Alec Baldwin fatally shoots woman with prop gun on movie set

Caporegime
Joined
23 Dec 2011
Posts
29,217
Location
Northern England
So you check the power cables for every device you interact with in the office?

I've known people (some got quite senior) who wouldn't notice that their monitor was on fire.

Seniority doesn't imply that they're not dumb! Educated idiots are everywhere.

All our office equipment plugs in to dado trunking and so cords etc. are visible (and very nicely cable managed by our IT team and other equipment by our sparkies).

We do this to prevent snags under desks and people accidently pulling cables out with their feet.
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Jul 2007
Posts
6,614
Location
Norfolk.
And how is the average actor supposed to check? Look down the barrel?

That's why the have firearms and safety experts, who failed more than once from what they are saying.

As has been mentioned before by firearms users, by industry experts, and by actors themselves - you ask the person handing you the firearm to show you that it's safe/cold etc.

Again, no-one is saying that ONLY Baldwin is to blame but he, alongside 2-3 others so far, was part of a chain of events which eventually led to a death and which could have been prevented if just one of the people involved had checked the damn gun first so no-one in that chain is blameless.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
5 Dec 2003
Posts
20,151
Location
Just to the left of my PC
So you check the power cables for every device you interact with in the office?

I've known people (some got quite senior) who wouldn't notice that their monitor was on fire.

I think that some degree of checking by users is in order when a failure of procedure will kill people. Certainly when the user is using a deadly weapon on another person. Not so much for using a photocopier to copy sheets of paper.

A random example from my own workplace. Every day before the building is opened to the public every fire door and every route to every fire door is physically checked independently by a minimum of two people, each of whom signs off on the checks. In addition to checking each fire door, each of those people will check the location where the door chains are hung when not in use and verify that each chain is present. And sign for that too. At all times all members of staff are responsible for keeping escape routes free of obstructions. Not only a designated person. Everyone involved. And we're not using a deadly weapon on another person. I think it's reasonable to hold that sort of thing to a higher standard. The main responsibility is on the armourer as they're the expert and the designated person. But everyone involved has some degree of responsibility.
 
Soldato
Joined
28 Nov 2002
Posts
11,128
Location
Cumbria
So how are everyone's Willie's doing? What with all the waiving around they're doing?

I’ve learned that it doesn’t matter how many willy experts you have at work you should always check you own willy before pointing it at somebody and potentially firing one off at them
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
5 Feb 2006
Posts
4,616
As has been mentioned before by firearms users, by industry experts, and by actors themselves - you ask the person handing you the firearm to show you that it's safe/cold etc.

Again, no-one is saying that ONLY Baldwin is to blame but he, alongside 2-3 others so far, was part of a chain of events which eventually led to a death and which could have been prevented if just one of the people involved had checked the damn gun first so no-one in that chain is blameless.

So far, this post makes the most sense.

Having 17yrs in the UK Armed Forces, I have been trained on the SLR, L85A1, L85A2 and Walther PPK. Firearms safety is drummed into you. You never assume a weapon is safe unless you check it yourself.

This incident was completely avoidable and due to the negligence of at least 3 people, the armourer, assistant director and actor firing the weapon. They should be charged with some form of manslaughter and face trial based on the evidence.
 
Soldato
Joined
27 Dec 2009
Posts
9,918
So far, this post makes the most sense.

Having 17yrs in the UK Armed Forces, I have been trained on the SLR, L85A1, L85A2 and Walther PPK. Firearms safety is drummed into you. You never assume a weapon is safe unless you check it yourself.

This incident was completely avoidable and due to the negligence of at least 3 people, the armourer, assistant director and actor firing the weapon. They should be charged with some form of manslaughter and face trial based on the evidence.

The fact that the gun was not safe suggests that the armourer must have failed in the key requirement of their role and there are reports of a reckless attitude to safety by the assistant director, so it seems likely they share responsibility. It's possible that Alec Baldwin may have done something wrong if he didn't follow safety guidelines/instructions from the director or armourer or may have some responsibility due to his role as a producer of the movie. However, despite people repeatedly stating in this thread that he should face charges for not checking the gun, I have still not seen anything to suggest that an actor is actually responsible for checking the ammunition in a prop gun after being told that it is cold/safe when they are given it on a movie set. On what grounds would an actor be charged in this situation?
 
Caporegime
Joined
20 Jan 2005
Posts
42,617
Location
Co Durham
I think that some degree of checking by users is in order when a failure of procedure will kill people. Certainly when the user is using a deadly weapon on another person. Not so much for using a photocopier to copy sheets of paper.

A random example from my own workplace. Every day before the building is opened to the public every fire door and every route to every fire door is physically checked independently by a minimum of two people, each of whom signs off on the checks. In addition to checking each fire door, each of those people will check the location where the door chains are hung when not in use and verify that each chain is present. And sign for that too. At all times all members of staff are responsible for keeping escape routes free of obstructions. Not only a designated person. Everyone involved. And we're not using a deadly weapon on another person. I think it's reasonable to hold that sort of thing to a higher standard. The main responsibility is on the armourer as they're the expert and the designated person. But everyone involved has some degree of responsibility.

But everybody else in the building has to trust those two people that they have done their job properly though. So for the sake of analogy, would it be everybody else in the building responsibility if those two people had bunked off for the morning and every fire exit was locked but they signed the sheets to say they were all open and free of blockage and then a fire started and people died?

Some people on here are basically saying all the other people in the office should double check the checks done by people already.
 
Caporegime
Joined
20 May 2007
Posts
36,361
Location
Surrey
Depending on the type of "Colt" revolver (still unknown) then the person handing him the firearm (the AD in this case) either opens the cylinder, which takes less than 1 second, or opens the side gate and rotates the cylinder (takes 2-3 seconds). At that point we can split two ways - if the weapon is "cold" then there should be no rounds viewable so, as there would have been Live round viewable, that would break the chain or - alternatively - upon opening the cylinder if there was supposed to be a blank fitted, the AD removes it (another 1-2 seconds) and shows Baldwin and either person could say "hang on, that's not a blank" and again the chain is broken.

Finally, if it was a very old "cap and ball" revolver i.e musket type, then you can look into the front of the cylinders to see if a "ball" is viewable (the bit which actually shoots out the end of the barrel in a Cap and Ball revolver) and if a ball is seen then the chain is broken once more.

All those actions should take around 10 seconds start to finish and thats how he could have been shown. If however the AD isn't able to do this then he shouldn't have been the person to be handing over firearms (production hiring problem) and instead the Armourer should have done this instead.

and if the revolver is loaded with authentic looking dummy rounds?

Just like a few others in this thread, you are conflating ordinary civilian or military gun safety with gun safety on a film set.

The only way for an actor to be sure the weapon was 100% safe, would be to run through all the checks that the armourer has (or should have) just done.

Stating that Alec should have checked it was clear of rounds is stupid because if it is revolver especially, it will likely have some sort of replica round in it as its for a film shot (or perhaps a blank in some circumstances - not this one). Should Alec have a detailed knowledge of how to identify replica rounds used for a film with real ones? Is it his responsibility to ensure a replica round is indeed a replica round?

What if the scene involved a close up of him loading the revolver and then pointing it at someone?

"But you always check a weapon is clear and never point it at anyone!!! Its basic gun safety!!"....oh
 
Last edited:
Caporegime
Joined
23 Dec 2011
Posts
29,217
Location
Northern England
and if the revolver is loaded with authentic looking dummy rounds?

Just like a few others in this thread, you are conflating ordinary civilian or military gun safety with gun safety on a film set.

The only way for an actor to be sure the weapon was 100% safe, would be to run through all the checks that the armourer has (or should have) just done.

Stating that Alec should have checked it was clear of rounds is stupid because if it is revolver especially, it will likely have some sort of replica round in it as its for a film shot (or perhaps a blank in some circumstances - not this one). Should Alec have a detailed knowledge of how to identify replica rounds used for a film with real ones? Is it his responsibility to ensure a replica round is indeed a replica round?

What if the scene involved a close up of him loading the revolver and then pointing it at someone?

