Quote:
Originally Posted by Sooner or later
If policy isn't followed tbe actor doesn't take possession of the weapon.
|
But he did... an experienced actor who knows those rules quite well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigster59
That is exactly how it is supposed to be done.
|
Except it wasn't done that way on this set in this particular instance. Which was Baldwin's call, not Guiterez-Reed's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigster59
The other factor is that the armorer should have had the weapon, dummy and blank ammo locked up and secured when not on set.
|
But we know that was not how it was done on this set. Baldwin insisted he had access as well. Guns were out while she was gone. That was Baldwin's call. As a very experienced actor, producer, director, etc. he knows better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigster59
No one else should have had access to it.
|
Except in this case Baldwin insisted that he have access as well.
All of that adds up to the fact that Baldwin was responsible to check
that gun, on
that set at
that moment. And he didn't. That remains 100% on him, as the man who neglected to follow accepted industry safety protocols. When he brushed those aside, he became like any other person in possession of a firearm - solely, 100% responsible for whatever happens with it.
He was handling that gun as if he were not on a movie set, following "your" rules. As such, he cannot hide behind those rules. He becomes like anyone else handling a gun, responsible to follow generally accepted gun safety protocols. That includes checking to see if it is loaded, since he did not watch the Armorer do that, under your rules.