I think the Armorer was first and foremost a last-minute non-union hire, in a pinch, after their union folks walked off the set in the days leading up to the killing.

She was available, and cheaper than appeasing the union crew... That some nepotism is involved only comes into play after these things, I think.

Some of the articles online indicated the production was running under budget / being cheap and supposedly pushing safety standards as a side effect of the budget issues, like making the crew hotel in Albuquerque but drive to Sante Fe to work, and after long days it makes for nearly no sleep, they said.

It seems to start with poor management regarding budget and safety. Top down. Legitimately.

The rest just followed that.

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:

She was available, and cheaper than appeasing the union crew...

I'm often not a fan of unions, for example our state's teacher's union is out of control, but I will say having worked with union people that they are generally into safety. It's been my first hand experience that if a union person sees something unsafe, or if safety equipment is missing, everything stops until it's safe.

Of course, I'm talking about a manufacturing environment and not a movie set.

One key question is how many and which of the production choices and budget choices were being driven by or otherwise influenced by Alec Baldwin himself as a Producer on the film, beyond his acting.

Was his Production role here one of "mere" investment, or was he making management decisions on the regular? Either are common, in and of themselves, we just don't (yet?) know which is true in this case...

It certainly seems easy to see how his arrogant ass could have been both making management decisions that ultimately led to or contributed to the unsafe environment in the first place and simultaneously thinking he was Annie Oakley enough to not need more expert help... too much "I've got this, bro!!!". It's all intertwined. Union folks split, Annie Oakley thinks he can save the film money and handle up, and...

It's not unfair to typecast him as this sort, but we can't say for sure, yet, how much of all that is on him.

It will be interesting to see what eventually comes out.

quote:

Originally posted by radioman:

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:

She was available, and cheaper than appeasing the union crew...

I'm often not a fan of unions, for example our state's teacher's union is out of control, but I will say having worked with union people that they are generally into safety. It's been my first hand experience that if a union person sees something unsafe, or if safety equipment is missing, everything stops until it's safe.

Of course, I'm talking about a manufacturing environment and not a movie set.

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that virtually any member of this board could have done a better, safer, job as armorer on that set than that 24 year old did.

I have to wonder how much of a role Diversity played in the her getting the job as armorer on the set. It certainly wasn't experience or even basic gun safety knowledge from the results.

As criminal charges are pondered, I bring you a statement from the producers with my notes in italics:

---

... the producers said they are pausing production on the film until the investigation into the incident is complete, and that they are cooperating with the Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office.

"Although our hearts are broken, at the lost income and bad press and it is hard to see beyond the horizon, muddled as it is with police everywhere this is, at the moment, a pause rather than an end. enforced by no fault of our own The spirit that brought us all to this special place remains," Sounds good, don't you think? My 11 year old niece came up with that last line but it is really just about the money they wrote.

https://abcnews.go.com/Enterta...un/story?id=80776966

---

Santa Fe County Sheriff Adan Mendoza said ... Three guns -- the Colt revolver, an apparently non-functioning .45-caliber revolver and a plastic non-functioning prop gun -- were seized from the scene, along with 500 rounds of ammunition that included a mix of blanks, dummy rounds and live rounds ...

https://abcnews.go.com/Enterta...et/story?id=80877988

"I do know that an ongoing effort to limit the use of firearms on film sets is something I'm extremely interested in," Baldwin said. "But remember, something that I think is important and that is how many bullets have been fired in films and TV shows in the last 75 years? This is America. How many bullets have gone off, nearly all of them without incident."

Isn't it interesting that Arec Barwin can use such sound reasoning when it involves his interests.

https://www.wtae.com/article/a...uns-on-sets/38114144

Keeping with the ridicule of the asshole.

"...how many bullets have been fired in films and TV shows in the last 75 years? This is America. How many bullets have gone off, nearly all of them without incident."

This is America. How many guns in the hands of millions of law abiding citizens for 245 years that have never taken in innocent life, nor maimed another, nearly all of them without incident."

Irony, motherfucker. Do you speak it?

^^^
I'll do you one better; look at those millions and millions of lawful ownerships of which a very small number involved shootings that resulted in criminal investigations. Why should Baldwin be ANY different?

You can already see how he's trying to frame this....

I'm just a actor...
Someone handed me a gun...
I'm not an expert...
She was my friend...
I've sat with her grieving husband and son (It wasnt my fault and they dont blame me)

Don't point guns at people and pull the trigger, asshole.

quote:

Originally posted by r0gue:
"But remember, something that I think is important and that is how many bullets have been fired in films and TV shows in the last 75 years? This is America. How many bullets have gone off, nearly all of them without incident?" -- Alec Baldwin

There we go. That's gonna come back and burn him whenever he starts preaching gun control going forward

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
I think the Armorer was first and foremost a last-minute non-union hire, in a pinch, after their union folks walked off the set in the days leading up to the killing.

She was available, and cheaper than appeasing the union crew... That some nepotism is involved only comes into play after these things, I think.

Some of the articles online indicated the production was running under budget / being cheap and supposedly pushing safety standards as a side effect of the budget issues, like making the crew hotel in Albuquerque but drive to Sante Fe to work, and after long days it makes for nearly no sleep, they said.

