Why you can never be too careful

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not in this case.

An actor isn't even responsible to know the gun safety rules.
Click to expand...

I think we're going to have a philosophical difference of opinion about this.

I realize the legal responsibilities, of the prop master/armorer or whatever their title is, and how they are legally responsible, just as I know how the crane operator is responsible for everything on the lift and the captain is responsible for everything on his ship, whether they have personal knowledge or involvement, or not.

However, I simply cannot, and will not absolve anyone of all responsibility for what happens when a gun is in their hands.

Not knowing at least the very basic rules is not an excuse. It can be an explanation, but it's not an excuse. KNOWING the rules and willfully ignoring them or deliberately violating them is also not an excuse.

You might disagree, but to my mind, ignorance is a form of negligence, just as contempt for safety due to familiarity is also a form of negligence.

it may not be the actor's JOB to know gun safety, but I don't see that absolving anyone of their basic moral responsibility when a gun is in their hands.
 
I'm with 44AMP on this one.
I alreay said it once
I do not expect every actor to be John Wicks.

But I do think we can have as high standards for ANY gun handling actor as we do for an 11 year old kid at a 4-H shooting event.

And BTW,a useful standard for Kid behavior is what I would expect from a reasonably well trained dog at that level of maturity.

Don't mess on the floor,don't chew up my shoes or other good stuff, Respond appropriately to Come,sit, NO! or Whoa!, Good Girl!! or Boy!! Have a treat!!

Don't bite,Don't jump up on people..

Kind of like the creation "All I really Need To Know I Learned In Kindergarten"

Yes,absolutely!! If I'm in a Movie where I have to run a table saw, I don't have to be trained to be a cabinet maker. But I need to know how to not leave blood and fingers on the saw.

If I can't or won't do that, Then I should not be cast in a role running a table saw. A stunt double would be an option.

The reason I know very little about Alec Baldwin is I turned his switch off. I personally canceled him. I do not follow anything he says or does.

I listened to him make an utter fool of himself when he thought "Anyone can be a radio talk show host!" He tried it. What a buffoon!!

But what tore is is the abusive ,totally wrong telephone conversation with his Daughter. I do believe in Tough Love but NO ONE,particularly a Father,should talk that way to any Daughter.( Teen age Daughters can be Maddening. That might be their job. Who among us was not a jerk at 15,at least sometimes)

So thats why I had no idea what his views on guns are. I have no time for him.

I'm responding because I'm angry about the stupid death and injury.

Just as I was angry about another really stupid gun death in the entertainment business. Phil Spectre's overnight "Guest" Somehow she had the barrel of a gun in her mouth. Phil Spectre was holding it.

Maybe he had no idea the gun was loaded.
 
However, I simply cannot, and will not absolve anyone of all responsibility for what happens when a gun is in their hands.
Click to expand...
The key is that from the actor's perspective, and the way things are supposed to operate, there is NOT a gun in their hands.

Their job requires them to be free to do things with that object the armorer hands them that should never be done with a firearm.

The armorer is there to make sure that everything is done safely.
Yes,absolutely!! If I'm in a Movie where I have to run a table saw, I don't have to be trained to be a cabinet maker. But I need to know how to not leave blood and fingers on the saw.
Click to expand...
It's the job of the people running the set to make sure you stay safe even if you are doing something you are not officially trained to do. If that means giving you a dummy table saw, or one with a blade that has no teeth, or editing in cuts of someone else running the saw, or using a double then that's what they do. An actor is not expected to be an expert (or even competent) at all the things their character does. It would be wildly impractical to expect otherwise.
The reason I know very little about Alec Baldwin is...
Click to expand...
The identity of the actor in question is irrelevant from the perspective of who is responsible for the accident.
 
The key is that from the actor's perspective, and the way things are supposed to operate, there is NOT a gun in their hands.
Click to expand...

Bingo. "Actors Perspective" But indeed,it IS a real gun. The "Actors perspective" only exist in their mind. Its as real as any of your guns or mine.

If I've never owned or fired a gun, If I've never had any training or familiarization, I have the Constitutional Right to buy a gun.

With my Right comes a Responsibility. I had best take time to become at least SAFE. Because as a GUN HANDLER, I am responsible if my gun or any gun in my hand launches a bullet.

Should the Armorer be held to a no fail/no excuses standard? You bet!

