Alec Baldwin fatally shoots woman with prop gun on movie set

[Jono8]

Weasel my way out of what? You're being a bit of a lunatic here tbh.. you literally asked me for my opinion - what is hard to understand about that?



I don't know that, I wouldn't claim to be an expert in the laws of New Mexico.

What specifically do you think I'm wrong about here though - what argument that I've made is "wrong" here?

You could use the quote function if you like.

This is peak dowie .

This is (as usual) immensely tedious though, so I'm going to bed

A recap:

Unless there's some crazy detail we don't know ( like baldwin drunkenly loaded all the guns backstage with live rounds), this wasn't Baldwin's responsibility, and thus he won't be held legally accountable for it.

 

[Tefal]

I'll ask for a 3rd time. What firearms experience do you have?

The passenger wouldn't be applying the brakes...

About the same as your cadets experience I suppose.


I do however work in one of the most safety critical industries and my work is not inspected or tested by anyone but myself (well the test pilot test it but you know they're a bit committed at that point) so I'm used to industry practice of the qualified person says its safe and the next person takes that as fact

The passenger wouldn't be applying the brakes...

All crew on set have the right to inspect the guns before use including the camera operator who died(the passenger in this case)

Soooo do your passenger inspect your brakes?

 

[Dis86]

Unless there's some crazy detail we don't know ( like baldwin drunkenly loaded all the guns backstage with live rounds), this wasn't Baldwin's responsibility, and thus he won't be held legally accountable for it.

In your uneducated opinion.

 

[dowie]

This is peak dowie .

I love it.

This is (as usual) immensely tedious, though so I'm going to bed

It's only tedious because you're making weak arguments/drawing flawed conclusions and you apparently can't argue against what I've actually said.

Unless there's some crazy detail we don't know ( like baldwin drunkenly loaded all the guns backstage with live rounds), this wasn't Baldwin's responsibility, and thus he won't be held legally accountable for it.

Note I didn't even make an argument about whether he will or won't be held legally responsible for it. Pure deflection there...

 

[Dis86]

About the same as your cadets experience I suppose.


I do however work in one of the most safety critical industries and my work is not inspected or tested by anyone but myself (well the test pilot test it but you know they're a bit committed at that point) so I'm used to industry practice of the qualified person says its safe and the next person takes that as fact

You suppose You? You don't know?
You have no QA checks? Thats terrifying.

Do you not treat electric systems as if they're live until confirmed otherwise? Do you not treat pneumatic or hydraulic systems as if they're pressurised until confirmed otherwise?
Do you not operate with work permits and lock out/tag out systems?

 

[Rroff]

so I'm used to industry practice of the qualified person says its safe and the next person takes that as fact

Not how it works with firearms safety, even if someone qualified says a gun is safe you still treat it as if loaded until you've checked yourself and even then you should still act like any firearm is loaded.

 

[Tefal]

Not how it works with firearms safety, even if someone qualified says a gun is safe you still treat it as if loaded until you've checked yourself and even then you should still act like any firearm is loaded.

But it is loaded its meant to be loaded.

If every actor strips and reloads every magazine every time why bother with an armourer?

Just hire the guns buy the blanks/duds and leave it up to Harold and kumar to sort out

 

[Tefal]

You suppose You? You don't know?
You have no QA checks? Thats terrifying.

Do you not treat electric systems as if they're live until confirmed otherwise? Do you not treat pneumatic or hydraulic systems as if they're pressurised until confirmed otherwise?
Do you not operate with work permits and lock out/tag out systems?

We do but that **** is a lot simpler when the systems aren't connected to any kind of Power plant.

Negotiating lockout tags in German is admittedly an exercise and a half mainly down to thier sheer politeness they will listen to everything you have to say and what you need until finally saying "ah no you have the wrong office"

We have lots of QA they are however carried out by th operators (because any operator could bypass such checks unless some one sits beside and watches them do it) we also have a 100% "success" rate no plane has ever been lost due to a manufacturing error

You suppose You? You don't know?

