For the love of sweet baby Jesus, before you offer any further commentary on this, prior, or subsequent threads, go read these two Motion picture Industry Wide Safety Bulletins:
2) Special Use Of Live Ammunition
They are quite literally the BIBLE on set operations on their respective topics. period. paragraph. Motherf**king WORD.
If you don't read them (FFS, they're about 4 short pages apiece, and it takes about 2 minutes, even if you need Hooked On Phonics to get through them), and aren't competent to comment based on them, you are, as has become manifestly obvious, not tall enough for this ride.
They make it abundantly obvious, by mentioning the specific duties of the armorer twenty-seven times, while mentioning any activity or responsibility by the actor only twice, in just the first bulletin, where the actual job responsibility, as well as legal, ethical, and moral culpability for safe use of weapons on any production lies.
Bummer for a thousand internet harpies, it is 0% with Baldwin, in any capacity, and nearly 100% with the armorer, in this case grossly criminally negligent and legally culpable for involuntary manslaughter.
That's 18 months in the NM State Prison, and a $5K fine. Call, raise, or fold, Sport.
What happened, per best information available:
A scene was being rehearsed.
Allegedly with a Civil War era/style muzzle-loading cap-and-ball black powder Colt revolver like this one.
The DP, 1st AC, and director were all grouped around the camera, where they could best see the shot they were planning.
Baldwin pointed, cocked, and fired a supposed "COLD" weapon at the camera, which turned out to be not only wrongly loaded, but loaded with a live round, which flew over the 1st AC's head, punched into the DP and through her, and then struck the director behind her.
QED.
The number of fuck-ups that requires of Baldwin is zero.
The number of fuck-ups either actually performed, and/or actually neglected, by the armorer, by the numbers:
1) Failure to maintain possession of the weapon and put it in the actor's hand before the rehearsal.
2) Failure to remove a live round from the weapon before even bringing it to the set for rehearsal.
3) Failure to check that it was empty before rehearsal.
4) Failure to have someone else double-check to ensure it was completely empty before rehearsal.
5) Failure to ensure the actor witnessed the check and double check before handing it to them.
6) Failure to account for all live rounds previously loaded, and keep them, and/or any powder and ball materials for live shots completely separate from rehearsal weapons.
7)Failure to keep weapons capable of firing live rounds entirely segregated from weapons for use on sets where firing live rounds was neither practical, advisable, permissible, legal, nor discussed beforehand.
Being that this was a non-union low-budget ($6M, which is chump change for a movie these days) production, I'll wager dollars to donuts the production also did not have
9) a trained and equipped on-set medic (EMT, EMT-P, RN, or anything like) standing by in direct proximity to render aid in the event of the exact emergency that occurred, nor any other, which for any union production, and even most non-union ones where firearms are in use, is a requirement.
That fuck-up is laid at the feet of the Unit Production Manager, whose exact job it would be to hire or contract for such services, and who evidently failed to do any such thing, probably for budgetary reasons.
It was reported "the crew" rendered aid after the accident.
Not "the Medic/paramedic/nurse".
(We haven't even gotten started on that sub-topic, kids. Stay tuned.)
That's nine open and flagrant violations of standard set operations protocol, either stone-cold certain, or overwhelmingly likely.
Gonna be a lot of red asses by the time this gets to trial.
Shot a LOT of blackpowder in college and used cap and ball revolvers on stage in those days. It mystifies me how someone can fuck up the process of blanking a cap and ball gun. It's not like grabbing a fistful of cartridges and putting them into chambers, where If you're negligent enough to mix blank and live rounds together and inattentive enough to not notice the bullet-thingy hanging out of the case mouth you could get someone killed.
ReplyDeleteIn order to load a cap and ball Colt (or any other similar) you've got to pour a measured (hopefully) amount of triple-f into the chamber top it with a paper or cotton wad and then dab grease over the wad. Dunno how you could confuse a ball with a wad.
