Alec Baldwin shoots/kills cinematographer and injured director after firing a "prop gun".

[bcla]

that's exactly what Jon-Erik Hexum did... put a "prop" gun to his head and pulled the trigger. The gun was loaded with blank cartridges, and he knew it was. He apparently thought blanks don't fire at all, but these blanks used wadding to hold the powder charge in, and the wadding was blasted from the barrel and fractured his skull. Wadding likely wouldn't cause harm at a distance, but the barrel was right against his head.

I believe even without the wadding (or minimal wadding), at point blank it would still produce hot, high pressure gases rushing out of the barrel. That's what a concussion grenade does. Here's footage of a watermelon being blown up with just compressed air.

 

[John VN]

Would it be written in an Actor's Contract that it is her/his responsibility to check every prop for safety compliance prior to using that prop in every "take" in which it is to be used?

WHY SHOULD an actor be expected to make sure that a prop meant to be used is in anything other than a safe condition-be it a gun, chair, pillow, car ..... when an expert has approved its use?

IMO, no blame on an actor.

 

[dominiondad]

Would it be written in an Actor's Contract that it is her/his responsibility to check every prop for safety compliance prior to using that prop in every "take" in which it is to be used?

WHY SHOULD an actor be expected to make sure that a prop meant to be used is in anything other than a safe condition-be it a gun, chair, pillow, car ..... when an expert has approved its use?

IMO, no blame on an actor.

What about a producer?

 

[bcla]

Would it be written in an Actor's Contract that it is her/his responsibility to check every prop for safety compliance prior to using that prop in every "take" in which it is to be used?

WHY SHOULD an actor be expected to make sure that a prop meant to be used is in anything other than a safe condition-be it a gun, chair, pillow, car ..... when an expert has approved its use?

IMO, no blame on an actor.

Well - that's the deal here. We're dealing with two different worlds where the only thing that overlaps is that a firearm is in someone's hands.

In the world of personal/professional firearms, the expectation is that the wielder should know the firearm inside and out, and takes personal responsibility for making sure that it's safe. Delegating the authority for the safety of the firearm is unthinkable. I've been there, and certainly it's the responsibility of a target shooter to never point a firearm at anyone else, make sure it's always pointed down range, and to generally know how to clear it and unload it. Handling the ammunition is routine and expected.

But on a movie set they delegate to crew members responsible for the safety of other crew members. Guns are just of several things on a film set that could be dangerous. There have been relatively very few firearms injuries on a movie set, although it certainly seems like this one was a mess. But we hear more about things that happened such as a piece of the set rigging being damaged or a stunt performer being injured or killed. I know they do their best to make sure that guns aren't directly pointed at other crew members, but obviously when one is trying to show scenes where people are portrayed as shooting guns at other characters, along with crowded scenes showing gunplay (think the shooting of the swordsman in Raiders of the Lost Ark) it's unavoidable that it's going to be pointed at someone.

This is going to be like a lot fo things where the industry responds to a tragedy. I'm pretty sure that they're going to talk more about allowing actors to check their own firearms, which currently isn't recommended in the SAG guidelines. Or at the very least actors may be more insistent on inspecting the loading.

 

[John VN]

What about a producer?

Was considering the "Actor's job" r.e. charges. Should the "Producer's liability" extend beyond making sure that the "PROPERLY Trained/Certified" individuals are employed for specific safety requirements? No need to have an Armorer if no guns are to be used. Never imagined that a "Producer" should be running around making sure the "EMPLOYED Expert" performed her/his job properly.

 

[pahoben]

Well - that's the deal here. We're dealing with two different worlds where the only thing that overlaps is that a firearm is in someone's hands.

In the world of personal/professional firearms, the expectation is that the wielder should know the firearm inside and out, and takes personal responsibility for making sure that it's safe. Delegating the authority for the safety of the firearm is unthinkable. I've been there, and certainly it's the responsibility of a target shooter to never point a firearm at anyone else, make sure it's always pointed down range, and to generally know how to clear it and unload it. Handling the ammunition is routine and expected.

But on a movie set they delegate to crew members responsible for the safety of other crew members. Guns are just of several things on a film set that could be dangerous. There have been relatively very few firearms injuries on a movie set, although it certainly seems like this one was a mess. But we hear more about things that happened such as a piece of the set rigging being damaged or a stunt performer being injured or killed. I know they do their best to make sure that guns aren't directly pointed at other crew members, but obviously when one is trying to show scenes where people are portrayed as shooting guns at other characters, along with crowded scenes showing gunplay (think the shooting of the swordsman in Raiders of the Lost Ark) it's unavoidable that it's going to be pointed at someone.

