Banjo Hangout Logo
Banjo Hangout Logo

Premier Sponsors

694
Banjo Lovers Online


 New Topic  Topic Locked

Page: 1  2   3   4  ...   Next Page   Last Page (7) 

Dec 2, 2021 - 8:28:34 PM

Tommy5

USA

3975 posts since 2/22/2009

Baldwin says he didn’t pull the trigger in the fatal shooting on his movie set. I thought that was significant until he explained in his interview that he took the single action revolver, pulled the hammer back as the camera lady asked, then he released the hammer, which of course slammed down and hit the firing pin and the live round in the chamber went off. So it doesn’t really matter if he pulled the trigger, he further explained that the prop / armor people asked him not to check the weapons that he was being handed , since they didn’t want him playing with the gun, other actors claim they always check weapons handed to them, of course half cocking the revolver releases the cylinder so one can spin the cylinder and check all of the chambers , it was suggested that the armor person may have just checked three chambers when he / she opened the gate. I know we discussed this before, but this is new info.

Dec 3, 2021 - 3:29:14 AM
like this

1294 posts since 1/25/2017

The ABC interview by Baldwin was nothing but a PR maneuver, carefully scripted, produced, and acted. He is both indirectly (as a producer) and directly (he fired the pistol) responsible for killing another person.

Dec 3, 2021 - 3:34:17 AM
likes this
Players Union Member

DC5

USA

22070 posts since 6/30/2015

Much like the press tries to convict before a trial, Baldwin is trying to get ahead of the situation to get an acquittal. How does one serve as an impartial juror after watching that interview?

Dec 3, 2021 - 4:06:25 AM
like this

1485 posts since 9/6/2019

I have a serious question for folks who are quick to jump on the "It's Baldwin's fault" wagon. I'm not defending him, just playing devil's advocate, but if you take your car to a mechanic and they give it back to you saying it's good-to-go, and the wheel they just worked on falls off and you kill someone with the car, are you guilty of murder/manslaughter/vehicular homicide?

The film sets hire professional armorers that are responsible for the gun safety on the set. Most actors aren't gun safety experts so when the expert, who gets paid for having the overall responsibility for weapon safety on the set, tells them something is safe to use, they go along with it. Now, I know I'm going to get the "He should have checked it too" or "I always check...", but your safety education and his is probably different. Just like your ability to work on your car's wheel is different than that of the mechanic. When you hire a professional to do a job you don't expect to have to run behind them and double check everything they do.

Hindsight and blame are perfect 20/20, but considering these types of accidental shootings happen about once every what, 15 or more years, the gun safety record on movie sets seems to be pretty good and there doesn't seem to be a lot of reason actors shouldn't trust their armorers when they say something is safe.

Having said that, I have never worked on a movie set and if there was a safety protocol violated by the actor that I'm not aware of, this whole post may be moot, but if Baldwin was following direction from the experts on the set, I would think they shoulder way more blame than he does for failing at their job.

Edited by - Banjonewguy on 12/03/2021 04:07:29

Dec 3, 2021 - 4:56:03 AM
like this

4100 posts since 4/22/2018

quote:
Originally posted by Banjonewguy

I have a serious question for folks who are quick to jump on the "It's Baldwin's fault" wagon. I'm not defending him, just playing devil's advocate, but if you take your car to a mechanic and they give it back to you saying it's good-to-go, and the wheel they just worked on falls off and you kill someone with the car, are you guilty of murder/manslaughter/vehicular homicide?

The film sets hire professional armorers that are responsible for the gun safety on the set. Most actors aren't gun safety experts so when the expert, who gets paid for having the overall responsibility for weapon safety on the set, tells them something is safe to use, they go along with it. Now, I know I'm going to get the "He should have checked it too" or "I always check...", but your safety education and his is probably different. Just like your ability to work on your car's wheel is different than that of the mechanic. When you hire a professional to do a job you don't expect to have to run behind them and double check everything they do.

