Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, October 23, 2021

An assistant director grabbed one of three prop guns that the film's armorer had set up outside on a gray cart, handed it to [Alec] Baldwin, and, according to an affidavit signed by Detective Joel Cano of the Santa Fe County sheriff's office, yelled "Cold Gun!" -- which was supposed to indicate that the gun did not have any live rounds in it.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

The assistant director "did not know live rounds were in the prop-gun" when he gave it to Baldwin, according to the affidavit, which was made as part of a search warrant application.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

From what I've read, this is on the set "armorer" who should have made sure there were no live rounds in the gun. In fact, this happened during a rehearsal when there shouldn't have been any rounds in the gun. And reports are that it was a revolver, making it even easier to check.

#1 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2021-10-23 02:35 PM | Reply

The assistant director "did not know live rounds were in the prop-gun"

I hope by "live rounds" they mean "live blanks".

#2 | Posted by REDIAL at 2021-10-23 02:53 PM | Reply

Are we sure Alec was the shooter and it wasn't Trump impersonating him?

#3 | Posted by visitor_ at 2021-10-23 03:14 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

He should have checked the weapon himself. Weapons handling 101.

#4 | Posted by boaz at 2021-10-23 03:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Are we sure Alec was the shooter and it wasn't Trump impersonating him?

#3 | POSTED BY VISITOR_

We can tell Alec was the shooter because he feels horrible about what happened, as opposed to say, Cheney who had his victim apologize to him for getting shot in the face.

#5 | Posted by truthhurts at 2021-10-23 03:42 PM | Reply

Alec would need a seance to get an apology from his victim. So there's that.

#6 | Posted by visitor_ at 2021-10-23 04:43 PM | Reply

He's had some bad luck, that's for sure.

I was working on music for a movie with an all star cast that he was directing when Kim Bassinger filed for divorce. The movie was already over budget. After a few years, it ended up being sold a few times before it was finally edited and released straight to DVD.

#7 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2021-10-23 05:56 PM | Reply

Read a story that said a stunt double on the same set fired two live rounds from a supposedly safe gun a few days before this.

#8 | Posted by REDIAL at 2021-10-23 06:08 PM | Reply

Just think of all the lives saved and crimes prevented by having live rounds in the guns on set though.

#9 | Posted by bored at 2021-10-23 06:13 PM | Reply

I would wonder where all the live rounds are coming from.

#10 | Posted by REDIAL at 2021-10-23 06:17 PM | Reply

Here's someone who works as a film armorer providing more context on the situation:

twitter.com

Earlier I suggested that Baldwin should've inspected the gun himself prior to using it in the scene. I've changed my mind. The film armorer is the expert. That's their whole job. Actors should rely on their expertise and safety experience.

#11 | Posted by rcade at 2021-10-23 06:27 PM | Reply

"The film armorer is the expert."

Exactly. And all actors should be considered newbies, especially since they are not allowed to, say, take the gun apart and inspect it.

#12 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-23 06:45 PM | Reply

Safety is everyone's job.

#13 | Posted by visitor_ at 2021-10-23 08:03 PM | Reply

"Safety is everyone's job."

Not on a set.

Star isn't everyone's job, either.

#14 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-23 09:01 PM | Reply

--------. Movie set is a workplace.

#15 | Posted by visitor_ at 2021-10-23 10:16 PM | Reply

Earlier I suggested that Baldwin should've inspected the gun himself prior to using it in the scene. I've changed my mind.

You are only changing your mind because I said it too in #4. Cant stand for me to be right, can you?

"Safety is everyone's job."

Not on a set.

--------. Safety IS everyone's job. Obviously, you have never handled any types of weapons or did anything remotely dangerous. It's drilled into your head at ANY training. It was always said in my military training. At my concealed weapons training and certification. And on every military base I've ever been on.

Your mode of thinking is the danger around here.

While the "prop" people do share some responsibility with this, it's ALL on Baldwin. He fired the shot. He should have checked the "blanks" in the weapon. A blank from a live round is easily distinguishable.

#16 | Posted by boaz at 2021-10-23 10:28 PM | Reply

That's not the way it works, Boaz.

#17 | Posted by YAV at 2021-10-23 10:48 PM | Reply

The cultists sure are mad at the guy that continually humiliated their cult leader.
Simps.

#18 | Posted by bored at 2021-10-23 10:54 PM | Reply

That's not the way it works, Boaz.

#17 | Posted by YAV

WTF are you talking about? That literally IS the way it works.

#19 | Posted by boaz at 2021-10-23 10:59 PM | Reply

#19, no, it doesn't. You can't apply your "rules" to everyone else and every other industry and situation.

#20 | Posted by YAV at 2021-10-23 11:01 PM | Reply

When it comes to weapons and unsafe acts. Yes I can.

#21 | Posted by boaz at 2021-10-23 11:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

My understanding is the onus is on the prop master and the armorer. The industry does not count on or rely on an actor knowing what to look for, how to check, or even to touch the weapon except at the time of the filming. A gun on a set isn't held by, or cared for by, or kept by an actor. They're handed out at the time of the filming, and they are immediately removed after the scene has ended.

Do you expect all actors and actresses to be trained on firearm maintenance and safety when they are supposed to shoot blanks, no bullet and no live rounds are permitted anywhere near the set?

Danforth, correct me if I'm wrong.

#22 | Posted by YAV at 2021-10-23 11:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"--------. Safety IS everyone's job."

Horse manure. You of all people should know: every soldier has his job. And others have to rely on the professionalism of their fellows.

How many underlings get to recheck YOUR work?

#23 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-23 11:20 PM | Reply

"When it comes to weapons and unsafe acts. Yes I can."

NO YOU CAN'T. Not on a set. As an actor, you ARE NOT ALLOWED TO D^CK WITH THE GUNS.

#24 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-23 11:22 PM | Reply

"My understanding is the onus is on the prop master and the armorer. "

That's because the onus is on the prop master and the armorer.

"correct me if I'm wrong."

Your entire post #22 is 100% correct.

#25 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-23 11:24 PM | Reply

'Safety is not my job' didn't work out in this case.

#26 | Posted by visitor_ at 2021-10-23 11:34 PM | Reply

"That literally IS the way it works."

NOT on a set.

Just like if you order a bombing raid, you have to rely on folks to have properly built, set up, and prepped the bombs. That's not your job, nor is it your purview. And if they F-up, YOU pay.

#27 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-23 11:58 PM | Reply

That's because the onus is on the prop master and the armorer.

I'm really curious about where the live ammo came from in the first place. Doubt it was anything common and how would it end up in a movie gun?

#28 | Posted by REDIAL at 2021-10-24 12:09 AM | Reply

That said I suppose a .38 Special would be possible.

#29 | Posted by REDIAL at 2021-10-24 12:13 AM | Reply

So a movie set is a special place that operates outside the rules of the modern workplace as far safety is concerned. If that's so they shouldn't use weapons and explosives.

#30 | Posted by visitor_ at 2021-10-24 12:58 AM | Reply

"So a movie set is a special place that operates outside the rules of the modern workplace as far safety is concerned."

Yes. Even GREATER safety is practiced, in theory. Tragically, not in this case.

By why expose your ignorance? Just admit you've never been on a movie set, and leave it at that.

#31 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-24 01:05 AM | Reply

BTW...Everybody thinks actors are Generals. Actors are buck privates.

Over the years, I've been approached to teach a few on-cam audition classes. One question I'll ask is "Who's your boss on the set?"

Folks will stammer, and then say "director" or "producer"; some might even say "writer". I'll stop them.

"Everyone."

#32 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-24 01:10 AM | Reply

So basically you are saying the movie industry doesnt adhere to understood procedures about how to handle firearms. A movie set isnt special. You dont get absolved from basic firearms handling, especially if you are going to be pulling a trigger.

Your comments Danforth only show how big an imbeciles those in acting really are.

Just admit you've never been on a movie set, and leave it at that.

No, I've just been in combat and handled more weapons as a part of a job than you ever will.

Basically you are telling me the mantra of "Safety is everyone's job" when working around dangerous things is moot on a movie set.

You are full of it Danforth.

#33 | Posted by boaz at 2021-10-24 01:13 AM | Reply

Tragically, not in this case.

Any thoughts on where the live ammo came from? Someone out plinking with the props in their spare time?

#34 | Posted by REDIAL at 2021-10-24 01:15 AM | Reply

A movie set isnt special. You dont get absolved from basic firearms handling, especially if you are going to be pulling a trigger.

Actually. You do.

The props master is responsible.

The actor isn't.

The reason this isn't cut and dry is because Alec was also a producer.

There's also rumors of sabotage due to wage disputes and labor malpractices.

#35 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-10-24 02:03 AM | Reply

" Basically you are telling me the mantra of "Safety is everyone's job" when working around dangerous things is moot on a movie set."

No, I'm saying for general safety's sake, specific people have specific jobs.

Let's say you're in war, and your battalion has to cross a canyon. The Army Core of Engineers built a bridge, and radioed you to say it's safe. You order your men across, and the first three who lead fall to their death when the bridge fails.

That's your fault, right? Because you gave the order. And you should have checked the bridge yourself, right?

#36 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-24 03:19 AM | Reply

" No, I've just been in combat and handled more weapons as a part of a job than you ever will."

Okay, then you've never been on a set.

But you know how there are rules in the service, and a chain of command? And you know how generals don't like privates telling them how to run things?

Same on a set. And actors (other than stars) are buck privates.

#37 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-24 03:24 AM | Reply

That's not the way it works, Boaz.

#17 | Posted by YAV

WTF are you talking about? That literally IS the way it works.

#19 | Posted by boaz

Not on movie sets, it isn't.

All productions hire 'armorers' to do all of that because actors are not trained in firearms.

#38 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2021-10-24 05:04 AM | Reply

And neither did Baldwin hire the armorer. That isn't a job a director or producer does.

You don't know how movie productions are set up. Danforth and I do. Learn something ...

#39 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2021-10-24 05:07 AM | Reply

AU

You're close to the biz. I there any reason whatsoever to have live ammo on a movie set?

Or, for that matter, any at all in a prop room?

And isn't the cylinder on a prop gun too small to hold live ammo?

#40 | Posted by Twinpac at 2021-10-24 05:23 AM | Reply

I would look for a Trumptidump supporter among the grip personnel. I bet Baldwin was set up.

#41 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2021-10-24 06:09 AM | Reply

RIGHT/TRITE

I wouldn't be so fast to jump to that kind of conclusion.

IF it was done on purpose, it's more likely some goofy "assistant" in the prop department was trying to be too cute by half.

#42 | Posted by Twinpac at 2021-10-24 06:42 AM | Reply

If it can be loaded treat it like it is loaded.

youtu.be

#43 | Posted by Tor at 2021-10-24 07:06 AM | Reply

TOR

That's true.

Even when I handed over an old starter pistol to the police they handled it gingerly, kept their finger off the trigger and kept it pointed away from each other and toward the ground ~ at arms length.

#44 | Posted by Twinpac at 2021-10-24 07:32 AM | Reply

The irony is yuuuge on this one lol! Ballswine made millions riciculing Trump and his hair and his Conservative 2nd views.
Trump said he could shoot someone and get away with it, ballswine just proved him right.
They are joined at the hip and hairline, although now balls looks more like Steve Bannon. A hot mess.

#45 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2021-10-24 09:19 AM | Reply

Stop. Hammer time.

What kind of idiot pulls a trigger when the weapon isn't aimed at the ground. Rule #1. So it's negligent manslaughter and he does time!

#46 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2021-10-24 09:29 AM | Reply

You guys do know that you can kill someone with blanks, right? An actor put a prop gun to his head and pulled the trigger. That made news, too.

#47 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2021-10-24 09:32 AM | Reply

#47 - it's all been covered, repeatedly. RTF thread.

#48 | Posted by YAV at 2021-10-24 10:02 AM | Reply

Actors are often spectacularly dumb. It would be a bad idea for them to be messing around with a gun after a film armorer and/or first assistant director has determined it is safe and handed it to the actor.

#49 | Posted by rcade at 2021-10-24 10:05 AM | Reply

Ballswine made millions riciculing Trump and his hair and his Conservative 2nd views.

