Alec Baldwin fatally shoots woman with prop gun on movie set

No wonder the mental health thread is so long given all this quacking about some luvvie in New Mexico accidentally shooting the camera girl. Meanwhile in your own country the major cities are like the OK Corral with deliberate drug war shootings on a daily basis.
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
I think you've missed the meaning of my post. There is a group of posters on here who are slightly obsessed with "woke/wokeism" and can drag it in to just about any post. I'm not suggestion any of what you've quoted there.
Click to expand...
That might explain it, I had a bunch of people known for talking nonsense blocked. So I can assume all the woke nonsense came from them? I wondered where all that came from as it doesnt seem to have any relation to Hannah Gutierrez or why she had the job.
 
Dis86 said:
Do you not operate with work permits and lock out/tag out systems?
Click to expand...

I do routinely, I rely on isolation certificates or safety documents prepared by others and have done so for 20 years. It is extremely rare that I am in a position to check all or sometimes any of the controls put in place. I literally have to accept that the document confirming safety is correct on trust of the process. Mistakes happen mostly not serious but occasionally some are.

I understand the arguments about basic gun safety. What I don’t know is the process about safety on a set. For instance the actors might specifically be told not to check or interfere with the weapon because it adds more risk because they are treated as incompetent and a document is produced explaining the limits of what they can do. Certainly in UK heavy industry that would be a normal approach.

Assuming approaches across industries is the same might lead us up some false alleys. The approach to gun safety in a range, police or military environment might place different emphasis on the user because competence is expected and the device is expected to be lethal. On a film set it might be the burden of responsibility is different and the actor is treated as incompetent because that is a more intrinsically safe approach.

Having never worked in the film industry it’s only conjecture on my part. But having had several Hollywood multi million pound films use places I’ve worked as sets all I can say is I’ve seen at least one truly frightening health and safety incident caused by supposed experts.
 
Dis86 said:
I'd hope since he's evidently handling them that yes, he does. It's called competence.
Click to expand...

What actually happened and can you post a link comparing the round which should have been used to one that was used?

Is there an obvious difference that anyone could tell?

Also I've been to firing ranges and also fired family weapons in India and I honestly wouldn't have a clue. I let someone else load the weapon for me. I'm only interested in pulling the trigger part. And if I was an actor that's exactly what I'd be doing in his shoes. It's my job to act, not be a part of a navy seal team or ballistics expert. If someone hands me a gun I'm going to assume they are competent enough to have put blanks in it on a movie set and not handed me a loaded weapon.

Even so they could easily hand me a gun full of real bullets and just make sure the top one was fake.

Or put a single real bullet in and see what happens.

Not my responsibility. Whoever's job it is to load weapons with the correct ammunition is at fault here.
 
Dis86 said:
Nepotism. Shagging someone. Diversity hire. Some combo thereof
Click to expand...
Or you know being the apprentice of a legendary gunsmith and being trained by one of the best experts in the field for 8 years. Leading to the role of Chief Gunsmith on a film with Nicholas Cage leading into a role in this latest film. A previous prop master called her “up-and-coming, very eager and talented armorer.” “I thought she was exceptional, professional” From a CV/Recruitment point of view she would have looked like a great Armorer/gunsmith with the needed expreince behind her.

Dave Halls is the person at fault it was his job to check the weapon and hand it to Baldwin. Dave Halls is the one that skipped the last verify gun step. Dave Halls is the one that shouted out that the gun is clear to use. He was the last person that’s supposed to check the firearm. Given the amount of talk about rush, rush, rush and the crew walking off set to due to poor safety standards and cutting corners then we should be looking at the director and people in charge.
 
Last edited:
Pottsey said:
Or you know being the apprentice of a legendary gunsmith and being trained by one of the best experts in the field for 8 years. Leading to the role of Chief Gunsmith on a film with Nicholas Cage leading into a role in this latest film. A previous prop master called her “up-and-coming, very eager and talented armorer.” “I thought she was exceptional, professional” From a CV/Recruitment point of view she would have looked like a great Armorer/gunsmith with the needed expreince behind her.

Dave Halls is the person at fault it was his job to check the weapon and hand it to Baldwin. Dave Halls is the one that skipped the last verify gun step. Dave Halls is the one that shouted out that the gun is clear to use. He was the last person that’s supposed to check the firearm. Given the amount of talk about rush, rush, rush and the crew walking off set to due to poor safety standards and cutting corners then we should be looking at the director and people in charge.
Click to expand...

Surely producers are accountable too then? They will have been the ones forcing the financial pressure downwards.
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
Amazing. Women gets job, must be because she related to someone, is shagging someone, because of wokeism or possibly all 3 at once. You guys just never fail to deliver.
Click to expand...

