Alec Baldwin SHOOTING

a reply to: SirHardHarry

He wasn't at fault, those entrusted by industry standards who might not have been industry standards and safety protocols were at fault.

I have to disagree with you there. Anyone who holds a firearm, for whatever reason, bears responsibility for it. That's the first law of firearm use. As the wielder of the weapon, one is directly responsible for that weapon. That does not diminish the fact that those whose responsibility was to ensure safety were not also responsible; it means all involved bear responsibility. That includes Alec Baldwin.

That may not be the "industry standard," but it is reality. And I think this movie just gave way to a lot of that reality.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: SirHardHarry

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme
a reply to: SirHardHarry

Give me your basic safety talk to your hands on a project. That's industry standard, Bro.

Depends on what's involved in the scene, Bro.

Guns, cars, water, fire, smoke, etc..

Let's hear it all. It's second nature to me, from your talk it has to be second nature to you as well?

a reply to: randomtangentsrme

Theaters do not buy off brand for blanks, and I've never heard of Hollywood doing so either.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think most filming sessions end with someone shot either.

It is becoming pretty obvious this set was trying desperately to cut costs. I think it may be possible that off brand blanks were used to save money. Maybe I will be proven wrong on that, but until then it sounds plausible to me.

A quick question: does the film crew normally provide the blanks for such a film? Who does the actual purchasing?

TheRedneck

Prop guns are just that - props. They aren't real and they don't fire anything. When real firearms are used there is supposed to be an expert on-hand at all times to make sure the firearms are as they should be - unloaded, or loaded with blanks if necessary.

It should be noted that just because a gun is loaded with blanks does not mean it is safe. A blank is typically a wad of paper that when discharged is capable of inflicting a fatal wound under certain conditions.

Anyone handling firearms should be following basic firearm safety at all times. Treat every gun like it is loaded until you verify for yourself that it is not. Even if you watch someone check it and they tell you the gun is not loaded, you still check it for yourself. Maybe the person you just spoke to is an idiot. Maybe he was distracted. Maybe he lied to you. It doesn't matter. Every time you pick up a firearm you treat it like it is loaded until you verify for yourself that it is not. Even after you verify the weapon is not loaded you still don't point it at anyone, just in case. You never point a firearm at anything you don't want to kill. Its a simple rule that should always be followed. This was a failure on many points.

I would also like to know the relationship between baldwin and the victim. How long before we hear they were romantically involved? I am guessing on this, but something isn't adding up here...

a reply to: TheRedneck

I have to disagree with you there. Anyone who holds a firearm, for whatever reason, bears responsibility for it.

I know what you're saying, and agree to a general degree. But, when an actor is handed a prop, even a firearm, he entrusts them that they have been checked several times for safety. They haven't been trained in it, it a prop. Being a prop, property ensures it's safe for them to handle, and why it's checked (or should be) several times before it is handed to them. .

a reply to: SirHardHarry

I see what you're saying, but I've not seen too many actors check for themselves, because t hey *expect* what they are given is safe for usage. And why they won't touch it until it is handed to them.

I would propose to you, then, that that is something that needs to change. It literally takes seconds to check a firearm. Those are seconds well spent, considering the potential consequences such as we see now.

I have said it many times: the most dangerous person with a firearm is someone who doesn't know about firearms. I realize most actors have an aversion to them, but firearm training should be a standard for anyone who handles a firearm on a set. I don't even mean a long course in accuracy... just basic knowledge of firearm operation and safety. A day or two learning. Is that too much to spend on a very lucrative career?

Since you are in that industry, I urge you to consider that.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: SirHardHarry

He wasn't at fault, those entrusted by industry standards who might not have been industry standards and safety protocols were at fault.

I have to disagree with you there. Anyone who holds a firearm, for whatever reason, bears responsibility for it. That's the first law of firearm use. As the wielder of the weapon, one is directly responsible for that weapon. That does not diminish the fact that those whose responsibility was to ensure safety were not also responsible; it means all involved bear responsibility. That includes Alec Baldwin.

