Something seems fishy about this story. Gun control activist Alec Baldwin is a known hot head. I’m eager to hear the details of what happened, if they are ever reported.
It is the gun’s fault. It was a prop gun. Or it was supposed to be. Ever since Brandon Lee got killed on the set of The Crow in the 90’s Hollywood has real strict rules about this. They don’t use real guns. The replica prop guns aren’t capable of taking real ammo, only specifically fitting blanks.
I’m not saying something didn’t go wrong here. Something obviously did. Usually it would be the wadding from the blank, but killing one person and injuring another? That’s definitely a fuck up. There’s been some mention that they may have been filming at the time so a lot more will come out.
First of all, condolences to the person who was killed and the other one injured. Because Alec Baldwin is the big name, the story tends to be more about him than the unfortunate people who were harmed. I guess it's somewhat understandable, but let's not forget about the others who weren't as well known.
That said, I think Baldwin is a major asshole and a total fucking moron, but I wouldn't wish this kind of thing on anybody. Unless something to the contrary comes out of the investigation, it seems a little soon to put this on him. I'm sure he's going through a ton of grief and guilt right now. I hope it will turn out to be some kind of freak accident, rather than a reckless disregard for safety.
I will withhold judgment even though as I said initially this just seems fishy to me. 99% of the time an accidental death or injury from a firearm is due to negligent handling. An unexpected discharge caused by a weapon malfunction is extremely rare. And anyone who knows anything about guns knows they should never be pointed at anyone you don’t intend to kill, even unloaded guns or one loaded with blanks, which are well known to cause serious injuries and deaths.
This was obviously an accident. A prop gun is not supposed to have live ammunition. Alec Baldwin often acts like an asshole, but he is not at fault here.
If you want to lock criminals up, start with Trump and his retarded insurrectionists.
Lots of finger pointing and speculation already going on. The Union that represents Prop Masters has issued a statement that theProp Master on set was nonunion.
Either a live round was mistakenly put in the gun or a foreign object was in the chamber with a blank round. Either way, somebody fucked up.
@jackslash: "This was obviously an accident. A prop gun is not supposed to have live ammunition. Alec Baldwin often acts like an asshole, but he is not at fault here."
An *avoidable* accident. Not *supposed* to have live ammo. Alec Baldwin *is* an asshole, and he's absolutely responsible for what happened while the gun was in his hand. Just as every single other shooter ever is responsible for what happens when the gun was in their hand.
He *should* have checked it to make sure it was *properly* loaded. If he didn't know how, he should have asked for instruction. Ignorance is no excuse, especially when it's *correctable* ignorance.
Never in a million years could I have imagined I'd be arguing in defense of a scumbag like Alec Baldwin.
I have a good deal of experience with firearms starting with rifle team in High School (yes, public high schools used to have rifle team as a sport). Spent 8 years as an Infantry officer in the Army. NRA certified Range Safety Officer and taught classes on gun safety. So I know a lot about the huge responsibility that comes with handling firearms. When I'm at the range, I'm obsessive about safety for myself, any guest who I might bring with me, and of course it's EVERYONE'S responsibility to speak up immediately if they witness an unsafe act, no matter how minor.
I'll admit I know almost NOTHING about the movie business, but it seems to me that BY DEFINITION actors must intentionally point guns at each other and pull the trigger. I don't see any possible way to make a western style film while following rules designed for target shooting or hunting in the real world.
Clearly there must be very different safety measures used in film making, such as "prop guns" which I imagine are supposed to be incapable of firing actual ammunition. I don't know why it should even be necessary to use "blanks" which still force a massive amount of pressure into and out of the barrel of a pistol. It's enough pressure to cause serious injury or death if fired too close to someone's body. And if by some crazy accident an object became lodged inside the barrel, it could be almost as deadly as a real bullet. One would think with all the technology that goes into film making these days, they could use something no more powerful than a toy cap gun. Or even a prop gun that just makes a "click" sound without any sort of explosion at all, then add in the sound effects and muzzle flash later??? I don't know, like I said I'm not in the movie business.
Anyway, whatever safety protocols do exist in movie-making, all we know at this point is something went tragically wrong. In the absence of more information about what really happened, it's not fair to start blaming Alec Baldwin or assume he somehow acted recklessly (no matter how much of an ASSHOLE they guy might be).
Alec Baldwin is probably one of the biggest jackasses in Hollywood. At the end of the day, he pointed a gun - a real live working firearm- at a person and pulled the trigger, causing it to discharge and strike TWO people, killing one. Period. Full stop. The director and cinematographer are not actors, and there was no reason for him to act is if he were shooting them. Whoever brought a live round onto set is also responsible. If it were my call, the person who provided the round and the person who loaded the gun would be held primarily liable, while the shooter would be held liable at a lesser charge.
It reminds me of reading a story about Christopher Walken. Apparently he is so afraid of guns, then when he is in a scene involving a gun, he checks and rechecks multiple times to make sure. If anyone here has ever seen the movie "At Close Range" in the climactic scene near the end when Sean Penn's character points a gun at his head, Sean Penn grabbed the gun before Walken had a chance to check it, so the look of total fear on his face was real.
That said, this was a damn shame. And anyone who is tempted to cheer this happening to Alec Baldwin, you should be thinking about the completely innocent cinematographer and director who were killed and injured instead.
I don’t necessarily disagree with anything that Mr. Orange said, except possibly the part about actors not having any choice but to point firearms at each other while filming a movie. Sure, it looks like that in the movie, but that’s mostly due to editing. I would be surprised if they really were pointing the firearms directly at each other, especially at close range. I know that they have weapons specialists on the set while guns are being used, and I would be very surprised if they did not warn against pointing guns directly at each other, even if blanks are being used. It is well known that blanks are dangerous. Even in the military, with force on force exercises using blanks, there’s always a warning against pointing a rifle directly toward another person. Blank adapters can break and come projectiles, and, of course, there’s always the possibility that a live around somehow gets into the mix. I don’t know what happened in the Baldwin case, but clearly someone fucked up. Or maybe this was the .01 case where there was actually a weapon failure and no human error. I wish it hadn’t happened, but mainly because of sympathy for the dead and injured. If somebody had to be caught up in a situation like this, I can’t think of a better candidate than Baldwin.
The LA Times is reporting a couple interesting things
-The camera crew walked off the set hours before the shooting as a protest against working conditions. It is unknown whether the prop master also walked out.
- There were other problems with prop guns on the set prior to the shooting.
I believe Brandon Lee (Bruce Lee's son) died the same way - I don't understand why they can't have a fake-gun on a set that looks like the real thing - one would think it can be done
“However, the source who was on set when Baldwin discharged the prop gun on Thursday said the cast and crew were told it was a ‘cold’ firearm during the rehearsal as they were setting up the framing. And despite Baldwin having recently gone through a firearm-safety training session, the source said safety protocols were all but ignored by both Baldwin and the responsible production members.”
I just can't get past the fact that, in this day and age, they still use real guns while filming movies.
Doesn't it make a lot more sense to use fake prop guns that can't possibly fire a live round of ammunition, than to use real guns and "be careful" about not putting actual bullets in them? Seriously, who are the assholes that make these decisions? And more importantly, who are the scumbag politicians who pass ultra-restrictive gun control laws, ostensibly for our safety, but allow real guns to be passed around a movie set as if they were toys?
They were filming in New Mexico. I wonder if the reason might be that in California they couldn't get permission to use real guns? Last year CA was ranked #47 in the Guns & Ammo list of gun-friendly states. The only ones lower on the list were NJ, MA, HI and NY. (Yes, that adds up to 51 because the list includes Washington DC. Apparently even DC is more gun-friendly than the five worst states.)
As a gun owner in NJ, I can tell you that NJ's gun laws are so restrictive, arbitrary and complicated, nobody in their right mind, whether you're a bum on the street or a big-shot movie producer, would even think of taking a gun out in public, much less passing it around to be used as a prop. (Exceptions of course would be gang members and other criminal shitheads who don't think twice about blasting away on city streets.)
Furthermore, one would think an anti-gun jerkoff like Baldwin would insist upon strict rules regarding the types of guns that may be used on a movie where he's the producer, since guns are such terrible things, especially in the hands of law-abiding citizens. I guess his political causes take a back seat to his earning potential.
Regardless of all that, I've gotta admit I feel some degree of sympathy for the dumb fuck. Obviously not in the same way as for the victims of this major screw-up, but man I'd hate to be in his shoes right now. As much as I can't stand the stupid blowhard, I wouldn't wish something this awful on him.
Regarding the use of the term "prop gun"...
A Prop Gun cannot fire a live round. It cannot. Therefore, the weapon in Baldwin's hand was not a Prop Gun.
