Apologies for the double post......tried to delete the second one.

I'm a gun guy. Craigster is right.

Not only am I a gun guy I'm also a follow the rules guy. And the rules on a set are made to keep the dingbat ditzes known as actors safe. A system is set to keep the set safe. You cannot have folks breaking from that system at will and applying their own perceptions to it. That is chaos and dangerous.

You forgot "IMHO". :)

It sounds like Hollywood very much wants to "have their cake and eat it too".

If you cannot trust someone ("dingbat ditzes known as actors") with a real gun, don't hand them a real gun. It just doesn't get any simpler than that.

Hollywood, however, insists on playing with real guns. Insists on handing them to "dingbat ditzes known as actors". Why? There is no shortage of money in Hollywood. They have had decades in which they could have developed non-lethal facsimiles of every gun they would ever use in filming. The cost of doing so would go unnoticed in the greater Hollywood. Yet they have not. Why not?

Hannah partied, got drunk, was hungover, smoked marijuana, and possessed cocaine that she passed to someone else on the set once Halyna Hutchins was killed. She had an incident(s) on her only (I believe) previous armorer job on The Old Way with Nicolas Cage. I'm not buying that she was anywhere near competent.

Having watched a good portion of the livestream of the trial, I don't think the verdict will get reversed. The entire atmosphere around guns on that set was awful, and its the armorer's job to enforce firearms discipline.

Just to be clear, I'm not defending her. I do believe, however, that she was "over charged" (and I don't mean for a meal...). She is absolutely guilty of some level of criminal negligence. Just not manslaughter. She did not point the gun at a living human being, she did not cock the hammer, she did not pull the trigger.

Her incompetence was certainly a big component in a very tragic outcome. My point this entire time has been that if they were all following "real gun" safety protocols, that even her criminal level of incompetence would not have resulted in a death.

Again, "layered" safety when dealing with real guns. These idiots (and she wasn't the only one) didn't even recognize, nor heed, the first layer. The fact that there was no second, third, or fourth layer allowed what could have been no more than an embarrassing level of incompetence turn into a fatal level of incompetence.

Well, let's see what her sentence is. 18 months isn't even that long. But she has a lifetime sentence for working that job or anything near it.

Craigster,

I don't think it is/was a Rod and Gun Club. I think the procedures violate a basic safety principle, the last person in the chain has responsibility. I timed a few people on a SAA replica in the time to unload (that is assuming something was in the cylinder) do basic function check then reload while checking the rounds by shaking individual rounds) and came up an average of 20 seconds. This was at a leisurely pace with people who were not familiar with a SAA and less than five minutes of instruction on the pistol.

Teaching people the differences between blanks, dummies and live rounds is very simple and takes only a few minutes.

The difference is the will to do it and enforce it with consequences.

Bringing in explosives is a red herring.

MMARSH brought up a good point of two person integrity, it works from firearms to aviation.

On the point of 'only 26 years old' I and others have served and commanded many younger service members who could, and have, fulfill these safety requirements. I strongly disagree with him on accepting a firearm without personally checking it's condition, not happening.

The lack of training the 'ding bat crazies' is down to will rather that ability to train and enforce standards.

Adding extra layers to the safety chain rather than enforcing basic established procedures simplified as much as possible is a proven recipe for problems. It adds a false sense of security. The same goes for relying on someone else in the chain to address the problem, the most obvious are the Boeing issues with the 800 Max and their door issues.

S/F, FOG

This is a fair question. Would an actor remove each round and inspect them? Would they have the training to look for the hole in the case that vents propellant gas?
How would they know if the rounds are safe?

Gangster movie .... half-dozen Thompsons with 100 round drums .... or belt fed Ma Deuces in a WWII movie .... or just a .45 ACP magazine, AK-47, etc.

Should an actor be checking all those rounds too?

Hugh and Craigster "get this"...

We have kids as young as 12 years old in my club's Hunter Education classes. We have dummy rounds on hand to help teach them the nuances of gun safety while loading and unloading their firearms. It takes all of about three seconds to demonstrate to even the least interested 12 year old what the differences are between a "live" round and a "dummy" round. It really is that simple. I know some would love to portray this as some expert level only kind of a thing, but it really isn't.

Do the scenes being filmed with those weapons require that they be pointed directly at the camera? If so, we have already been told that camera will be remotely operated. Are they used in scenes wherein the shooter must point them directly at another actor? If so, we have already been told that there are camera angles and tricks that make it look like they are when they actually are not. I would hazard a guess that, additionally, most scenes involving our hero going "full auto" or something isolate upon that hero, and there is nothing down range that should not be fired upon.

And, well, at the end of the day "one size" does not "fit all". In this specific case, we are looking at a revolver that holds five rounds. A revolver that can be checked in seconds. No excuse not to do so.

I get that and have the same experience at my club but the question remains...do the actors get that instruction? Or, do they trust the armorer to do it for them?

I see this question as the central issue. I agree with the position that when I accept control of a weapon I accept the responsibility that goes with it. However, that does not appear to be a universal attitude.

So, again I say that the Director has overall responsibility to ensure that training is effective, control measures are impeccable, and all others involved in handling the weapon are up to the task as measured against the strictest standards.

For example, in my former industry there exists a standard known as the Park Doctrine which basically states:
The Government can try to obtain conviction of a company official for violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) even if the corporate official was unaware of the violation– if the official was in a position of authority to
prevent or correct the violation and did not do so

As a laboratory director I was responsible for EVERYTHING going on in my lab. Sure I could fire those people who screwed up but I'd be out the door in handcuffs right behind them as they go scot free.

No disagreement from me but the point about opening the cylinder, removing, checking, and reloading the rounds is not something I could do well given 30 seconds.

That's 30 seconds of time that should be taken, of course. But no matter what you think of Baldwin, he was likely focusing on being in character which would be in opposition of a careful logical person.

Simply put, this whole thing is a CF of errors and I'm a little surprised that the dude that passed the gun to AB hasn't been found to be culpable. Or is he the one that took a plea? If so, I think that plea should have been better thought out. If he got a plea, so does Baldwin, if he chooses.

And anyone that handled .45 Colt ammo in any fashion WRT to that movie should be sanctioned. Make that any caliber of ammo. Narrowing this down to Gutierrez-Reed is a little myopic.

If there was ever a goat rope, this is it. The only good that could ever come of this is to emphasize all that is wrong. No wonder they have guys like Hugh R. Sounds like the industry would rum amuck w/o a safety officer.

Anyway, once sentenced, I bet we never hear of Gutierrez-Reed again. She's going to be changing sheets at Motel 6 for a long time before anyone would hire her for anything that requires responsibility. I wouldn't even read a book she wrote should she do so.

Soooo .... it depends upon the gun and the script then ... do I have it right?

How about western with a Winchester ... should the actor check .... and what would "The Rifleman" do?

Do they remove the rounds in a Winchester or Colt SAA and check them .... 'cause they are all "loaded" ... with something.

Poke, poke, poke ----> bear :)

All in fun because it won't stop raining :D

Craigster has explained it. It is supposed to get checked. The Armorer is to load the weapons in front of the actors. Policy says they show each round to the actor and then place the round in the weapon. They then give the weapon to the actor. After the scene the weapon is taken from the actor and safely stored away. There is no need for the actor to make an additional check.

^^^ I have not read all of these threads or posts .... I did not know that... thanks!

But if someone hands me a gun, I check, even if I saw them check it in front of me.... I just do. In the "real world" I live in.... it's binary ... empty or loaded. Any no fast draws, cross draws, twirling a lever to load and rolling over on the ground to shoot faster either :D.

Well, Jeff Higgins does not agree with the actor not checking it. I can't say he's wrong. But passing the bun along from person to person is clearly wrong. In this case that needs to be addressed.

IOW, Gutierrez-Reed is guilty but she's not alone.

What about a Hawkens .... is it loaded or not?

Here

I say Jeff is wrong and she was VERY wrong (and guilty), and mebbe whoever hired her (AB) .... that's getting grey....

To go "off topic", but hopefully not to PARF, I think the 15 (edited ... not 25) year old school shooter's mom was guilty and his dad too .... but definately a grey area.

Accidents happen .... that wasn't an accident .... pure negligence.

Whew .... the rain is ending .... I think I'm done here :)!

Thank You!

Another source

https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/prop-guns-movie-sets-1.6221637

What are the rules for firearms on set?
The weapons master is required to be on set whenever a weapon is being used. The Actors' Equity Association's guidelines state that, "Before each use, make sure the gun has been test-fired offstage, and then ask to test fire it yourself. Watch the prop master check the cylinders and barrel to be sure no foreign object or dummy bullet has become lodged inside." Further, "All loading of firearms must be done by the property master, armourer or experienced persons working under their direct supervision."

"Nowadays, all weapons are checked before your blanks are put into the weapon.… The blanks themselves are never loaded until the very last minute, when all crew is in position, so the armourer knows exactly where every member of the crew is so that no one's walking through any danger areas the armourer has set up," said armoury co-ordinator Sam Dormer.

