Now is not the time to talk about gun control (1 Viewer)

[brandon]

T&P

Redirect Notice

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

I get charging the armorer. They are responsible. I don't see the point in charging the actor. The armorer's job is to ensure the safety of the weapons, period. They are the professionals, not the actors, director, or anyone else on that set.

Yes, that's the way it's been looked at by many in the past but I think that's a mistake. If you're handed a weapon and its chambers are full, and you're the one who's going to point it at someone and pull the trigger, you better know personally if it's safe or not.

 

[UriUT]

Yes, that's the way it's been looked at by many in the past but I think that's a mistake. If you're handed a weapon and its chambers are full, and you're the one who's going to point it at someone and pull the trigger, you better know personally if it's safe or not.

Ive held a rifle once in my life. Shot it once and had even taken a bs gun safety course. I still wouldnt know how to use a gun. If someone who is supposedly an expert with gun safety handed me a gun that she assured was safe I take her word for it. Now imagine that process over the course of however many movies balwin had done and the sense of security would be simple complacency. I assume thousand of other actors would testify to that. If we are talking keanu Reeves...i would question it since the guybknows guns. Is balwin in that same boat?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Yes, that's the way it's been looked at by many in the past but I think that's a mistake. If you're handed a weapon and its chambers are full, and you're the one who's going to point it at someone and pull the trigger, you better know personally if it's safe or not.

The expert is hired for a reason, and not just for their knowledge of how to handle the weapons. They should have proper handling protocols and a safety plan in place for all weapons on the set, period. That's where the failure happened.

 

[coldseat]

What I don't understand is why they even had live rounds on the set of the movie? Why would they even need them?

It seems like such and intentional act to put a live round into that gun. Like somebody was intentionally trying to cause mischief on the movie set, and I don't think that person was Alec Baldwin.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

Ive held a rifle once in my life. Shot it once and had even taken a bs gun safety course. I still wouldnt know how to use a gun. If someone who is supposedly an expert with gun safety handed me a gun that she assured was safe I take her word for it. Now imagine that process over the course of however many movies balwin had done and the sense of security would be simple complacency. I assume thousand of other actors would testify to that. If we are talking keanu Reeves...i would question it since the guybknows guns. Is balwin in that same boat?

The expert is hired for a reason, and not just for their knowledge of how to handle the weapons. They should have proper handling protocols and a safety plan in place for all weapons on the set, period. That's where the failure happened.

In my opinion, the actor is the last line of defense. While the armorer certainly is responsible for the weapons on site and all that that entails, the actor/actress isn't like a dog that just does what it's told at the sound of a whistle. Actors have a brain. How much does it take to look into the chambers of a revolver to see what kind of ammo is in there? Why not ask the armorer to show you before taking the weapon, pointing it at someone, and pulling the trigger? The difference between blanks and live rounds is quite obvious. Is that asking too much?

It's beyond me how anyone can say that it's their job to just unquestioningly take a real firearm from someone, point it at someone else, and pull the trigger. It's crazy. And I don't care what the industry standard is.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

What I don't understand is why they even had live rounds on the set of the movie? Why would they even need them?

It seems like such and intentional act to put a live round into that gun. Like somebody was intentionally trying to cause mischief on the movie set, and I don't think that person was Alec Baldwin.

Clearly there never should have been live rounds on the set but I don't think we have an intentional killing here.

 

[SamAndreas]

I get charging the armorer. They are responsible. I don't see the point in charging the actor. The armorer's job is to ensure the safety of the weapons, period. They are the professionals, not the actors, director, or anyone else on that set.

I don't think they were charging the actor, they were charging the producer. He just happens to be both.

There's all this talk about a year and half in prison. I doubt that, I would think a plea deal is already in place. A fine and probation is what I would guess.

Alec Baldwin will never be allowed to have or to hold a firearm again during his life. Even / especially on a movie set. That's the justice and correction brought about by this action. He's being made an example of to create a correction in our society.

He was irresponsible in some measure when he was tasked to be the person responsible, it took a life, there are reasonable consequences. This is reasonable.

In California he will not even be allowed to have or hold a fake gun especially on a movie set, if it looks like a gun, it's illegal for him to have it in his hand after a felony conviction. They'll have to find a different actor that is all.

The cost to him is no more bang bang shoot them up roles. He can still be an actor and or producer, just no more guns on set when he is around.

He will not even be allowed to be within a few feet of a gun unless that gun is in the hand or physical possession of someone else the whole time he is near. If that person sets that gun down on a counter or table, Baldwin will have to jump up and move away or face the possibility of charges. If he is in a car and a gun is under a seat, even if he doesn't know it is there, he could face charges.

