Originally Posted by :
Still, productions regularly use operational firearms, arguably to add realism to the scene and authenticity to an actor’s performance. When an operational firearm is used on set, a licensed armorer or a prop master is responsible for monitoring every step of its use: loading and unloading the weapon, checking the barrel to avoid any issue with materials left inside after every take, showing its status to actors and assistant directors, instructing actors on its proper use — the latter to maintain the story’s realism as well as everyone’s safety.
Additionally, the armorer or a stunt coordinator choreographs gunfire action sequences, works with the cinematographer to determine which camera angles will minimize risk of injury and ensures that no cast or crew member is in a firing lane, or the path of the weapon, when it is fired, said Michael Lubke, a fight director and stunt coordinator for theater and movies. Anyone in close range usually is required to wear protective items such as shields or safety glasses when the cameras are rolling. “No human should ever be in the firing lane,” Lubke said.
The systems currently in place work well when followed. “Absent some sort of defect on the gun itself or the cartridge misfiring or something like that, there is literally no way this can happen if the people in charge are following safety protocols that have been drafted and in effect for years related to firearms on a set,” said Jeff Harris, an attorney who has represented the families of people who have died on film and TV sets.
“The problem is when people get complacent and don’t follow the systems, then that’s when we have these accidents on movie sets,” he continued. “It’s just unfortunate that we have to have these kinds of things occur before people really say. ‘You know what, we’ve got to follow these written policies and we have to do it to a T. Otherwise, one mistake, somebody dies.’”
Originally Posted by :
The Times reported that the industry’s safety protocols, including gun inspections, were not strictly followed on set, and multiple misfires involving prop guns had previously occurred.
“There were no safety meetings, there was no assurance that it wouldn’t happen again,” said a crew member. “All they wanted to do was rush, rush, rush.” Production on the movie has been halted indefinitely.
Originally Posted by :
In addition to blank rounds, dummy rounds sometimes are used on set. These are designed to look like real bullets but contain no gunpowder. They can be used in closeup shots for effect.
When actor Brandon Lee was killed in 1993 on the set of “The Crow,” The Times reported that the projectile tip of a dummy round was accidentally lodged in a gun chamber; it was then propelled out of the gun by a blank cartridge.
Sounds like dummy rounds and then blanks is a very bad combination and may have been what happened here. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Baby Lee:
It's tough either way, because on one hand you ostensibly have all these safeguards worked up in the industry to make certain that what is handed to the actor is what they say it is [apparently, but currently unverified, he was handed the firearm with a simultaneous on-set announcement 'cold gun'].
OTOH, how in the world do you successfully set up safeguards that remove the standard duty of someone handling a firearm to exercise first-person care in said handling.
I get the exigencies of having actors rely on the protocols of professionals around them, but when a dangerous instrumentality is in your hands, and you are POINTING IT AT PEOPLE, is it even possible to delegate that first-person duty of care away?
If the standard of duty is to "trust no one" then every actor firing should be preparing their own blanks from basic materials and ensure that all fake ammo and fire arms are within secure lock down or line of sight custody from the time of preparing the blanks. No actor does anything close to this. So "trust no one" is clearly not.the standard of duty. [Reply]
Originally Posted by cdcox:
If the standard of duty is to "trust no one" then every actor firing should be preparing their own blanks from basic materials and ensure that all fake ammo and fire arms are within secure lock down or line of sight custody from the time of preparing the blanks. No actor does anything close to this. So "trust no one" is clearly not.the standard of duty.
You're referencing protocol, and I'm referencing liability.
Protocols can often be tuned in an effort to minimize liability, but they don't form a shield against liability unless the court sets precedent saying so.
I said from the outset it's a close question, but it's not one that will be avoided by arguing that 'no one else did this.' No one died in those other instances.
The question is how much of a duty of first-person verification remains that cannot be discharged to another when one points a gun at another person and pulls the trigger. This question assumes two things that aren't established beyond doubt as yet, knowledge that someone was in the line of fire and knowing pulling of the trigger. If either of those are contrary to evidence, the specific question is moot [which is why I noted the 'cautious-assed' verbiage above, where Alec's volitional act was pulling the gun from the holster, but the sudden velocity and direction of the ammunition has no impetus identified].
EDIT - also, new info that there were previous misfires around set, if proven, would only enhance the durability of Baldwin's non-dischargable duty to exercise care in handling himself. It's one thing to point a gun in the direction of another and pull the trigger when an expert tells you it's safe to, . . that's bad enough. But do it when those same experts are handing guns to others and saying they are safe and the guns are discharging payloads, and you are aware of this failure of protocol . . that is an enhanced situation. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Frazod:
Baldwin has devolved into such a vile one who sucks the penis over the years that it's really hard to have even the slightest bit of sympathy for anything bad that happens to him.
What a fucking crock of shit.
How dare he parody your orange god? The audacity, the unmigitated gall! [Reply]
Ya... that armorer probably deserves to be mopping prison floors for a few years.
To have this happen multiple times in the same filming leads me to believe her level of incompetence probably means her definition of "cold gun" means its cold to the touch.
But after missing the last 10 pages or so of this thread and reading through it, it seems a lot of people cant seem to disconnect this scenario from reality. I don't expect an actor to sit there and go through a fucking safety protocol on set when there's someone on set who's sole purpose is to be responsible for the inspection and handling of the guns and that person hands him a prop gun and says its "cold." Time to bow out from this one. [Reply]
Sounds like dummy rounds and then blanks is a very bad combination and may have been what happened here.
Considering the relatively low cost of firearms, one would think it safer to use two sets of guns in this situation. One set for dummies, and the other set for blanks.
Since Baldwin is/was making this movie, he is responsible for this tragedy. [Reply]
I'm still trying to figure out how a blank could do that much damage. I realize there's a wad, but every one I've ever seen has been paper and it only flies about 6-8 feet. You'd think once it hit the woman it would have stopped rather than go through her. [Reply]
Originally Posted by oldman:
I'm still trying to figure out how a blank could do that much damage. I realize there's a wad, but every one I've ever seen has been paper and it only flies about 6-8 feet. You'd think once it hit the woman it would have stopped rather than go through her.
It was a live round, not a blank. Problem is, if prop guns are rigged to only accept blanks, then the gun in question must not have been a prop. There are a lot of questions that need to be answered. [Reply]
Originally Posted by FlaChief58:
It was a live round, not a blank. Problem is, if prop guns are rigged to only accept blanks, then the gun in question must not have been a prop. There are a lot of questions that need to be answered.
I'm not trying to sound all Black Op-ish, but what was a live round doing on the set? There was union trouble that morning.
One more thing to think about is it's not totally Baldwin's movie. I think there were 3 or 4 other production companies involved. Many movies/TV shows have multiple "producers" where one or more of the stars ges a credit (and more money) by being a producer. If the liability is ultimately tied to the production companies, then Baldwin is not at fault alone. [Reply]