Whoever brought a live round or live rounds of ammo onto the set is in serious trouble, and Baldwin potentially is also. One NEVER aims at another on set, even with a Prop Gun. Camera angles trick the eyes of the viewers into imagining that, but on-set, it is strictly forbidden. And aiming at the cinematographer? Not part of the movie-making process, but a choice Baldwin made.
As much as I dislike Baldwin, this isn't his fault. Apparently, the entire production had numerous complaints regarding safety and working conditions. There had been three misfires previous to the incident that caused the death of Hutchins and the injury of others.
It could be argued that Baldwin had some responsibility, even if there's no fault on his part. In similar situations, where the acting talent became aware of safety issues that threatened them and others, the lead actors have stopped working or walked off the set to leverage the production company into making changes. Who knows how much Baldwin did or didn't know (or care) about the conditions. Based on the stories I've read, this was the sort of movie where everyone is just trying to collect a paycheck.
And, if anything, this accident makes it even easier for Baldwin and others to trumpet about gun restrictions/control. So, if you're a gun rights enthusiast, you can chuckle all you want but this isn't helpful.
“ As much as I dislike Baldwin, this isn't his fault. “
Not only is Baldwin acting in this movie, he is the Producer. As a result, he is ultimately in charge of all safety procedures and hiring the people to carry them out. The fact that there were 3 prior incidents, that he didn’t correct as producer, makes him all the more guilty.
This is a tragedy I don't hear y'all getting so worked up about the thousands of tragedies that happen all the time, you look for stories to spin into pseudo political topics. Let's get real hear if Baldwin wasn't involved, rather it was Jon Voight or Steven Seagal or even Clint Eastwood, y'all wouldn't give this story more than seconds of thought.
Yes this is a tragedy that's pretty much the sum of the whole story.
BTW I agree with those who pointed out there's no legitimate reason that real firearms should be used for this type of work, I'm sure they could come up with very real looking non=lethal props.
"Not only is Baldwin acting in this movie, he is the Producer."
This movie has seven producers (including Baldwin) and five executive producers. It's not uncommon for production companies to give a lead actor a producer credit as a perk to jump on a film. It includes an ego boost and (usually) a bump in pay, but essentially zero real duties other than showing up to act. The person on set who is responsible for safety is the director. That's the person everyone reports to on set. I'd still contend that all of the acting talent on that film could or should have done more to pressure the director and studio executives into taking safety seriously.
I know that you really want this to be the sole fault of the liberal actor you hate, but it's really not.
Go back and read the first sentence of this thread
“Something seems fishy about this story”
Lots of comments on politics and who’s to blame but there is certainly more to the story. Let’s hear why the members of the prop union walked off the set hours earlier due to safety concerns. Fishy indeed.
@motorhead
Go with the full quote You left off half of the quote went from suspicious to an accusation, "Something seems fishy about this story." ("Gun control activist Alec Baldwin is a known hot head")
25: I didn’t accuse him of anything. It is a known fact that he is a hothead. He has been arrested multiple times for things like fighting over public parking spaces which he seems to think he owns. I do suspect him of something, probably negligence at the least.
The latest reports say that he was handed a gun and told that it was a “cold gun.” If true, and if he didn’t check it himself to make sure it was really unloaded before pointing it at other human beings, in my opinion, that’s negligence at least.
I’ve never worked in Hollywood, but I would be surprised if the safety protocols don’t require the actor actually using the firearm to do the final check. If not, they should.
@doctorevil,
I have no quarrel with what are saying my point was quite simple, and thought it was obvious to any fair-minded people, my quarrel with the posters that are so quick to balkanize every story and make everything that happens a case of right vs left
^ One more point, while his politics very well known, Alec Baldwin's politics have very little to do with this story, it's simply a tragedy even if he should have known to check the weapon, there is no suggestion from any of the parties involved nor the police, of any indications that there was any intent other then the economic activity of making a movie.
25, I don't really disagree with what you are saying. The incident in and of itself is just a horrible tragedy for the cinematographer and director who were killed and injured, and that's not a right v. left issue. But it's hard not to consider Baldwin's outspoken liberal politics, including on gun control, given the circumstances of this incident. I can imagine what commentators on the left would be saying if Jon Voight or Steven Seagal or Clint Eastwood were involved. It would probably be the same kind of things Baldwin said when VP Cheney accidentally shot his friend on a hunting trip.
I never thought and still don't think Baldwin intended to hurt or kill anyone. However, given his well known hotheadedness, I can easily see him creating conditions on the set that could lead to this kind of accident. I'm very sorry for the deceased and the injured director, but I'm not going to be a hypocrite and say I feel sympathy for Baldwin. I don't.
Also, it seems that Baldwin's spokesperson lied when they initially said this was a "misfire" incident. It appears that Baldwin pulled the trigger and the gun fired. That's not a misfire. That's what guns are supposed to do. It looks like there will be plenty of blame to go around
@C.M.I. "As much as I dislike Baldwin, this isn't his fault."
As much as I agree with most of what you post here, with this bit I vehemently *dis*agree. The gun was in his hand. He pointed it at someone and fired. He *is* responsible.
Whether or not *other* people said the gun was safe is irrelevant. He should have checked it himself. If he didn't know how, he should have asked for instruction before ever picking it up. Other people *might* share some responsibility, but his responsibility is absolute.
I actually like some of Alec Baldwins work I always thought he was funny on SNL back in the day and 30 Rock was good show. But I don’t know he’s got something going on with him mentally. He couldn’t emotionally deal with (like many liberals though) Trump, and that stuff with his wife and the accent was bizarre. He’s always getting into it with paparazzi. Something whacky going on with him. That all being said it seems like a tragic situation, you got to be super careful, and really be educated while handling firearms. Whatever happens we all know Hollywood is going to end up blaming the inanimate object.
@Muddy
How is his work on SNL back in the day ? It was less than 4 tears ago he was doing his Donald J. Trump impressions if that's back in the day wow !
LOL
You know I haven’t watched at all in like the last decade so I don’t know. It got too woke for me. I have seen some cringe worthy clips. Like when Kate McKinney sing as Hilary or when Cecile strong sing to Obama. Like wait isn’t this show supposed to be funny instead of bowing to Government.
Anyway I do feel for Alec Baldwin. I saw that photo of him on his phone, you could see a man broken. That’s not to say he wasn’t at fault but it’s just so crucial to be educated on firearms and practice safety No.1
I'll just add that I actually used to like Alec Baldwin's movies, and I thought he was great on 30 Rock. But his Trump sketches on SNL were not political satire. They were just mean spirited personal attacks. And then there was that crazy stuff about him attacking people over things like open, public parking spaces. And who can forget the vile stuff he said to his own 11 year old daughter. The guy's unbalanced, and at some point you dislike someone so much you can't enjoy watching them act anymore.
"The gun was in his hand. He pointed it at someone and fired. He *is* responsible."
I'll meet you halfway on this one. I think that any actor who is going to handle firearms on a set should be extremely familiar with guns and know how to check them for proper loading.
That said, the film industry set up its on-set safety rules based on the reality that most actors aren't knowledgeable about guns (or any other dangerous props) and are poorly equipped to make these checks.
As a matter of fact, insurance and the actor's agents usually require that the actor be shielded from any responsibility for gun safety (or any other prop) because they are not experts. And that's why production companies seek to surround the talent with experts so as to keep them removed from that liability.
(In another discussion, I saw it stated that talent is prohibited from checking their own weapons or props because, in doing so, they might compromise the work done by safety and stung engineers. But I have no idea if that's true.)
And, as this incident proves, that's an imperfect system. If I were pointing guns at people, I'd want to be able to check them, because how horrible would it be if something like this happened?
I think that this is a tragedy right now, but a developing story in terms of liability and blame.
Though it's only barely related to this thread, I think the last bit of acting of his I enjoyed was "Hunt for Red October".
Some great points made from both sides (regarding Balwin's culpability in this tragedy). But I still maintain that REAL guns have no place on a movie set. Even the one in a million chance that something could (and did) go wrong is not worth it. There's just too much other stuff going on in addition to the firing of guns. It's probably the one and only place where guns are used while the primary focus and reason for being there is something OTHER than the guns. There's a very good reason why shooting ranges are so methodical in their procedures. Everything is designed to prevent distractions.
Also worth mentioning that at least half the people on a movie set are probably high on who knows what kind of mind-altering substances.
I think Papi raised the right question, why not use a fake gun?
But then how do you know it is a fake gun?
And sometimes you do want to show an actor firing a real gun.
So use a gun which has the barrel plugged, and then have under lock and key an unplugged gun.
I have seen movies about movie making where they have the person who will be holding the gun let the person whom it will be pointed at examine the breech.
Better if it could be inspected even more easily. Say you cut a piece of 16 gauge sheet steel so it just fits in the barrel. Then push it in and have it stop 2 inches short of the muzzle. Then weld it into the breech. Then you can verify by opening the breech, looking down the muzzle, or pushing something else into the muzzle, that this an an un-firable weapon. All weapons are kept under lock and key, and anyone who will be on the set when an unfireable weapon is being used, can inspect it.
THIS IS THE SUBJECT OF AN ONGOING CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION, so details will be sketchy. So just like doctorevils last thread, it is important that threads remain open, as people do need to be able to add to them when more information becomes available.
If you use a gun with the barrel plugged there a great probability that a blank round will cause the gun to explode in the user's hand, I don't see why they can't manufacture a gun that will fire a squib that's suitable for making a movie.
You plug the barrel, but the plug is something which runs all the way into the breech, and the breech is where it is welded in. So no round could ever be gotten into it. You can verify that it is plugged in this manner by looking into the breech, by looking down the muzzle, or by inserting something into the muzzle which will reach down 2 inches.
^^^ dont you have anything better to do than sit at the library all day than spamming this board? What happened to the organist your building that involves sensitive affairs keeping you busy 24/7?
LOL how would you plug the barrel all the way to the breech with a revolver, especially a revolver similar to the guns that are used in westerns like a Colt 45 Army , Remington Army, or a Walker Dragoon model 1 or 2, that wouldn't really work out very well
You couldn't plug it that way if it were a revolver. It would only work for automatics. On a revolver you could plug the barrel and then each of the chambers in the cylinders.
Still be much simpler to make prop guns that only fire squibs it'll give off the muzzle flash and smoke that makes it realistic, but the charge used to power such a prop would be less powerful than a regular firecracker
Well, but how inspectable is this. Someone who will have a gun pointed at them during a scene still has to be able to make sure that no one has tampered or substituted guns.
There have been previous accidents on movie sets.
Also, for some scenes you need real guns, which will have revolver leak by, and which will cycle like a real automatic.
"So use a gun which has the barrel plugged, and then have under lock and key an unplugged gun."
"You plug the barrel, but the plug is something which runs all the way into the breech, and the breech is where it is welded in. So no round could ever be gotten into it."
Let me get this straight. The plugged gun is completely inert, as not even a blank round can be inserted? So why the elaborate design? You might as well just use a rubber training gun. And then for the actual shooting parts you bring out the real (unplugged) gun which was under lock and key? So we're back to square one, with a real gun that actually functions, but no plug or muzzle dipstick contraption as you've devised for the plugged gun.
Y'know what, you really might be onto something here!
It isn't necessary to do an inspection if the prop were manufactured properly as long as there is proper quality control, firearms and live ammunition wouldn't ever be on the set, and with the advanced imagery and AI computers available while editing, there could be imagery that would pass even the most astute and discerning viewers.
You're just adding a piece of 16 gauge sheet steel, cut to fit, and welding it in. I looks real because it is real. But it can easily be checked before each scene to make sure it is the disabled gun.
Everyone has the right to know that an able gun is not being pointed at them.
I agree with misterorange (someone take a picture...). In most cases, there's probably no good reason to have a real gun on set.
Also, to continue my previous point, I suspect that another reason why production companies want to keep actors out of the safety loop is the number of people (including actors) who think they are experts, but are aggressively not experts.
Case in point... SJG, who as usual has many opinions but a complete lack of applicable knowledge when it comes to guns and ballistics... or reality.
Side note... Hi, SCL troll. I see that you've added "nikau" to go along with "yarise9". You're still a twat.
It is typical now to have the person who will be holding the gun open the breech to let the person who it will be pointed at inspect it. My solution would simply make it that much harder for there to be any subterfuge or tampering.
And yes, sometimes they do need to use fully functional guns, but not ever pointed at anyone. Rather adequate safety precautions in place.
Must have been something strange going on with that movie set.
I remember about 20 years ago, there was a fatality in Formula One racing. It was related to recent modifications made to the car. People talked about it being prosecuted for criminal negligence.
We have some lawyers here, people who might know how fatalities like this have been treated before.
I'll admit I have no evidence, but I'm willing to bet this is not true. When guns malfunction, it usually causes them to jam and not fire as opposed to fire without warning. It's hard to imagine a single action revolver just firing without warning while being held in the hand.
@doc agreed. More likely it was a negligent discharge where his finger was in fact on the trigger at the moment he pointed it, and by accident he ended up actually pulling it. This is rare but it does happen, especially with people that have poor trigger discipline. YouTube is full of videos of idiots that ND. None of them intended to pull the trigger, but somehow they actually did.
