Alec Baldwin accidentally kills crew member with prop gun

• "My bro told me she 18! My bro is in charge of checking IDs!"
• "The armorer didn't tell me not to point guns at people and pull triggers!"
• "Common sense does not apply on film sets! We outsource all our common sense to a thinkerer who tells us whether to point deadly weapons at people."
• "We've been through this ad nauseam. My side rests on the claim that it was the sin-eater's job to make sure Alec Baldwin didn't do anything stupid. I don't care if the claim has been contested and confuted. Claim is Claim!"

So, you unironically take your lessons about guns and gun safety from what you see on the flickering screen?
Are you sure those were real bullets?
So, you don't know what their safety procedures were or whether the actors checked for themselves? How can you position this as a counter-example if you are ignorance of the details?
"We all drove drunk in the 1970s and our only mishap was a the conception of our first child in the backseat!" Not having a mishap does not equal = we did it right!
Your contractual argument.

Is that a question or an assumption?

No clue what you’re talking about.

You ask me a question & then ask me another question based on an answer I never gave.

I think you are still driving drunk. In this thread!

__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.

It's a question that carries an assumption. Your answer, however, may prove an assumption incorrect. That stated, you seem to be curiously credulous of what you see of the fantasy of the screen as proof of what is happening on the set ("bullets were flying everywhere," LOL).




Your clue is the quotation which immediately precedes the statement. How can you not have a clue when the response is direct?




I ask a question based on your response "I highly doubt that Newman & Redford checked their guns even once" (i.e., you don't know, so you are speculating) and the follow-up question is based on a fact which is now in you commitment store (i.e., that you don't know, but rather "highly doubt"). This isn't dirty pool.



One of us is off the map, that's for sure.

I have agreed with quite a few of your posts in this thread, but I feel like your entire communication style carries an assumption too: that people need necessarily to engage in an extremely technical and metric-driven empirical discussion on the matter, if they are to participate in the conversation. It is a little condescending and confrontational.

To me it seems quite clear that the situation, if not the issue is inherently emotional, and the response noting that this had never happened “in the halcyon days of the good old Golden Age of Hollywood” is perfectly natural. The example suggested that McQueen & Co never shot anyone on set, that’s a fact, and we also know that no one was as obsessed with safety as the world is post-9/11, so I do think the level of caution in any and all industries would have been laughable compared to now. Why do these statements seem unreasonable?

Incidentally, I do feel like the helicopter crashing during Twilight Zone filming is not quite the same, so the view that “this hasn’t happened before” with Steve McQueen seems reasonable and not so far off the mark. The Cover Up literally decided to shoot himself in the head, blanks or not, which to me again is not the same. There was the Midnight Rider case where a train ran people over. None of this is the same as guns going off on set, so I see nothing wrong with the view expressed. Brandon Lee was more of less an aberration and has nothing to do with the Golden Age either way.

Well, it is a life and death matter. When Stirchley asserts flatly that, "The armorer is in charge of gun safety!" with nothing to support the claim but an exclamation point that does not advance the argument.



Outside of that, playing thick and claiming not to see connections when the direct connection is to material which is directly quoted is lazy and disingenuous.





It's unreasonable, because we don't know what the gun-handling rules were on these sets. If the actors were, in fact, following the four rules and not outsourcing their responsibilities to armorers, then it's not really an example of how great the Hollywood model has been up to this point.



A lot of our discussion has proceeded on the assumption that there is a monolithic and unchanging code of "best practices" on movie sets that positions the armorer as not only being the highest authority, but also the only authority on the set (thus exculpating Mr. Baldwin of any guilt - "Not his job!"). This is a dubious assumption. Is this how they did it in the 60s? Even Stirchley confesses ignorance on this point, so the import is a question mark, at best.



I have argued that if this is the model, that there is a fatal flaw, because there is a single point of failure in the model (if the armorer goofs, people die). A key feature of building safety into a system is redundancy. The armorer as a single point of failure lacks that redundancy. Most airliners will never need to make use of their secondary and tertiary hydraulics, but the FAA requires redundancy anyway, because a failure - no matter how rare - without redundancy will result in tragedy. That is why, if it is "the" model, it is a bad one.



Also, we don't know how many unreported accidents have occurred. It's not the sort of thing you advertise and old Hollywood was notorious for payoffs and making things "go away." William Shatner had his hearing permanently damaged from explosives used in the "Gorn" episode of Star Trek, for example.