It seems to start with poor management regarding budget and safety. Top down. Legitimately.

The rest just followed that.

She wasn't a replacement for the crew that walked out. Those were camera operators. She was the original hire for the job according to everything I read. In fact, I saw an interview with another armorer who turned down the job because they would not budget for the minimum amount of staff he wanted to hire for the prop department. IIRC, He wanted a minimum of three people so there could be a dedicated gun handler. They would only budget for two people, meaning someone would have to fill multiple roles, and as a result he turned it down because he didn't think that was sufficient to ensure safety on the set.

quote:

"But remember, something that I think is important and that is how many bullets have been fired in films and TV shows in the last 75 years? This is America. How many bullets have gone off, nearly all of them without incident?" -- Alec Baldwin

None, if you do it right, stupid. Everything is blanks or, where a bullet impact is to be shown, squibs.

One thing to remember, actors point guns at other people and pull the trigger all the time. There is a dependency on the armorers on the set to ensure this is done safely.

We may all abide to Jeff Cooper's rules, but they're not law. Also, the actors many not be knowledgeable in this respect. In the end the prosecutors and courts will decide who's liable.

And I'm sure this has happened before. Who was found liable in those situations?

quote:

Originally posted by Shaql:
You can already see how he's trying to frame this....

I'm just a actor...
Someone handed me a gun...
I'm not an expert...
She was my friend...
I've sat with her grieving husband and son (It wasnt my fault and they dont blame me)

Don't point guns at people and pull the trigger, asshole.

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
One thing to remember, actors point guns at other people and pull the trigger all the time. There is a dependency on the armorers on the set to ensure this is done safely....

The right to keep and bear arms does not cover such exclusions or exceptions.

It's a silly premise all the way around.

The responsibility of one exercising any one of his God given rights, needs to be held on the same scale.

Anything else is building upon shifting sands.

I honestly say, I do not want to see Alec Baldwin unfairly treated, either way, I simply want this matter properly investigated, and lawfully and legally adjudicated.

No exceptions, allowances, or anything that any other American would have to endure.

quote:

actors point guns at other people and pull the trigger all the time. There is a dependency on the armorers on the set to ensure this is done safely.

We may all abide to Jeff Cooper's rules, but they're not law. Also, the actors many not be knowledgeable in this respect. In the end the prosecutors and courts will decide who's liable.

And I'm sure this has happened before. Who was found liable in those situations?

I really dislike it when one uses their job title to separate themselves from the rest of society. Your job doesn't make you special or better than others, and shouldn't allow you special treatment under the law.

Let's take "actor" out of the equation.

John is a gun guy. He has friends visiting, and Jane wants to see one. She knows nothing about guns. John hands Jane the gun, Jane points the gun at Steve and pulls the trigger. Steve dies.

Does Jane, despite knowing nothing about guns, bare zero responsibility under the law? Of course not. She's getting charged.

What John did doesn't matter. What Jane knew or didn't doesn't matter (short of intent). In fact, John is probably going to get charged too.

What makes an "actor" any different?

This is more about negligence than about RKBA issues. When someone buys a gun, there's an implied responsibility to handle it in a way that minimizes the chance of someone getting unintentionally shot. And, let's be honest gun accidents happen all the time. When they do, the question did they act responsibly comes up. When it's the gun owner handling a gun they own, maintain, load, etc., it's on them.

This isn't the case here. Baldwin is an actor. When it comes to guns on the set, there are experts (or at least what are supposed to be experts) securing, maintaining, loading, and otherwise setting up the guns, that are then handed to the actors to perform with. There's no expectation of knowledge with the actors. They're just told what to do, and they do it. Would Baldwin even know how to check if a SAA was loaded? Could he tell between dummy, blank, and live ammo in the gun? Are actors given any training on basic gun safety and handling that would apply to shooting guns in what we would consider a normal shooting situation (ie range shooting)?

We look at this from the viewpoint of people who own, and have some level of knowledge of guns. From the standpoint actors on a set of a movie where guns are involved, they is very likely NOT the case. This situation would tend to shift the responsibility to the "experts", who's job is supposed to be to make sure the actors are given guns that are safe for the scene they are shooting, and ensure that the actor handle those guns appropriately. That didn't happen here.

But you're correct in that the local legal system will have to sort this out, and assign responsibility. Until they weigh it, all we have is speculation. It is somewhat telling thought, that ten days after the fact, no one has been charged. That says they're having trouble figuring out who to go after, at least criminally. I'm sure there will be all manner of civil suits coming out of this.

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
One thing to remember, actors point guns at other people and pull the trigger all the time. There is a dependency on the armorers on the set to ensure this is done safely....

The right to keep and bear arms does not cover such exclusions or exceptions.

It's a silly premise all the way around.

The responsibility of one exercising any one of his God given rights, needs to be held on the same scale.

Anything else is building upon shifting sands.

I honestly say, I do not want to see Alec Baldwin unfairly treated, either way, I simply want this matter properly investigated, and lawfully and legally adjudicated.

No exceptions, allowances, or anything that any other American would have to endure.

A revolver is a simple machine, not a motorcycle, automobile or electronic device. Even an actor might be expected to check the chamber(s) and/or magazine before activating one in anyone's general direction.