Alec Baldwin accidentally kills film crew member with prop gun (UPDATE 4/20/23: Charges dropped)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52624
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2021 5:33 pm    Post subject:

LongBeachPoly wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
If he is also listed as a producer, for sure. Otherwise, he may be able to claim that he tried to make changes, but was prevented from doing so by the production company.


Yeah, his best defense is just ignorance of anything unsafe that was going on.

If he actually knew and was aware, I think it'd be hard for him to get off. I think the director has enough authority to make some changes. At least the crew thought so since they claimed they came to him to complain.


I just checked the Cast/Crew list. Souza's not listed as a producer. So as a director only, so while he can ask for changes, the ultimate decision on those changes is dictated by the production company. So he's shielded quite a bit. As for the crew going to him about the safety issues, that's the hierarchy. That's who you go to with concerns. But they also approached the producers and got no satisfaction there, and they had been trying to get an IATSE (the governing union) representative on set to address their grievances.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52624
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2021 5:37 pm    Post subject:

angrypuppy wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
Quote:
The production of “Rust” has been beset by disputes from the start in early October and included seven crew members walking off the set just hours before the shooting.

The Los Angeles Times, citing two crew members it did not name, reported that five days before the shooting, Baldwin’s stunt double accidentally fired two live rounds after being told the gun didn’t have any ammunition.

Alarmed by the misfires, a crew member told a unit production manager in a text message, “We’ve now had 3 accidental discharges. This is super unsafe,” according to a copy of the message reviewed by the newspaper.

Winkler called the previous misfires — and an apparent lack of any action taken after them — "a recipe for a very significant liability in damages.”

“You can’t have a dangerous situation, know about it and then do nothing,” he said.


5 days before the shooting, 2 live rounds were accidentally discharged by Baldwin's stunt double.

How does anyone escape liability?

Quote:
Although New Mexico law defines involuntary manslaughter in part as a lawful act that resulted in death from “an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection,” defense attorney Nina Marino said she doubts any criminal case would be filed.

“If a local agency in New Mexico was going to go forward with criminal charges, that would have a real chilling effect on further filming taking place in New Mexico, and I think New Mexico appreciates the business,” said Marino, who specializes in white collar cases as a co-founder of the Kaplan Marino law firm.


Damn, so the DA has to protect the film industry in New Mexico?



Of course, the film industry creates in-state revenue and political donations. In the words of the late Jesse Unruh, former Treasurer of California: "Money is the mother's milk of politics."


NM has just had a big influx of production thanks to new stage space built due to the success of Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul.

They have been giving tax breaks to productions for bringing projects to the state. So yeah, the state definitely has a stake in maintaining a "production friendly" reputation.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16026

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2021 5:56 pm    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
If he is also listed as a producer, for sure. Otherwise, he may be able to claim that he tried to make changes, but was prevented from doing so by the production company.


Yeah, his best defense is just ignorance of anything unsafe that was going on.

If he actually knew and was aware, I think it'd be hard for him to get off. I think the director has enough authority to make some changes. At least the crew thought so since they claimed they came to him to complain.


I just checked the Cast/Crew list. Souza's not listed as a producer. So as a director only, so while he can ask for changes, the ultimate decision on those changes is dictated by the production company. So he's shielded quite a bit.

As for the crew going to him about the safety issues, that's the hierarchy. That's who you go to with concerns. But they also approached the producers and got no satisfaction there, and they had been trying to get an IATSE (the governing union) representative on set to address their grievances.


Yeah, respect your opinion.

Not saying I know, just saying I'm skeptical that he can escape liability.

5 days before the shooting, there were 2 other accidental discharges with live rounds.

I just couldn't see a director say that his hands were so tied that there was absolutely nothing that he could do (outside of just complaining to the production company).

For instance, who picked the assistant director, Halls? I'm thinking that was up to the director. Halls had been fired from a previous job for the exact same incident.

Who gave the guns to the stuntman who accidentally discharged the 2 live rounds? I'm thinking the assistant director Halls again?

Does the director have no power to fire the assistant director? I don't know about that.

I'm thinking the director has alot of decision making authority. I don't think every decision must go through the production company first.

Does the chain of custody must include the assistant director?

Armorer --> assistant director --> actor

If there's chain of custody issues where live rounds are entering these prop guns, there's nothing the director can do? He can't cut out the assistant director?

If he knows the armorer is using these prop guns for offset target practice, and he tries and gets the armorer fired/replaced for it but the production company says no, there's nothing else the director can do?

He can't make sure that there are no live rounds in the guns that are being handed to the actors?

But, we'll see though when all the facts come out. I'm just skeptical that the director, with all his authority, can escape liability.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52624
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2021 6:24 pm    Post subject:

LongBeachPoly wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
If he is also listed as a producer, for sure. Otherwise, he may be able to claim that he tried to make changes, but was prevented from doing so by the production company.


