Alec Baldwin fatally shoots woman with prop gun on movie set

[Roar87]

The old story of untrained people who aren't gun people. They are too relaxed with something potentially fatal. I've been a member of shooting clubs for 40 years, not one accident because the safety aspect is taken seriously. It's always loaded, even when you know it's not. Bet there will be some law suits flying around, obvious case of negligence imo.

Exactly what I thought

 

[dowie]

Obviously in this case the process didn't work and things went wrong and admittedly I'm posting in a state of ignorance about the legality of how this should happen. However, I do wonder about the repeated assertions in this thread that an actor should mess about with a prop and check it before using it on set, particularly opening up an apparent firearm and playing with the ammo. If there is an established health & safety and insurance approved process (e.g. the armourer declares the status of the relevant prop and gives it to the director, who hands it to the actor confirming how it is to be used for this scene) is it really the responsibility of the actor to say "Hang on guys, I'm just going to take out the ammo for a look before we start". Might that not require the director or armourer to take the prop back and start the process again, as it had been interfered with since they declared it safe?

If that isn't practical then surely you adjust the process - i.e. you witness the armourer showing you it's safe along with the AD.

It does seem ridiculous as a general point that firearms are treated as some mythical thing that it would be unreasonable for an actor to be trained to use competently and handle safely, especially given the amount of training actors go through in other areas. I think for plenty of people with some familiarity of firearms it just seems beyond the pale that you could have one in your hand and not know for sure what state it is in and then go ahead and point it at someone/pull the trigger.

I mean if we took a more common area like driving a car, would we think it was reckless for an actor to drive a car on a movie set if he or she didn't have a driving license/hadn't been trained to competently and safely operate a car.

It doens't seem like it is necessarily that slack in other productions, according to various posts on social media from movie industry people weapons safety should be a concern for everyone, actors should be shown a firearm is safe not just take someone's word for it (see comments form local 44 members etc..). Several people were to blame here, all three failed to ensure that weapon was safe.

This seems relevant too:

If that is the process for their production, yes. It's not standard practice for handling firearms though. You're in charge of it, it's your responsibility. I can't see how they'd get insured if they weren't properly trained, I wouldn't touch them without it. The details will really determine who was culpable.

Given what has been reported so far I wonder if the insurance company might have some objections to paying out over this issue if they have been negligent etc..

 

[Mr Badger]

If that is the process for their production, yes. It's not standard practice for handling firearms though. You're in charge of it, it's your responsibility. I can't see how they'd get insured if they weren't properly trained, I wouldn't touch them without it. The details will really determine who was culpable.

If the actor knows that they are firing a "real" working gun then that puts a certain perspective on it. But what if there was no reason for the actor to have any expectation of being given an actual fully functioning firearm with real bullets in it on set? I would think that is actually an extremely rare occurrence and that they would normally be given a non functioning prop for most scenes and only one capable of firing blanks if and when the specific take required it.

 

[VincentHanna]

If the actor knows that they are firing a "real" working gun then that puts a certain perspective on it. But what if there was no reason for the actor to have any expectation of being given an actual fully functioning firearm with real bullets in it on set? I would think that is actually an extremely rare occurrence and that they would normally be given a non functioning prop for most scenes and only one capable of firing blanks if and when the specific take required it.

Yes, for me this is the key thing

When would a movie set ever use live rounds? they use squibs for bullet 'hits'

One of the most famous scenes in a movie of bullets shooting up something is Predator when they fire in to the jungle, but even that used blanks and nobody was allowed within 50ft of 'Ol Painless' (the minigun) when it was being used.

 

[dowie]

If the actor knows that they are firing a "real" working gun then that puts a certain perspective on it. But what if there was no reason for the actor to have any expectation of being given an actual fully functioning firearm with real bullets in it on set? I would think that is actually an extremely rare occurrence and that they would normally be given a non functioning prop for most scenes and only one capable of firing blanks if and when the specific take required it.

That might be more applicable in the case of a relatively new actor rather than one that is also the EP & co-writer and is in charge of the whole production/owns the production company.

But probs best, in general, to assume that any firearm is dangerous and to know for yourself that it is safe especially if it is some situation where has to be pointed at people (something that seems a bit dubious in terms of necessity in this case).

 

[Hades]

If the actor knows that they are firing a "real" working gun then that puts a certain perspective on it. But what if there was no reason for the actor to have any expectation of being given an actual fully functioning firearm with real bullets in it on set? I would think that is actually an extremely rare occurrence and that they would normally be given a non functioning prop for most scenes and only one capable of firing blanks if and when the specific take required it.

I'm no expert but I've read and heard in several places that procedures for live and blank rounds are the same (or very similar). Blanks can also kill and there is the risk it might not be loaded with a blank.

 

[Mr Badger]

If that isn't practical then surely you adjust the process - i.e. you witness the armourer showing you it's safe along with the AD.

It does seem ridiculous as a general point that firearms are treated as some mythical thing that it would be unreasonable for an actor to be trained to use competently and handle safely, especially given the amount of training actors go through in other areas. I think for plenty of people with some familiarity of firearms it just seems beyond the pale that you could have one in your hand and not know for sure what state it is in and then go ahead and point it at someone/pull the trigger.

I mean if we took a more common area like driving a car, would we think it was reckless for an actor to drive a car on a movie set if he or she didn't have a driving license/hadn't been trained to competently and safely operate a car.

It doens't seem like it is necessarily that slack in other productions, according to various posts on social media from movie industry people weapons safety should be a concern for everyone, actors should be shown a firearm is safe not just take someone's word for it (see comments form local 44 members etc..). Several people were to blame here, all three failed to ensure that weapon was safe.

