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 3)
Thread Tools
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2022, 11:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
To be fair, if Baldwin stands behind his ridiculous claim the gun went off without him pulling the trigger, he’s sticking it to himself.
Sure, and I wrote above that he should have kept his mouth shut. But even before that you had lots of people coming after him, and they were even more “overjoyed” after his interview because Baldwin's comments gave them more ammo (no pun intended). Most of the takes (“Baldwin forgot basic firearm safety rules! Should have taken a firearms safety class!”) were completely brain dead, too, and just for fan wanking than a useful safety analysis.

Baldwin's reaction is completely understandable from a human level and rather than ridiculing his explanation, I think warrants more compassion.
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
Feb 17, 2022, 12:04 AM
 
A basic tenet of gun safety is the person holding the gun bears sole responsibility for what the gun does. This is as it should be. I think it’s unfair to call people to point to this “brain dead”.

Plenty of people are being too rigid however, because they hate him and his politics.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2022, 12:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
A basic tenet of gun safety is the person holding the gun bears sole responsibility for what the gun does. This is as it should be. I think it’s unfair to call people to point to this “brain dead”.
Safety rules for guns on set are very different from safety rules for guns “in the real world”. So I don't think in this context sole responsibility is correct, neither legally nor morally. Things are not either black or white. Actors handling a movie gun is part of stunt work, and as part of stunt work you are doing things that without safety protocols would be very, very dangerous and stupid. They rely on people like stunt coordinators to keep them safe.

I don't want to rehash the whole discussion here, I just want to point out that the situation is quite gray since e. g. Baldwin is also one of the producers and there were factors that made the armorer's job quite difficult. I just wouldn't ascribe sole responsibility for one single party. The best description to me is that this is a very tragic work place accident, and the victim's family should receive some form of compensation from one of the insurance companies.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Plenty of people are being too rigid however, because they hate him and his politics.
Not just too rigid, I think it is fanwanking similar to eagerly pointing out when someone says clip rather than magazine or uses the word “silencer” to refer to a suppressor (ignoring that many big manufacturers of suppressors use a variant of the word silence(r)).
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
Feb 17, 2022, 12:54 AM
 
The key difference is terminology is a silly thing to argue about while safety protocol actually matters.

However, we agree how things are conducted on a movie set differ from normal circumstances.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2022, 04:48 PM
 
In that simulation the bullet takes a curved trajectory. Is that usual? And even if it were a blank they seem very close.

It still comes down to, Baldwin was handed the wrong gun, and there's people on set whose job it is to control/setup the guns. Those people are not the actors.

If it were a rock climbing movie, and Baldwin was playing the part of the rock climbing instructor and set up someone's gear, wouldn't you expect someone to check the setup between takes before they shoot the big climb scene?
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2022, 06:19 PM
 
The armorer should be ultimately responsible for putting safe props in the hands of the actors. And of course NOBODY should be f*ing around with live firearms on a set, even if they’re not “on set” at the moment. Maybe especially when they’re not on set.

Yes, in normal circumstances the person holding the firearm should be responsible for what happens. But that assumes the person holding the firearm is trained in how it works - or they’re using a dangerous device with the intent to do harm. With an anti-gun actor holding a single action revolver, that changes things.

How can someone who has no idea how a device works be held responsible for making sure it’s safe?

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2022, 09:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
And of course NOBODY should be f*ing around with live firearms on a set, even if they’re not “on set” at the moment. Maybe especially when they’re not on set.
As far as I remember, Baldwin wasn’t effing around, he was practicing a scene, wasn’t he?
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Yes, in normal circumstances the person holding the firearm should be responsible for what happens. But that assumes the person holding the firearm is trained in how it works - or they’re using a dangerous device with the intent to do harm. With an anti-gun actor holding a single action revolver, that changes things.
That’s quite tricky to judge: I agree with you that actors should have a certain level of proficiency with the firearms they handle. But how much is enough? Especially if we are talking about a more unusual weapon that even people with a good level of training likely haven’t handled before, it’d be tough.
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
How can someone who has no idea how a device works be held responsible for making sure it’s safe?
It gets particularly tough in this case where I think no reasonable person would have expected that a gun is filled with live ammo on a movie set. (It’d be different if someone got hurt because Baldwin carelessly shot blanks which AFAIK can injure people at close distance.)

