i wouldnt know to do that (i dont own any guns)
this is a unique case. hes instructed to have the gun.
Baldwin….WTF
- Thread starter HALL85
- Start date
this is a unique case. hes instructed to have the gun.
Even if you are not a gun owner, you would have to go through safety instruction which would tell you to do all of those things. This is standard SOP. It should have been for the persons responsible including the one firing the gun. And once again, Baldwin is also the Producer, so it's his responsibility to know the SOP.
depends what his involvement with it means. lots of times its just fronting the money
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_director
Not really...it's a lot more than that....I don't think the courts will buy your job description.
A
anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0
Guest
@HALL85 not only only a healthcare expert but a movie producer expert. Impressive sir!
sweet director link
now for the producer link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_producer
"For various reasons, producers cannot always supervise all of the production. In this case, the main producer or executive producer may hire and delegate work to associate producers, assistant producers, line producers or unit production managers.[5]"
spielberg has produced a ton of movies that he has little involvement in. just gets paid out and puts his name on the project. but, i was originally the one who stated baldwin had more liability as the producer than the one holding the gun. i said that back when you were still tying to find blame for him holding the gun.
so, whats all hate for baldwin? what he do to u?
I understand and totally agree, should never point a real gun or even prop gun at anyone, should take upmost safety steps and never fool around.
But seems they were either filming scene or practicing the scene, so he was pointing it towards the camera area for "the film shot", so Baldwin seems was using weapon as advised. Unfortunately the people hit were in that area as well.
But I do agree as it seems was more than an accident, but not sure if that is on Baldwin, other than the fact he was also a producer and some questions about production standards, including safety before this tragedy.
That makes a lot of sense. Quick question as I would not know the answer. Since this is a prop gun that is supposed to loaded with blanks vs live ammo, by opening the cylinder would you know that is was live ammo or would you have to remove rounds out of cylinder to tell?
It applies if there were people in the general area and more importantly, you should ALWAYS have the gun facing down before you get in position to aim it. These are all basic procedures that you go through before using it.
what does pointing the gun down have to do with anything? from what it sounds like he was in position aiming it.
ok then explain. cause your previous explanation makes no sense.
do you think the scene was for baldwin to shoot the photography director? you think the scene was to shoot the ground?
Of course it wasn’t, but he did. At some point the gun was pointed at a person and discharged. And clearly the gun which should have been inspected by three people wasn’t.
A
anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0
Guest
He was shooting a scene that required him to aim at the camera. Should he have aimed at the ground? Get a clue.
From Fox-
New details have emerged regarding the on-set incident in which Alec Baldwin fired a prop gun on the set of the movie "Rust" that resulted in the death of the film’s director of photography, Halyna Hutchins.
According to a search warrant executed by the Santa Fe County Sheriff's office, obtained by Fox News, the actor and crew were setting up a shot that required Baldwin to cross-draw a revolver and point the weapon at the camera. Director Joel Souza recalled "what sounded like a whip and then a loud pop," and noticed Hutchins, who he was standing behind at the time, grab her midsection as she stumbled backward. She "was assisted to the ground" by other crew members and camera operator Reid Russell recalls Hutchins saying she could not feel her legs.
I never said he should have “aimed” it at the ground. When not aiming it at a target the barrel should be pointed to the ground. It is also clear now this was a gun; not a prop gun. Inexcusable how live ammo was on the set, and how two people didn’t notice this when they inspected the weapon. And if someone is handing me a real gun, I’m also checking the chamber….because you NEVER want this to happen.
It was a real gun. It is being called a prop gun because it was being used in a movie shoot. It would be like calling a revolver a robbery gun because it was being used in a robbery. Same gun, different applications.
Regarding your question, yes.
This video shows how that is done.
This is a good video about the incident. Note he states that prop guns are real guns. Alos, I disagree with his comment that he finds it acceptable that talent (the actors) accept the gun and take the word of the handler.
Correct, you are not gun owner. If you were a gun owner you would know how to do it.
See the first video above.
Before I show or hand a revolver to someone, loaded or unloaded, I open the cylinder.
Regarding it being a unique case, watch the CNN video above. I think it will change your perspective on this.