This seems relevant too:

It's a fair point. Until now I didn't realise that people in movies really had to know how to fly a spaceship, drive a racing car, operate on a patient, play a musical instrument etc. and was under the mistaken belief that they employed something called "acting" to pretend to have these skills combined with movie making tricks to make this appear to be the case on screen.

It seems entirely possible that the process would assume that the actor is dumb and must follow the instructions of those with the accredited knowledge (such as the armourer) and the responsibility for the set (such as the director). Happy to acknowledge otherwise if it turns out there is an express expectation that actors check every prop they are given before using it.

 

[dowie]

It's a fair point. Until now I didn't realise that people in movies really had to know how to fly a spaceship, drive a racing car, operate on a patient, play a musical instrument etc. and was under the mistaken belief that they employed something called "acting" to pretend to have these skills combined with movie making tricks to make this appear to be the case on screen.

Do you not grasp that this was a real firearm and that someone died?

Do you think that they use a real spaceship or are really operating on a patient in those cases? Making actual incisions etc..?

Can you not see the obvious difference there?

I even threw in an analogy of driving a real car for you - should actors know how to drive a car safely if they have to use a real one (complete with working engine etc..) on set? Or can they just ignore that because "acting" etc..?

It seems entirely possible that the process would assume that the actor is dumb and must follow the instructions of those with the accredited knowledge (such as the armourer) and the responsibility for the set (such as the director). Happy to acknowledge otherwise if it turns out there is an express expectation that actors check every prop they are given before using it.

It's not just a prop though, it's like you didn't even read what was posted - they could ask to be shown that the firearm is safe if that is more practical to do. Being trained in the use of firearms if you're going to be using them on a movie set is not equivalent to learning how to perform surgery or how to fly a spacecraft!

18 year old infantry recruits with a reading age of 11 can learn how to safely handle firearms in their first few weeks of training, surgery tends to require a few years of medical school etc..

 

[Rroff]

operate on a patient

Wait they are really operating on real people in movies? all this time I thought they used dummies and fake wounds.

 

[dowie]

Wait they are really operating on real people in movies? all this time I thought they used dummies and fake wounds.

I'm still blown away by the fact they use real spacecraft!

 

[V F]

Reckon the trust will be shaky on movie sets here on out for firearms, or will it pass?

 

[R.P.L]

Reckon the trust will be shaky on movie sets here on out for firearms, or will it pass?

Complacency will set in again soon enough.

 

[Feek]

When they came back from lunch, a creeping shadow prompted the camera to be moved to a different angle, Russell said in the affidavit. As Baldwin was explaining how he was going to draw his gun and where his arm would be when he pulled the gun from the holster, it discharged, Russell said.

That's an ND.

 

[Greebo]

ND?

 

[Hades]

ND?

I'm guessing he means negligent discharge.

 

[Dis86]

Loving the utter brain diarrhoea from Mr badger there

 

[Mint8]

This is starting to scream out deliberate sabotage if live rounds weren't meant to be on set and there was oppurtunity for someone to load them into guns without anyone noticing.

More likely safety around the guns was generally lacking. Some crew were dicking around between takes firing live rounds out the back and one of those guns found its way back onto set. A combination of poor safety, a young inexperienced armourer, negligent AD and good ol American high spirits/bravado.

 

[Quartz]

Reckon the trust will be shaky on movie sets here on out for firearms, or will it pass?

I have read that there's been a perspex screen in front of crew to protect them from the wads fired by blank rounds. Obviously a bullet will go straight through that. So I expect that those screens will be upgraded to bulletproof glass.

TLDW: it will stop an elephant rifle.

 

[Roar87]

It's a fair point. Until now I didn't realise that people in movies really had to know how to fly a spaceship, drive a racing car, operate on a patient, play a musical instrument etc. and was under the mistaken belief that they employed something called "acting" to pretend to have these skills combined with movie making tricks to make this appear to be the case on screen.

It seems entirely possible that the process would assume that the actor is dumb and must follow the instructions of those with the accredited knowledge (such as the armourer) and the responsibility for the set (such as the director). Happy to acknowledge otherwise if it turns out there is an express expectation that actors check every prop they are given before using it.

Yeah you never see actors take extensive fire arms courses or martial arts training, they literally just show up and act lol

 

[Mr Badger]

Loving the utter brain diarrhoea from Mr badger there

That someone doesn't need to be a real life expert to pretend to do something in a movie and questioning the notion that actors are obliged to check guns and ammo for themselves after being told by the accredited on set authority that they are safe?

Alec Baldwin film tragedy: What are the rules for guns on movie sets?

The responsibility for the use of guns and other weapons lies with each production's property master or armoury expert.
They secure the weapons when they are not being used and instruct actors on their proper and safe use. They also load the firearms and check them before and after each scene.

Perhaps the closest to a list of suggested rules is
that published by the Industry-Wide Labor-Management Safety Committee.

Its advice includes:

• Blanks can kill. Treat all firearms as though they are loaded
• Refrain from pointing a firearm at yourself or anyone else
• Never place your finger on the trigger unless you're ready to shoot
• Anyone involved in using a firearm must be thoroughly briefed at an on-set safety meeting
• Only a qualified person should load a firearm
• Protective shields, eye and hearing protection should be used by anyone in close proximity or the line of fire
• Any actor who is required to stand near the line of fire should be allowed to witness the loading of the firearms

But the committee points out its guidelines are "not binding laws or regulations" and, as Prof Leonard points out, its safety document appears to have been last revised in 2003.

I'm not seeing the requirement that actors are trained experts in the use of firearms and obliged to open the gun and check the ammo for themselves.