Millions? He was paid $1,400 each time he appeared on SNL.

www.businessinsider.com

Your level of butthurt over Trump being mocked on a comedy show is amazing.

#50 | Posted by rcade at 2021-10-24 10:06 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Cinematographer Halyna Hutchins was huddled around a monitor lining up her next camera shot when she was accidentally killed by the prop gun fired by Baldwin.

The actor was preparing to film a scene in which he pulls a gun out of a holster, according to a source close to the production. Crew members had already shouted "cold gun" on the set. The filmmaking team was lining up its camera angles and had yet to retreat to the video village, an on-set area where the crew gathers to watch filming from a distance via a monitor.

Instead, the B-camera operator was on a dolly with a monitor, checking out the potential shots. Hutchins was also looking at the monitor from over the operator's shoulder, as was the movie's director, Joel Souza, who was crouching just behind her.

Baldwin removed the gun from its holster once without incident, but the second time he did so, ammunition flew toward the trio around the monitor. The projectile whizzed by the camera operator but penetrated Hutchins near her shoulder, then continued through to Souza.

www.latimes.com

#51 | Posted by rcade at 2021-10-24 10:16 AM | Reply

It's obvious from their politics that actors are "spectacularly dumb", but they should still have firearm training before play acting with them.

#52 | Posted by visitor_ at 2021-10-24 10:33 AM | Reply

#46 What kind of idiot thinks you make movies without pointing prop guns at people and firing them.

#53 | Posted by bored at 2021-10-24 10:36 AM | Reply

What kind of idiot thinks you make movies without pointing prop guns at people and firing them.

POSTED BY BORED

Star Wars and Rom Coms

#54 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2021-10-24 10:39 AM | Reply

#46 What kind of idiot thinks you make movies without pointing prop guns at people and firing them.

#53 | POSTED BY BORED AT 2021-10-24 10:36 AM | REPLY

This is play acting for a movie. They don't have to actually point a gun at an actor to make the audience believe that the gun's pointing at the actor.

#55 | Posted by visitor_ at 2021-10-24 10:54 AM | Reply

"What kind of idiot thinks you make movies without pointing prop guns at people and firing them"

Period pieces like Lord of the Rings. ;)

#56 | Posted by Tor at 2021-10-24 11:03 AM | Reply

#55 I have seen movies too numerous to count that have guns pointed in faces or backs of heads at close range.
Have you seen a John Wick movie?

I would have no issue with replacing guns with CGI and prop guns that can't be loaded though.

#57 | Posted by bored at 2021-10-24 11:26 AM | Reply

#40 | POSTED BY TWINPAC

That was my thought as well. I don't have expertise in the movie biz, I do have some in firearms. I participated in some street shoot-outs in Tombstone AZ when I lived in the area, our blank guns were built with short-drilled cylinders and baffled barrels so a projectile could not be fired through them. Yes, the blast from a blank can still injure or kill at short range, but we never fired within 15 feet of each other, and never at the head or face. NO ONE carried a real gun or ammo, we inspected each other's gear before leaving the costume house. I'm curious why a firearm capable of firing live ammunition, as well as said live ammunition, would be present on the set.

#58 | Posted by El_Buscador at 2021-10-24 11:31 AM | Reply

#57 I've seen John Wick. It seems unnecessarily dangerous to hold something that could fire a projectile or even only blanks next to someone's head.

#59 | Posted by visitor_ at 2021-10-24 11:46 AM | Reply

"Trump said he could shoot someone and get away with it, ballswine just proved him right."

Actually what Trump said was he could shoot a man on Fifth Avenue and not lose any followers

And yes, Baldwin did prove Trump right.

You are one of one of those followers, but that doesn't make Baldwin look bad.

That makes you look like a schoolboy with a schoolboy crush on Trump. Your whole existence is so consumed by love for Trump, that you'll use an unrelated shooting as a platform to renew your vows for Trump.

You must be so incredibly lonely.

#60 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-24 11:55 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

it's more likely some goofy "assistant" in the prop department was trying to be too cute by half.

Certainly sloppy work in the prop department to say the least.

#61 | Posted by REDIAL at 2021-10-24 12:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

guys, somebody loaded that with real ammo, knowing an actor would fire it. 'cause brainiac.

#62 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2021-10-24 12:15 PM | Reply

And you should have checked the bridge yourself, right?

Yes. Especially if you have heavy equipment going across.

Actors are often spectacularly dumb. It would be a bad idea for them to be messing around with a gun after a film armorer and/or first assistant director has determined it is safe and handed it to the actor.

And that's where basic firearms training comes in. If nothing to make sure the actor doesnt look like an idiot while handling the weapon.

#63 | Posted by boaz at 2021-10-24 12:16 PM | Reply

somebody loaded that with real ammo

No one has confirmed that but it certainly sounds like it.

#64 | Posted by REDIAL at 2021-10-24 12:21 PM | Reply

Yes. Especially if you have heavy equipment going across.

I wonder how long it took Ike to inspect all those landing craft?

#65 | Posted by REDIAL at 2021-10-24 12:24 PM | Reply

I like how Boaz is here to insist that everyone is a safety officer.

#66 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-24 12:39 PM | Reply

"And that's where basic firearms training comes in."

Not required by law, and you firmly oppose making it a legal requirement.

#67 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-24 12:40 PM | Reply

that's where basic firearms training comes in.

Not required to be an actor.

It's the reason why studios and production companies hire prop masters.

It's not the military. It's acting. These people aren't expecting to be handling real guns. Especially loaded guns.

#68 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-10-24 01:13 PM | Reply

And yet they do.

This is a workplace. An OSHA regulation requiring training is reasonable.

#69 | Posted by visitor_ at 2021-10-24 01:44 PM | Reply

An OSHA regulation requiring training is reasonable.

Violates the 2nd amendment. Can't be infringing on an actor's right to not be trained.

#70 | Posted by REDIAL at 2021-10-24 01:47 PM | Reply

That's a reach. Many workplaces actually ban weapons.

#71 | Posted by visitor_ at 2021-10-24 01:54 PM | Reply

Many workplaces actually ban weapons.

Film sets not being one of them.

#72 | Posted by REDIAL at 2021-10-24 02:00 PM | Reply

An OSHA regulation requiring training is reasonable.
#69 | POSTED BY VISITOR_

It may be "reasonable." But that's neither here nor there.
It's illegal, thanks to the Second Amendment.

How is it that you Deplorables are willing to die for the Second Amendment, without even understanding what the Second Amendment does?
???

#73 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-24 02:01 PM | Reply

Many workplaces actually ban weapons.
#71 | POSTED BY VISITOR_

And when someone gets shot in one, you blame the workplace ban.

#74 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-24 02:02 PM | Reply

"An OSHA regulation requiring training is reasonable."

They have one. For the armorer.

#75 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-24 02:02 PM | Reply

" These people aren't expecting to be handling real guns. Especially loaded guns. "

And ESPECIALLY after someone vouched, for all to hear, "Cold gun!"

THAT's the thread I want to pull.

#76 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-24 02:05 PM | Reply

" I'm curious why a firearm capable of firing live ammunition, as well as said live ammunition, would be present on the set.

Regarding the former, sometimes a period dummy isn't available, so a real one using blanks is used.

Regarding the latter, it's (usually) strictly forbidden. That's another thread to pull. At one point, someone suggested it was a "live load", and not a bullet per se, but I have no idea what exactly that might mean.

#77 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-24 02:11 PM | Reply

". At one point, someone suggested it was a "live load", and not a bullet per se, but I have no idea what exactly that might mean.
#77 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

By now they know exactly what calibre and make of gun was used. They also know exactly what the ammo was and where it came from..
This info is being withheld for some reason.

#78 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2021-10-24 02:25 PM | Reply

The woman responsible for handling weapons on the set of Alec Baldwin's "Rust" had only recently taken on a gig as a head armorer, and shared she had real doubts about doing the job.

Of course, there are still a lot of questions surrounding the accident on set ... including whether it was a live round in the gun Baldwin fired or a blank. Indiewire obtained an email sent by the propmasters union which claimed the gun Alec Baldwin fired had a "live single round" which struck 2 crew members.

A source who was working on the film tells us just last weekend there were several issues with blanks being shot when they weren't supposed to ...

amp.tmz.com

#79 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-10-24 02:42 PM | Reply

This info is being withheld for some reason.

For the same reason they usually say the cause of death is not being released until the autopsy is completed, which then says the victim had been shot 12 times.

#80 | Posted by REDIAL at 2021-10-24 03:09 PM | Reply

It's obvious from their politics that actors are "spectacularly dumb" ...

Tell that to Fox News every time some washed-up actor like Chachi says something hateful on Twitter in the morning and is booked on Tucker Carlson that night.

#81 | Posted by rcade at 2021-10-24 03:29 PM | Reply

At one point, someone suggested it was a "live load", and not a bullet per se, but I have no idea what exactly that might mean.

#77 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

I wondered if they might have meant a 'live' blank. I've known them to be homemade with a real case and primer, a partial powder charge, and sealed with a waxed cotton ball or a corncob/paraffin mixture. It's only a partial charge, but still probably 200-300 fps at the muzzle. The velocity and resulting energy will drop off fast, but at close range would still do damage.

#82 | Posted by El_Buscador at 2021-10-24 04:34 PM | Reply

It doesn't matter what Baldwin was told. He violated the three top rules of gun safety:

1) always assume a gun is loaded.

2) every person who handles a gun bears sole responsibility to ensure the gun is safe. It doesn't matter what the person who previously handled it says. The person holding the gun is responsible. If he is not familiar enough with a gun to verify its status, he shouldn't be handling one.

3) NEVER point a gun at or in the direction of a person unless you intend to kill him. NEVER.

Baldwin not only is guilty of violating these three fundamental rules of gun safety, as executive producer of the flick, he bears the ultimate responsibility for set safety, regardless what he is told. He has a long road ahead of him. Even if not guilty of criminal charges, the civil suits are going to wreck him.

#83 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-24 04:38 PM | Reply

I wondered if they might have meant a 'live' blank.

Given that it went right through one body and then hit someone else it sounds a lot like an actual bullet.

#84 | Posted by REDIAL at 2021-10-24 04:39 PM | Reply

"every person who handles a gun bears sole responsibility to ensure the gun is safe. "

NOT ON A FILM SET. The actor is not allowed to touch the gun until and unless directed, and should not be expected to be the expert; the assumption should be exactly the opposite.

No one given zero authority has 100% responsibility.

#85 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-24 04:42 PM | Reply

RCADE, I got the actors are "spectacularly dumb" quote from you. Was your Chachi example intended to prove or disprove that assertion?

#86 | Posted by visitor_ at 2021-10-24 04:46 PM | Reply

"He violated the three top rules of gun safety"

No crime there.

#87 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-24 04:48 PM | Reply

"as executive producer of the flick, he bears the ultimate responsibility for set safety"

All that means is he could sue himself for the emotional distress he endured because of his company's negligence.

#88 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-24 04:49 PM | Reply

"If he is not familiar enough with a gun to verify its status"

He is not ALLOWED to "verify its status", outside of the regular protocols.

The questions are why the A.D. called "Cold Gun", and the link between that and how/why live ammunition got on set.

#89 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-24 04:50 PM | Reply

""Safety is everyone's job."

Not on a set."

Then movie making is more backwards than I ever imagined.

I have worked in several dangerous jobs, including the US Navy. In every one of them it is drilled into everyone's head that safety is everyone's job.

Movie sets are dangerous. If safety isn't anyone's job, the movie making industry is ------ up beyond words.

Gun safety is the sole responsibility of the person handling the gun. Not the armorer. Not the person claiming a gun is safe. The buck stops with the person handling the gun. Period.

I can't believe these people who normally scream that there is not enough gun safety are not placing the blame squarely on whom it belongs: The person handling the gun.

#90 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-24 04:52 PM | Reply

"2) every person who handles a gun bears sole responsibility to ensure the gun is safe. It doesn't matter what the person who previously handled it says."

I don't see that in the list of gun safety rules. https://gunsafetyrules.nra.org
Did you just make that up on the spot?

#91 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-24 04:52 PM | Reply

"Gun safety is the sole responsibility of the person handling the gun."

