On 2022-08-15 3:38 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>> Rhino
>>
>> Also, I did a search for pictures of blank ammo to see if it really is
>> visually different from live ammo:
>>
>> https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=blank+ammunition&iax=images&ia=images&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn3.volusion.com%2Fjodua.csmpx%2Fv%2Fvspfiles%2Fphotos%2FSA41-2.jpg%3Fv-cache%3D1541702333
>>
>> In the pictures I looked at EVERY SINGLE BLANK either had its tip
>> crimped or the tip was not there at all. I don't know if any of this is
>> ammo for vintage weapons like the ones used in Baldwin's film but
>> this tends to support the contention that blanks and live ammo look
>> noticeably different. That means whoever loaded the weapons should
>> have had an easy time of distinguishing them. If they continued to
>> load live ammo instead of blank, they can only be construed as being
>> massively incompetent/impaired or maybe even malicious.
>
> During the scene where Baldwin shot the director gal, she was directing
> him to point the revolver at the camera (and thus her) while cocking the
> hammer, so she could get a close-up on the revolver.
>
> For a shot like that, blanks aren’t used as viewers would be able to see
> the crimped end of the blank cartridge so instead dummy rounds are used,
> which use a cartridge case with a spent/removed primer, a real bullet and
> no gunpowder with a hole(s) drilled into the side of the case.
>
> https://images.gunsinternational.com/listings_sub/acc_19081/gi_101095796/Pair-of-50-BMG-Dummy-Rounds_101095796_19081_503E10FFAAF14066.jpg

Thanks Ed, that was very helpful. I appreciate when you and/or BTR step
in to share your expertise on matters like this!
>
> In one of the earlier articles about this incident, it was mentioned that the
> trailer used to store the guns, ammo and other gear was a total mess, with
> shit scattered about all over the place and blanks, dummies and live ammo
> mixed together in ammo boxes and just laying out on the work benches.
>
> Clearly the armorer gal and/or prop master didn't bother checking what
> kinda ammo they were grabbing and loading into the guns, which is how
> this unfortunate shooting happened.

A truly disgraceful display of negligence and/or incompetence. Of course
that extends to Baldwin as well for not checking the weapon and, wearing
his producer hat, for not making sure the people on set did their jobs
correctly.

--
Rhino

On 2022-08-15 4:08 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>> Rhino
>>
>> This article implies that a gun that can fire blanks has to be
>> explicitly (but minimally) modified to be able to fire a blank cartridge.
>>
>> https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/9196/are-real-guns-used-in-movies/9199#9199
>
> A self-loading firearm needs to be modified with either a baffle at the muzzle
> (the military call them "blank firing adapters") or for a movie gun, a new barrel
> with an internal baffle, as without a bullet to create sufficient back pressure,
> the gun won't automatically cycle and load another round, becoming a single
> shot firearm.
>
> https://i.postimg.cc/43MrBcNv/Luger-slow-motion.gif
>
> Blank firing adapter:
> https://www.bevfitchett.us/m16a1-m16a2-rifle-marksmanship/images/3187_1800_146.jpg
> https://assets.milcoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/S20-085-1.jpg
>
> A manually operated revolver or lever-action rifle as would be used on a
> cowboy flick like this, will of course work fine with blanks.

Thank you for illustrating what the article described in words!

--
Rhino

anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>>>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

>>>>. . .

>>>>>Wouldn't the normal process be for the sound of real gunshots to be
>>>>>recorded separately, perhaps at a range, and then dubbed into the film
>>>>>by the Foley editor? If so, why would live ammo be on the set?

>>>>Live ammo hasn't been used on movie sets in decades. I read that
>>>>very well known movies in the early 1930s were still using live ammo,
>>>>like Public Enemy. Jimmy Cagney also had his very long film career cut
>>>>short by a couple of inches.

>>>Can you elaborate on that?

>>In the unsourced trivia for The Public Enemy (1931) at IMDb:

>> The machine gun attack on Tom Powers and his best friend Matt
>> Doyle actually used real machine gun bullets. An expert with the
>> gun stood on a raised platform 15 to 20 feet away from the
>> target, and when James Cagney's face disappeared behind the
>> corner of the wall, he opened fire and created that tight circle
>> of machine gun bullets.

>>If that was actually necessary, it could have been achieved with a cut
>>in editing without Cagney literally being fired at.

>>There is a similar comment on the Wikipedia page citing a 2008 article I
>>can no longer pull up because Wikipedia never bothers with original
>>sources, with an unsourced statement that it was typical of the era that
>>live ammunition was used on movie sets.

>>That may have had something to do with Rino's comment because they
>>hadn't yet invented the technology to properly mix sound. On radio, of
>>course, they were expert at sound effects and were always substituting
>>sound sources to make it sound good. You'd think the sound effect could
>>have been achieved with blanks.

>>>>>Also, I've been told that it is simple to distinguish live ammo from
>>>>>blanks just by eyeballing it. If so, why would anyone get the two
>>>>>mixed up?