Then you gotta pinch your cap slightly and push it into the nipple. The presence of a percussion cap on the nipple is the quickest and easiest way to determine whether or not any of the chambers in the cylinder is ready to shoot, either blank or ball. No cap - pretty much no shot.a
I would think this type of revolver would be the most difficult to have an "accident" with for these reasons.
Boat Guy
I trust your judgement on this one, but it seems like what you are telling me is that an actor can kill someone on a production set and be totally blameless. What a sweet deal!
ReplyDeleteA major actor on a set can kill someone with the cameras rolling, and he's totally blameless?
That may be the way it is, but Baldwin pulled the trigger. A woman is dead. Baldwin pulled the ttrigger.
Perhaps this will force some change on THE BIZ. Actors who are handling firearms must be familiar enough with firearms safety to competently handle them. It's only right.
This is a tragedy on so many levels.
ReplyDelete>Being that this was a non-union low-budget ($6M, which is chump change for a movie these days) production,
---
That's less than any single season 12 episode of Big Bang Theory, which was a half-hour sitcom.
--TRX
Got around to reading the safety bulletin. Item 12 says: "Ensuring that any actor who is required to stand near the line of fire **be allowed** to witness the loading of the firearms."
ReplyDelete"Be allowed to witness" is not the same as "is required to witness." If this bulletin is legally binding as you suggested in a previous post, then I'm not sure the armorer failed on that front unless Alec wanted to witness it and was not allowed to do so.
"Kill", yes, PawPaw.
ReplyDelete"Murder", no.
The same distinction applies in your living room, with your car, or hundreds of other times and places.
If someone jumps in front of the bus or RV you're driving down the interstate, you absolutely killed her. So what?
Should we take you down and hang you too?
And no, it doesn't mean any such thing.
Incompetent actors are the entire reason why actors have nothing to do with weapons safety on set.
And yet, you want to hand the baby the lit dynamite, because reasons.
You tell me: How's that going to work out?
Bearing in mind that, until one incompetent prop twit broke every single rule in the book, in one minute, on one show, the system in place had a flawless 28+-year zero-death safety record, despite make tens of thousands of movies and TV shows, firing millions of blank and live rounds.
So, how many people died in, say, just Louisiana from firearms accidents?[Hint: it was 20, in 2019]
OMG!!!! Louisiana alone has had 7 times as many people killed in one year than all Hollywood production has killed in FORTY YEARS!!!
Non-actors who are handling firearms should be familiar enough with them to to competently handle them.
Using your logic, shouldn't we put actors in charge of running firearms training your state's abysmal firearms safety dumpster fire?
Because compared to Hollywood's safety record, you guys flat out suck.
And that'll be true for any state in the country, including Alaska or Wyoming.
The only thing worse than a tragedy, is trying to fix it by throwing more gasoline and dynamite on the fire.
Help me out, PawPaw:
Why is it horrid Leftard jackassery and overreach when they want to ban whole swaths of firearms and get their sticky fingers up to the elbows into the whole second amendment pie, but when "gun guys" want to do the same thing, on steroids, after the first accidental firearms death on a Hollywood set anywhere since Clinton was president, it becomes "reasonable gun safety requirements".
Just curious.
I re-read the post, and re-read the linked pdfs fro the industry.
ReplyDeleteI'm no lawyer, but I am a retired cop, and this is the way I see it. Whether of not the industry holds Baldwin culpable, there is the recurring problem with the law. I've reviewed the applicable statutes, and I can't find anywhere where it says "Unless a film crew is shooting a movie."
The law is still the law. A woman is dead, and Baldwin pulled the trigger. Were I the detective running the investigation, Baldwin would be in jail pending bond. The industry standards are designed to keep people safe. Obviously, they failed on many levels. But, there is still a woman dead, ad the law doesn't exempt actors.
You do make an interesting point. The bulletin says "All local, state and federal laws and regulations are applicable and can override these guidelines if they are more stringent."