It’s very tough if my conclusion is that Baldwin should have trained more, but in all likelihood that additional training would not have prevented this particular accident.
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
Feb 17, 2022, 09:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
It’s very tough if my conclusion is that Baldwin should have trained more, but in all likelihood that additional training would not have prevented this particular accident.
It fundamentally goes down to what the protocol is.

If the actor has to check the gun themselves, they obviously need training in how to do that.

That’s not practical on a revolver that isn’t a swing away.

Further, him checking wouldn’t have mattered unless the rims of the live ammo were unmistakably distinct. If they’re not, that means he would have to unload and check every bullet every time the gun was handed to him. That’s not a practical on-set protocol. He needs to focus on acting.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2022, 09:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
As far as I remember, Baldwin wasn’t effing around, he was practicing a scene, wasn’t he?
I think this is referring to the claim on-set guns were being used for target practice, which led to a loose chain-of-custody.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2022, 09:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I think this is referring to the claim on-set guns were being used for target practice, which led to a loose chain-of-custody.
Ah, ok. My memory is a bit hazy, but I thought that Baldwin wasn't involved in that, it was other people who probably thought it was fun to shoot such an unusual revolver. Correct me if I am wrong, though.

Clearly, this is a serious breach, I cannot come up with any reason why there should be live ammo for a movie gun on set.
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
Feb 17, 2022, 10:01 PM
 
Baldwin claims to have not been involved with the gun until it was handed to him, which I would tend to believe.

I mentioned one of the potential uses of live ammo. There’s a trick where you angle a mirror at 45° between the gun and the lens. Until the mirror shatters, it looks like the bullet is shooting right at the camera.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2022, 01:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Baldwin claims to have not been involved with the gun until it was handed to him, which I would tend to believe.
Yeah, agreed.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I mentioned one of the potential uses of live ammo. There’s a trick where you angle a mirror at 45° between the gun and the lens. Until the mirror shatters, it looks like the bullet is shooting right at the camera.
I have missed that, thanks. I'd think that then the safety precautions would be quite strict and other rules on how to handle the gun in place, though, and that there is only live ammo on set if it is absolutely needed.
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
Feb 18, 2022, 10:05 AM
 
Usually, the first rule of live ammo on-set is it’s painted bright red.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2022, 11:46 AM
 
Yes, I was referring to reports of crew members playing around with the pistol in question. The term “plinking” seems appropriate: shooting at random “trash” items like empty cans. With a .22, hitting a soup can often makes a distinctive sound like “plink”, thus the term.

But that’s the point here: “loose chain of custody” is a very charitable term here. If random people around the set were goofing around with a firearm, it’s almost guaranteed that they also didn’t do anything like “use brightly colored live ammunition”, “clear the weapon and verify the weapon was clear”, “clean the firearm for its on screen appearance”, or any other responsible act.

There’s an old saying related to lack of discipline and failure to follow safety rules around firearms: “that’s how someone could get hurt or killed.” Yep. And a corollary: “if you don’t know what you’re doing, don’t do it.”

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2022, 03:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
In that simulation the bullet takes a curved trajectory. Is that usual? And even if it were a blank they seem very close.

It still comes down to, Baldwin was handed the wrong gun, and there's people on set whose job it is to control/setup the guns. Those people are not the actors.

If it were a rock climbing movie, and Baldwin was playing the part of the rock climbing instructor and set up someone's gear, wouldn't you expect someone to check the setup between takes before they shoot the big climb scene?
I forgot to reply to this.

I’m assuming the bullet isn’t following a curved trajectory, it just looks like that because they had the camera “dolly” around the bullet in flight.

That’s way close for a blank. Normally, for that close there’s a plexiglass “shield” between the gun and camera position. FWIU, the director was worried about the plexiglass being seen, so they were going to go without it. The camera operator would have to agree to that, and presumably did. Had they gotten to filming, it would just be the operator there, who at least was on the other side of the camera from where the gun was pointing.