>>>>Because they were mixed together in the same box and no one on that
>>>>movie set gave a shit about safety.

>>>I'm picturing drunken idiots on the weekend dumping boxes of ammo on the
>>>table with the beer cans and loading guns and then putting them back in the
>>>boxes and mixing them up in the process.

>>But no one on that set gave a shit about safety whilst sober, either.
>>That's the frightful thing about being lackadasical in these matters.
>>The failure to put safety first simply cannot be blamed on drunken
>>behavior.

>But it can all be blamed on Alec Baldwin.

No, it really can't. Baldwin's responsibility could be for hiring if his
role as "producer" was management over the production. Baldwin was
criminally reckless; he committed manslaughter.

The rest of them are entirely responsible for their own bad acts since a
whole lot of people acted in concert to put that loaded weapon in
Baldwin's hand:

The A.D. declared the gun "cold" without checking it didn't have live
ammunition in it. I'd still like to know if he can be charged with a
crime that requires proving criminal recklessness, which I think is
proveable. If he'd handed Baldwin the gun without checking saying nothing,
that would have been negligent but not criminal.

The armourer loaded the gun with live ammunition without checking. That's
reckless, not negligent, given that it was her area of expertise and the
reason she was hired. I'm not sure if her reckless act was criminal. Both
the armourer and propmaster are responsible for the armourer's failures,
but these acts don't appear to be criminal. The weapons were left
unattended, the ammunition was left unattended unattended, live rounds
were allowed to be brought to the set, failed to separate live rounds
from blanks when they got mixed together.

Ed Stasiak <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:

>>. . .

>During the scene where Baldwin shot the director gal, she was directing
>him to point the revolver at the camera (and thus her) while cocking the
>hammer, so she could get a close-up on the revolver.

You conflated the two victims: The cinematographer, shot dead, was
female, Halyna Hutchins. The director, shot but not killed, was Joel
Souza.

>For a shot like that, . . .

Thank you for the explanation. That was very helpful indeed.

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 18:46:04 -0400, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

>>One real possibility is that he has no idea what he actually did.

>I would find that possibility quite likely but it doesn't absolve
>responsibility particularly when somebody has died as a result.

No, moviePig is flat out wrong. Baldwin cannot conceive of the fact that
his reckless behavior resulted in a death and an injury, so he created a
fiction in his own mind to absolve himself for having pulled the
trigger. He claimed the weapon discharged and he never pulled the
trigger. The FBI forensic proved Baldwin's story is not credible. There
has never been any evidence to back up Baldwin's story. He's had months
to own up to his own failures.

At this point, he can't even claim he's acting on self preservation.
He's willfully lying even though the story fooled no one.

Ed Stasiak <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:

>>Adam H. Kerman
>>>Ed Stasiak

>>>No, which is most likely what Baldwin did; pulling and holding the trigger
>>>back while cocking and releasing the hammer, even though he of course
>>>claims otherwise.

>>The images Ed found were of a modern revolver mechanism, not a revolver
>>of that era. I was asking if the transfer bar in a modern revolver prevents
>>fanning the hammer.

>Some of the articles mention that Baldwin’s gun was a Pietta modern day
>reproduction of an oldy timey cowboy revolver and would most likely have
>a transfer bar safety.

>https://www.emf-company.com/store/pc/1873-GWII-SA-and-Pietta-Transfer-Bar-Models-c510.htm

Thanks for finding that.

>Though I understand some models are available without the transfer bar
>safety (though probably not anymore…) but regardless, it wouldn't fire
>unless Baldwin pulled the trigger.

>>In the article that Ubi plagarized, I was confused about what the FBI
>>said about 1/4 cocked, 1/2 cocked, and fully cocked hamemr. Those aren't
>>additional notches in the mechanism, right? Just holding the hammer part
>>of the way?

>An oldy timey cowboy type Colt Single-Action Army revolver does not use
>a swing-out cylinder like modern revolvers, (or a break-action, like British
>military revolvers up thru WWII) the cylinder remains in place and a loading
>gate on the back side must be opened, with the hammer cocked to 1/4
>or 1/2 notch which allows the cylinder to rotate, exposing the chambers
>to load and eject the rounds.

>https://kapszli.hu/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/6-shot-cylinder.png

Wow. You really must be careful not to have your finger on the trigger
while loading it since live ammunition could indeed be under the hammer.

On Mon, 15 Aug 2022 23:44:59 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 18:46:04 -0400, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>>>One real possibility is that he has no idea what he actually did.
>
>>I would find that possibility quite likely but it doesn't absolve
>>responsibility particularly when somebody has died as a result.
>
>No, moviePig is flat out wrong. Baldwin cannot conceive of the fact that
>his reckless behavior resulted in a death and an injury, so he created a
>fiction in his own mind to absolve himself for having pulled the
>trigger. He claimed the weapon discharged and he never pulled the
>trigger. The FBI forensic proved Baldwin's story is not credible. There
>has never been any evidence to back up Baldwin's story. He's had months
>to own up to his own failures.
>
>At this point, he can't even claim he's acting on self preservation.
>He's willfully lying even though the story fooled no one.

He may even believe what he is saying. Either way so long as there's
actual evidence to go by that is what the official story should be
even if Baldwin and others at the same believe something else
happened.

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>Mon, 15 Aug 2022 23:44:59 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 18:46:04 -0400, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

>>>>One real possibility is that he has no idea what he actually did.

>>>I would find that possibility quite likely but it doesn't absolve
>>>responsibility particularly when somebody has died as a result.

>>No, moviePig is flat out wrong. Baldwin cannot conceive of the fact that
>>his reckless behavior resulted in a death and an injury, so he created a
>>fiction in his own mind to absolve himself for having pulled the
>>trigger. He claimed the weapon discharged and he never pulled the
>>trigger. The FBI forensic proved Baldwin's story is not credible. There
>>has never been any evidence to back up Baldwin's story. He's had months
>>to own up to his own failures.

>>At this point, he can't even claim he's acting on self preservation.
>>He's willfully lying even though the story fooled no one.

>He may even believe what he is saying. Either way so long as there's
>actual evidence to go by that is what the official story should be
>even if Baldwin and others at the same believe something else
>happened.

No, shawn, there's no "even if". He's lying. It's deliberate. The more
he repeats it, the more likely the judgment against him will be larger
and the more likely he'll be found guilty by a jury at his criminal
trial.

No lawyer can afford to put Baldwin on the stand as it would violate
legal ethics. The lawyer knows Baldwin intends to lie.

At this point, the lie is provable.

On 8/15/2022 10:03 PM, shawn wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2022 23:44:59 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 18:46:04 -0400, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> One real possibility is that he has no idea what he actually did.
>>
>>> I would find that possibility quite likely but it doesn't absolve
>>> responsibility particularly when somebody has died as a result.
>>
>> No, moviePig is flat out wrong. Baldwin cannot conceive of the fact that
>> his reckless behavior resulted in a death and an injury, so he created a
>> fiction in his own mind to absolve himself for having pulled the
>> trigger. He claimed the weapon discharged and he never pulled the
>> trigger. The FBI forensic proved Baldwin's story is not credible. There
>> has never been any evidence to back up Baldwin's story. He's had months
>> to own up to his own failures.
>>
>> At this point, he can't even claim he's acting on self preservation.
>> He's willfully lying even though the story fooled no one.
>
> He may even believe what he is saying. Either way so long as there's
> actual evidence to go by that is what the official story should be
> even if Baldwin and others at the same believe something else
> happened.

Yes, he may well believe it, even he entirely fabricated it. People
fool themselves all the time, and fwiw Baldwin does seem to have been
genuinely shaken. (Note that Adam describes exactly that circumstance,
even as he calls it "willful lying".) Fortunately, hard evidence has
been offered that the gun couldn't fire without a trigger pull, and if
that holds up, then Baldwin's recall is moot (as it may be anyway).

On Mon, 15 Aug 2022 13:51:54 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>>Also here's the armorer. If she's beauty pageant material they've lowered
>>their standards.
>
>>https://images.app.goo.gl/KTeCG1z7C4EcYSG59

Oh come on - maybe I'm too picky but that is NOT a beauty queen.

On Tue, 16 Aug 2022 23:53:25 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Mon, 15 Aug 2022 13:51:54 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
><ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>>>Also here's the armorer. If she's beauty pageant material they've lowered
>>>their standards.
>>
>>>https://images.app.goo.gl/KTeCG1z7C4EcYSG59
>
>Oh come on - maybe I'm too picky but that is NOT a beauty queen.

She could be the winner of a local beauty pageant in a small town.
Miss Corn Husker in Nowhereville in the Midwest where the nearest town
of more than 100K people is hours away.

On Mon, 15 Aug 2022 14:05:43 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 18:46:04 -0400, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>wrote:
>
>>One real possibility is that he has no idea what he actually did.
>
>I would find that possibility quite likely but it doesn't absolve
>responsibility particularly when somebody has died as a result.

Well let's face it - had it merely been a dud safety inspector's
report we would not be having this conversation.

Somebody failed in their duty and someon DIED as a result. This isn't
a simple speeding ticket or crosswalk violation.

On Mon, 15 Aug 2022 22:03:06 -0400, shawn
<nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

>>At this point, he can't even claim he's acting on self preservation.
>>He's willfully lying even though the story fooled no one.
>
>He may even believe what he is saying. Either way so long as there's
>actual evidence to go by that is what the official story should be
>even if Baldwin and others at the same believe something else
>happened.

I don't seriously believe this is murder.

What I do believe is that based on reports "criminal negligence
causing death" (or what ever it's called Stateside - if a more than
reasonable change.

Because no question security of dangerous objects on that set was
seriously FUBARed.