Do you have more than cadets?
I can only suppose because that's what you've said?
Unless your delta force or something I guess the average level of teenage shenanigans is the same as a adult shotgun range?

 

[Dis86]

We do but that **** is a lot simpler when the systems aren't connected to any kind of Power plant.

Negotiating lockout tags in German is admittedly an exercise and a half.

We have lots of QA they are however carried out by th operators (because any operator could bypass such checks unless some one sits beside and watches them do it) we also have a 100% "success" rate no plane has ever been lost due to a manufacturing error

So you spoke balls then because you do have procedures in place to verify others work.

And if one of the operators bypassed the check they'd be held liable. Just like Alec...

 

[Rroff]

But it is loaded its meant to be loaded.

If every actor strips and reloads every magazine every time why bother with an armourer?

Just hire the guns buy the blanks/duds and leave it up to Harold and kumar to sort out

Because actors generally won't have the same level of experience or conditioning - that doesn't exempt them from basic safety procedures.

Though generally, though some like to, an actor won't be expected to check an entire magazine or barrel for obstruction they'd still be expected to keep account of the status of the gun and only fire when instructed to do so. You can't entirely eliminate the potential for things like barrel obstructions but that is a different story to here where it seems the firearm went off, with a loaded round, outside of instructed shooting.

 

[Dis86]

But it is loaded its meant to be loaded.

If every actor strips and reloads every magazine every time why bother with an armourer?

Just hire the guns buy the blanks/duds and leave it up to Harold and kumar to sort out

You don't have to strip/deload a magazine to inspect it.

 

[Tefal]

You don't have to strip/deload a magazine to inspect it.

Depends on the gun not all mags are going to let you visually inspect if a bullet is crimped or loaded

 

[Tefal]

Because actors generally won't have the same level of experience or conditioning - that doesn't exempt them from basic safety procedures.

Though generally, though some like to, an actor won't be expected to check an entire magazine or barrel for obstruction they'd still be expected to keep account of the status of the gun and only fire when instructed to do so. You can't entirely eliminate the potential for things like barrel obstructions but that is a different story to here where it seems the firearm went off, with a loaded round, outside of instructed shooting.

So he's handed a gun it's loaded with blanks he's checked the chamber it's got fake rounds in it aiming a bit to the left of the camera (worn on the operators shoulder) he fires when told to by the director, there's a hell of a lot more recoil than he's expecting as it's meant to be a dud just a click, the camera womqn is now dead.


Where did the simple chamber check help?

 

[Dis86]

Depends on the gun not all mags are going to let you visually inspect if a bullet is crimped or loaded

You will always be able to see the top round. If its a blank then you will be able to see the next round. And then the next if the second is also a blank.

 

[dowie]

Depends on the gun not all mags are going to let you visually inspect if a bullet is crimped or loaded

It wouldn't be crimped AFAIK those are the blanks used in the military with a BFA attached to the end of the rifle/gpmg etc.. I believe the film set blanks will have wadding on the end where you'd otherwise have a bullet.

Also, it's a revolver, it would be quite apparent.

 

[Dis86]

So he's handed a gun it's loaded with blanks he's checked the chamber it's got fake rounds in it aiming a bit to the left of the camera (worn on the operators shoulder) he fires when told to by the director, there's a hell of a lot more recoil than he's expecting as it's meant to be a dud just a click, the camera womqn is now dead.


Where did the simple chamber check help?

You're completely rambling incoherently here. Is it a fake or a blank? They're 2 different things.
He's checked and confirmed it's one or the other which are distinguishable from live rounds so how's it an actual live round all of a sudden? If he's screwed up his confirmation then that's on him.