That may not be the "industry standard," but it is reality. And I think this movie just gave way to a lot of that reality.

TheRedneck

If this individual is who they suggest they are, they can back their words with various industry standards by web link. I could do the same. I elect this individual


Sadly that is not a question I can answer. But we have an AD in this conversation. Perhaps they can

a reply to: TheRedneck

would propose to you, then, that that is something that needs to change. It literally takes seconds to check a firearm

True. Which is why, as it stands, the fiearm is introduced. Props checks it in sight of everyone on set. It's handed to the AD, who also checks and confirms it so everyone sees it's safe. Then we hand it to the actor.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: randomtangentsrme

Theaters do not buy off brand for blanks, and I've never heard of Hollywood doing so either.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think most filming sessions end with someone shot either.

It is becoming pretty obvious this set was trying desperately to cut costs. I think it may be possible that off brand blanks were used to save money. Maybe I will be proven wrong on that, but until then it sounds plausible to me.

A quick question: does the film crew normally provide the blanks for such a film? Who does the actual purchasing?

TheRedneck

Purchasing is through the producer. or the production company. Just to say it, never through an assistant director.

a reply to: SirHardHarry

That's the hill you want to stand on?
You proclaimed it was safe until it took a life?

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: SirHardHarry

He wasn't at fault, those entrusted by industry standards who might not have been industry standards and safety protocols were at fault.

I have to disagree with you there. Anyone who holds a firearm, for whatever reason, bears responsibility for it. That's the first law of firearm use. As the wielder of the weapon, one is directly responsible for that weapon. That does not diminish the fact that those whose responsibility was to ensure safety were not also responsible; it means all involved bear responsibility. That includes Alec Baldwin.

That may not be the "industry standard," but it is reality. And I think this movie just gave way to a lot of that reality.

TheRedneck

If this individual is who they suggest they are, they can back their words with various industry standards by web link. I could do the same. I elect this individual


Sadly that is not a question I can answer. But we have an AD in this conversation. Perhaps they can

Here's start..

Safety on Set

a reply to: SirHardHarry

So what's one more final check by the actor, a couple more seconds, if it saves a life?

I know this case will likely never get to that point, primarily since Baldwin is a celebrity... but if I were sitting on a jury deciding his guilt, the first thing I would want to hear would be if he personally checked the firearm to verify its condition. If I were a prosecutor, the first point I would make is that he did not personally check the firearm to verify its condition.

There are a tremendous number of firearm owners across this nation who will never see an actual Hollywood movie set. Every single one (discounting criminals, of course; I refer to lawful owners) understands the basic rules of handling firearms. First and foremost, he who holds the gun holds the responsibility for the gun.

Then the three rules:

• Always treat every gun as if it were loaded.
  
• Never point the gun at anything one does not wish to kill.
  
• Never try to kill, save for self-protection or food.*

I said before I admire actors for what they do, and I meant that. But that admiration does not mean they get a free pass on common-sense safety precautions. Alec Baldwin violated the first two rules... he assumed the gun was safe, and he pointed it at others he did not wish to kill. That responsibility cannot be passed on to others; he held the gun.

* I have to point out that, as disgusting as it may sound, legally enforcing those rules would stop criminal gun use in its tracks. Can you imagine if a criminal who shot someone was ordered by the court to eat them?

Yeah, it's a pretty gross idea, I know.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme
a reply to: SirHardHarry

You proclaimed it was safe until it took a life?

I did not.

Apparently you really want to be right after being shown wrong.

a reply to: randomtangentsrme

Purchasing is through the producer. or the production company. Just to say it, never through an assistant director.

OK, this next question may not make a lot of sense, but I hope you can see what I am searching for.

