Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Krandor1 t1_jeg6t9c wrote

Reply to comment by Hooterdear in 'Rust' first assistant director David Halls sentenced in deadly on-set shooting by AudibleNod

yep. the person who appears to be most at fault

44

jonathanrdt t1_jeg7xvo wrote

And had a history of seemingly negligent behavior.

44

DeficiencyOfGravitas t1_jegr5ps wrote

The person who is most at fault is always the person who pulled the trigger. Hollywood shouldn't get to ignore weapons safety because it is convenient.

−80

Krandor1 t1_jegrmar wrote

If the armorer does her job right a loaded gun is never in baldwins hand. Gun safety on set literally is her job. She failed. Baldwin is partially responsible but if she follows procedures there are never ever live rounds on set to get into the gun in the first place. Thst is the reason you have an armorer.

70

GI_X_JACK t1_jegt89e wrote

From what has previously been posted. This is the armorer Baldwin hired, and then ignored because it was more or less his set. From what other people have said. Baldwin didn't let her do her job correctly. She was hired because she was cheap, and new.

−46

Less_Tennis5174524 t1_jegzbsw wrote

"What other people said" or in other words bullshit. We dont really know anything about his involvement at all. He has a producer credit but that could just be ego padding.

37

GI_X_JACK t1_jeh0bq1 wrote

He also co-wrote the script.

Again, we'll see what people are willing to say in court.

−25

DeficiencyOfGravitas t1_jegs83f wrote

Every gun you receive is assume loaded until you check it yourself. There is no trust system in firearm safety. Only Hollywood operates with the "Bro, dude, I totally checked it, just point it at her and pull the trigger, bro, it's safe" system.

−51

Rnevermore t1_jegz4xn wrote

Standard gun safety rules do not apply on a movie set... This should be REALLY obvious. Movie sets use a completely different set of rules, and they seem to work fine because Hollywood has a much lower than average rate of incidents.

36

Medievalhorde t1_jegsq5w wrote

You have to convince twelve other people to think your way and if most are not blaming Alec Baldwin before the trial, I don't see a snowball chance in hell of twelve people aligning that way either.

21

malphonso t1_jegxf7l wrote

Maybe they should get Clooney to be a subject matter witness.

"Every single time I’m handed a gun on the set — every time — they hand me a gun, I look at it, I open it, I show it to the person I’m pointing it too, I show it to the crew,” Clooney said. “Every single take.” Then, “You hand it back to the armor when you’re done.” He said. Part of it is because of what happened to Brandon. Everyone does it. Everyone knows” that is the protocol to follow. “Maybe Alec did that — hopefully he did do that. But the problem is dummies are tricky because they look like real [rounds]. They got a little tiny hole in the back [from which] somebody’s [removed] the gunpowder"..."I mean every time I get handed a six-gun,” or a gun that holds six cartridges, “you point it at the ground and you squeeze it six times,” Clooney said, noting “It’s just insane” not to.

2

Rnevermore t1_jegufj0 wrote

No. Not even a little. A movie set does not have to (and should not have to) follow the standard gun safety rules because their business often relies on handling firearms in an 'unsafe' manner.

Movies use a different set of rules, usually involving armourers, propmasters, assistant directors and other staff ensuring the safety of weapons on the set, and, most importantly, accepting liability in the case of an incident.

If I were an armourer on a movie set, I wouldn't want some stupid actor fucking around and tinkering and checking MY gun. If I have liability for that gun, you do not fuck with it because that's my ass on the line.

37

GI_X_JACK t1_jegt3db wrote

No, the person most at fault is the person who set up shitty working conditions.

This is akin to someone dying in a forklift accident in a factory. It sounds like "tragic accident" until you hear how the boss was an asshole and skimped on safety measures, and ignored previous failures that could have resulted in death, but people got lucky, but then never changed anything to prevent it from happening again. Except it did, and then someone died.

And Alec Baldwin is the producer, co-writer of the script, and was responsible for running an unsafe, slipshod set. Its also somewhat infuriating as the man who's rep from his OWN union, was keen on hiring non-union scabs to break a strike.

We'll see what comes out in his trial, but unless people are making shit up, people are saying he violated every safety protocol both as producer and and ignored the safety brief as an actor as well. But again, we'll see who actually says what under oath.

2

DeficiencyOfGravitas t1_jegtm0n wrote

> No, the person most at fault is the person who set up shitty working conditions. > >

If your boss tells you to do something dangerous, and you still do it, you are still responsible. Both people should be charged, but the person who actually did the dangerous thing is the most responsible.

−17

GI_X_JACK t1_jegvda6 wrote

The person with most amount of agency to say no is the most responsible. So person in charge.

6

DeficiencyOfGravitas t1_jegvycp wrote

> The person with most amount of agency to say no is the most responsible

So the person actually doing the thing. You always have the agency to say no. To anything. At anytime. There may be consequences for saying no. But you are always able to do so.

−1

GI_X_JACK t1_jegz81s wrote

If you are on set as an actor. You have a reasonable assumption if you are handed a weapon, and you are told it is cold, that it is in fact cold, because of all the protocols to check it.

The people who did not follow those protocols are at fault. In this case, it loops back around because Baldwin was not just producer, but intimately involved with this production so much, he's in charge, and safety protocols where broken.

9