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

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.

It seems that although screen armourers take a noble approach in trying to assume total responsibility, they in fact do not.

Found on another gun forum:

Here is the Screen Actors' Guild (SAG) safety bulletins and guidelines. These are the standards crew and actors are held to on a set. There is a specific section for firearms. It has the obvious rules of gun safety and a bit more. This is the first statement of the entire document:

"AS AN ACTOR, YOU ARE ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR OWN SAFETY AND THE SAFETY Of YOUR FELLOW CAST MEMBERS. Production management and crew are responsible for creating and maintaining safe conditions, but it is your right and responsibility to double check the set up to ensure your own Safety."

Here is an excerpt from the Actor's Equity Association page on gun use on set. This association is the union for the actual actors, and Alec Baldwin is a confirmed member:

"Check the firearm every time you take possession of it. Before each use, make sure the gun has been test-fired off stage and then ask to test fire it yourself. Watch the prop master check the cylinders and barrel to be sure no foreign object or dummy bullet has become lodged inside."

One would hope that despite all the layers of safety (supposedly) in play, the judge and jury focus on the trgger finger, and who it belonged to.

Could all stunt guns not be ‘pinned’ across the chamber so that only blanks can inserted - not longer live loads?

Or is that too simplistic?

Originally Posted by Finnwolf

Could all stunt guns not be ‘pinned’ across the chamber so that only blanks can inserted - not longer live loads?

Or is that too simplistic?

That would ruin a whole shit load of fine firearms. Most theatrical armourers have very nice collections.
Be a total shame to vandalise them for the sake of the stupid.

Originally Posted by 40mm

That would ruin a whole shit load of fine firearms. Most theatrical armourers have very nice collections.
Be a total shame to vandalise them for the sake of the stupid.

My possibly ignorant thought is: Why use the genuine/valuable firearms when there’s so many replicas out there?

I guess the Screen Actors Guild guidelines take precedence in the current case. My experience in that field is limited to NZ.

Modifying guns is generally only done in the case of semi-automatic and fully-automatic firearms to get them to function with blanks, usually by the addition of a bore restrictor to generate back pressure. Locked-breech semi-auto pistols are quite drastically modified to achieve reliable functioning. Conventional bolt, lever, pump, and revolver firearms are usually left untouched.

Apparently the armourer had placed 3 guns on a bench outside the set. At least one was loaded live for use for a particular effect in a scene. She may have then left them unattended but that's unclear. An assistant directer came off the set and fetched one back onto the set and gave it to Baldwin with the words "cold gun". Unclear if they started shooting the scene or if Baldwin just gave the trigger a pull while fiddling with it.

1. Ultimately the armourer is at fault for not supervising the selection of the gun, or not tagging it as live or some such.
2. The Ass Director contributed negligence by not checking the gun, or not checking with the armourer which gun she had prepped for the scene and for giving Baldwin the impression it was "cold" (unloaded).
3. Baldwin should have checked that he had the correct gun for the scene and not taken the Ass Directors word for it.

At least one, possibly all three of them, will face Involuntary Manslaughter charge I reckon.

Originally Posted by ishoot10s

Apparently the armourer had placed 3 guns on a bench outside the set. At least one was loaded live for use for a particular effect in a scene. She may have then left them unattended but that's unclear. An assistant directer came off the set and fetched one back onto the set and gave it to Baldwin with the words "cold gun". Unclear if they started shooting the scene or if Baldwin just gave the trigger a pull while fiddling with it.

1. Ultimately the armourer is at fault for not supervising the selection of the gun, or not tagging it as live or some such.
2. The Ass Director contributed negligence by not checking the gun, or not checking with the armourer which gun she had prepped for the scene and for giving Baldwin the impression it was "cold" (unloaded).
3. Baldwin should have checked that he had the correct gun for the scene and not taken the Ass Directors word for it.

At least one, possibly all three of them, will face Involuntary Manslaughter charge I reckon.

You are forgetting the dead woman, she was also at fault for not checking the thing.
I would not let anyone point one at me without checking it myself first, and personally handing it to them.

I work in the movie/film industry. Have seen enough blanks causing damage let alone live ammunition. That's what post vfx houses are for.... creating a real looking muzzle blast, recoil etc.

Why would you have live rounds on the set ?

Originally Posted by chainsaw

Why would you have live rounds on the set ?

Exactly what I have been thinking.

Originally Posted by chainsaw

Why would you have live rounds on the set ?

Sometimes live rounds are fired to film impacts etc. but usually on an empty set. Many years ago live rounds were fired just in front or behind actors by marksmen but modern editing and special effects have eliminated that practice!

Originally Posted by chainsaw

Why would you have live rounds on the set ?

Latest reports/rumours are that ‘the’ gun, a Colt pistol, was used by crew for target practise during down time and that live and blank ammunition were stored together on set. If thats true its absolute insanity.

Baldwin has been outspoken enough about firearms- he can get stuffed. My sympathies are with the dead and injured.