Alec Baldwin fatally shoots woman with prop gun on movie set

[FloppyPoppy]

presumably the only way it goes off without the trigger being pulled is if he pulled the hammer back but didn’t lock it in place and it dropped forward striking the primer? I guess that could happen.

The not having live bullets in a set i can agree with… who on earth would trust actors with like ammunition or pyrotechnics at all.

 

[danlightbulb]

Never really a believable statement. I wonder why he lied? Was he not supposed to be pointing it in that direction at the time, perhaps?

Don't see what difference it makes if he did pull the trigger or not. It wasn't his fault the gun was loaded with live ammo. Not surprising if he can't remember pulling the trigger given the shock/surprise at what was happening in the blink of an eye.

 

[SpellowHouse]

Don't see what difference it makes if he did pull the trigger or not. It wasn't his fault the gun was loaded with live ammo. Not surprising if he can't remember pulling the trigger given the shock/surprise at what was happening in the blink of an eye.

I suppose they are trying to make a deal out of the fact that he said he didn't pull the trigger. If he lied, then why? What else is he lying about? You can see the logic they might try to pursue.

 

[SpellowHouse]

presumably the only way it goes off without the trigger being pulled is if he pulled the hammer back but didn’t lock it in place and it dropped forward striking the primer? I guess that could happen.

The not having live bullets in a set i can agree with… who on earth would trust actors with like ammunition or pyrotechnics at all

The problem is that everything is dangerous! I seem to remember at least one actor being killed by blanks. The projectile from a dummy round had lodged in the barrel of the gun from a previous shoot. When loaded with blanks it became lethal.

 

[Rroff]

The problem is that everything is dangerous! I seem to remember at least one actor being killed by blanks. The projectile from a dummy round had lodged in the barrel of the gun from a previous shoot. When loaded with blanks it became lethal.

Yeah a lot of things are dangerous, but frankly the vast majority of incidents didn't need to happen, people as a generalisation seem to have a very poor, lazy, complacent attitude to health and safety and try and divest themselves of any responsibility if they can, then lots of hang wringing and knee jerk overreaction when something completely avoidable does happen.

The number of times at work I have to, often repeatedly the same people, tell people not to park blocking fire exits, leave equipment blocking fire escapes, leave equipment blocking fire shutters, etc. at work is just mind blowing. Some people can only ever bother themselves to do anything about it after it gets to the point you've no choice but to formally take it to a disciplinary...

 

[danlightbulb]

The problem is that everything is dangerous! I seem to remember at least one actor being killed by blanks. The projectile from a dummy round had lodged in the barrel of the gun from a previous shoot. When loaded with blanks it became lethal.

Yeah Brandon Lee, the Crow.

 

[b0rn2sk8]

I suppose they are trying to make a deal out of the fact that he said he didn't pull the trigger. If he lied, then why? What else is he lying about? You can see the logic they might try to pursue.

Eye whiteness accounts are notoriously unreliable. People believe what they want to believe, even if they were the one that did the thing that they don’t believe they did.

The mind works in ways which are not logical. He may not have lied and genuinely believes he didn’t pull the trigger and that is entirely normal, particularly after a traumatic event.

 

[ianh]

I think Involuntary Manslaughter (effectively "accidentally killing someone") is probably the "best" charge that the prosecution could file with a reasonable expectation of a conviction but I still think he'll be found not guilty though.

 

[fastwunz]

I just don’t get this - how is it his fault? Someone seems utterly desperate to blame him for what seems to be a tragic accident. One that could have been avoided had the person responsible (the firearms expert) put blanks in the gun. It’s like me buying a car, and being told it’s full of petrol by the mechanic. Only to find it’s actually full of propane and it explodes in a car park killing someone. And yes, I appreciate this is far fetched and not really possible but you get my meaning.

 

[ubersonic]

I just don’t get this - how is it his fault? Someone seems utterly desperate to blame him for what seems to be a tragic accident. One that could have been avoided had the person responsible (the firearms expert) put blanks in the gun. It’s like me buying a car, and being told it’s full of petrol by the mechanic. Only to find it’s actually full of propane and it explodes in a car park killing someone. And yes, I appreciate this is far fetched and not really possible but you get my meaning.

You're completely correct, which is the best kind of correct.

However the part you're missing, is that there is a valid reason that the justice system of the USA is a running joke among first world countries.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

This became very political because of Baldwin mocking Trump on SDL, if not for that this would have just been one more gun tragedy in an endless list of gun tragedies. Clearly regardless of whether there were rounds in the gun or not he shouldn't have been pulling the trigger. It was a failure of safety at multiple stages< I find the manslaughter charge a stretch tbh, the armourer on the other hand deserves everything coming to her.

 

[ianh]

@fastwunz - The only reason he's been charged is that he is a link in the chain which led to one death and an additional wounding.

All of the people involved, the Armourer, the Producer and Baldwin have all had charges raised against them and, whilst the producer immediately pled guilty and got 6 months probation, the remaining two are still under investigation. Now the reasoning behind "why" all three needed charging (which is only "we think you did something") is because that allows a jury to make the final decision on whether they are guilty or not. I think the Armourer will eventually be the most heavily punished for this, but in the end, Baldwin pulled the trigger WHILST pointing the gun at a person and that final action completed the chain, which is why he's now been charged alongside the other links in the chain.