Hindsight and blame are perfect 20/20, but considering these types of accidental shootings happen about once every what, 15 or more years, the gun safety record on movie sets seems to be pretty good and there doesn't seem to be a lot of reason actors shouldn't trust their armorers when they say something is safe.

Having said that, I have never worked on a movie set and if there was a safety protocol violated by the actor that I'm not aware of, this whole post may be moot, but if Baldwin was following direction from the experts on the set, I would think they shoulder way more blame than he does for failing at their job.


Bill,  i do agree with you.  My initial reaction was based on my own experience of firearms handling and always knowing if I wanted to shoot someone that i knew my weapon was in a state to do so, and vice versa.  With that in mind my initial reaction was that he was completely to blame.   I have no Idea what the protocols are on a film set, or what his experience was with firearms.  That said, if the armourer was paid to be the expert  to look after the weapons, I would expect the armourer to hand be the gun, and advise me what state it was in and be able to trust them - not a producer further down the chain.  However every fibre in me is still screaming why didn't he check it himself.

Dec 3, 2021 - 5:25:33 AM
like this

phb

Germany

3113 posts since 11/8/2010

Guilt can easily be shared. Baldwin as a producer was at least partly responsible for the inexperienced / inexpensive people that were hired for the film. He took the gun not out of the hands of the armourer but of the assistant director which in itself probably was a violation of the rules. There had been previous incidents that would have required actions from the producers (i.e. fire the assistant director). On the other hand, there was the armourer not taking care of the guns, allowing one to be taken by the assistant director when the guns should have exclusively been handled by the armourer. There was the assistant director passing on a gun as cold when he didn't know for sure (and had caused a previous dangerous incident). And there was the yet to be determined person that brought real ammunition to the set and mixed it with blanks.

Dec 3, 2021 - 5:32:14 AM
likes this

1294 posts since 1/25/2017

Your car is built to transport you from one place to another. A firearm is designed to give you the ability to injure or kill.

Baldwin during the interview claimed, "I would never point a gun at someone and pull the trigger." Yet he was willing to point a single-action revolver (he had not personally checked) at someone, retract and release the hammer.

Little Georgie Stephanopoulos, were he a real journalist, would have had the same model firearm available for the interview and had Baldwin demonstrate how, and why, the accidental firing happened.

Dec 3, 2021 - 5:46:02 AM
like this

199 posts since 6/5/2006

Only an idiot would hand Baldwin a gun and ask him to fire it.

Dec 3, 2021 - 7:09:50 AM
like this

RB3

USA

1168 posts since 4/12/2004

I was taught a long time ago that you can delegate authority, but you can't delegate responsibility. Taking or assuming responsibility is an act of personal volition that may or may not be associated with delegated authority.

The sole authority for the control of the weapons on the set was vested in the armorer. When the assistant director told Baldwin that it was a "cold gun", he took responsibility for doing something he was not authorized to do. When the armorer allowed him to do so, she abdicated the responsibility that should have been associated with her vested authority.

Any blame lies with both the armorer and the assistant director.

Dec 3, 2021 - 7:24:40 AM
like this

YellowSkyBlueSun

Virgin Islands (U.S.)

612 posts since 5/11/2021

Who cares? (((Celebrity))) tabloid nonsense meant to distract you all from things that actually matter.

Dec 3, 2021 - 7:25:30 AM
like this

banjo bill-e

Tuvalu

11804 posts since 2/22/2007
Online Now

So he is claiming that the gun was defective? Guns do not just "go off", unless defective. If the hammer is pulled back and released on a properly functioning Single Action Revolver, and the trigger is not touched, then the gun will not fire as the hammer will be caught by one of the four notches designed to prevent just such an accidental firing. But if he drew the gun with his finger on the trigger and then pulled the hammer and released it, then it will fire as designed. So either he put his finger on the trigger or he did not, and I would bet that he did. Or else someone on the set deliberately created the situation that led to a death, which would be murder.
I do believe that this was lawyer talk, and an acting job, for the benefit of future jurors.

