Alec Baldwin fatally shoots woman with prop gun on movie set

ttaskmaster said:
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.
Click to expand...

AD = Assistant Director? I guess that would then shift the blame to a certain degree from the armourer, to the AD, as they were obstructing them from doing their job.

There is the other side to this of why there were live rounds on set at all, but the safeguard of the armourer checking before filming should have found the rounds before filming began... if they were allowed to do so at least.

Werewolf said:
What specific qualifications?
Click to expand...

No idea. I just assumed there would be something for gun safety, in the same way there are accreditations for working at heights etc. I'm not saying they should have a very specific qualification on firing blanks on a film set, but I imagine you need a qualification on gun safety generally, in the same way I imagine you do to run a shooting range. So you get someone who has at least a basic grounding of gun safety.
 
MadMossy said:
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.
Click to expand...

They have charged the armourer.
It is very interesting that they decided to charge Baldwin. To be found guilty they have to prove some negligence. Say he pointed the gun without reason, fired the gun without reason.... there must be something we don't know about this case.
 
Well someone died, someone else was injured and it seems reasonable to me that guilt be tested in a court. Someone has obviously screwed up it's just determining who. Certainly that would be the case in UK law when it comes to Health and Safety.
 
jellybeard999 said:
AD = Assistant Director? I guess that would then shift the blame to a certain degree from the armourer, to the AD, as they were obstructing them from doing their job.

There is the other side to this of why there were live rounds on set at all, but the safeguard of the armourer checking before filming should have found the rounds before filming began... if they were allowed to do so at least.
Click to expand...

As I understand it, the AD has ultimate responsibility for people doing their job right, and for people being able/enabled to do their job, which was where the argument came up. He was portrayed as being particularly difficult and domineering, which is what led to several other safety issues earlier in the production.

SpellowHouse said:
Say he pointed the gun without reason, fired the gun without reason.... there must be something we don't know about this case.
Click to expand...
I read he was rehearsing part of the scene in front of the camera, while they did all the set-up for that particular shot. Something about a turn, draw and fire kind of shot, classic Western thing, so the crew would do all their measurements, focussing, blocking and whatever as he goes through the motions for them.
 
MadMossy said:
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.

617AfAY.jpg


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 it’s a blank or not.
Click to expand...
Err… Both the rounds on the left and the right are blanks in that photo. On the left are the old school “military” blanks where an extended casing is crimped at the end and on the right are the safer, more modern ones that have a cardboard or plastic disc selling the casing.
 
PlacidCasual said:
Well someone died, someone else was injured and it seems reasonable to me that guilt be tested in a court. Someone has obviously screwed up it's just determining who. Certainly that would be the case in UK law when it comes to Health and Safety.
Click to expand...

Could well be that's exactly what they are doing. Sort of "shoot them all and let God decide".
 
Last edited:
Mr Jack said:
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?
Click to expand...
There are blank firing pistols that use specific blank ammo, you can buy these legally in the UK, but there isn't enough of a selection to really use them.
 
Drukk said:
I thought, even with replica guns, they are never actually meant to shoot the weapon at the person for this very reason
Click to expand...

They arent but from memory he was practicing a quick draw and the gun went off part way during the draw he wasnt deliberately pointing it at the people who got shot, they just happened to be in the arc of him drawing. I think what isnt doing him any favours is he still claims he never pulled the trigger, the gun went off by itself. Forensic reports show the trigger was pulled.
 
jellybeard999 said:
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.
Click to expand...

The armourer seems to have been inexperienced/incompetent and as it typical in Hollywood, a nepotism hire.

More generally though there have been plenty of reports of the set, in general, being unsafe and crew quitting or walking off for that reason and ultimately Baldwin is the boss, he's not just the star of the movie and that producer credit isn't just for putting up some financing but it's basically his project, his company... he's the big boss here and so if numerous issues are occurring on set then that is down to him in the end, he's got the power to sack/replace anyone.

So not only was he holding the gun and firing it but he's been present on set while all these other problems have occurred, I guess the DA is perhaps going to make some argument about negligence that involves that, bring in witnesses from the crew to testify about various safety issues they've had. Presumably, they'll try and show that Baldwin was well aware of multiple safety issues on set and carried on recklessly and that ultimately he was negligent and responsible for the environment in which this death was able to occur.

Whether that holds up is to be seen, it's still a jury they need to convince, he's a well-liked actor and people seem to have been taking a sort of view that guns are some mythical, super technical objects an actor couldn't possibly check. I'd hope this at least leads to a change in attitude, we train teenagers with a reading age of 11 to become infantry soldiers and fire live ammunition in exercises and in war in close proximity to their buddies, surely actors can receive some basic training in the safe use of firearms as a minimum requirement for using them if the use of real firearms is desired. It's not like Baldwin is a novice actor either!
 
Last edited:
Greebo said:
I think what isnt doing him any favours is he still claims he never pulled the trigger, the gun went off by itself. Forensic reports show the trigger was pulled.
Click to expand...
Is there a link to this that I've not noticed in the thread?
I'm just curious as to whether they ruled out a partially pulled hammer being dropped on a live round, or somesuch....
 
The problem with letting him off is that it sets a dangerous precedent where you can run a movie set and shoot someone then claim it was an accident. If you're holding a firearm you are responsible and need to make sure it's safe before you point it at anything you don't wish to kill.
 
Longbow said:
1) Why did he accept the live firearm
Click to expand...
Because he didn't know it had been improperly loaded with live ammunition, nobody would have.

Longbow said:
Why did he accept the firearm off the assistant director, not the armour?
Click to expand...
Because that's pretty normal on a film set.

Longbow said:
3) Why did he refuse training from the armourer?
Click to expand...
Because the training you're referring to was on how to draw a gun (specifically cross draw) for realistic filming, not firearm safety, and he had already been trained in drawing a gun in previous films.

Longbow said:
There are safety protocols for a reason, most of which were missed by Baldwin who was the producer
Click to expand...
A producer, there were six producers working on the film including Baldwin, whose involvement was essentially just chatting with the other producers about the film (It's normal for big actors to be given producer credits on films without doing many actual production duties).

Longbow said:
he is responsible for the safety violations.
Click to expand...
Wrong.

Longbow said:
Also, he pulled the trigger, it didn't go off by itself
Click to expand...
Unproven, and likely difficult to prove in court (as the fact a live round managed to make it's way into a box of dummy rounds means there were definitely issues with the round from the factory)
 
Last edited:
ubersonic said:
Because that's pretty normal on a film set.
Click to expand...
Not from what I've seen. In this specific case, she was supposed to be there to hand it to him.

ubersonic said:
Because the training you're referring to was on how to draw a gun (specifically cross draw) for realistic filming, not firearm safety, and he had already been trained in drawing a gun in previous films.
Click to expand...
It would have included safety since pretty much everything about handing firearms involves safety.

ubersonic said:
Wrong.
Click to expand...
Who was then?

ubersonic said:
Unproven
Click to expand...
It pretty much is. It couldn't be fired without the trigger being pulled. The FBI evidence is strong enough by itself for court at least.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom