I mean there are guns designed and built to only be props that fire blanks.
1 Like
John Wick and all of Bryan Singer’s movies go one step further and use ones that can’t fire anything. They draw in the effects with CG and off screen work. But that requires a budget.
The non union, on the cheap, production of Rust found it cheaper to use real guns. Stupid.
2 Likes
Seems like an uphill battle for the prosecution if their case depends on proving that someone who has already testified that they fucked up and failed to follow safety protocols was lying and they actually did follow safety protocols.
1 Like
Depends if the jury can be lulled into or dissuaded from the belief that “making a movie” entitles one to act in a unsafe manner for the camera and whether SAG rules placing safety in the hands of professionals like Dave Halls and Hanna Gutierrez Reed instead of the talent, take precedence.
a) There is a different between testifying in court, and a sworn affidavit, a difference I’ve already addressed.
b) We don’t know what the prosecution’s case is or what it depends on. We don’t know what evidence they have, and we don’t know what theory they’re going on. I’m sounding like a broken record, but we don’t know a lot.
1 Like
How about a guy testifying in court, being found guilty after pleading no contest to the charges, and being sentenced by a judge for the crime of negligent use of a deadly weapon? I mean, to the extent that the legal system is capable of adjudicating facts, the question of “were safety protocols followed on set that day?” is, legally speaking at least, a settled matter.
There may be other important, relevant facts to be determined that relate to whether Baldwin himself is culpable for anything. But it’s bizarre to me that, at this point, anyone would insist that a statement like “we know that safety protocols weren’t followed on set” is just a mere “assumption,” as you put it.
2 Likes
Which, again, to highlight @danimagoo - YOU and NO ONE here knows what the prosecution has, and so it’s a little fucking disingenous for people to be pretending like they do.
1 Like
Right
Just to make everyone’s life easier, here are the jury instructions for involuntary manslaughter. What the prosecution needs to prove.
https://lawofselfdefense.com/jury-instruction/nm-14-231-involuntary-manslaughter-essential-elements/
"to find the defendant guilty of involuntary manslaughter [as charged in Count __________], the state must prove to your satisfaction beyond a reasonable doubt each of the following elements of the crime:
-
__________ (name of defendant) __________ (describe defendant’s act);
-
__________ (name of defendant) should have known of the danger involved by __________’s (name of defendant) actions;
-
__________ (name of defendant) acted with a willful disregard for the safety of others;
-
__________’s (name of defendant) act caused the death of __________ (name of victim);"i
But the point is still that we don’t know what they have, which could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt… 
2 Likes
This! There is absolutely no reason to have a functioning gun on set. Zero. No hole in the barrel. Not ability to chamber a round. No functioning firing pin.
And no working ammunition while we’re at it.
This is Hollywood. They can fake anything.
Disagree. If the actor will be handling weapons in the movie, the actor is required to be trained on the proper safe handling. Like checking the weapon just handed to you. By anyone. A weapon is “hot” until confirmed otherwise.
First rule of firearms safety: all guns are loaded until confirmed otherwise.
Arguments training would be too costly or time consuming or too difficult for actors to take… all bullshit. They don’t have to be trained to John Wick level. They just need it beaten into their heads that every gun is loaded until they confirm otherwise. And if they can’t confirm that themselves, ask someone who does know. This is stuff that every 6-year old should be told.
Actors do “training” all the time. Need to be buff for my next film? Hit the gym hard, diet, sweat. There’s a dance scene too? More training. Want to really understand my next character? Read everything I can about them, research, train.
3 Likes
… like the person who handed it to them and said it was cold 
4 Likes
I’d be surprised if somebody couldn’t make a fake gun with realistic, or a least realistic-ish, recoil… let me do a quick Google… aaaand a patent was filed for something like that in 2006.
Sure a patent doesn’t automatically mean it’s actually works, but this is probably not impossible to do.
Maybe a bit more expensive - but there’s options if studios/producers are willing to put a little bit of thought and effort into it.