Dec 3, 2021 - 8:10:17 AM
likes this

heavy5

USA

2031 posts since 11/3/2016

quote:
Originally posted by YellowSkyBlueSun

Who cares? (((Celebrity))) tabloid nonsense meant to distract you all from things that actually matter.


The only celebrity driven appreciation I've ever taken note of is the Loar that Monroe chose .   

Edited by - heavy5 on 12/03/2021 08:15:29

Dec 3, 2021 - 8:19:05 AM
likes this

1485 posts since 9/6/2019

quote:
Originally posted by phb

Guilt can easily be shared. Baldwin as a producer was at least partly responsible for the inexperienced / inexpensive people that were hired for the film. He took the gun not out of the hands of the armourer but of the assistant director which in itself probably was a violation of the rules. There had been previous incidents that would have required actions from the producers (i.e. fire the assistant director). On the other hand, there was the armourer not taking care of the guns, allowing one to be taken by the assistant director when the guns should have exclusively been handled by the armourer. There was the assistant director passing on a gun as cold when he didn't know for sure (and had caused a previous dangerous incident). And there was the yet to be determined person that brought real ammunition to the set and mixed it with blanks.


From what I have read, that is exactly how it was supposed to have been done. They said there was a two person check of each prop gun before it was handed to an actor: The armorer and the assistant director. I've worked in a lot of places where twp person integrity is required and if anything goes wrong, one or both of those two people are the ones who are responsible, not the third party who took both of their words.

I agree that there had been previous incidents, even including this particular armorer, but at the end of the day, even though he was a producer on the film, Baldwin may not have had the final say in hiring and firing.

As I said, I've never worked in the film industry but I do know that it takes more than one producer to finance a film and many times in the credits you see a half dozen producers, exec producers, assistant producers and second assistant producers given credit.

Dec 3, 2021 - 8:31:32 AM
like this

2970 posts since 2/10/2013

I think lots of the suggestions of what should have been done are are made by people familiar with handling firearms. People who have not received training or are familiar with weapons would probably not even know how to make sure a weapon is not loaded. Somebody hands an actor any type of weapon, they most likely just start using it. I am guessing that actors don't check guns to make sure they are not loaded, check swords to make sure they are harmless, check supposed poisoned drinks to make they are not dangerous, etc..

Dec 3, 2021 - 8:37:33 AM
like this

1485 posts since 9/6/2019

quote:
Originally posted by SimonSlick

Your car is built to transport you from one place to another. A firearm is designed to give you the ability to injure or kill.

Baldwin during the interview claimed, "I would never point a gun at someone and pull the trigger." Yet he was willing to point a single-action revolver (he had not personally checked) at someone, retract and release the hammer.

Little Georgie Stephanopoulos, were he a real journalist, would have had the same model firearm available for the interview and had Baldwin demonstrate how, and why, the accidental firing happened.


What does a boilerplate gun control argument have to do with the actual question that was asked? Since the comparison to a car seems to have triggered you, let's change that to a lawn mower. What if a professional mechanic told you that he changed out the blade and it flew off and killed someone? Are you guilty or responsible for that person's death?

What if you order pufferfish for a friend and the chef doesn't cut it right and the friend is poisoned? Is their death your fault or is it the fault of the expert in that field failing to do their job?

Dec 3, 2021 - 8:37:55 AM
like this

phb

Germany

3113 posts since 11/8/2010

quote:
Originally posted by banjo bill-e

So he is claiming that the gun was defective? Guns do not just "go off", unless defective. If the hammer is pulled back and released on a properly functioning Single Action Revolver, and the trigger is not touched, then the gun will not fire as the hammer will be caught by one of the four notches designed to prevent just such an accidental firing.


Wasn't this a historical weapon? Can we assume that such a weapon would operate like you say?