Yeah, his best defense is just ignorance of anything unsafe that was going on.

If he actually knew and was aware, I think it'd be hard for him to get off. I think the director has enough authority to make some changes. At least the crew thought so since they claimed they came to him to complain.


I just checked the Cast/Crew list. Souza's not listed as a producer. So as a director only, so while he can ask for changes, the ultimate decision on those changes is dictated by the production company. So he's shielded quite a bit.

As for the crew going to him about the safety issues, that's the hierarchy. That's who you go to with concerns. But they also approached the producers and got no satisfaction there, and they had been trying to get an IATSE (the governing union) representative on set to address their grievances.


Yeah, respect your opinion.

Not saying I know, just saying I'm skeptical that he can escape liability.

5 days before the shooting, there were 2 other accidental discharges with live rounds.

I just couldn't see a director say that his hands were so tied that there was absolutely nothing that he could do (outside of just complaining to the production company).

For instance, who picked the assistant director, Halls? I'm thinking that was up to the director. Halls had been fired from a previous job for the exact same incident.

Who gave the guns to the stuntman who accidentally discharged the 2 live rounds? I'm thinking the assistant director Halls again?

Does the director have no power to fire the assistant director? I don't know about that.

I'm thinking the director has alot of decision making authority. I don't think every decision must go through the production company first.

Does the chain of custody must include the assistant director?

Armorer --> assistant director --> actor

If there's chain of custody issues where live rounds are entering these prop guns, there's nothing the director can do? He can't cut out the assistant director?

If he knows the armorer is using these prop guns for offset target practice, and he tries and gets the armorer fired/replaced for it but the production company says no, there's nothing else the director can do?

He can't make sure that there are no live rounds in the guns that are being handed to the actors?

But, we'll see though when all the facts come out. I'm just skeptical that the director, with all his authority, can escape liability.


And I'm not saying I know he will. I'm just saying that without producer status, it gets easier for him to say he wasn't calling the shots (sorry for the pun). Especially when there were so many other complaints against the production company itself outside of the gun safety that fall outside of the directors scope of authority.

The person who should be really worried at this point is Baldwin. At first I thought he'd likely be shielded from any criminal negligence. But the more I learn about what went on, he's right in the bullseye. And here's why:

It's his production company.

That production company was already engaging in safety violations that had nothing to do with gun safety.

One of those violations was working long days without appropriate "turnaround" (a set of hours where crew can go home and get some rest before returning for the next day's work).

On top of the turnaround violations, they were not appropriately honoring the requirement to provide a hotel room to any crew who requested one since they were on "remote" location (a specific distance away from the primary studio).

Baldwin himself, in a since deleted Instagram post, talked on video about being exhausted from the long days.

Baldwin's company, after the camera crew quit in protest of all the violations, hired a scab crew in order to continue shooting.

Baldwin then, as a representative of his production company, participated in the shoot with that scab crew.

As a producer, he then watched the multiple gun handling violations that put the gun in his hand.

As the actor/producer, he was the person who pointed that gun in the direction of crew members and pulled the trigger with full knowledge that there had been accidental discharges on his company's set.


Souza is sitting pretty in relation to that.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lakersken80
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 38751

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2021 9:49 pm    Post subject:

The more I read into this "accident", the more I blame it on the systemic failure of the production. The early reports tried to pin the blame on the armorer, but the break down in safety began way before that. Whatever money they tried to save they will probably end up paying many more times that for fines, settlements, etc.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ContagiousInspiration
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 13811
Location: Boulder ;)

PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2021 10:18 pm    Post subject:

lakersken80 wrote:
The more I read into this "accident", the more I blame it on the systemic failure of the production. The early reports tried to pin the blame on the armorer, but the break down in safety began way before that. Whatever money they tried to save they will probably end up paying many more times that for fines, settlements, etc.


Yep. Bummer the SNL Trump might go to jail before the real one
I agree with DMR up there that with full knowledge of his own crappy production team already having problems with guns he should have been more cautious

IF the production team had stayed union..
Nobody would've been shot
If someone was shot the union would deal with it because their team screwed up..not the (bleep) some penny pincher hired.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16026

PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2021 6:55 am    Post subject:

Industry experts say only the armorer or prop master should be handling weapons on the set.

The assistant director Dave Halls should not have been handling weapons. Who makes that decision?

Quote:
"I'll be honest with you, that AD would have broken fingers if they picked up a gun off my cart. That does not happen." says armorer Clay Van Sickel.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
angrypuppy
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 13 Apr 2001
Posts: 32730

PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2021 10:36 am    Post subject:

LongBeachPoly wrote:
Industry experts say only the armorer or prop master should be handling weapons on the set.

The assistant director Dave Halls should not have been handling weapons. Who makes that decision?

