Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Gun Safety: The Movies

Gun Safety: The Movies (Page 5)
Thread Tools
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2022, 10:13 AM
 
And again, Baldwin being a non-gun person, he didn't have to "pull" the trigger if he already had his finger on it when the hammer was pulled back. It's another issue with not having a qualified, active armorer on the set, so nobody maintained control of the gun.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2022, 02:04 PM
 
The only thing I can think of which potentially challenges this idea is I have never been able to thumb-cock a gun without looking like a dork. It’s smooth enough in movies I assume that gets practiced.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2022, 02:53 PM
 
In the movies, you only see the take the director likes. How many “dork” takes wind up on the cutting room floor? Probably tons of ‘em.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2022, 03:19 PM
 
My own experience is it’s been impossible to get right accidentally. With a tight grip, the thumb is too far forward. The “natural” way to do it is to loosen your grip to let the gun pivot forward. Even then your thumb doesn’t have good leverage, and due to the loose grip the gun squirms around while cocking.

To be clear, I don’t have lots of experience with it, just enough to tell myself “there’s got to be some trick involved”.

As an aside, over the last 10-15 years, obvious trigger discipline has become a thing in movies.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 5, 2022, 04:36 PM
 
Civil suit was settled.

They’re going to finish the movie and the husband gets a cut.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2023, 01:51 PM
 
Baldwin’s getting charged with involuntary manslaughter.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2023, 06:11 PM
 
Also charging the armorer. The prosecutor says safety was lax on set, and when they interviewed other actors (unrelated to Rust), the actors claimed they regularly checked the guns handed to them.

No arrests are planned. The suspects will both get summonses.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2023, 06:46 PM
 
In regards to checking guns, I want to know the standard actor protocol for revolvers with a fixed cylinder.

IIUC, for Baldwin to have caught this, he would have needed to remove and replace every round, one at a time. I have trouble buying that’s what an actor does every time they’re handed a fixed-cylinder revolver. Likewise, if the actor is responsible for live ammunition being mixed in once the gun is handed to them, then that should apply to every gun, including the ones with 30-round magazines. To put it bluntly, there is no time for that shit. Not having to waste this time is one of the reasons you have an armorer.

If I remember the relevant law, the question is going to be whether Baldwin could have reasonably expected the outcome of his actions. Unless the actor checking every bullet actually is the protocol, it quite clearly demonstrates a prevailing attitude actors do not expect the possibility of getting live ammo. Hence, Baldwin cannot have reasonably expected this outcome.

As for Gutierrez-Reed. I need to know how the live ammo got on set before I pass judgment.
( Last edited by subego; Jan 19, 2023 at 07:04 PM. )
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2023, 07:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Baldwin’s getting charged with involuntary manslaughter.
I’m surprised about the argument: they are going for “direct responsibility” rather than Baldwin’s responsibility for the movie project. I don’t think the former path does not sound very convincing, especially given that Baldwin had no reason to suspect that live rounds were on set. (AFAIK blanks are still dangerous at close range, though, so even they must be handled with care.) Also for all the other reasons we have discussed, regular gun handling rules do not apply on film sets, including the “don’t point the gun at anything you don’t want to shoot” rule.

My feeling is that this is a civil issue like a fatal car accident where legally one side is at fault, but not criminally liable for the death.

As for the armorer, if I were on the jury, I’d want to know how the live rounds made it on set. I vaguely remember that some people on set wanted to shoot these historic revolvers and/or that the supplier of the dud ammy effed up. If the key is gross negligence, I’d really want to know. If e. g. the armorer was in on the “shoot historic guns” thing and either organized or accepted live ammo on set, that’s a clear breach in my book. If she had no idea and the rounds that were supposed to be used are difficult to distinguish from live rounds, I’d probably lean towards finding her not guilty.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2023, 07:32 PM
 
(This is me just yakking… not a reply to the above )

As far as I’m aware, with rare exception, actors are not expected to be placed in situations where if they fuck up, someone else dies.

This cannot be said for armorers.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2023, 07:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
In regards to checking guns, I want to know the standard actor protocol for revolvers with a fixed cylinder.

IIUC, for Baldwin to have caught this, he would have needed to remove and replace every round, one at a time. I have trouble buying that’s what an actor does every time they’re handed a fixed-cylinder revolver. Likewise, if the actor is responsible for live ammunition being mixed in once the gun is handed to them, then that should apply to every gun, including the ones with 30-round magazines. To put it bluntly, there is no time for that shit. Not having to waste this time is one of the reasons you have an armorer.

If I remember the relevant law, the question is going to be whether Baldwin could have reasonably expected the outcome of his actions. Unless the actor checking every bullet actually is the protocol, it quite clearly demonstrates a prevailing attitude actors do not expect the possibility of getting live ammo. Hence, Baldwin cannot have reasonably expected this outcome.

As for Gutierrez-Reed. I need to know how the live ammo got on set before I pass judgment.
I should have waited and read your post first before adding my response. Completely agree with what you wrote.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2023, 07:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
As far as I’m aware, with rare exception, actors are not expected to be placed in situations where if they fuck up, someone else dies.

