Although, do you think the star of the movie actually put whatever rounds there were onto the belt?Wow. Maybe he'll actually face some kind of penalty for what he did with that kind of evidence.
I wouldn't think so.
Although, do you think the star of the movie actually put whatever rounds there were onto the belt?Wow. Maybe he'll actually face some kind of penalty for what he did with that kind of evidence.
Although, do you think the star of the movie actually put whatever rounds there were onto the belt?
I wouldn't think so.
Why wasn't the 'prop gun' an actual 'prop gun' rather than a functional/real firearm?
Because typically Hollywood uses real firearms with quarter-load blanks as prop guns.
GZ,
Oh...OK.
Thanks!
There shouldn't have even been blanks in the gun unless the scene requires shooting and if it did the crew wouldn't have been set up like they were.
My understanding is that it was loaded with "dummy rounds" rather than blanks because the camera shot was to be done from the front(ish) and you would be able to see the crimped or wax filled nose of a blank. With dummy loads bullets are seated, but there is no powder, and they have something like #9 shot inside so that they can be tested by the armorer before loading by shaking the round. Also in some cases they have a hole drilled in the side of the case that can be checked by the armorer. Therein lies the liability for whoever loaded that gun. If it was indeed the gal, she is in big trouble.
Baldwin relied on the statement by Hall that it was a cold gun... IMO that does not totally relieve him of responsibility for holding the trigger back and then letting the hammer fly while the firearm was pointed at a living being.
Again, he has liability both as an actor and as a producer that had authority over the set.
Beyond the unsafe conditions, the gal armorer was not present for the rehearsal because Baldwin insisted on doing it while she was on break, which deprived her of the opportunity to double check the safety of the firearm.
Don't ask for links, this is just what I remember reading a long time ago. Links are long gone.
This is my memory of events as well. You know, if this had been any of us we would already be doing our 10 year minimum. I am going to be very curious to see how this ends.Your memory of the matter matches mine.
Also, if I recall, nobody is supposed to handle the firearms on set except the armorer and the actor the gun is handed to. So taking it from the assistant director while the armorer isn't even present and taking his word for it that the gun is "cold"...is more of a demonstration of the lax safety protocols on set. Which Baldwin is responsible for as producer.
Also, it was mentioned several times that crew members would use the "prop" guns for target shooting after hours. So plenty of opportunity there to mix real ammo with dummy rounds.
You know, if this had been any of us we would already be doing our 10 year minimum.
Probably need to add racist and a few of clinton's labels as well.Yep. And we'd be branded as domestic terrorists to boot.
IIRC, due to low level funding of the movie, Hall was also hired as an asst armorer in addition to being asst director.
No suprise there!Charges dropped against Baldwin.
Alec Baldwin’s charges dropped in ‘Rust’ shooting case, attorneys say
Prosecutors said "new facts" surfaced in recent days that require additional investigation and forensic analysis.www.nbcnews.com
Charges dropped against Baldwin.
Alec Baldwin’s charges dropped in ‘Rust’ shooting case, attorneys say
Prosecutors said "new facts" surfaced in recent days that require additional investigation and forensic analysis.www.nbcnews.com