"But you always check a weapon is clear and never point it at anyone!!! Its basic gun safety!!"....oh

You keep going on as if it's some impossibly complex task. It's really not.
If the scene involved a close up of him loading a revolver then, as mentioned previously, you use dummy rounds that are filled with bbs. These rounds rattle allowing you to verify that they're dummies very easily.
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Jul 2007
Posts
6,614
Location
Norfolk.
In the same post -

you are conflating ordinary civilian or military gun safety with gun safety on a film set.

............and that attitude towards firearms safety has directly lead to a death.

The only way for an actor to be sure the weapon was 100% safe, would be to run through all the checks that the armourer has (or should have) just done.

............and that attitude towards firearms safety has just saved a person from being killed, well done, thats a safe attitude.

Stating that Alec should have checked it was clear of rounds is stupid

............and that attitude towards firearms safety has directly lead to a death, again.

In the end it's simple firearms safety irrespective of where the firearm is being used - civilian, military or film set. Has the death of someone not made that point painfully obvious to you? Someone is now dead because lots of people, including the person who pulled the trigger whilst the firearm was pointing at people, failed to do basic checks. It's that simple - there's is NO "oh it's a film set" firearms safety, there is just one version, the one where people who follow it don't end up killing a member of staff because of a long chain of "it's a film set" attitudes towards firearms safety.

I would also suggest that, due to events like this being incredibly rare, the overwhelming vast majority of TV/Films which use firearms DO follow a basic firearms safety code irrespective of how difficult it may seem to you, and that it's only when productions DON'T rigorously do this (such as on Rust, The Crow) because of a poor attitude towards firearms (it's just a film set attitude) that fatalities happen.

I don't expect this to have much impact TBH, we both seem pretty set in our own ways, I just know my attitude towards firearms safety doesn't end up with people dead due to it, which is why I'll never change it and why I'd defend that attitude as loudly as I can.
 
Caporegime
Joined
20 May 2007
Posts
36,361
Location
Surrey
You keep going on as if it's some impossibly complex task. It's really not.
If the scene involved a close up of him loading a revolver then, as mentioned previously, you use dummy rounds that are filled with bbs. These rounds rattle allowing you to verify that they're dummies very easily.

Are all replica rounds of all sorts made with bbs in them?
 
Caporegime
Joined
20 May 2007
Posts
36,361
Location
Surrey
In the end it's simple firearms safety irrespective of where the firearm is being used - civilian, military or film set. Has the death of someone not made that point painfully obvious to you? Someone is now dead because lots of people, including the person who pulled the trigger whilst the firearm was pointing at people, failed to do basic checks. It's that simple - there's is NO "oh it's a film set" firearms safety, there is just one version, the one where people who follow it don't end up killing a member of staff because of a long chain of "it's a film set" attitudes towards firearms safety.

What "basic" checks?

Also, you are suggesting that by saying "it's a film set" that this excuses firearm safety and protocols. It does not. I am suggesting that the whole situation and the protocols involved are different due to potentially wildly varying circumstances. It is why there is specifically a person put in charge and who is responsible for it. I am not for one moment suggesting that rigorous fire arm safety should not be carried out on film sets when using real weapons. I am saying that it isn't the actors responsibility to 100% confirm a weapon is safe and repeat everything that the person responsible SHOULD have just done.

Most of the checks and guidelines to follow for regular gun safety simply do not apply or would not realistically work in any practical way for many of the scenarios that actors would find themselves in. As I've said, we keep seeing people say "make sure the chamber is clear!" which would be irrelevant in many scenarios on a film shoot.

For example. Say that an actor is using blanks for one shot. Should the actor, when handed the gun and told its safe by those responsible, then proceed to unload the weapon, check every round and ensure it is a blank, and then inspect the barrel for debris and clean it to make sure? Should he spend all his time on set watching the armourer carry out these procedures? After all, that would be the only way to be 100% sure that you are firing blanks in a safe manner. I would say that this is wholly unrealistic and that the actor HAS to rely on the expertise of those in charge of the weapons in many respects.
 
Last edited:
Top