Dec 3, 2021 - 8:43:08 AM
likes this

phb

Germany

3113 posts since 11/8/2010

quote:
Originally posted by Banjonewguy
quote:
Originally posted by phb

Guilt can easily be shared. Baldwin as a producer was at least partly responsible for the inexperienced / inexpensive people that were hired for the film. He took the gun not out of the hands of the armourer but of the assistant director which in itself probably was a violation of the rules. 


From what I have read, that is exactly how it was supposed to have been done. They said there was a two person check of each prop gun before it was handed to an actor: The armorer and the assistant director.


I'm not sure I understand. I heard a comment that only the armourer is supposed to hand out guns directly to the actor and then to collect it immediately after the scene was shot. This implies that an actor may only receive a gun from the armourer and no other person on the set. Thus, accepting a gun from any other person than the armourer would be violating this rule or rather implies that the rule was violated when the assistant director got his hands on the gun. If this rule really applies (I don't know whether it is true), then Baldwin had to realise that protocols weren't being followed. As I said, I believe the guilt is shared. The exact details of the case will determine how much guilt each person has.

Dec 3, 2021 - 8:46:49 AM
likes this

ChunoTheDog

Canada

1179 posts since 8/9/2019

It's impossible that he didn't pull the trigger. It's a single action revolver. Those do not fire unless the user means to fire it. Those triggers have probably a 5lbs + pull on top of that.

Mr. Baldwin must really think we're all as dumb as he is.

Dec 3, 2021 - 8:52:17 AM
likes this

1485 posts since 9/6/2019

quote:
Originally posted by ChunoTheDog

It's impossible that he didn't pull the trigger. It's a single action revolver. Those do not fire unless the user means to fire it. Those triggers have probably a 5lbs + pull on top of that.

Mr. Baldwin must really think we're all as dumb as he is.


I guess both you and Bill were either unaware of, or have forgotten the lawsuit against Ruger for the design of their Super Blackhawk .44 magnum handguns. They were single action and used a half cock cylinder lock. In order to rotate the cylinder for loading the weapon had to be placed in the half cock position. Well, they had a habit of dropping the hammer unexpectedly when in that position so Ruger was forced to redesign the gun using the cylinder gate as the locking mechanism.

Dec 3, 2021 - 8:56:07 AM
likes this

12848 posts since 1/15/2005

quote:
Originally posted by Richard Hauser

I think lots of the suggestions of what should have been done are are made by people familiar with handling firearms. People who have not received training or are familiar with weapons would probably not even know how to make sure a weapon is not loaded. Somebody hands an actor any type of weapon, they most likely just start using it. I am guessing that actors don't check guns to make sure they are not loaded, check swords to make sure they are harmless, check supposed poisoned drinks to make they are not dangerous, etc..


...... or check valuable guitars before they smash them.  Let;s face it, many (not all) actors are not all that bright.

Dec 3, 2021 - 9:00:47 AM
likes this

12848 posts since 1/15/2005

quote:
Originally posted by Banjonewguy
quote:
Originally posted by ChunoTheDog

It's impossible that he didn't pull the trigger. It's a single action revolver. Those do not fire unless the user means to fire it. Those triggers have probably a 5lbs + pull on top of that.

Mr. Baldwin must really think we're all as dumb as he is.


I guess both you and Bill were either unaware of, or have forgotten the lawsuit against Ruger for the design of their Super Blackhawk .44 magnum handguns. They were single action and used a half cock cylinder lock. In order to rotate the cylinder for loading the weapon had to be placed in the half cock position. Well, they had a habit of dropping the hammer unexpectedly when in that position so Ruger was forced to redesign the gun using the cylinder gate as the locking mechanism.


All of my single action Rugers (I'm not going to count them wink) are pre-safety design ..... but then again I don't point them at or near anyone when I am loading, un-loading, checking the cylinder, pulling back the hammer, or pulling the trigger.  But that's just me!