DeleteI guess the ability to get a conviction of Baldwin would depend on whether state or local laws prohibit aiming a gun at someone except for self defense or somethkng. Not sure there is any such law but I'm sure we will find out.
Looks like if this had been filmed in Nevada, the statute would've been more stringent than the bulletins and thus been in effect (as per the bulletin) "The statute that prohibits aiming firearms at human beings, or discharging weapons where people might be hurt, is found in Nevada Revised Statute section 202.290. According to the relevant statute, it is illegal to aim a pistol, gun, revolver, or firearm towards any other human being. It does not matter if the weapon is either loaded or unloaded, you could still be charged with and convicted of an offense under N.R.S. 202.290."
DeleteI don't see such a statute in NM so that likely prevents Baldwin from having any criminal liability. But it does make me wonder how they film these scenes in states that expressly prohibit aiming a gun at someone. Do they use fake guns and CGI? Creative editing?
@a posse,
ReplyDeleteSince she demonstrably didn't even do the check, she obviously and necessarily failed to let him witness it, didn't she? ;)
Good point.
DeleteInteresting development... Don't know how it affects culpability but...
ReplyDeletehttps://www.wtvm.com/2021/10/24/crew-member-who-gave-baldwin-gun-subject-prior-complaint/?outputType=apps
I've read both bulletins and I've just got to ask what percentage of the sets you worked on used live ammunition? It seems like if you follow the rules the live ammunition is such a pain that the director would always default to doing it with special effects.
ReplyDeleteOpie Odd
ReplyDeletePawPaw, pleeeeeeeease.
I turned the light switch on. I didn't know you wired it to dynamite that blew up the house across the street.
And you're telling me the law says I killed those people?
It is to laugh.
You're now literally now deadpan playing Bruce McGill reading my "confession" from My Cousin Vinny as
"I shot the clerk." instead of "I shot the clerk?!?!?!?"
You should be far more familiar with "elements of the crime" and mens rea before trying to advance a playground-level legal argument, with the nuance of an autistic child wanting his cookie.
Let's start with, "Who, after forty years on productions, would reasonably suspect a weapon, handed to them for said production, on a rehearsal, declared to be "cold", could ever harm anyone?"
But it should have been verified, right?
Except it was verified safe. By the armorer who placed it on the set cart, and by the 2nd AD who handed it to Baldwin. As evidenced by the fact that neither of the victims, nor the 1st AC, in the direct line of fire, showed the slightest worry about the situation until the "cold" gun went off.
Game. Set. Match.
Clarence Darrow couldn't get an indictment on that basis past a judge at arraignment, even if the judge was Helen Keller or Stevie Wonder, or in any court not run by kangaroos.
You haven't got malice, negligence, or even means, unless he'd tried to pistol-whip someone with the thing. To all intents and purposes outside of the hidden reality, this was a neutered, and absolutely harmless weapon, and the only person utterly and incontrovertably recklessly negligent was the armorer. Yet again. For bringing - or negligently allowing to be brought - a live gun with a live round onto a set where neither should have ever been present.
QED
@a posse,
ReplyDelete2d ADs aren't supposed to handle weapons. He's wrong, and that was obvious the minute it came out. But the fact that the armorer let him do it, or worse, was nowhere around in the first place to let it happen, are 10 foot tall red flags.
He's [2d AD Hall] in the queue to get raked over the coals, but she's [armorer Reed] going to be turned on a spit after she's gutted, long before that day.
Is it customary for the assistant director to take the gun from the cart and give it to the actor or is it supposed to be the armorer/propmasters role? I can't discern from the bulletin whether a specific chain of custody by skilled handlers absolutely has to be maintained or if the gun cart is meant to be openly available to a select few outside the props/armor personnel, such as the directors etc once they've been "verified" by the props master as cold. I know the guns shouldn't leave the propmasters sight, but that still seems like it leaves room for error or malicious intent.
ReplyDeleteNevermind. I see you answered my question already.
Delete# of sets with live ammo: <1%, ever.
ReplyDeleteAnd no one but the prop department should be taking anything off the prop cart, and weapons should be secured (not laying around on a cart, unless the armorer was standing there, eyes-on) until handed out in person by the armorer or their designated representative, only.
I am a humble weapons idiot. May I ask a question? If this is a muzzle loading - powder, wad, ball etc weapon from long ago - and that's poking stuff down the barrel in the proper order, and not just putting the wrong rounds in the wrong place - how the hell did it get loaded with a projectile capable of killing somebody?
ReplyDeleteThere are rumors that she (the armorer) wasn't allowed into the building where the shooting happened because of covid rules.
ReplyDeleteIronic and tragic if it was a contributing factor.
n
Even the dead woman's FATHER gets it...
ReplyDelete'I don't hold Alec Baldwin responsible': Father of shot cinematographer Halyna Hutchins refuses to blame actor for shooting her dead on set and says it was the fault of movie armoury team
Anatoly Androsovych blamed his daughter's death on the movie armoury team
Father of shot cinematographer Halyna Hutchins said it was not Baldwin's fault
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10125155/Father-Halyna-Hutchins-refuses-blame-Baldwin-says-fault-movie-armoury-team.html
n
Best post I've seen on this.
ReplyDeleteHuh. So, I was reading the shitstorm in the comments. Guys, I realize that I'm nobody in particular, and I got no love for that sociopathic socialist Baldwin, either, but...
ReplyDeleteStrange as the Hollywood rules sound to us gun people, it's my considered judgment that Aesop's right, and the rest of us are wrong in this case. He's got the domain expertise, I don't, and I'm going to stay in my lane on this one.
The tipping point was when Aesop posted the links to the safety bulletins. I had two MOSes in the Corps: Tanker (1811) and Aviation Ordnanceman (6531). If the Safety Bulletins are industry standard, then my objections went to shit. (As an aside, I've read NATOPS Manuals that were less emphatically blunt and clear-cut than those Bulletins...)
As a parallel, consider: the Squadron has a BombEx, Snake and Nape (Mk 82 500 pounders mixed with Mk 77 firebombs). I'm on the Ordnance crew, and I fucked up loading the bombs on the racks. The pilot takes off, pickles the load on time and on target, but the bombs hang just long enough to miss the target and take out a schoolhouse. Guess who they court-martial after my fuckup comes out at the mishap investigation? Hint: it ain't the pilot...
In fact, the parallel goes further. The mishap would report something like this: "...The pilot did not have the specialized knowledge required to inspect the Ordnance systems to ensure that the ordnance would release on command. This responsibility lay solely with the Ordnance Crew..."
TL;DR: Hollywood standards are what I would do I'd I had to shoot a movie, and had to give guns to spastic freaks. If shit happened, that's on my armorer, unless it turns out that the AD who dicked around and inserted himself in the process tampered with the weapon.
PawPaw: "Were I the detective running the investigation, Baldwin would be in jail pending bond." Yeah, I suppose that there are a lot of Barney Fifes out there that give law enforcement a bad name.
ReplyDeleteI have quite a bit of experience firing cap and ball revolvers, if that was actually the type of revolver used by Baldwin.
ReplyDeleteFor firing blanks, the powder charge is loaded into a cylinder. Then a substance that keeps the charge from dropping out of the chamber is used to on top the powder and to keep the powder in place. A substance that is often used for this is Cream of Wheat. Once compressed with the loading lever, it is a fairly secure means of keeping the powder where it is supposed to stay.
Pieces of green florist foam used in flower arrangements are often used to accomplish the same result. Using white foam is a definite no-no. It can turn into a gooey mess from the heat of the discharge, whereas the green foam is turned into gas.
If live fire is intended, on top the powder a lead ball is inserted into the cylinder. Because there may be issues with flames from other cylinders as they are fired, a lube is often used to prevent a spark from finding its way from an adjacent cylinder, somehow bypassing the lead ball that does not truly seal the cylinder, and getting around it to the powder charge. A chain fire might then result that causes all of the loaded cylinders to cook off at once. It is a startling event when blanks are involved and it can result in a badly burned hand if the shooter is not wearing leather gloves. I have never personally seen a chain fire (or heard of one) with live fire, but I am sure that it would be catastrophic.