This cannot be said for armorers.
Yeah, that is the key for me. I don’t think a prop gun is different from other stunt gear. If one actor causes the death of a staffer or another actor because some stunt equipment failed, I don’t think I’d put the blame on them either.

Baldwin was/is Executive Producer (?), so you might make an argument about his responsibility to ensure a safe set (by e. g. not cutting corners and saving money by shirking safety procedures). But also here the difficulty is that (1) Baldwin would not be alone and IMHO it’d be improper to only focus on him and not others, and (2) this is a pretty shaky argument, because then the prosecution would have to prove (in my mind at least) that the accidental shooting was a result of that. If some bozos on set brought live ammo with them to shoot these old guns without the knowledge (and perhaps against express directions otherwise), then that’d put them in the clear as far as criminal liability is concerned.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2023, 08:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I should have waited and read your post first before adding my response. Completely agree with what you wrote.
Likewise!

From what I’ve been able to gather, the only way to visually tell the live ammo apart from the dummies was the primers happened to be a different color. The way I’m familiar with to make identifiable dummies which look identical to live ammo is to load the dummy with something that rattles.

If the target practice story is true, Gutierrez-Reed is hosed. Even if that’s not how it happened, she’s still hosed.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2023, 08:32 PM
 
According to the news I've read, the armorer has separately civil sued the supply company for selling them live rounds mixed up with the dummy rounds. I know we speculated earlier about target shooting on set, but I haven't read anything official about that.

It sounds like they're going after Baldwin partly as the producer, re the lax safety on set, which other crew members had complained about.

Edit: most of what I've read came from this CNN report. Note that they seem to be updating the story as details come in - I no longer see a reference to Baldwin being able to check the ammo. It now refers mainly to his role as producer.
( Last edited by reader50; Jan 19, 2023 at 08:56 PM. )
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2023, 01:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
From what I’ve been able to gather, the only way to visually tell the live ammo apart from the dummies was the primers happened to be a different color. The way I’m familiar with to make identifiable dummies which look identical to live ammo is to load the dummy with something that rattles.
That'd make a big difference to me if I were a member of the jury.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
If the target practice story is true, Gutierrez-Reed is hosed. Even if that’s not how it happened, she’s still hosed.
Playing her defense lawyer for a second, I'd argue the onus is on the prosecution to prove that she at the very least was aware of and allowed live ammo on set. Speculation is not enough, the relevant legal standard is “beyond reasonable doubt”.

PS I hope the prosecutors really try to figure out how this happened, even if nobody goes to jail for it. That's one of the aims of a trial, at least philosophically.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2023, 10:06 AM
 
If the defense claims she was unaware, as a prosecutor I would maintain that’s proof of her irresponsibility. The target practice would be further evidence of said.

Also, my cynical assumption is the prosecution doesn’t care how it happened. All they care about is bagging her.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2023, 07:14 PM
 
I do understand that. AFAIK the issue is proving gross negligence, correct? That seems like a high standard that needs to be met.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2023, 09:04 PM
 
My assumption is if dummies visually identical to live ammo are used, it’s standard protocol to verify every dummy is in fact a dummy.

If my assumption is correct, should she claim the live ammo came from the rental house, it’s an admission she ignored standard protocol.

If I correctly understand the definition of gross negligence, the question is could she have reasonably predicted ignoring the process of verification led to the outcome of live ammo being introduced to the set.

To my mind, this outcome is reasonably predictable.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2023, 04:38 AM
 
CNN has asked legal experts about the case. The experts think the case is weak, though they mostly analyzed it vs Baldwin. Among other things, prosecutors have not proven how the live rounds got on set.

I'd prefer them to have covered the armorer's position too. But the story spoke from Baldwin's position, and/or in a general way. So I don't know if her case is stronger or equally weak.

One thing has been bothering me though. Baldwin tested the gun by pulling the trigger - while it was pointed at someone. When the cameras are rolling, you need to point and fire per the script/director of course. But who tests a gun first, by pointing it at another person? Even idiots checking if their guns are loaded, usually point them at the floor.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2023, 12:18 PM
 
I don’t think the prosecution needs to prove how the live ammo ended up on set if Gutierrez-Reed tries to pin it on the rental house. The prosecution can just agree and ask if she conducted a verification. She either didn’t, which makes her guilty (IIUC), or she did an egregiously bad job, which makes her guilty (IIUC).

Baldwin (as actor) claims he did not pull the trigger. The prosecution can easily prove he did beyond a reasonable doubt, but that’s different from proving he intentionally pulled the trigger, which is what one presumably does during a test. I agree with the CNN analysis the case against him as an actor is very weak. Also, when the prosecution loses, expect accusations of a conspiracy to have Baldwin escape justice.


As an aside, the front runner for “best meme” is still the black tear tattoo photoshopped onto Baldwin’s face.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:19 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,