As to who’s responsible, another way to put my opinion (based on what I know) would be…

If I were the armorer, I’d consider myself wholly responsible.

If I were the assistant director, I’d consider myself somewhat responsible.

If I were Baldwin, I’d consider myself responsible only insofar that I’m the producer.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2022, 12:49 PM
 
Producer, sure. Executive producer - who is really in charge and who holds the purse strings? Different person.

And in this case, the “responsibility” load should be portioned out according to who had the most control over what was happening. Baldwin agreed to the walk through, which puts a portion of the responsibility on him. He trusted that the crew would ensure things were safe - that’s what actors do - so he participated in the walk through.

But the executive producer is the one who drove the cost cutting that gutted safety on the whole production, which means the executive producer is actually responsible for the cascade of safety failures.

And again, NOBODY should be directly in line with a firearm’s barrel, even if “it’s a prop,” and even if “it’s just a rehearsal.”

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2022, 01:37 PM
 
I think he’s both in this case.

The thing is, it’s quite possible for an EP not to have the slightest clue what’s really going on, and that the production they’re funding is a disaster. They don’t make the sausage. The producer does. Even more so if they’re also the star.



Never point a gun at someone is too rigid a protocol for film. Sometimes there’s no other way to do it. People do unsafe things in movies. I mean, you should never jump off a three story building either, but it commonly happens in movies.

Right when this happened, we needed actresses to jump 15 feet in the air on a circus trampoline. They didn’t want to do it because they were rightfully afraid of snapping their necks. We had to convince them safety was our priority, and they needed training. They trusted us, we got them the training, and both their necks are still intact.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2022, 07:08 PM
 
If he was the executive producer, then he’s set himself up for this trouble.

The way you manage to not have horrific accidents when filming horrific scenes is by being exceptionally careful with everything. On a safe set, pointing a gun actually “at” someone should be OK. But that would be because there’s someone who understands guns who’s got full control over them, there’s NO live ammunition anywhere near the set. You’d block and practice the sequence first with the “gun actor” and then with the “target actor” so everybody knew what everybody was doing. You’d run through with a pointed finger instead of the gun.

Then, after everybody had the scene down pat, and after the armorer had verified the gun was safe they would hand the gun to the actor just before shooting began. After the director yells “CUT!” the armorer collects the gun before anyone else does anything, and rechecks it. That’s the only way to ensure safety: one person in total control of firearms, and no firearms involved until the final rehearsal and filming the scene.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2022, 09:02 PM
 
COVID changed things a bit. Because of COVID their indoor sets were “closed”. It’s what they do during sex scenes. Only essential people are allowed to be there.

From what I understand, no blanks were supposed to be fired. The gun was strictly meant to be a prop. They made the call the armorer isn’t essential to monitor an unloaded gun, and the assistant director could assume that duty. If the assistant director knows what they’re doing, which in this case he did, I don’t see any problem with this part.

Assuming he’s telling the truth, the assistant director started out doing what he was supposed to do, which is shine a flashlight down the barrel. He was also supposed to spin the cylinder, which he doesn’t recall if he did. If he didn’t, that’s a big fuckup on his part. If he did and didn’t catch it, that’s also a big fuckup, unless their dummy rounds had fake primers for some reason.

The armorer is responsible for everything before this, like the live ammo being there in the first place, which is a still a mystery.

A small procedural detail is the gun needs to be handed off to the actor well before filming. You need to know things like if it’s lit right and looks okay in frame before the last second. If it’s supposed to shoot blanks, those are what come in at the last second. Likewise, that would be a situation where the armorer is essential crew.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2022, 12:17 PM
 
My burning question about this whole thing is who was dorking around with the gun in the first place? Who took a firearm from the set, shot at cans (or whatever), then brought it back - without ensuring it was empty.

Procedures or not, anyone who was messing around with that gun before it was supposed to be in front of the camera needs to take a huge amount of responsibility for the accident. If everybody else on the set had the honest belief that it was absolutely empty, then it’s whoever stuck live rounds in the gun that is ultimately responsible for what happened when it fired.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2022, 12:30 PM
 
The plinking is still a rumor FWIU. The armorer denies it.

Also, FWIU, the armorer is trying to blame the rental house, but it was still her responsibility to check it.

My hot take is she’s a liar, and I might be also be one in her situation if I was facing time in the poke.
     
MacNNFamous
Senior User
Join Date: Jul 2020
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2022, 04:15 PM
 
But how do we blame Biden for this?
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2022, 10:08 PM
 
If there was no plinking involved, where did the live ammunition come from? If the armorer supplied it, then she’s responsible for the whole thing. If not, she needs to come up with a real possibility for the source of the live rounds. My money is on “something in between” her not controlling the gun properly on the set, and not ensuring somebody didn’t wander off with it. Which is really “she didn’t do her job correctly.”

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2022, 11:11 PM
 
IIUC, the armorer said the rental house they got the gun from left them in there.

Even if it’s true, still the armorer’s fault for not checking it in properly.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2022, 12:06 PM
 
Indeed. And what rental house is going to be happy with that kind of liability? Answer: none. They will be super meticulous because they’re used to being blamed for things that other people do with their guns.

The tick marks in the “she’s lying” column seem to be increasing…

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2022, 03:24 PM
 
I can still give her something approximating the benefit of the doubt, though it takes great effort.

Whether that holds depends a lot on what she told the cops.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2022, 04:00 PM
 
Baldwin was interviewed during a film festival and while not naming names, he said recent lawsuits are about who has money rather than who’s responsible.

Shut up. Shut up. SHUT UP.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2022, 01:25 PM
 
Lawsuits are almost always about who you can shake down for the most money. Even the civil proceedings against OJ were about money…

That said, there is way more than enough responsibility to go around in this dumpster fire causing a crap train to derail onto an orphanage.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2022, 08:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Lawsuits are almost always about who you can shake down for the most money. Even the civil proceedings against OJ were about money…
Agreed.
And perhaps similarly, in OJ’s case the punishment in the civil case also had a flavor that it was in lieu of a guilty verdict in criminal court.
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
That said, there is way more than enough responsibility to go around in this dumpster fire causing a crap train to derail onto an orphanage.
… which makes it very difficult. I doubt the person in charge of the weapons on set has a lot of money. The producers and the movie studio on the other hand do. I’m sure the film production company was also insured against accidents on set. Not sure if this is covered, but the family of the victim should see something out of it.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2022, 08:08 PM
 
I would think an “armorer” would need to be bonded, at least. Which means “never work again” is a real thing. Which also might be a nice carrot to dangle…give up who told whom what, and maybe soften the impact?

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2022, 09:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
I would think an “armorer” would need to be bonded, at least. Which means “never work again” is a real thing. Which also might be a nice carrot to dangle…give up who told whom what, and maybe soften the impact?
Sure, but to be honest, I was expecting that she is blackballed anyway even if her behavior were (hypothetically speaking) truly above board. (Whistleblowers also usually have to change industries.)

But even though the armorer is not without blame, I feel she is a pawn sacrifice.
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
Apr 1, 2022, 07:48 PM
 
Hearing that among the career-ending issues Bruce Willis has been having is he’d shoot guns off-cue.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2022, 07:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
But even though the armorer is not without blame, I feel she is a pawn sacrifice.
She appears chiefly responsible for (at the least) some form of negligent homicide. It’s not a sacrifice if the pawn is the one who gets someone killed.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2022, 04:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Hearing that among the career-ending issues Bruce Willis has been having is he’d shoot guns off-cue.
I recently read in a tabloid that Bruce Willis seems to suffer from some form of dementia. Although that was not a reputable source, it could be related.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
She appears chiefly responsible for (at the least) some form of negligent homicide. It’s not a sacrifice if the pawn is the one who gets someone killed.
Yeah and no. I think she is if the court cases stop there, a bit like the Mark Forkner case (the 737 Max test pilot who wrote the quiet part out loud in messages; Boeing and Boeing execs are shielded by an agreement with DoJ ).
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2022, 07:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I recently read in a tabloid that Bruce Willis seems to suffer from some form of dementia. Although that was not a reputable source, it could be related.
His family reported he suffers from aphasia, which is more of a severe symptom of a larger malady (like dementia) Some of the stories starting to come out about Willis are just sad/heartbreaking. My mother died of dementia, and it’s such a terrible way to end a life.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2022, 10:28 AM
 
FWIU, the two possibilities are he has dementia, which would be truly awful, or he had a small stroke, which is slightly less awful, because there’s a possibility the problem is limited to language processing.

Unfortunately, there seems to be evidence it’s the first, like with examples of him asking people where he was and why he was there.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2022, 10:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Yeah and no. I think she is if the court cases stop there, a bit like the Mark Forkner case (the 737 Max test pilot who wrote the quiet part out loud in messages; Boeing and Boeing execs are shielded by an agreement with DoJ ).
I’m unfortunately not super-familiar with the case.

A quick Google says he was in charge of developing training, but wasn’t told about changes to how the plane operated. He was found innocent in court of wrongdoing.

A gun the armorer was directly responsible for killed someone.

I’m not seeing the analogy.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2022, 12:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I’m not seeing the analogy.
VolksWagen Dieselgate. A risky policy of cheating on emissions regulations across years and across brands.

But when the house of cards fell, it was all the work of a few rogue engineers. The higher-ups who sign the checks and determine policy ... didn't know a thing about it. The low-level guys who coded the software had come up with the whole thing. Fortunately in this case, no one bought it. The execs (and VW) got crucified for the policy they DID sign off on.

It's a rough analogy. Stick it all on the minion who did the grunt work. Forget about the people who set policy. Like who defined the safety policies. They were innocent as babes.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2022, 06:32 PM
 
What I can pin on the producers is they knowingly hired a discount armorer.

From there, the question is how much of this had to do with her being a discount armorer, and how much it was due to the bullshit conditions the producers were making everybody operate under.

If she’s competent, and this can be pinned on the bullshit conditions, yes, she’s a scapegoat.

If this can be pinned on her incompetence, the producers are still to blame but so is she.

The reality is somewhere along this continuum. My instincts put it more towards the latter.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2022, 06:52 PM
 
I have no inside info on this particular case. As the armorer, she definitely has responsibility. It seems like they tried to save money, and simplified procedures. Perhaps helped themselves to set weapons without going through her (the target practice, if it happened).

I expect other people carry some blame. Not sure of how much - the court should sort that out. Like Oreo, I'm not comfortable just putting 100% on her and letting everything else go. I'd like to see a thorough investigation before the courts rule. And I'd really like to know how live rounds ended up on a set that didn't call for them.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 3, 2022, 02:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I’m unfortunately not super-familiar with the case.

A quick Google says he was in charge of developing training, but wasn’t told about changes to how the plane operated. He was found innocent in court of wrongdoing.
Like that is going to help him much. He’s unemployable and got zero protection from the heroes at Boeing. The former CEO landed softly with a golden parachute. Even if you ignore the frankly illegal manipulations surrounding the 737 Max, what happened beforehand (countless problems with the 787, especially those manufactured in the new plant in South Carolina, massive job cuts, etc.), he didn’t do a very good job in a number of areas.

The only person to be sued over the deaths of hundreds was a single small cog in the big machine. Boeing and its execs are covered under an agreement with the DoJ. The test pilot was evidently not covered under that agreement. That was my point.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I’m not seeing the analogy.
The analogy is that if the armorer is the only person to be held liable (in whatever way, shape or form), I think that’s a pawn sacrifice. Not all liability needs to be criminal. For example, very often such mistakes happen when employees are under pressure or are not given the proper authority on set. So I am just saying that we should include these other factors in our discussion. A lot of airplane crashes can be attributed to maintenance issues. These are often due to the maintenance being worked very hard, overworked. When you are overworked, you start making mistakes.
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
Apr 3, 2022, 02:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
VolksWagen Dieselgate. A risky policy of cheating on emissions regulations across years and across brands.

