Dem's the rules.

There is no standing in the line of fire. It's the same reason actors don't point guns with blanks at other actors anymore. It's just industry standard.

Where the fuck is Dane when you could actually use him?
[Reply]

I remember when hearing about Brandon Lee in the Crow, unfortunate that this type of negligence still occurs on sets. Baldwin will settle a lawsuit, take the hit socially and my wife and I won't see him on Match Game anymore, but regardless of his beliefs, any person going through this has my sympathies. I hope Baldwin is remorseful and his guilt outweighs the financial loss, but that's punishment enough in my mind. Where as the fault should lie with others more so than Baldwin given the supposed details that have come out, Baldwin will take the hit because of his fame.
[Reply]

Eh, even blanks CAN be deadly. If they wanted the "firing directly at the camera" look, you'd think they could have done it from a distance and aiming slightly to the side. From a distant camera with a zoom lens, you wouldn't be able to tell it wasn't a direct "hit."

(But what do I know about cinematography?)
[Reply]

Logically yes but psychologically unless you are trying to be “brave” your instinct is to not stand in front of that if you don’t have to and despite what you tell yourself your emotions and subconscious are going to say get out of the way.
[Reply]

I posted earlier that it seems he could have some sort of punishment for negligence or something depending on how much influence he had on the production complaint issues and brining in less qualified people. But I don’t really know that, just seems possible.
[Reply]

He can probably be found civilly liable but criminal negligence is a pretty high bar and it's unlikely to get there based on hiring practices.
[Reply]

It really seems like a combination of stupidity, negligence, and apathy on the part of the crew, depending on which crew member is being discussed. How can the armorer not know they were taken off set? Either she knew and didn’t do her job by saying no, or she was being taken advantage or simply not aware of her responsibility but still failed to inspect it before the scene. I don’t see any scenario where she isn’t majorly responsible.
[Reply]

Yeah, from my perspective he has around 0.01% liability as an actor. Whether he had some decision-making authority on safety protocols or staffing that exposes him to some liability remains to be seen, but it seems fairly unlikely there as well unless they knowingly hired people who weren't qualified for the work (and hindsight doesn't count).

If I hire a shitty plumber to repair a toilet and the toilet explodes, they're the ones who are responsible for damages provided they had the required licenses to do the work.
[Reply]

The narrative is that they were setting the camera up for exactly this. The camera operator was there and the other 2 were looking at the monitor attached to the camera. For some unknown reason, the weapon discharged.

It doesn't matter if you thnk Baldwin is a douche or a prince, I'd bet 99 out of 100 actors wouldn't check the weapon if they weren't farm boys or such. Again, do you verify the correct gap on your spark plugs when you get a tuneup? Do you check your pilot's liecense and flight log when you get on an airplane? Did you follow the cook into the john to make sure he/she washed their hands after taking a deuce at a resturant? To hold Baldwin at fault here is just over the top.
[Reply]

The big problem is, the more stringent you make the standard, even when down to criminal negligence or criminal indifference, . . . the harder you make it in cases like big corporate polluters or pill mills or consumer product producers.

'Hey, no one told ME they were putting asbestos in baby powder!!'
[Reply]

You're still stuck on not realizing the difference when handling a dangerous instrumentality. You might not do all those things in the regular course of affairs, but if you start a car on top of a big hill with a playground full of kids at the bottom, you check the brakes before you put it in gear [or engage the clutch].

Again, I pose the hypothetical I did above. . . Assume every single fact you consider salient thus far in this case, someone hands you a real functional gun and instructs you to point it at your child and pull the trigger because it's safe, what do you do next? And why would you do anything different if there are non-related co-workers in the line of fire?
[Reply]

Yeah, it's a pretty easy path for liability if you just look at the job descriptions. Whose job description says, "Make sure there are no real bullets in the gun"? They're getting paid to do that.
[Reply]

Yeah they might need to put that armorer left on suicide watch. The more that filmed out the worse it's looking for her. How the fuck do you allow people to take the guns and go shooting in between takes? How dumb is she?
[Reply]

Wow... 'Rust' crew members reportedly used guns with live ammunition hours before deadly shooting on set


[Reply]

You'd also think other people might have wondered what the hell was going on when they heard fucking gunshots. :-)

This whole thing is just nuts.
[Reply]