I don’t understand people suggesting he was negligent but I don’t know anything about an actors standard of care/prop gun protocol
either way insurance coverage would kick in unless it’s intentional act or maybe reckless, generally speaking
i think he has has some funny roles. His best probably the departed
To paraphrase:
"I know nothing about the subject and hence I am critical of anyone's comments about it"
Yep, I think I have that right.
I am not saying the following happened here. It is just conversation about another hazard with guns and movies.
For some scenes they want to show someone loading a gun. To shoot a scene like that, the armorer may make there own dummy bullets.
They take a real bullet and remove the projectile from the casing and then remove the gunpowder.
They then replace the projectile on the casing.
The key thing is to keep careful track and not mix up the dummies with the real ones.
For some scenes they want to show someone loading a gun. To shoot a scene like that, the armorer may make there own dummy bullets.
They take a real bullet and remove the projectile from the casing and then remove the gunpowder.
They then replace the projectile on the casing.
The key thing is to keep careful track and not mix up the dummies with the real ones.
I take that back.
Latest news is that there was a live round in the gun.
Further, the set had a large amount of live ammunition on it.
So let me get this straight. It was a real gun, not a prop. There were three bullets in the chamber. The armorer never checked the chamber of the gun and handed it to the set Director who also never checked the gun or chamber and handed it to Baldwin and said it was cold. Then Baldwin never checked the gun or chamber either before aiming it at a camera with people standing behind it. And there was obviously live ammo on the set that day.
there were multiple concerns about safety on the set and some the crew walked off prior to all of this happening. Baldwin is also the Producer.
Can’t wait to see what the rest of the investigation turns up.
Regarding your first question, there are legitimate reasons.
Regarding your second question, that potentially is a one of the reasons.
If the set was in a remote area, it would not be unreasonable to have weapons to protect form coyotes, mountain lions, panthers, etc.
Other reasons would be:
To have a supply of casings and powder to make blanks.
To do target and firing practice with live ammo to give the actors a real sense of what firing a gun is like. See video at the end of this post.
Given this, one would think there would be the kind of caution that Hall85 enumerated and more.
I was a range officer a few times back in the day. 130 troops with M-16s and live ammo. It was a very rigid process.
Make blanks and bring them to the set. Separate protection weapons from set guns. Train actors at a gun range.
If a coyote goes apeshit, use a Glock, not the period specific revolver.
I’m going to take a stab and guess very few if any of the 100 or so on that set were licensed gun owners.
Doesn’t seem all that difficult
I just watched a movie with 12 feet blue people flying in 5000 foot trees
guns in a set seem rather antiquated
“ I didn’t pull the trigger and I never aimed it”. Took him two months to come up with that defense?? Wouldn’t that have been the first thing you would have said if that actually happened?
Saw the last five minutes of that sickening interview. Baldwin and Stephanapolous both are despicable.
Saw the last five minutes of that sickening interview. Baldwin and Stephanapolous both are despicable.
baldwin. the forbidden fruit for you. love to hate it. cant look away. baldwin.
I’m not sure what’s with your hate with him. He is obviously distraught. He is not going to be held criminally liable. So get that off your mind. His description of pulling the hammer back and releasing it is the same as pulling the trigger in my mind. There is no criminal liability here. I’m not sure if California has negligent homicide but even if it does, this does not rise to that level.
This is a civil case where negligence will be talked about in terms of money damages. Should he have checked his weapon - yes. A jury in a civil context will then detenine out the percentage negligence among Baldwin, the assistant director, the armorer, the director and a host of other people involved.
In terms of Baldwin, this is a tragic accident unless it is proven that someone purposely placed that bullet in the gun with the intention of it being fired on set and placing people lives in danger. That is when criminal responsibity can attach. But it will be limited to the person who put that live round in the gun.
I have a little regard for people that handle guns irresponsibly. The interview was a pure PR stunt. Was asked if he felt any guilt and he said no. No remorse. His only concern is his own image. And George set him up to do that.Despicable human beings.
The reality is, he probably did himself more harm than good with the interview. I’ll let the judicial system determine his fate.
A