CLosest I got is this:
https://gunsafetyrules.nra.org
Be sure the gun is safe to operate.
Just like other tools, guns need regular maintenance to remain operable. Regular cleaning and proper storage are a part of the gun's general upkeep. If there is any question concerning a gun's ability to function, a knowledgeable gunsmith should look at it.

^
In this case, a knowledgeable gunsmith looked at it.

#92 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-24 04:55 PM | Reply

"He is not ALLOWED to "verify its status", outside of the regular protocols."

Then that is a huge problem. It violates all gun protocol. If not, there would be another person alive on the planet today.

I can't imagine the stupidity of someone who says, "Well, they told me the gun was safe. So there is nothing at all wrong with pointing it someone and pulling the trigger." The world needs to be protected from idiots like this.

And this coming from people who say there isn't enough gun safety. LOL LIke everything politically steered idiots claim, opinions are formed by who is involved. Not facts. Not common sense. But, "Gee, he votes like I do, so he must be in the right."

Blind partisans are truly the idiots of the world.

#93 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-24 04:58 PM | Reply

"safety is everyone's job."

Agreed. But you rely on other people doing their jobs safely all the time.

You certainly aren't doing the flight check before boarding an airplane. In a situation like that, safety is neither your responsibility, nor your purview.

#94 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-24 04:58 PM | Reply

If my father had taught Alec Baldwin gun safety, that director would be alive today.

#95 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-24 05:00 PM | Reply

"But you rely on other people doing their jobs safely all the time."

Not me. I would NEVER take anyone's word that a gun I am about to handle isn't loaded.

"You certainly aren't doing the flight check before boarding an airplane."

What a stupid analogy. I'm not flying the plane, either. But If I was, I would be involved in the flight checks, just as I would check a gun I am handling.

#96 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-24 05:03 PM | Reply

"as executive producer of the flick"

He's one of the producers, but not executive producer. From Variety:

Baldwin is producing through his El Dorado Pictures banner alongside Anjul Nigam and executive producer Matthew Helderman. Baldwin and Nigam produced Souza's "Crown Vic." Anna Granucci is also producing with Elizabeth L. Barbatelli as an executive producer.

#97 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-24 05:03 PM | Reply

"What a stupid analogy. I'm not flying the plane, either."

But you're "in the frame", aren't you? Isn't it EVERYBODY's sole responsibility, like you said???

You only think it's a stupid analogy because it's a prime example of YOU NOT TAKING SOLE RESPONSIBILITY.

#98 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-24 05:06 PM | Reply

"Not me."

It's not about you.

#99 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-24 05:07 PM | Reply

If my father had taught Alec Baldwin gun safety, that director would be alive today.
#95 | POSTED BY JAKESTER

I guess it's your father's fault that the director is dead.
Glad we cleared that up.

#100 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-24 05:07 PM | Reply

"Then that is a huge problem. It violates all gun protocol."

Doesn't matter. Furthermore, it's illegal to make it illegal to violate gun protocol. Because of the Second Amendment.

#101 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-24 05:09 PM | Reply

"In a situation like that, safety is neither your responsibility, nor your purview."

It is beyond my comprehension that someone would have such a lackadaisical attitude about gun safety, especially from someone whose side of the political spectrum screams there isn't enough. It's insane to believe the person handling a lethal weapon is not responsible for its status.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on your bizarre assertion that the operator of an instrument of death bears no responsibility on handling it because a third party told him it was safe.

SMH

#102 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-24 05:09 PM | Reply

#84 | POSTED BY REDIAL

I think it would have to be some type of solid projectile, whether a real bullet or a blank with some sort of solid cap. The blank wadding I'm familiar with could certainly do damage to one person at close range, but the energy would drop off quickly after striking someone. According to the article Joel Souza was hit in the shoulder, and Halyna Hutchins in the chest. From other articles I'm reading, it sounds as though Halyna was hit first. If so, for the projectile to go through her chest and still wound Souza, it would have to be a live round. A blank wad wouldn't maintain the energy to do that.

#103 | Posted by El_Buscador at 2021-10-24 05:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"It is beyond my comprehension that someone would have such a lackadaisical attitude about gun safety"

It just has to be about you, doesn't it?

#104 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-24 05:11 PM | Reply

"an instrument of death"

LMFAO.

#105 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-24 05:12 PM | Reply

"Isn't it EVERYBODY's sole responsibility, like you said???"

Yes, it's the responsibility of everyone handling the gun, as I said. The people not handling the gun (or flying the plane) are not responsible for their respective intruments. Using our logic, is the caterer who brings lunch responsible for the gun? How about the truck driver who brings things to the set?

This is so obvious, it's clear you are trying to drag me down the infamous Danforth rabbit hole.

Not playing.

#106 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-24 05:14 PM | Reply

"The people not handling the gun (or flying the plane) are not responsible for their respective intruments"

So it wasn't the fault of the maintenance crew who failed to grease the jackscrew, that Alaska Airlines 261 crashed when the jack screwfailed in flight?

That was the pilot's fault, since he was flying the plane?

The subsequent investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) determined that inadequate maintenance led to excessive wear and eventual failure of a critical flight control system during flight. The probable cause was stated to be "a loss of airplane pitch control resulting from the in-flight failure of the horizontal stabilizer trim system jackscrew assembly's trapezoidal nut threads. The thread failure was caused by excessive wear resulting from Alaska Airlines' insufficient lubrication of the jackscrew assembly." en.wikipedia.org

#107 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-24 05:19 PM | Reply

For at least the first several comments on this thread, Boaz is correct. The gun is the responsibility of everyone who handled it. Most of all the person who pulled the trigger.

#108 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2021-10-24 05:19 PM | Reply

If so, for the projectile to go through her chest and still wound Souza, it would have to be a live round.

That's how I read it. There was a case where a a blank was fired with a dummy bullet stuck in the barrel which had a similar effect. It's all speculation until the report comes out. Should not take Columbo to figure out what happened.

#109 | Posted by REDIAL at 2021-10-24 05:23 PM | Reply

Thoughts and prayers.
Nothing can be done.

#110 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-24 05:25 PM | Reply

"It is beyond my comprehension that someone would have such a lackadaisical attitude about gun safety"

And yet you rely on other folks' professional safety standards all the time. Prime examples are every time you fly, or take a train, or drive over a bridge. In each case, you're risking death if others haven't done their job, and done it safely.

Ultimately, on a set, providence of the weapons becomes very important. And rather than have 50 extras all making their own decisions whether a gun is safe or not, you've got professionals on set for that specific purpose.

Do flight crews ever make fatal mistakes? Yes, and people die. Bridge builders? FFS, I was at the Hyatt when the skywalks collapsed; 113 dead there. I'm frighteningly familiar with what happens when those we rely on for safety f^ck up. But I was pushing a very heavy rolling banquet bar across one of the skywalks just one week before the collapse. Should I have been checking the bridge each time?

#111 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-24 05:26 PM | Reply

"The gun is the responsibility of everyone who handled it. Most of all the person who pulled the trigger."

Why did the AD call "Cold Gun"...?

#112 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-24 05:29 PM | Reply

"And yet you rely on other folks' professional safety standards all the time.

Repeating it doesn't make it any less lame an analogy.

Read again: I do not fly the plane. If I did, I would be involved with the safety checks.

But I handle guns. So I make sure they are safe. If I did not understand guns, I would not handle them.

What part of this do you fail to comprehend, Danforth? Or are you just joining the ranks of trolls like Snoofy and speaksoftly because you have nothing else?

#113 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-24 05:31 PM | Reply

"Why did the AD call "Cold Gun"...?"

More importantly, why did Alec Baldwin who presumably knows guns are lethal, believe it, point it at someone, and pull the trigger?

Let me guess, Danforth: You were on the bandwagon that criticized Cheney for his hunting accident, right? LOL

'Nuff said.

Politics sure screw up a person's logic, not to mention consistency.

#114 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-24 05:34 PM | Reply

"So it wasn't the fault of the maintenance crew who failed to grease the jackscrew ... That was the pilot's fault, since he was flying the plane?"

You said it would be yours, were you the pilot. Sole responsibility. "I'm not flying the plane, either. But If I was, I would be involved in the flight checks"

Why have you changed your mind?

#115 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-24 05:35 PM | Reply

Again, I'm not going down your rabbit hole, Danforth. I made the point that if I fly the plane, I'll check its safety, just as I would a gun.

Accept that fact or don't. I don't care, troll.

#116 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-24 05:36 PM | Reply

"What part of this do you fail to comprehend"

Your double-standards. Why would you have responsibility to do the flight checks, but the pilot didn't have responsibility to check the crankcase grease?

#117 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-24 05:36 PM | Reply

Basic firearms training should be part of Civics class, and like in 6th grade.

We can shoot snoofy. Teach the kids young.

#118 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2021-10-24 05:37 PM | Reply

"I made the point that if I fly the plane, I'll check its safety"

But then you said it WASN'T the pilot's fault when the ground crew screwed up the crankcase grease.

#119 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-24 05:37 PM | Reply

"Let me guess, Danforth: You were on the bandwagon that criticized Cheney for his hunting accident, right? LOL"

Did Cheney think his shotgun wasn't loaded?

Cheney also consumed alcohol prior to discharging his weapon. Which is a violation of gun safety rules.

#120 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-24 05:40 PM | Reply

"Accept that fact or don't. I don't care, troll."

Whine all you want. I don't care, Goatman.

Everyone else can see we rely on other people's professionalism and safety standards all the time. Sometimes to fatal outcomes.

Do I wish protocols could be safer? Sure. Do I want every actor I've ever met to be the arbiter of that safety on a case-by-case basis? Absolutely not.

#121 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-24 05:41 PM | Reply

"Politics sure screw up a person's logic"

My irony meter just exploded.

#122 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-24 05:42 PM | Reply

"Do I want every actor I've ever met to be the arbiter of that safety on a case-by-case basis? Absolutely not."

^
This.
The entire point of deferring to the experts is because they are experts and you are not an expert.

#123 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-24 05:43 PM | Reply

"Everyone else can see we rely on other people's professionalism and safety standards all the time. Sometimes to fatal outcomes."

Only an idiot believes a gun is unloaded simply because he is told that, even if by someone who is supposed to know better than the idiot.

Fact.

If you knew anything in the least about gun safety, you would not be arguing this most fundamental of all gun safety rules, Danforth.

Given your extreme lack of knowledge on even the most basic of gun safety ruless, I hope and pray you never handle guns, Danforth.

#124 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-24 05:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

My father once chastised me as a child for not checking to see if a gun was loaded after I took possession of it. I told him, "You said it was". I got in trouble for not checking.

This is not surprise, but obviously my dad is smarter than some Hollywood idiots who handle guns.

"My irony meter just exploded."

Look on the bright side: You're more likely to get killed by a gun on a Hollywood set than exploding meters. But hey! At least it won't be the triggerman's fault. Lucky you.

#125 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-24 05:53 PM | Reply

I hope and pray you never handle guns, Danforth.
#124 | POSTED BY JAKESTER

Notably, you wouldn't want it to be illegal for him to handle guns without any training.

Thoughts... make that, Hopes and Prayers.
Nothing can be done.

#126 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-24 06:02 PM | Reply

It's a shame your father never chastised you for creating a new username.

#127 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-24 06:02 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Jakester, Damforth only handles money.

One guess what snoofy handles.

#128 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2021-10-24 06:04 PM | Reply

" If you knew anything in the least about gun safety, you would not be arguing this most fundamental of all gun safety rules, Danforth."

And if you had an honest bone in your body, you would admit there are times in life where we have to rely on the safety standards of others, Goatman.

Getting on a plane is one. Working with a professional armorer on a set is another.

#129 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-24 06:05 PM | Reply

"this most fundamental of all gun safety rules"

If these rules are so important, why not make them laws?

Anyone?

#130 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-24 06:06 PM | Reply

"Only an idiot believes a gun is unloaded simply because he is told that, even if by someone who is supposed to know better than the idiot."

Did he think it was unloaded, or did he think it was loaded with blanks?

#131 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-24 06:09 PM | Reply

"which was supposed to indicate that the gun did not have any live rounds in it."

Are blanks live rounds?

#132 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-24 06:09 PM | Reply

Are blanks live rounds?

