Alec Baldwin to be charged with involuntary manslaughter over “Rust” death

[Hammerhead]

The rules are different on a movie set. There are multiple people guilty in this case. Is it required for an actor to check a firearm before used? I haven't found that says they are required to do so. IMO I don't think any do that. They trust the Armorer's expertise. If the Armored is not on set all productions should end. This is where Baldwin failed and is now negligent in his duties as the producer,.

 

[zachrockbadenof]

when this story first broke I remember reading that during a break between shoots, baldwin and some of the crew were using the firearm with real ammunition , doing some target shooting.

If this is true, the armourer is guilty of neglegence causing death

from my understanding, the arm. was not on site... how can she share in any of the respon?? i donot know the protocol on a movie set.... is the arm suppose to be the watchdog of the weapons 24/7??
the arm gets ill , can't make it to the set... does the production shut down for the duration of the illness???

 

[NewbOldster]

yeah . but then WHY were the guns available for anyone to handle? That is the real question. If the armorer was not present then the guns and real bullets should not have been either imo .
Why do they hire an armorer when they do as they please anyway? I thought the whole point of having a pro around who takes care of the guns is to ensure such sad accidents don´t happen.

Well, I'm just an old nobody-of-import but I fully agree there were far too many failures involved in the situation. The chain of command was quite obviously broken. That's a whole 'nother issue. Who was running the ship?

A man...a grown adult man...pointed a firearm at another person and pulled the trigger. A young woman died. That's on him. Nobody else.

 

[dogzter]

Well, I'm just an old nobody-of-import but I fully agree there were far too many failures involved in the situation. The chain of command was quite obviously broken. That's a whole 'nother issue. Who was running the ship?

A man...a grown adult man...pointed a firearm at another person and pulled the trigger. A young woman died. That's on him. Nobody else.

Said man happened to be the head of the operation as well so.........

 

[NewbOldster]

Said man happened to be the head of the operation as well so.........

...yet it's everyone else's fault. Go f'in figure.

 

[iTarzan]

OMFG

I can't say that a gun can discharge without the trigger being pulled without you hearing that it wasn't a person's fault.

You fellas are super c can go offharged and polarized for bear.

Argue over BS if you need to, but it's BS.

I think it's probably gone unnoticed that I said that Baldwin is likely lying.

Frothing and champing the bit but no substantial conversation.

Would you let me point a cap and ball at your foot and bet me I can't shoot your foot without pulling the trigger?

So you are saying that the gun can fire "at will" without the trigger being pulled AND without the hammer being pulled back? Idiot Baldwin said he pulled the hammer back. How stupid could he be. He points a gun at somebody with the hammer pulled back. The hammer locks in when pulled all the way back. It takes less off a trigger pull now. It could basically be just trigger pressure now. If the hammer wasn't pulled back the pulling of the trigger moves the hammer back and then the hammer falls and fires the gun.
If you are holding that gun and the hammer isn't pulled back and you don't pull the trigger the gun can't fire. It can't. To say otherwise isn't true. It can't be true guy.
So please explain your position. Are you saying that when the hammer is cocked and the trigger isn't pulled the gun can fire?
Baldwin cocked back the hammer. Maybe it didn't lock because it wasn't pulled back far enough and then he just let it drop instead of slowly easing the hammer back down.
IMHO he either pulled the trigger, pulled back the hammer part way and let it drop or pulled it back to lock position and pressed the trigger hard enough to unlock the hammer without fully pulling the trigger. Those are the only ways the gun could fire. It could not fire with hammer down and trigger not fully pulled. It is impossible.

 

[iTarzan]

If you can't figure it out I don't think you ever will.

Pressure strike to the hammer is enough.

Are you sure you should have guns?

What is a pressure strike to the hammer? You mean the hammer is down and somebody hits it hard with something? How would that even happen with Baldwin holding the gun aiming it at people?

 

[iTarzan]

yeah . but then WHY were the guns available for anyone to handle? That is the real question. If the armorer was not present then the guns and real bullets should not have been either imo .
Why do they hire an armorer when they do as they please anyway? I thought the whole point of having a pro around who takes care of the guns is to ensure such sad accidents don´t happen.

I read and article that the armorer was on break and the guns were not on a table they were in a safe. Baldwin and Halls must have got the gun out of the safe making it even more stupid and their fault.

I will find the article again.

 

[armedoldhippy]

if i'm paying someone to do something, i'm still gonna check on them if it's safety related. can't take some mistakes back...

 

[Unca Walt]

What I see is an incompetent female hired to fill the legal slot of armorer.

And an incompetent group working on a movie set firing a "prop" gun with live ammo.

And an entity properly described as an incompetent human being pointing a gun at someone not even in the movie and pulling the trigger. This human was also in LEGAL charge of operations for this movie.

There is one more dark bit that has been dropped from discussion since this broke: The dead lady had been about to publish an expose' that could have gotten Baldwin bad press or worse.

