Rust armorer found guilty

[KFC911]

Originally Posted by Sooner or later

Here

Thank You!

[Sooner or later]

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.

[Steve Carlton]

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.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by KC911

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

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.

[Tervuren]

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

[Tervuren]

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.

Originally Posted by KC911

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"...

[KFC911]

Originally Posted by Zeke

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.

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

[KFC911]

Originally Posted by Tervuren

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.

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

IMHO

[Tervuren]

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.

[KFC911]

Originally Posted by Tervuren

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. .

Just not my world ....

[Tervuren]

Ah, noggin got jogged.

Alex Baldwin was Producer, not Director.

[stevej37]

He was good in this movie....

[flatbutt]

Originally Posted by Tervuren

Ah, noggin got jogged.

Alex Baldwin was Producer, not Director.

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

[Arizona_928]

David halls was the assistant director…

These titles feel arbitrary

[Tervuren]

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.

Originally Posted by flatbutt

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

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by Sooner or later

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.

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.

[KFC911]

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

[sc_rufctr]

Originally Posted by stevej37

He was good in this movie....

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

[Sooner or later]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

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.

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

[craigster59]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

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.

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.