Suppose you and I are in a gun shop. I'll play the IDIOT. The Gun Expert behind the counter (He's an expert. Just ask him) The gun expert behind the counter hands me a handgun.
And since I am as cool as a SWAT SOCOM Operator, I leap to a teacup and saucer modified Weaver stance and draw down on the "A" zone I see on YOUR chest.

You suggest I cease and desist...rather passionately.

I attempt to calm you down by saying,"Its OK,its NOT LOADED! The Gun Expert behind the counter handed it to me."

I notice you are turning red,your veins are standing out,your jaws are tight,and there is something about your eyes that is unsettling.

Trying to make it better,I offer "Its really OK,You see,I identify as an actor,and I percieve this as a non-gun. "

Does that ease your mind,as you still see the muzzle aligned with your chest?

Nothing about me being an IDIOT changes the fact you have the same real gun pointed at you.

Even my confession that I am an oblivious idiot.

Actors who do not have the equivalent of a Hunter Safety card for actors should not be given gun handling roles in movies.

A gun action set ought to require a range safety officer who Perceives himself/Herself a Drill Instructor with a low score in Tact.

This is no time to make excuses for anybody.
 
Suppose you and I are in a gun shop.
Click to expand...
Not remotely the same.

The guy behind the counter has no authority over either one of us. The armorer is the sole authority on set when it comes to what happens with firearms.

The guy behind the gun counter has no responsibility for what either of us do. The armorer has full responsibility for anything that happens on the set with firearms.

The gun safety rules apply fully in a gun store. The gun safety rules do not apply on a movie set.
This is no time to make excuses for anybody.
Click to expand...
I'm not making excuses, I'm pointing out the reality of the situation.

You may not like it, you may not agree with it, but that doesn't change the facts.

Actors are not responsible for following gun safety rules on set--they are, in fact, required to violate them. To deal with this state of affairs, a the armorer is given total control and responsibility for ensuring that the situation remains safe in spite of the fact that the normal gun safety rules will not be in effect on set.
 
I was once on the set of a popular history feature show with a Marine veteran gunsmith friend when I was asked to point a large caliber revolver directly into the lens of the cameraman at point blank range at the end of the filming. It was my gun, I knew and verified its condition, but I refused. I was implored several times to change my mind--but I still refused.

I agree with 44, as do all the owner's manuals that accompany all firearms.
 
The gun safety rules do not apply on a movie set.
Click to expand...

I think we need to clarify a distinction here. "on the set" and "in the scene" are different. And, if you note the actor's guide previously linked to in this thread, you'll see that actors aren't supposed to violate safety rules in the scene, either, but to give the appearance of doing so.

Now, it is, at the moment, unclear (not yet officially stated) where everyone was and what was going on when the accident happened, BUT, so far, and considering it wasn't other actors that got shot, I'm thinking that it didn't happen during actual filming, but did happen on the set.

So, do you thing he was rehearsing? or just screwing around with the gun in his hands, not a thought or care to who or what the muzzle covered?? The one point everyone agrees with is that he was holding the gun when it went off.

That means he had control of the muzzle and where it was pointed. Even though he "knew" it was a "cold gun" he's still the one who pointed it.

Suppose it was some middle ages movie and they gave him prop sword. (or a bow or crossbow) And then he accidently stabbed (or shot) someone or two, do we give him a pass on responsibility because as an actor, tis not his job to know swordfighting or be an archer?

I wouldn't.
'
Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying it was entirely his fault, other people are at fault in this matter as well. What I'm saying it that he should not be held blameless because he was an actor "who didn't know better because its not his job".
 
Am not willing to give this "actor" any slack. IMO, an armorer shouldn't be responsible for someone putting a live round in a chamber after gun was inspected, if that is what happened. Maybe if they personally inspected it and then handed directly to the actor, which is not what appears to have happened. While i don't know what happened, that gun shouldn't have been loaded till right before being used in a scene, or practice.

Perhaps another story if the armorer was responsible for keeping gun in safe operating condition, but it misfired with blank and obstructed barrel.

Course am not knowledgeable about movie making, but if actor was just goofing off, he should be responsible for determining if gun was loaded.
 
It turns out that Baldwin, who owns the production company making the film, chose to go with cheaper, non-union labor after the regular crew protested over safety issues. There was obviously a whole chain of failures as a result. The armorer was not on site when this incident occurred, which begs the question of why they were able to use the gun in the scene they were shooting. The AD handling the gun and declaring it "cold" appears to have had no training.