It was my understanding that David Halls handed the gun to Baldwin, when it should have been Guitierrez and that's why he pled out. According to his testimony, Guitierrez gave the gun to Baldwin. According to his testimony, he participated in a half-ass inspection with Guitierrez showing him 3-4 of the rounds in the gun (not all of them) without removing them.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/1tY2qh-IRjo?si=XsqjY3BfC-RdOVtg" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I wouldn't even know where to start on that. But if your point is that it should be handled absolutely within protocol, then more than one person should be sure of the fact.

I get it that someone may say they cleared a gun and handed it to someone else who found that it wasn't. Maybe that is a mistake, or stupidity in not knowing the full procedure. A second check is necessary.

I guess what I'm questioning is the fact that Gutierrez-Reed was not immediately present at the hand off and someone else is not having to answer (suitably, IMO) for their actions. And now the charges (or accusations) are being directed at an actor not for just doing what happened, but for even hiring the crew.

And the whole thing got weird for me when the husband of the woman killed settled for what appears to be equity in the movie. I don't get any of this.

Maybe the rain stopped here too.

It'd be more accurate to not refer to Baldwin just as "an actor" given he had a higher role.

Not pointing these at someone still seem to be an important part of safety.
Playing bang at a real person with a real gun while not even filming is the final avoidable step.
I doubt Jeff would play bang with a real gun at a person even if he checked if it were loaded for live ammo first.

Rain didn't stop :).

A Hawkens is a favorite of Jeff's... loaded from the muzzle with powder and bullet ... early frontier guns. Think Revolutionary War scenes where the armies engage ...they do have powder in them for flash and noise to recreate realism.... but not loaded with a "bullet" .... an early "blank". No actor would be able to know .... gotta trust the "experts".

Just messin' with Jeff ;)

For make believe TV/Movie bs, sometimes pistols are in holsters on the opposite hip, facing backwards and drawn while "fanning" the hammer with the trigger being held.

No one would do this in real life.

In order to create movie BS.... this causes the muzzle to be pointed at about half the room .... in an arc of approx. 180 degrees from holster to target. AB did this with a gun he thought was unloaded.... it's a totally reckless cross-draw, while fanning that I KNOW Jeff has never done in real life... NO ONE does, not with real ammo.... it's pure TV/Movie make believe BS. AB wasn't aiming at her .... an accident occured because a loaded gun was in his hand and he was practicing his role ... following a movie script.

Rain or not .... I'm done now :D

IMHO :)

If a corp executive cut costs through bypassing standards in constructing a major building, would they be blameless if fatality(s) resulted?

Alec is not just an actor being told what to do.
He is the director, the guy in charge, the red flags were there ahead of time.
He kept pushing.
Greed over safety.

I'm not defending him ... he might be somewhat responsible ... but is he really the one in charge... what about producers, execs, and the folks who hired him.... he's a peon too ... or would be in the corporate world I knew.

I don't know squat about the movie biz ....

Is the director in charge, the producer, the executive producer, the person who actually hired her (AB?), the "check writer" ... I dunno.

I barely know who AB is .... other than seeing clips of him on the news, etc. :D.

Just not my world ....

Ah, noggin got jogged.

Alex Baldwin was Producer, not Director.

He was good in this movie....

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hkSJGkgql3M?si=iU0ofUURPFbnKZfJ" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Thanks for the correction. So, which has overall responsibility?

David halls was the assistant director…

These titles feel arbitrary

Producers are.
He was trying to push this film through without budget to match the ambition.
Which is part of why I see that it isn't an either or for who messed up.
They both did.

You know, I would be absolutely fine with this as a safety protocol. If the Armorer starts by demonstrating that the weapon is first empty, clear of all rounds, and then loads it with what they demonstrate to be blanks or dummies - in front of the personnel on the set - then hands that gun directly to the actor, I'm fine with that. Everyone involved has witnessed the Armorer setting up the "cold gun".

That is not what happened here, though, is it? And because none of this happened, it becomes the responsibility of the individual in possession of that gun to check it. Yes, fine - have the Armorer do all of that so long as it is all done right there in front of everyone. But it wasn't.

^^^^ Stick a fork in this thread .... it's done :D

Very underrated... We also get a peak at a young Elle MacPherson :cool:

If policy isn't followed tbe actor doesn't take possession of the weapon.

That is exactly how it is supposed to be done. The other factor is that the armorer should have had the weapon, dummy and blank ammo locked up and secured when not on set. No one else should have had access to it.