Doesn't matter. Should not have had either in a rehearsal. Something was seriously messed up on this film set.

#133 | Posted by REDIAL at 2021-10-24 06:27 PM | Reply

The subsequent investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) determined that inadequate maintenance led to excessive wear and eventual failure of a critical flight control system during flight. The probable cause was stated to be "a loss of airplane pitch control resulting from the in-flight failure of the horizontal stabilizer trim system jackscrew assembly's trapezoidal nut threads. The thread failure was caused by excessive wear resulting from Alaska Airlines' insufficient lubrication of the jackscrew assembly."
Step up, Goatman. Tell the NTSB it was the PILOT's fault, since you would've checked the jackscrew grease yourself.

#134 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-24 06:32 PM | Reply

"And if you had an honest bone in your body, you would admit there are times in life where we have to rely on the safety standards of others,"

As I said, only an idiot takes the words of someone else that a deadly weapon has been renderered in operable. A responsible gun handler AlWAYS checks the status of a potentially deadly weapon in his possession. Gun safety 101, Danforth. Sadly, you don't get it. It's that mentality you endorse that kills people. Own it. It could be you killing someone one day and blaming someone else because you failed the most basic of gun safety concepts.

"Getting on a plane is one. "

Passengers getting on a plane do not work for the airlines and therefore are not responsible for the safety of an airplane. You honestly think they should be? LOL Or are you just grasping at straws to come up for lame excuses for your manslaughtering hero?

#135 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-24 06:32 PM | Reply

" Should not have had either in a rehearsal. "

Why do they need them at all? Insert the sound into post editing.

#136 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-24 06:32 PM | Reply

Are blanks live rounds?
#132 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

IIRC, they are considered live or "hot" because even blanks can kill someone at close range. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but if they can go 'pop' they're considered live rounds.

#137 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2021-10-24 06:33 PM | Reply

#137 - you are correct that blanks can be lethal.

#138 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-24 06:34 PM | Reply

"A responsible gun handler AlWAYS checks the status of a potentially deadly weapon in his possession."

Yes. Then that's done, and it's handed back to the armorer for final assembly before they hand it back to you. It's literally "out of your hands".

And once they hand it back for the take, you don't get to open it again at that point, just to be sure.

#139 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-24 06:36 PM | Reply

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but if they can go 'pop' they're considered live rounds.

It does not seem like that is well defined.

#140 | Posted by REDIAL at 2021-10-24 06:37 PM | Reply

We can shoot snoofy. Teach the kids young.
#118 | POSTED BY HELIUMRAT

What the fnkc happened to you?

#141 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2021-10-24 06:38 PM | Reply

"And once they hand it back for the take, you don't get to open it again at that point, just to be sure."

A smart gun handler would. A stupid one wouldn't. And because of stupid people, people die.

Why do you advocate for stupidity, Danforth?

#142 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-24 06:39 PM | Reply

"Passengers getting on a plane do not work for the airlines and therefore are not responsible for the safety of an airplane. "

And actors are not the safety officers on the set.

But the pilot DOES work for the airline. So was the NTSB wrong? Did the pilot screw-up by not checking the jackscrew grease?

#143 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-24 06:39 PM | Reply

"And actors are not the safety officers on the set."

Responsible actors are. Irresponsible ones cause peole to die.

Basic gun safety, Danforth. That you hate common sense safe handling of guns does not help that dead director.

You really need to take a gun safety course and quit making excuses for that loser.

BTY, was the armorer to blame for your hero Baldwin pointing the gun at a person and pulling the trigger?

#144 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-24 06:41 PM | Reply

"Why do you advocate for stupidity, Danforth?"

I would NEVER advocate for your approach to debate, Goatman.

You won't even explain why YOU are responsible to check the plane, but the NTSB says it's the ground crew's fault.

#145 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-24 06:42 PM | Reply

"But the pilot DOES work for the airline. So was the NTSB wrong? Did the pilot screw-up by not checking the jackscrew grease?"

You are comparing a mechanical failure to human error?

Wow. You truly are grasping at straws to justify Baldwin's actions. Incredible.

Quit while you're ahead, Danforth. Oh wait. Too late for that.

#146 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-24 06:44 PM | Reply

"Goatman"

Yawn.

This thread is not about goatman, Danforth. PLease stop hijacking it to talk about him.

#147 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-24 06:46 PM | Reply

"You are comparing a mechanical failure to human error?"

Wow.

Way to miss the point.

The mechanical failure was the result of human error.

#148 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-24 06:50 PM | Reply

"You won't even explain why YOU are responsible to check the plane"

I did explain, Danforth. Twice. Now for a third time before you go back to the killfile list for your incessant trolling:

I am not responsible to check the plane because I do not work for the airlines.

Read it as many times and as slowly as necessary for that simple fact to sink in Danforth.

Bye

#149 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-24 06:51 PM | Reply

"You are comparing a mechanical failure to human error?"

No, human error to human error. It wasn't the machine who forgot to lube itself.

You're just embarrassed I put a pin in your "I'd check it if I were the pilot" balloon.

"This thread is not about goatman"

It's not about Danforth either. Stop whining, Goatman. If it upsets you I won't buy into your lie, plonk me. Again.

#150 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-24 06:51 PM | Reply

"I am not responsible to check the plane because I do not work for the airlines."

But the pilot did, and you're saying you'd check it IF YOU WERE FLYING THE PLANE.

So is the NTSB wrong, and the pilot was at fault, and not the ground crew, or are you wanting it both ways?

Read it as many times and as slowly as necessary for that simple fact to sink in, Goatman.

You got caught being two-faced, and now you're trying to move every goalpost you can find.

And you're going to plonk me based on your embarrassment??? Good riddance.

#151 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-24 06:54 PM | Reply

This thread is a prime example of people not knowing what the fkkk they're talking about but are sure they're opinions are correct.

#152 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-10-24 07:00 PM | Reply

"This thread is a prime example of people not knowing what the fkkk they're talking about but are sure they're opinions are correct."

Exactly. People who don't understand even the most basic and fundamental gun safety rules have no business talking about them, much less make excuses for the idiots who don't adhere to them.

#153 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-24 07:06 PM | Reply

People who have never been on an oil rig are the true experts on what happens on oil rigs.

#154 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-24 07:08 PM | Reply

Jakester's assumption this was a gun.

It wasn't supposed to be a 'real gun' at all, but a prop gun loaded with blanks used for the illusion of being a 'real' gun. In fact many prop guns can't fire a live round. Sometimes they're even plastic. It looks like, in this case, they were using actual guns that could fire both blanks and live rounds.

If there aren't supposed to be any guns allowed on set at all, and you are shooting (literally) blanks all day for weeks, and you have confidence that people are doing their jobs, and there aren't supposed to be any guns around and no ammo with bullets, and you have people there whose entire job is to ensure safety, that the prop guns are locked away, loaded only with blanks, and are managed accordingly, then why would you have actors checking to see if they are "safe" to fire? Are you going to teach them "this is a blank, this is a bullet, this is how you handle a real gun, this is how you check to see if the chamber is clear..." etc.?

Especially when incidences like this are so incredibly and exceedingly rare because the system does work and has worked with few exceptions?

In the meanwhile in reality people are getting shot and dying every day from gunshots. Sure is a good thing those are all the result of people that knew what the hell they were doing, isn't it?

#155 | Posted by YAV at 2021-10-24 07:45 PM | Reply

If I was an actor with a gun and someone told me the gun was safe, I'd probably ask him to show me. If someone was going to point it at me, I would absolutely ask them to show me.

#156 | Posted by REDIAL at 2021-10-24 07:51 PM | Reply

a gun or a prop gun?

Is that what you'd do before every "shoot out' at the OK corral that's reenacted? Would you do it before you all go out there and perform, or before each shot that is taken? "Please hold while we check each other's 'guns' to make sure they're not real - or don't have bullets in them."

Do you actually think that that's even reasonable on a movie set? You know what to look for, so if you have no idea, you're still going to make someone else that has no idea do what with a prop gun to prove what to you?

You're also coming from this assumption that everyone has some knowledge of actual guns with bullets and that because everyone knows how to handle them, then they can handle them safely enough to check the chamber and show someone that it's 'safe'.

What do you think the risk of close range accidents with actual blanks is going to do? Go down with that? I'd bet accidental firings would happen and you'd have more people injured and killed by blanks than has happened since movies started being produced.

So what are you proposing? That everyone be drilled over and over again with how to handle an actual weapon when they never should have had one in the first place?

#157 | Posted by YAV at 2021-10-24 08:10 PM | Reply

So what are you proposing?

That if I ask the gun guy to show me it's safe, he do so.

#158 | Posted by REDIAL at 2021-10-24 08:15 PM | Reply

" If someone was going to point it at me, I would absolutely ask them to show me."

That's usually how it's done. The armorer shows everyone involved in the frame the gun is safe. It's done by partially dismantling it for display. Then the armorer reassembles it, and holds it until the moment of the take. In between, it is literally out of your hands.

#159 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-24 08:15 PM | Reply

You're right they have a process, no need to do anything. Best we can do is send thoughts and prayers.

#160 | Posted by visitor_ at 2021-10-24 08:26 PM | Reply

"If I was an actor with a gun and someone told me the gun was safe, I'd probably ask him to show me."

Exactly. Because there are idiots like Alec Baldwin who is so wrapped up in themselves, they think the rules of basic gun safety are beneth them. A smart person doesn't let the dumb, self-centered ones make the calls.

#161 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-24 08:29 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"That if I ask the gun guy to show me it's safe, he do so."

Problem with that is that some people don't know what they are looking at and take someone else's word for it. As I said earlier, those people should not be handling guns. To take the word of another person that a weapon is impotent is absurd. If dead directors could talk, they'd tell you the same.

Granted, this gun most likely is a revolver given the period in which the movie was shot. It's easy to see if a revolver is loaded. Even Baldwin, idiot that he is, should have seen this.

However, in other movies, the prop man could show the actor, "See, I took the clip out. The gun is safe" and the actor would believe him not knowing there was a hidden round chambered nor know to ask about it.

Bottom line: People who don't know and understand guns have no business handling them.

#162 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-24 08:35 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

How can we expect an actor to know how to check if a gun is loaded when we don't expect passengers to know how to disassemble and reassemble a jet engine?

#163 | Posted by visitor_ at 2021-10-24 08:42 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"How can we expect an actor to know how to check if a gun is loaded"

Your snarky statement suggests actors should know the specs on every gun ever manufactured.

That's why they hire experts.

#164 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-24 08:52 PM | Reply

A smart person doesn't let the dumb, self-centered ones make the calls.

#161 | POSTED BY JAKESTER

Yet somehow a dumb self centered moron can become the President of the the (previously) United States. And he apparently made lots of them "perfect" calls.

And I bet you even supported that POS and the perfect calls he made.

#165 | Posted by donnerboy at 2021-10-24 08:57 PM | Reply

#162 | Posted by jakester

Absoluteness. That was my second gun accident - ejected the magazine, charged it - no round popped out - and fired it at the ground. It went off. Round ricocheted into the wall, through, and into the back of the kitchen 'fridge.

The 1st was a cook-off in a 'Nam era M-3 carbine. My shooters glasses caught the shrapnel, face not so good. I was looking into the breach when the round blew.

So don't do that.

#166 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2021-10-24 09:32 PM | Reply

And that's how I became a supervillain.

#167 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2021-10-24 09:33 PM | Reply

"How can we expect an actor to know how to check if a gun is loaded when we don't expect passengers to know how to disassemble and reassemble a jet engine?"

Exactly. Not only that, but the last time I tried to get to the engine of the jet I was flying on, the TSA took a dim view of it. So that is why people handling guns should neve be questioned as to whether they are loaded or whether they know pointing them at people and pulling a trigger is a no-no. Because TSA, and as you say, the general public's inability to understand a jet engine. I'd say with that unimpeachable evidence, Alec Baldwin did no wrong.

#168 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-24 09:59 PM | Reply

So how do we fix this problem of people not knowing basic gun safety? Teach them all how to inspect jet airliners and recognize problems with the and tell the TSA to ignore laymen who want to do so.

Problem solved.