This is going to be like a lot fo things where the industry responds to a tragedy. I'm pretty sure that they're going to talk more about allowing actors to check their own firearms, which currently isn't recommended in the SAG guidelines. Or at the very least actors may be more insistent on inspecting the loading.

Was considering the "Actor's job" r.e. charges. Should the "Producer's liability" extend beyond making sure that the "PROPERLY Trained/Certified" individuals are employed for specific safety requirements? No need to have an Armorer if no guns are to be used. Never imagined that a "Producer" should be running around making sure the "EMPLOYED Expert" performed her/his job properly.

There were special Covid protocols in place on the set in regards to weapon inspection and Baldwin did not follow the safety protocol with respect to inspection. He was negligent in this regard. The fact that Baldwin pointed the gun at a crew member after not witnessing any inspection of the gun compounds his negligence.

When there are repeated gross safety violations on a set, and repeated strident complaints about safety from crew members, then it is incumbent on the producer to respond in a proactive manner. It was negligent to instead replace complaining crew with more malleable personnel and mandate to keep shooting with no regard for the potential consequences. The producer is ultimately responsible responsible for safety on the set. He cannot delegate away accountability for safety especially in light of ongoing gross safety violations. His motivation to value budget at the expense of safety then had this tragic consequence.

The guiding principal throughout society (and including the film industry) is that there is no reasonable expectation that a gun you are handed is unloaded until you inspect the gun or cause and personally witness an inspection of that gun. These events show once again that this is in fact a reasonable and necessary standard in all cases. The firearm inspection standards for actors in the film industry are in place to prevent exactly this type of occurrence. The actor using the gun is the last person that can avoid disaster and that is why he must participate to determine the weapon is in fact in the state he believes it to be.

Baldwin should not be exempted from the laws and standards we all are subject to because he is a Hollywood celebrity and political activist that in fact rails about the kind of behavior that was endemic on this set that he oversaw.

If I were handed a gun, told it was unloaded by a competent person, then pointed at someone and fired killing them, my only reasonable expectation would be criminal charges. It would be tragic but I would be guilty of not exercising a reasonable standard of care for a firearm that resulted in a tragic death. I could have prevented that death by 1) determining myself that the gun was unloaded 2) not pointing it in the direction of another innocent person.

Someone in an earlier post noted that corporate employees are not held criminally responsible for safety violations that result in death. This is not true. Responsible managers have been held criminally responsible for safety violations that resulted in death and received prison sentences. Otherwise it is impossible to ensure that life of employees is appropriately balanced against costs and profits.

 

[pahoben]

The Screen Actors Guild guidelines recommend that the actor personally watch over the armorer as the firearm is loaded, but that's not necessarily a legal requirement. The actors who personally check the loading are actually violating the SAG guidelines. I get that it seems like a foreign concept to people who go target shooting or are in law enforcement, where it's continuously drilled that it's the personal responsibility of the person wielding the firearm.

They had special Covid protocols on this set that were not followed by the actor. The Covid protocols on set would supersede the general non Covid protocols of SAG (in detail but not intent). There would never be protocols prepared by a competent person that would not require the actor be a positive participant in inspecting a firearm.. He is the last opportunity to avoid tragedy like this and so bears special responsibility.

 

[MakiraMarlena]

Hannah Gutierrez (the set armorer on "Rust") has released a statement indicating she had no idea there was live ammunition on the set, she personally did not allow crew members to touch the weapons, and she alleges she was doing two jobs, was overworked, and the set was unsafe.

 

[Cogswel_Cogs]

I was watching one news show and they had an armorer who turned down job, saying they wanted him to do two jobs which is why he lost or turned down job because he would have had to leave guns unatended.

 

[abdmom]

Hannah Gutierrez (the set armorer on "Rust") has released a statement indicating she had no idea there was live ammunition on the set, she personally did not allow crew members to touch the weapons, and she alleges she was doing two jobs, was overworked, and the set was unsafe.

If she didn't allow crew members to touch the weapons, how was the the assistant director able to get the gun?

 

[John VN]

They had special Covid protocols on this set that were not followed by the actor. The Covid protocols on set would supersede the general non Covid protocols of SAG (in detail but not intent). There would never be protocols prepared by a competent person that would not require the actor be a positive participant in inspecting a firearm.. He is the last opportunity to avoid tragedy like this and so bears special responsibility.

