You're viewing a single thread.
So I get that the armored is chiefly responsible but I have to wonder... why was he pointing the gun in that direction at all? When I heard that someone was shot, my first thought was, why wasn't it another actor? You know, like the person he was shooting at in the movie? The media never seems to answer the questions I have.
If I recall correctly, they were filming a shot "down the barrel of the gun" kinda thing. So he was pointing it in the direction of the camera
Thanks.
"The media" isn't responsible for spoonfeeding you everything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rust_shooting_incident
"While the trio behind the monitor were repositioning the camera to remove a shadow, Baldwin began explaining to the crew how he planned to draw the firearm.[7] He said, "So, I guess I'm gonna take this out, pull it, and go, 'Bang!'"[9] When he removed it from the holster, the gun was fired a single time."
The person was standing there because they needed to be for one reason or another. They were not in the middle of shooting, they were rehearsing and blocking out the shot.
With a competent armorer Baldwin would not have even had a real firearm in his hand until the armorer handed it to him moments before actually firing the shot.
I never said they were responsible for spoonfeeding me everything. Thanks for patronizing me by blowing the statement out of proportion.
You're welcome.
He accidentally hit the trigger while he was putting the weapon in it's sheath.
Also the fault here is manifold. Under normal circumstances the armorer is the only one who ever hands off a weapon to an actor and there is a process of doing a last check. In this instance the 1st AD overstepped and did that while not following armorer protocol meaning that a high amount of the culpability was in his court.
In this instance MULTIPLE layers of safety protocols had to be abraided through for this to happen. If anyone on a set I have worked on saw an assistant director or any other department member handle a weapon other than an armorer if they didn't immediately get their ass fired they would at least be bleeding from the ears from the scolding they would earn. That this weapon was handled this way in full veiw of the cast and crew means the safety issues were endemic. That the 1st AD - whose job is to enforce safety checks and veto unsafe directorial decisions handed this weapon means something was VERY wrong with the chain of command above him.
So that would imply perhaps he should be on trial since he was a producer?
Yes he should. It might be more nebulous if another newer actor was handed the gun that killed but he's a seasoned actor who had outsized clout and hiring/firing power on the show. There is no way he wouldn't have been introduced to these concepts from other shows... so receiving a weapon from the first AD is damning.
Those firearm training session- s are an every production kind of deal for anyone who handles a live weapon. That means if you are seasoned you' ve had this drilled into your skull. It establishes a chain of liability. The armourer is liable to follow and enforce the rules, the actor is liable in following the rules and reporting infringement of the rules as a condition of their participation, the 1st AD is liable for enforcing the safety rules on the set and addressing the concerns of the crew, the director is liable if they disregard the 1st AD's veto of an action as unsafe and the production is liable if a producer or production manager is made aware of these safety checks being disregarded because they have firing power and an unsafe crew member in any of these positions is a danger to everyone on the set.
So frankly, they were treating live weapons as toys in an industry where the standard should be that even bouncy fake rubber replica guns get treated with the full respect afforded a dangerous weapon because you don't fuck with guns on a set. -
Thanks.