Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The other producers didn’t shoot the gun.

Ultimately many peoples mistakes ultimately added together to kill this poor person but I think they narrowed on the right people in order to achieve some justice through the law: the Armorer who was in charge of weapons, the 2nd AD who incorrectly declared “ cold gun” and the Lead Actor/producer who pulled the trigger.

It wasn't his decision to point the gun at the camera. The director told him to do that. Perhaps what is needed is for the director to have the actor check the gun before pointing it at anyone.

"He told me to do it" is not a valid defense

In this context, it is.

If it’s not a defense to war crime, it’s not a defense here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This will probably go the same way the John Landis/Twilight Zone Movie trial went. They’ll be charged but found not guilty.

I wonder if he'll plead a lesser charge, say reckless endangerment, which is apt. Hard to see how the armorer isn't guilty af.

He pointed a loaded gun at a woman and pulled the trigger. If there are any responsible gun owners on the jury, he's screwed.

He pointed an unloaded gun that some idiot loaded. They need to charge the person that loaded the gun.

No gun owner is going to buy the 'I didn't know it was loaded' excuse.

Yes they will. Responsible training classes are in a classroom. All guns are not loaded, and ammo is not allowed in the room.

If somebody loaded the gun while a trainee was not looking and the trainee shot it, the person who brought ammo into the room and loaded it would be responsible for reckless endangerment not the person shooting the gun.

No. Part of the training would be to never point a gun (loaded or not) at another person. Further, it is always incumbent on the person holding a gun to verify whether it is loaded or not.

My understanding is that the proper movie set protocol is for the armorer to verify that a gun is not loaded, and then open the gun and show it to the actor so they can verify that it is not loaded. Neither was done in this case. Both the armorer and the actor that accepted the gun were negligent.

Anonymous wrote:I spent that same summer on a huge movie set. We had a very preventable accident on set. It’s not just Rust. Things have been spiraling for a while now. I had hoped the break for Covid would help, but it made things so much worse.

On a real job site in the blue collar world, safety is everyone's responsibility. If you see something unsafe, you are responsible to report it. You don't have the excuse of "safety is not my job." There's no, "It was his job to make sure we are safe." At least some of the workers understood this and refused to continue working on a dangerous set.

https://www.safeopedia.com/health-and-safety-in-the-workplace-is-everyones-responsibility/2/6045

I spent that same summer on a huge movie set. We had a very preventable accident on set. It’s not just Rust. Things have been spiraling for a while now. I had hoped the break for Covid would help, but it made things so much worse.

Anonymous wrote:The person or persons who should really be charged are the one or ones who brought live bullets onto a movie set. That is absolutely unconscionable and is the most direct cause of the woman’s death. I assume that they don’t know who that person is, though. I’m somewhat surprised that they weren’t able to figure that out. Maybe we need better laws tracing sale and purchase of ammunition. Or maybe they know it was the armorer — which would be a very clear conviction, to my mind. Does anyone know why she wasn’t on set that day? Did no one tell her they’d be filming with guns that day? For a western, I’d assume that would be almost every day. Did she just not show up that day?

Who made the decision to film with guns despite the armorer being absent is an important question. Once that decision was made, did other people on the set feel like they could protest that decision?

The people responsible for this accident are the people who made the decisions to combine responsibilities ( props/ armorer) , and then under compensated the position so they couldn’t attract an experienced and qualified person. The person who made the call to continue filming after it was clear that safety was such an issue that crew members walked out.
Charging AB does zero to address any of that. This is an industry problem. This just scapegoats lower people on the totem pole.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The other producers didn’t shoot the gun.

Ultimately many peoples mistakes ultimately added together to kill this poor person but I think they narrowed on the right people in order to achieve some justice through the law: the Armorer who was in charge of weapons, the 2nd AD who incorrectly declared “ cold gun” and the Lead Actor/producer who pulled the trigger.

It wasn't his decision to point the gun at the camera. The director told him to do that. Perhaps what is needed is for the director to have the actor check the gun before pointing it at anyone.

"He told me to do it" is not a valid defense

In this context, it is.

Anonymous wrote:Hilaria's still at it with the accent:

This thread isn't about her.

Anonymous wrote:Maybe it’s time to change the way things are done on set, add safest precautions, triple check chambers. Ban use of real weapons and layer in gun sound effects.

After Brandon Lee, they did change things. And it worked - for 30 years, there were no gun deaths on a set (other deaths due to other foreseeable and unforeseeable issues). The fault here is easy to see. It was clear human error compounded by laxity by others. Certainly the armorer is at fault. The DA is arguing that others shared responsibility - maybe the DA will prevail legally. We'll see.

Hilaria's still at it with the accent:

Maybe it’s time to change the way things are done on set, add safest precautions, triple check chambers. Ban use of real weapons and layer in gun sound effects.

The person or persons who should really be charged are the one or ones who brought live bullets onto a movie set. That is absolutely unconscionable and is the most direct cause of the woman’s death. I assume that they don’t know who that person is, though. I’m somewhat surprised that they weren’t able to figure that out. Maybe we need better laws tracing sale and purchase of ammunition. Or maybe they know it was the armorer — which would be a very clear conviction, to my mind. Does anyone know why she wasn’t on set that day? Did no one tell her they’d be filming with guns that day? For a western, I’d assume that would be almost every day. Did she just not show up that day?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The other producers didn’t shoot the gun.

Ultimately many peoples mistakes ultimately added together to kill this poor person but I think they narrowed on the right people in order to achieve some justice through the law: the Armorer who was in charge of weapons, the 2nd AD who incorrectly declared “ cold gun” and the Lead Actor/producer who pulled the trigger.

It wasn't his decision to point the gun at the camera. The director told him to do that. Perhaps what is needed is for the director to have the actor check the gun before pointing it at anyone.

"He told me to do it" is not a valid defense

LATimes article today:

“We are very concerned about the precedent this might set,” said Duncan Crabtree-Ireland, national executive director of SAG-AFTRA. “Actors are not trained to be firearms experts.”

That sentiment is widely share among the members of Hollywood’s largest union.

Matthew Arkin, an actor who has been shot at with dummies or blanks for his part in an episode of the CBS show “Criminal Minds,” argued that actors are at the bottom of the chain of command when it comes to weapons.

“It’s abominable, I think it’s horrible,” Arkin said of the pending charges against Baldwin. “A film set is an environment of experts and I’m supposed to be expert at the acting part, not the props, not the weapons.””

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: If the film industry insists on using real working guns then I say that the actor should officially be the final line of defence. That’s the safest protocol.

Why that’s even needed in 2023 is beyond me. We can CGI dinosaurs, aliens and erupting volcanoes, but crew are needlessly put in danger because real guns are needed?

The answer is not having any real guns on set, period.

This is the only answer. There is no way that CGI can’t solve this issue!