On Mon, 15 Aug 2022 23:14:27 -0400, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
wrote:

>Yes, he may well believe it, even he entirely fabricated it. People
>fool themselves all the time, and fwiw Baldwin does seem to have been
>genuinely shaken. (Note that Adam describes exactly that circumstance,
>even as he calls it "willful lying".) Fortunately, hard evidence has
>been offered that the gun couldn't fire without a trigger pull, and if
>that holds up, then Baldwin's recall is moot (as it may be anyway).

Just because he's responsible doesn't mean he HAD to concoct a highly
implausible story.

I know one guy who accidentally killed his wife in a motor vehicle
accident who was NOT charged criminally even though the evidence is
quite clear he screwed up behind the wheel.

Just because something terrible happened doesn't mean he's facingg
charges and if he IS facing charges there's more to the case than
immediately meets the eye - and that very much DOES seem to be the
case here.

Just because Baldwin is a celeb it doesn't mean the book is going to
be thrown at him. In the case cited above the guy WASN'T a celeb and
the sheriff did not recommend charges to the DA.

In article <036pfh1ikvjp98mdt49n83gl753h75kl5m@4ax.com>, shawn
<nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 16 Aug 2022 23:53:25 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 15 Aug 2022 13:51:54 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
> ><ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>Also here's the armorer. If she's beauty pageant material they've lowered
> >>>their standards.
> >>
> >>>https://images.app.goo.gl/KTeCG1z7C4EcYSG59
> >
> >Oh come on - maybe I'm too picky but that is NOT a beauty queen.
>
> She could be the winner of a local beauty pageant in a small town.
> Miss Corn Husker in Nowhereville in the Midwest where the nearest town
> of more than 100K people is hours away.

She's the girl whose father calls your father to make you take her to
the prom.

No, I didn't.

In article <1c7pfhhh6pe72nur89coqsqd96mqd5c1b3@4ax.com>, The Horny Goat
<lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

> On Mon, 15 Aug 2022 22:03:06 -0400, shawn
> <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>
> >>At this point, he can't even claim he's acting on self preservation.
> >>He's willfully lying even though the story fooled no one.
> >
> >He may even believe what he is saying. Either way so long as there's
> >actual evidence to go by that is what the official story should be
> >even if Baldwin and others at the same believe something else
> >happened.
>
> I don't seriously believe this is murder.

Of course it's not. At worst, it's involuntary manslaughter.

> What I do believe is that based on reports "criminal negligence
> causing death" (or what ever it's called Stateside - if a more than
> reasonable change.
>
> Because no question security of dangerous objects on that set was
> seriously FUBARed.

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>Mon, 15 Aug 2022 22:03:06 -0400, shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>:

>>>At this point, he can't even claim he's acting on self preservation.
>>>He's willfully lying even though the story fooled no one.

>>He may even believe what he is saying. Either way so long as there's
>>actual evidence to go by that is what the official story should be
>>even if Baldwin and others at the same believe something else
>>happened.

>I don't seriously believe this is murder.

Who the hell said murder charges should be brought? It's a manslaughter.

>What I do believe is that based on reports "criminal negligence
>causing death" (or what ever it's called Stateside - if a more than
>reasonable change.

This goes beyond negligence. It's recklessness.

Here's the difference: One is negligent for failing to perform a
required duty. One is reckless for taking an action following the
failure to perform the duty of care.

Failure to check that the gun was loaded with live rounds was negligent.
Aiming and then pulling the trigger after failure to check for live
rounds was reckless.

The prosecution does not prove intent in a manslaughter charge as he
would in a murder charge. He must prove recklessness, however.

I'm not sure what the difference is between criminal negligence and
criminal recklessness, and yeah, some state criminal codes seem to blur
the line between those two terms.

>Because no question security of dangerous objects on that set was
>seriously FUBARed.

But that's negligence. The negligent parties can be sued for their role
in the personal injuries and wrongful death but I don't think they
committed a crime.

The other person who may have committed a crime was the A.D. He failed
to check the weapon for live rounds, which is negligence. But he
declared the gun to be "cold" after failing to check it for live rounds.
That's recklessness.

I still want to know if that can be charged as a crime.

> The Horny Goat
> > Adam H. Kerman
> >
> >>https://images.app.goo.gl/KTeCG1z7C4EcYSG59
>
> Oh come on - maybe I'm too picky but that is NOT a beauty queen.

*meh* I'd hit it...

> Adam H. Kerman
>
> The other person who may have committed a crime was the A.D. He
> failed to check the weapon for live rounds, which is negligence. But he
> declared the gun to be "cold" after failing to check it for live rounds.
> That's recklessness.
>
> I still want to know if that can be charged as a crime.

Everybody involved in this from the armorer gal, the propmaster,
the assistant director, Baldwin, the production company and the
movie studio can and will lose the civil lawsuit, as they all fucked
up but I don't see how anybody other then the armorer gal could
be convicted for the crime of negligent manslaughter, as it was
literally HER FUCKING JOB to insure the guns were safe.