Quote:
"I'll be honest with you, that AD would have broken fingers if they picked up a gun off my cart. That does not happen." says armorer Clay Van Sickel.





It's not just the AD, it's the crew members who used the prop guns for target practice. They should never be allowed to touch those guns, and if the pinhead armorer allowed it, at the very least she'd have to check all firearms following the target practice. It sounds like they were left on a table or cart for anyone to pick up and use.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16026

PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2021 12:30 pm    Post subject:

Quote:
The assistant director on the movie "Rust" admitted to a safety lapse, according to a new search warrant obtained by Fox News.

David Halls was one of the very few people including Alec Baldwin who handled the firearm prior to the accidental discharge that killed cinematographer Halyna Hutchins and wounded director Joel Souza.

During an interview with detectives, Halls noted: "I check the barrel for obstructions, most of the time there’s no live fire, she (Hannah) opens the hatch and spins the drum, and I say cold gun on set"

"Cold gun" is a term used on sets to alert cast and crew that a firearm has no live rounds loaded in it.

Halls said in an affidavit that when armorer Hannah Gutierrez Reed showed him the gun before continuing rehearsal after a lunch break, he could only remember seeing three rounds. He advised he should have checked all of them, but didn’t, and couldn’t recall if Hannah spun the drum.

After it was fired, Halls picked up the gun from a pew in the church set and took it to the armorer. Gutierrez Reed was told to open the gun so he could see what was inside. Halls said there were five rounds in the gun, at least four of which had "dummy" casings, as indicated by a hole on the side. There was one without the hole. He advised this round did not have the "cap" on it and was just the casing. David advised the incident was not a deliberate act, according to the affidavit.

Gutierrez Reed, meanwhile, said she checked the "dummies" and ensured they were not "hot rounds" prior to the cast and crew breaking for lunch. During lunch, the firearms she initially brought to set were taken back and secured in a safe on a "prop truck" nearby. However, at that time she claims ammo was left out on a cart on the set and not secure. Ammo was also inside the prop truck at the time.

After lunch, crew member Sarah Zachary pulled the firearms out of the safe inside the truck and handed them to her. She advised there are only a few people that have access and the combination to the safe. During the course of filming, Hannah says she handed the gun to Baldwin a few times and also handed it to Halls.

Perhaps most importantly, she stated to detectives that no live ammo is ever kept on set, calling into question how a live round not only made its way to the set, but was discharged killing one and wounding another.

According to a report from TheWrap, some of the guns were used by the crew in their off time for leisure shooting. While that would explain how live rounds were mixed up with the dummy rounds, Santa Fe County Sheriff Adan Mendoza could not confirm that the guns were used for target practice by the crew when he spoke at a press conference on Wednesday. However, he stated that the rumors were being looked into.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jonnybravo
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 21 Sep 2007
Posts: 30621

PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2021 1:22 pm    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
If he is also listed as a producer, for sure. Otherwise, he may be able to claim that he tried to make changes, but was prevented from doing so by the production company.


Yeah, his best defense is just ignorance of anything unsafe that was going on.

If he actually knew and was aware, I think it'd be hard for him to get off. I think the director has enough authority to make some changes. At least the crew thought so since they claimed they came to him to complain.


I just checked the Cast/Crew list. Souza's not listed as a producer. So as a director only, so while he can ask for changes, the ultimate decision on those changes is dictated by the production company. So he's shielded quite a bit.

As for the crew going to him about the safety issues, that's the hierarchy. That's who you go to with concerns. But they also approached the producers and got no satisfaction there, and they had been trying to get an IATSE (the governing union) representative on set to address their grievances.


Yeah, respect your opinion.

Not saying I know, just saying I'm skeptical that he can escape liability.

5 days before the shooting, there were 2 other accidental discharges with live rounds.

I just couldn't see a director say that his hands were so tied that there was absolutely nothing that he could do (outside of just complaining to the production company).

For instance, who picked the assistant director, Halls? I'm thinking that was up to the director. Halls had been fired from a previous job for the exact same incident.

Who gave the guns to the stuntman who accidentally discharged the 2 live rounds? I'm thinking the assistant director Halls again?

Does the director have no power to fire the assistant director? I don't know about that.

I'm thinking the director has alot of decision making authority. I don't think every decision must go through the production company first.

Does the chain of custody must include the assistant director?

Armorer --> assistant director --> actor

If there's chain of custody issues where live rounds are entering these prop guns, there's nothing the director can do? He can't cut out the assistant director?

If he knows the armorer is using these prop guns for offset target practice, and he tries and gets the armorer fired/replaced for it but the production company says no, there's nothing else the director can do?

He can't make sure that there are no live rounds in the guns that are being handed to the actors?

But, we'll see though when all the facts come out. I'm just skeptical that the director, with all his authority, can escape liability.


