Alec Baldwin fatally shoots woman with prop gun on movie set

[Brizzles]

He said 'seems rather unlikely', he isn't making a statement of fact but a logical observation. Stop saying supposition.

This whole thread is based on assumptions - no-one here knows the truth - yet plenty are ready to point the finger

 

[dowie]

Again supposition

I'm not sure what you're trying to point out here? Do you believe that when I said it seems rather likely then I'm unaware of what I meant?

Is there any reason why you've chosen to reply to me a few times by selecting just one part of the argument I replied to you with and nit-picked at that while ignoring/not acknowledging the rest of it?

This whole thread is based on assumptions - no-one here knows the truth - yet plenty are ready to point the finger

No, there were various points made based on reported facts/claims you just ignored them.

 

[Dis86]

Or in make-up, or away rereading lines, eating, resting a whole list of things, none of which includes being on set constantly

Given where the set is it's fairly normal that major staff would be based on set for the duration of filming. You're also somehow assuming that a number of significant safety issues and the walkout of crew over safety issues have escaped his notice?

 

[ttaskmaster]

No, I'd disagree slightly there there especially after two previous incidents on the same production + crew waling out, in part, over safety issues, on the same production. Good to trust, better to check!

Is it his job to check, though? Is he qualified to check? Is he a certified armourer?
If not, he could (and given this is America, probably would) be opening himself up to all kinds of liabilities.

Besides which, the previous incidents supposedly involved blanks and mishandling, and I've yet to hear whether Baldwin was even aware that these same weapons had been used (inappropriately) for live fire or that there was even a possibility that they might have been live-loaded, given that such things should never happen on such a film set.

Why wasn't the armourer and actor present together when either loading or checking that the firearm is safe? If there isn't the expectation that he can't confirm by himself (like in this case with an antique/unusual weapon relative to modern firearms) then why not have the armourer confirm/demonstrate that in his presence?

Again, that should be what happens and in this case did not.
To use your car analogy, one MoT place passes a car that should have failed, which subsequently malfunctions and kills someone. Based on the failure of those one or two individuals (MoT tester who passed the car, and the receptionist who handed over the keys), you now assert with hindsight that every individual driver should either have an MoT tester show them the car is mechanically sound each time they want to drive it, or better yet attain sufficiently certified expertise to fully assess the vehicle their own selves...

But then, this is about people who broke existing safety protocols. No amount of additional rules and regulation will stop that from happening. Train all the actors up to Navy SEAL standards, if you like... mistakes can still happen and people can still be stupid dickheads.

[armourer proceeds to just take a minute to explain there are no bullets in the drum, no caps (or if dummy ones present they're duds - perhaps demonstrate this too) etc..]

Armourer removes separate percussion caps and safely unloads several chambers of fully rammed and wadded black powder, before having to then reload all over again, wasting resources and delaying filming.... taking several minutes for every single gun on set during a 40-50 person town shootout scene, making almost 4 hours delay.

Instead, he was not told by an expert (the armourer) he was told by the AD. According to the reports so far the AD picked up the weapon (from among three weapons left lying about offset) and assumed it was safe then handed it to Baldwin, told him it was safe and he simply took his word for it then proceeded to practice a scene and in the course of doing so pointed it at someone, the armourer/expert seemingly had no part in that specific part of it. Of course, the armourer did have a part in the apparent negligent aspect of leaving the firearms unattended/unsecured and loaded with live ammunition in the first place and allowing them to be used for mucking about with live ammunition off set.

Then it is Baldwin's fault for ignoring the armourer, but still not his place to assume personal responsibility for something that isn't his job, unless he himself is actually qualified to do so... any more than it was the AD's place to do so when he proclaimed the weapon cold.

Again, you're not paying attention, in this scenario they're firing an actual firearm, the analogy is driving an actual car...

To be fair - in this analogy the real car would need to have no fuel, battery or spark plugs and be utterly incapable of starting up and driving off.... or at least, that's what the actor has been told the condition of the car is.....
But of course he's an actor, not a mechanic, and while he may be a competent driver capable of driving and refuelling a car, he is not qualified to open the engine up, remove the HT caps, strip out the tank and ascertain whether it is fuelled and plugged or not.... That's the job of the on-set mechanic over in the Transportation Department.

 

[Greebo]

Absolutely 100% agree



Absolutely 100% disagree.

He's the guy pulling the trigger, the very last link in the chain, so he still has bares some responsibility because even if he's told "it's cold" if he simply says "show me", the death doesn't happen or if he doesn't pull the trigger when the gun was specifically pointing at two people, then the death doesn't happen. It's not his individual fault alone, not by a long shot, but by the same token he also can't be fully absolved of "any" responsibility either.

