Thread: Should movie stars be allowed to outsource personal responsibility?

Definitely the fault of the set armourer who has total responsibility for the firearms and blank ammunition on set. Actors, by and large, are nothing more than presentable monkeys who perform as the script instructs them. I have had a fair bit to do with some of them over the years while performing the duties of set armourer, and neither worldly intelligence nor common sense is the forte of many of them.

Originally Posted by gundoc

Actors, by and large, are nothing more than presentable monkeys .

i like this description........pretty well sums it up

Originally Posted by scotty

i like this description........pretty well sums it up

Nz herald is reporting 2x UD on the set before this happened. Armourer needs to be held responsible

Originally Posted by gundoc

Definitely the fault of the set armourer who has total responsibility for the firearms and blank ammunition on set. Actors, by and large, are nothing more than presentable monkeys who perform as the script instructs them. I have had a fair bit to do with some of them over the years while performing the duties of set armourer, and neither worldly intelligence nor common sense is the forte of many of them.

Totally.
BUT, everyone including the dumb bastards out there know all about 'Murphy's law' and that old saying "if it can happen, it will happen"

I reckon the armourer is rightfully going to get the whip for this. But everyone else who touched that gun or had it scripted to be pointed at them is a dam fool for not personally checking it.

Just another example of shit happening.

Poor lady. Hope it was quick.

Intetesting huh. Im glad they put the these rules in place, they seem to be working great. A production team can literally walk off set 6 hours (in disgust) and the senior management claim they didnt know??? How is that possible either? How does that make them look MORE responsible in how they were overseeing things?

Originally Posted by gundoc

Definitely the fault of the set armourer who has total responsibility for the firearms and blank ammunition on set. Actors, by and large, are nothing more than presentable monkeys who perform as the script instructs them. I have had a fair bit to do with some of them over the years while performing the duties of set armourer, and neither worldly intelligence nor common sense is the forte of many of them.

This.
It's the Armourer & Safety's job to make sure it's safe. End of story.
Please don't think of this like some abstract hunting trip gone bad. The Actor may have never seen a firearm in their life before. That's why it's called acting.

I've just never seen anywhere in any firearm code where any shooter (be it licensed or operating under supervision) doesn't retain a large responsibility
for safely handling that firearm. Sure, there's liability for the safety staff, but that's a separate issue.

I think that he will face a jury who haven't seen all this 'its not his fault, he's just an actor' angle.
I can see the cops handing out charges in a 360degree pattern.

-Failed to personally clear the weapon (as seems to be required of him personally by law in New Texas, and industry standard operating procedures)
-Didn't keep his finger out of the trigger guard as trained on multiple film sets.
-Failed to hire sufficiently experienced safety staff in his capacity as co producer
-Failed to act on the serious safety breaches in his capacity as co producer
-Failed to report staff for plinking and bringing live ammunition to his site (if they can prove he knew which wont be too hard if he was aware).

I reckon he's going to get eaten alive by lawyers (my 2c). Not a lot of wiggle room in those questions for his defense team.