1 Like
Yeah, that AD’s approach would get them and all their pets all sued into a smoking crater if they tried that on an industrial site.
Fun true story: a friend started his career as a high-voltage engineer. One of his first field assignments was being one of the many checkers of a high-voltage isolation, so that a maintenance worker could safely put their hands, tools, etc on a high-voltage cable. He personally did a bunch of tests showing the line was indeed dead, and they were duplicated by more senior staff. He presented the results to the worker, who inspected the paperwork, then asked a few questions about my friend’s confidence. He listened, nodded, then grinned and handed my friend a hacksaw and said “Excellent. You won’t mind making the first cut then, will you?”
That was a very quick and important lesson in credibility.
My friend smiled, nodded, and began to cut. The worker watched carefully as the blade cut through the cable insulation, until he saw metal filings start to fall, and was satisfied. And my friend was very relieved that his hard hat headband was sweat-absorbing, because he didn’t want the working seeing how nervous he really was.
4 Likes
I find it crazy to think it all comes down to the firing of the trigger. As the producer, he cut so many corners in the production of the movie and all of the safety requirements he should be complicit in manslaughter, I think, regardless of who did or didn’t pull the trigger. For instance, how was it not a prop gun designed only to take blanks? I’d have to go back but I swear at one point he claimed to have cocked the gun… that he never intended to fire, blanks or whatever? To a non-existent shield that should never have had anyone lined up directly behind in the intended line of fire. There’s so much more. I mean, the armorer, sure, but there can be multiple villains in this piece. 0_o
No. Ask a person who knows to show you how to confirm the weapon is safe.
How are you supposed to know who knows that? The person who handed Baldwin the gun obviously didn’t, but could have just as easily said they did. Should Baldwin have said, “Who here knows how to check if a gun is really unloaded?” after being handed the gun?
What percentage of the movie-going public do you think have held, let alone fired, a handgun? Shotgun? Machine gun?
My estimates are low. Maybe 10% have held weapons. Fewer have shot them, especially larger and more powerful weapons. Essentially none for machine guns and anti-tank weapons.
Therefore, the general public’s idea of what is “realistic” is based on the fantasy fed them by the folks making the movies.
I was Canadian infantryman for 5 years in the '80s. Fired thousands of rounds in rifles, machine guns, dozens of grenades, dozens of anti-tank weapons, light mortars, etc. I am always amused seeing some of these weapons portrayed in movies… so rarely like the real thing. Too much flame is the most common error.
So the “but it won’t look real” argument seems weak to me.
Also, might it be cheaper to do the flash, smoke, sparks in post, after they do the sound. My understanding is very little audio is used from the exterior set, as it too hard to rig the set for good sound recording. Easier, cheaper, safer to let the foley artists work their magic. And no one complains it’s not “realistic”.
So no functioning guns on set. No ammunition, real or blanks on set. No need for an armorer, training, time wasted checking and double checking… and no one ever need die while trying to film a movie.
It’s Hollywood. They’re actors. They can learn “realistic” recoil reaction. And to flinch at the bang they don’t hear.
1 Like
When someone shows me the weapon is safe, and how to do so myself, I have found them.
If no one knows how to show me the weapon is safe, it is considered “hot”. It is never pointed at someone. Safety selector stays on “no kill”. The trigger is never touched.
Baldwin should have said “Show me the gun is safe” on receiving it. Or, applying his training on this particular weapon confirms it is safe himself. Until he is satisfied the weapon is safe, he should consider it lethal.
If no one on the set knows how to confirm the guns are safe, it would be best to leave.
Here’s a thought. Actors might have to drive a car in a scene. Pretty sure they’re expected to have a license to do so. If not, pretty sure legal would make them get a license.
Yet we don’t expect them to take a basic gun safety course. 'Cause… guns?
2 Likes
I’m actually not sure that’s true. A set is a closed course and thus not subject to traffic laws. So giving them minimal instruction should be enough to satisfy the law.
ETA (sorry for the tabloid link, but they’re the kinds of publications that are interested in such gossip):
ETA2:
1 Like
