Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Scout

(8,625 posts)
22. Actors MAY do their own safety checks, but are not required to do so.
Thu Jul 11, 2024, 02:10 AM
Jul 2024

There should never even BE live ammunition on a movie set. Also he never intended to fire the gun during rehearsal of the scene, so no need for an additional safety check.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

It is a politically motivated prosecution. onecaliberal Jul 2024 #1
It's quite possible he has some civil liability, but don't really see criminal responsibility Silent Type Jul 2024 #2
IMO, he should've asked for another check before firing the gun, just to make sure sakabatou Jul 2024 #6
Agree with that, plus he has a financial interest in production that might have cut corners. Silent Type Jul 2024 #8
A case based on a might isn't likely to prevail. cstanleytech Jul 2024 #12
I believe the timing of when the gun went off moniss Jul 2024 #13
There definitely was negligence involved, maybe even criminal negligence FakeNoose Jul 2024 #18
Excellent point about the AI moniss Jul 2024 #19
Although CGI could be used, most guns in movies fire blanks sakabatou Jul 2024 #23
Actors MAY do their own safety checks, but are not required to do so. Scout Jul 2024 #22
Why was live ammo on the set in the first place? 3Hotdogs Jul 2024 #3
According to Reuters, it looks like the armorer didn't do a good enough check sakabatou Jul 2024 #5
Exactly! Woodwizard Jul 2024 #15
This is my question, too! CTyankee Jul 2024 #16
They didn't HAVE to use live rounds. Blanks and squibs would've been fine. sakabatou Jul 2024 #24
Then WHY use them? That's my question? CTyankee Jul 2024 #25
They're not. They haven't been allowed on set for decades. sakabatou Jul 2024 #26
so how did the real bullet get in the gun? Was it somehow intentional by someone in charge? CTyankee Jul 2024 #27
It could've also been negligence sakabatou Jul 2024 #28
OK, that's plausible. I wonder if this has EVER happened in filmmaking in Hollywood. All these years, all these films... CTyankee Jul 2024 #29
Negligence. The crew was using the gun for "plinking" after hours. sir pball Jul 2024 #33
Because the Armorer did not follow rules and protocol obamanut2012 Jul 2024 #31
A prosecuter wants to hang a pelt on his wall. marble falls Jul 2024 #4
The whole shebang... 2naSalit Jul 2024 #7
Don't you mean New Mexico? Hassin Bin Sober Jul 2024 #10
Nope. 2naSalit Jul 2024 #14
Ahh ok. I want to move there but my partner never would go for it. Hassin Bin Sober Jul 2024 #20
Kind of late to the party... 2naSalit Jul 2024 #21
I'm not a big fan of Mr. Baldwin. Lunabell Jul 2024 #9
Correct Ruling Roy Rolling Jul 2024 #11
Isn't the unions reason for being a union the safety of its members? How does a gun firing live ammo fit with that? CTyankee Jul 2024 #17
In my mind, that was their only way to wedge him into the charge. If he hired the incompetent Vinca Jul 2024 #30
Not LBN. nt BWdem4life Jul 2024 #32
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Judge decides Alec Baldwi...»Reply #22