Live ammo on film set?

[womble]

So can we strap him to a chair and electrocute him now

[cz515]

Can I go see it.... ill pay money

Hang on are taking about Trump getting electrocuted right

[bladeracer]

So can we strap him to a chair and electrocute him now

Sounds good to me, that's what he'd be baying for if it were one of us

I really can't see any possible way he can avoid at least some degree of culpability for this. He had a firearm, he aimed it at a person, he pulled the trigger - none of those actions are anybody else's fault but his. It's not relevant where the firearm or the ammo came from, who handled the firearm beforehand, or who was in charge of safety. Those things will be relevant during civil litigation for sure.

With the information that has already come to light, I haven't seen himself or any witness or supporter claim that he didn't fire the shot.
And I don't think any evidence can explain how a live round was able to be in the firearm, without him being negligent in at least some way.

If somebody else mixed up the blanks with live rounds, his _required_ inspection during loading would've showed it.
If he screwed that up somehow, how the bullet hitting somebody while he was deliberately aiming the firearm away from them occurred is extremely difficult to explain - a ricochet perhaps? Still his responsibility not to be aiming at a surface that could cause a ricochet, even of blank fragments.

There is one thing I have seen missed in the discussions of the safe handling requirements broadly used on sets across the world that does concern me.
Mixing of dummy rounds and blanks in the _same_ firearm used in different takes is stupid, and likely negligent. A dummy round is a complete cartridge minus the powder and primer. Probably used hundreds or thousands of times before. Using dummy rounds in a firearm carries the inherent risk of a bullet coming adrift and dropping into the bore. Anybody that has measured the lands in a firearm knows that it doesn't require very much pressure at all for the rifling to retain the bullet. It's a possibility as I have not seen anybody include in the safety checks, ensuring that the dummies are removed _and inspected_ before being re-stored. It's possible they just dump the chambers straight into a bucket without looking for empty case mouths, or visually inspecting that the bore is clear before a firearm is loaded with anything (I have seen mention of inspecting the chamber but nobody so far has mentioned bore inspection as a safety protocol). Using that same firearm in another scene but with live blanks is exactly the same as loading a live round in the first chamber (I have never heard of a bullet remaining in a cylinder chamber, but I guess that's possible also). The culpability is still going to come down on him as he is one of the "brass" in charge of ensuring his staff are doing the right thing, but such a situation _might_ reduce the severity of the manslaughter charge, perhaps.

Something Schneider mentioned that made my jaw drop, was that often blanks use "fired" primers "so you can see they've been struck". I'm sure all of us have experienced a "dud" round at least once, where a primer is indented but does not ignite. Often, simply hitting the primer again is enough to fire it, that's why many firearms allow re-cocking without extracting the current cartridge, as with double-action semi-autos. Seeing a dimple in a primer is no guarantee that that primer is actually inert. If an armourer is depriming and resizing his "fired" blanks, a "fired but live" primer is dumped into the primer bucket with a dimple in it...where it is likely to then be recovered and used to make the next round of dummies... You now have a "dummy" with a bullet and a live primer, but no powder, more than sufficient to lodge a bullet into the bore, if the bore is not inspected before it is next loaded, but also insignificant enough that it might not be noticed by an actor "firing" the dummies during a noisy scene - it's not uncommon for extremely experienced shooters to miss a primer squib occasionally and launch another bullet down the tube behind it.

Both of these situations have occurred on sets in the past already, so I really would've thought they would be high on the list of safety protocols. Perhaps they are but people being interview simply haven't mentioned them?

[bladeracer]

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. - In a new search warrant filed Wednesday, it's clear not all safety protocols were followed on the "Rust" set.

According to the warrant, the movie's assistant director David Halls told investigators safety protocol on set requires him to check the barrel for obstructions. The armorer, Hannah Gutierrez, opens the hatch and spins the drum, before he says "cold gun" on set.