The problem seems to be that Hollywood has no standardized
safe gun handling procedures.

Each flick that uses guns appears to be dependent on whoever
happens to be the armorer and how much authority that person
has in the industry and if they’re willing to walk away from a
contract if higher-ups demand safety procedures be ignored.

I said from the start that the way the firearms on this movie
were handled (handing a gun from person to person and relying
and the earlier person to insure it was safe) was utterly retarded
and guaranteed to get someone killed, in fact I’m surprised MORE
people aren’t killed on movie sets if this is any indication of how
shit is done in Hollywood.

The ONLY people who should be handling guns are the armorer and
the actors scripted to use a gun, with the actors loading/unload
_their own guns_ for every take and handing back the gun and
blanks/dummy rounds to the armorer with both confirming that
the gun is loaded/unloaded and both counting the rounds each
time.

Furthermore, EVERYBODY on set (including the caterers!) should
have to go thru an NRA certified gun safety course, with actors
who will be issued guns being required to go thru a full-on live
fire shooting course at a gun range with NRA certified instructors.

Some actors like Keanu Reeves prior to the “John Wick” movies
willingly take extensive live-fire firearm training, not only to better
play the character using guns but for the simple common sense
reason that they don’t want to fuck up and kill someone.

Then we have guys like Alec Baldwin, who despite being in all
kinda flicks where he used guns, clearly never bothered taking
any firearm safety courses and stupidly relied on others (who
also never bothered getting any safety training) to hand him
a “safe” gun (pro-tip: there ain’t no such thing).

On 8/17/2022 4:14 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>> The Horny Goat
>>> Adam H. Kerman
>>>
>>>> https://images.app.goo.gl/KTeCG1z7C4EcYSG59
>>
>> Oh come on - maybe I'm too picky but that is NOT a beauty queen.
>
> *meh* I'd hit it...

Though I'd never put it so crassly, me too...

On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 13:57:49 -0700 (PDT), Ed Stasiak
<edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Adam H. Kerman
>>
>> The other person who may have committed a crime was the A.D. He
>> failed to check the weapon for live rounds, which is negligence. But he
>> declared the gun to be "cold" after failing to check it for live rounds.
>> That's recklessness.
>>
>> I still want to know if that can be charged as a crime.
>
>Everybody involved in this from the armorer gal, the propmaster,
>the assistant director, Baldwin, the production company and the
>movie studio can and will lose the civil lawsuit, as they all fucked
>up but I don't see how anybody other then the armorer gal could
>be convicted for the crime of negligent manslaughter, as it was
>literally HER FUCKING JOB to insure the guns were safe.

Though if the propmaster was ultimately in charge of the guns even to
the point of taking them in and out of the safe (or where ever they
were being stored) without the amourer being around then that ultimate
responsibility has to rest with him. In a normal situation only the
armourer would have that control of the weapons but that doesn't seem
to be the case here. Probably because she was new at the job.

>The problem seems to be that Hollywood has no standardized
>safe gun handling procedures.
>
>Each flick that uses guns appears to be dependent on whoever
>happens to be the armorer and how much authority that person
>has in the industry and if they’re willing to walk away from a
>contract if higher-ups demand safety procedures be ignored.

Given she was new to the job she had zero control.

>I said from the start that the way the firearms on this movie
>were handled (handing a gun from person to person and relying
>and the earlier person to insure it was safe) was utterly retarded
>and guaranteed to get someone killed, in fact I’m surprised MORE
>people aren’t killed on movie sets if this is any indication of how
>shit is done in Hollywood.

Well I think most of the time they have fully qualified people in
charge of the weapons. It's the low budget films where the corners are
cut and things like this death can happen.

>The ONLY people who should be handling guns are the armorer and
>the actors scripted to use a gun, with the actors loading/unload
>_their own guns_ for every take and handing back the gun and
>blanks/dummy rounds to the armorer with both confirming that
>the gun is loaded/unloaded and both counting the rounds each
>time.
>
>Furthermore, EVERYBODY on set (including the caterers!) should
>have to go thru an NRA certified gun safety course, with actors
>who will be issued guns being required to go thru a full-on live
>fire shooting course at a gun range with NRA certified instructors.

That would be ideal but I can't see it happening on these low budget
projects unless it becomes legally required.

>Some actors like Keanu Reeves prior to the “John Wick” movies
>willingly take extensive live-fire firearm training, not only to better
>play the character using guns but for the simple common sense
>reason that they don’t want to fuck up and kill someone.

In the situation you describe Keanu couldn't kill anyone because he
would never be using live ammo or be put in a situation where even a
blank loaded weapon could be used near anyone. He would never have
gone through that training if they weren't going for reality in his
performance.

>Then we have guys like Alec Baldwin, who despite being in all
>kinda flicks where he used guns, clearly never bothered taking
>any firearm safety courses and stupidly relied on others (who
>also never bothered getting any safety training) to hand him
>a “safe” gun (pro-tip: there ain’t no such thing).