Is the production company the same as the Union? In other words, if a non-union workforce was brought in, would anyone on that non-union workforce be responsible for procuring the blanks? I am assuming the producer would just tell someone that was working for him/her that he needed 'X' number of blank rounds instead of calling in the order personally. Would that someone be a Union employee?

TheRedneck

a reply to: randomtangentsrme
a reply to: SirHardHarry

Fellas, fellas... you both bring something to the table here. You are both teaching me a lot about what probably happened here. Isn't not having another incident like this more important than petty arguments over minutia?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

So what's one more final check by the actor, a couple more seconds, if it saves a life?

Not disagreeing, but it's not currently standard.

There are a tremendous number of firearm owners across this nation who will never see an actual Hollywood movie set. Every single one (discounting criminals, of course; I refer to lawful owners) understands the basic rules of handling firearms. First and foremost, he who holds the gun holds the responsibility for the gun.

I guess the difference is those involve a real firearm with real rounds used in a potentially real situation.

As opposed to a firearm that is used as a prop in a film and should have no lethal power for its use a film.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Is the production company the same as the Union?

No.

In other words, if a non-union workforce was brought in, would anyone on that non-union workforce be responsible for procuring the blanks?

Generally, production secures and initiates the sale (or contract) with the approval of the department needing the gear, or reimburses them, because production cuts the check based on what the department says they need for the production.

If it's low budget...I guess they could purchase third party and send receipts to production and who knows what quality of stuff they received, which might make sense if they had multiple discharge failures before this incident.

But everything usually goes through production because it's all budgeted. And production knows what departments need so it's granted, mostly.

a reply to: SirHardHarry

I guess the difference is those involve a real firearm with real rounds used in a potentially real situation.

As opposed to a firearm that is used as a prop in a film and should have no lethal power for its use a film.

I guess what I am trying to say is that these are real firearms, capable of firing real rounds, and capable of doing fatal damage to another person even when using blanks. They still explode gunpowder in a chamber to produce an explosive force.

I get what you're saying... these props are not intended to be used for actual firefight, self-defense, etc. But a gun has no intent... it's just a thing, and as capable of being misused or malfunctioning as any other thing. The difference I see here is that non-theatrical firearm users are exercising well-established safety rules, but the movie industry is shortcutting those.

Most times it still works out OK. But this time it didn't. And there have been others.

Just think about it, OK? You meet with people who could make a change; I do not. You are involved with actually making movies whereas I just watch them. You can potentially make a difference where I could not.

TheRedneck

a reply to: SirHardHarry

Generally, production secures and initiates the sale (or contract) with the approval of the department needing the gear, or reimburses them, because production cuts the check based on what the department says they need for the production.

If it's low budget...I guess they could purchase third party and send receipts to production and who knows what quality of stuff they received, which might make sense if they had multiple discharge failures before this incident.

But everything usually goes through production because it's all budgeted. And production knows what departments need so it's granted, mostly.

OK, I'm still not sure how it all works out. Let me throw a little ignorance at you and you correct me, OK?

Here's how I envision it: the producer accepts a script and hires the actors and writers, essentially all the talent. Then s/he hires a crew of workers who run the cameras, gaff the stunts, do any CGI, etc., right? So essentially everyone is contracted to the producer, who, I also assume, has his/her own staff. So each department contracted to the film has a budget I assume, already worked out. Put it all together and you have the budget for the film itself.

Now a firefight would be stunts, right? So would someone in stunts actually purchase the weapons and ammo? Or does the stunt department tell the producer they need this list of stuff and the producer has their direct people acquire it? The stunt department would be unionized, wouldn't it? while the producer's staff maybe wouldn't?

I'm trying to figure out if the people responsible for ordering the blanks themselves were on the union group that were fired, or if they were somehow above that fray. And would the change of personnel still affect the purchase of the blanks in either case?

I know this is probably chock full of errors, but I do appreciate the education I am getting.

TheRedneck