They also just filmed Nicholas Cage selling guns to actual African despots, which saved them a ton of money on casting and SAG actor minimums.
So much this. If someone clears a weapon right in front of me then hands it to me, the first thing I do is clear it again. I don't trust anyone completely when it comes to firearms. Also, if a scene requires an actor to fire directly at a camera, why the blue fuck would you have a cameraperson behind that camera? Have them walk away leaving the camera running. And if they took the actual guns to be used in the scene out plinking during the day? That's as about as negligent as you can get. The weapons should've been under lock and key with no real ammo allowed anywhere near them.
This is what led to Brandon Lee's death while filming The Crow. The special effects crew pulled the bullets to dump the powder from live rounds, but failed to remove the primers. One of those rounds was fired and the primer had sufficient force to fire the round, but it didn't exit the barrel. Later during filming the scene when his character was shot, a blank round was fired and the lodged round exited the barrel with nearly the same force as if it was a normal live round. This is why there is a difference between a "dummy round" and live munitions rendered inert.
Why is it different? Multiple industry standards developed over decades of firearms used in movies give Alec Baldwin the actor (or any other actor) every reason to believe the weapon went through those multiple industry standard procedures to ensure it was safe to use during filming of the scene. Also, ostensibly in accordance to with those industry standards, the AD announced to him and the set that the weapon was "cold." If he used the weapon as he was supposed to in that scene, then I don't see how he's negligent for doing what was he was expected to do. If the investigation determines any steps of those industry standards were willfully or negligently ignored/overlooked, etc. then those who ignored/overlooked those standards will be held culpable. Now, Alec Baldwin the producer could also be held negligent if it is determined that as the producer he allowed or fostered an atmosphere enabling that environment to exist. That's why it's different.
The same industry standards that allowed an inexperienced 24-year-old to be an on-set armorer? I don’t buy it. Playing hot potato with a loaded gun is a recipe for disaster no matter what policies are in place. Basic firearm safety training should be mandatory for anyone handling them.
Why would the AD say the words "cold gun" to an actor as he handed it to them if he had not personally verified it was cold? Is that not how it typically works? and https://variety.com/2021/film/news/...8wlp7Btyr8l7aKArE4WPFy4iZs6-XMOafZUjADOYK5p8k
I did, but I don’t think whether or not they failed matters. Industry standards don’t carry the weight of law. Is there some kind of governing body that dictates what firearm handling requirements are on-set? Is there a consortium of studios that that agreed upon the same policies? Those aren’t glib questions, I’m legitimately asking since I don’t know shit about the industry. If those factors didn’t exist before, I bet they will now.
The AD has previously lost his job on other sets due to unsafe firearms handling. Why would he call out "Cold Gun" when it wasn't? I have no fucking clue... I'm just repeating what the police reports have said from multiple witnesses. Maybe he assumed that because it was on the cart that it was? Maybe he was used to saying that during rehearsals without actually taking the steps to verify it? I have no clue... regardless, their procedures were beyond shit, and while Baldwin will most definitely receive blame for this as he's the one that pulled the trigger, others should be held responsible as well due to their negligence. Should be... but will they be? Even if Baldwin is charged with manslaughter, will there be any criminal outcome from this as a result? It's such a mess. That's why I said it will be interesting to watch this unfold.
I just found this: https://local480.com/craft/prop-weapons-armorer/ And a statement they put out: (505) 986-9512 info@iatselocal480.com local480.com 1418 Cerrillos Rd Santa Fe, NM 87505 LOCAL 480 STATEMENT Last week one of the productions in our state endured a terrible tragedy. The officers, members, and staff of IATSE Local 480 express their deepest and most heartfelt condolences to the family and friends of Local 600member Halyna Hutchins.We are devastated by the death of our union sister who is remembered as a leader amongst her peers, a talented and rising star in her craft as a Director of Photography, and as a wife and mother.Her death should never have happened.Union sets should besafe sets.We mourn collectively with our union and film community over this great loss. We are doing what we can to support our members who are impacted by this tragedy. We will continue to work together to cultivate a culture of safety on our sets. Local 480 represents some of the best and most skilled motion picture technicians in the industry.We are proud to work together with members across the many motion picture IATSE locals to make films and television in our state. We have been greatly disturbedby media reports that the producers employed non-union persons in craft positions and, worse, used them to replace skilled union members who were protesting their working conditions. That is inexcusable. We are all awaiting the results of the investigation and are cooperating fully with the relevant authorities.In the meantime, we ask the public and media to respect our members’ privacy as they grieve this horrific event
Assuming that the gun in question was a Colt Single Action Army clone, which would be period appropriate, the loading and unloading process is pretty tedious compared to most modern firearms. I could see how a chamber could get skipped while swapping one type of ammo for another if you aren't being particularly diligent, which makes the allegation that the crew was using the gun for plinking with live rounds even worse.
That appears to be the local studio mechanics of new mexico union. I don't see any legal requirements or authorization or certification or anything required for armorers. Instead, it seems like a "unions are better" kind of messaging.
I have no idea, but if it's like every other professional industry in existence, it probably has professional standards for an activity commonly occurs within the industry. Also, based on information from interviews and statements since the incident, there likely are industry policies and procedures. CA may actually have codified laws regarding firearm handling on film sets due to the prevalence of the industry in the state, but NM may not. Its impossible for laws to be written to cover every industry and every conceivable incident. At that point, training, industry standard, etc is what's used to determine negligence. What else would you use to determine a standard for what is and isn't negligent activty? Manslaughter is the unintentional death of another person as a result of reckless actions, negligence, criminal activity, or any person's actions is involuntary manslaughter. In place "industry standards" provide a measure to determine what is and isn't reckless behavior or negligence. If industry standards were followed, its a lot harder to claim negligence. I can see a logical path for claiming the AD committed a reckless action by not personally clearing the weapon and calling it "cold" when handing it to an actor. I can't see a logical path to make the same claim against an actor for doing what they were supposed to do. In this case it was to fire the weapon in the direction of the camera. This is an oversimplification, but think of it like this: a mechanic tells you he fixed the brakes on your car, you drive off and the first time you hit the brakes instead of stopping, you hit and kill someone. During the investigation, it's determined the mechanic didn't follow proper procedure or willfully omitted parts so that your brakes wouldn't work properly. You paid a trained expert to fix your brakes and had a logical and reasonable expectation for your brakes to work properly when you got your car back. Who's liable, you or the mechanic?
In other non firearm news, this showed up today. I’m sure @Rush-O-Matic will approve. Next step is to get a kergerator to use it on.
The mechanic, generally because the law has settled on the fact that they are liable. But if the general rules of going to a mechanic stated that the driver performs a basic check when the vehicle is back in their custody, then it becomes less clear. Alec Baldwin not being held liable regarding the accidental discharge of a firearm, as someone who has handling it, more or less betrays the primary rules of gun safety. I don’t have a real dog in this fight, but it would be interesting if that didn’t come into play here.
I'm more interested in what ends up happening with the inevitable civil suit. Given the prevalent Hollywood accounting fuckery where all of the liability and debt gets assigned to shell companies with no assets, it's likely that the family ends up getting very little if anything at all. That should make for a fun news cycle.
They'll certainly try, but the case against Baldwin is much weaker than the one against the production company. Limiting liability is one of the main reasons most small businesses are incorporated in the first place. The same thing is true for the criminal charges. They might end up going after Baldwin and the other producers for manslaughter because of the media attention, but a conviction is unlikely.
"Mr. Baldwin... did you point that loaded gun at the camera, pull the trigger, and kill that woman?" That's all they need. It's going to be pretty hard to get around that in a civil case.