Also, IIRC he was the producer or something as well as an actor, so he was the firearms handler’s boss and ultimately in charge of everything including on-set safety to begin with.
As a producer in the same movie he also has a duty to make sure the weapon master knows what they’re doing. Again I’m not saying he’s the only one responsible, but to me the buck stops with the guy who pulled the trigger.
On set heirarchy exists for a reason and that reason has resulted in only two gun related deaths since 1993 despite being the mostly widely used weapon in all of cinema.
Not shooting his coworkers, for starters.
Also, IIRC he was the producer or something as well as an actor, so he was the firearms handler’s boss and ultimately in charge of everything including on-set safety to begin with.
As an actor in the same movie hes not allowed to adjust weaponry on set or his whole production would be uninsurable.
The weaponmaster is where the buck stops.
As a producer in the same movie he also has a duty to make sure the weapon master knows what they’re doing. Again I’m not saying he’s the only one responsible, but to me the buck stops with the guy who pulled the trigger.
It doesnt matter what you think.
On set heirarchy exists for a reason and that reason has resulted in only two gun related deaths since 1993 despite being the mostly widely used weapon in all of cinema.
Well yeah, he did. The person is a credentialed expert, and he delegated all responsibilities to that person.