Don't know if it's something like The Crow where crew members brought live rounds to be modified into blanks and dummy bullets to save time and money, only to have a bullet lodged into the barrel.
You'd have to be a total dickhead to have live rounds on set.
Have you seen the armorer?
share
Have you seen the armorer?
Yep. Her father is an Ex Marine or something but she just looks like a kid playing at it. I also read she was using the guns to plink cans so she probably had them loaded with live rounds and forgot all about checking them. Still, she is female so it probably looked good to hire her.
shareThe bullet store. Supposedly one of the prop suppliers had boxes of live rounds.
shareI read somewhere that the props people brought live rounds on the set and were just using them for target practice in their spare time.
shareThis is correct. Somebody, and nobody ever said who, was using the antique Colt .45 for target practice during some downtime. So we don't know who was misusing the gun, we don't know why there real bullets around, whether they were needed for filming or someone brought their own so they could play with a collector's-item gun.
We do know that the gun wasn't checked well enough by the people who were supposed to check it, and we do know that the gun was left lying out in the open instead of being locked in a gun safe as it would have been on a reputable production. But we don't know if that was the armorer being negligent, or if the film's producers (including Baldlwin) hadn't bothered to pay for a gun safe.
Not an antique Colt but a brand new Pietta.
shareDoesn't make any difference, the issue is that all the normal safety protocols were ignored on the set of "Rust". On a well-run set any gun that could fire a real bullet would be locked in a gun safe when it wasn't needed on camera, and nobody would be allowed to play with it or put real bullets in it.
I'm afraid that the armorer is going to pay all the legal penalties for this shit. Yes, she was negligent, but she wasn't negligent all by herself, she worked for producers who had decided to ignore normal film industry safety standards, and to keep using a real gun that had misfired once. The negligence went all the way to the top, but what are the odds that the people at the top who are primarily responsible will escape penalty. Rich people usually do.
were just using them for target practice in their spare time.
How fucking stupid is that?
Is that being touted as some kind of excuse?
Thats like saying "Yes , on my break time in the gunpowder factory I practice a bit of my flaming torch juggling circus act"
Maybe its hindsight , as we've all been thinking of the many many ways this accident could have been avoided , but NO LIVE ROUNDS has to be the easiest and most effective thing to have as "Rule one"
I think George clooney said in his experience that has been rule one on films he worked on , when he commented on the accident.
'Rust' armorer blames Alec Baldwin for fatal shooting because he failed to attend a 'cross draw' training session in lawsuit against firm she claims supplied live ammo not fake bullets
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10396489/Rust-armorer-blames-Alec-Baldwin-fatal-shooting-lawsuit-against-firm-supplied-bullets.html
I understand the Armorer has just initiated a lawsuit against the company providing munitions. Pretty stupid move, if you ask me, even if live rounds did get into the batch it is the job of the armorer to ensure the safety of the weapons.
shareNot that black & white.
share
Figure she knows her career's already over, so she might as well try to squeeze a few dollars out of her soon-to-be-former colleagues.
It is exactly that black-and-white. Everyone in the chain of handling the gun, from the armorer to Baldwin, and anyone in between, was responsible for checking to see if it was loaded, and if so, what it was loaded with. It really is just that simple. It doesn't matter what the munitions company supplied, or what fool brought live ammo onto the set. If the armorer had done her very easy job, nobody would ever have been hurt. If Baldwin had checked the gun, as the most basic rules of firearms handling say he should have, nobody would have been hurt. Overcomplicating it is ridiculous.
shareIn the explanation you've just given the armourer doesent actually have a job.
if :
" Everyone in the chain of handling the gun, from the armorer to Baldwin, and anyone in between"
is responsible for checking the gun , what does the armourer actually do?
also if thats true it should be cut and dried baldwins fault and no one else has any resposibility as he handled the gun last.
No, it isn't. There were multiple failures but there also isn't supposed to be a "chain". There are a lot of unanswered questions and a lot of details that point to more responsibility on Baldwin, other than pulling the trigger. We have two separate stories about the source of the live ammo.
shareIn America !? Beats me.
What are you talking about??? In The Crow, they used dummies with live primers, rather than inert primers. Which causes a "squib", enough to dislodge the bullet from the case and send it into the bore but not enough to exit the barrel. The next blank fired launched the bullet at enough velocity to kill Brandon Lee.
share