This is going to be an ongoing, expensive saga of civil suits against Baldwin.
 
Tom Servo said:
It turns out that Baldwin, who owns the production company making the film, chose to go with cheaper, non-union labor after the regular crew protested over safety issues. There was obviously a whole chain of failures as a result. The armorer was not on site when this incident occurred, which begs the question of why they were able to use the gun in the scene they were shooting. The AD handling the gun and declaring it "cold" appears to have had no training.

This is going to be an ongoing, expensive saga of civil suits against Baldwin.
Click to expand...
If Baldwin is the production company owner or in charge during filming and he cut funding and did not have the proper safety protocol in place when the shooting happened, he is liable.
 
So sad.

But this highlights the privilege of celebrities and the entertainment industry.

A person outside of entertainment would not get to blame a negligent discharge on someone else.
As a laymen, I must be trained to recognize when a piece of equipment is unsafe or conditions have become unsafe.

One or two extra minutes could have prevented this.

Since this type of fatality has happened in movies before, the entertainment industry needs to rethink the use of dangerous props.

Most gun scenes are inaccurate anyway, just CGI them in.
 
Tom Servo said:
It turns out that Baldwin, who owns the production company making the film, chose to go with cheaper, non-union labor after the regular crew protested over safety issues. There was obviously a whole chain of failures as a result. The armorer was not on site when this incident occurred, which begs the question of why they were able to use the gun in the scene they were shooting. The AD handling the gun and declaring it "cold" appears to have had no training.

This is going to be an ongoing, expensive saga of civil suits against Baldwin.
Click to expand...
Our spokespeople aka GOA, etc., need to be prepared to give a cogent, comprehensive rebuttal to this sad event when the time comes. Look for Mr. Baldwin to deflect his responsibility in this tragedy by attacking lawful gun ownership even more viciously than he already has been.
 
Most gun scenes are inaccurate anyway, just CGI them in.
Click to expand...

This is what I've long wondered. The guns being used in this production were single-action revolvers. It's child's play to add the report and muzzle flash in post. A decent actor can mimic the recoil. There's really no reason for a functional, much less live, gun on the set.

Even with automatics, CGI can simulate the reciprocating action and ejecting shells. Heck, it can even make Hawkeye look like a useful superhero.
 
Tom Servo said:
The armorer was not on site when this incident occurred
Click to expand...

From the NYTimes:

According to the affidavit by the detective in the Santa Fe County sheriff’s office, the gun used in the shooting was set up by Hannah Gutierrez, the production’s armorer, and handed to Mr. Baldwin by Dave Halls, the assistant director. Neither Ms. Gutierrez nor Mr. Halls responded to requests for comment.

In his affidavit, Detective Cano said that after Mr. Baldwin fatally shot Ms. Hutchins, the cinematographer, and wounded Joel Souza, the film’s director, Ms. Gutierrez took the spent casing out of the gun used in the shooting and later handed the gun to sheriff’s deputies. The detective also said that he learned that Mr. Halls, the assistant director, did not know live rounds were in the gun he had given to Mr. Baldwin.
Click to expand...

So if she wasn't on site she wasn't very far away.
 
There have been updated articles posted with more info.

As none of this is official,please asume "alleged" is present in all cases.
There were labor issues around pay and lodging. They contributed to the walk off, but apprrently 2 earlier "misfires" were cited as reason for the walkout.
There were inexperienced locals filling in for some crew roles.
In he latest update I have seen,Thell Reed's Daughter was named as the Armorer who prepped the guns. Thee were three guns,placed on a table. The Assistant Director picked one of them up,annoince "Cold Gun",and handed it to Baldwin.

The script called for Baldwin to take a shot directly toward the camera.

The Woman who was killed was standing behind the camera,filming.

The other person who was wounded (Assistant Director?) was standing behind her.

One round fired,through penetration,two people hit.

The gun is decribed as a "Vintage Colt"

On Thell Reed's Daughter: She was quoted as saying she hesitated to take the job because she was not confident she was up to it.
For whatever reason,the crew was dissatisfied with the production firearm safety. There were two previous "misfire" incidents,within a few days.
This Armorer is 24 years old.
No disrespect to her or Thell Reed. Sometimes a person just is not ready for the job.
If she were the Senior Air Traffic Controller at an airport and there was a walk off at least partially due to near-misses at the airport, Its (at the minimum) time for suspension and review.
Thats not to condemn her, but its a life and death critical job. Its not like there was only one patty on the Double Whopper.

