So an actual bullet was loaded into the revolver in the accidental shooting on the set of Rust. Obviously the film is now shit canned and a total loss for the production company. Now the question is if Baldwin might be charged if they can't find who loaded the gun. As he is also the producer of the film whose responsibility includes on set safety etc.

https://apnews.com/article/prop-gun-shooting-alec-baldwin-halyna-hutchins-e6b4d769e5df47ee0c23d4ad69f1992d

polgas

Canada1783 Posts

October 27 2021 21:49 GMT

#9344

The armorer would be more at fault here, as well as the Assistant Director who said "cold gun". Baldwin himself I don't think will get criminally charged. If they can finish the Crow with the lead actor dead they can probably finish this movie if they want to.

Sapaio

Denmark2037 Posts

October 28 2021 04:38 GMT

#9345

I find it incredibly reading about Rust, it's like a soap opera. The thing that seems most incredible is that crew according to reports should have used the movie guns for target practice with live amo in breaks. Also the live amo was keept close to the movie equipment. If these things are true, and Baldwin have known about it. He has part of the blame maybe also in the courts view.

Manit0u

Poland17756 Posts

October 29 2021 01:55 GMT

#9346

On October 28 2021 13:38 Sapaio wrote:
I find it incredibly reading about Rust, it's like a soap opera. The thing that seems most incredible is that crew according to reports should have used the movie guns for target practice with live amo in breaks. Also the live amo was keept close to the movie equipment. If these things are true, and Baldwin have known about it. He has part of the blame maybe also in the courts view.

Well, technically there are people on set hired specifically to make sure such things don't happen. If anything they botched the job.

I mean you can't really expect actors to check every prop themselves when there's entire teams of people preparing them (although in case of guns that would be advisable).

Sapaio

Denmark2037 Posts

October 29 2021 02:21 GMT

#9347

On October 29 2021 10:55 Manit0u wrote:

Show nested quote +

I do not blame him as an actor.
Baldwin is the executive producer on the movie, so if he noticed the careless and wrong conduct of staff, hired under qualified staff he has some of the fault.

Manit0u

Poland17756 Posts

October 29 2021 11:39 GMT

#9348

Sure, if he hired unexperienced armorer with the track record of errors and problems definitely he should take some of the blame.

{CC}StealthBlue

United States41117 Posts

October 29 2021 13:57 GMT

#9349

Well that and the Union workers had walked off the set the day due to unsafe conditions. Multiple misfires of said Gun etc.

KwarK

United States44032 Posts

October 29 2021 15:42 GMT

#9350

And Baldwin is an industry veteran, it’s not as reasonable for him to trust the AD and armourer as someone on their first set. If Baldwin has worked on sets with guns before then he has most likely worked with armourers who are incredibly strict about guns (given that that is basically their whole job description). He could reasonably have noticed that the new armourer wasn’t taking the same precautions.

Everything I’ve read about industry standard for armourers implies that you know when they’re on the set, morning safety meetings on any day with a gun, training, physically having the gun checked by the armourer and prop master in front of the actor who is in turn asked to check it, Perspex screens, non essential crew moved off set, remote cameras. If a gun is on set then everything becomes about the gun.

Compare that with Rust and any industry veteran would have noticed it was lax.

Sermokala

United States14140 Posts

October 29 2021 17:57 GMT

#9351

Legaly he might not be at fault for anything that his lawyer coulnd't get down to community service.

Wrongful death lawsuit wise he and a few others are going to be hugely on the hook for this.

KwarK

United States44032 Posts

October 29 2021 17:59 GMT

#9352

Unless they were so grossly negligent that their insurance company argues that they obtained insurance under false pretences the production insurance will take the hit.

{CC}StealthBlue

United States41117 Posts

November 01 2021 14:34 GMT

#9353

Army of Thieves was pretty good.

Jockmcplop

United Kingdom9854 Posts

November 01 2021 23:12 GMT

#9354

I'm still waiting for someone else to watch Fried Barry.
Go on, I dare you.

ZerOCoolSC2

9058 Posts

November 02 2021 00:41 GMT

#9355

{CC}StealthBlue

United States41117 Posts

November 03 2021 22:37 GMT

#9356

So regardless of how long it was there appears to have been someone that put a live single round into a set gun full of dummy ammunition, whether they knew or not it was going to be used in a rehearsal, into a gun...

Uldridge

Belgium5177 Posts

November 04 2021 14:15 GMT

#9357

I have an exceptionally difficult time parsing your sentence. Could your rephrase that perhaps? Not trying to be an ass, just can't understand what you mean at all lol

KwarK

United States44032 Posts

November 04 2021 16:16 GMT

#9358

On November 04 2021 23:15 Uldridge wrote:
I have an exceptionally difficult time parsing your sentence. Could your rephrase that perhaps? Not trying to be an ass, just can't understand what you mean at all lol

We don’t know if it was put there hours before the accident or just minutes but we do know that someone decided to put a live round in a gun they knew would be used on set as a prop (someone deliberately did this ridiculously unsafe and stupid thing).

Personally I’m on team “this is the fault of the AD”. They found a live gun and negligently brought it onto the scene and gave it to the actor. If they had the expertise to check whether it was live then they negligently failed to do so. If they lacked the expertise to check whether it was live then they negligently failed to take it to the armourer and someone died as a result of their negligence. This wasn’t even the first time this AD had hurt someone by giving an actor a live gun, they were fired from a movie in 2019 for doing this exact same thing.

Sapaio

Denmark2037 Posts

November 04 2021 16:35 GMT

#9359

I don't know if I would trust the armor saying someone else put the live amo in the gun, so she can't be blamed. also isn't it the armors job to make sure nobody does things like that, does she get paid to put guns out of safe in the morning check them and the after days work put guns back in safe with no responsibility in between, do not think so.

KwarK

United States44032 Posts

November 04 2021 16:45 GMT

#9360

On November 05 2021 01:35 Sapaio wrote:
I don't know if I would trust the armor saying someone else put the live amo in the gun, so she can't be blamed. also isn't it the armors job to make sure nobody does things like that, does she get paid to put guns out of safe in the morning check them and the after days work put guns back in safe with no responsibility in between, do not think so.

The gun shouldn’t have been out, for sure, and I do blame the armourer for that. But they didn’t physically issue it to the AD. Whenever you pick up a gun you find lying around you assume responsibility for it. The AD could have found the gun, shouted “what the fuck” and summoned the armourer to the scene to recover the gun and explain themselves. He didn’t. He took responsibility for the gun he found and then issued it to another person with assurances that were relied upon.

Once the AD picks up the gun they are willingly taking responsibility for everything that subsequently happens with it. If they’re not comfortable doing that they can summon the expert they employ for this reason.