Can you reference said PROTOCOLS. Thank you.

 

[MakiraMarlena]

I think Hannah was referring to the allegations that crew members were using the guns for target practice, I believe from what has been released so far that it was part of the COVID protocols that she wasn't allowed onto the set itself, the assistant director was designated to carry the weapon on set, and he was supposed to check it. Something about limiting the number of persons present during shooting.

 

[BroadwayHermione5]

Would it be written in an Actor's Contract that it is her/his responsibility to check every prop for safety compliance prior to using that prop in every "take" in which it is to be used?

WHY SHOULD an actor be expected to make sure that a prop meant to be used is in anything other than a safe condition-be it a gun, chair, pillow, car ..... when an expert has approved its use?

IMO, no blame on an actor.

Yes. They would also possibly get paid more for using or being in a scene with one (same goes for blood, makeup, explosions, swords, knives, fake drugs, smoke, animals, a whole plethora of other things.) SAGAFTRA also mandates training. You can hold the weapon if you want to and ask as many questions as you want after initial training and demonstration.
The other problem on this set was many IATSE crew were either striking or left for the day, leaving non union crew members on set. While the armorer, AD and Alex are to blame, the non union crew is also a huge part of the problem. Larger than people think.

 

[TLSnell1981]

...

Yes. They would also possibly get paid more for using or being in a scene with one (same goes for blood, makeup, explosions, swords, knives, fake drugs, smoke, animals, a whole plethora of other things.) SAGAFTRA also mandates training. You can hold the weapon if you want to and ask as many questions as you want after initial training and demonstration.
The other problem on this set was many IATSE crew were either striking or left for the day, leaving non union crew members on set. While the armorer, AD and Alex are to blame, the non union crew is also a huge part of the problem. Larger than people think.

Non union doesn't necessarily translate to incompetent.

 

[Sinder]

Hannah Gutierrez Reed's whole statement contradicts her responsibility as the armorer.

"Safety is Hannah’s number one priority on set," her attorneys said in a statement to the outlet. "Ultimately this set would never have been compromised if live ammo were not introduced. Hannah has no idea where the live rounds came from."

She is blaming being overworked but the fact is she had no business being the armorer on that set.
She insisted she checked the gun for dummies and there were no live rounds in there.
It sounds like she has no idea how to tell the difference between a dummy and a live round.

From here on out we will see the shifting blame game, they will all be throwing eachother under the bus.
There's plenty of blame to go around.

 

[BroadwayHermione5]

...

Non union doesn't necessarily translate to incompetent.

I know. But with non union you run a risk of miscommunication. Especially with tensions (and rightfully so I hope they reach an agreement) so high with IATSE right now

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

leaving non union crew members on set. While the armorer, AD and Alex are to blame, the non union crew is also a huge part of the problem.

IDK my husband and my sister-in-law both of whom work with unions (my sister-in-law always is working with a union) and unions can be good and can be bad. You'd be surprised how many incompetent, working well past when they realistically should be for the job position, etc issues that have come up. Safety issues happen with union workers and it's incredibly difficult to fire someone. At my husband's company the contracts are written such that it's easier to let go for safety issues (not tying off for example is an automatic termination union or otherwise) but more difficult where my sister-in-law has worked (in both places past and current where she's working with union).

Union should never be looked at from a point of knowledge

 

[BroadwayHermione5]

IDK my husband and my sister-in-law both of whom work with unions (my sister-in-law always is working with a union) and unions can be good and can be bad. You'd be surprised how many incompetent, working well past when they realistically should be for the job position, etc issues that have come up. Safety issues happen with union workers and it's incredibly difficult to fire someone. At my husband's company the contracts are written such that it's easier to let go for safety issues (not tying off for example is an automatic termination union or otherwise) but more difficult where my sister-in-law has worked (in both places past and current where she's working with union).

Union should never be looked at from a point of knowledge

Oh absolutely. I completely agree with your last sentence much like I agreed with a previous comment that non union doesn’t mean incompetence. I do know from experience though that miscommunication is something big if there is a transfer of work between union and non union. And I have a bad feeling something went down with that.

 

[DLgal]

That armorer has a terrible lawyer. That statement is doing her absolutely no favors.

 

[pahoben]

That armorer has a terrible lawyer. That statement is doing her absolutely no favors.

She probably has the least to pay for legal representation and will also suffer from the efforts of the quick strike publicist team launched to support Baldwin.