Of the three "prepped" guns on the table,the Assistant Director allegedly picked one up and passed it to Baldwin declaring it a "Cold Gun" He assumed it was a Cold Gun,apparently he was supposed to verify it was a cold gun, he did not,but he announced it was a cold gun.

It seems fatal error #1 was a round of real ammunition in the gun.

Fatal error # 2 was Assistant Director failure to verify the gun was cold,followed by fatal error #3 in announcing it a "cold gun" and passing it to Baldwin.

Among gun folks,I can WATCH you open a gun and check it for clear before you hand it to me,yet as SOON as I take possession and responsibility, I myself check it for clear. IMO,that IS the code.

I'll concede some grey area to Johnska.

I learned from J.Edwards Deming, when a problem occurs in a process,look upstream to discover the root cause.

Our 24yr old Armorer acknowledged she was unsure of herself. There were gun safety incidents during production.

Somebody upstream hired her. Somebody upstream did not verify her capability.
Somebody upstream was not doing overwatch. The chain of command from CEO to the Armorer failed.
And I'll tell you who else failed. Every stage hand and actor who witnessed unsafe gun handling,"Misfires" etc and failed to formally report it.
It can be as simple as an E-mail to Baldwin. A paper trail that gives him no wiggle room to say" Gee,I didn't know this was happening"

During my time in the manufacturing industry and as a school custodian,there were "Incident Reports" for unsafe conditions and Near Misses.
The promise was these were not "Gotcha" mechanisms . The idea was they Document an unsafe condition. It cannot be ignored. It must be corrected and it gets followed up on.

The training we got at the manufacturer was called S.T.O.P. training.

In any profit driven enterprise, few things can bankrupt you faster than operating with known (or unknown) unsafe conditions leading to injury or death. Victim compensation,liabilities, OSHA,etc fines and sanctions,and whatever time and money was "saved" by operating unsafe, you are Red Tagged out of operations till everything is verified up to standard.

They did not have an Armorer, They had a 24 yr old famous person's Daughter who has only been legal age to buy a handgun or ammo 3 years.
What does the Armorer Job Description have for requirements?
They did not hire an Armorer,they hired a Scapegoat. And She took the job.
 
Last edited:
In any workplace on the USA, it is required that if there is a known or recognized hazard, then it is the responsibility of the employer to remove the hazard completely if it is feasible.
That means if the hazard can be removed from the workplace, then the employer take that route.
I suspect that using real guns and powder is the cheapest and fastest way to make the visual effects.
Being faster and cheaper is not a legitimate reason to have dangerous items on a movie set.

All that I’ve read about this indicates that a serious incident was imminent for more than one day.

It also raised my eyebrows when I saw how fast attempts to absolve the main individual of focus in this tragedy.
 
Ms. Gutierrez took the spent casing out of the gun used in the shooting and later handed the gun to sheriff’s deputies.
Click to expand...

this bothers me a little. not that its in an affidavit, or that its an unreasonable thing to do, but I wonder about they way it is being reported and what other details either never got into the affidavit or are being left out by reporters.

Consider this, "vintage Colt"...

to me, this says western movie, "vintage Colt" so I would assume it was a Single Action revolver. A Colt Single Action revolver of some age, in order to be "vintage".

Now here's my detail obsessed question, HOW MANY ROUNDS WERE IN THE GUN??? when the shooting happened...

Were they ALL live rounds?? Or only the one that was fired?

I'm ok with the affidavit report of the fired casing being removed, and the gun later being handed to the Sherriff's deputy, that would be my reaction, as well. I would first, make the gun safe, by unloading ALL cartridges in the gun. THis would include the fired case. And when the Deputy arrives hand him the unloaded gun AND what came out of it.

Now, here's another question as yet, unanswered. If the gun was fully loaded, what were the other unfired rounds?? Were they blanks? or live ammo? and, what do you think the odds are that if there was only ONE live round in the gun, that round was the next up under the hammer when the gun was (apparently intentionally) cocked and fired.

Columbo would have this solved in less than an hour, we may never be told ALL the details, and in a case like this one, I think details matter. And. specifically the details of what physically existed at the time the gun discharged matter much more than what happened days or weeks earlier.

seems like the more they say the less we know with certainty....

I suspect some of that is intentional, but then that's only because I know some of the people saying things have their own agendas. One among them being to sell "news"...:rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top