Here is a listof known accidents from Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...sion_accidents


This list focuses on injured actors, but I would guess that it it is the stuntman who is usually injured, but no one really cares about stuntmen, so it doesn't make a "blip." Also, stuntmen want to keep working, so there is incentive for them to be quiet about injuries.



So who knows?





I do not recall making an issue of this example. Are you sure you're thinking of someone else here?





No, it is still off the mark. That Hollywood, as far as we know, was relatively lucky up to this point does not prove they were doing things right. And again, they might have been doing things right (e.g., more than one person taking responsibility for the condition of deadly weapons and strong norms about how they are used by actors).



Again, a model with a single point of failure is a model with a fatal weakness that will eventually be exposed. If you encounter a gun, no matter what anyone else says about its condition, you assume that it is loaded and clear it yourself. Redundancy saves lives and this is more important than covering Baldwin's ass.

For anyone that still cares...

"The responsibility for the use of guns and other weapons lies with each production's property master or armoury expert.

They secure the weapons when they are not being used and instruct actors on their proper and safe use. They also load the firearms and check them before and after each scene."

...

According to the AP news agency, the US federal workplace safety agency doesn't regulate gun safety on set, and many states leave it to the industry to create and follow its own rules.

Professor Dan Leonard from Chapman University in California, who specialises in on-set regulations, tells the BBC "it is generally left to the industry to develop and police the guidelines... and those guidelines if followed can allow for firearms to be used safely on set"."

www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-59035488.amp


Also:


"The gun was loaded with live rounds, court records released Friday show. According to the records, the gun was one of three that the film’s armorer had set on a cart outside the wooden structure where a scene was being acted. Assistant director Dave Halls grabbed the gun from the cart and brought it inside to Baldwin, unaware that it was loaded with live rounds, a detective wrote in the search warrant application.

...

Generally, a weapons master or armorer oversees all weapons that are used on a production. This can mean anything from selecting the correct items for a certain period in history, to taking care of the weapons on set and making sure they are being used safely and properly by actors and stuntpeople. It's a fairly new position in the history of film production, going back only to the 1980s. Before that, the prop master handled everything. Recently, it’s become more common to enlist specialists.

...

The weapons master is required to be on set whenever a weapon is being used. The Actors' Equity Association's guidelines state that, “Before each use, make sure the gun has been test-fired off stage and then ask to test fire it yourself. Watch the prop master check the cylinders and barrel to be sure no foreign object or dummy bullet has become lodged inside." Further, “All loading of firearms must be done by the property master, armorer or experienced persons working under their direct supervision.”"

abcnews.go.com/amp/Entertainment/wireStory/explainer-guns-movie-sets-work-80732360

Google Fu level: yellow belt with green stripe.


I suppose the argument should now evolve to why these industry standards haven't changed since 2003, according to the BBC article. Or, continue wedging ideology into an island industry.

Again, I agree with your points re gun safety. And no, sorry for confusion, I didn’t mean to imply that you referenced the helicopter - that was my own general example. In terms of treating guns as loaded, I couldn’t agree more, my father was in the military and I have been allowed to handle his guns since I was a kid, even the personal protection one, and was taught the same: don’t point at people, always loaded, etc etc. My own wild guess would also be that Old Hollywood may have just been slightly more pro-gun than it is now, Dirty Harry and whatnot, (I do have a logic as to why I think that, but it would probably take too long to go into it), and as discussed at length above, that does impact whether or not people know what they’re doing. But that is not an intended truth claim on my part.

The list is quite mind-boggling.

Just read this article, which is not a 100 per cent relevant and won’t be an eye-opener to anyone in this thread, but still, an interesting read.

https://features.hollywoodreporter.com/the-gun-industrys-lucrative-relationship-with-hollywood/

George Clooney has chimed in about the incident. He doesn't add anything to the Rust case but his experience with firearms and pre take routine on sets are kind of interesting.

https://news.yahoo.com/george-cloone...130638285.html

His routine when using firearms should maybe be the SOP going forward:

""Every single time I'm handed a gun on the set — every time — they hand me a gun, I look at it, I open it, I show it to the person I'm pointing it to, I show it to the crew," Clooney said (via Yahoo Entertainment). "Every single take.""