Ed Stasiak <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:

>>Adam H. Kerman

>>The other person who may have committed a crime was the A.D. He
>>failed to check the weapon for live rounds, which is negligence. But he
>>declared the gun to be "cold" after failing to check it for live rounds.

>>That's recklessness.

>>I still want to know if that can be charged as a crime.

>Everybody involved in this from the armorer gal, the propmaster,
>the assistant director, Baldwin, the production company and the
>movie studio can and will lose the civil lawsuit, as they all fucked
>up but I don't see how anybody other then the armorer gal could
>be convicted for the crime of negligent manslaughter, as it was
>literally=10 HER FUCKING JOB to insure the guns were safe.

In other articles that I read, she was doing two jobs, assistant
propmaster and armourer. She wasn't acting as armourer. All she did was
load weapons and put them on the table. She wasn't the one with the
combination to the gun safe, so that meant she wasn't in position to put
the guns away when she did other duties.

Her boss, the propmaster, only took the guns out then inventoried them
as they were being returned to the gun safe.

It appears that she's the one who loaded the weapon with live ammunition
but there's no way to prove that as the guns and rounds were left unattended
live rounds were mixed together with blanks and maybe dummies, and
clearly anybody could have stuck that live ammo in the gun.

>The problem seems to be that Hollywood has no standardized
>safe gun handling procedures.

Of course there are. If you read the state occupational safety report, it
goes through a massive list of safety violations, some of which were
under state law and regulations, others noncompliance with industry
norms.

>Each flick that uses guns appears to be dependent on whoever
>happens to be the armorer and how much authority that person
>has in the industry and if they=E2=80=99re willing to walk away from a
>contract if higher-ups demand safety procedures be ignored.

That's always true with regard to on-the-job safety, isn't it. Unless
everyone gives a fuck about it and unless people are willing to walk
away from a work site with serious and continuing safety violations,
then each worker's life and health is in danger.

>I said from the start that the way the firearms on this movie
>were handled (handing a gun from person to person and relying
>and the earlier person to insure it was safe) was utterly retarded
>and guaranteed to get someone killed, in fact I=E2=80=99m surprised MORE
>people aren=E2=80=99t killed on movie sets if this is any indication of how
>shit is done in Hollywood.

I don't think you can generalize.

>The ONLY people who should be handling guns are the armorer and
>the actors scripted to use a gun, with the actors loading/unload
>_their own guns_ for every take and handing back the gun and
>blanks/dummy rounds to the armorer with both confirming that
>the gun is loaded/unloaded and both counting the rounds each
>time.

I thought the armourer loaded and unloaded, and in observing proper
safety protocols, both the armourer and actor verified that the
cartridges were either blank or dummies.

>Furthermore, EVERYBODY on set (including the caterers!) should
>have to go thru an NRA certified gun safety course, with actors
>who will be issued guns being required to go thru a full-on live
>fire shooting course at a gun range with NRA certified instructors.

There is zero reason for there to be live rounds on a movie set. Ever.
If there is a reason to film a gun with a live round being discharged,
then hire a professional to shoot the weapon and DO NOT have actors nor
other than minimal crew around.

>Some actors like Keanu Reeves prior to the =E2=80=9CJohn Wick=E2=80=9D movi=
>es
>willingly take extensive live-fire firearm training, not only to better
>play the character using guns but for the simple common sense
>reason that they don=E2=80=99t want to fuck up and kill someone.

But there were no live rounds on set of John Wick movies.

>Then we have guys like Alec Baldwin, who despite being in all
>kinda flicks where he used guns, clearly never bothered taking
>any firearm safety courses and stupidly relied on others (who
>also never bothered getting any safety training) to hand him
>a =E2=80=9Csafe=E2=80=9D gun (pro-tip: there ain=E2=80=99t no such thing).

I agree. Whether he should have known and didn't doesn't make his act
any less reckless. Ignorance doesn't excuse reckless conduct.

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>Wed, 17 Aug 2022 13:57:49 -0700 (PDT), Ed Stasiak <edstasiak1067@gmail.com>:

>>>Adam H. Kerman

>>>The other person who may have committed a crime was the A.D. He
>>>failed to check the weapon for live rounds, which is negligence. But he
>>>declared the gun to be "cold" after failing to check it for live rounds.
>>>That's recklessness.

>>>I still want to know if that can be charged as a crime.

>>Everybody involved in this from the armorer gal, the propmaster,
>>the assistant director, Baldwin, the production company and the
>>movie studio can and will lose the civil lawsuit, as they all fucked
>>up but I don't see how anybody other then the armorer gal could
>>be convicted for the crime of negligent manslaughter, as it was
>>literally HER FUCKING JOB to insure the guns were safe.

>Though if the propmaster was ultimately in charge of the guns even to
>the point of taking them in and out of the safe (or where ever they
>were being stored) without the amourer being around then that ultimate
>responsibility has to rest with him. In a normal situation only the
>armourer would have that control of the weapons but that doesn't seem
>to be the case here. Probably because she was new at the job.