#169 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-24 10:01 PM | Reply

That if I ask the gun guy to show me it's safe, he do so.

Thanks Redial - clarifying who was helpful. I took it as asking another actor that was holding the gun to do so, which I wouldn't trust.

That's usually how it's done. The armorer shows everyone involved in the frame the gun is safe. It's done by partially dismantling it for display. Then the armorer reassembles it, and holds it until the moment of the take. In between, it is literally out of your hands.

That's exactly what I thought, Danforth.

Yet the contention from Jakester and others is that that isn't good enough. That is, however, exactly the process. Or what the process should be. But he's insisting that "idiots" be trained and be responsible even though they are "so wrapped up in themselves, then think the rules of basic fun safety are beneath them." Somehow the one being aimed at in a scene and the one aiming at are supposed to do all this even though, presumably, they aren't mentally capable of it. Such is the "logic" (in inconsistency in argument) of Jakester, Visitor, etc.

Absoluteness. That was my second gun accident - ejected the magazine, charged it - no round popped out - and fired it at the ground. It went off. Round ricocheted into the wall, through, and into the back of the kitchen 'fridge.

Lucky you. That's what a friend's son did, but the ricochet killed him. The lesson? Don't fire into a concrete corner.

#170 | Posted by YAV at 2021-10-24 10:33 PM | Reply

You can always tell when a poster has been embarrassed by simple common sense: he starts building one ridiculous strawman after another.

#171 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-24 10:34 PM | Reply

FTW: The only reason set protocols have evolved to where they are now is every other method they've tried before has failed.

One idea was to make everyone solely responsible for their own safety.

That piece of stupidity was quickly abandoned. That's why, today, they require armorers.

#172 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-24 10:53 PM | Reply

"You can always tell when a poster has been embarrassed by simple common sense:?

Indeed. I'm sure your jumping the shark when you made the absurd equivalency of knowing how to inspect a plane's airworthiness to knowing how to inspect for a loaded didn't go unnoticed by any one here. If that was common sense, you lack any whatsoever.

But it was amusing. Now go huddle around your sycophants who are swooping in to lick your wonds for you and attempt to save face on your behalf.

#173 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-24 10:53 PM | Reply

That rock sure hit that dog.

#174 | Posted by YAV at 2021-10-24 10:57 PM | Reply

Yelp! Yelp! Yelp! - "Jakester"

#175 | Posted by YAV at 2021-10-24 10:58 PM | Reply

This is how I see it....

How many movies involve some kind of prop guns? How many movies have actors firing prop guns? Countless. WAY too many to even begin to list. How many movie sets have had prop-gun accidents? Probably more than we know - I'm guessing if a prop gun discharges a live round but it doesn't kill/injure anyone it's kept under wraps. Bigger picture, injuries/deaths from prop guns are incredibly rare when we take into account how often prop guns are used in film. It sure seems like the safety protocols that are in place as an industry standard are extremely effective.

By all means, investigate the heck out of what happened here - this death is tragic. But let's also not make too many broad statements because this incident is clearly not normal in film.

#176 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-24 11:07 PM | Reply

"But let's also not make too many broad statements because this incident is clearly not normal in film."

It is also extremely rare that a cop unjustly kills someone. Why aren't progressives treating the Baldwin incident the same? Rhetorical question, of course.

#177 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-24 11:11 PM | Reply

"It is also extremely rare that a cop unjustly kills someone."

It's about 100 times more common.

#178 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-24 11:24 PM | Reply

It is also extremely rare that a cop unjustly kills someone.

Please. It is more like a thousand times more common. 3 deaths in 4 years in movies that I am aware of. Just this year some officer shot a guy because she thought it was her "taser"... If that isn't unjust... How many other times did police unjustly kill someone in the past year?

Rhetorical question? Kind of a stupid question.

I would personally NEVER trust someone to tell me the state of a gun especially one I am pointing at someone.

#179 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2021-10-24 11:48 PM | Reply

"I would personally NEVER trust someone to tell me the state of a gun especially one I am pointing at someone."

Exactly. But you and I have common sense and understand basic gun safety, unlike Baldwin and his apologists.

#180 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-24 11:51 PM | Reply

If my father had taught Alec Baldwin gun safety, that director would be alive today.

#95 | POSTED BY JAKEFROMGOATFARM

Did pops teach Grampa Goatshart how to eat a shotgun?

#181 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2021-10-24 11:54 PM | Reply

Probably not. I seriously doubt my dad knew "goatshart"

I didn't realize goatman (if that is to whom you refer) lives in your head, too.

#182 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-25 12:01 AM | Reply

Before we used to do military exercises, our person handling the ammo would hand each one of us a magazine of dummy rounds. Our SGT would say, "Check your magazines". This was done to show us we had dummy rounds. We were taught the difference between a dummy round and a live one.

Is this too hard for Baldwin, or any other liberal idiot actor to do before set?

#183 | Posted by boaz at 2021-10-25 07:00 AM | Reply

"Is this too hard for Baldwin, or any other liberal idiot actor to do before set?"

Probably.

"our person handling the ammo would hand each one of us a magazine of dummy rounds."

And what if they weren't dummy rounds?

#184 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-25 11:49 AM | Reply

There is a lot of confusion in here. A "live" round, is any round that contains gun powder and primer. If it's Packed with wadding it'sa "blank" but still a "live" round. A prop gun should be bored differently in order to fire blanks and only blanks. If it contained a round that held an actual bullet with a full powder charge, that violates so many safety protocols, I don't even know where to begin. Actual rounds loaded with bullets have no business on a set. Ever. There is no scenario where they are necessary to complete a camera shot. Hell, with today's computer technology, an actor could never use anything but finger guns and a computer could add everything in cheaply and easily.

#185 | Posted by ABH at 2021-10-25 12:53 PM | Reply

Exactly. But you and I have common sense and understand basic gun safety, unlike Baldwin and his apologists.

#180 | Posted by jakester

What username were you posting under back when dick cheney shot a guy in the face? I'd love to see your comments about that.

#186 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-10-25 12:58 PM | Reply

Sure, it could have been a mistake.

But a disgruntled union worker who wanted to teach someone a lesson has, Motive, Means, and Opportunity on this one.

#187 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-25 01:05 PM | Reply

The presence of a live round with an encased bullet instead of packed with wadding and crimped really makes me question the "accident" angle. A bullet wouldn't enhance any camera work. It's crazy.

#188 | Posted by ABH at 2021-10-25 01:23 PM | Reply

#188 - that very thought has been lurking in the back of my brain as well. You summed it up with, " A bullet wouldn't enhance any camera work" which begs the obvious question: So why was there a bullet on set? Given Baldwin's temper and well documented history of violence and abuse, that question is going to find its way into the open.

#189 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-25 01:28 PM | Reply

"So why was there a bullet on set?"

Ban bullets on sets!
--Liberals

#190 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-25 01:37 PM | Reply

"It is also extremely rare that a cop unjustly kills someone."

Can't be serious.

The only reason we know about it now - technology. Or it would still be going on.

What do you think happened before all this technology? My goodness.

#191 | Posted by brass30 at 2021-10-25 01:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Hell, with today's computer technology, an actor could never use anything but finger guns and a computer could add everything in cheaply and easily."

Or they could use guns, and then replace them with walkie talkies because guns are too scary.

#192 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-25 01:46 PM | Reply

Given Baldwin's temper and well documented history of violence and abuse, that question is going to find its way into the open.

#189 | Posted by jakester

Ah so you think those with histories of violence and abuse shouldnt be allowed to access firearms?

OR does that only apply to liberals?

#193 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-10-25 01:49 PM | Reply

#191 - the use of present tense "is" in my post and not past tense "was" is crucial.

#194 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-25 01:50 PM | Reply

"Is this too hard for Baldwin, or any other liberal idiot actor to do before set?"
Probably.

#184 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2021-10-25 11:49 AM | FLAG:

Snoofy's right. Check the words out of Baldwin's own mouth:

Baldwin told The Hollywood Reporter that he was elated to work with Souza after missing the opportunity to star in Crown Vic (2019). He compared the screenplay to the 1992 film Unforgiven, and said it was inspired by a true story. When asked about his gun slinging and horse riding skills, he said, "They're always at the ready. I'm an actor of the old school. So if you read my resume " my motorcycle riding, my French, juggling, my horseback riding, my gunplay " is all right at my fingertips at all times."

Gunplay huh. Mr. Baldwin, guns are not toys no matter how much you play with them for film.

#195 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-10-25 01:50 PM | Reply

Indeed, the entire point of having an armorer on the set is so that the actors can focus on being actors.

They also don't concern themselves with things like "is that light about explode and catch me on fire" like happened to Michael Jackson.

To listen to some of the dumb arguments here -- which I can't help but note are being put forth exclusively by Republicans, Libertarians, and "Liberals" -- Everybody who died at the Great White concert can blame themselves for not checking the pyrotechnics before attending the show.

#196 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-25 01:59 PM | Reply

Gunplay huh. Mr. Baldwin, guns are not toys no matter how much you play with them for film.

There aren't supposed to be any "real" guns on the ------- set. How many times does this have to be said? Prop guns are "toy" guns. Your entire premise is incorrect.

The relevant question is how in the world did a round with a bullet instead of a cap/blank ever make it on the set?

#197 | Posted by YAV at 2021-10-25 02:08 PM | Reply

There aren't supposed to be any "real" guns on the ------- set. How many times does this have to be said? Prop guns are "toy" guns. Your entire premise is incorrect.
The relevant question is how in the world did a round with a bullet instead of a cap/blank ever make it on the set?

#197 | POSTED BY YAV AT 2021-10-25 02:08 PM | FLAG:

An airsoft gun is a toy gun. They don't shoot bullets. If your alleged "prop gun" can sufficiently fire a bullet through a camera, into a videographer, and then into a director, it's a firearm regardless of how you want to describe it.

#198 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-10-25 02:16 PM | Reply

A relevant question is how much longer are gun control advocates going to fetishize them through media for profit? Do they all need to shoot a videographer before they figure out it's maybe a bad idea? We've gotten to the point where our Kung -- movies are John Wick, and what makes John Wick special is the fact his character punches people in the face with bullets.

#199 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-10-25 02:19 PM | Reply

That's totally false. Prop guns generally are an altered "real" gun. No different that a gun you could buy from a gun store ... .. that has then had the barrel altered so that it can't actually expel a bullet. Wadding from a live blank? Yep. But not a bullet.

#200 | Posted by ABH at 2021-10-25 02:20 PM | Reply

That was directed at 197.

#201 | Posted by ABH at 2021-10-25 02:21 PM | Reply

#200 - Exactly.

#202 | Posted by YAV at 2021-10-25 02:29 PM | Reply

The relevant question is how in the world did a round with a bullet instead of a cap/blank ever make it on the set?

#197 | POSTED BY YAV AT 2021-10-25 02:08 PM | FLAG:

He was disagreeing with you it appears. I say the "prop" moniker is dubious at best. In lower budget productions airsoft "guns" are the props. Gun props are quite a wide category that include real guns, modified real guns, airsoft guns, paintball guns, wooden carved "guns", etc.

Anyways, "How?"

People playing with real guns like they were toys.

Guns aren't toys.

#203 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-10-25 02:36 PM | Reply

He's not disagreeing with me. You're stuck in an premise and you can't step out and see what's going on.

#204 | Posted by YAV at 2021-10-25 02:51 PM | Reply

People playing with real guns like they were toys.

No. They're supposed to be props.

The problem is that with the NRA and the insanity of the gutting of gun laws, actual guns that can kill people are ubiquitous. They are everywhere.

#205 | Posted by YAV at 2021-10-25 02:53 PM | Reply

I was disagreeing with you in that prop guns are not toy guns. They are real guns. They have every mechanical feature to make it expel bullets. It's only had the barrel altered so it can't.

#206 | Posted by ABH at 2021-10-25 02:59 PM | Reply

You can disagree that they aren't toy guns, that's fine, but you aren't disagreeing with me. They aren't. That's why I put "toy" in quotes. They are not supposed to be real guns or capable of killing anyone with a bullet, as you stated, and as I stated in #155. They are "toy" guns because they are props. Like anything else used in a movie that is a representative of, and used to create the illusion of, reality.

