Alec Baldwin fatally shoots woman with prop gun on movie set

[Devilman]

It's a gun man basic rules apply

It's a car man, basic rules apply.


*Edit* - To go further... A 6 shot revolver such as he was using in the movie, would be able to kill maybe 10-12 people (if most shots went through 1 person and hit another).

A car is capable of killing literally dozens of people in a heartbeat, yet how many here actually check every time they get in the car that it's all functioning correctly, that the brakes, steering etc.. are all "safe"?

Even more so if you had specifically employed someone to ensure the car is safe to use?

 

[dlockers]

It's a car man, basic rules apply.


*Edit* - To go further... A 6 shot revolver such as he was using in the movie, would be able to kill maybe 10-12 people (if most shots went through 1 person and hit another).

A car is capable of killing literally dozens of people in a heartbeat, yet how many here actually check every time they get in the car that it's all functioning correctly, that the brakes, steering etc.. are all "safe"?

Even more so if you had specifically employed someone to ensure the car is safe to use?

Lol what? Yes you're right when I get in the car I assume it has the power to kill before I start it up.

The basic gun safety is never point at anyone you don't intend to kill, and never pull the trigger. He somehow managed to point and pull the trigger. He is a class A clown and needs manslaughter of the lowest tier.

 

[plasmahal]

If you take your car to a garage for repair and they fail to do the job properly, your brakes fail and you kill an innocent person, YOU are not held responsible for the death.

Just as if you are on a film set, the Armorer fails to do their job properly, you get handed a live gun and you kill an innocent person.

Just because you want to believe he is guilty of a crime, doesn't mean ****. - Except that yet again you're the utterly clueless one.

If you knew anything about firearms, you'd know the person handling the weapon is just as responsible as anyone else in the chain of events.

Who pulled the trigger?

 

[Dis86]

If you knew anything about firearms, you'd know the person handling the weapon is just as responsible as anyone else in the chain of events.

Who pulled the trigger?

Apparently nobody pulled it. He claimed it just went off all by itself.

 

[Werewolf]

Lol what? Yes you're right when I get in the car I assume it has the power to kill before I start it up.

The basic gun safety is never point at anyone you don't intend to kill, and never pull the trigger. He somehow managed to point and pull the trigger. He is a class A clown and needs manslaughter of the lowest tier.

There are a huge number of things where the "basic safety is never" but you routinely do that in certain jobs under what are meant to be very controlled circumstances...

You are never meant to drive at car at people with the intent to hit them - happens daily on films sets.
You are never meant to deliberately hit another vehicle with your vehicle - happens daily on film sets and with police (the US police use the "Pitt" manoeuvre regularly under very uncontrolled circumstances compared to the film sets)
You are never meant to set someone on fire - happens daily on film sets
You are never meant to have a horse fall on you - films again (and IIRC for the number of times that trick is used it has a far higher injury rate than any of the film set gun accidents)
You are never meant to throw someone off the side of a building
You are never meant to touch live electrical wiring - happens daily with specialist electricians.
You are never meant to work on active gas pipes - guess what happens at times
The list is virtually endless

The "you are never meant to" mantra simply doesn't apply under some situations where there is meant to be training and other safety measures that are intended to negate the normal risk. Almost all the "you are never meant to..." rules have exceptions for trained professionals under certain circumstances.

 

[Maple Leaf]

The basic gun safety is never point at anyone you don't intend to kill, and never pull the trigger. He somehow managed to point and pull the trigger. He is a class A clown and needs manslaughter of the lowest tier.

It's a film set, if the script calls for him to point the gun at another character/camera and pull the trigger he has to do it. He was told the gun was safe (loaded with inert rounds) so why wouldn't he do it?

If he had opened up the revolver first and checked all the chambers he would probably not have been able to tell the difference between inert and live rounds anyway. (The live rounds are heavier, but if he was inexperienced he would not be able to tell without weighing them on a scale.)

 

[Jono8]

The basic gun safety is never point at anyone you don't intend to kill, and never pull the trigger. He somehow managed to point and pull the trigger. He is a class A clown and needs manslaughter of the lowest tier.

This is, and will always be a massively stupid argument given the circumstances.

It's a FILM.

Actors point guns at each other all the time.

 

[Mr Badger]

This is, and will always be a massively stupid argument given the circumstances.

It's a FILM.

Actors point guns at each other all the time.

We've been trying to film the gunfight scene for days now, but it won't work because Baldwin refuses to point a gun at the camera, any of the other actors or in any direction where a crew member might be standing.

 

[Dis86]

This is, and will always be a massively stupid argument given the circumstances.

It's a FILM.

Actors point guns at each other all the time.

No. Actors point props at each other all the time. They tend not to point activated firearms.

 

[Angst]

No. Actors point props at each other all the time. They tend not to point activated firearms.

Apart from when they do and they are filled with blank rounds?

 

[Werewolf]

No. Actors point props at each other all the time. They tend not to point activated firearms.

Except that many "prop" guns are in fact working firearms, and mane "safe pure prop" guns as as unsafe as the real guns under some conditions...

You need a "working" gun to fire a blank, and whilst there are "working sort of safe" prop guns that are modified real guns* they can still be unsafe and cost money to produce which isn't a problem if it's a generic gun of a common type, if however you need a "blank firing" real gun of a historic type you run into the issue that any conversion is destroying a historic gun (often of a limited type) or you are making an entirely new gun that looks like it and that has it's own problems (very costly if you need several it can blow your entire prop budget, not to mention you're potentially going to run into issues with manufacturing a firearm).

Activated firearms are indeed commonly used on sets if there is no "pure prop" available that can do what is needed - making a realistic replica of say a 1850's gun is very expensive, especially if it's got any decoration and has it's own issues with safety.


*IIRC they need to put a restrictor to force pressure back down the barrel for any automatic mechanism that relies on the back pressure, and block up the barrel for revolvers - but the actual blank cart itself is extremely dangerous at short range.

 

[dlockers]

This is, and will always be a massively stupid argument given the circumstances.

It's a FILM.

Actors point guns at each other all the time.

You think they were filming a scene when he was goofing around with the gun?

 

[Jono8]

No. Actors point props at each other all the time. They tend not to point activated firearms.

That's rubbish.

 

[Werewolf]

You think they were filming a scene when he was goofing around with the gun?

Have you ever heard of something called a "rehearsal".

Or that the Director was wanting to check out how it would look during the actual filming, there is this odd thing where in such situations you tend to use the same materials as you would when the camera was running...

 

[dlockers]

Have you ever heard of something called a "rehearsal".

Or that the Director was wanting to check out how it would look during the actual filming, there is this odd thing where in such situations you tend to use the same materials as you would when the camera was running...

Is that what actually happened or are you making bits up?

 

[Dis86]

Except that many "prop" guns are in fact working firearms, and mane "safe pure prop" guns as as unsafe as the real guns under some conditions...

You need a "working" gun to fire a blank, and whilst there are "working sort of safe" prop guns that are modified real guns* they can still be unsafe and cost money to produce which isn't a problem if it's a generic gun of a common type, if however you need a "blank firing" real gun of a historic type you run into the issue that any conversion is destroying a historic gun (often of a limited type) or you are making an entirely new gun that looks like it and that has it's own problems (very costly if you need several it can blow your entire prop budget, not to mention you're potentially going to run into issues with manufacturing a firearm).

Activated firearms are indeed commonly used on sets if there is no "pure prop" available that can do what is needed - making a realistic replica of say a 1850's gun is very expensive, especially if it's got any decoration and has it's own issues with safety.


*IIRC they need to put a restrictor to force pressure back down the barrel for any automatic mechanism that relies on the back pressure, and block up the barrel for revolvers - but the actual blank cart itself is extremely dangerous at short range.

Long post. Blah. As you correctly assert you need a working gun to fire blanks. You don't fire blanks directly at people. See Brandon Lee as to why.
If you want to point a gun at people, the relevant effects can easily be added in post processing. It's already been stated that they didn't do this on rust because they wanted a 'more authentic effect'.

 

[ianh]

Disagree. Putting live rounds in a “prop” gun, or rather a gun that you know will be used by an actor to point at, wave around, potentially pull the trigger is a lethal act. Having live rounds within a country mile of a film set using guns is a lethal act. I can ask you to light a candle, but if that candle turns out to be dynamite - are you at fault? There’s plenty of activities where people out their trust and faith in someone else who’s responsibility it is to keep you and others safe. Bungee jumping for example. If you die because you’re not attached correctly, is it your fault/suicide? No, it’s the person who’s job it is to make you safe.

I can understand your point, but for me the trigger pull is the last action in the chain which made a long list of mistakes into something fatal, as everything up until that last action was definitely dangerous and stupid, but all those actions combined didn't create a fatal accident until the trigger was pulled, and that is why I think it was right to put Baldwin in front of a jury and for them to decide on whether the role Baldwin had in pulling the trigger whilst pointing the weapon at a crew member, was worthy of punishment.

My guess would be that they'd say he's innocent, for a lot of the same reasons you've given, but I still think it needed a court case to "prove" that, and I don't think his aquittal due to a stupid decision by the prosecution, will give people like the Husband the closure they need.

 

[Dis86]

I can understand your point, but for me the trigger pull is the last action in the chain which made a long list of mistakes into something fatal, as everything up until that last action was definitely dangerous and stupid, but all those actions combined didn't create a fatal accident until the trigger was pulled, and that is why I think it was right to put Baldwin in front of a jury and for them to decide on whether the role Baldwin had in pulling the trigger whilst pointing the weapon at a crew member, was worthy of punishment.

My guess would be that they'd say he's innocent, for a lot of the same reasons you've given, but I still think it needed a court case to "prove" that, and I don't think his aquittal due to a stupid decision by the prosecution, will give people like the Husband the closure they need.

That's the same as any incident really. There are always a chain of causes but its the last one that turns it in to an incident.

 

[Meridian]

Am I the only person who thinks that much of the force driving the "he's guilty" side is simply dislike of the actor?

As many people here have pointed out, an actor is not (generally) a firearms expert, and cannot be expected to tell if a weapon is real/prop/loaded/safe etc. Their job also involves pointing a weapon at someone. In this case, I believe the idea was to practice and compose a shot of the gun being pointed directly at the camera. So the actor relies totally on being provided with a safe weapon, and when they are told it is, expect it to be so. In this case, they were lied to. In the same way that if a gas worker in charge off safety tells me that the gas is off, and I have no way of checking, I expect it to be so and will go ahead with what i planned.

 

[Mr Badger]

Am I the only person who thinks that much of the force driving the "he's guilty" side is simply dislike of the actor?

As many people here have pointed out, an actor is not (generally) a firearms expert, and cannot be expected to tell if a weapon is real/prop/loaded/safe etc. Their job also involves pointing a weapon at someone. In this case, I believe the idea was to practice and compose a shot of the gun being pointed directly at the camera. So the actor relies totally on being provided with a safe weapon, and when they are told it is, expect it to be so. In this case, they were lied to. In the same way that if a gas worker in charge off safety tells me that the gas is off, and I have no way of checking, I expect it to be so and will go ahead with what i planned.

I can't be bothered to go looking for correlation with the position taken by individual posters, but of course Baldwin has made fun of Trump on many occasions...