Alec Baldwin fatally shoots woman with prop gun on movie set

Man of Honour
Joined
13 Oct 2006
Posts
81,838
If I was in charge, the rules would be as follows:

1) The guns are in my personal possession except when I have handed one to an actor for a scene. When filming finishes for that scene, they hand it back to me. Immediately. Directly to me, in my hand. Whenever they are not on camera, I have the gun.
2) The ammunition is in my personal possession except when it's in a gun I have handed to an actor.
3) I load the guns. Me personally. And only me. Using ammunition that has never been out of my possession. Ammunition that I know to be dummy, blank or real (if real rounds were ever used on set).
4) If any box of ammunition is ever out of my possession and I can't check each round individually and unequivocally identify what type of round it is, it is disposed of. If I don't know, absolutely know, what type of round it is then it's not used.

If any of those 4 things can't be followed, I'm not in charge and I'm not responsible for safety and as far as I'm concerned the situation is unsafe.

It seems there are limited rules and 2 different sets of guidance for it and different productions approach it differently.

Quite a few work with all firearms related items inventoried in and out, every movement logged and hard isolation between firearms used for live ammo and those not sometimes to the point of having 2 different companies. But doesn't seem to be a fully legally enforced thing despite several actors/armourers in the wake of the incident coming out saying it is.

The main thing though is the firearms handling on set - no one should be handling a firearm without sufficient training in the basics or if that isn't possible under direct 1:1 supervision as you see at turn up and shoot ranges (which unfortunately doesn't eliminate accidents as per the instructor who got killed by a child with a fully automatic Uzi). A weapon should never be pointed at anything you don't intend to shoot especially if the person holding it has no idea as to the status of the gun for themselves and it is a fairly simple thing to check whether a round is loaded if you do need to use it in an unsafe manner for scenes which don't involve shooting the weapon - largely checking each round as to whether it is live or not isn't necessary though not a bad thing to do until it comes to scenes where firearms are being discharged.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
5 Dec 2003
Posts
20,151
Location
Just to the left of my PC
I know that seems to be the story being reported so far, but I can't imagine a competent armourer just letting people borrow the gun for Live firing or "target practice" etc so, if that turns out to be the case, I wonder if the armourer was involved in this target practice stuff rather than the gun being taken without her knowledge?

I got the impression that the armourer wasn't actually in charge of the arms. Other people had access to the guns and to the ammunution. I've also read that the armourer was only working part time on that film. If either of those two things are true, they wouldn't have been able to fully control the situation regardless of their level of competence.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
5 Dec 2003
Posts
20,151
Location
Just to the left of my PC
It seems there are limited rules and 2 different sets of guidance for it and different productions approach it differently.

Quite a few work with all firearms related items inventoried in and out, every movement logged and hard isolation between firearms used for live ammo and those not sometimes to the point of having 2 different companies. But doesn't seem to be a fully legally enforced thing despite several actors/armourers in the wake of the incident coming out saying it is.

The main thing though is the firearms handling on set - no one should be handling a firearm without sufficient training in the basics or if that isn't possible under direct 1:1 supervision as you see at turn up and shoot ranges (which unfortunately doesn't eliminate accidents as per the instructor who got killed by a child with a fully automatic Uzi). A weapon should never be pointed at anything you don't intend to shoot especially if the person holding it has no idea as to the status of the gun for themselves and it is a fairly simple thing to check whether a round is loaded if you do need to use it in an unsafe manner for scenes which don't involve shooting the weapon - largely checking each round as to whether it is live or not isn't necessary though not a bad thing to do until it comes to scenes where firearms are being discharged.

This shooting occured outside of a scene in which firearms were supposed to be discharged. I think it's necessary to check each round as to whether it's live or not unless the gun being used is incapable of firing anything.
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Aug 2009
Posts
9,233
I reckon a lot depends on what is actually carved in stone about firearm handling on set.

Anecdotes and speculation won't matter.

Maybe there will even be changes, written in blood as is traditional for safety laws.
 
Caporegime
Joined
19 Oct 2002
Posts
27,527
Location
Surrey
I've not read all of this thread. But to recap what I'm hearing and reading about this case:

The shooting happened hours after some of the crew walked out over conditions and safety issues.
The scene being rehearsed did not involve the shooting of a gun.
The armourer was not on set at the time of the shooting.
The armourer had two jobs on site so was stretched thin (I've heard she was only paid $7k?)
It is disputed whether the assistant director said the gun was "cold". But he has apparently confirmed he did not check the gun before handing it over.
The DA now know who loaded the gun but have not announced it.
Alec Baldwin's fingerprints have been found on the bullet or bullet casing (I've only heard that from one place so not 100% sure).
Initial reports said it was an accidental discharge when withdrawing the gun from the holster. But other sources say he was pointing directly at the cinematographer.
The gun is a single action weapon so it must be cocked with the thumb before firing with the trigger. That is much harder to accidentally discharge as it takes two different actions.