As mentioned above, I don't think he'll be found guilty but I think its right he's charged for being part of the chain, so he can have his day in court to defend his action.

 

[SpellowHouse]

I just don’t get this - how is it his fault? Someone seems utterly desperate to blame him for what seems to be a tragic accident. One that could have been avoided had the person responsible (the firearms expert) put blanks in the gun. It’s like me buying a car, and being told it’s full of petrol by the mechanic. Only to find it’s actually full of propane and it explodes in a car park killing someone. And yes, I appreciate this is far fetched and not really possible but you get my meaning.

He's a producer of the film, which, I believe, makes him responsible for safety.
But also, it would be just plain stupid to lie to the police about pulling the trigger. It would put doubt on his entire story.

 

[b0rn2sk8]

I’m pretty he would be found guilty of the equivalent charge in the U.K.

At the end of the day, it doesn’t really matter if you accidentally kill someone in the U.K., you are ultimately still culpable.

You could be told until you are blue in the face something is a prop, it’s still your responsibility to check if that is actually true. Particularly something like a firearm, it’s very hard to plead ‘I didn’t know’ in somewhere like the USA where almost every citizen has had their hands on a real gun in their lives. I find it inconceivable that someone like Baldwin hasn’t had previous experience with firearms and that will be part of the prosecution’s approach.

Now the mitigations will be that he was told it was safe by an so called expert and that may mean he avoids prison.

Can we also please stop with the ‘he lied to the police about pulling the trigger’. Not everything is so black and white. He may well believe he didn’t pull the trigger but it’s also not really that relevant in reality. Eye whiteness accounts are notoriously unreliable. The brain believes what it wants to believe.

 

[SpellowHouse]

He may well believe he didn’t pull the trigger ..

I think you would remember.
If the trigger was pulled then it is pretty certain he was lying if he said it wasn't.
Either way, it won't wash with a jury.
"No, your honour, I am sure I didn't walk in to the bank and steal that money. My body did that all by itself."

 

[Tefal]

I think you would remember.
If the trigger was pulled then it is pretty certain he was lying if he said it wasn't.
Either way, it won't wash with a jury.
"No, your honour, I am sure I didn't walk in to the bank and steal that money. My body did that all by itself."

Well he may have put his finger on the trigger for the filming, maybe he's adjusting his grip/the position and its enough of a "squeeze" to set it off but he didn't consciously pull the trigger in a "right now I'm going to pull the trigger I'm expecting a click etc etc".

Same as the people who shoot themselves in the leg or gut seemly weekly I the usa, they weren't intending to pull the trigger and if asked they would say they didn't pull the trigger, but they ended up putting enough pressure in to pull it.

 

[b0rn2sk8]

I think you would remember.

Actually no, that is not a given at all and the opposite is true in most cases. There is decades of actual scientific evidence to back this up and it’s particularly the case where something happens which was unexpected.

If the trigger was pulled then it is pretty certain he was lying if he said it wasn't.

No. That’s not a lie. You have to be knowingly saying the contrary for it to be a lie. See above.

Either way, it won't wash with a jury.
"No, your honour, I am sure I didn't walk in to the bank and steal that money. My body did that all by itself."

Your analogy is beyond hyperbole. See above also about the unexpected nature of what happened…

Not everything is black and white.

 

[Angilion]

I suppose they are trying to make a deal out of the fact that he said he didn't pull the trigger. If he lied, then why? What else is he lying about? You can see the logic they might try to pursue.

He might have been mistaken rather than lying. Human memory is highly unreliable because it's mostly edited or made up on the fly rather than being anything like a recording. That's not an attractive thought and people tend to shy away from it, but it's been repeatedly proven true.

Also, he might be right. It's possible that a gun that's damaged enough in the right way (or wrong way, depending on how you look at it) might fire without the trigger being pulled. Expert knowledge and a detailed examination of the gun would be required.

Well he may have put his finger on the trigger for the filming, maybe he's adjusting his grip/the position and its enough of a "squeeze" to set it off but he didn't consciously pull the trigger in a "right now I'm going to pull the trigger I'm expecting a click etc etc".

Same as the people who shoot themselves in the leg or gut seemly weekly I the usa, they weren't intending to pull the trigger and if asked they would say they didn't pull the trigger, but they ended up putting enough pressure in to pull it.

Or that, too.

 

[Angilion]

presumably the only way it goes off without the trigger being pulled is if he pulled the hammer back but didn’t lock it in place and it dropped forward striking the primer? I guess that could happen.

The not having live bullets in a set i can agree with… who on earth would trust actors with like ammunition or pyrotechnics at all.

I was talking about this case a few days ago with a person who works for a company that manufactures ammunition. Real rounds, blanks and dummies. I was very surprised when they told me that real rounds are sometimes bought by film and TV companies for use on set. Rarely, but apparently it sometimes happens. Not for the actors, though. Apparently they're sometimes used for very specific effects on a completely closed set, no actors, no extras, nobody apart from appropriate firearms experts and maybe a camera operator behind bullet resistant shielding and well out of the line of fire. The footage is spliced in later to make it look like it was done during filming a scene with actors and extras, etc.

I was surprised, but they were sure of it and they're in a position to know.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]