"The actor added that he personally makes sure to take any six-shooter he’s handed on a set like the one Baldwin was handling and point it at the ground before firing the trigger six times to ensure it is in fact safe to handle."

"I've never heard the term 'cold gun,'" Clooney said of his 40 years in filmmaking. "I've never heard that term. Literally. They're just talking about stuff I've never heard of. It's just infuriating."

Whoever is holding the smoking gun gets all the blame. If it's good enough for criminal law then why isn't it just as good in the court of public opinion?

Because it doesn't fit the narrative: Guns kill people.

__________________
"This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." -Baruch Spinoza

In his 45 minutes of commentary director George Roy Hill explained at great length what was happening on the set in terms of the armory & explosives divisions. Great care was taken and, as I said before, only one person was injured during the entire shoot. (Non-weapons related.)

If I knew what dirty pool is this might have some meaning.

I don’t drive so it must be you.

In the immortal words of Public Enemy, "F**k your own thing if if your own thing is the wrong thing." A model with a single point of failure and no redundancy is the wrong thing. It is only as good as the local "God" you appoint to be responsible for everything. And when God has an off-day, tragedy will follow.



We're not talking "ideology" here. Gun safety rules are eminently prudential. They are so prudentially well-reasoned and well-established that it is immoral not to follow them (e.g., in the same way that we recognize the immorality of being so imprudent as to text and drive). The question, therefore, is NOT why "ideology" is being "wedged" into this "island industry," but rather "Why hasn't this industry followed the 'best practices' model that applies to everyone else in the real world?"



To be clear, there is nothing wrong with having an armorer on the set who operates as the "highest authority" on gun safety. The problem only emerges when the armorer is taken to be the "only" authority on safety, stripping redundancy (and collective responsibility) out of the model entirely.



Also, see the quotation of Clooney upthread which challenges the naive idea that only the armorer is responsible for everything (which is the line of analysis so desperately asserted to exculpate Mr. Baldwin of any and all responsibility).

If they were doing it right and no one was hurt, then it's all good right?

The real question is if The Rust set was doing it right

1. in terms of industry standards (which may be at variance to the norms of Hill's own set)
2. in terms of universal standards of safe gun handling.

They certainly screwed the pooch in terms of #2, and we can't be sure that Hill is a safe point of comparison for #1. We have a quote from George Clooney in this thread which suggests that actors should show a cleared weapon to the crew before proceeding, which indicates that The Rust set may very well have been at odds with today's industry norms for this "island."

Bad form. Party foul. Illicit argument. Disingenuous Reasoning. Strategic Maneuvering. Sophism. F**ckery.

“Screwed the pooch”? Where do you get all these ghastly expressions?

You've never heard that one before? You must not have...





...The Right Stuff

I’m British. We have the right stuff. 🇬🇧 😎

"Screwed the pooch" is an old fighter-pilot/test-pilot expression. Pilots would always say of other pilots who crashed and burned that it was their fault (and not bad luck or a faulty aircraft). They would say this or that a pilot "bought the farm" as a strategy of terror management (i.e., I could be the next hole in the ground), so emphasis was laid on the agency of the pilot (if the pilot is responsible and in control, then disaster can be avoided). The phrasing entered popular vocabulary in the book by Tom Wolfe and the 1983 movie based on the book The Right Stuff. The title of the book and the film is another odd-ball expression for having all the intangibles necessary to be a great pilot.

You've made that point though. For a few pages it looks. Like AgrippinaX, I've also agreed with some of your earlier posts and have commented in support of them on general principle; however, what I feel should be doesn't mean that it is. There is a line between the two. My post was to clarify what is. Or at least what appears to be on minimal exploration.

At a point though, you seem to end up arguing against posters for an industry's standard than none of us have power over. My post was to share links that explain, at least on a superficial level, industry standards and how those standards are (or are not) regulated. If you want to argue for higher standards, then by all means do so. I do not disagree and believe there should be a higher level of control and responsibility. To what level is for the industry to decide, assuming the industry is allowed to continue self-regulation. I have no part in that. Do you? Does anyone in this thread? Does anyone really argue that such standards should not exist or are people saying that in the context of what regulations do exist, it may not be so black or white? I'm capable of holding both thoughts at the same time that standards should be higher while recognizing that my standards may not align with an industry. The investigation may clarify that. I'm still not a detective. That it hasn't happened yet at least suggests that may not actually be so clear.