Dec 3, 2021 - 9:01:04 AM
likes this

1485 posts since 9/6/2019

quote:
Originally posted by phb
quote:
Originally posted by Banjonewguy
quote:
Originally posted by phb

Guilt can easily be shared. Baldwin as a producer was at least partly responsible for the inexperienced / inexpensive people that were hired for the film. He took the gun not out of the hands of the armourer but of the assistant director which in itself probably was a violation of the rules. 


From what I have read, that is exactly how it was supposed to have been done. They said there was a two person check of each prop gun before it was handed to an actor: The armorer and the assistant director.


I'm not sure I understand. I heard a comment that only the armourer is supposed to hand out guns directly to the actor and then to collect it immediately after the scene was shot. This implies that an actor may only receive a gun from the armourer and no other person on the set. Thus, accepting a gun from any other person than the armourer would be violating this rule or rather implies that the rule was violated when the assistant director got his hands on the gun. If this rule really applies (I don't know whether it is true), then Baldwin had to realise that protocols weren't being followed. As I said, I believe the guilt is shared. The exact details of the case will determine how much guilt each person has.

 


Like I said, I don't know all of the rules but what I read on it said that the armorer opened the gun and the Assistant Director inspected the cylinder and declared it a cold gun. I don't know if their procedure is a two person check or not, but it appears that they were doing an inspection by the armorer and the assistant director on this weapon. However, the director is the one who handed Baldwin the gun and I do believe that it is supposed to be the armorer.

Dec 3, 2021 - 9:19:10 AM
likes this

ChunoTheDog

Canada

1179 posts since 8/9/2019

quote:
Originally posted by Banjonewguy
quote:
Originally posted by ChunoTheDog

It's impossible that he didn't pull the trigger. It's a single action revolver. Those do not fire unless the user means to fire it. Those triggers have probably a 5lbs + pull on top of that.

Mr. Baldwin must really think we're all as dumb as he is.


I guess both you and Bill were either unaware of, or have forgotten the lawsuit against Ruger for the design of their Super Blackhawk .44 magnum handguns. They were single action and used a half cock cylinder lock. In order to rotate the cylinder for loading the weapon had to be placed in the half cock position. Well, they had a habit of dropping the hammer unexpectedly when in that position so Ruger was forced to redesign the gun using the cylinder gate as the locking mechanism.


From what I understand the revolver in question is not a modern piece.

Dec 3, 2021 - 9:21:57 AM
like this

1899 posts since 2/10/2003

Everybody keeps citing the common practice of checking the gun to see if it is loaded or not. This gun was supposed to be loaded. It was supposed to be loaded with blanks. It is a moot point to keep placing blame on who was supposed to check the gun and if they did or not. Whoever would have checked it, would have seen it was loaded, which it was supposed to be. The blame lies with whomever loaded real live rounds instead of blanks.

Dec 3, 2021 - 9:26:55 AM
like this

3944 posts since 4/7/2009

its obvious some people want him to be guilty just because they hate is political views.

Dec 3, 2021 - 9:32:02 AM
like this

1485 posts since 9/6/2019

quote:
Originally posted by 250gibson

Everybody keeps citing the common practice of checking the gun to see if it is loaded or not. This gun was supposed to be loaded. It was supposed to be loaded with blanks. It is a moot point to keep placing blame on who was supposed to check the gun and if they did or not. Whoever would have checked it, would have seen it was loaded, which it was supposed to be. The blame lies with whomever loaded real live rounds instead of blanks.


That is kind of the whole point though. It is up to the armorer to make sure that it isn't loaded with live rounds. If the gun was out of her sight, as it was over lunch, she should have fully unloaded it, inspected the ammunition and the barrel, and reloaded it with the proper rounds: either blanks or dummy rounds.

Page: 1  2   3   4  ...   Next Page   Last Page (7) 

 New Topic  Topic Locked

Hangout Network Help

View All Topics  |  View Categories

0.2617188