Rust

[Doug Bee]

It is irrelevant because there are three people that could have and should have prevented this.

The armorer. The AD. And the Actor / Producer.

It might be of interest to note how they got there but it’s the actually negligent actions of those three that failed to prevent this.

This is the only time a firearm with an actual bullet has killed someone on a movie set that I know of. Most of the time it’s other reasons.

Nevertheless. Anyone of those three doing their job could have prevented this. None of them did.

 

[Tom Roper]

Remember too that Haylnas own camera department had quit the job that very morning citing safety issues. This was the first setup of the afternoon with a new camera crew.

How a narrative gets built around this is huge and uncertain.

 

[Tom Roper]

It is irrelevant because there are three people that could have and should have prevented this.

The armorer. The AD. And the Actor / Producer.

It might be of interest to note how they got there but itâs the actually negligent actions of those three that failed to prevent this.

This is the only time a firearm with an actual bullet has killed someone on a movie set that I know of. Most of the time itâs other reasons.

Nevertheless. Anyone of those three doing their job could have prevented this. None of them did.

This is true 100% in the sense of the legal foundations for the case against, but the jury is the wildcard because they don't have to follow the law even when instructed to by the judge. The jury can have an emotional reaction to anything which could alter their decision.

 

[Tom Roper]

Although the U.S. legal system is criticized a lot, our jury system is one of its blessings. I've never been selected for a jury, although I have wanted to. A possible factor is my willingness to state that I will not convict based on circumstantial evidence, but I will exonerate based on circumstantial evidence. It's stems from my belief in the presumption of innocence, and that I would rather a guilty person go free than an innocent one falsely imprisoned. If I was a juror, I would want the prosecution to prove that Hannah is directly responsible for bringing those live cartridges on the set as has been alleged, even though she remains accountable for preventing their disbursement on the set. If I thought there were facts beyond her control that would prevent, or interfere with doing that job, it would weigh in my decision. So on the basis of charges brought, irrelevant, but as a factor in my decision as a juror, I'd fully consider how it affected her ability to perform. I would also weigh the purported drug use against her if true, even though that was not brought against her as a legal charge.

So in this case and the one against Baldwin, the legal foundations are firmly laid for prosecution, but it's the decision of a jury will decide it.

 

[Doug Bee]

As I keep banging on.

The armorer is chiefly responsible.

But management had lots of warning this could happen and chose to make it harder for her to do her job instead of the other way.

This was a show plagued by problems. Problems that stem from poor management and failing to operate a safe workplace and workplace culture.

That allowed for unconventional behaviours to be tolerated. Like an actor receiving a weapon and being told it was clear from a person they should NEVER accept a weapon from. That is just not the right protocol. By accepting the weapon from the AD they also take responsibility because they should have known that is not how it should be.

Accepting that it is safe just because someone said it was safe would never fly in any other scenario. Why does being an actor make it different ESPECIALLY when the actor didn’t follow any acting filmmaking protocols for firearms handling in accepting the weapon.

The AD Is the legal manifestation of both the company and for safety on set. They are the ones held accountable if the workplace is not safe. They have already plead guilty in a plea deal. The production company has already been fined the maximum fine for a workplace safety violation.

The AD was cavalier and lax. They created an unsafe workplace where a young inexperienced armorer was put in charge of weapons some of the time and then told she had to do another job the rest of the time and she was not able to decide when that was or when it should supersede her second job.

Because production wanted to save money.

 

[Paul F]

... I've never been selected for a jury, although I have wanted to. A possible factor is my willingness to state that I will not convict based on circumstantial evidence, but I will exonerate based on circumstantial evidence.

.... or you will make up evidence to exonerate the defendant. "What?" you say? I'll explain.

I was on a criminal case in Los Angeles. It was a minor crime. During deliberations a juror reminded the jury about some testimony that was presented at trial. The testimony would clearly have shown the defendant was not guilty. Several jurors agreed that the evidence was presented and that was the basis for their vote of not-guilty. I told them that testimony did not exist. We had the court examine the transcript. No such evidence was ever entered. It was this made up evidence that convinced about 9 of the jurors to vote for not-guilty. Without that made up testimony, it was 100% solid that the defendant was guilty. Yet the jurors could not find it in themselves to change their minds.