Someone is going to jail.
 
Caporegime
Joined
20 Jan 2005
Posts
42,617
Location
Co Durham
I've not read all of this thread. But to recap what I'm hearing and reading about this case:

The shooting happened hours after some of the crew walked out over conditions and safety issues.
The scene being rehearsed did not involve the shooting of a gun.
The armourer was not on set at the time of the shooting.
The armourer had two jobs on site so was stretched thin (I've heard she was only paid $7k?)
It is disputed whether the assistant director said the gun was "cold". But he has apparently confirmed he did not check the gun before handing it over.
The DA now know who loaded the gun but have not announced it.
Alec Baldwin's fingerprints have been found on the bullet or bullet casing (I've only heard that from one place so not 100% sure).
Initial reports said it was an accidental discharge when withdrawing the gun from the holster. But other sources say he was pointing directly at the cinematographer.
The gun is a single action weapon so it must be cocked with the thumb before firing with the trigger. That is much harder to accidentally discharge as it takes two different actions.

Someone is going to jail.

Oh you have different info to what I have read elsewhere and on here.

1. Didnt hear the scene being rehearsed didnt involve shooting a gun, only that he AB was practising his cross chest draw when it went off
2. I am sure i have seen police witness reports saying the armourer was on set and in the room when the incident took place
3. Not heard it has being disputed the AD said cold.

Links?
 
Caporegime
Joined
19 Oct 2002
Posts
27,527
Location
Surrey
Oh you have different info to what I have read elsewhere and on here.

1. Didnt hear the scene being rehearsed didnt involve shooting a gun, only that he AB was practising his cross chest draw when it went off
2. I am sure i have seen police witness reports saying the armourer was on set and in the room when the incident took place
3. Not heard it has being disputed the AD said cold.

Links?
I've been listening to this guys podcasts. Don't know if he's accurate or not.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDB5XReUyyqt-FTNdkzFN-A
 
Soldato
Joined
13 Apr 2013
Posts
10,414
Location
La France
I've not read all of this thread. But to recap what I'm hearing and reading about this case:

The shooting happened hours after some of the crew walked out over conditions and safety issues.
The scene being rehearsed did not involve the shooting of a gun.
The armourer was not on set at the time of the shooting.
The armourer had two jobs on site so was stretched thin (I've heard she was only paid $7k?)
It is disputed whether the assistant director said the gun was "cold". But he has apparently confirmed he did not check the gun before handing it over.
The DA now know who loaded the gun but have not announced it.
Alec Baldwin's fingerprints have been found on the bullet or bullet casing (I've only heard that from one place so not 100% sure).
Initial reports said it was an accidental discharge when withdrawing the gun from the holster. But other sources say he was pointing directly at the cinematographer.
The gun is a single action weapon so it must be cocked with the thumb before firing with the trigger. That is much harder to accidentally discharge as it takes two different actions.

Someone is going to jail.

It is only an Accidental Discharge if a mechanical failure in the weapon causes it to fire or some issue with the chambered round causes it to fire without the primer being struck be the firing pin/hammer.

If the weapon discharged because someone put a finger or some other object inside of the trigger guard, causing the trigger to be pushed to the point that the weapon fired, that’s a Negligent Discharge.
 
Caporegime
Joined
19 Oct 2002
Posts
27,527
Location
Surrey
Hmm not sure you should take as gospel just one source who is a Trump conspiracy theorist.
Not taking anything as gospel at all. I don't know the guy. His feed just came up and I started listening to him. But he seems to cite his sources when discussing the issues and someone's political view doesn't automatically make them right or wrong. I don't check and cross check his sources so he could well be talking guff, especially as he has a financial incentive to talk guff (youtube revenue). But the fact is that none of us know the true events, and we wont do until the investigation is concluded and details released or a public prosecution takes place. We are all just discussing possibilities here.

Slight clarification too; He says the armourer was not in the church where the scene was being rehearsed (so probably on set, but just not in the room at the time of the shooting).
 
Caporegime
Joined
19 Oct 2002
Posts
27,527
Location
Surrey
It is only an Accidental Discharge if a mechanical failure in the weapon causes it to fire or some issue with the chambered round causes it to fire without the primer being struck be the firing pin/hammer.

If the weapon discharged because someone put a finger or some other object inside of the trigger guard, causing the trigger to be pushed to the point that the weapon fired, that’s a Negligent Discharge.
Yes I'm fully aware. I think most normal people understand what's meant by an accidental discharge though.
 
