Alec Baldwin fatally shoots woman with prop gun on movie set

[Deleted User 234324]

He shot someone, whether it was intentional or not, still a justified outcome, but I also think the armourer should also be held liable to some degree as it was their job to ensure the weapons were safe and they didn't. In that case they should have been charged with constructive manslaughter.

 

[Deleted User 234324]

This is a very good point. There was zero need for a fully functional firearm to be pointed at humans when one converted for blank firing use would have looked and sounded identical.

A gun that fires blanks looks and sounds like a real gun because it is a real gun. The ammo is different that is all.

9mm round on left, 9mm blank on right. Note the missing brass bit on the end. Both rounds fit in the same chambers. It's actually really easy to tell if its a blank or not.

 

[Shocky-FM]

He shot someone, whether it was intentional or not, still a justified outcome, but I also think the armourer should also be held liable to some degree as it was their job to ensure the weapons were safe and they didn't. In that case they should have been charged with constructive manslaughter.

The armorer is also being charged with involuntary manslaughter, and rightfully so. She had one job, not a particularly complicated job, but one which obviously has real world consequences if you hire a moron.

 

[dave28]

i dont know the details of this case but my guess would be a bunch of the cast or crew were messing about with the gun after filming had finished for the day before. Put the gun back still loaded with real bullets and the moron in charge of the guns either only glanced at the back of the shells assuming they were the blanks or never checked at all. Handed the gun to Alec and he fired not knowing.

 

[Deleted User 234324]

The armorer is also being charged with involuntary manslaughter, and rightfully so. She had one job, not a particularly complicated job, but one which obviously has real world consequences if you hire a moron.

Cool great, so justice served, onto the next topic then.

 

[Shocky-FM]

Cool great, so justice served, onto the next topic then.

Basically... think she's appealing the decision on the grounds she didn't pull the trigger either.. Apparently, doesn't sound like a great argument.

 

[Mr Jack]

It's not like he accidently shot the person he was supposed to shoot in the film.

He was messing about with a gun and pointed it at someone else and pulled the trigger.

That's not quite accurate, they were doing rehearsals for a scene where the gun is pointed at the camera. He wasn't just pratting about.

 

[Vulcan]

It's probably been answered before, but for clarity.. Why are people using real guns with real bullets on movie sets...?
Seems to me its easy to post edit the video, sound /audio to make it realistic with zero risk.

Live ammunition isn't used, but real guns are used because that's what you need to fire blank ammunition.

You can use imitation firearms when "firing", but the effect isn't as good. I've seen low budget war movies where they fire submachine guns and just shake the gun a bit to simulate recoil, it looks rubbish of course. This goes into the whole debate of practical effects vs CGI, practical effects while usually look better and also gives the actor something to actually react off.

A gun that fires blanks looks and sounds like a real gun because it is a real gun. The ammo is different that is all.

<snip>

9mm round on left, 9mm blank on right. Note the missing brass bit on the end. Both rounds fit in the same chambers. It's actually really easy to tell if its a blank or not.

Those are all blanks in the image, not sure if that was your intention to show that or not?

 

[Mr Jack]

Live ammunition isn't used, but real guns are used because that's what you need to fire blank ammunition.

Isn't it the case that you can get guns which will only fire blanks by having a chamber that is too short for ammunition with a bullet in it?

 

[adolf hamster]

A gun that fires blanks looks and sounds like a real gun because it is a real gun. The ammo is different that is all.

9mm round on left, 9mm blank on right. Note the missing brass bit on the end. Both rounds fit in the same chambers. It's actually really easy to tell if its a blank or not.

umm, unless they're supposed to be rat-shot the rounds on the left are also blanks......

 

[Deleted User 234324]

Those are all blanks in the image, not sure if that was your intention to show that or not?

My mistake I copied the wrong image, it should have been this for a live round.

Still easy enough to tell the difference.

 

[gingergundog]

i dont know the details of this case but my guess would be a bunch of the cast or crew were messing about with the gun after filming had finished for the day before. Put the gun back still loaded with real bullets and the moron in charge of the guns either only glanced at the back of the shells assuming they were the blanks or never checked at all. Handed the gun to Alec and he fired not knowing.

That's exactly what someone has claimed had happened, took the gun put live ammo in to shoot beer cans and then put the gun back. Alec Baldwin had too much faith that the people around him weren't a bunch of numpties.

 

[robj20]

umm, unless they're supposed to be rat-shot the rounds on the left are also blanks......

Hope MadMossy isn't an armourer for TV as well. Not knowing what a real bullet looks like.

 

[adolf hamster]

My mistake I copied the wrong image, it should have been this for a live round.

fair enough.

Still easy enough to tell the difference.

don't think the issue was mistaking between blanks vs live as opposed to blanks vs inert dummies

being a revolver in a western stands to reason they'd need something in the chambers for all those pointing towards the camera shots, or any scenes involving loading/unloading which might preclude the dummies having distinguishing features like a missing primer.

ultimately, live rounds shouldn't have been anywhere near set.

 

[Deleted User 234324]

That's exactly what someone has claimed had happened, took the gun put live ammo in to shoot beer cans and then put the gun back. Alec Baldwin had too much faith that the people around him weren't a bunch of numpties.

That's what happens when you cheap out on hiring in order to tick a few boxes, rather than paying a premium for someone with experience. This Hannah Reed was a former model with little to no experience as an armourer, she was infact a "rookie" and should never have been in charge without super vision from a trained expert. Which is funny considering her father Thell Reed, was a trained armourer. If anything she should have known better.

 

[jellybeard999]

Simplifying this to Alec Baldwin solely being an actor on the film, i'm struggling to see how he can realistically be held responsible. The whole point of hiring a specialist to set the guns up is to ensure everything is safe etc.

As producer/director/whatever, if this is in his remit, I would expect they could be held liable if they'd hired someone without appropriate qualifications, or they hadn't put procedures in place to ensure that appropriate checks were carried out. But if they had done so, again, I can't see what more they can do.

Assuming the above is all correct, the blame lies with the armourer in my view.

If the armourer wasn't suitable/trained/qualified, then is Alec Baldwin responsible? Or is it someone else's role?

 

[Deleted User 234324]

Wasn't Alec the films producer also?

 

[Werewolf]

Simplifying this to Alec Baldwin solely being an actor on the film, i'm struggling to see how he can realistically be held responsible. The whole point of hiring a specialist to set the guns up is to ensure everything is safe etc.

As producer/director/whatever, if this is in his remit, I would expect they could be held liable if they'd hired someone without appropriate qualifications, or they hadn't put procedures in place to ensure that appropriate checks were carried out. But if they had done so, again, I can't see what more they can do.

Assuming the above is all correct, the blame lies with the armourer in my view.

If the armourer wasn't suitable/trained/qualified, then is Alec Baldwin responsible? Or is it someone else's role?

What specific qualifications?

From what I understand there isn't an industry standard course that gives them a qualification (nor indeed any standard practice that is adopted across all productions for where and when you use non firing* vs "real" guns), but the woman hired had years as an apprentice and had done it as a "junior" on other sets which is how many film and tv related crew roles progress, I can't remember if this was her first "head" role or not but every crew member eventually does their first "head" role so even if was, that on it's own doesn't mean she wasn't qualified (and in many ways a western with minimal, basic guns is possibly the ideal for the first time as a head armourer).


*As depending on budget, use, and shot you might be using a rubber gun for some shots, a resin or plastic cast for others, a deactivated one for some, and a fully working or fully working but modified to work with blanks. IIRC to get a semi auto to work with blanks you need some sort of adapation to maintain pressure in the chamber enough to operate the mechanism, in the military they screw on blank adaptors to the front of a gun in film they might use a gun with something fitted internally.

 

[Custor]

My mistake I copied the wrong image, it should have been this for a live round.

Still easy enough to tell the difference.

Only had to post one pic.
And that’s knowing you’re pointing out an error. Obviously not that obvious?
Lucky you’re not an actor.

 

[ttaskmaster]

Assuming the above is all correct, the blame lies with the armourer in my view.

I think the argument is/was over the AD not allowing the armourer to be on set at a time when she needed to do her job, or that they went behind her back, or that they didn't tell her they were shooting a scene.
This was part of another argument about how some of the other crew had not only gotten hold of (the implication being stolen) firearms that were secured by the armourer, but had also brought (snuck) live ammunition (of the exact calibre to fit the guns) to the shooting location and gone plinking with them. I'd have to go back and read the whole thread, but I believe the argument was one of foul play with people either having keys to a secure lockup that they really shouldn't have had, or just breaking in.

IIRC to get a semi auto to work with blanks you need some sort of adapation to maintain pressure in the chamber enough to operate the mechanism, in the military they screw on blank adaptors to the front of a gun in film they might use a gun with something fitted internally.

Auto-loaders use a thick liner, welded into the barrel to reduce the diameter and increase blow-back pressure so it cycles the action, while still front-venting for the muzzle flash effect.
Underlevers, bolt-actions, revolvers and similar use a mechanism to cycle the rounds, so don't need the liner, but can still fire live rounds as well as blanks. Most Westerns will use unmodified weapons like this, especially as people aren't keen on altering the valuable historical pieces they have to use for historical accuracy... so in that regard, Westerns are actually pretty dangerous for a first timer.