Alec Baldwin fatally shoots woman with prop gun on movie set

Soldato
Joined
27 Dec 2009
Posts
9,917
Yeah you never see actors take extensive fire arms courses or martial arts training, they literally just show up and act lol

If this incident had involved Keanu Reeves then it might be perceived a bit differently. Anyway, I haven't at any point claimed that the actor is completely blameless in this situation (maybe Alec Baldwin also messed up by pointing it and pulling the trigger when he did) I've questioned the seemingly popular idea in this thread that once an actor has been told a prop gun is safe, they are expected to open it up and check the ammo for themselves.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
55,275
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?

No one said that they did need to be a real-life expert... come on this really is brain worms stuff here, you're way too quick to (perhaps intentionally even) misread what has been posted.

Likewise, if someone were to say that being able to drive a car would be useful if you were to drive one on a movie set do you interpret that as being a "driving expert"?

Did you ignore the bit about someone showing them the weapon is safe/clear if that is more practical?

The basic point here is that if you're going to handle a firearm then having some basic competency + knowing that it is actually safe/knowing what condition it is in (not just taking someone's word for it) ought to be standard.

You seem to just want to argue against points no one has made here.
 
Soldato
Joined
3 Oct 2007
Posts
7,477
Location
London, UK
I posted about that yesterday but @Colonel_Klinck took issue with it being reported by TMZ.

Funnily enough, in a story about Hollywood, TMZ got the scoop first. Notably, the other news outlets are attributing TMZ as the original source.

Oh wow maybe you got lucky. TMZ is a gossip magazine/website though. Its not exactly the Associated Press or Reuters is it :rolleyes: TMZ can print something not caring a damn if its true because they don't have any kind of reputation to protect, they are just interested in clicks. And of course any other news outlet is going to attribute it to TMZ, they can then just say they were quoting what TMZ had published if it turns out to be nonsense.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
55,275
Oh wow maybe you got lucky. TMZ is a gossip magazine/website though. Its not exactly the Associated Press or Reuters is it :rolleyes: TMZ can print something not caring a damn if its true because they don't have any kind of reputation to protect, they are just interested in clicks. And of course any other news outlet is going to attribute it to TMZ, they can then just say they were quoting what TMZ had published if it turns out to be nonsense.

Perhaps context is important to consider sometimes!
 
Caporegime
Joined
30 Jun 2007
Posts
68,615
Location
Wales
I don't get the hole shooting thing. You're not meant to even have your finger on a trigger, unless you're shooting?


But he was practicing drawing and shooting he needs to learn the movement and needs to "look cool" when did you ever see a cowboy film with trigger discipline o
 
Soldato
Joined
27 Dec 2009
Posts
9,917
No one said that they did need to be a real-life expert... come on this really is brain worms stuff here, you're way too quick to (perhaps intentionally even) misread what has been posted.

Likewise, if someone were to say that being able to drive a car would be useful if you were to drive one on a movie set do you interpret that as being a "driving expert"?

Did you ignore the bit about someone showing them the weapon is safe/clear if that is more practical?

The basic point here is that if you're going to handle a firearm then having some basic competency + knowing that it is actually safe/knowing what condition it is in (not just taking someone's word for it) ought to be standard.

You seem to just want to argue against points no one has made here.

I responded to the various posts in this thread expressing views that could perhaps be summarised as "An actor on set when handed a prop gun that he has been told is safe/cold by the designated authority, is still responsible for checking it and should open it and examine any ammunition".

Here is my post again:

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?

Since then I've seen the news update Alec Baldwin film tragedy: What are the rules for guns on movie sets? which does not appear to support claims that an actor is personally responsible for checking the prop gun and any ammunition it may contain once it has been declared safe and handed to them on set to use.

Some people may be confusing real life where having a loaded gun in your possession is a serious personal responsibility and clearly you should know how to use it, compared to a movie set where there are rules, processes and defined responsibilities in place (such as having a professional armourer on set) and assuming things don't go horribly wrong (as they did in this case) there may be no expectation that the actor will ever have a fully functioning loaded firearm in their hand. Yes some actors will actually be proficient at what they are portraying, but I have certainly seen interviews where actors have claimed that despite what you may see them do on screen, in real life they have never fired a gun, don't have a driving license or whatever.

For clarity I will state again that I am not arguing that Alec Baldwin is free of all blame in this situation, but as it stands it does not appear to have been his responsibility to check any ammo that was in the gun after he was told that it was safe/cold.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
55,275
I responded to the various posts in this thread expressing views that could perhaps be summarised as "An actor on set when handed a prop gun that he has been told is safe/cold by the designated authority, is still responsible for checking it and should open it and examine any ammunition".

The principal thing being objected to is that someone could be in possession of a firearm without actually knowing it was safe. That seems very silly and rather dangerous and has indeed tragically ended with someone being killed. It's especially silly after two previous incidents on the same film set.

Since then I've seen the news update Alec Baldwin film tragedy: What are the rules for guns on movie sets? which does not appear to support claims that an actor is personally responsible for checking the prop gun and any ammunition it may contain once it has been declared safe and handed to them on set to use.

There have been plenty of news updates, that doens't negate what has been said here. In fact, whether he's deemed by some people to be responsible for physically checking himself or not doesn't negate the position that he should or at the least should be shown and should know what state that weapon is in regardless of whether he personally loaded it etc... That it had live ammunition is crazy but even blanks can injure or kill at close range.

They'd already had two incidents on the same set with blanks being unexpectedly fired from firearms that a stunt person was merely told were "cold", he's going to be pointing it at someone... It was really silly not to want to check, especially given the prior incidents.