And I'm not saying I know he will. I'm just saying that without producer status, it gets easier for him to say he wasn't calling the shots (sorry for the pun). Especially when there were so many other complaints against the production company itself outside of the gun safety that fall outside of the directors scope of authority.

The person who should be really worried at this point is Baldwin. At first I thought he'd likely be shielded from any criminal negligence. But the more I learn about what went on, he's right in the bullseye. And here's why:

It's his production company.

That production company was already engaging in safety violations that had nothing to do with gun safety.

One of those violations was working long days without appropriate "turnaround" (a set of hours where crew can go home and get some rest before returning for the next day's work).

On top of the turnaround violations, they were not appropriately honoring the requirement to provide a hotel room to any crew who requested one since they were on "remote" location (a specific distance away from the primary studio).

Baldwin himself, in a since deleted Instagram post, talked on video about being exhausted from the long days.

Baldwin's company, after the camera crew quit in protest of all the violations, hired a scab crew in order to continue shooting.

Baldwin then, as a representative of his production company, participated in the shoot with that scab crew.

As a producer, he then watched the multiple gun handling violations that put the gun in his hand.

As the actor/producer, he was the person who pointed that gun in the direction of crew members and pulled the trigger with full knowledge that there had been accidental discharges on his company's set.


Souza is sitting pretty in relation to that.


I hope his company is well insured because there's going to be a huge $$$$$ lawsuit coming their way.
_________________
KOBE
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16026

PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2021 1:41 pm    Post subject:

jonnybravo wrote:
I hope his company is well insured because there's going to be a huge $$$$$ lawsuit coming their way.


They have a $6M policy but it doesn't cover negligent actions.

Quote:
Reports reveal Alec Baldwin’s ‘Rust’ movie has a $6m insurance policy


Quote:
An insurer would likely cover any accidental events, but the company might not pay for negligence claims on a movie set, according to Julie Shapiro, law professor and director of Loyola Law School’s Entertainment and Media Law Institute.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jonnybravo
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 21 Sep 2007
Posts: 30621

PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2021 2:55 pm    Post subject:

Does anyone remember what the fallout was to Brandon Lee's death?
_________________
KOBE
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
angrypuppy
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 13 Apr 2001
Posts: 32730

PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2021 8:08 am    Post subject:

So now the armorer is claiming that the firearms were kept in a safe every night and at lunch, that she wasn't aware of anyone using anyone using her guns for target practice, and that she has no idea where or how that live round came from.

Her contention leaves a gaping hole: During the day the firearms were left on a cart. If someone used a revolver for target practice, she'd have to be drunk or blind not to notice propellant residue on the revolver. In other words, at end of day when she locks them up she would have noticed.

If someone used her firearms for target practice, then they had to purchase ammo (assuming she didn't have live rounds). Purchasing the ammo would be recorded with the ID as it is controlled. There should be a trail of evidence which in turn should get someone to talk.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52624
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2021 9:19 am    Post subject:

angrypuppy wrote:
So now the armorer is claiming that the firearms were kept in a safe every night and at lunch, that she wasn't aware of anyone using anyone using her guns for target practice, and that she has no idea where or how that live round came from.

Her contention leaves a gaping hole: During the day the firearms were left on a cart. If someone used a revolver for target practice, she'd have to be drunk or blind not to notice propellant residue on the revolver. In other words, at end of day when she locks them up she would have noticed.

If someone used her firearms for target practice, then they had to purchase ammo (assuming she didn't have live rounds). Purchasing the ammo would be recorded with the ID as it is controlled. There should be a trail of evidence which in turn should get someone to talk.


Yep. But more importantly, her claims that she has no idea where a live round came from still doesn't negate that she is the person responsible for the handling chain of that weapo and is the one most responsible for having full and exact knowledge of what is in that gun when it is handed to the actor. Her knowledge of how a live round ended up on set in no way mitigates any of that.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16026

PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2021 11:06 am    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
angrypuppy wrote:
So now the armorer is claiming that the firearms were kept in a safe every night and at lunch, that she wasn't aware of anyone using anyone using her guns for target practice, and that she has no idea where or how that live round came from.

Her contention leaves a gaping hole: During the day the firearms were left on a cart. If someone used a revolver for target practice, she'd have to be drunk or blind not to notice propellant residue on the revolver. In other words, at end of day when she locks them up she would have noticed.

If someone used her firearms for target practice, then they had to purchase ammo (assuming she didn't have live rounds). Purchasing the ammo would be recorded with the ID as it is controlled. There should be a trail of evidence which in turn should get someone to talk.


Yep. But more importantly, her claims that she has no idea where a live round came from still doesn't negate that she is the person responsible for the handling chain of that weapo and is the one most responsible for having full and exact knowledge of what is in that gun when it is handed to the actor. Her knowledge of how a live round ended up on set in no way mitigates any of that.


She does have one excuse working in her favor. Seems like they wanted her to leave the guns on the cart due to covid protocols:

Quote:
- Because of COVID-19 safety protocols Gutierrez Reed set up three prop guns on a cart left outside Bonanza Creek Ranch’s church set.


Now, I don’t know where that cart was. Was she responsible for keeping an eye on the cart at all times?

Also, she was performing 2 jobs: armorer and assistant prop master. If she's performing 2 jobs, can she keep an eye on the 3 guns left on the cart at all times? Did they want her to keep an eye on the guns or did they just tell her to put the 3 guns on the cart and just go do other things?

Quote:
Veteran prop master Neal W. Zoromski earlier told The Los Angeles Times that he declined an offer to work on “Rust” because producers insisted that one person could serve as both assistant prop master and armorer. Zoromski said those are “two really big jobs” that couldn’t be combined. He called the production “an accident waiting to happen.”
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52624
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2021 12:16 pm    Post subject:

LongBeachPoly wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
angrypuppy wrote:
So now the armorer is claiming that the firearms were kept in a safe every night and at lunch, that she wasn't aware of anyone using anyone using her guns for target practice, and that she has no idea where or how that live round came from.

Her contention leaves a gaping hole: During the day the firearms were left on a cart. If someone used a revolver for target practice, she'd have to be drunk or blind not to notice propellant residue on the revolver. In other words, at end of day when she locks them up she would have noticed.

If someone used her firearms for target practice, then they had to purchase ammo (assuming she didn't have live rounds). Purchasing the ammo would be recorded with the ID as it is controlled. There should be a trail of evidence which in turn should get someone to talk.


Yep. But more importantly, her claims that she has no idea where a live round came from still doesn't negate that she is the person responsible for the handling chain of that weapo and is the one most responsible for having full and exact knowledge of what is in that gun when it is handed to the actor. Her knowledge of how a live round ended up on set in no way mitigates any of that.


She does have one excuse working in her favor. Seems like they wanted her to leave the guns on the cart due to covid protocols:

Quote:
- Because of COVID-19 safety protocols Gutierrez Reed set up three prop guns on a cart left outside Bonanza Creek Ranch’s church set.


Now, I don’t know where that cart was. Was she responsible for keeping an eye on the cart at all times?

Also, she was performing 2 jobs: armorer and assistant prop master. If she's performing 2 jobs, can she keep an eye on the 3 guns left on the cart at all times? Did they want her to keep an eye on the guns or did they just tell her to put the 3 guns on the cart and just go do other things?

Quote:
Veteran prop master Neal W. Zoromski earlier told The Los Angeles Times that he declined an offer to work on “Rust” because producers insisted that one person could serve as both assistant prop master and armorer. Zoromski said those are “two really big jobs” that couldn’t be combined. He called the production “an accident waiting to happen.”


The single most critically crucial part of her job is to ensure that the weapon is safe when it leaves her hands and enters the actors. Even if some took the gun off the cart when she was not watching, that doesn't change that inherent responsibility. Even if the AD picked it up of his own volition, she should never have allowed that situation to arise. Anyway, he credibility is highly questionable. On her previous job, there were similar complaints and concerns about her safety protocols, or lack there of to the point that Nicholas Cage wanted her fired.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16026

PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2021 12:52 pm    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
The single most critically crucial part of her job is to ensure that the weapon is safe when it leaves her hands and enters the actors.

Even if some took the gun off the cart when she was not watching, that doesn't change that inherent responsibility. Even if the AD picked it up of his own volition, she should never have allowed that situation to arise. Anyway, he credibility is highly questionable. On her previous job, there were similar complaints and concerns about her safety protocols, or lack there of to the point that Nicholas Cage wanted her fired.


Yeah, but how much power does the armorer have if she's instructed to leave the guns on the cart and go do other stuff? (if that's actually the case).

I mean, we've seen how another armorer didn't want to take the job because they were going to force him to do things that didn't adhere to safety protocols.

If they are telling her to leave the guns on the cart and go do other things, then there is a time when the guns are out of her supervision.

Now, maybe an armorer should NEVER lose sight of the guns they are in charge of. I don't know if that's the case. But, if they hired her to do 2 jobs, that's probably an impossible task, especially when they're asking her to just leave the guns on the cart.

But that's not to diminish her responsibilities when she put the guns on the cart; she had to make sure the guns were cleared and safe.

But, from the time she put the guns on the cart (if that's what they instructed her to do) to the time it was picked up by the AD, I would think she'd have an excuse for not watching the guns if they had her running around doing other stuff. (Now, if she was sitting in the armory texting her friends, that's a different story).