 

[Rroff]

So he's handed a gun it's loaded with blanks he's checked the chamber it's got fake rounds in it aiming a bit to the left of the camera (worn on the operators shoulder) he fires when told to by the director, there's a hell of a lot more recoil than he's expecting as it's meant to be a dud just a click, the camera womqn is now dead.


Where did the simple chamber check help?

Only some of that applies (according to the information so far) to the scenario which happened here - which should have been preventable by 3 factors - not pointing the gun in an unsafe direction, not pulling the trigger while pointing the gun in an unsafe direction, doing a basic status check of the firearm - as it doesn't appear to have been an accident with fully automatic fire.

You can't entirely eliminate the potential for a live round in amongst a magazine of blanks or some types of barrel obstruction without the actor themselves fully stripping the gun and magazine but when shooting as instructed on set that will somewhat be accommodated for - this doesn't appear to have been an accidental shooting during filming itself but an incident which could have been avoided by the correct procedures of an actor not just taking the word of whoever handed the gun to them for the status of the weapon.

 

[dowie]

For anyone who doesn't think weapons safety concerns are valid or are somehow fantasy:

https://www.theguardian.com/film/20...aised-prop-gun-concerns-before-fatal-shooting

Only days into the three-week production schedule, new reports suggest that a worker had been so worried about weapon safety he had sent a text message to his manager warning of “super-unsafe” conditions.
[...]

The text sent to the unit production manager from an anonymous alarmed worker, and seen by the Los Angeles Times, reads: “We’ve now had 3 accidental discharges. This is super unsafe.”

Sources on Rust have also told the LA Times that vital safety protocols, including regular gun inspections, were not strictly followed, and at least one camera operator working alongside Hutchins alleges there had been two accidental prop gun discharges on the set days earlier.

“There should have been an investigation into what happened,” a crew member told the newspaper. “There were no safety meetings. There was no assurance that it wouldn’t happen again. All they wanted to do was rush, rush, rush.”

Ultimately Baldwin is in charge here, not only is he a big shot actor with plenty of clout but he literally owns the production company responsible for this. No reason why he couldn't have stopped things and if they've had previous "accidental" discharges before then perhaps be a bit more cautious re: safety!

They're generally called "negligent discharges" in the military and people are charged when they occur - the person responsible for firing the weapon that is, that someone else handed it to you isn't an excuse.

Edit also, re: the posters who think inspecting a weapon is something bizarre:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ored-golden-rule-gun-safety-never-loaded.html

Zak Knight, a pyrotechnic and special effects engineer who is a member of Local 44, told DailyMail.com on Friday: 'There should have never been live rounds on a movie set, that's number one. Number two is every single person on a movie set has a right to inspect a weapon before it's fired. And number three is, there is no reason to ever put a person in front of a weapon that's firing.
'Anytime you see a movie where the barrel is pointed down the camera lens, there should not be an operator behind it. It's obvious that the considerations of this resulted in that gun being pointed directly at two people.
'We would have additionally had a barrier between them. A large number of people failed to do our protocols... every accident is a cascade of events,'

also more details on the prior safety incidents:

It comes as the film crew revealed they walked off set hours before the fatal accident over safety fears after firearms were accidentally discharged three times - including once by Baldwin's stunt double who had been told the gun was not loaded, and twice in a closed cabin.

I mean WTF? They already had three incidents including one where another person was told a gun was not loaded... but hey ho, lets just not bother with any safety checks still...

 

[Jono8]

For anyone who doesn't think weapons safety concerns are valid or are somehow fantasy:

.

Imagine spending all this time arguing (badly) about this, and not even understanding what the argument was about.

 

[Terminal_Boy]

Accidental discharges are when either a mechanical failure in the firearm causes it to fire without the trigger being pressed or a chambered round cooking off due to extreme barrel heat.

When a weapon fires because someone pulled the trigger when they shouldn’t have, that’s a negligent discharge. Remember that DEA agent in the classroom that shot himself in the leg with a Glock pistol while giving a firearms safety lesson? That was a negligent discharge.