Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As to the producer part of this, there were other producers also. Where is their responsibility in this?
Fair point.. So.. This goes to legaleze a bit.. but if the company is found criminally liable.. How does that translate to people?
Is it the producer in charge on site? CEO of the production company? Who gets held responsible in that case?
Doesn't change any of my thoughts on what I said regarding Baldwin's culpability as the person holding the gun.. But certainly could regarding the 'producer' part.
Fair point.. So.. This goes to legaleze a bit.. but if the company is found criminally liable.. How does that translate to people?
Is it the producer in charge on site? CEO of the production company? Who gets held responsible in that case?
Doesn't change any of my thoughts on what I said regarding Baldwin's culpability as the person holding the gun.. But certainly could regarding the 'producer' part.
It sounded to me like the people they already charged is all the people they are going to charge. Baldwin wouldn't have been charged if he didn't shoot the gun. I would think the other producers may have civil liability, but not criminal.
Hannah Gutierrez-Reed is the name of the armorer/weapons handler and I feel the media should put her name out there in the headlines as often as they do Alec Baldwin. Don't forget... Hannah Gutierrez-Reed.
Yes. She killed her. Alec was handed a gun, that was said to be cleared. This was a movie people.
I let him walk if I'm on the jury, and she would be held responsible.
1) When a gun is transferred between people, it should be pointed at the ground, or to a safe area, and the trigger should be pulled. If it's a revolver, pulled until all cylinders have been 'fired'. And.. Ground might be bad.. So.. Think of a better way than firing it at the ground.
Terrible idea. Firing a gun to verify it's unloaded is not only unnecessary, but the most unsafe way to verify. Bullets don't hide in mystery compartments in guns. You can see them. Pointing it in a safe direction and opening it up so the receiver can see what condition it is in, loaded or not, is perfectly adequate and is the customary safe way to do this on a range.
Quote:
2) EVERYONE who handles a gun should be required to complete a gun safety course on the type of firearms that will be used.
I do think that there is more to this story. Why was there a live round in the gun, who put the live round in the gun, would Baldwin have knowledge that there were live rounds on the set, who yelled "cold gun" indicating that the gun had been checked and was not loaded? Did someone on that set dislike/resent Baldwin enough to set him up?
I really do not believe that Baldwin had a clue that there was a bullet in the prop gun he was using for filming purposes. Yes, he should have checked and he is negligent for not checking. Was the armorer even there when this happened?
He is the producer, so he is ultimately responsible for the entire set. Multiple crew members told him in the preceding weeks that they felt the set was unsafe and people were doing unsafe things (like target shooting in off time, possibly with real bullets?) and several crew members quit because of it. I don't know if the armorer was one of the people they had issues with, but if he was aware of unsafe conditions and dismissed them that's on him as producer.
But the charge is involutary manslaughter, and a second charge because a gun was involved. Most lawyers I saw discuss it think that one is bogus (my word) because that charge is intended for someone who commits a robbery or some other deliberate crime with a gun.
The defense lawyer I saw interviewed thinks his defense will be that he was following the directions of Hutchinson, who was telling him where to point the gun, etc.
I read where the actor isn't even supposed to check the gun because the armorer is supposed to clear everything - I guess the reasoning being that once the armorer clears it, no one else touches it and it has to be good to go.
Any sort of policy that would prevent an additional safety check is a bad one IMO.
Terrible idea. Firing a gun to verify it's unloaded is not only unnecessary, but the most unsafe way to verify. Bullets don't hide in mystery compartments in guns. You can see them. Pointing it in a safe direction and opening it up so the receiver can see what condition it is in, loaded or not, is perfectly adequate and is the customary safe way to do this on a range.
OK Good idea.
But, in a Hollywood environment, you're dealing with dummy rounds. So.. How do you TELL that they're not live short of unloading the weapon and shaking the round or seeing the hole drilled in the round? Then, the gun has to be reloaded with those rounds.. The (no matter how unlikely) possibility that there's a live round on the ground, they drop a dummy round and pick up the live round..
By design in these movies, the guns are generally to be pointed at someone, which.. As we all know, is a huge violation of gun safety to start with, but.. You're going for realism in a movie.
I'm not arguing that firing at the ground might be a bad idea(More I think about it 'might' is probably a bit of a light word to use there) because a round fires, it certainly could ricochet and then hit someone. But.. "Dry firing" for lack of a better term.. That's going to guarantee, best I can think of, that it won't fire and hurt someone.
You got a better idea, i'm all for listening to it. This is just what I could come up with on the fly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serious Conversation
I read where the actor isn't even supposed to check the gun because the armorer is supposed to clear everything - I guess the reasoning being that once the armorer clears it, no one else touches it and it has to be good to go.
Any sort of policy that would prevent an additional safety check is a bad one IMO.
Then that needs to change if that is legitimately the case. And the LAW doesn't give a rats ass about Hollywood procedures. Baldwin had the gun in his hand, which in the eyes of the law, switches responsibility to him.
Whether you consider that 'fair' or 'right'.. I won't argue that too terribly much.. But, that's the law. Certainly would REDUCE his responsibility some, but it wouldn't eliminate it.
But, in a Hollywood environment, you're dealing with dummy rounds. So.. How do you TELL that they're not live short of unloading the weapon and shaking the round or seeing the hole drilled in the round? Then, the gun has to be reloaded with those rounds.. The (no matter how unlikely) possibility that there's a live round on the ground, they drop a dummy round and pick up the live round..
By design in these movies, the guns are generally to be pointed at someone, which.. As we all know, is a huge violation of gun safety to start with, but.. You're going for realism in a movie.
I'm not arguing that firing at the ground might be a bad idea(More I think about it 'might' is probably a bit of a light word to use there) because a round fires, it certainly could ricochet and then hit someone. But.. "Dry firing" for lack of a better term.. That's going to guarantee, best I can think of, that it won't fire and hurt someone.
You got a better idea, i'm all for listening to it. This is just what I could come up with on the fly.
They have plenty of time to visually check each bullet when loading and handing over guns that are about to be pointed at people. If that's the issue, then do that. Unload it and load it again and again at each take, or each transfer of the gun, whatever make sense.
Firing them unnecessarily is not only a bad idea, but in the case of blanks that do have live primers in them that will go "boom"... you now have ruined that round and will need to load another one.
The answer is for the people handling the weapons, and making the rules, to know what they're doing. People who don't know what they're doing aren't going to make good rules about it.
I feel bad for her. I don't blame her. This was her first job. She was hired for a job that IMO she wasn't experienced enough for, with no mentor or supervision, because Baldwin wanted the cheapest people possible. And she will pay a steep price for that, in addition to the victim. I don't see any reason to need to shame her.
How can you blame the actor who was just doing his job and claimed no expertise with firearms and not blame the supposed expert whose responsibility it was to safeguard against just such an accident as this?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
