I think the disconnect you're making between the production company and the armorer is too distinct; the production company HIRES the armorer.
Yes. If the production company hires someone who they know or should have known to be incompetent, or if they continue to employ someone they know, or should have known to be incompetent then they are responsible at least in part for any negative outcome.
But that's very different from saying that Baldwin is culpable because he wasn't following the general rules of gun safety on set. We've got more than adequate evidence from reliable sources that the general rules of gun safety don't apply on set.
Yes, it does. But the same section (which I provided in my post) emphasizes this is to be done ON CAMERA, not otherwise.
Yes, people shouldn't be playing around with the guns unless they're actually doing the job of acting. Which he was.
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.
You can listen to the podcast if you don't believe the quote I provided from it. They do point guns at people on set. It's not against the guidelines. The guidelines even admit it happens and provide guidance for that situation.
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.
Absolutely! Because there are activities taking place that are considered to be dangerous, the control is extremely rigid. Instead of just a handful of rules, there are around 70 rules. They're just not the SAME rules.
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.
Now this is an excellent observation that is based on the facts. Like the armorers in the podcast note, there's really no need for new regulations or laws, it's just necessary to follow the existing guidelines properly.
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.
No, not it's not at all! Race car drivers are not supposed to run over crew members. Actors ARE supposed to point guns at people on set when the script calls for it. Holding the actor responsible is like penalizing a race car driver for speeding--for doing what he's supposed to do.
Seems that everyone did everything right, but somehow 2 people were shot.
It is absolutely not true that everyone did everything right. Clearly someone, or multiple someones did things wrong or there wouldn't be two people shot. As things stand right now, the armorer clearly bears the primary responsibility.
It was her responsibility to make sure no one got shot and she failed. Unless someone specifically circumvented her commands or intentionally sabotaged the situation, the bottom line is that it's her fault. The production company may bear some responsibility if they knew or should have known that she wasn't capable/competent, but that won't lessen her responsibility in the least.
I think what bothers me here is that this is an indication of a lowered bar because they are 'mere' actors that they shouldn't be expected to be responsible with a firearm in their hands.
No, that's not it at all.
It's not that they get a pass to break the general gun safety rules, it's that they are sometimes REQUIRED to break them to do their job. Because you are fixated on the incorrect idea that the general gun safety rules apply on set (while acting/on camera, however you want to say it) you can't see that it's not about trying to lessen Baldwin's responsibility for his actions on camera, but about realizing that his actions were part of his job and within the normal spectrum of activities that can happen while filming a movie.
These are adult, professionals working in their trade. Part of being a professional is not harming your co-workers.
I can't tell if you're doing it on purpose or if you really don't understand. The ARMORER is responsible for making sure the actors don't harm others during filming. As long as the actors follow instructions, if something goes wrong it's the armorer's responsibility for insuring that no one comes to harm.
This ain't rocket science. NOT shooting someone isn't a hard trick.
Again, this seems like you're being intentionally obtuse. Not shooting someone is very easy. Not shooting someone so that it is impossible to tell that you didn't actually shoot them is quite difficult. That's why there's a professional on set specifically tasked with insuring that the actors can do things with the guns that would normally be considered unsafe while still keeping everyone safe.
I just don't get it. The evidence is really clear. Why is it so important to try to twist the facts to make Baldwin criminally culpable?
It shouldn't have even been a surprise that actors point guns at people on set. I'm amazed that so many people seem to think that is surprising or unsettling. But now we have confirmation that it happens and is within the industry guidelines.
Why is it apparently so undesirable to just look at the facts and let them speak for themselves?
This is part of what is wrong with things these days. People refuse to accept the facts and convince themselves that someone is guilty (or innocent) in spite of reality. Then when it turns out that person isn't convicted (or acquitted), they are sure there's some kind of a conspiracy or a total failure of the justice system, or some such.
Here's an example of NOT shooting at another actor in a scene. I can't say how many times I watched this before I noticed it, but now I can't not notice it.
Yup, go back half a century and they were more limited in what they could do safely. Those were live blanks from an unplugged barrel which limited what they could do with them safely.
He does touch the hammer with his thumb, but it isn't moved.
At 4:43 you can very clearly see him cock the hammer, starting with it forward and drawing it back. At 4:45 you can clearly see that the hammer is cocked--as the gun turns, you can even see the firing pin on the hammer silhouetted against the lighter-colored floor. At 4:48, after the shot, it's clear that the hammer is down, just as expected.