Alec Baldwin fatally shoots woman with prop gun on movie set

Soldato
Joined
27 Dec 2003
Posts
13,493
You don't point a weapon at someone. It's that simple. He had no reason at all to point that gun in her direction.

if the shot requires pointing it at the camera you do

C232-B94-A-3494-4-D5-F-8-ACB-B78508-A068-A2.webp
 
Caporegime
Joined
23 Dec 2011
Posts
29,151
Location
Northern England
How do you know that? What if he was practicing his scene which required him to point the gun from that spot he was in towards that direction? Actors do point guns at people its there job, its what they have to do as part of the job. Anyway I am not saying he is blameless only that in this case its not his job to check if the gun was safe. He was following procedure which has the director as the last person in the chain to check the gun. We cannot blame Alec for following the heath and safety procedure set in place for checking if the gun was loaded.

All indications are the main fault lies with the director who was cutting corners, skipping checks, shouting out false information that the gun is clear. It also sounds like the armourer wasn't present and that the director took the gun without checking or speaking to the armourer, then skipped his check which is the procedure put in place to stop this happening, then shouted out to Alec.

If the director didn't break procedure and did his job of being the last stage in the check of the gun this wouldn't have happened. The accident happened because the director broke the rules. Alec didn't break the rules in regard's to loading the gun.

So what you're doing is making up a scenario to fit your hopes that doesn't actually tie up with any of the information stated to date.
If Alec needed to turn and point his gun in a specific direction then you do not stand in that location. Thats stupidity and dangerous. This is evident by the fact a person is now dead.
Why did the armourer load a weapon on a film set with a live round, or why was she not in control of the weapons thus allowing someone else to load it with a live round?!


if the shot requires pointing it at the camera you do

No you don't. I'm not sure if you're aware but you don't need to hold a camera to film...
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
55,179
How do you know that? What if he was practicing his scene which required him to point the gun from that spot he was in towards that direction? Actors do point guns at people its there job, its what they have to do as part of the job.

Yes apparently they do on some occasions, and extra precautions are taken in those case... but those occasions tend to be other actors in a scene and don't involve firing anything at someone!

This was a cinematographer not an actor he was in a scene with!

Anyway I am not saying he is blameless only that in this case its not his job to check if the gun was safe.

BS - it is everyone's job to do that.

He was following procedure which has the director as the last person in the chain to check the gun.

That isn't clear at all - what procedure are you citing here? I think you're just making things up - I've seen industry people on twitter claiming that the prop master/armourer should be present too.

Of course, Alec is a new/inexperienced actor and doesn't have any influence on this production or production company and wouldn't know anything about the procedures.

The accident happened because the director broke the rules. Alec didn't break the rules in regard's to loading the gun.

Nah all three of them screwed up and/or could have prevented this.
 
Soldato
Joined
27 Dec 2003
Posts
13,493
So what you're doing is making up a scenario to fit your hopes that doesn't actually tie up with any of the information stated to date.
If Alec needed to turn and point his gun in a specific direction then you do not stand in that location. Thats stupidity and dangerous. This is evident by the fact a person is now dead.
Why did the armourer load a weapon on a film set with a live round, or why was she not in control of the weapons thus allowing someone else to load it with a live round?!




No you don't. I'm not sure if you're aware but you don't need to hold a camera to film...

this just shows you dont know what your talking about

https://twitter.com/Wazzu0199/status/1451405623409758213?s=20
 
Don
Joined
7 Aug 2003
Posts
43,023
Location
Aberdeenshire
That's just a flimsy perspex screen, it's not going to stop a real round. As Dis86 says, there's no need these days for an operator or anyone else to be put in the firing line if you're expecting real ammunition to be used - if you are expecting it.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
55,179
this just shows you dont know what your talking about

https://twitter.com/Wazzu0199/status/1451405623409758213?s=20

That doesn't negate what he said, that someone is holding a camera in that example doens't negate that you don't need to.

Also, it isn't clear there if they are aiming at the camera person or rather at some point close to but away from them. given they've actually bothered to have a screen in place I'd suspect they're well aware of the state of the firearm and that it was loaded with blanks. In this incident, with Baldwin, the firearm was supposed to be "cold".
 
Caporegime
Joined
23 Dec 2011
Posts
29,151
Location
Northern England
Do you work in the industry or are you just an armchair expert who knows better

Neither. Take the Jessica Biel example earlier that was a remotely operated camera, thankfully.
I am very good friends with a guy whose father and grandfather were (fairly) successful players in the industry though.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
29 May 2006
Posts
4,814
So what you're doing is making up a scenario to fit your hopes that doesn't actually tie up with any of the information stated to date.
If Alec needed to turn and point his gun in a specific direction then you do not stand in that location. Thats stupidity and dangerous. This is evident by the fact a person is now dead.
Why did the armourer load a weapon on a film set with a live round, or why was she not in control of the weapons thus allowing someone else to load it with a live round?!
You’re the one speaking nonsense that doesn’t tie into what little facts we have.

How do you know the armourer loaded a live round? At this point it’s looking like the armourer wasn’t even on set and might even have been one of the people that left the set in protest due to unsafe conditions. If either one of these is true then the weapon was not meant to be taken and passed onto the actor and its not the armourer fault.