The ultimate responsibility is with the boss of the production company.
That's where the decision was made not to have a full-time armourer and
to willfully violate safety protocols.

But everyone is individually responsible for his own job. Both the
propmaster and armourer should have quit given the safety procedures
that the two of them had no ability to follow given the lack of a
full-time armourer.

>>The problem seems to be that Hollywood has no standardized
>>safe gun handling procedures.

>>Each flick that uses guns appears to be dependent on whoever
>>happens to be the armorer and how much authority that person
>>has in the industry and if they’re willing to walk away from a
>>contract if higher-ups demand safety procedures be ignored.

>Given she was new to the job she had zero control.

She had complete control of whether she loaded that live round. That's
not true, shawn. She didn't have control that she was assigned to other
duties when she should have attended the guns and ammunition.

>>I said from the start that the way the firearms on this movie
>>were handled (handing a gun from person to person and relying
>>and the earlier person to insure it was safe) was utterly retarded
>>and guaranteed to get someone killed, in fact I’m surprised MORE
>>people aren’t killed on movie sets if this is any indication of how
>>shit is done in Hollywood.

>Well I think most of the time they have fully qualified people in
>charge of the weapons. It's the low budget films where the corners are
>cut and things like this death can happen.

Failure to follow basic safety protocol sure saved the production big
bucks. But it wasn't just the two of them. No one gave a shit about
safety, what with live ammunition and shooting off guns with live ammo
between takes.

>>The ONLY people who should be handling guns are the armorer and
>>the actors scripted to use a gun, with the actors loading/unload
>>_their own guns_ for every take and handing back the gun and
>>blanks/dummy rounds to the armorer with both confirming that
>>the gun is loaded/unloaded and both counting the rounds each
>>time.

>>Furthermore, EVERYBODY on set (including the caterers!) should
>>have to go thru an NRA certified gun safety course, with actors
>>who will be issued guns being required to go thru a full-on live
>>fire shooting course at a gun range with NRA certified instructors.

>That would be ideal but I can't see it happening on these low budget
>projects unless it becomes legally required.

What makes you think that occupational health and safety laws don't
apply to low-budget movie productions?

>>. . .

On Aug 17, 2022 at 4:13:25 PM PDT, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 13:57:49 -0700 (PDT), Ed Stasiak
> <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Adam H. Kerman
>>>
>>> The other person who may have committed a crime was the A.D. He
>>> failed to check the weapon for live rounds, which is negligence. But he
>>> declared the gun to be "cold" after failing to check it for live rounds.
>>> That's recklessness.
>>>
>>> I still want to know if that can be charged as a crime.
>>
>> Everybody involved in this from the armorer gal, the propmaster,
>> the assistant director, Baldwin, the production company and the
>> movie studio can and will lose the civil lawsuit, as they all fucked
>> up but I don't see how anybody other then the armorer gal could
>> be convicted for the crime of negligent manslaughter, as it was
>> literally HER FUCKING JOB to insure the guns were safe.
>
> Though if the propmaster was ultimately in charge of the guns even to
> the point of taking them in and out of the safe (or where ever they
> were being stored) without the amourer being around then that ultimate
> responsibility has to rest with him. In a normal situation only the
> armourer would have that control of the weapons but that doesn't seem
> to be the case here. Probably because she was new at the job.
>
>> The problem seems to be that Hollywood has no standardized
>> safe gun handling procedures.
>>
>> Each flick that uses guns appears to be dependent on whoever
>> happens to be the armorer and how much authority that person
>> has in the industry and if they're willing to walk away from a
>> contract if higher-ups demand safety procedures be ignored.
>
> Given she was new to the job she had zero control.
>
>> I said from the start that the way the firearms on this movie
>> were handled (handing a gun from person to person and relying
>> and the earlier person to insure it was safe) was utterly retarded
>> and guaranteed to get someone killed, in fact I'm surprised MORE
>> people aren't killed on movie sets if this is any indication of how
>> shit is done in Hollywood.
>
> Well I think most of the time they have fully qualified people in
> charge of the weapons. It's the low budget films where the corners are
> cut and things like this death can happen.
>
>> The ONLY people who should be handling guns are the armorer and
>> the actors scripted to use a gun, with the actors loading/unload
>> _their own guns_ for every take and handing back the gun and
>> blanks/dummy rounds to the armorer with both confirming that
>> the gun is loaded/unloaded and both counting the rounds each
>> time.
>>
>> Furthermore, EVERYBODY on set (including the caterers!) should
>> have to go thru an NRA certified gun safety course, with actors
>> who will be issued guns being required to go thru a full-on live
>> fire shooting course at a gun range with NRA certified instructors.
>
> That would be ideal but I can't see it happening on these low budget
> projects unless it becomes legally required.
>
>> Some actors like Keanu Reeves prior to the JOHN WICK movies
>> willingly take extensive live-fire firearm training, not only to better
>> play the character using guns but for the simple common sense
>> reason that they don't want to fuck up and kill someone.
>
> In the situation you describe Keanu couldn't kill anyone because he
> would never be using live ammo or be put in a situation where even a
> blank loaded weapon could be used near anyone. He would never have
> gone through that training if they weren't going for reality in his
> performance.

Keanu:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yk7K8-HnfI

Keanu and Halle Berry:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Unp4PaMKezY

>> Then we have guys like Alec Baldwin, who despite being in all
>> kinda flicks where he used guns, clearly never bothered taking
>> any firearm safety courses and stupidly relied on others (who
>> also never bothered getting any safety training) to hand him
>> a "safe" gun (pro-tip: there ain't no such thing).

On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 00:13:46 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>Wed, 17 Aug 2022 13:57:49 -0700 (PDT), Ed Stasiak <edstasiak1067@gmail.com>:
>
>>>>Adam H. Kerman
>
>>>>The other person who may have committed a crime was the A.D. He
>>>>failed to check the weapon for live rounds, which is negligence. But he
>>>>declared the gun to be "cold" after failing to check it for live rounds.
>>>>That's recklessness.
>
>>>>I still want to know if that can be charged as a crime.
>
>>>Everybody involved in this from the armorer gal, the propmaster,
>>>the assistant director, Baldwin, the production company and the
>>>movie studio can and will lose the civil lawsuit, as they all fucked
>>>up but I don't see how anybody other then the armorer gal could
>>>be convicted for the crime of negligent manslaughter, as it was
>>>literally HER FUCKING JOB to insure the guns were safe.
>
>>Though if the propmaster was ultimately in charge of the guns even to
>>the point of taking them in and out of the safe (or where ever they
>>were being stored) without the amourer being around then that ultimate
>>responsibility has to rest with him. In a normal situation only the
>>armourer would have that control of the weapons but that doesn't seem
>>to be the case here. Probably because she was new at the job.
>
>The ultimate responsibility is with the boss of the production company.
>That's where the decision was made not to have a full-time armourer and
>to willfully violate safety protocols.
>
>But everyone is individually responsible for his own job. Both the
>propmaster and armourer should have quit given the safety procedures
>that the two of them had no ability to follow given the lack of a
>full-time armourer.
>
>>>The problem seems to be that Hollywood has no standardized
>>>safe gun handling procedures.
>
>>>Each flick that uses guns appears to be dependent on whoever
>>>happens to be the armorer and how much authority that person
>>>has in the industry and if they’re willing to walk away from a
>>>contract if higher-ups demand safety procedures be ignored.
>
>>Given she was new to the job she had zero control.
>
>She had complete control of whether she loaded that live round. That's
>not true, shawn. She didn't have control that she was assigned to other
>duties when she should have attended the guns and ammunition.

Given what we know I wouldn't bet on her having loaded the gun before
Baldwin used it. It's certainly likely she did so but by no means
certain she was the one to do so given her part time job.

>>>I said from the start that the way the firearms on this movie
>>>were handled (handing a gun from person to person and relying
>>>and the earlier person to insure it was safe) was utterly retarded
>>>and guaranteed to get someone killed, in fact I’m surprised MORE
>>>people aren’t killed on movie sets if this is any indication of how
>>>shit is done in Hollywood.
>
>>Well I think most of the time they have fully qualified people in
>>charge of the weapons. It's the low budget films where the corners are
>>cut and things like this death can happen.
>
>Failure to follow basic safety protocol sure saved the production big
>bucks. But it wasn't just the two of them. No one gave a shit about
>safety, what with live ammunition and shooting off guns with live ammo
>between takes.

Yeah, but I wouldn't expect the actors and other crew members to worry
about that (even if they should.) The propmaster and armourer had the
oversight of those weapons/ammunition as being part of their jobs so
they definitely should have been concerned. Also any of the producers
should be concerned with it as they would with anything that forms a
potential risk to the production.

>>>The ONLY people who should be handling guns are the armorer and
>>>the actors scripted to use a gun, with the actors loading/unload
>>>_their own guns_ for every take and handing back the gun and
>>>blanks/dummy rounds to the armorer with both confirming that
>>>the gun is loaded/unloaded and both counting the rounds each
>>>time.
>
>>>Furthermore, EVERYBODY on set (including the caterers!) should
>>>have to go thru an NRA certified gun safety course, with actors
>>>who will be issued guns being required to go thru a full-on live
>>>fire shooting course at a gun range with NRA certified instructors.
>
>>That would be ideal but I can't see it happening on these low budget
>>projects unless it becomes legally required.
>
>What makes you think that occupational health and safety laws don't
>apply to low-budget movie productions?

Nothing but I'm not aware of any OHSA laws that regard the care and
use of weapons on a movie set. Also what would be the consequences if
they ignored such laws. Certainly it's going to be less than what we
all expect the actual cost for the poor woman's death will be.