Then the question becomes - should she have refused to follow the production's unsafe protocols? Should she have quit, or refused to take the job like the other armorers? Someone was going to take that job. And whoever took the job was going to be forced to follow unsafe protocols.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
angrypuppy
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 13 Apr 2001
Posts: 32730

PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2021 3:34 pm    Post subject:

Jackrabbit, in any given profession there is a degree of conduct that is expected (industry standards apply), it needn't even be in writing for that behavior to be legally binding. From what I can ascertain from DMR and reading, it sounds like the armorer engaged in negligent, probably gross negligent conduct given the standards of her profession.


A client can tell you to abandon your professional standards, but that does not absolve you of your professional responsibility. As mothers have told us since the beginning of time, "if your friend tells you to jump off the cliff, will you do it?" She should have used common sense and applied the proper standard of care, or simply quit.

I don't know that she'll be found criminally liable, but civil? Yes. And as they love to say in Hollywood, she'll never eat lunch in this town again.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16026

PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2021 3:56 pm    Post subject:

angrypuppy wrote:
Jackrabbit, in any given profession there is a degree of conduct that is expected (industry standards apply), it needn't even be in writing for that behavior to be legally binding. From what I can ascertain from DMR and reading, it sounds like the armorer engaged in negligent, probably gross negligent conduct given the standards of her profession.


A client can tell you to abandon your professional standards, but that does not absolve you of your professional responsibility. As mothers have told us since the beginning of time, "if your friend tells you to jump off the cliff, will you do it?" She should have used common sense and applied the proper standard of care, or simply quit.

I don't know that she'll be found criminally liable, but civil? Yes. And as they love to say in Hollywood, she'll never eat lunch in this town again.


Agreed. But we're talking about safety protocols and chain of custody.

I don't know if it's as open and shut as to say - you're the armorer, everything falls on you. The end.

1) I've read that there really are no government guidelines on how to handle weapons on a movie set.

2) The government leaves it up to the movie studios to set safety guidelines.

3) If before they hire you, they tell you that this job requires you to do 2 jobs at once. That you are to place the guns on a cart (due to covid protocols) and that you don't have to supervise the guns after you place them on the cart.

4) If there's no government guidelines that says - "an armorer must watch the guns at all times," can we just say, the armorer is responsible no matter what because of her title?

I mean, I'm asking genuine questions because I don't know that to be true. Or should it be true? If they are making her put 3 guns on the cart and then just don't supervise them, then I don't know if I can say she's responsible for what happens to the guns after she puts them on the cart.

I don't know if that's fair to say.

I mean, maybe she should have quit. Or maybe she should have demanded that they let her supervise the guns throughout the entire day. Or maybe she should have insisted on bringing the guns directly to Alec Baldwin herself.

And just to clarify, she's responsible whenever the guns were in her hand. That's her responsibility. But, from the time she put the guns on the cart, to the time it reached Alec Baldwin, I just don't know if I can blame her for that. I can agree that she was stupid to put them on the cart like they asked her to. Anyone can just come take the guns and put live ammo in them and it falls back on her. But, that was also the protocol they set for her to follow. And this was her 2nd film I think, and they're saying it's due to covid protocols? Does she even know that she's not supposed to be putting guns on the cart like that? I don't know.

And let's say we buy her story. We don't, but let's say we do. Let's say she checked all 3 guns, they were all clear. (That's her story). She puts them on the cart, then leaves to go do her other job as the assistant prop master. Someone did something to the guns after she put them on the cart. Maybe a crew member or Dave Halls puts in live ammo for some reason before it got to Alec Baldwin. (Again, this is her story). If true, do we want to blame her for that? I wouldn't.

Quote:
"Hannah was hired on two positions on this film, which made it extremely difficult to focus on her job as an armorer," Bowles and Gorence stated. They did not reveal what other position she was hired for on "Rust."

The statement added: "She fought for training, days to maintain weapons and proper time to prepare for gunfire but ultimately was overruled by production and her department."

They noted that a lack of safety meetings was just one of the many factors that led to the set being somewhat unsafe.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52624
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2021 6:20 pm    Post subject:

LongBeachPoly wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
The single most critically crucial part of her job is to ensure that the weapon is safe when it leaves her hands and enters the actors.

Even if some took the gun off the cart when she was not watching, that doesn't change that inherent responsibility. Even if the AD picked it up of his own volition, she should never have allowed that situation to arise. Anyway, he credibility is highly questionable. On her previous job, there were similar complaints and concerns about her safety protocols, or lack there of to the point that Nicholas Cage wanted her fired.


Yeah, but how much power does the armorer have if she's instructed to leave the guns on the cart and go do other stuff? (if that's actually the case).

I mean, we've seen how another armorer didn't want to take the job because they were going to force him to do things that didn't adhere to safety protocols.

If they are telling her to leave the guns on the cart and go do other things, then there is a time when the guns are out of her supervision.

Now, maybe an armorer should NEVER lose sight of the guns they are in charge of. I don't know if that's the case. But, if they hired her to do 2 jobs, that's probably an impossible task, especially when they're asking her to just leave the guns on the cart.

