So you don't have a source? Well I can assure you, wherever you read that, it was not credible.
After all, NO GUNS were to be used while in the absence of the armorer for ANY scene. Therefore even I the wild scenario that they were "practicing a scene" (even though cameras weren't even rolling), the fact that they used a firearm without the armorer's presence shows complete and utter disregard for even the most basic level of gun safety on a movie set.
I get that. I also read the assistant director took the gun and walked it over to alec baldwin. Ultimate gun safety would require hannah then to walk the gun to the actor to prevent any switching of bullets into the chamber during the walk AND for any other guns to be under lock and key so no one could tamper with remaining weapons and bullets during the transfer of weapons. However, I do believe defendants will rightfully argue that all crew accepted some level of responsibility for remaining on a set that exhibited repeated gun safety violations because they all knew someone could get killed by the gross lack of gun safety previously having previously occurred on this set. Everyone witnessed a walk out due to safety. It was a buyer's beware situation after that point and a proceed at your own risk type deal then. It was the same risk walking onto a firing range or war zone with no rules. How could any adult justify remaining with no responsibility for their own lack of self care?
I'm not sure who's side you're arguing for now, but Hannah Gutierrez Reed (the armorer) is suing Alec Baldwin so she is NOT accepting responsibility for the tragedy.
I read it somewhere. And a new director might give such instruction thinking it will provide a dramatic shot if audience looking down gun barrel.
So you don't have a source? Well I can assure you, wherever you read that, it was not credible.
After all, NO GUNS were to be used while in the absence of the armorer for ANY scene. Therefore even I the wild scenario that they were "practicing a scene" (even though cameras weren't even rolling), the fact that they used a firearm without the armorer's presence shows complete and utter disregard for even the most basic level of gun safety on a movie set.
I get that. I also read the assistant director took the gun and walked it over to alec baldwin. Ultimate gun safety would require hannah then to walk the gun to the actor to prevent any switching of bullets into the chamber during the walk AND for any other guns to be under lock and key so no one could tamper with remaining weapons and bullets during the transfer of weapons. However, I do believe defendants will rightfully argue that all crew accepted some level of responsibility for remaining on a set that exhibited repeated gun safety violations because they all knew someone could get killed by the gross lack of gun safety previously having previously occurred on this set. Everyone witnessed a walk out due to safety. It was a buyer's beware situation after that point and a proceed at your own risk type deal then. It was the same risk walking onto a firing range or war zone with no rules. How could any adult justify remaining with no responsibility for their own lack of self care?
I'm not sure who's side you're arguing for now, but Hannah Gutierrez Reed (the armorer) is suing Alec Baldwin so she is NOT accepting responsibility for the tragedy.