Still doesn’t answer the question of why you would point a weapon (even if you knew it was empty rather than expected) and pull the trigger, a woman as the result of his actions has died and it was him who made the conscious decision to do that.
Alec Baldwin fatally shoots woman with prop gun on movie set
- Thread starter NVP
- Start date
Oh my god seriously still with this sort of stuff??
IT WAS A FILM
There are probably eleventy billion scenes from films where an actor has pointed a firearm at someone, as well as pulled the trigger.
This is a bit like saying: "why was that suntman that was killed, driving a car off a ramp to flip it in the first place??!"
Last edited:
Oh that’s ok then, let’s just compare that with a drunk driver then, they shouldn’t be prosecuted because plenty of people get away with it.
Responsibility to for one’s actions is certainly not high on some people’s list then I guess, 1st rule of safe firearms handling is never ever point your weapon at someone even in jest but being in America ‘safe’ & ‘firearms’ very seldom are used together
Going to court makes it a bit more serious than OMG and Caps locked imo.
What? I don't even understand what you are getting at with the drunk driver thing.
My point was that to make films, you do things that you wouldn't normally do in everyday life. Pointing guns at people/ pretending to shoot people is one of them.
This isn't to say these things still shouldn't be carried out safely though ofcourse . Prosecuting the armourer was entirely correct.
Have you never seen a film with guns in it?
Quite
How would they make movies involving firearms if an actor couldn’t point a gun at the target which is usually another actor?
That is why they have armorers and supposed failsafes but in this instance those responsible for ensuring everything was safe failed in their duties
Right result. The only person responsible is the armourer. If Baldwin was guilty of anything it would be as executive producer (?) if he knew that people were using the guns with live ammo off set. You can't blame an actor for pulling the trigger of a gun that should be empty and has been empty in the last 50 years of acting.
Yup right result.
Guy was an actor, not his responsibility to check all and any prop he was given is safe.
It's a prop after all, yes in this case it was a gun, but I could have been all sorts of things that can potentially be lethal, it's not up to actor to be and expert and check the prop to ensure it's not actually the real thing.
Guy was an actor, not his responsibility to check all and any prop he was given is safe.
It's a prop after all, yes in this case it was a gun, but I could have been all sorts of things that can potentially be lethal, it's not up to actor to be and expert and check the prop to ensure it's not actually the real thing.
Competent armourer would have sorted it as well. Instead of a nepo-baby.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,428
Except he was also the executive producer that hired a Nepo baby as the armourer
So the executive producer is the person who interviews and hires? Doubt it... Some guidance over the bigger decisions for sure. But hiring general staff? Nope.
The thing is, he maintains he didn't pull the trigger, the gun just discharged. Which is not unheard of, it's the reason soldiers, foreign police, etc always treat a gun as if it's loaded.
As for why you would point a gun at somebody, there's many reasons. One of them is if your acting in a film and you're given a prop gun and told to point it in a direction where somebody off set happens to b standing >.>
Last edited:
can Hollywood not spare half an hour to use a permanent marker to write an X on all the dud bullets when they get them
and then on the day they load the guns they check every single bullet they load has the same X mark
surely in this case it would have saved the womans life because the live rounds would have been spotted and rejected while loading
and then on the day they load the guns they check every single bullet they load has the same X mark
surely in this case it would have saved the womans life because the live rounds would have been spotted and rejected while loading
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Aug 2005
- Posts
- 3,958
- Location
- Uranus
Surely the production company is liable for highering an incompetent armour.
Associate
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2019
- Posts
- 134
- Location
- The cold wet North East of England
Live rounds should not even have been on the set. For the Armourer to mix up live rounds with realistic inert rounds was gross incompetence.
Baldwin was handed the revolver and told it only contained inert rounds. Even if he had opened it up and checked each chamber before doing the scene he probably would not have been able to differentiate between the inert rounds and the live rounds (the inert ones used in movies have to look very realistic in case they are seen by the audience). An inert round has the same cartridge case, lead or full-metal jacket projectile and an inert primer*, but no black powder/smokeless powder charge (difficult for an inexperienced person to know that without weighing it).
Alec Baldwin is just an actor and he had no reason to believe that the Armourer was wrong and the revolver contained one, or more, live rounds. Therefore, prosecuting him for involuntary manslaughter was ridiculous.
*Using live primers in inert rounds for a movie was the mistake which cost Brandon Lee his life during a film shoot.