol . IDK it seems like a race car driver getting in the car and when the car blows up because the wrong fuel was used we try to say it's the drivers fault because he didn't check the gas can before he took off . May be a poor example but the first one that comes to mind . Point being there are other people responsible for the safety of the car and to be sure it's operating correctly in that industry .

I've said this several times and either I'm full of it or it has some truth to it . The actor does not know if the gun has blanks or live rounds in the gun EVEN IF HE CHECKS to see if it's loaded . The case head ( the only part the actor would see ) looks the same regardless of how it's loaded . The actor would need to remove all the cartridges from the firearm to check each one individually then reload the firearm . I don't see how that would be with in the rules on set . It's the very reason the armorer is there . To load the gun with the proper cartridge and hand it directly to the actor and say you are safe or not safe to do this , that or the other thing . If the actor then unloads the firearm to check everything . The armorer would need to recheck all the same things again to be sure the actor did not do something wrong then hand it back to the actor . Ok now is it safe .... NO because the armorer just changed everything the actor checked and now the actor has no idea if it is actually safe just like he didn't the first time he was handed the firearm . Once again the actor needs to empty the firearm and check every cartridge to be sure it's safe . Oh no wait now the armorer needs ........... At some point there will need to be trust involved as to the safety of the firearm and that it has the right cartridge loaded .

 

[44 AMP]

IDK it seems like a race car driver getting in the car and when the car blows up because the wrong fuel was used we try to say it's the drivers fault because he didn't check the gas can before he took off . May be a poor example but the first one that comes to mind

In the case of the Rust shooting I think its more like the driver gets in the car and then runs over one of the pit crew because he wasn't watching where he was going.

Other actors have written on this shooting, including Clooney, and described how when they are given a gun on the set, there is a safety briefing and after that the gun is loaded while they watch it being done.

There may be a million other movie sets where this is not done, no one gets hurt and we never hear about it. What we do know is that this was not done on the RUST set and a woman was killed and a man injured.