Halls said when Gutierrez showed him the gun before rehearsal, he could only remember seeing three rounds and admitted he should've checked all of them – but didn't – and could not recall if she spun the drum.

https://www.kob.com/albuquerque-news/wa ... 3/?cat=500

Responsibility falls on the Armourer and Assistant director, quit reading from the Woke media and you might learn something

That does not in any way absolve the actor for the shooting. It's the same as how laws prevent crimes, they do not, never have and never will, they only allow prosecution of the person that committed the crime.

[Bill]

No one is disputing who was holding the pistol during rehearsal where AB was required to draw the pistol and point it at the camera, what crime did he commit Bladeracer ? did the scene require him to pull the trigger ? let the Police and FBI do there job

[bladeracer]

No one is disputing who was holding the pistol during rehearsal where AB was required to draw the pistol and point it at the camera, what crime did he commit Bladeracer ? did the scene require him to pull the trigger ? let the Police and FBI do there job

The crime I'm assuming would be manslaughter or negligent homicide, but I'm sure he knows people that can foist it all onto somebody else.

I don't believe anybody is trying to prevent authorities from doing their investigation.
It wouldn't make any difference at all whether the scene required firing the gun...except that if it didn't then a live gun shouldn't have even been on the set...
This is just a discussion among a group of concerned firearm owners in case you hadn't noticed?

[Oldbloke]

Can I just comment.

1. We only know what we have seen on social media and news sources. Both often get it wrong.

1.1. The info available generally changes with time.

2. It's USA. Laws are not the same as AU. Don't assume.

3. I'm still surprised the cops are investigating a workplace death. But see (2) above. And just as surprised that live rounds were on set at all.

4. First reports are rarely very accurate, will find out more in the fullness of time as the investigation continues.

Just a comment. Correct and precise term is "inert" not "dummy". But I am being pedantic.

[bladeracer]

Can I just comment.

1. We only know what we have seen on social media and news sources. Both often get it wrong.

1.1. The info available generally changes with time.

2. It's USA. Laws are not the same as AU. Don't assume.

3. I'm still surprised the cops are investigating a workplace death. But see (2) above. And just as surprised that live rounds were on set at all.

4. First reports are rarely very accurate, will find out more in the fullness of time as the investigation continues.

Just a comment. Correct and precise term is "inert" not "dummy". But I am being pedantic.

All very good points.
Not convinced re inert and dummy though. Inert simply means ordnance that has been rendered safe. Dummy ordnance has been manufactured as dummy ammunition, generally for a purpose, either display or function testing. A good example is a snap cap which is not "inert" as it was never "nert" to begin with, it's a dummy or fake version of actual ammunition. A hand grenade with the filling removed and the fuse and detonator (two separate systems) removed is an inert grenade. A replica body that has been cast and had an inert trigger fitted to it is not inert, it is a replica as it was never an actual grenade. That's my take anyway

It's similar to people using projectile instead of bullet. A projectile refers to _anything_ that is projected into a ballistic flight (not powered or guided). A bullet is a specific design of projectile used in firearms. Bullet manufacturers make bullets, not projectiles.

[cz515]

Don't go into projectile or bullet or ammo argument

[bladeracer]

Don't go into projectile or bullet or ammo argument

Yes, I know

[Bill]

No one is disputing who was holding the pistol during rehearsal where AB was required to draw the pistol and point it at the camera, what crime did he commit Bladeracer ? did the scene require him to pull the trigger ? let the Police and FBI do there job

The crime I'm assuming would be manslaughter or negligent homicide, but I'm sure he knows people that can foist it all onto somebody else.

I don't believe anybody is trying to prevent authorities from doing their investigation.
It wouldn't make any difference at all whether the scene required firing the gun...except that if it didn't then a live gun shouldn't have even been on the set...
This is just a discussion among a group of concerned firearm owners in case you hadn't noticed?

Why was the gun still loaded after being checked by 2 people........ it was only a rehearsal after all.

Concerned lol you're walkin talkin raffle book

[Die Judicii]

This is just a discussion among a group of concerned firearm owners in case you hadn't noticed?

Why was the gun still loaded after being checked by 2 people........ it was only a rehearsal after all.

Concerned lol you're walkin talkin raffle book

This is after all a public forum,, and everyone is entitled to have their opinion without being attacked for it.

Haven't you got something better and maybe constructive to do.

[womble]

Objection, enoughgun court is in session.
And freakin Bill keeps deadlocking our jury.
Until we convince him otherwise we will not have a unanimous verdict on Alec’s fate.
No i don’t have better things to do. This is important.

[straightshooter]

Womble
As the comments on this thread become evermore fatuous it becomes unrealistic to think that any minds will ever change.
Although it does tend to differentiate the thinkers from the stinkers.

[bladeracer]

Objection, enoughgun court is in session.
And freakin Bill keeps deadlocking our jury.
Until we convince him otherwise we will not have a unanimous verdict on Alec’s fate.
No i don’t have better things to do. This is important.

If I agreed with Bill's opinion - which is that this death lies at the hands of somebody other than the shooter, anybody _except_ the shooter - he would again declare me to be crazy, and I would have to agree with him on that also. I think it's safer for everybody's mental health to ignore him

If you do decide to venture down to the shallow end of the pool to play with these types, you can always come back to the deep end for safe respite

[Bill]

Objection, enoughgun court is in session.
And freakin Bill keeps deadlocking our jury.
Until we convince him otherwise we will not have a unanimous verdict on Alec’s fate.
No i don’t have better things to do. This is important.

Hell the how did we get to the jury so quickly

I suspect the testimony of bladeracer the so called expert would have already been struck out

here is a real armorers opinion on the what really goes on with dummies rounds and blanks on set

" Dummy rounds in the industry look like live rounds. They have the lead tip. However, they contain no gun powder and the primer in the back is inert."

" In place of the powder, in a dummy round a single BB is placed inside. When you shake them you know. Also, the primer on the back is a piece of machined solid brass. These look the part but do not fire. They are sourced from the prop house or armory. On a Western set, they are everywhere. All of the gun belts are stacked with 15 to 25 rounds.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ ... 142800001/

[Bill]

I'll leave this here so our resident in the deep end eggspurt can pull his opinion apart.

Richard Collins owns more than 1,000 machine guns and 4,000 other firearms.

He stores his massive collection in two safes. Each is 1,000 square feet – the doors weigh 5,000 pounds.

Collins is president of Movie Armaments Group. Founded 40 years ago, MAG supplies guns, tactical gear, uniforms, military equipment and lashings of expertise to the film industry. All of his armorers are veterans of elite police and/or military units.

Some of the films he’s worked on include: “Suicide Squad,” “Total Recall,” “Robocop,” and “xXx,” with Vin Diesel.

https://armedamericannews.org/movie-arm ... ing-death/

[straightshooter]

Well Bill, so what.
You are confusing vicarious liability with physical perpetration of an act.
Also you might be oblivious to the fact that in most states of the US a position of DA or AG is a political stepping stone enhanced by high profile convictions.

[Bill]

straightshooter Im just going thru the fact here, no confusion here.

Oblivious LOL I was the first to even mention the Democrat AG who ran unopposed for the position, she is a grass roots type AG who wants to make a difference in her community, Id suggest you arm yourself with some facts and look at the Drug and violence diversionary programs she is setting up in the local NM courts.

It might pay to do some research before using a big word like OBLIVIOUS next time

[straightshooter]

Bill
Thankyou for that hagiography on the NM AG which however seems superfluous to the point of the discussion.
Pity you prefer to be triggered by a single word instead of comprehending a whole sentence.
Now what is it you are you suggesting without reference to well established case law.
1. He,She,It does not have any political aspirations
2. That Political blood is thicker than water
3. That Progressive(?), Green, Laber left types won't 'eat their own' to get ahead.
I am confused.

[Die Judicii]

Bill
Pity you prefer to be triggered by a single word instead of comprehending a whole sentence.

[Bill]

Bill
Thankyou for that hagiography on the NM AG which however seems superfluous to the point of the discussion.
Pity you prefer to be triggered by a single word instead of comprehending a whole sentence.
Now what is it you are you suggesting without reference to well established case law.
1. He,She,It does not have any political aspirations
2. That Political blood is thicker than water
3. That Progressive(?), Green, Laber left types won't 'eat their own' to get ahead.
I am confused.