Choose any word you wish.

As I also stated, there are plastic prop 'guns', 'cap' guns, guns that are used for CGI, and modified guns that aren't supposed to be able to shoot (or be loaded with) ammunition that has a bullet. Just due to size alone.

So what are you arguing about? All you've done is prove my point, repeatedly. This should not have been able to happen. Period. Not if the rules were being followed. Not if this is a PROP gun and not a REAL gun capable of firing a live full size round with a bullet.

So all this nonsense about "proper handling of a firearm" is a deflection from the actual issue.

#207 | Posted by YAV at 2021-10-25 03:29 PM | Reply

They have every mechanical feature to make it expel bullets. It's only had the barrel altered so it can't.
So it's not a gun. It's a prop.

#208 | Posted by YAV at 2021-10-25 03:31 PM | Reply

Your snarky statement suggests actors should know the specs on every gun ever manufactured.
That's why they hire experts.

#164 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Oh FFS! It only takes seconds to make sure a gun is unloaded. Almost ANY gun.

If an actor uses a gun as a prop, they should clearly understand how that firearm functions. ..Or they are not putting the proper amount of time into learning their craft.

Alex Baldwin should at least be charged with manslaughter. Let a jury decide, but he is not above the law.

#209 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2021-10-25 03:41 PM | Reply

People (including actors, even if they see themselves as gods) do not need to know " the specs on every gun ever manufactured." Only the ones they handle.

Someone is engaging in hyperbole again.

As whatsleft points out, it only takes seconds to check if a gun is loaded. Isn't a human being's life worth a few seconds to make sure the gun you are pointing at her won't kill her?

It's interesting to see so many of the people who scream for better gun education, better gun safety, etc. now circling their wagons around Baldwin and dismissing his lack of adherence to basic gun safety with a "meh, not his fault".

#210 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-25 04:03 PM | Reply

People playing with real guns like they were toys.
Guns aren't toys.
#203 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

He was playing?
I thought he was working.

#211 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-25 04:23 PM | Reply

"dismissing his lack of adherence to basic gun safety with a "meh, not his fault"

It's not his fault.
He worked within the established industry protocols.
That's going to be an affirmative defense in almost any legal venue.

"people who scream for better gun education, better gun safety, etc."
Are told these things cannot be required, because it violates the Second Amendment.

#212 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-25 04:26 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Gunplay huh. Mr. Baldwin, guns are not toys no matter how much you play with them for film.

#195 | Posted by sitzkrieg

When someone doesn't like your cult leader, there's nothing you wont cling to to smear them.

You sound like a woke millenial whining about his word choice.

Whining about "He said gunplay!" is just as pathetic as whining about "he said oriental!"

#213 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-10-25 04:47 PM | Reply

" If an actor uses a gun as a prop ... "

You don't know what protocol is on a film set, do you?

#214 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-25 05:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

This is play acting for a movie. They don't have to actually point a gun at an actor to make the audience believe that the gun's pointing at the actor.

#55 | POSTED BY VISITOR_

The gun wasn't pointed at an actor. It was pointed at the camera, which is why the assistant director got killed.

#215 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2021-10-25 06:41 PM | Reply

" People (including actors, even if they see themselves as gods) do not need to know " the specs on every gun ever manufactured." Only the ones they handle."

Well, since props aren't listed on the call sheet, we're back at square one.

#216 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-25 07:20 PM | Reply

" As whatsleft points out, it only takes seconds to check if a gun is loaded."

As whatsleft missed (since he's obviously never been on a set), the gun is shown to you in a partially disabled manner, and then taken back by the armorer to finish prepping. It is LITERALLY out of your hands.

#217 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-25 07:25 PM | Reply

"The gun wasn't pointed at an actor. It was pointed at the camera,"

It as pointed towards the director or she would not have been killed.

That's another basic rule of handling a firearm: Never point it at or towards a person unless you intend to kill him. Baldwin violated three of the most fundamental rules about handling a gun. This is an undeniable fact. Halyna Hutchins is proof of that.

If he had followed even one of the three basic rules of gun handling, she would be alive today.

Weird how the same people who call for better gun safety and went ------- when Cheney hurt a man with a gun are circling the wagons around Baldwin who is obviously far more culpable and actually killed someone. Why? Politics. Pure and simple. Anyone who denies this is lying to himself.

#218 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-25 07:39 PM | Reply

Actually, Baldwin violated another fundamental rule of gun handling. Always assume a gun is loaded. Always. Even if someone tells you it isn't loaded, make the assumption it is. The person telling you it isn't could be wrong. This is taught in every gun handling/gun safety course out there.

#219 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-25 07:43 PM | Reply

Actually you keep calling it a gun. It's supposed to have been a 'gun.'
You can't let that go, though, because your entire premise is built on that mischaracterization.

#220 | Posted by YAV at 2021-10-25 07:49 PM | Reply

2. Treat every firearm with the respect due a loaded gun.

It might be, even if you think it isn't.

www.hunter-ed.com

Basic gun safety, boys and girls. This rule is quoted in every gun safety site I've seen. In none of them do they say, "unless someone assures you the gun is unloaded" or "unless you are on a movie set and the armorer assures you the gun is unloaded".

Pretend the person handling the gun isn't responsible if you want. But in the real world (outside of the fake make believe movie world), it just ain't the case.

I'm willing to view any link with gun safety rules that says, "Assume all guns are loaded unless someone tells you otherwise".

#221 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-25 07:54 PM | Reply

" Why? Politics."

Dead wrong. It's about protocol.

Just admit you don't understand rules on a set, since you've never been on one.

#222 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-25 08:03 PM | Reply

"Pretend the person handling the gun isn't responsible if you want."

Pretend it's not literally out of their hands if you need.

#223 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-25 08:08 PM | Reply

It's about protocol.

From what I have read they were not following some protocols. Obviously, since somehow a projectile got on the set.

#224 | Posted by REDIAL at 2021-10-25 08:08 PM | Reply

It only takes seconds to make sure a gun is unloaded. Almost ANY gun.

You're assuming everyone in this country is knowledgeable about guns.

I agree that at this point gun use and safety should be taught at school. Just like sexual education is important. So is gun safety, use, and training. Guns aren't going anywhere.

But. At this point in time. A lot of people are ignorant of guns.

So how can you assume he'd know the difference?

If an actor uses a gun as a prop, they should clearly understand how that firearm functions. ..

"Should." But it's not a prerequisite. They're required to know how to act. Not handle weapons.

A lot of production companies employ trainers and choreographers to teach people how to fight, use weapons and plan out the action.

But I think it's assumed everyone knows how to use a gun. That's not true. Maybe this will be a lesson to make sure everyone is better educated.

Or they are not putting the proper amount of time into learning their craft.

Their craft is acting. Not weapon use. Think about this, fight scenes are all choreography, it's not an actual fight, actors are going through motions. They're not attacking each other. They probably don't know anymore than the movements they're taught to make.

Alex Baldwin should at least be charged with manslaughter. Let a jury decide, but he is not above the law.

I'd argue involuntary manslaughter. But. Yes. Let a jury decide.

#225 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-10-25 08:10 PM | Reply

Well I think we've covered pretty much everything here.

What I'm hearing now is pretty much
Baldwin is a POS who I never could stand and it's wonderful that he be taken down.

For me it's kinda like backing out of the driveway and you end up backing over your grandkid. Effed up situation.

#226 | Posted by bruceaz at 2021-10-25 08:11 PM | Reply

I'd even settle on a link about movie set safety that says something like, "When the armorer declares the gun cold, the actor can be 100% assured that it is, and is safe to point at another person and pull the trigger".

Bueller?
Danforth?
Anyone?

#227 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-25 08:13 PM | Reply

"Dead wrong. It's about protocol."

OK, Danforth. I gather from previous posts you are an actor. So it should be easy for you to produce a link describing that protocol that has a passage like, " "When the armorer declares the gun cold, the actor can be 100% assured that it is, and is safe to point at another person and pull the trigger".

I've provided a link describing basic gun safety. It's time you stop flapping your gums and provide one that describes gun handling protocol on a movie set.

Link or stink.

I'll wait.

#228 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-25 08:18 PM | Reply

" . So it should be easy for you to produce a link describing that protocol that has a passage ... "

SAG rule books spell out the protocol. Grab one and knock yourself out.

At one point, it is LITERALLY OUT OF THE ACTOR'S HANDS. That's the only way the armorer can reassemble the gun after displaying it to everyone directly involved.

It isn't handed back until the take, and at that point, the Actor IS NOT ALLOWED TO DISASSEMBLE THE GUN.

#229 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-25 08:25 PM | Reply

Still waiting for that link that says, "When the armorer declares the gun cold, the actor can be 100% assured that it is, and is safe to point at another person and pull the trigger", Danforth.

link or stink. Until then, I'll correctly assume you have nothing and you are making up everything you say.

#230 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-25 08:28 PM | Reply

"I'll wait."

Be sure to hold your breath.

#231 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-25 08:29 PM | Reply

Sorry that you lost again, Danforth.

Better luck next time.

#232 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-25 08:29 PM | Reply

" Still waiting for that link "

You'll wait your entire life, Goatman. You've never been on a set, and you have no idea what you're talking about. I'm not about to jump through a dumb hoop.

Why don't you grab a SAG rulebook and educate yourself?

#233 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-25 08:32 PM | Reply

"Sorry that you lost "

Oh, great. Another round of self-congratulations, by someone who has never spent ten seconds on a film set.

Have you decided to educate yourself, or is your plan to keep pretending you know what happens on a film set?

#234 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-25 08:35 PM | Reply

The Screen Actors Guild's written rules on safety in film and television make it clear that actors must not point a firearm at anyone.

Written in 2009, 65 pages The Safety Bulletin sets the rules for all kinds of safety issues, but on the topic of how actors use firearms, the SAG is unambiguous:

Treat all weapons as if they are loaded and/or ready to use.

Emphasis mine.

There's two SAG rules Baldwin violated.

No wonder you didn't want to link to the SAG protocols you keep barking about, Danforth. LOL

#235 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-25 08:39 PM | Reply

" by someone who has never spent ten seconds on a film set."

You mean the SAG book is written in some odd script that only a person who has been on a movie set can understand?

You're floundering Danforth. You lost. I provided a link to your precious protocols from your precious SAG book. You were unable to do that and you supposedly have spent time on a movie set.

#236 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-25 08:43 PM | Reply

The Screen Actors Guild's written rules on safety in film and television

Where is that? Been looking for it...

#237 | Posted by REDIAL at 2021-10-25 08:43 PM | Reply

" No wonder you didn't want to link to the SAG protocols"

Those aren't protocols, Goatman.

Nothing about displaying the gun, nothing about providence, nothing about the fact the actor is not in physical control of the gun at all times.

Cute, though, you thought you found the Grail, when all you found was proof you don't know the first thing about on-set protocols.

#238 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-25 08:46 PM | Reply

Dan.

You're arguing against someone who believes their opinions are the same as facts.

In the real world, if you hand me a gun and tell me it's unloaded, and I shoot someone, it's my fault.

On a movie set. It's someone's job to be responsible for the gun. When they tell you it's good to go. You trust them. It's called team work.

When something fails you hold the person who didn't do their job correctly responsible for the failure.

Not the person left holding the smoking gun. (Pun intended)

Alec Baldwin may be responsible for pulling the trigger. But that's what he was supposed to do. He wasn't supposed to make sure the gun was properly working.

I'm not sure why you'd need the gun to do anything when computer graphics have that covered. But. It's most likely because it's cheaper as a practical effect.

Regardless. It's unfortunate Halyna died.

#239 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-10-25 08:48 PM | Reply

#237 - ask Danforth. He knows everything about everything in that book. I don't because I haven't spent 10 seconds on a movie set, according to him.

#240 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-25 08:49 PM | Reply

Blub, blub, blug.

And down goes Danforth, even when presented with facts from the source to which he told me to review.

LOL

#241 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-25 08:51 PM | Reply

from the source to which he told me to review.

Do you have a link to that? I can find the SAG rules.

#242 | Posted by REDIAL at 2021-10-25 08:55 PM | Reply

Can't.

#243 | Posted by REDIAL at 2021-10-25 08:55 PM | Reply

Dear Diary,
Today I got an --------.