Caporegime
Joined
20 Jan 2005
Posts
42,617
Location
Co Durham
Not taking anything as gospel at all. I don't know the guy. His feed just came up and I started listening to him. But he seems to cite his sources when discussing the issues and someone's political view doesn't automatically make them right or wrong. I don't check and cross check his sources so he could well be talking guff, especially as he has a financial incentive to talk guff (youtube revenue). But the fact is that none of us know the true events, and we wont do until the investigation is concluded and details released or a public prosecution takes place. We are all just discussing possibilities here.

Slight clarification too; He says the armourer was not in the church where the scene was being rehearsed (so probably on set, but just not in the room at the time of the shooting).

We are but you seemed to have popped up in this thread and stated a nice neat list of "facts" as we know it so far and after 1072 posts of discussion with links to sources, have dropped three bombshells out of nowhere!

and your source is one CT Trump nutter who still bangs on about Hilary needs to be locked up and he has all the evidence to prove it and its all one big cover up and thats why they had to get rid of Trump.

So I wouldnt take a word of what he says as being true.
 
Associate
Joined
1 Jun 2004
Posts
586
Location
Chryston, Glasgow
Clooney doesn’t hold back on this interview- https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-...s-rust-shooting-incident-insane-b1958161.html

Interestingly he has never heard the term cold gun used on set- and suggests that actors should be checking the the firearm/firing it at the ground several times…

the script supervisor who made the 911 call now reportedly states that Baldwin played Roulette by not checking the gun before waving about in front of people
https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/alec-baldwin-accused-playing-russian-25484796
 
Man of Honour
Joined
5 Dec 2003
Posts
20,151
Location
Just to the left of my PC
Clooney doesn’t hold back on this interview- https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-...s-rust-shooting-incident-insane-b1958161.html

Interestingly he has never heard the term cold gun used on set- and suggests that actors should be checking the the firearm/firing it at the ground several times… [..]

For a revolver only (which applies in this case) and he said it should be done for each chamber, not just "several times". So for the usual 6 shot revolver, 6 times. Or 5 or 7 or however many chambers that particular revolver has. And only if it's supposed to be loaded solely with dummies, obviously. That wasn't stated in the news article, but I'll assume Clooney said it. There might be cases in which there was a mixed load, some dummies and some blanks. For example, a blank in the chamber in the firing position (which isn't visible to the camera) and dummies in the chambers that are visible to the camera (so it looks like the revolver is loaded with real rounds - a blank looks different). Test firing all the cylinders would be wrong in that situation.

The point would be to confirm that every round in the revolver is a dummy. You wouldn't check that several of the rounds are dummies. If you're checking that all the rounds are dummies, you'd check all of them. No point otherwise. A partial check might even be counter-productive by providing a false sense of security.


This incident has given me the impression that there aren't any agreed and enforced rules for firearms handling on sets in the USA, with each production making its own rules. Which seems like a problem to me.
 

v0n

v0n

Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
8,129
Location
The Great Lines Of Defence
"Every time I get handed a six gun, you point it at the ground and you fire. You squeeze it six times. Always.”

This sounds like porkies. How do they ever shoot any scenes if they fire all the rounds loaded into prop guns at their feet every time? Also, can you imagine pre-scene checks for Saving Private Ryan?
 
Soldato
Joined
3 Apr 2009
Posts
3,119
Location
Warrington
It would make sense for a revolver loaded only with dummy rounds though. I was wondering myself a little while ago why they didn't do that in this case.

I guess the answer is that there should be no doubt about what's loaded in a gun by the time you're ready to start using it, although if Clooney says that's what has happened on film sets he's worked on in the past then it's probably true. Agree the fact no one qualified seemed to be shouting to the media that Baldwin should have done this does suggest again that safety procedures vary massively from set to set, which does seem to indicate a bit of a problem for the film industry.
 
Last edited:
Caporegime
Joined
23 Dec 2011
Posts
29,217
Location
Northern England
"Every time I get handed a six gun, you point it at the ground and you fire. You squeeze it six times. Always.”

This sounds like porkies. How do they ever shoot any scenes if they fire all the rounds loaded into prop guns at their feet every time? Also, can you imagine pre-scene checks for Saving Private Ryan?

That's for dummies...
 
Soldato
Joined
13 Apr 2013
Posts
10,414
Location
La France
"Every time I get handed a six gun, you point it at the ground and you fire. You squeeze it six times. Always.”

This sounds like porkies. How do they ever shoot any scenes if they fire all the rounds loaded into prop guns at their feet every time? Also, can you imagine pre-scene checks for Saving Private Ryan?

That smells like ***** to me for no other reason than that should the ground be concrete or steel, doing so would be spraying bullet fragments all over the place.
 
Top