In times past, revolvers that were used in live fire have been put away with loaded chambers. Without a cap on the nipple at the rear of the cylinder of a gun in storage, the chances of the pistol firing a round are zero and zilch. It is not good practice, however.
The problem is that if the cylinder was lubed atop Cream of Wheat or green florist foam (green is not a good color for the camera) by common pistol lubes, it will not be easy to tell that underneath the lube there is actually a lead ball. (In the movie, "Gettysburg," Jeff Daniels can be seen acting as if he is loading a revolver on Little Roundtop. The white lube in the cylinder of his pistol can be easily seen.) It would require using something like a small nail to penetrate the lube in order to discover a lead ball beneath it.
At a Gettysburg reenactment about 20 years ago, a Frenchman came to the event. He was loaned a pistol by an American reenactor. Mounted on his horse in a cavalry melee, the Frenchman fired his pistol and a lead ball struck another reenactor in the throat but, fortunately, it did not kill him. IMHO, the fault lay entirely with the American reenactor who handed the loaded pistol to the Frenchman after having previously used it in a live fire shoot.
That did not keep the local DA from getting his pound of flesh by having the hapless Frenchman arrested at the airport on his way home. In order to get the hell out of the US, the Frenchman pled guilty to some very minor charge and was on his way, and the DA got to claim his scalp. IMHO, just as there are badge heavy cops, there are badge heavy DAs. (There might be a school of opinion composed of people who claim that I was one.)
One last thing. Special cyclinders are made for some cap and ball guns. They allow the use of 9 mm blanks instead of the very time consuming traditional loading process, and I have heard of them being used on sets because the difference in the cylinder is very subtle and will not likely be captured by the camera or noticed by the viewer.
These cylinders are, themselves, considered by the BATF to be firearms. They have serial numbers and require background checks, etc. If one was being used on a set, unlike with a traditional load, a person could actually tell with a quick inspection whether or not any cartridge used in it was a blank, a live round, or a prop bullet without a primer.
Thanks Aesop for the bulletins, they are very well written.
ReplyDeleteGreat point about the medic issue.
My gut feeling is a lot of $ settlements will be done ASAP to avoid lawsuits.
Hopefully it will come out soon if the revolver was using a cartridge, or was the original cap and ball.
Gut feeling - Nick Flandry’s comment about the rumor about Covid Rules being used to keep the armorer away feels true.
Well... it says so right there.
ReplyDelete"Refrain from pointing a firearm at anyone, including yourself. If it is absolutely
necessary to do so on camera, consult the Property Master"
1. He pointed a firearm at someone... and it was a crewmember, not a cast member in a scene.
2. It was not necessary to do so "on camera", which is underlined in the original text.
3. It is unlikely that he consulted the property master.
I read that as don't point guns at people. If you ABSOLUTELY have to ON CAMERA, consult the property master.
It appears he knowingly violated every one of these rules. He is zero for three.
As the rules are written down, and he knowingly violated them, he is looking suddenly more reckless than negligent.
That is how a lawyer will describe it.
"I'm no lawyer, but I am a retired cop"
ReplyDeleteAnd this is where you have no argument. Going a bit further with Aesop's example if a house burns down from an improper installed light switch resulting in the death of the occupant's spouse are we going to arrest the occupant for flipping the light switch? If a maintenance tech signs off on the use of a reportedly damaged crane without actually inspecting/fixing it resulting in the cable shearing; dropping the load onto three people are we arresting the crane operator?
Everybody says guns are tools. What's changed?
For someone who has some of the most intelligent posts on the Internet, you have some of the dumbest readers in the world.
ReplyDelete“Yeah, but...”
They STILL don’t get it. SMH.
@Walter,
ReplyDelete1. "He pointed a firearm at someone"... Yeah, so what? The reality that such a necessity is rather frequently a part of filmmaking is why that exception is explicitly carved into the rules, like it isn't for you or me anywhere or anytime else.
How do you know he hadn't already consulted with the Property master or weapons handler, not to mention the director, which is why the rule explicitly grants that sometimes, you gotta point your weapon where you wouldn't like to, but you gotta do it to get the shot the director wants, in this case, shooting a weapon off while pointed at the camera. Like happens all the time on the set of action movies and TV shows.
Point dismissed.
2. The entire rehearsal was done "on camera". That was the entire purpose for doing it there on set, rather than in somebody's trailer, with the 1stAC, the DP, and the director all watching the whole thing from the camera. Point dismissed again.
3. It is no such "unlikely". Point dismissed again.
You're clutching at straws, man.
Nobody was shocked at anything that happened, right until the gun discharged, which was the only thing surprising that happened in that entire rehearsal. That's why nobody shouted "STOP! WTH are you doing, Alec??"
Most particularly not the director, the DP, or the 1st camera assistant, who were all, in fact, raptly following Baldwin's move through the lens and viewfinder because they were going to do the same thing again, for the next "take", which is the entire bloody point of HAVING a rehearsal in the first place, in which you figure out exactly, movement for movement, exactly what you're going to do, so the camera is pointing at the action on the take.
This is like, Moviemaking 101-level obviousness.
The second surprising and shocking thing after the discharge itself, was the realization that not only had a supposedly "cold" gun fired, but that it had launched a live projectile, and at the worst possible time and place, when the gun was pointed right at the camera crew, whereupon it punctured the DP fatally, and continued into the director, before halting it's travel.
Because Murphy is a sonofabitch, and solely because the armorer flagrantly violated 29 specific safety rules governing firearms and live ammo, any one of which should have been grounds for peremptory firing, right on the spot, and yet this wasn't even the first time she'd done this on just this production.
(cont.)
(cont.)
ReplyDelete29 violations are on her.
Not firing her already is on the UPM.
Finger-banging a hot weapon and mis-identifying it as a "cold" weapon, then handing it to an actor is on the 2nd AD.
Rehearsing a scene, either ongoingly, or as previously discussed, which would include simulating blank-firing, as expected, is Baldwin doing exactly what any actor is paid to do.
Which means nothing you've said has any bearing on the case, nor points to any negligence nor culpability from Baldwin.
Again.
He's literally, entirely, blameless.
And yet still the one who cocked the hammer, pointed the weapon, and pulled the trigger on a weapon , which discharged when it shouldn't be loaded at all, and launched a projectile that never should have been in the same time zone, let alone the weapon in question, which is why one person is dead, another is wounded, and that movie is probably a dead issue, forever, just like the former director of photography.
It is no such apparent that he violated ANY rules, and you're fishing in your underpants to say otherwise, on the basis of less than zero facts in evidence.
This is not Holmes nor Columbo-level work, but rather somewhere between Clousseau-level detecting, and Barney Fife.
Turn in your magnifying glass and houndstooth cap, Sherlock.
Nice try, and at least you're looking at the relevant rules, but no dice.
This underlines one thing: why no state should allow low-budget productions to hire incompetent crew for critical posts.
Wherever you spend the bulk of your money on a cheapskate Western, the place to scrimp isn't, and never should be, the armorer.
That foolish misjudgement cost a life.
This entire production, including the budget breakdown, should be used as a film school "How Not To Do It" lesson for the next 40 years.
But the only actual criminal negligence, again and again, comes down to one 24-year old utter rube, trying to fill the shoes of someone that should have had not 24 years alive, but 24 years experience as a weapons handler and armorer on motion pictures, which wouldn't be her until 2045, thus explaining how she got so much so rapidly, repeatedly, monumentally, epically, tragically, and criminally negligently wrong.
This is how safety bulletins come to be written in blood, almost literally.
Well... you make valid points. I guess we will wait and see.