I'm still not that sure if he'll actually go to court in a criminal case (I'd say he probably won't but someone - AD maybe? - will), but I'd say that he'll definitely be involved in a few civil cases over this, as both a Producer of the film and as the man pulling the trigger, directly leading to a death and an injury.

I agree with some of what you say but he didnt pull the trigger on purpose while pointing it at two people. He was practicing an cross chest draw when the gun accidently went off as he was drawing it. Where he was intending to aim was maybe away from the two people he ended up shooting.

 

[visibleman]

Seems more than likely that a conversation with the armourer...

Wasn't it reported that the props were left outside (on a cart iirc) due to Covid restrictions? If that's the case, you could assume the armourer wasn't able to talk to the actor directly....

Same situation

Got to be option one hasn't it? Armourer's and AD's fault any way.....

 

[dowie]

Is it his job to check, though? Is he qualified to check? Is he a certified armourer?
If not, he could (and given this is America, probably would) be opening himself up to all kinds of liabilities.

An armourer is though! Why can't he ask the armourer? Is the armourer not qualified?

But then, this is about people who broke existing safety protocols. No amount of additional rules and regulation will stop that from happening. Train all the actors up to Navy SEAL standards, if you like... mistakes can still happen and people can still be stupid dickheads.

But no one is arguing they should be trained up to Navy SEAL standards, the point was just about basic competency (like does the firearm really need to be pointed at someone, not in a scene, during a rehearsal? Wouldn't it be useful if an actor had at least some basic familiarity with the weapon used despite the responsibilities of others?

And the basic point that the actor should know what state a firearm is in before using it/pointing it at someone etc..

Again, good to trust better to check - that includes asking the expert: "show me" or even just a simple "did you check this" could have prevented this incident it seems.

Armourer removes separate percussion caps and safely unloads several chambers of fully rammed and wadded black powder, before having to then reload all over again, wasting resources and delaying filming.... taking several minutes for every single gun on set during a 40-50 person town shootout scene, making almost 4 hours delay.

They could load the weapon in the presence of the actor no? Though in this case the gun was supposed to be "cold" and was being used to rehearse a scene with the cinematographer present/for Baldwin to practice drawing etc..

 

[Greebo]

Nope, doesn't require hindsight when there were two previous negligent discharges on the same set with the same armourer and AD.

Also, how do you know the armourer did prepare or check the prop here? Your example involves some conversation involving the armourer but this incident involved an unattended firearm being picked up by the AD off set and that any number of crew who were using the things for shooting live rounds off set could have loaded.

Seems more than likely that a conversation with the armourer, "show me it's safe" etc.. would have avoided this. In fact even a simple question to the armourer of "did you check this firearm" "no!" could have prevented it!

The police report states the armourer prepped the weapons that morning. It also states the firearms were stored outside due to covid restrictions until needed.

What seems to have gone wrong is that everybody then went to lunch before using them and nobody bothered checking them again after lunch. AD just assumed they were still unloaded and didnt check and no mention of the armourer checking them again/

I would have thought common sense would dictate that any gun left unattended should be checked again before the afternoon session began?

 

[dowie]

Wasn't it reported that the props were left outside (on a cart iirc) due to Covid restrictions? If that's the case, you could assume the armourer wasn't able to talk to the actor directly....

If they were outside then it doens't seem reasonable to assume the lead actor/EP can't talk to his armourer.

Surely if firearms are being used on set then the armourer is one of the people who should be present and indeed should be in charge of those firearms - not leaving them unattended for the AD to simply grab and walk onto set with?

I would have thought common sense would dictate that any gun left unattended should be checked again before the afternoon session began?

I'd have thought so too. And just asking the question - is this gun safe? Can you show me?

Seems the AD has been the biggest cowboy here in just picking the thing up and then declaring it to be "cold". I wonder where the armourer even was during this time?

 

[visibleman]

If they were outside then it doens't seem reasonable to assume the lead actor/EP can't talk to his armourer.

Given the strict Covid restrictions on filmsets, it's entirely plausible the armourer wasn't in the actors "bubble" and direct contact between the two wasn't possible; therefore the actor would be reliant on "the chain of command" as it were.

What seems to have gone wrong is that everybody then went to lunch before using them and nobody bothered checking them again after lunch. AD just assumed they were still unloaded and didnt check and no mention of the armourer checking them again.

Seems there was complete neglect of the props by the armourer as you would assume they would be stringently checked in and out, locked away and not handed out for crew to pee around with during downtime.

 

[Greebo]

If they were outside then it doens't seem reasonable to assume the lead actor/EP can't talk to his armourer.

Surely if firearms are being used on set then the armourer is one of the people who should be present and indeed should be in charge of those firearms - not leaving them unattended for the AD to simply grab and walk onto set with?



