The gun was real, not a prop, and Baldwin knew it was real. Screen Actor Guild guidelines for the handling of firearms were ignored by Baldwin repeatedly, from what I have read and heard. Ultimately he is responsible for checking the firearm. He failed to do so and shot two people.
The gun was real, not a prop, and Baldwin knew it was real. Screen Actor Guild guidelines for the handling of firearms were ignored by Baldwin repeatedly, from what I have read and heard. Ultimately he is responsible for checking the firearm. He failed to do so and shot two people.
Screen Actor Guild guidelines actually forbid actors from doing safety and function checks on prop weapons, just as they're not allowed to crawl under the film cars to check the brakes and suspensions. Imagine all those 20-something Hollywood kids in "1917" attempting to field-strip century old French, German, and British squad weapons: it would be a accident prone mess. That's why there are armorers on hand specifically tasked for this.
This is exactly what IтАЩm trying to get at when discussing the specific question of whether or not Baldwin should have been expected, under industry safety standards, to personally manipulate the gun. It might be best if only a trained expert handles things like assembly and loading and unloading.
It is possibly the case that the offense doesnтАЩt rest on whether or not Baldwin should have unloaded and inspected the roundsтАФbecause he also pointed the gun in an unsafe direction and may not have practiced good trigger discipline. But the common discussion about the case keeps coming back to the loading and unloading question. In my personal opinion, it seems that such actions are most safe when only done by the designated, 100% responsible expert.
Who apparently wasn't even on set that day. Does that mean actors get to behave recklessly? Or maybe they should have shut down the set because "the expert" was not around to wipe their asses?
The gun was real, not a prop, and Baldwin knew it was real. Screen Actor Guild guidelines for the handling of firearms were ignored by Baldwin repeatedly, from what I have read and heard. Ultimately he is responsible for checking the firearm. He failed to do so and shot two people.
Screen Actor Guild guidelines actually forbid actors from doing safety and function checks on prop weapons, just as they're not allowed to crawl under the film cars to check the brakes and suspensions. Imagine all those 20-something Hollywood kids in "1917" attempting to field-strip century old French, German, and British squad weapons: it would be a accident prone mess. That's why there are armorers on hand specifically tasked for this.
This is exactly what IтАЩm trying to get at when discussing the specific question of whether or not Baldwin should have been expected, under industry safety standards, to personally manipulate the gun. It might be best if only a trained expert handles things like assembly and loading and unloading.
It is possibly the case that the offense doesnтАЩt rest on whether or not Baldwin should have unloaded and inspected the roundsтАФbecause he also pointed the gun in an unsafe direction and may not have practiced good trigger discipline. But the common discussion about the case keeps coming back to the loading and unloading question. In my personal opinion, it seems that such actions are most safe when only done by the designated, 100% responsible expert.
Who apparently wasn't even on set that day. Does that mean actors get to behave recklessly? Or maybe they should have shut down the set because "the expert" was not around to wipe their asses?