#244 | Posted by bruceaz at 2021-10-25 08:56 PM | Reply

"Those aren't protocols"

Then post them. You made the claim. You bear the burden of proof.

#245 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-25 08:57 PM | Reply

---- off, goatman.

#246 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2021-10-25 09:00 PM | Reply

If an actor uses a gun as a prop, they should clearly understand how that firearm functions. ..

If an actor uses a prop as a gun...

And down goes Danforth, even when presented with facts from the source to which he told me to review.

You are an insufferable jackass whose conceit won't allow you see what's right in front of your face. You sound like a blathering idiot demanding you won when you've done no such thing. Petulant and churlish.

#247 | Posted by YAV at 2021-10-25 09:10 PM | Reply

" from the source to which he told me to review."

The source, but not the source materials.

You didn't find a single scratch about on-set protocols regarding the providence of firearms.

And you're too stupid to know the difference.

#248 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-25 09:22 PM | Reply

"You didn't find a single scratch about on-set protocols regarding the providence of firearms."

So show us. You made the claim. You bear the burden of proof.

#249 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-25 09:23 PM | Reply

"Then post them."

I explained them, clearly. PageUp, or go to my page if you need to read the steps multiple times before it sinks in.

#250 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-25 09:24 PM | Reply

"And you're too stupid to know the difference."

"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers."

Better luck next time, Danforth.

#251 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-25 09:26 PM | Reply

" So show us. You made the claim."

No, Goatman, YOU made the claim you'd found the SAG rules.

I've outlined the procedures. Read, or don't. Your choice.

#252 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-25 09:28 PM | Reply

I explained them,

That's not proof. Anyone can "explain" anything. Doesn't make it true without proof. You honestly don't understand this? Really? And you have the chutzpah to call me stupid? LOL

You have nothing, but the last grasp clutch at slander.

Sad

#253 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-25 09:29 PM | Reply

" When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers."

You thought you'd found the protocols, but were too stupid to know you didn't.

That's not slander, that's fact.

#254 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-25 09:30 PM | Reply

"I've outlined the procedures."

So? Anyone can "outline" anything, but it means nothing without proof.

You obviously have nothing, so let me give you a consolation prize. I am gifting you with theh last word. Now you can feel you won.

Maybe next time you can get the actual prize. GL with that!

#255 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-25 09:32 PM | Reply

"That's not proof."

Multiple first-hand experiences on set is not proof? In what bizarro world?

You're pathetic, Goatman.

And again: not slander, fact.

#256 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-25 09:34 PM | Reply

" Maybe next time you can get the actual prize."

Maybe next time you'll find the actual protocols, and not something you just pretend are the protocols.

#257 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-25 09:37 PM | Reply

Each time a gun is handed to a performer, the armourer must open the weapon's breach and present it to the performer with verbal confirmation such as, "The weapon is clear".

When the performer is satisfied that the gun is not loaded they should audibly confirm "Clear".

When it is returned to the armourer following the take, the same clear verbal confirmation is required.

I wonder if Baldwin did this but was too stupid to know the gun wasn't unloaded?

#258 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-25 09:37 PM | Reply

So now you're wondering?

#259 | Posted by bruceaz at 2021-10-25 09:39 PM | Reply

Don't feed goatshart.

It'll jack his blood sugar and he'll lose the rest of his toe(s).

#260 | Posted by jpw at 2021-10-25 09:41 PM | Reply

The Property Master (or, in his/her absence, the weapons handler and/or other
appropriate personnel determined by the locality or the needs of the production)
will be the individual acting in the interest of the Producer for obtaining,
maintaining and handling all firearms for the production. He/she will work in
conjunction with the production's designated Safety Representative to assure
that the following standards are adhered to.
...
No one shall be issued a firearm until he or she is trained in safe handling, safe use, the safety lock, and proper firing procedures.
www.csatf.org

I wonder if Baldwin was "trained in safe handling, safe use, the safety lock, and proper firing procedures. "

Obviously not.

#261 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-25 09:43 PM | Reply

I wonder if Baldwin followed these rules. Of course he didn't:

GENERAL SAFE USE AND HANDLING OF FIREARMS

1. Refrain from pointing a firearm at anyone, including yourself. If it is absolutely
necessary to do so on camera, consult the Property Master (or, in his/her
absence, the weapons handler and/or other appropriate personnel
determined by the locality or the needs of the production) or other safety
representative, such as the First A.D./Stage Manager. Remember that any object
at which you point a firearm could be destroyed.

2. NEVER place your finger on the trigger until you're ready to shoot. Keep
your finger alongside the firearm and off the trigger.

3. KNOW where and what your intended target is.

4. DO NOT engage in horseplay with any firearms.

6. UTILIZE all safety devices until the firearm is ready to be used.

7. NEVER lay down a firearm or leave it unattended. Unless actively filming
rehearsing, all firearms should be safely secured.

12. The Studio Safety and Security Departments are to be notified prior to any
firearm use on studio property.

13. All personnel should remain a set safe distance from the weapon firing area (to
be determined by the Property Master (or, in his/her absence, the weapons
handler and/or other appropriate personnel determined by the locality or
the needs of the production), Stunt Coordinator and/or designated Studio
Safety Representative) to ensure personal safety from blank debris and hot
ejected blank casings.

14. All local, state and federal laws and regulations are applicable and can override
these guidelines if they are more stringent.

www.csatf.org

#262 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-25 09:58 PM | Reply

"I wonder if Baldwin followed these rules."

Baldwin was acting under direction.

#263 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-25 10:05 PM | Reply

"Refrain from pointing a firearm at anyone, including yourself. If it is absolutely
necessary to do so on camera, consult the Property Master (or, in his/her
absence, the weapons handler and/or other appropriate personnel
determined by the locality or the needs of the production) or other safety
representative, such as the First A.D./Stage Manager. Remember that any object
at which you point a firearm could be destroyed."

Well, the object was destroyed all right.

The rules allow for that. I mean, provided Baldwin remembered that was a possibility.

It looks like he followed the rules.

#264 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-25 10:09 PM | Reply

It looks like he followed the rules.

He should have kept his booger-hook off the trigger if nothing else.

#265 | Posted by REDIAL at 2021-10-25 10:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Baldwin was acting under direction.

The key word is A-C-T-I-N-G! He was following the director's orders and practicing the required pose and shot for the camera. He did what he was supposed to do under the circumstances.

Stop arguing with -------, he knows less than nothing. Danforth has been right for days. The gun's condition was the responsibility of the person responsible for it being in a safe condition, not the actor. At the point of shooting or staging a scene, the gun is merely a prop that the actor is using like any other prop. He trusts that the professionals have done their jobs and given him the weapon in the condition called for in its use for the scene being shot or practiced.

#266 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-10-25 10:13 PM | Reply

"He did what he was supposed to do under the circumstances."

No, he wasn't. SAG (ask Danforth!) does not allow guns during rehearsals, which what was going on.

Why are the progressives so intent on defending Baldwin when before this happened they were all screaming for stricter safety rules and regulations. Serious question.

"Danforth has been right for days."

Except Danforth never provides links to back up his claims. Not. A. One. So how do you know he's right? That's right. You don't. But if you think he is, do what he is unable to do. Provide links to back up his claims.

#267 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-25 10:20 PM | Reply

"It looks like he followed the rules."

No, he did not. He violated several as I proved upthread. Disagree and debate them if you wish, but don't be a Danforth and make claims without providing proof. That's lame and meaningless.

#268 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-25 10:23 PM | Reply

"The gun's condition was the responsibility of the person responsible for it being in a safe condition"

I posted a link that disputes your claim, Tonyroma. It clearly states that both parties (the armorer and the actor) are responsible. If you think you are correct, provide a link that contradicts mine.

#269 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-25 10:26 PM | Reply

SAG (ask Danforth!) does not allow guns during rehearsals

From what I have read they just don't allow the use of blank/explosive ammo. Still can't find the SAG rules though... might require membership.

#270 | Posted by REDIAL at 2021-10-25 10:27 PM | Reply

#267

---- off you pants pissing mofo. Try reading something actually germane to the situation.

On set, guidelines are typically set by each individual armorer, he said. Tristano, whose career includes handling the weaponry on a 1998 film featuring Baldwin called "Thick as Thieves," said he keeps guns being used on a set unloaded and open, "so it's very visible to the crew and the cast that everything in there is safe." They are never left unattended, and they are only touched by Tristano, his crew and the actor firing the weapon.

When the time comes to shoot a scene with gunfire, he starts by giving the actor an unloaded rubber match of the weapon that's going to be used. After going over the shot and safety parameters, he asks the assistant director, "Are you ready to go hot?" He asks how many blanks they plan to fire, then loads it at that number and hands it to the actor. Once the scene has been filmed, he takes back the gun and clears it.

"No one just goes over and picks up a gun and walks on set with it," Tristano said.

Investigators are still trying to answer whether the gun being loaded with live ammunition was an accident or done on purpose, whether a manufacturing error mispackaged a live round, whether this was supposed to be a blank or whether this type of ammunition, a soft round or perhaps a "cowboy soft round," was confused for something less lethal.

The Santa Fe District Attorney's Office will determine who, if anyone, will face charges.

www.washingtonpost.com

Quoting the book instead of judging what happened based on the everyday reality of actual filmaking is your biggest mistake - AGAIN, something Danforth tried to tell you days ago.

Just piss off you ignorant know-nothing. Baldwin had no responsibility for the type of ammo loaded into the gun. He did what he was told to do by the director who was injured himself. There was no appreciable negligence on his part if he was told the gun was cold and to point it at the camera (where those shot were located).

#271 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-10-25 10:30 PM | Reply

" Still can't find the SAG rules though... might require membership."

No, it doesn't. You can even get them on Kindle and other eBooks.

#272 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-25 10:32 PM | Reply

If you think everyone everywhere follows the rules written in guidebooks or OSHA regulations, you're stupider than you appear to be. And by the way, the SAG book has NO LEGAL STANDING WHATSOEVER, moron.

Try and file charges that Baldwin didn't follow the SAG book and get laughed out of the courtroom especially when the person directly responsible for the firearms didn't follow the guidelines either. This isn't Texas where vigilantes such as your stupid ass can arrest someone because you think you know better.

You don't, and you never will.

#273 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-10-25 10:34 PM | Reply

"---- off you pants pissing mofo."

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers.

It's so easy to get the best of people here.

#274 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-25 10:35 PM | Reply

You can even get them on Kindle and other eBooks.

I'm not curious enough to pay for it.

#275 | Posted by REDIAL at 2021-10-25 10:36 PM | Reply

I would have thought that the movie industry would utilize prop guns that are designed in a way to make them incapable of firing live rounds.

Given that they obviously are capable of firing live rounds it would seem to me that whomever is handling a prop gun would have some responsibility to double check to make sure the gun they are handling is not hot.

#276 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-25 10:37 PM | Reply

#271 - according to Danforth, your post doesn't quote actual protocols. At least that's what he told me when I posted a similar passage.

Right, Danforth? Is it it double standard time in La la land again?

#277 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-25 10:39 PM | Reply

Warner Brother's "Safety on the Set":
www.safetyontheset.com

Have fun. It's not the SAG guidelines, but it's likely close.

#278 | Posted by YAV at 2021-10-25 10:40 PM | Reply

#275 - relevant passages can be googled. But I don't know about the entire thing being on line.

#279 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-25 10:40 PM | Reply

"whomever is handling a prop gun would have some responsibility to double check to make sure the gun they are handling is not hot."

That's part of the protocol. However, once it's inspected, and then fully re-assembled, it's handed to the actor. At that point, they are only to use it as directed. They are NOT allowed at that point to take the gun apart again.

#280 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-25 10:45 PM | Reply

#278 - according to Danforth it doesn't count then.

But the first line of on hour link says what I've been saying all along, so thanks. Had that rule been adhered to, the director would be alive today.

TREAT ALL FIREARMS AS THOUGH THEY ARE LOADED.

#281 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-25 10:45 PM | Reply

Alec Baldwin was rehearsing a scene that involved pointing a revolver "towards the camera lens" when the gun - which the crew had been told did not contain live rounds - suddenly went off and killed the cinematographer, according to the film's director, who was quoted in an affidavit released Sunday night.

