Alec Baldwin fatally shoots woman with prop gun on movie set

BUDFORCE said:
It's possible, I guess, but you'd literally have to have the barrel point blank range onto someone's eye or something.

Otherwise the energy of the bits of unburned powder and wadding will dissipate very quickly as soon as they leave the barrel. I guess if you got caught in the eye by some unburned powder you could get blinded you'd still have to be pretty close and be very unlucky.
Click to expand...

Wasn't a blank - was a through and through which also hit the director in the shoulder.

EDIT: Dunno how much has been posted in this thread but both the armourer and assistant director involved in the incident have been involved in some shoddy practises in the past - sound like they deserve prison time to me if half the stuff coming out about their conduct on other productions is true. (Unless it is noise generated by Baldwin's people to try and shift attention as some of it is disputed).
 
Last edited:
Maybe I've missed it but has the Armourer been in any legal trouble for this? I get the Alec, was the one who pulled the trigger, but it is her responsibility for the firearm safety on set.
 
Angilion said:
The only fault they found was that the enemy ship wasn't really in the right style for a French naval ship of that time and looked more like an American naval ship of that time. Which wasn't really a mistake. In the books the film was based on, the enemy ship was American and the director went from the books. The nationality of the ship was changed to French later on so the film would sell better in the USA.
Click to expand...
In the scene where the two lads bring their model of the enemy ship to the captain, I believe one of them even says he saw it being built in Boston...
 
BUDFORCE said:
It's possible, I guess, but you'd literally have to have the barrel point blank range onto someone's eye or something.

Otherwise the energy of the bits of unburned powder and wadding will dissipate very quickly as soon as they leave the barrel. I guess if you got caught in the eye by some unburned powder you could get blinded you'd still have to be pretty close and be very unlucky.
Click to expand...

It's quite a lot worse than that. There's a fair bit of hot gas under high pressure that exits the gun when a blank is fired. It's that which would accelerate a bullet from rest to supersonic speeds in a fraction of a second within a distance of a few inches. It's a non-trivial amount of force. So, for example, an actor died when they pointed a gun loaded with blanks at the side of their head and pulled the trigger. No bullet, but the force was enough to cause immediately fatal brain damage.

A quick search found this paper on 3 deaths caused by blanks. None of them involved "the barrel point blank range onto someone's eye or something". One close to the person's head, two close to the person's chest. Gaping wounds, major damage to brain or heart. Not minor injuries that were only fatal due to extreme bad luck.

journals.lww.com

Three Cases of Death Caused by Shots From Blank Cartridge : The American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology

ther 2 cases, the weapon had been leaned on the chests, which led to destruction of heart parts. The injuries were caused by the action of striking wave of gunpowder explosion, the air blast type. The cases demonstrate that the gas pressure from the exploding propellant of blank cartridge is...
journals.lww.com journals.lww.com

I've no doubt you could find others, probably more than a few. Blanks are live rounds. They are safer, not safe. Far safer than real rounds, but not safe. They should be handled appropriately. A rough guide to the safe distance for an average handgun round blank is 2 metres. That's being cautious, of course, the idea being that it's definitely safe. You'd probably be safe quite a bit closer. Probably. Depending on the blank and the load in it.
 
Last edited:
BUDFORCE said:
Ok, sure. I was more commenting on a blank in general not specific to this event.
Click to expand...

They can be surprisingly more deadly than you think.

Many years ago Mythbuster's did a segment about a guy who supposedly killed his mate by shoving a couple of cigarette filters down the barrel of an old black power rifle and then shooting it at his friend.

Turns out after re-creating it using ballistic gel that it there was indeed enough energy for the filters to penetrate the gel torso deep enough to be fatal.

Blanks can still be deadly, even when not at point blank.
 
There are different types of blanks. The ones used on sets to fire at people at close range are very low power, make an unimpressive pop, but make lots of smoke for visual effect and then they add in the sounds later.

Regular blanks are still dangerous at point blank. There is a lot of pressure behind it. Like hitting someone with a high psi air compressor.
 
Last edited:
NasherUK said:
There are different types of blanks. The ones used on sets to fire at people at close range are very low power, make an unimpressive pop, but make lots of smoke for visual effect and then they add in the sounds later.

Regular blanks are still dangerous at point blank. There is a lot of pressure behind it. Like hitting someone with a high psi air compressor.
Click to expand...
Or a chunk of wadding.
 
Chuk_Chuk said:
Maybe I've missed it but has the Armourer been in any legal trouble for this? I get the Alec, was the one who pulled the trigger, but it is her responsibility for the firearm safety on set.
Click to expand...

Just to answer this - Yeap, she's been charged as well with 2 charges of involuntary manslaughter, same as Baldwin.
 
Angilion said:
If the film is shelved then people with money and power will lose money. If the film is finished and released they will make money.
Click to expand...

They won't necessarily make money.

But trashing the entire project with tens of millions spent is unrealistic.

Many films have cleared away dead bodies, completed and been released. Usually with a little note on the front saying in memory of X.
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
This is a poor look for the prosecutors to try and charge him with a crime that wasn't on the books at the time of the shooting and now having to back down.

Click to expand...
That is mighty suspicious. A whole team of lawyers involved in bringing those charges and none of them understood that new laws can’t be applied retroactively?

Is Alec mates with the Clintons?
 
Terminal_Boy said:
That is mighty suspicious. A whole team of lawyers involved in bringing those charges and none of them understood that new laws can’t be applied retroactively?

Is Alec mates with the Clintons?
Click to expand...
Nope.

It's just typical American DA with a political ambition. It's exactly the same reason DA's and prosecutors will go after really low level crime with a passion (whilst ignoring harder cases) as it's what their prospective voters want or what will look goot at the polls. It's one of the reasons it's a really bad idea to have prosecutors and judges chosen directly by the electorate, as you end up with a politician who can pick and choose what parts of the law they uphold rather than someone whose primary responsibility is to uphold the law regardless of how popular it is.

IIRC there is also a major issue with the "special prosecutor" being a currently elected official, meaning that under the state constitution they shouldn't have anything to do with legal cases as the state doesn't allow you to be serve in both legislation and justice at the same time (I think I've got that right, basically 2 separate branches of government), specifically to avoid conflicts of interest such as this. So even if it does reach court and a guilty verdict is found there is a good chance the entire proceedings would get thrown out for being unconstitutional. I think Baldwins lawyers are trying to get that dealt with before any court case, and if they succeed as they should, it would mean a prosecutor who isn't an active politician would be in charge.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom