Thank you. This statement is so true.
Accident on the set of Rust.
- Thread starter joberg
- Start date
- Status
ghostryder
Legendary Member
Well, sort of. On union film sets - i.e., a big studio production, for liability purposes, the armourer, prop master, and ADs all share legal responsibility. I know there are specific clauses in some SAG contracts about what actors can actually be liable for in union productions. I'm still fuzzy on what happened here, but sounds like a cascade failure of multiple personnel - not just AB.
TazMan2000
Master Member
Lol.
I used to be in the military. I've shot a LOT of weapons and had extensive training on explosives, demolition and Explosives Ordnance Disposal. Still have all my limbs, both eyes, all my toes and fingers. I'm also a very good shot. I don't own a single gun. I have no use for them...yet.
Take a pill.
TazMan2000
Last edited:
ghostryder
Legendary Member
I will say it again: How do you follow normal gun safety rules when filming a movie like 'The Deer Hunter'?
Don't pretend this isn't relevant. It is. You keep repeating "AB didn't follow normal gun safety rules!" I'm pointing out that Hollywood sets cannot use normal gun safety rules. They have their own different policies.
Do you think AB should have been checking the load of any gun before using it? Fine. I agree about that.
But it doesn't mean the whole incident can be dismissed as "AB didn't take a gun class." It wasn't that simple. There were multiple other people EMPLOYED to check the gun BEFORE he even got it.
Who is employed to check the load of your personal firearms before you shoot them? What are their names? How much do they make before taxes?
In normal life your own gun mistakes are 100% your fault, because the job of handling your guns is 100% yours. The same is not true on a movie set. The job of gun safety is spread out through multiple people. Those weren't AB's guns, they belonged to the whole production.
The point is not to "Let AB off the hook." The point is that AB was the last link in a whole chain of failures. Piling all the blame onto him and neglecting the rest is not the responsible way to handle this.
Last edited:
I wonder how many "gun classes" this bloke had....
RAF man jailed for shooting comrade in 'party trick' gone wrong
Senior Aircraftman Liam Gadsby shot fellow serviceman Jay Johnson in the stomach
www.mirror.co.uk
gobler
Sr Member
What some here are ignoring is that protocol was broken. What's supposed to happen is that when a firearm is call for, the prop master (in this case armorer) is the ONLY ONE allowed to obtain the firearm. Just before handing it to the actor they are supposed to show the condition that it's in. In this case it was supposed to be empty. They would open the cylinder or loading gate for a 1880's and show each chamber is empty. They then dry fire in a safe direction and only then hand it to the actor. At this point the actor repeats the safety check.
In this case the A.D. grabbed a gun off a table and handed it to Baldwin. NO safety check was done!! This is a major breach in safety. On the 911 call you can hear people yelling "he never checked it". Affiliate states that Baldwin was aiming directly at the camera. Another big violation.
In this case the A.D. grabbed a gun off a table and handed it to Baldwin. NO safety check was done!! This is a major breach in safety. On the 911 call you can hear people yelling "he never checked it". Affiliate states that Baldwin was aiming directly at the camera. Another big violation.
JPH
Sr Member
So, the case we are discussing doesn't prove your argument so you keep rrpeating an EXTREME to make your point.
Absolutely MERITLESS.
Good luck with that.
Arguments of authority only work when you actually *USE* the knowledge gleaned from those years of experience. Your activism clearly dismantles your own case.
You can keep trying to escalate the situation, but that is because you cant prove what you'd *like* other to believe.
As I said before, you arent being right, just persistent.
So, glad you have all those years of service and knowledge, let me know when you are going to rationally apply it.
Oh, and as for the pill, i"d recommend you quit breaking yours in half.
JPH
Sr Member
Actually already discussed.
And so in Baldwin's many years of film, he didnt notice anything wrong? Oh wait, they hired a less experienced weaponsmaster... because thats how you deal with prior incidents, use a new, less experienced person, rrrrrrright?!?!
I mean, he *is* also the producer. They already had firearm issues...so, the producer, who is also a seasoned actor, was totally cool with this new and irresponsible means to handle firearms?
The fix in in to protect Baldwin, though he was the killer and was involved with firing the previous weaponsmaster which created the environment which led to the death.
We can only hope so. Pity it had to descend into what it has.
I’m sure Baldwin wasn’t the only producer either. These days, more often than not, the lead actors are always in the credits as “executive producer”. And you usually see about 20 producers on a production. So again, to place all blame on AB, and using the excuse, “well he was the producer after all”, is wrong. As so many have said, AB was the last link in a long chain of failures here.
Art Andrews Montagar could we just get this thread locked? People cannot be civil.
TazMan2000
Master Member
Wouldn't it make more sense to just put people on 'ignore' & stop interacting, instead of wanting the thread locked because we don't like the way or the content of the posts?
There have been some good things discussed, & this incident/investigation is really only starting.
I totally agree that there has been some high level trolling going on & flat out instigating, but just because I couldn't restrain myself from responding doesn't mean it needs to be taken away from everyone.
There have been some good things discussed, & this incident/investigation is really only starting.
I totally agree that there has been some high level trolling going on & flat out instigating, but just because I couldn't restrain myself from responding doesn't mean it needs to be taken away from everyone.
This is what I'm curious about as well. Where was the armorer at the time of the shooting? What I've always understood concerning a production using live firearms, which AJTaliesen confirmed, is that those firearms are never out of presence of the armorer or their assistants and the armorer is always appraising anyone who is going to hold the gun of its current condition and load. Heck, an actor friend of mine was just working as a stand-in on a production next to a table of guns that he wasn't even going to be handling and said the armorer still made sure to tell him about the guns and that they were in a safe condition. It's so odd that the AD brought the gun over and not the armorer. It makes me wonder if the gun used didn't belong to the armorer at all but might've belonged to one of the producers. That might explain why the AD brought it over and not the armorer. It might also explain why some of the crew had issues with the conditions on the set.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