There's charges enough to go around.

 

[mean mr.mustard]

they can discharge without the trigger being pulled IF...something hits the hammer hard enough. some pistols back then, and all made now (to best of my knowledge) cannot be made to fire in this manner, IE- dropping them. Ruger has the best, the transfer bar safety they invented. there are still a -lot- of older pistols out there without a safety mechanism like this.

When you say it they believe it...

Where the hell were you earlier?

 

[armedoldhippy]

trying to end the fighting in the Middle East. tough crowd. so's this one...

Where the hell were you earlier?

 

[mean mr.mustard]

trying to end the fighting in the Middle East. tough crowd. so's this one...

Yeah I see that

I'm done with the thread anyway.

It's good for me to remember that the Internet is for arguing.... I forget sometimes.

 

[Ca++]

I didn't realise he was the producer.
That makes him guilty.
An actor doesn't need to know anything about guns, but they can expect the set to be safe. The idea an actor should check the gun over, is foundered upon what people that understand them would do. However, understanding them isn't a requirement of acting school. That is why a competent person is on gun control. A fact the producer and an old hand should be aware of. He could say he employs a safety officer, who understands such things. His depth of understanding, changing the severity of his actions.

They will want to prove he knew of live firing.
They will want to prove that he understands the guns chain of movements.
They will want to prove if he knows anything about gun handling, away from watching movies.
If they can't prove any of these things, he is still the producer. He has a duty of care, that ignorance doesn't protect him from.


We will see..

 

[mean mr.mustard]

I didn't realise he was the producer.
That makes him guilty.
An actor doesn't need to know anything about guns, but they can expect the set to be safe. The idea an actor should check the gun over, is foundered upon what people that understand them would do. However, understanding them isn't a requirement of acting school. That is why a competent person is on gun control. A fact the producer and an old hand should be aware of. He could say he employs a safety officer, who understands such things. His depth of understanding, changing the severity of his actions.

They will want to prove he knew of live firing.
They will want to prove that he understands the guns chain of movements.
They will want to prove if he knows anything about gun handling, away from watching movies.
If they can't prove any of these things, he is still the producer. He has a duty of care, that ignorance doesn't protect him from.


We will see..

If you or I were there I have no doubt that things would have played out differently.

Gun safety is commonplace where I come from. It's like potty training. But I come from a very sparsely populated place.

The fact that an armorer is employed on set shows that the lack of gun safety training is more common than educated operators (to minimal surprise).

You are correct in my eyes that the responsibility extends beyond the gun itself.

Most people seem generally against conversation and I appreciate your willingness to discuss a topic without losing your marbles... and I, for one, drastically appreciate that.

Thank you.

I will probably be lurking but I grow weary of the children.

 

[Tynehead Tom]

I'm a retired riflesmith..... and a very good friend of mine in one of the senior armorers in the British Columbia film industry. He has also acted in some pretty big name productions..... usually as a short scene cop or something. I was actually going to try and get my foot in that door a few short years ago but current political climates here are not favorable. Regardless I have a keen sense and knowledge of appropriate firearms handling and even prop guns are to be considered unsafe until an armorer clears them for each scene.... for every take.
None of the set firearms should have been accessable to anyone but the armorer at any time whether they were present or not. This would even inlcude the producer, director..... anyone but the armorer.

So that is why I believe the armorer is culpable as is Baldwin...... him even moreso because he was at the end of the day the boss and the guy who discharged the firearm. One of them wheel gus can not fire by itself, it's virtually impossible unless the hammer is cocked, rotating the cyclinder which doesn't expose the primer in the round until the hammer clicks and is locked. A broken part in the hammer mechanism could cause this but that would have been caught but the armorer while preparing the gun for that scene/shoot.

 

[Cuddles]

I read and article that the armorer was on break and the guns were not on a table they were in a safe. Baldwin and Halls must have got the gun out of the safe making it even more stupid and their fault.

I will find the article again.

well if this is true then it really is their own fault. !

 

[Cuddles]

Well, I'm just an old nobody-of-import but I fully agree there were far too many failures involved in the situation. The chain of command was quite obviously broken. That's a whole 'nother issue. Who was running the ship?

A man...a grown adult man...pointed a firearm at another person and pulled the trigger. A young woman died. That's on him. Nobody else.

when I was a little kid I was only allowed a water pistol. and I was told I must never point a weapon at a person (or our dog). - Even though it was only a toy!!

 

[Cuddles]

familiarity breeds contempt, and that causes carelessness, and that gets people hurt/killed. i bet folks on sets NOW are paying much more attention...

For a while maybe but eventually....

 

[armedoldhippy]

like NASA and the Challenger o-ring disaster. they'll eventually get sloppy again and get some more folks killed. so-called "acceptable risk"... meaning "we're in a hurry & don't really care..."