I'd have thought so too. And just asking the question - is this gun safe? Can you show me?

Seems the AD has been the biggest cowboy here in just picking the thing up and then declaring it to be "cold". I wonder where the armourer even was during this time?

That remains to be seen and I am sure it will come out in the inquest. You would expect the armourer to perhaps check the gun, issue it to the AD who then takes it back inside to hand over to the actor declaring its "cold".

Just having the AD grab an unattended firearm which has been there for several hours is where their "system" broke down,

To me it was an accident waiting to happen. Insufficient checks and systems in place. I dont blame the actor at all but since he was EP and it was his film, then perhaps some of the responsibility may lie with him just like a CEO might get prosecuted in the UK by the HSE for something their employee did wrong.

 

[Mr Badger]

The police report states the armourer prepped the weapons that morning. It also states the firearms were stored outside due to covid restrictions until needed.

What seems to have gone wrong is that everybody then went to lunch before using them and nobody bothered checking them again after lunch. AD just assumed they were still unloaded and didnt check and no mention of the armourer checking them again/

I would have thought common sense would dictate that any gun left unattended should be checked again before the afternoon session began?

Definitely sounds as though the armourer was lax if the guns/props were left around (presumably not locked in a safe) and they were not given a final check before they were later put into use.

If there had been previous safety issues, rather than expecting actors to take over the checking process (as some believe) a better solution might have been to get in a competent armourer and/or assistant director who would follow the rules before continuing shooting (of all sorts).

 

[visibleman]

....but since he was EP ...

Is he an Executive Producer on the film?
As IMDB (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11001074/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ov_st_sm) lists him as a Producer only*.
And if you're blaming Baldwin due to being an Executive Producer/Producer, then there's (supposedly) eleven other producers that should share that blame as well.

Similar with the production company, El Dorado Pictures; there's more than Baldwin and Casey Bader manning it.

* And like a lot of actors and presenters, he was most likely a producer in name only so he can grab producer fees on top. Same with attaching "his" production company.

 

[Greebo]

Is he an Executive Producer on the film?
As IMDB (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11001074/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ov_st_sm) lists him as a Producer only.
And if you're blaming Baldwin due to be an Executive Producer/Producer, then there's (supposedly) eleven other producers that should share that blame as well.

Similar with the production company, El Dorado Pictures; there's more than Baldwin and Casey Bader manning it.

Okay then he shares it with the other producers then.

 

[englishpremier]

He's the executive producer...so he certainly should do.

That's not what executive producers do. Producers sure. Executive producers, no.

It seems a lot of the comments on here cover what 'should' happen in an ideal world, or what happened when the poster themselves was taught to handle guns, rather than what the actually laws, rules, and conventions are in that industry on set in a foreign country (USA).

 

[Dis86]

That's not what executive producers do. Producers sure. Executive producers, no.

It seems a lot of the comments on here cover what 'should' happen in an ideal world, or what happened when the poster themselves was taught to handle guns, rather than what the actually laws, rules, and conventions are on set in a foreign country (USA).

Fml...Read the thread. His role on set has been explained by myself and others multiple times.

 

[englishpremier]

I've read it. What would you like to say?

 

[Dis86]

I've read it. What would you like to say?

So then you should be clear what his role is, because your post to me doesn't indicate that.

 

[Pottsey]

Then it is Baldwin's fault for ignoring the armourer, but still not his place to assume personal responsibility for something that isn't his job, unless he himself is actually qualified to do so... any more than it was the AD's place to do so when he proclaimed the weapon cold.

The AD’s job is to check the gun its part of his core responsibility, the AD is meant to be the last stage of the checks. Not only did the AD bypass the first check by skipping the armorer but the AD is directly responsible for checking the gun in the last stage checks before the gun is passed onto the actor.

The actors have a right to check the gun but they don’t tend to check it themselves. All this talk about the actor should check the gun is not how it tends to work and its not the best way to do it as not all actors are suitable for checking the gun. The setup is more typically if they are unsure they pass the gun back to the armourer who check it in front of them and pass’s it back to the actor. Its not the actor’s job to check the gun, if the actor is unsure its the armourer they call back on site.

The problem here seems to be the AD broke all the rules. He took the gun without checking with the armourer and then he skipped his finial check.

 

[englishpremier]

So then you should be clear what his role is, because your post to me doesn't indicate that.

I haven't questioned his role. I just provided a distinction between an exec producer and a producer, then had a paragraph about the comment on the thread. Baldwin may or may not have been on the set all of the time, but that's neither here nor there or anything I have mentioned.

You go from saying he was an exec producer, to oh well he's lead actor so on the set all the time. I have little interest in that. My main comment was about people pushing their experiences with fire arms into this situation which may not be relevant given it's a completely different industry in another country.