Straight shooter you seems to be going off in all directions, bring some facts to the topic and try and leave the fancy words out.....Hagiography WTF

The discussion is about liability, are Criminal charges likely or will it end up as a Civil suit, and who's in the firing line, its not hard to follow.

For a criminal case, you're going to need some sort of actual intent, criminal negligence or gross negligence. That's more than an actor pointing a gun during a rehearsal.

[bladeracer]

Bill
Thankyou for that hagiography on the NM AG which however seems superfluous to the point of the discussion.
Pity you prefer to be triggered by a single word instead of comprehending a whole sentence.
Now what is it you are you suggesting without reference to well established case law.
1. He,She,It does not have any political aspirations
2. That Political blood is thicker than water
3. That Progressive(?), Green, Laber left types won't 'eat their own' to get ahead.
I am confused.

Straight shooter you seems to be going off in all directions, bring some facts to the topic and try and leave the fancy words out.....Hagiography WTF

The discussion is about liability, are Criminal charges likely or will it end up as a Civil suit, and who's in the firing line, its not hard to follow.

For a criminal case, you're going to need some sort of actual intent, criminal negligence or gross negligence. That's more than an actor pointing a gun during a rehearsal.

What world do live in where deliberately shooting people is not negligent?

[Lsfan]

If the movie was being made on a tight budget and the sole responsibility of safety is on the actor, why did they bother with an armourer at all?

[womble]

Because the movie requires Alec to handle and operate guns. Product placement to market and promote particular makes and models of guns perhaps helps fund the production.
However Alec dose’nt have any knowledge or respect for guns. And he dose’nt want to know. Therefore we hire people to take responsibility for him.
In a worst case scenario we have a ready made patsy and media release ready to go, because Alec is a VIP and the rules don’t apply to him.
Alec is the asset with value here. Without him there is no box office return. He is the brand and the image that must not be sullied. He has a status that allows to him to live free of consequence. He has minders and fixers to handle anything and everything.
The question is are there any limitations on this. Probably not for the right price.

[bladeracer]

If the movie was being made on a tight budget and the sole responsibility of safety is on the actor, why did they bother with an armourer at all?

Where did anybody suggest the actor is solely responsible for safety?
The actor _is_ solely responsible for where the firearm is pointed, and for pulling the trigger, both of which lead to a death. Nobody else is responsible for either of those essential actions.

[Oldbloke]

If the movie was being made on a tight budget and the sole responsibility of safety is on the actor, why did they bother with an armourer at all?

Budgets for monies do not change legal responsibilities. They might in B grade monies but certainly NOT in real life while making such movie.

Governments make and implement law. No company EVER changes the law. They can think, say or write what they like (and they do) but they simply do not change it.

[Oldbloke]

If the movie was being made on a tight budget and the sole responsibility of safety is on the actor, why did they bother with an armourer at all?

Where did anybody suggest the actor is solely responsible for safety?
The actor _is_ solely responsible for where the firearm is pointed, and for pulling the trigger, both of which lead to a death. Nobody else is responsible for either of those essential actions.

Although that sounds logical I wouldn't be so sure. This is a movie set in the US. Not AU. They hire an armourer for a reason.

[bladeracer]

If the movie was being made on a tight budget and the sole responsibility of safety is on the actor, why did they bother with an armourer at all?

Where did anybody suggest the actor is solely responsible for safety?
The actor _is_ solely responsible for where the firearm is pointed, and for pulling the trigger, both of which lead to a death. Nobody else is responsible for either of those essential actions.

Although that sounds logical I wouldn't be so sure. This is a movie set in the US. Not AU. They hire an armourer for a reason.

If that reason is to be the scapegoat to protect a very expensive actor, I would agree with you, although I can't see it working in this case, not unless they shovel the armourer a whole lot of money to take the fall.

[Bill]

You seem triggered by Baldwin bladeracer, try an look at it objectively. Imagine a 17 yr old Actress was the one who was rehearsing and she was the one who pulled the trigger.....