These are ideas that you believe should be in place. I generally agree with that. The problem here is that those ideas apparently differ from what the industry seems to have in place now. You seem to be arguing for what should be. My post was to clarify what is. Your response to that post leads me to believe that the argument is now with me as if I am defending the industry or have any say in any of its self-regulating standards. I don't?

I can't answer that. I doubt anyone in this thread can. I even suggest that the conversation should evolve to that in my post that you quoted. Also, I didn't ask why ideology is being wedged into an industry standard. It just is. The industry seems to have their own regulation standards. That's what is until it changes. This accident may be a tipping point to that direction. Until that changes though, that's the reality of it.

I read the post. I agree and encourage that to be the norm. That reference here doesn't speak to anything I've posted though, and seems to only exist in this reply to create a counterpoint against a point that I've not made. Why type this other than to imply that is my belief? Odd.

The bolded text is a major assumption btw. Considering how articulate your posts have been, I can't help but believe that this quote was an effort to align my reply with that motive. To be clear, I do not care to desperately exculpate Mr. Baldwin of any and all responsibility. That goal has nothing to do with my post or my thoughts on the matter whatsoever. Any and all? Really? Why try to connect that to my post? Normally, I don't think I would jump to such conclusions but your writing style suggests that you're sharp. Sharp enough to see that on proofing. Finally, it is not my naïve idea. That idea belongs to the industry and its regulatory standards. Something about wedging is on the tip of my tongue...

At some point, even if I may agree with you in parts, it feels as though you only want to argue for the sake of arguing. That becomes difficult to respond to.

__________________
"My Dionne Warwick understanding of your dream indicates that you are ambivalent on how you want life to eventually screw you." - Joel

"Ever try to forcibly pin down a house cat? It's not easy." - Captain Steel

"I just can't get pass sticking a finger up a dog's butt." - John Dumbear

Re: made that point. Yeah, let's not rehash. If someone comes in with something you already feel you've rebutted, just link them to the post. Would serve 'em right for dropping into page 20-something of a thread without even skimming what preceded.

This thread should probably just be for actual news updates at this point.

My only objection is the turn from "how it is" as a justification for what happened (e.g., "Well, they were just following orders").
There is a nice question as to what the standards really are. If Clooney's recent comments (posted in this thread) are representative of that which is typical, then it appears that we may not even be able to justify Baldwin's actions relative to that alleged standard. If so, the Rust production and crew may be found to be irresponsible relative to local and global norms.

The key issue is whether the industry norm is that of an all-powerful Gun Safety Tsar who is absolutely responsible for gun handling on the set.
Again, the Clooney quote indicates that this may not be the case. If it is the case, whether or not we can justify Baldwin's alleged negligence on the basis local (industry) standard is an open question (some industries have bad standards).
Fair enough, but again, even the "is" is in question in this case.

We all know something is rotten in Denmark, but we have to ask

1. What were the particular norms on the set (and were those norms justified). Clooney's input suggests that this set was "insane."
2. What are the industry norms on movie sets? Are these norms justified?
3. Do industry norms not only establish a gun safety boss, but a single person responsible for everything (i.e., a single point of failure). If so, is this justified?
4. In asking whether the set norms and industry norms are justified we need an exterior criterion of correctness, a universal standard. We have had an interesting debate as to whether "everyday standards" are the appropriate standard in this case (because actors cannot be expected to be experts about everything that happens on a set). Thus, we must ask, what is the appropriate standard of evaluating gun handling practices on a movie set?

We're spinning a lot of plates and some of those plates are "is" plates and some are "ought" plates.

Your "Google Fu" posts offered a lot of "IS" responses which appear to assert that the standards on the Rust are consistent with industry standards. That is, you appear to be arguing that Point 1 = Point 2. In addition you don't appear to making these points "just for the heck of it," but as a move in a larger argument about the responsibility of the actor in the set ("If the actor was abiding by the industry standard, then the fault is with the industry standard").

If I was mistaken in my interpretation of your post as move in the argument (which appears to be your position), then I accept your correction/clarification. But again, can we be sure that Point 1 = Point 2? It appears we still have some "is" stuff to sort out.

Part of the purpose of conversation is clarification. You appeared to me to be making a move (an ought move) which you tell me you were not making, so I accept the clarification / correction.

Moreover, the more information we can get about industry norms the better, so your input here I think is quite useful.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.