Note the article also mentions:
BBC said:
  • 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
[..]
  • Any actor who is required to stand near the line of fire should be allowed to witness the loading of the firearms

See the last line there - as per the Instagram post I shared in the post you made some sarcastic reply to - when told he had a cold gun he could have simply said "show me" right?

Some people may be confusing real life where having a loaded gun in your possession is a serious personal responsibility and clearly you should know how to use it, compared to a movie set where there are rules,[...]

No, I don't think anyone is confusing that, the basic principles people seem to be using as the basis for objections though that firearms are dangerous, you ought to be familiar with basic weapon safety and the firearm you're using and you ought to know what state it is in still apply. A movie set isn't some magical place where no harm will come to you, a firearm is still dangerous!

Even blank rounds can be dangerous in close quarters ergo weapons safety should still be a concern.
 
Soldato
Joined
27 Dec 2009
Posts
9,917
The principal thing being objected to is that someone could be in possession of a firearm without actually knowing it was safe. That seems very silly and rather dangerous and has indeed tragically ended with someone being killed. It's especially silly after two previous incidents on the same film set.



There have been plenty of news updates, that doens't negate what has been said here. In fact, whether he's deemed by some people to be responsible for physically checking himself or not doesn't negate the position that he should or at the least should be shown and should know what state that weapon is in regardless of whether he personally loaded it etc... That it had live ammunition is crazy but even blanks can injure or kill at close range.

They'd already had two incidents on the same set with blanks being unexpectedly fired from firearms that a stunt person was merely told were "cold", he's going to be pointing it at someone... It was really silly not to want to check, especially given the prior incidents.

Note the article also mentions:


See the last line there - as per the Instagram post I shared in the post you made some sarcastic reply to - when told he had a cold gun he could have simply said "show me" right?



No, I don't think anyone is confusing that, the basic principles people seem to be using as the basis for objections though that firearms are dangerous, you ought to be familiar with basic weapon safety and the firearm you're using and you ought to know what state it is in still apply. A movie set isn't some magical place where no harm will come to you, a firearm is still dangerous!

Even blank rounds can be dangerous in close quarters ergo weapons safety should still be a concern.

No one is saying that guns aren't dangerous or that they shouldn't be handled with care.

Your singling out the line "Any actor who is required to stand near the line of fire should be allowed to witness the loading of the firearms" and interpreting it to mean that "when told he had a cold gun he could have simply said "show me" right?" does not really follow. That guideline appears to apply to other actors on set who might be concerned about getting shot(!) and so would like to witness the armourer loading the gun before it is handed to the actor who will be using it.

Anyway, I've clearly stated my point which appears to have subsequently been vindicated by the official guidance (such as it is) and I have no wish to be dragged further down a dowie hole.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
55,275
Your singling out the line "Any actor who is required to stand near the line of fire should be allowed to witness the loading of the firearms" and interpreting it to mean that "when told he had a cold gun he could have simply said "show me" right?" does not really follow.

Again, the basic principle I'm arguing is that you should know what state the firearm is in rather than simply rely on told. That could be achieved by being shown and/or or by being competent to check (if practical) etc..etc..

That guideline appears to apply to other actors on set who might be concerned about getting shot(!) and so would like to witness the armourer loading the gun before it is handed to the actor who will be using it.

It's a line from a BBC article FFS! :D

Are you not able to apply any common sense here - anyone in the scene or in the line of fire etc.. should be able to see the firearm is safe.

Anyway, I've clearly stated my point which appears to have subsequently been vindicated by the official guidance (such as it is) and I have no wish to be dragged further down a dowie hole.

It's not clear what your point is, you came in with some bad analogies about spacecraft and operating theatres and now you're just trying to make excuses for bad safety practicies.

Now you're being called out on just frankly silly arguments you're trying to claim "dowie hole".
 
Caporegime
Joined
30 Jun 2007
Posts
68,615
Location
Wales
Here's a macabre question given he was practicing a seated cross draw in this situation would you have rather shot the 2 other people or shot yourself in the genitals?
 
Soldato
Joined
27 Dec 2009
Posts
9,917
Again, the basic principle I'm arguing is that you should know what state the firearm is in rather than simply rely on told. That could be achieved by being shown and/or or by being competent to check (if practical) etc..etc..



It's a line from a BBC article FFS! :D

Are you not able to apply any common sense here - anyone in the scene or in the line of fire etc.. should be able to see the firearm is safe.



It's not clear what your point is, you came in with some bad analogies about spacecraft and operating theatres and now you're just trying to make excuses for bad safety practicies.

Now you're being called out on just frankly silly arguments you're trying to claim "dowie hole".

I know it's from a BBC article - I posted the link to it and it does not show that the actor is responsible for checking the ammo in a prop gun the armourer has declared safe/cold. Typical dowie trying to pretend the conversation is all about a light hearted response to your own attempt to introduce bad analogies, rather than the main question/point which seems to been proved correct. You must realise that people can see through your nonsense when you do this, so I will leave you to your dowie hole.
 
Caporegime
Joined
20 Jan 2005
Posts
42,617
Location
Co Durham
Doesn't look good for the AD if he has previous form for failing to check guns before declaring them safe/cold.

How he could have thought it was okay to not check a gun which had been left left outside for several hours unattended is beyond me.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2012
Posts
8,239
tricky thing about showing safe/clear on set is if (presumably, going by "western" that we're talking an old school revolver here) they're using dummy rounds then your standard clear check is going to confirm that yes it is indeed loaded with what do indeed look like rounds.

now how alike a dummy round is going to look in terms of case markings etc to a live round isn't something i'll profess to knowing much about, but one would presume that a dummy round who's purpose is to look like a real round (as opposed to a snap cap) probably looks like a real round.
 
Top