But that's not to diminish her responsibilities when she put the guns on the cart; she had to make sure the guns were cleared and safe.

But, from the time she put the guns on the cart (if that's what they instructed her to do) to the time it was picked up by the AD, I would think she'd have an excuse for not watching the guns if they had her running around doing other stuff. (Now, if she was sitting in the armory texting her friends, that's a different story).

Then the question becomes - should she have refused to follow the production's unsafe protocols? Should she have quit, or refused to take the job like the other armorers? Someone was going to take that job. And whoever took the job was going to be forced to follow unsafe protocols.


If she was asked to multitask, then she should have skipped the tasks that didn't put people's lives at risk rather than leave guns unattended. And if she was truly concerned about her abilities to secure the guns being inhibited, she could have and should have quit. But she didn't, and as a result someone is dead because she shirked her primary responsibility, even if she was asked to do others.

(by the way, I'm not trying to be argumentative with you, you raise interesting points)
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16026

PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2021 6:33 pm    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
The single most critically crucial part of her job is to ensure that the weapon is safe when it leaves her hands and enters the actors.

Even if some took the gun off the cart when she was not watching, that doesn't change that inherent responsibility. Even if the AD picked it up of his own volition, she should never have allowed that situation to arise. Anyway, he credibility is highly questionable. On her previous job, there were similar complaints and concerns about her safety protocols, or lack there of to the point that Nicholas Cage wanted her fired.


Yeah, but how much power does the armorer have if she's instructed to leave the guns on the cart and go do other stuff? (if that's actually the case).

I mean, we've seen how another armorer didn't want to take the job because they were going to force him to do things that didn't adhere to safety protocols.

If they are telling her to leave the guns on the cart and go do other things, then there is a time when the guns are out of her supervision.

Now, maybe an armorer should NEVER lose sight of the guns they are in charge of. I don't know if that's the case. But, if they hired her to do 2 jobs, that's probably an impossible task, especially when they're asking her to just leave the guns on the cart.

But that's not to diminish her responsibilities when she put the guns on the cart; she had to make sure the guns were cleared and safe.

But, from the time she put the guns on the cart (if that's what they instructed her to do) to the time it was picked up by the AD, I would think she'd have an excuse for not watching the guns if they had her running around doing other stuff. (Now, if she was sitting in the armory texting her friends, that's a different story).

Then the question becomes - should she have refused to follow the production's unsafe protocols? Should she have quit, or refused to take the job like the other armorers? Someone was going to take that job. And whoever took the job was going to be forced to follow unsafe protocols.


If she was asked to multitask, then she should have skipped the tasks that didn't put people's lives at risk rather than leave guns unattended. And if she was truly concerned about her abilities to secure the guns being inhibited, she could have and should have quit. But she didn't, and as a result someone is dead because she shirked her primary responsibility, even if she was asked to do others.

(by the way, I'm not trying to be argumentative with you, you raise interesting points)


Appreciate it. And me neither. I'm actually really curious to find out because I really don't know.

This is just what my intuition tells me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52624
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2021 6:46 pm    Post subject:

LongBeachPoly wrote:
angrypuppy wrote:
Jackrabbit, in any given profession there is a degree of conduct that is expected (industry standards apply), it needn't even be in writing for that behavior to be legally binding. From what I can ascertain from DMR and reading, it sounds like the armorer engaged in negligent, probably gross negligent conduct given the standards of her profession.


A client can tell you to abandon your professional standards, but that does not absolve you of your professional responsibility. As mothers have told us since the beginning of time, "if your friend tells you to jump off the cliff, will you do it?" She should have used common sense and applied the proper standard of care, or simply quit.

I don't know that she'll be found criminally liable, but civil? Yes. And as they love to say in Hollywood, she'll never eat lunch in this town again.


Agreed. But we're talking about safety protocols and chain of custody.

I don't know if it's as open and shut as to say - you're the armorer, everything falls on you. The end.

1) I've read that there really are no government guidelines on how to handle weapons on a movie set.

2) The government leaves it up to the movie studios to set safety guidelines.


This is true. We have our own safety organization. CSTAF. Everyone in the industry who works for a local has to go to training on a routine basis or they will not be allowed to work—I think that is every 5 years. I haven't been in a while so I can't recall the exact timeframe.

Quote:
3) If before they hire you, they tell you that this job requires you to do 2 jobs at once. That you are to place the guns on a cart (due to covid protocols) and that you don't have to supervise the guns after you place them on the cart.

4) If there's no government guidelines that says - "an armorer must watch the guns at all times," can we just say, the armorer is responsible no matter what because of her title?