I was a prospective juror for a case like that. I was chosen to sit on the jury, but the prosecuting attorney sent me home with one of his challenges. Probably for the best, it was looking like the case was going to be about a gun under a seat in a car that the guy was only a passenger in. I think when the prosecuting attorney mentioned that to test the prospective jurors his co attorney was watching and reading the body language of the jurors about that pronouncement. That other lawyer saw an expression on my face and a slight shaking of my head that made it clear that I was dubious about at assertion of law in the case, in the event that the guy really didn't know the gun was there I would have not voted to convict. So I was bumped off of that jury, and was sent home.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I don't think they were charging the actor, they were charging the producer. He just happens to be both.

There's all this talk about a year and half in prison. I doubt that, I would think a plea deal is already in place. A fine and probation is what I would guess.

Alec Baldwin will never be allowed to have or to hold a firearm again during his life. Even / especially on a movie set. That's the justice and correction brought about by this action. He's being made an example of to create a correction in our society.

He was irresponsible in some measure when he was tasked to be the person responsible, it took a life, there are reasonable consequences. This is reasonable.

In California he will not even be allowed to have or hold a fake gun especially on a movie set, if it looks like a gun, it's illegal for him to have it in his hand after a felony conviction. They'll have to find a different actor that is all.

The cost to him is no more bang bang shoot them up roles. He can still be an actor and or producer, just no more guns on set when he is around.

He will not even be allowed to be within a few feet of a gun unless that gun is in the hand or physical possession of someone else the whole time he is near. If that person sets that gun down on a counter or table, Baldwin will have to jump up and move away or face the possibility of charges. If he is in a car and a gun is under a seat, even if he doesn't know it is there, he could face charges.

I was a prospective juror for a case like that. I was chosen to sit on the jury, but the prosecuting attorney sent me home with one of his challenges. Probably for the best, it was looking like the case was going to be about a gun under a seat in a car that the guy was only a passenger in. I think when the prosecuting attorney mentioned that to test the prospective jurors his co attorney was watching and reading the body language of the jurors about that pronouncement. That other lawyer saw an expression on my face and a slight shaking of my head that made it clear that I was dubious about at assertion of law in the case, in the event that the guy really didn't know the gun was there I would have not voted to convict. So I was bumped off of that jury, and was sent home.

That makes sense. I had forgotten he was a producer on the film. In that case. all of the producers on-set the day this happened should be charged.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Yes, that's the way it's been looked at by many in the past but I think that's a mistake. If you're handed a weapon and its chambers are full, and you're the one who's going to point it at someone and pull the trigger, you better know personally if it's safe or not.

The armorer is the professional. The amateur is not to blame. As I said, the on-set procedures were forked here and that falls on the armorer first.

 

[samiam5211]

Can we just agree that if Baldwin goes to jail, that it would be great if he spends his entire time there in character as Trump.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

I don't think they were charging the actor, they were charging the producer. He just happens to be both.

There's all this talk about a year and half in prison. I doubt that, I would think a plea deal is already in place. A fine and probation is what I would guess.

Alec Baldwin will never be allowed to have or to hold a firearm again during his life. Even / especially on a movie set. That's the justice and correction brought about by this action. He's being made an example of to create a correction in our society.

He was irresponsible in some measure when he was tasked to be the person responsible, it took a life, there are reasonable consequences. This is reasonable.

In California he will not even be allowed to have or hold a fake gun especially on a movie set, if it looks like a gun, it's illegal for him to have it in his hand after a felony conviction. They'll have to find a different actor that is all.

The cost to him is no more bang bang shoot them up roles. He can still be an actor and or producer, just no more guns on set when he is around.

He will not even be allowed to be within a few feet of a gun unless that gun is in the hand or physical possession of someone else the whole time he is near. If that person sets that gun down on a counter or table, Baldwin will have to jump up and move away or face the possibility of charges. If he is in a car and a gun is under a seat, even if he doesn't know it is there, he could face charges.

I was a prospective juror for a case like that. I was chosen to sit on the jury, but the prosecuting attorney sent me home with one of his challenges. Probably for the best, it was looking like the case was going to be about a gun under a seat in a car that the guy was only a passenger in. I think when the prosecuting attorney mentioned that to test the prospective jurors his co attorney was watching and reading the body language of the jurors about that pronouncement. That other lawyer saw an expression on my face and a slight shaking of my head that made it clear that I was dubious about at assertion of law in the case, in the event that the guy really didn't know the gun was there I would have not voted to convict. So I was bumped off of that jury, and was sent home.

While Baldwin was a producer it was as an actor that he pulled the trigger. The fact that he was also a producer I think uped the anti but it's his action as an actor that has him in real trouble.

I also doubt he'll be found guilty of involunterry manslaughter but this sends a message across the industry and should make it a safer place. That's my hope anyway and why I support the charge.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

The armorer is the professional. The amateur is not to blame. As I said, the on-set procedures were forked here and that falls on the armorer first.

Don't you think that Baldwin knew that the on-set proceedures were forked? Of course he did. Even more reason for him to be personally cautious.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

Rules on how prop guns are used on film sets are about to change after 'Rust' shooting. Here's why

The rules governing how guns are used on film and TV sets are being revised in the wake of the 'Rust' shooting.

www.latimes.com

Among the possible revisions: requiring armorers to be present when weapons are handed over to actors and providing the crew with a glossary of terms used by armorers on sets, one of the people said.

“Safety Bulletins #1 and #2 are currently under revision,” Matthew Antonucci, management co-chair of the Industry-Wide Labor-Management Safety Committee, said in a statement. “Because that process is not yet complete it would be inappropriate to comment further at this time.”

While the talks are still in their early stages, the revisions of the bulletins would be the first since 2003.

........................................................................................

Safety Bulletin #1 deals with the use of firearms and blank ammunition on sets.

It includes rules such as never having live ammunition on set or placing a finger on the trigger until ready to shoot; and requiring that the prop master or armorer inspect the weapon before and after each firing.

Safety Bulletin #1 — which is attached to call sheets for all the crew — requires that the prop master or other appropriate personnel handle firearms, and states that only a “qualified person” can load firearms just before a scene. Actors working nearby should be able to observe the loading of the gun, it says.

......................................................

In the case of “Rust,” armorer Hannah Gutierrez Reed was outside the church where the fatal scene took place, according to police interviews. She has denied wrongdoing in the case.

Assistant director Dave Halls took a gun from a cart, called out “cold gun” to indicate the gun was safe to use, and handed it to Baldwin, but did not check all the rounds in the gun first, according to the affidavits. Halls’ attorney Lisa Torraco disputed the version of events described in the affidavits.

 

[DaveXA]

While Baldwin was a producer it was as an actor that he pulled the trigger. The fact that he was also a producer I think uped the anti but it's his action as an actor that has him in real trouble.

I also doubt he'll be found guilty of involunterry manslaughter but this sends a message across the industry and should make it a safer place. That's my hope anyway and why I support the charge.

Actually, it's the opposite, the directors are or should be held to a higher standard than the actors. He's got more legal exposure in his role as director than as actor. Directors are the ones who need to be aware and handle safety issues.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

In my opinion, the actor is the last line of defense. While the armorer certainly is responsible for the weapons on site and all that that entails, the actor/actress isn't like a dog that just does what it's told at the sound of a whistle. Actors have a brain. How much does it take to look into the chambers of a revolver to see what kind of ammo is in there? Why not ask the armorer to show you before taking the weapon, pointing it at someone, and pulling the trigger? The difference between blanks and live rounds is quite obvious. Is that asking too much?

It's beyond me how anyone can say that it's their job to just unquestioningly take a real firearm from someone, point it at someone else, and pull the trigger. It's crazy. And I don't care what the industry standard is.

The person with the most responsibility for gun safety on a film set should be the person with the most knowledge- the armorer. If an actor is driving a car in a scene and loses control because the brakes are bad, is that the actor's fault?

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

Actually, it's the opposite, the directors are or should be held to a higher standard than the actors. He's got more legal exposure in his role as director than as actor. Directors are the ones who need to be aware and handle safety issues.

Oh really? Gee, I thought the guy who pointed the weapon and pulled the trigger might have some responsibility here. Hmmmm.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

The person with the most responsibility for gun safety on a film set should be the person with the most knowledge- the armorer. If an actor is driving a car in a scene and loses control because the brakes are bad, is that the actor's fault?

You're talking about a car that failed. The firearm didn't fail. It worked exactly the way a firearm is supposed to work. That's the problem.

 

[DaveXA]

Oh really? Gee, I thought the guy who pointed the weapon and pulled the trigger might have some responsibility here. Hmmmm.

Not at a movie set. That's almost entirely on the directors and amorer. There's absolutely no reason a loaded gun should ever be on set. Granted anyone on set should still inspect and ensure weapons on set are safe, but the primary responsibility lies with the directors and amorer.