So she was terrible at her job (3 previous **** ups on the film set with 'live' rounds in the space of a week) and hadn't been fired because her dad was a well respected armourer. That sure as **** sounds like nepotism to me.
 
Also the dude asking what's the difference between, live, blanks and what's used in films sets. There are clear as day differences, just Google and you can see (can't link images personally). The guidelines, after Brandon Lee was killed, are plain to see and have been linked in this thread for actors and guns, Baldwin has been on film sets for years and been in multiple films where he has handled guns at best he has been extremely negligent in not following industry standards and at worse is culpable for the death.
 
There are some very odd vibes coming from this thread and also the Daily Mail's take (although I think they've got some ongoing beef with Alec Baldwin, plus also just lol if you're the DM) which seems to be a whirlwhind of direction, mis-direction, context, and subtext which, while interesting, seems to ignore the fact that someone has died by accident and that's probably quite the terrible shame. Or do we gloss over that part, order in several hundred armchairs from which to espouse our expert knowledge of guns, and in particular the regualtions of that quite specific inducstry, and America, that country where all commentators in this thread live, and the film itself, on which all of said commentators are currently working, and of the US legal system where everyone in this thread has relevant qualifications and just for once can we not turn into awfuls?
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
Amazing. Women gets job, must be because she's related to someone, is shagging someone, because of wokeism or possibly all 3 at once. You guys just never fail to deliver.
Click to expand...

She literally posted online she didn't think she was ready for the role...
There had been multiple instances of failures on set before this one.
Does she sound like a competent choice to you?
 
Psycho Sonny said:
Surely producers are accountable too then? They will have been the ones forcing the financial pressure downwards.
Click to expand...
It depends on the structure on the set and if the producers cut the corners or only put pressure on the people below. For example at work if I get pressure from above that doesnt give me the right to cut corners. If I then cut corners and something geos wrong the fault lies with me not the people above. Then again if the people up above are putting pressure to cut corners then that changes everything.

Dave Halls the director had the last job of checking the gun and calling the all clear. He is the one that skipped the checks. As I understand it in this case it was not the job of Alec Baldwin to check the gun.
 
deuse said:
She already gave an unsafe prop gun to a 12 year old.
The film crew stepped and stopped it.
Click to expand...
That turned out to be safe and they wanted her to double check which she did and nothing was wrong. She didn't give an unsafe gun, they wanted her to double check it was safe and it was.
 
Dis86 said:
You mean hannah reed?
Click to expand...
Not for that quote. In the case of Hannah this wasn't her first role at the job. She had the right background and right training. When she was talking about not feeling ready that wasn't this job. That was her talking about her past when she first started out on her first job. The other failures on set where not due to Hannah but the directors cutting corners. The same directors that handed over a live gun and skipped his job to check the gun.


"What are you basing your evidence that she was hired because of her outstanding abilities on?"
The quotes from the previous staff that worked with her. Her last prop master from other films called her a very talented armorer, exceptional, professional. She was also trained by a famous expert in the field and had successful films behind her. What makes you think she wasn't hired on her abilities? Do we even know if she was on set when the accident happened as there was a mass walk out of crew due to safety concerns. What if she was part of that walk out that happened hours before the accident?

Dave Halls is the one that skipped the gun check and handed over a live gun saying its not live. Not Hannah.
 
Last edited:
PlacidCasual said:
I do routinely, I rely on isolation certificates or safety documents prepared by others and have done so for 20 years. It is extremely rare that I am in a position to check all or sometimes any of the controls put in place. I literally have to accept that the document confirming safety is correct on trust of the process. Mistakes happen mostly not serious but occasionally some are.

I understand the arguments about basic gun safety. What I don’t know is the process about safety on a set. For instance the actors might specifically be told not to check or interfere with the weapon because it adds more risk because they are treated as incompetent and a document is produced explaining the limits of what they can do. Certainly in UK heavy industry that would be a normal approach.

Assuming approaches across industries is the same might lead us up some false alleys. The approach to gun safety in a range, police or military environment might place different emphasis on the user because competence is expected and the device is expected to be lethal. On a film set it might be the burden of responsibility is different and the actor is treated as incompetent because that is a more intrinsically safe approach.

Having never worked in the film industry it’s only conjecture on my part. But having had several Hollywood multi million pound films use places I’ve worked as sets all I can say is I’ve seen at least one truly frightening health and safety incident caused by supposed experts.
Click to expand...

So your first line...you rely on documentation. The onus is on you to check the documentation is in place and therefore the correct process at least appears to have been followed. You carry out a visual check to make sure its in place. In fact I bet you go a bit more in depth and have a proper read to make sure the correct isolations or safety measures are in place? Do you check for any keys or locks to be in the correct lock out boxes?
If the documentation isn't present you don't proceed. You don't just go on the word of the person before that all is good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom