Alec Baldwin fatally shoots woman with prop gun on movie set

plasmahal said:
As a producer, he has more responsibility to ensure the processes were followed and he failed that too.
Click to expand...
Actually typically IIRC a producers job it to help pull together all the bits that are needed to put a film together, not to micromanage the set or set safety that is left to the department heads and safety staff or specialist advisors. A producer for example organises and arranges for key people to be involved, secures the script rights, finance and distribution. A lot of producers may never actually be on the film set, or only on the set for brief periods (most of a producers job is done when they've got the rights, money, distribution, locations and director arranged).

A director is the person who is actually in charge of most of what goes on the set day to day, telling the actors (such as Baldwin) how they want the performance ("draw the gun quickly, but smoothly, and point it at the camera"), the camera and lighting crew how they want a shot to look etc.

Then you've got the other "heads" who all have their own areas of responsibility on the set, and a producer won't tell a camera man how to handle a camera, or an electrician to wire something up a specific way (and is likely to get told in very short order where to go if he tries), but a director will tell them how he wants something to look and they'll try and do it, following their safety procedures.

If you expect an actor to check the inert or blank rounds in a gun are blank/inert every time someone hands them it, or they pick it up you're going to have some real issues in most action films where they do a shot of someone picking up a prop gun and using it as a single take as they wouldn't be able to do it. Likewise simply saying "you should never point a gun at someone" is not going to work on many film sets when the gun is going to be pointing at people, if just momentarily..
 
Last edited:
Can't remember if I linked to it before but this video covers quite a bit of the realities of firearms safety on set https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhJQSUwcHEs especially the middle part - quite different I think to how some posters I think imagine it to be.

Albeit more Australia centric but pretty standard globally on properly run productions including in the US.
 
Last edited:
Despite being the last link in the chain, and therefore to me at least being guilty of "something", I very much doubt he will get convicted of manslaughter but may end up with a much lower conviction at worst if not entirely absolved because the US justice system can get screwy around Celebs.
 
I think it was touched upon earlier. But LBC News have reported that he missed mandatory firearms safety training. I think that will be a big part of the case against him.
 
Last edited:
Hades said:
I think it was touched upon earlier. But LBC News have reported that he missed mandatory firearms safety training. I think that will be a big part of the case against him.
Click to expand...
But then who let him on set / handle weapons without having completed the "mandatory" training?
 
Goksly said:
But then who let him on set / handle weapons without having completed the "mandatory" training?
Click to expand...
This. Surely without training he can claim some sort of ignorance, unless they can prove it was deliberate and the gun was taken and/or used without permission.
 
Werewolf said:
Actually typically IIRC a producers job it to help pull together all the bits that are needed to put a film together, not to micromanage the set or set safety that is left to the department heads and safety staff or specialist advisors. A producer for example organises and arranges for key people to be involved, secures the script rights, finance and distribution. A lot of producers may never actually be on the film set, or only on the set for brief periods (most of a producers job is done when they've got the rights, money, distribution, locations and director arranged).

A director is the person who is actually in charge of most of what goes on the set day to day, telling the actors (such as Baldwin) how they want the performance ("draw the gun quickly, but smoothly, and point it at the camera"), the camera and lighting crew how they want a shot to look etc.

Then you've got the other "heads" who all have their own areas of responsibility on the set, and a producer won't tell a camera man how to handle a camera, or an electrician to wire something up a specific way (and is likely to get told in very short order where to go if he tries), but a director will tell them how he wants something to look and they'll try and do it, following their safety procedures.

If you expect an actor to check the inert or blank rounds in a gun are blank/inert every time someone hands them it, or they pick it up you're going to have some real issues in most action films where they do a shot of someone picking up a prop gun and using it as a single take as they wouldn't be able to do it. Likewise simply saying "you should never point a gun at someone" is not going to work on many film sets when the gun is going to be pointing at people, if just momentarily..
Click to expand...
Sensible post, said much of what I couldn't be bothered to.

Involuntary manslaughter seems a ridiculous charge, maybe negligent over some of the wider safety on set and hiring an armourer who was inexperienced if he did indeed hire her.
 
Last edited:
“Involuntary manslaughter is the killing of a human being without intent of doing so, either expressed or implied. It is distinguished from voluntary manslaughter by the absence of intention. It is normally divided into two categories, constructive manslaughter and criminally negligent manslaughter, both of which involve criminal liability.”

Sounds about right to me, if we assume that Baldwin had no intent to harm or kill anyone.
 
Werewolf said:
If you expect an actor to check the inert or blank rounds in a gun are blank/inert every time someone hands them it,
Click to expand...
The complication in this case being that Baldwin wasn't just an actor but also shares some management responsibility, plus he claims he didn't pull the trigger but clearly did at a time when there was no need for him to. And that as part of the management team that decided to send everyone on firearms safety training but he himself didn't bother going along.
 
Last edited:
Hades said:
I think it was touched upon earlier. But LBC News have reported that he missed mandatory firearms safety training. I think that will be a big part of the case against him.
Click to expand...

Not only did he miss them, when he did attent one he spent most of the time on the phone. Ignorance isn't a valid defense against a criminal act or as it's known in the field of law. Ignorantia juris non excusat.
 
Last edited:
Goksly said:
But then who let him on set / handle weapons without having completed the "mandatory" training?
Click to expand...
A pure guess but maybe it went something like this?

HGR: Everyone needs to attend mandatory training.
AB: I'm not going to be there.
HGR: Then you won't be able to be on set until you do.
AB: I'm your boss and paying for this film. I will do what I like and have been on many other sets with firearms so know what I am doing.

Maybe HGR too young and inexperienced to insist.
 
Hades said:
I think it was touched upon earlier. But LBC News have reported that he missed mandatory firearms safety training. I think that will be a big part of the case against him.
Click to expand...

That's pretty damning tbh... I hope regardless of what the verdict is they sort out safety and the huge egos/aristocratic status given to celebs in film & TV.

The latter isn't just an issue with on-set safety but is probably a big factor in things like the sex abuse scandals at the BBC and with Weinstein, if someone is such a big talent that abusive behaviour is widely known but no one dares do anything then that's frankly a ridiculous situation to be in.

Baldwin is ultimately the boss in this scenario but safety issues ought to have sufficient regulation that someone in charge of it is empowered to have authority over everyone with regard to the particular domain they are responsible for.
 
Dis86 said:
No no. Not possible. She was highly experienced and competent. Just look at all the posters arguing that earlier in the thread.
Click to expand...

Totally obvious Hollywood nepo baby example...

"nooo she's a totally experienced armourer, her dad is... [LOL]" :D
 
gingergundog said:
Not sure it is tbh, he's probably been on quite a few of those training sessions, unless he forgot everything that he had taught from all the previous films.
Click to expand...

Ignorance isn't an excuse if he has had the relevant training and is signed off against those standard operating procedures then he is of blame.

They are there for a reason to reduce the risk of a fatality happening.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom