I was slightly torn on this one from a technicality standpoint, but not about the simple logic of it all. Disclaimer: It’s been a while since I read all the details on this case.
For some reason, the armorer somehow allowed live cartridges on set and that is super bad. However, anyone that holds any kind of weapon should treat it like a weapon, especially if it is not marked as a prop or isn’t visibly disabled.
It was a failure of the top two gun safety rules: Always treat a gun as if it is loaded, and, never point a weapon at anything you do not intend to kill.
The death of Brandon Lee years ago should have underscored how even prop guns can kill.
Edit: Are there points that are incorrect here? Weapon safety is super important…
never point a weapon at anything you do not intend to kill.
It’s a bit unclear to me why he did that, but if he was practicing something he had to do in the movie, then that’s an exception. The claim is he pointed at the camera, which is plausible, but cameras have operators. This is why there is an armorer role and no live ammo can be on set.
If he was goofing around, that’s completely different, but haven’t seen sufficient clarification
Yeah. From the summary I heard on the radio yesterday, it sounded like there was evidence of him trying to be safe with it, like you mentioned the camera operator, there was a clip of him asking the operator to move to the other side of the camera so he wasn’t aiming at them. And they said it fired when he was decocking it and the hammer fell, not because he pulled the trigger.
But there’s also a bunch of complications due to stuff like the armorer being replaced and the new one apparently being unqualified, and for that reason he should bear responsibility as the producer having control over that decision.
He clearly bears some responsibility as Producer, although that probably extends to other producers and the Director. But as the person who was holding the weapon, there is personal responsibility as well, and it’s not clear how much
The only exception to point a gun at somebody is to protect life. If you can’t film a shot without pointing a real gun at someone, that shot doesn’t need to be made.
Well you better let hollywood know they cant use guns anymore in movies or TV shows. Very real guns are used non stop in the entertainment industry, and they all point at somebody.
Thr truth of the matter here is that real weapons look real, so they will always be used. Hollywood has impressive safeguards. This movie has a real fuck up armorer who not only didn’t enforce them, but who directly undermined them. She was convicted of manslaughter for it.
Baldwin pulled the trigger, but based on testimony he was asking people to move aside and was trying to be safe with the weapon, even though he thought the armorer had already made it safe. That points to an honest attempt to treat the weapon correctly, even if it all went bad.
One thing: they try not to actually point the guns at people. If the shot is framed so that you can only see one person, there’s probably no person out of frame. If it’s a long shot with two people, they’re probably aiming a bit to the side so that it still looks right on camera. In a big war scene, they’re aiming between and over the people.
So the claim m is pointing the gun at the camera. Also the operator was asked to move so the gun wouldn’t be pointing at them. Sounds reasonable to that point, then it gets murkier
And there’s the added layer of Baldwin being the producer, and so he’s the guy who hired the crappy armorer in the first place.
But ultimately none of that matters now. The reason this case was dismissed is not because of any of those questions of who’s responsible for what on the set, it was dismissed because the police and the prosecutors withheld evidence from the defense.
You do not withhold evidence from the defense in a criminal trial, that’s a huge no-no.
So many movies have handled this. Aside from rare accidents (which are tragic), the industry has decided professional supervision removes the rule regarding pointing and killing
I was slightly torn on this one from a technicality standpoint, but not about the simple logic of it all. Disclaimer: It’s been a while since I read all the details on this case.
For some reason, the armorer somehow allowed live cartridges on set and that is super bad. However, anyone that holds any kind of weapon should treat it like a weapon, especially if it is not marked as a prop or isn’t visibly disabled.
It was a failure of the top two gun safety rules: Always treat a gun as if it is loaded, and, never point a weapon at anything you do not intend to kill.
The death of Brandon Lee years ago should have underscored how even prop guns can kill.
Edit: Are there points that are incorrect here? Weapon safety is super important…
It’s a bit unclear to me why he did that, but if he was practicing something he had to do in the movie, then that’s an exception. The claim is he pointed at the camera, which is plausible, but cameras have operators. This is why there is an armorer role and no live ammo can be on set.
If he was goofing around, that’s completely different, but haven’t seen sufficient clarification
Yeah. From the summary I heard on the radio yesterday, it sounded like there was evidence of him trying to be safe with it, like you mentioned the camera operator, there was a clip of him asking the operator to move to the other side of the camera so he wasn’t aiming at them. And they said it fired when he was decocking it and the hammer fell, not because he pulled the trigger.
But there’s also a bunch of complications due to stuff like the armorer being replaced and the new one apparently being unqualified, and for that reason he should bear responsibility as the producer having control over that decision.
He clearly bears some responsibility as Producer, although that probably extends to other producers and the Director. But as the person who was holding the weapon, there is personal responsibility as well, and it’s not clear how much
And in this case we’ll never know.
The only exception to point a gun at somebody is to protect life. If you can’t film a shot without pointing a real gun at someone, that shot doesn’t need to be made.
Well you better let hollywood know they cant use guns anymore in movies or TV shows. Very real guns are used non stop in the entertainment industry, and they all point at somebody.
Thr truth of the matter here is that real weapons look real, so they will always be used. Hollywood has impressive safeguards. This movie has a real fuck up armorer who not only didn’t enforce them, but who directly undermined them. She was convicted of manslaughter for it.
Baldwin pulled the trigger, but based on testimony he was asking people to move aside and was trying to be safe with the weapon, even though he thought the armorer had already made it safe. That points to an honest attempt to treat the weapon correctly, even if it all went bad.
One thing: they try not to actually point the guns at people. If the shot is framed so that you can only see one person, there’s probably no person out of frame. If it’s a long shot with two people, they’re probably aiming a bit to the side so that it still looks right on camera. In a big war scene, they’re aiming between and over the people.
So the claim m is pointing the gun at the camera. Also the operator was asked to move so the gun wouldn’t be pointing at them. Sounds reasonable to that point, then it gets murkier
And there’s the added layer of Baldwin being the producer, and so he’s the guy who hired the crappy armorer in the first place.
But ultimately none of that matters now. The reason this case was dismissed is not because of any of those questions of who’s responsible for what on the set, it was dismissed because the police and the prosecutors withheld evidence from the defense.
You do not withhold evidence from the defense in a criminal trial, that’s a huge no-no.
So many movies have handled this. Aside from rare accidents (which are tragic), the industry has decided professional supervision removes the rule regarding pointing and killing
So as the producer, being the professional supervisor of the crew, should he not be tried for his responsibility in this event?
You’ll find this discussed at length already.