One thing I just learned recently because the IATSE (the union overseeing film and television etc.) is in the midst of a huge labor showdown. We have contracts that set our own standards and offset any governmental guidelines in regards to overtime and things like that. So yes, we do have guidelines that don't need the backing of governmental ones and can actually run counter to them.

Quote:
I mean, I'm asking genuine questions because I don't know that to be true. Or should it be true? If they are making her put 3 guns on the cart and then just don't supervise them, then I don't know if I can say she's responsible for what happens to the guns after she puts them on the cart.

I don't know if that's fair to say.


I'm obviously not speaking as a lawyer, but if you knowingly and willfully participate in negligent practices, you complicit in the results of that negligence.

Quote:
I mean, maybe she should have quit. Or maybe she should have demanded that they let her supervise the guns throughout the entire day. Or maybe she should have insisted on bringing the guns directly to Alec Baldwin herself.

And just to clarify, she's responsible whenever the guns were in her hand. That's her responsibility. But, from the time she put the guns on the cart, to the time it reached Alec Baldwin, I just don't know if I can blame her for that. I can agree that she was stupid to put them on the cart like they asked her to. Anyone can just come take the guns and put live ammo in them and it falls back on her. But, that was also the protocol they set for her to follow. And this was her 2nd film I think, and they're saying it's due to covid protocols? Does she even know that she's not supposed to be putting guns on the cart like that? I don't know.

And let's say we buy her story. We don't, but let's say we do. Let's say she checked all 3 guns, they were all clear. (That's her story). She puts them on the cart, then leaves to go do her other job as the assistant prop master. Someone did something to the guns after she put them on the cart. Maybe a crew member or Dave Halls puts in live ammo for some reason before it got to Alec Baldwin. (Again, this is her story). If true, do we want to blame her for that? I wouldn't.

Quote:
"Hannah was hired on two positions on this film, which made it extremely difficult to focus on her job as an armorer," Bowles and Gorence stated. They did not reveal what other position she was hired for on "Rust."

The statement added: "She fought for training, days to maintain weapons and proper time to prepare for gunfire but ultimately was overruled by production and her department."

They noted that a lack of safety meetings was just one of the many factors that led to the set being somewhat unsafe.


I would, because she made the choice to do the other work that didn't involve people's safety over ensuring that the weapons were safe, thus failing ti prioritize the most important part of her job.

For what it's worth, everything I have read, both publicly and in industry message boards is that this woman was careless as a routine. She used her insurance company to pay off the parents of a friend of hers who died in a motorcycle accident after she loaned him her bike knowing he was intoxicated so they wouldn't sue her.

The statement that was released on her behalf was clearly a carefully drafted excuse from her legal team and not an honest and accurate description of her actual mindset and conduct—which I totally understand and believe to be the wisest approach for her. But we can't confuse that with an actual description of the facts.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90299
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2021 7:05 pm    Post subject:

I’m a big fan of Alec Baldwin on a number of fronts, but both he and the production team of which he was part were what cannot he called anything besides negligent. This story started out sounding really bad and it has gotten just steadily worse. Not only was there no adherence to even minimal safety standards, but there was systemic and willful treatment of the crew welfare as unimportant across the board. This wasnt an accident in spite of good intentions, this was an accident because of really lax ones at best.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52624
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2021 7:29 pm    Post subject:

Omar Little wrote:
I’m a big fan of Alec Baldwin on a number of fronts, but both he and the production team of which he was part were what cannot he called anything besides negligent. This story started out sounding really bad and it has gotten just steadily worse. Not only was there no adherence to even minimal safety standards, but there was systemic and willful treatment of the crew welfare as unimportant across the board. This wasnt an accident in spite of good intentions, this was an accident because of really lax ones at best.


And the participants making excuses are the ones who precipitated it . . . knowingly and willfully.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
angrypuppy
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 13 Apr 2001
Posts: 32730

PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2021 7:41 pm    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
I’m a big fan of Alec Baldwin on a number of fronts, but both he and the production team of which he was part were what cannot he called anything besides negligent. This story started out sounding really bad and it has gotten just steadily worse. Not only was there no adherence to even minimal safety standards, but there was systemic and willful treatment of the crew welfare as unimportant across the board. This wasnt an accident in spite of good intentions, this was an accident because of really lax ones at best.


And the participants making excuses are the ones who precipitated it . . . knowingly and willfully.



As you guys know, I'm not a lawyer, but I do know enough to realize that the armorer is liable civilly, but it remains to be seen whether there is enough evidence and if there's enough political will to go after her criminally. From afar this looks like contributory negligence, an artifact of legal math that says her negligence contributed x% to the tragedy.

I don't think Baldwin is getting off either, and in fact he's the one who will be left holding the bag financially. You know the victim's family is going to go after Baldwin, he appears to be a culpable party and has the deepest pockets. The degree of negligence may also invalidate any financial indemnity or restitution by the insurance company.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 6 of 10
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB