Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It's all about slack security. There will be an enormous payout from the production company's insurance company, and Alex Baldwin is likely going to pay as well because he's one of the producers, and he actually pulled the trigger. But he was told the gun was "cold" meaning it was empty. The A.D. should be in trouble as well as the armorer, neither of whom was doing their jobs.
All in all, it's a tragedy that could have been prevented if everyone involved had followed strict safety rules. So sad for the woman's family and particularly for her young son.
Alex Baldwin has nothing to do with this
I mean, he fired the gun that killed them. It's a bold claim that he has *nothing* to do with it.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Has anyone seen any explanation about why the guns were sitting on a table for the AD to grab with the armorer apparently not even there? Was the armorer specifically told to break procedure this way? Or did she wander off to take a smoke break and leave the guns unattended? That is sort of the weirdest part to me. My understanding is that all guns are supposed to be under the constant supervision of the armorer or under lock and key, so her sabotage story doesn’t make a lot of sense unless either she neglected her duties or she was instructed not to perform her regular duties (in which case she probably should have filed an OSHA or union complaint but maybe that’s why they hired an armorer who was living in a ramshackle rental and couldn’t afford to complain).
Don't be silly. She wasn't suppose to bird watch the prop guns. No one thought there was a live round, and this was the procedure on many sets.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It's all about slack security. There will be an enormous payout from the production company's insurance company, and Alex Baldwin is likely going to pay as well because he's one of the producers, and he actually pulled the trigger. But he was told the gun was "cold" meaning it was empty. The A.D. should be in trouble as well as the armorer, neither of whom was doing their jobs.
All in all, it's a tragedy that could have been prevented if everyone involved had followed strict safety rules. So sad for the woman's family and particularly for her young son.
Alex Baldwin has nothing to do with this
Anonymous wrote:It's all about slack security. There will be an enormous payout from the production company's insurance company, and Alex Baldwin is likely going to pay as well because he's one of the producers, and he actually pulled the trigger. But he was told the gun was "cold" meaning it was empty. The A.D. should be in trouble as well as the armorer, neither of whom was doing their jobs.
All in all, it's a tragedy that could have been prevented if everyone involved had followed strict safety rules. So sad for the woman's family and particularly for her young son.
Anonymous wrote:Has anyone seen any explanation about why the guns were sitting on a table for the AD to grab with the armorer apparently not even there? Was the armorer specifically told to break procedure this way? Or did she wander off to take a smoke break and leave the guns unattended? That is sort of the weirdest part to me. My understanding is that all guns are supposed to be under the constant supervision of the armorer or under lock and key, so her sabotage story doesn’t make a lot of sense unless either she neglected her duties or she was instructed not to perform her regular duties (in which case she probably should have filed an OSHA or union complaint but maybe that’s why they hired an armorer who was living in a ramshackle rental and couldn’t afford to complain).
Anonymous wrote:Has anyone seen any explanation about why the guns were sitting on a table for the AD to grab with the armorer apparently not even there? Was the armorer specifically told to break procedure this way? Or did she wander off to take a smoke break and leave the guns unattended? That is sort of the weirdest part to me. My understanding is that all guns are supposed to be under the constant supervision of the armorer or under lock and key, so her sabotage story doesn’t make a lot of sense unless either she neglected her duties or she was instructed not to perform her regular duties (in which case she probably should have filed an OSHA or union complaint but maybe that’s why they hired an armorer who was living in a ramshackle rental and couldn’t afford to complain).
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:okay, here is another angle. If you were with a friend who was going to point a gun at you, wouldn't you first check to see that the gun was not loaded?
So, my point being, yes, AB didn't check, but neither did the two people behind the camera, who, unlike AB, could be in danger and therefore had the most to lose. I think that goes to show their mentality of trusting the industry procedure (meaning, trusting the AD and the armorer.) I suspect that almost all the people on the set would share that mentality and no one who was handed the gun, or on the receiving end of the gun, would demand to check the gun. In that way, AB might be seen as not being negligent.
I think the place where "he was following procedure" falls short is the aim of his weapon. I can get past that he didn't check the chamber. But the people from this industry are pretty consistent in saying actors aren't allowed to aim at other people.
What if he didn't aim at them but, he was taking it out and it went off? I haven't heard anywhere where he pointed the gun at them.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:okay, here is another angle. If you were with a friend who was going to point a gun at you, wouldn't you first check to see that the gun was not loaded?
So, my point being, yes, AB didn't check, but neither did the two people behind the camera, who, unlike AB, could be in danger and therefore had the most to lose. I think that goes to show their mentality of trusting the industry procedure (meaning, trusting the AD and the armorer.) I suspect that almost all the people on the set would share that mentality and no one who was handed the gun, or on the receiving end of the gun, would demand to check the gun. In that way, AB might be seen as not being negligent.
I think the place where "he was following procedure" falls short is the aim of his weapon. I can get past that he didn't check the chamber. But the people from this industry are pretty consistent in saying actors aren't allowed to aim at other people.
What if he didn't aim at them but, he was taking it out and it went off? I haven't heard anywhere where he pointed the gun at them.