Hours before this accident happened a large batch of union staff left the site refusing to work due to safety. The director then brought in a load of new none union people with unknown expreince and training. It seems like the director picked up the weapons without the armourer, the director skipped his job to check the weapon. It also seems like some of the crew had been taken some of the weapons and loading live ammo to shoot at targets off set.

If the armourer wasn’t working at that point in time and the director broke the rules and went ahead without her that how is it her fault? Until we have more information its to early to blame the armourer.

There was a safety checklist in place what should have happened is the armourer checked the weapon, passed it to the director whom is the last stage of the checklist and checks the weapon. Then the director shouts cold weapon and pass’s the weapon over to the actor. The actor is note required to check the weapon the last official procedural step is the director.

At the moment everything is pointing towards the director cutting corners which caused this accident.
 
Caporegime
Joined
23 Dec 2011
Posts
29,151
Location
Northern England
You’re the one speaking nonsense that doesn’t tie into what little facts we have.

How do you know the armourer loaded a live round? At this point it’s looking like the armourer wasn’t even on set and might even have been one of the people that left the set in protest due to unsafe conditions. If either one of these is true then the weapon was not meant to be taken and passed onto the actor and its not the armourer fault.

Hours before this accident happened a large batch of union staff left the site refusing to work due to safety. The director then brought in a load of new none union people with unknown expreince and training. It seems like the director picked up the weapons without the armourer, the director skipped his job to check the weapon. It also seems like some of the crew had been taken some of the weapons and loading live ammo to shoot at targets off set.

If the armourer wasn’t working at that point in time and the director broke the rules and went ahead without her that how is it her fault? Until we have more information its to early to blame the armourer.

There was a safety checklist in place what should have happened is the armourer checked the weapon, passed it to the director whom is the last stage of the checklist and checks the weapon. Then the director shouts cold weapon and pass’s the weapon over to the actor. The actor is note required to check the weapon the last official procedural step is the director.

At the moment everything is pointing towards the director cutting corners which caused this accident.

The armourer is the one responsible for loading the weapons, whether on site or not. If they were not on site then they are responsible for securing the weapons and ammunition to prevent mishandling by others.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
55,179
At this point it’s looking like the armourer wasn’t even on set and might even have been one of the people that left the set in protest due to unsafe conditions. If either one of these is true then the weapon was not meant to be taken and passed onto the actor and its not the armourer fault.

Hours before this accident happened a large batch of union staff left the site refusing to work due to safety. The director then brought in a load of new none union people with unknown expreince and training.

No this is being conflated, different things - yes camera crew did walk out re: working hours, issues with safety (minus the cinematographer who was sadly killed)... but that doesn't seem to be the cause of the failures here rather it is a response to the environment that allowed this issue to occur. The camera crew isn't responsible for the weapons.

nRHRr4B.png
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
15 Jan 2004
Posts
9,917
At this point it’s looking like the armourer wasn’t even on set and might even have been one of the people that left the set in protest due to unsafe conditions.
While it is possible she wasn't on the set, the armourer usually owns the firearms used, if they aren't on set, neither are the firearms.

There was a safety checklist in place what should have happened is the armourer checked the weapon, passed it to the director whom is the last stage of the checklist and checks the weapon. Then the director shouts cold weapon and pass’s the weapon over to the actor. The actor is note required to check the weapon the last official procedural step is the director.

At the moment everything is pointing towards the director cutting corners which caused this accident.
Not the way I've seen it done. The armourer deals with the firearms, they are the ones that hand them to the actor. I have no idea why a director would do that.
 
Soldato
Joined
30 Jan 2007
Posts
13,761
Location
PA, USA (Orig UK)
I see they are already looking to blame the 24 year old Armouror in the tabloid press. Judge, jury and execution these days by whoever puts their opinion online first.
 
Soldato
Joined
29 May 2006
Posts
4,814
The armourer is the one responsible for loading the weapons, whether on site or not. If they were not on site then they are responsible for securing the weapons and ammunition to prevent mishandling by others.
She could well be and she could well have made a major mistake. But we should wait for all the facts before automatically assuming she is at fault. There are any number of possibilities where she didn't do anything wrong. Like she could have secure the weapons and Dave Halls bypassed that. Or she was one of the group that left that site under protest due to unsafe conditions and Dave Halls decided to go ahead without her. There is so much missing and conflicting information we need more hardcore facts before judging her as guilty.

The people on set seems to be blaming Dave Halls not Hannah. AD below refers to Dave Halls.

"AD yelled at me at lunch talking about revisions,” she said. “These motherf**kers … did you see him come up to my desk and yell at me? He’s supposed to check the guns. He’s responsible for what happened.”"
 
Soldato
Joined
30 Jan 2007
Posts
13,761
Location
PA, USA (Orig UK)
With respect to everyone here: An actor/actress is normally focussed on trying to play the part, and not whether stuff is safe. When you have multiple people in dedicated roles to check safety, re-check safety etc, you have to put some trust in them.

It's great if you are like Will Smith or Keanu Reeves where you have gun experience, but I can only assume that a lot of actors/actresses do not.

I'm interested to know the circumstances of what actually happened. Will wait till it all comes out rather than casting judgement.
 
Top