 

[morgan_moore]

You do know her father was one of the most experienced film armourers in the business?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thell_Reed

This makes it worse as he should have helped build and guide her skills and confidence and only allow her to take the job when she was ready.

It is a sad endightment that ones parents are route to a job rather than some signed off skills - especially in weapons managment. The crew could have employed a vet or ex cop with ease no doubt.

You might be better refraining from commenting about firearms.

I know enough about weapons, cars, grenades and even wedding cake fights** to be very clear to get a safety brief or walk off set. I have 'resigned' when I was not happy - and that was crew standing on a blind corner on the highway. Ive usually been re-employed one scene later.

I have the nerve to say STOP, or walk off set, I dont care what my boss is called how powerful they are. It is something that I would encourage all crew to learn to do.

I have included in my production risk assesment that any crew member can shout STOP with no chance of reprimand. I also demanded 'half speed rehearsals' in my risk assesment.. and got them.

Here is me 'downrange' of a weapon.

As crew I demanded a brief. And got one. The weapon is rubber but I was not to know. Other crew and producers seemed also to have missed that a rubber weapon poked into the DOPs eye is still a major accident. Even such a dummy item is dangerous. Especially in a fast scene with smoke, flashbangs and poor rehearsal/blocking



----

** here is a lesson.. the wedding cake was built in layers stiff with wire.. smashing into the actors face was a close disaster . I was just gaffing but it was not nice to witness.

 

[morgan_moore]

"It does not matter where the live rounds came from."

The approach should be that all round are live until they are not. And that checking should happen right at the moment before the weapon is loaded and handed over. That is the job.


so..
"It does not matter where the live rounds came from."

 

[JAMedia]

"It does not matter where the live rounds came from."
The approach should be that all round are live until they are not. And that checking should happen right at the moment before the weapon is loaded and handed over. That is the job.
so..
"It does not matter where the live rounds came from."

It does very much matter where the live rounds came from.
Especially as there were no live rounds on that set. Until there were.

Just out of curiosity how do you tell a live round from a dummy?

 

[morgan_moore]

An 'empty' railroad may have a train.. but it is the job of someone to check

A 'clear' highway may have a vehicle.. but it is the job of someone to check

A 'safe' weapon may be dangerous.. but it is the job of someone to check

In each situation a crew member is specifically looking for things not being as they 'should' be.

Each offers a failsafe right before turnover.

The train story is well known, my own experience of delivery riders scooting through a 'closed' set is real.

--
tell a live round from a dummy?
I dont know weapons. The court case mentions..
having a hole in the round
having a 'rattle'
having a crimped pattern on the end

I would not take on that job. Or suggest I know how to do it.

My own involvement with weapons was demanding a safety brief before I allowed myself or the DOP to step in the firing line (or basically in front of the armed actor)

While I may not have been safe I sure had been told I was safe by the right person 20 seconds earlier, I demanded absolute clarity.

piture attached for the enjoyment of all.dop - smm

S

 

[Doug Bee]

Just out of curiosity how do you tell a live round from a dummy?

You keep asking this question.

You have never been on a set with an armorer practising the standard firearm safety protocols or you would not keep making this ignorant statement.

 

[JAMedia]

Im don't know weapons.

so you say again

The court case mentions..
having a hole in the round
having a 'rattle'

AFAIK that was not the case on this film set.
There has been mention of different colour primers, but that is a red herring as that is not a method that works/

I would not take on that job. Or suggest I know how to do it.

Yet you make so many posts with absolute statements in them.

My own involvement with weapons was demanding a safety brief before I allowed myself or the DOP to step in the firing line (or basically in front of the armed actor)
While I may not have been safe I sure had been told I was safe by the right person 20 seconds earlier, I demanded absolute clarity.

Just as the Actor had been told the pistol was safe.
In the actors position how would you have determined if the pistol was safe, or not?

 

[Doug Bee]

Just as the Actor had been told the pistol was safe.
In the actors position how would you have determined if the pistol was safe, or not?

The armorer demonstrates the weapon is safe everytime the weapon is handed to the actor. They do this by rattling the dummy bullets and or dry firing the weapon till its empty or demonstrating that it is a non-functional weapon if it is a dummy.

Every time the actor accepts the weapon.

From the armourer.

When I have worked with firearms I also ask the amorer to demonstrate the safety or have me present when the actor checks it. Everytime.

Thats normal protocol.

 

[JAMedia]

You keep asking this question.

You have never been on a set with an armorer practising the standard firearm safety protocols or you would not keep making this ignorant statement.

your assumption is incorrect

 

[morgan_moore]

Yet you make so many posts with absolute statements in them.

Yes im absolutely sure that this is not a job I would do.

Im don't know weapons.

The best way to be. In all the weapon (movie) shoots I have done I have asked for an explaination of demonstration of my safety.

Just as the Actor had been told the pistol was safe.

Indeed so. If she (in the dock) said that the weapon was safe and it was not then she is making a major error.. hence being in the dock.

She needed to be absolutely one hundred percent serious about the importance of doing her job well.

The 1st ad and actor should have refused a handover without being told it was safe.

In the actors position how would you have determined if the pistol was safe, or not?

I can only trust the professional crew member is doing thier job when they say it is safe. Remember that is the same for a road being declared clear or a steadicam op being guided from not stepping into a pool.

I also have a personal sense that I would put above any job title.

'Our' armerour was ex miltiary, clearly a rounds expert, but I still did not fully trust him as he was a little overfamiliar with weapons and casual to thier danger as 'pokey things'

Im qualified to know a 'pokey thing' when I see it. Rifle , boom pole, Cstand arm, camera jib.

 

[Doug Bee]

your assumption is incorrect

Then why are you so ignorant of firearm conventions in narrrative drama?

 

[JAMedia]

The armorer demonstrates the weapon is safe everytime the weapon is handed to the actor. They do this by rattling the dummy bullets and or dry firing the weapon till its empty or demonstrating that it is a non-functional weapon if it is a dummy.

Every time the actor accepts the weapon.

From the armourer.

When I have worked with firearms I also ask the amorer to demonstrate the safety or have me present when the actor checks it. Everytime.

Thats normal protocol.

As no "rattle" has been mentioned only that different colour primers were used (Which is NEVER a valid way of checking) then dry firing all 6 chambers is the only way to do to show the rounds are inert.

My point is that there is in this instance no way to visually check the rounds are live or dummy.

In which case there should have been no live rounds on set.
The armourer should have been in control of the ammunition from the start, ie providing the dummy rounds.

However there is the suggestion that PDQ(?) provided the ammunition. In which case the armourer should have test fired *EVERY* round before boxing up the ammunition to go to the location.

The live rounds got into the chain somewhere. The point they got into the chain is very important.
If some one other than the armourer intorduced live rounds that is malicious intent. Especially if they were introduced after checks.
This person may have only intended for a round to be fired when the amourer, AD or Actor "dry" fired the rounds on set ding the safety check. Thereby causing a fuss to highlight the other issues raised in the days before the accident.
OTOH it might have been due to incompetence at PDQ or by the Armourer.

As noted by others the production was not well run in some areas and there were gripes from the crew and cutting of corners.

 

[Doug Bee]

Ok. So you actually have never worked with a narrative drama amorer. Everything you know is what you e read in this thread and from your own experiences working non-narrative drama with non narrative scenarios, much less in the US.

Good to know where you are coming from.

You really want the idiotic conspiracy theories to have oxygen and I find it kind of disgusting and a distraction.

If you truly knew US drama conventions for working with firearms you would know none of these scenarios would ever fly.

And of course live ammunition has no place being on set ever.

 

[morgan_moore]

If doesnt matter if a Chinook flew in from Afghan landed and dumped the rounds in boxes out the back door.

The armouer should assume every round is live and only forward ones they could be sure were not.

If they were not in a position to check using thier skills and equipment with 100% certainly then round is binned.

 

[JAMedia]

The 1st ad and actor should have refused a handover without being told it was safe.

Err..... They were told it was safe...

In the actors position how would you have determined if the pistol was safe, or not?

I can only trust the professional crew member is doing their job when they say it is safe.

Which is exactly what the AD and Actor did.
However everyone else here is saying the AD and the Actor should have both dry fired all 6 chambers at the handover.
I would agree with that as I can't see any visual check to tell live and dummy rounds apart in this situation.