- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Should an actor be responsible for the fuck ups of the people that are responsible for maintaining firearm safety on set? Of course not.
But in this case, he was also a producer so it could be argued that he was one of those responsible people since he was one of the bosses.
At every job I’ve ever worked, my boss was responsible for workplace safety.
Edit: I’m not saying that he definitely is responsible, but that it isn’t as cut and dried as the union is trying to make it sound.
The OSHA investigation actually found him not responsible in his role as producer for firearms safety.
Movies have lots of producers. And they all have different responsibilities.
That OSHA report will likely be pretty critical to Baldwin’s defense, then.
I think the big one is that he claimed “he didn’t pull the trigger” where FBI confirmed that the gun was fine and he pulled the trigger. This is basically him lying under oath.
I wonder if he honestly doesn’t remember doing it? Most people would feel a lot of guilt if they accidentally killed someone and we are pretty good at lying to ourselves, so maybe his mind is protecting itself from feeling too much pain?
Regardless, it does look pretty bad.
I would assume he could have answer ( I don’t remember ). Which also raise the question if drugs were involved in any capacity. I read someone who pleaded guilty also admited to have cocaine on set which at least should qualify this case to be looked at even further to make sure the person who pulled the trigger was not under the influence of any drug.
By the way there is absolutely 0 reason to have actual fire arm on set these days considering it can be added by vfx artists or a probe can be easily be printed which in my opinion add to the neglect case here.
The title of producer can mean anything from being involved in every aspect to being just a name on paper.
Sure. And whether or not he was involved enough to be responsible will be decided at trial. Look, as I said, whether or not he is could be argued and you are proving that; we’ll have to see how the trial works out. My point is, it isn’t as cut and dried as the union is trying to make it sound.
You don’t need to be an expert to not shoot somebody. There are four basic rules of gun safety, and you can memorize them in a matter of minutes.
Honestly, I entirely reject the idea that actors are not liable to learn basic firearm safety if they are going to handle guns. Industry standards be damned, responsible adults have an obligation to know what they’re doing before willingly entering a potentially dangerous situation.
Do you follow the 4 rules every time someone hands you a Nerf gun? What would happen if someone handed you a gun disguised as a Nerf gun and you shot and killed someone with it? Would you be at fault? No, you didn’t know it was a real, working gun. Whether you agree with the reality that the guns used on movie sets are a combination of real guns, decommissioned real guns, and straight up prop guns: if someone hands you a gun and says “This gun has blanks in it” and you shoot and kill someone with it… how would that be different from the disguised Nerf gun scenario?
Well, a Nerf gun is a toy and a gun is a gun. If someone hands you a gun disguised as a toy, I agree that you shouldn’t be held responsible for accidentally shooting someone.
However, I don’t think that comparison tracks for guns loaded with blanks / deactivated firearms / prop guns. Pointing something that has any reasonable chance of being a not-disguised gun at someone and pulling the trigger is something you should refuse to do.
So if instead of a Western it was a sci fi movie and the gun was made up to look like a laser blaster and it fired and killed someone the actor would have a better defense?
Sure, that makes sense to me. I guess it stands to reason that the less something looks like a gun, the more understandable it is that someone would fail to follow the rules of gun safety while handling it.
And to be clear, none of what I say is meant to absolve the armorer. To my mind, all of the following are true:
- The practice of using functional firearms alongside non-functional prop guns is dangerous and leads to incidents like this.
- The armorer was negligent in letting a real round into a gun that was being used to shoot a scene (why were there even live rounds around to begin with?).
- It is reckless and dangerous to point a real gun loaded with blanks at someone, and doubly so to pull the trigger. No scene in a movie is worth that risk, and everyone who decided the scene had to go that way shares the blame if something goes wrong.
- Anyone who knows they will be handling a gun has a responsibility to learn how to do so safely.