ReplyDeleteI propose a light switch and a gun have slightly different rules, but what do I know?
Let's see if the DA presses charges (unlikely).
Let's see if there is a civil suit that shows Alex to be negligent (probably).
We agree the armorer is going to get hammered.
Aesop,
ReplyDeletePull your head out of your ass.
I guess it gets great clicks to argue for Baldwin from a pro gun position, and it is likely that he doesn't deserve 1st degree murder charges, but he is an adult, and a professional actor.
If the armorer screwed up, then both are responsible.
Nobody over the age of 18 gets to shoot someone and be "innocent."
BTW, light switches, even fake ones, are not normally used, nor represented, as being dangerous or connected to dynamite.
This was a gun, ffs! Its whole purpose and existence is to shoot people. That is what the "prop" was representing. That is what the actor was portraying. And that was the main story line of the movie. Can any normal person, especially an anti-gun person, really be absolved from even the slightest scintilla of responsibility to be aware of potential danger.
You are a fucktard.
And Alec, all by his lonesome, has proven that even "Hollywood Guns" are dangerous.
If the armorer screwed up, the armorer is responsible.
ReplyDeleteFIFY.
Anybody can shoot someone and be innocent.
Happens all the time.
BTW, movie firearms, even fake ones, are not normally used, nor represented, as being dangerous or connected to shooting actual bullets.
This was supposed to be a prop gun, ffs! Its whole purpose and existence is to not shoot people. That is what the "prop" in prop gun means: "not a real gun". That's why it was an actor, not an executioner. And that's why it's called a movie: it's not really happening. Can any normal person, especially an anti-gun person, really be absolved from even the slightest scintilla of responsibility to be aware of potential danger? Yes. Because their politics has nothing to do with whether you're responsible for someone else's TWENTY-NINE SEPARATE, DELIBERATE FUCK-UPS. No one is responsible when someone else fucks the pooch so hard it's bleeding and broken, and someone gets killed because they were that fucktarded. And the armorer is there, expressly and entirely to insure that there isn't any danger, to anyone, not once, not for one second. She had one job...
The fucktard here is you, Brave Anonymous Keyboard Commando, scared shitless to self-identify, because you're too ashamed to own your retarded sack of shit commentary, and you know it isn't worth anything but a quick flushing down the toilet you crawled out of.
What killed the woman on that set was not a Hollywood gun, but an incompetent fucktard millennial snowflake twat, incapable of reading, comprehending, nor following the rules that have been around on movie sets for 50 years, and which have been followed flawlessly since before she was even born.
Baldwin is only guilty of being the one standing there when such massive incompetence and gross homicidal negligence finally bore fruit.
She deserves a lengthy horsewhipping, followed by a fine public hanging.
A paltry 18 months in prison is far too lenient for what she's done.
I've seen variations of this all over, though Mr. Aesop has the most verve:
ReplyDeleteThat foolish misjudgement cost a life.
This entire production, including the budget breakdown, should be used as a film school "How Not To Do It" lesson for the next 40 years.
As the producer, and the guy in charge of cutting the budget, including hiring a known 4th-rater as Armeror, and cutting corners on safety budget, is not this Baldwin culpable * no matter who fured the gun* -?
Haven't seen anyone mention thus: Do not know how much the "penny-wise/pound foolish" responsibility is diffused in Hollywood.
CEOs don't hire mailroom clerks, and Producers don't hire weapons handlers.
ReplyDeleteHiring (and firing) below-the-line crew members is the job of the Unit Production Manager, generally two or more levels below the lowliest producer, even on a a low-budget non-union piece of shit production. Sometimes with, and sometimes without, the advise of the Prop master. The weapons handler answers to the prop master as head of department, who answers to the 1st AD, who answers to the Director in terms of the workday, and to the UPM, in terms of the overall operations.
A weapons handler is to Alec Baldwin/Producer as an Ordnance Corps officer is to SecDef.
Belated thank you for the info! Much appreciated. I'll share as applicable.
ReplyDelete