The director, who was wounded in the shooting, told investigators that he had believed that the gun was safe and that it had been described as a "cold gun" in firearm safety announcements. He said that guns on the film's set were typically checked by the film's armorer, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, and then checked again by Dave Halls, the assistant director, who would hand them to the actors.

On film sets, the order of who handles a weapon typically involves a precise sequence, several armorers in the industry said. But actors had been handed guns on the set by both Mr. Halls and Ms. Gutierrez-Reed, according to a producer of "Rust" who asked not to be named because of the ongoing investigation.

Mr. Baldwin had been sitting in a wooden church pew, rehearsing a scene that involved "cross drawing" a revolver and pointing it at the camera lens, Mr. Joel Souza said, according to the affidavit. Mr. Souza said that he had been standing beside Ms. Hutchins "viewing the camera angle."

The film's director, Souza, described hearing what "sounded like a whip and then loud pop."

Mr. Souza saw Ms. Hutchins grabbing her midsection and starting to stumble backward. Then he noticed he was bleeding from his shoulder.

Mr. Russell told the detective that after returning to the set from lunch, he had stepped outside for about five minutes; when he returned, according to the affidavit, Mr. Baldwin, Ms. Hutchins and Mr. Souza were setting up the scene and were already "in possession of the firearm." Mr. Russell said he was not sure if the firearm had been inspected because he had been absent for those five minutes.

According to the affidavit, Mr. Halls grabbed the revolver from a gray, two-tiered tray set up by Ms. Gutierrez-Reed. Mr. Halls handed the gun to Mr. Baldwin and shouted, "cold gun," which on a film set typically refers to an unloaded firearm.

While setting up the scene, the crew had to reposition the camera because there was a shadow. Mr. Russell told the detective that Mr. Baldwin was explaining how he was going to draw the gun, pulling it out from the holster, when the firearm discharged.

Mr. Russell said that Mr. Baldwin had been "very careful" with the firearm; during an earlier scene, Mr. Russell said, Mr. Baldwin had tried to ensure safety on set, making sure that a child wasn't near him when he was discharging the gun. Asked about how members of the production team were behaving as they set up the scene, he said "everyone seemed to be getting along."

Mr. Souza, the director, told the detective that because the crew had been setting up the scene when the gun discharged, the incident had not been filmed.

www.nytimes.com

#282 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-10-25 10:47 PM | Reply

"according to Danforth, your post doesn't quote actual protocols."

According to Goatman, gun professionals on sets discussing protocols don't know the protocols.

Say it with me folks: People who have never been on an oil rig know more about rigs than folks who make their living working on them.

#283 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-25 10:48 PM | Reply

"according to Danforth it doesn't count then."

Sorry, Goatman, you don't get to speak for me. Just because you found something you couldn't properly identify doesn't mean the actual protocols described aren't correct.

If you'll notice, ALL of them put responsibility on those hired to be the responsible ones.

#284 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-25 10:50 PM | Reply

My guess is this will go nowhere until they figure out what the lethal projectile was, and how it got onto the set. And why the "cold gun" was not.

To me it sounds like sloppy prop handling.

#285 | Posted by REDIAL at 2021-10-25 10:51 PM | Reply

"you don't get to speak for me."

I'm not. I'm referring to something you said previously. And yes, I do get to do that.

#286 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-25 10:57 PM | Reply

Danforth, do you disagree with the first line in the link that Yav posted which says:

TREAT ALL FIREARMS AS THOUGH THEY ARE LOADED.

#287 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-25 11:00 PM | Reply

#280 OK. Makes sense.

Is it not possible to manufacture prop guns that CAN'T fire a live round?

I'd be willing to predict that might become a new market moving forward as a result of this tragedy.

#288 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-25 11:02 PM | Reply

" I'm referring to something you said previously."

No you're not. I never said the description of the professional wasn't accurate.

You put in your own interpretation of what I said, and it's incorrect.

You DON'T speak for me, Goatman.

#289 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-25 11:03 PM | Reply

"You DON'T speak for me, Goatman"

I haven't him speak for anyone, including himself, since I've been posting here.

It can't be healthy to have him so firmly entrenched in your head, Danforth. How long has it been since he's posted here? I don't think he has since I've been here, and that's a long time. Yet he still thrives in your head.

Weird.

Anyway, this topic isn't about goatman, so please stop hijacking with your obsession with him. Stay on topic, please.

So do you agree with the first line in the link that Yav posted which says, TREAT ALL FIREARMS AS THOUGH THEY ARE LOADED. or not?

#290 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-25 11:08 PM | Reply

"Is it not possible to manufacture prop guns that CAN'T fire a live round?"

I'm sure it is. But why there was a live round on set is still a huge question.

"I'd be willing to predict that might become a new market moving forward as a result of this tragedy."

I think you're right, and it's long overdue.

#291 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-25 11:15 PM | Reply

"I haven't him speak for anyone"

Sure, Goatman.

#292 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-25 11:20 PM | Reply

It's a simple question, Danforth.

But no worries. Your lack of response is a tacit reply of which you are clearly ashamed to vocalize.

#293 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-25 11:21 PM | Reply

"How long has it been since he's posted here?"

I get it. You're "no longer" Goatman. Just the same human who used to post under that name.

You've got more "tells" than a rookie poker player. But by all means, keep thinking your mirrored glasses are cool.

#294 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-25 11:23 PM | Reply

Please cease hijacking this thread with your goatman obsession, Danforth. Start a thread about him and talk about him there. Let's keep on topic here, please.

#295 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-25 11:23 PM | Reply

Danforth, try for a few seconds to get goatman out of your head and see if you can respond to the simple question I asked of you.

Clearly goatman is deeply imbedded in your head and under your skin, but at least give it a try, if not for the sake of my on-topic question, but for the sake of the rest of the readers who who don't share your obsession with goatman nor want to read about him.

#296 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-25 11:25 PM | Reply

"Please cease hijacking this thread with your Danforth obsession, Goatman.

Small minds discuss people.

#297 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-25 11:25 PM | Reply

"Small minds discuss people."

And there's that, too, with your goatman obsession.

Clearly you are beaten to the point you know you can no longer hold your own with the topic, so you deflect to goatman.

Your ruse worked. I'll stop beating up on you and let you talk about goatman.

But some friendly advice: Seek help. Obsessing over a person on the internet, especially months after he has topped posting is not healthy. Seriously, it's not. Best of luck to ou on that, Danforth.

#298 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-25 11:29 PM | Reply

"Clearly goatman is deeply imbedded in your head"

Not as much as in yours. In fact, you can't even be truthful about it.

Do you really believe folks fall for your purposeful dishonesty?

#299 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-25 11:29 PM | Reply

"Obsessing over a person on the internet, especially months after he has topped posting is not healthy"

Only small minded folks focus on people, Goatman.

And just because "Goatman" hasn't posted in months, doesn't mean you didn't post under that name. Would you like a short list of your "tells"?

Better plonk me, Goatman.

#300 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-25 11:31 PM | Reply

Why are the progressives

Why is a self-proclaimed "proggie" make such a comment?

#301 | Posted by jpw at 2021-10-25 11:43 PM | Reply

It's so easy to get the best of people here.

#274 | Posted by jakester

Herpes says the same thing when people with cold sores get annoyed.

#302 | Posted by jpw at 2021-10-25 11:45 PM | Reply

Hey "Jakester,"

Why do you think Goatman got banned?

#303 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-25 11:46 PM | Reply

Has anyone graphed "jakester"'s posts on this thread to see if the kinetics align with previous notorious examples of goatshart spamming threads?

#304 | Posted by jpw at 2021-10-26 12:08 AM | Reply

This is a lot of hand wringing over involuntary manslaughter.

The term involuntary manslaughter is used to refer to the unintentional killing of a person. It might result from criminal negligence, recklessness, or misdemeanor. The person who commits involuntary manslaughter does not want the victim to die.

My bet is this gets settled out of court.

It's an assumption to believe actors know gun safety and it's a waste of time to argue with people who believe they do or should.

Lots of "should have" in life. Doesn't matter when that's not how it is.

#305 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-10-26 12:10 AM | Reply

It's so easy to get the best of people here.
#274 | Posted by jakester

Trolling is easy.

Congratulations.

You managed to, once again, frustrate others with your unwillingness to accept what's being explained to you.

#306 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-10-26 12:15 AM | Reply

Serious question: Anyone here want to talk about the topic, or does everyone prefer to hijack it and talk about their obsession with goatman?

I'd like to continue, but I'll be honest: I can't compete with goatman obsessions so many jere obviously have.

#307 | Posted by jakester at 2021-10-26 12:15 AM | Reply

Anyone here want to talk about the topic,

Alec Baldwin shot someone by accident with a gun he thought was unloaded.

Disputes had left crew unhappy with conditions and many left. New people were brought in to fill seats.

Production was running through a scene before filming and people retreated to a safe distance. They had run through the scene s few times and on the last time the supposed cold gun was hot and two people were shot resulting in one death and one injury.

It's under investigation and facts are being made available.

Responsible isn't cut and dry because this is a film shoot and there are people who are responsible for being in charge of props.

The main question is, why was the weapon be loaded?

It's been reported several times it was announced the weapon was cold.

I don't fault Baldwin for believing the information he was given. Why would he question it?

That's not his job. His job is to stay in character and deliver his lines.

So. What do you want to talk about?

#308 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-10-26 12:31 AM | Reply

Guess he was done talking.

#309 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-10-26 03:03 AM | Reply

Has anyone graphed "jakester"'s posts on this thread to see if the kinetics align with previous notorious examples of goatshart spamming threads?

As requested:

media.kidadl.com

#310 | Posted by YAV at 2021-10-26 07:31 AM | Reply

#309 - you summed it up accurately, Clownshack. I'd only add one thing to that; why the hell was live ammo that contained a bullet on the set?

They shouldn't be using real guns at all. They should be prop guns that can't fire anything but blanks, if even that.

We don't know a lot, though, including whether an actual bullet carrying round is even responsible for the death. Police aren't saying anything. All we have are "leaks" from people there, telling their side of the story.

#311 | Posted by YAV at 2021-10-26 07:37 AM | Reply

Detectives Find Loose, Boxed Ammo In Fanny Pack On 'Rust' Set

Detectives found loose and boxed ammunition, some of it in a fanny pack, at the New Mexico movie set of "Rust" after the fatal shooting of the Western's cinematographer, according to a police search warrant inventory.

Three black revolvers and nine spent shell casings also were collected, according to the list filed with the Santa Fe Magistrates Court and released Monday.

[T]he scattered ammunition suggests a disorganized system for maintaining a dangerous prop.

Typically, ammunition would be kept in a single labeled box, veteran professional armorer Mike Tristano told The New York Times. "The fact that there is loose ammunition and casings raises questions about the organization of the armory department," he said.

The police inventory didn't specify whether what it labeled as "ammo" included live or dummy bullets, or blank cartridges.

Hutchins was killed by a "live single round," The Los Angeles Times has reported. A "live" round on a movie set refers to a gun being loaded with some material, which could be a blank, that's ready for filming, the Times noted.

Five days before Hutchins was killed, Baldwin's stunt double accidentally fired two live rounds after being told that the weapon didn't have any ammunition in it, the newspaper reported, citing two crew members.

#312 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-10-26 08:34 AM | Reply

Five days before Hutchins was killed, Baldwin's stunt double accidentally fired two live rounds after being told that the weapon didn't have any ammunition in it, the newspaper reported, citing two crew members.

#312 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

This is a huge concern for me. If that is true I would expect every gun to be re-inspected by a second person before calling it a "cold gun" and means this tragic accident could have been prevented. Someone should face some real consequences for this.

#313 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2021-10-26 09:17 AM | Reply

It's been reported that the prop guns are put on a cart, the assistant director, who's been in trouble before over mishandling prop weapons, grabbed the gun off the cart and yelled cold gun and handed it to Baldwin. The introduction of and use of the cart is due to COVID protocols.

And no, this death isn't being attributed to COVID, you don't even try that. :)

#314 | Posted by YAV at 2021-10-26 10:04 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2021 World Readable

Drudge Retort