But when the house of cards fell, it was all the work of a few rogue engineers. The higher-ups who sign the checks and determine policy ... didn't know a thing about it. The low-level guys who coded the software had come up with the whole thing. Fortunately in this case, no one bought it. The execs (and VW) got crucified for the policy they DID sign off on.
Yup, very, very similar to the Boeing case, just that victims of excess emissions are harder to identify. Just like the DoJ, the German Justice system has failed consumers and its citizens. An embarrassment.
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
Apr 3, 2022, 06:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
very often such mistakes happen when employees are under pressure or are not given the proper authority on set. So I am just saying that we should include these other factors in our discussion.
One of the potential scenarios is she allowed the gun to be used for target practice. If true, this wasn’t a mistake under pressure, or a lack of authority. It’s gross unprofessionalism and she deserves to suffer consequences for it.

This does not absolve the production, but the production’s behavior does not absolve her.

It goes without saying that if it didn’t happen this way, my point is rendered null.


Edit: to perhaps clarify further, am I supposed to consider Forkner or the VW engineers to be grossly unprofessional? I had the impression that’s not the case, and is why I am saying the scenarios are (potentially) not analogous.
( Last edited by subego; Apr 3, 2022 at 09:30 PM. )
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 3, 2022, 10:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
One of the potential scenarios is she allowed the gun to be used for target practice. If true, this wasn’t a mistake under pressure, or a lack of authority. It’s gross unprofessionalism and she deserves to suffer consequences for it.
I think you are jumping to the topic mandatory vaccinations with believing in and wanting vaccinations. I was only speaking of the latter, not the former.

Trump could have (inaccurately) made his victory dance around vaccines and the program he spearheaded. He could have told his maga acolytes that he promised a vaccine and delivered (no matter that the first vaccines were not developed in the US). I think this would have increased his re-election chances and would have saved thousands, if not tens of thousands of lives.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Edit: to perhaps clarify further, am I supposed to consider Forkner or the VW engineers to be grossly unprofessional? I had the impression that’s not the case, and is why I am saying the scenarios are (potentially) not analogous.
He deliberately lied to regulators about the MCAS system, and as a test pilot, that’s a breach of professional ethics I’d say. And acting ethically in accordance with the spirit and letter of the laws and regulations is part of the job description I’d say.
( Last edited by OreoCookie; Apr 5, 2022 at 03:38 AM. )
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
Apr 3, 2022, 10:57 PM
 
Umm… I think this may have gotten cross-threaded.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 3, 2022, 11:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
He deliberately lied to regulators
The second hit in Google is “[f]ormer Boeing test pilot Mark Forkner found not guilty of deceiving FAA in 737 Max fraud case”.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 5, 2022, 03:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The second hit in Google is “[f]ormer Boeing test pilot Mark Forkner found not guilty of deceiving FAA in 737 Max fraud case”.
I know he was found not guilty. Still, he still deceived regulators (at the behest of Boeing). Just look into it. The question is whether he was to be held liable for it.
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
Apr 5, 2022, 05:20 AM
 
The point is more if I have to come to the opposite conclusion of the headlines to understand the analogy, I’m not going to get the analogy without a bunch of extra background.

I don’t see “found not guilty” and conclude “gross unprofessionalism”.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Apr 5, 2022, 12:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The point is more if I have to come to the opposite conclusion of the headlines to understand the analogy, I’m not going to get the analogy without a bunch of extra background.
I thought you didn't trust the press, which requires extra research anyway to check/verify all stories. Which sounds exhausting. Finding out the facts on the ground contradict the headline should be a pleasant confirmation.

Though in this instance, the headline was technically accurate. The glitch was that a jury and/or judge chose not to punish the test pilot.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 5, 2022, 05:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
I thought you didn't trust the press, which requires extra research anyway to check/verify all stories.
It’s not possible to verify all stories.

This means I am often required to trade in unverified stories.
     
 
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 12:32 PM.
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.,