I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he didn't intend to pull it. He's clearly distraught about it and I doubt his mind will ever allow him to admit that he might have pulled it by accident.
The big question to me is whether or not his finger was physically on the trigger when he was pointing it. If it was, the I say it was a negligent discharge.
There's another way that there could be a negligent discharge with an old revolver if the hammer was cocked, and something banged against the gun or his hand, it isn't likely most old style revolvers do require a certain amount of trigger pull strength, if the hammer is un-cocked. My best guess is he's seriously distraught about this and has convinced himself that he didn't pull the trigger but it's much more likely that he did.
Several news reports indicated it was an Old West style single action revolver. This means every shot requires two operator inputs: 1. Manually cocking of the hammer, and 2. Pulling the trigger. There is a miniscule but nonzero possibility that with the hammer cocked there could be an internal mechanical failure that could cause the hammer to drop and fire the gun without the trigger being pulled. I understand that the gun is being examined by the FBI for that possibility, so we will know eventually if that happened. However, even if it did, that means Baldwin was waving around a cocked handgun, an extremely unsafe act in itself.
And it also raises the question as to why the gun was even cocked? The only safe way to carry these kinds of guns is with the hammer down on an empty chamber.
^ Absolutely I wasn't trying to defend any actions, I was just pointing out the flaws in the old style revolvers like that Colt 45 style of antique firearm
Unless it can be proven that the gun was defective in such a way as it would have gone off on its own even sitting on a table, or someone booby trapped it, I will never not believe he wasn't responsible. Full stop.
Baldwin is the perfect example of an anti-gun zealot who clearly knows nothing about guns or gun safety, and therefore is totally unqualified to offer opinions on gun control issues.
It will be interesting to see the full interview, which is tonight at 8:00 on ABC.
I said earlier that I feel bad for the dumb fuck, and I meant it. But depending on what he says, I might change my mind. If he takes ownership of what happened and is truly remorseful, that's one thing. But if the interview just looks like ass-covering and finger-pointing, that's something else. Claiming he "didn't pull the trigger" is not a good start, but let's see the rest of his explanation.
I was reading that in the movie industry that it's not the actor's responsibility whatsoever on the condition of the gun. The actor's job is simply to act and others are responsible for safety on the set.
Sorry but I cannot wrap my head around this. Basic gun safety should trump everything else. If you are handling a gun you should be responsible for knowing and understanding the condition of it. Actors can be trained to do this. It doesn't have to be any more complicated than this. And you can still have an armorer and prop guy to still do their part on the safety of it too.
I don't care if I see someone check a gun in front of me before they hand it over. If it's in my hands I'm going to check it myself immediately. Gun safety 101. But this doesn't apply on a movie set? WTF???
Yeah - I saw the commercial for the interview. He didn’t pull the trigger?
Guns just don’t spontaneously fire on their own.
Only stupid people who have no mechanical understanding about how a firearm works would believe that.
But stupid people believed cars would suddenly accelerate on their own and couldn’t be stopped by a driver using the brakes. Ridiculous but idiots believed it.
My guess is this was an accident but a serious amount of negligence led up to it. Primarily, why the hell was live ammo anywhere near a weapon that was going to be pointed towards people for filming.
Secondly, was his finger on the trigger or was he trained in proper firearms safety for the role?
Third, the weapon was described as a single action revolver which means even if pulled the trigger it wouldn't have fired unless the hammer had been cocked prior to pulling the trigger. If the hammer was cocked and he was pointing it at people he needs to face some type of charges for his reckless behavior because it is asinine to point a weapon that is cocked anywhere near a person you don't intend to shoot even if you don't think it is loaded.
The only way this could have been an accident that wasn't caused by his recklessness is if the gun was uncocked and his finger wasn't on the trigger when it fired. That would take either an extremely rare mechanical defect or if it was a rimfire cartridge that somehow was bumped hard enough to ignite the primer. A rimfire accidental discharge is slightly more common but usually involves it being dropped or hit up against something fairly hard which seems unlikely since all witness statements describe the gun as being in his hand when it fired. Even if it was a true accidental discharge it was still reckless to point a gun at multiple people without being 100% sure it wasn't loaded.
My guess is that his excuse that he didn't pull the trigger is either his mind blocking out part of a traumatic event as a type of ptsd which wouldn't be uncommon after killing someone or he didn't realize his finger accidentally put enough pressure on the trigger to activate it but that could only happen if it was cocked and his finger was on the trigger.
That or he is trying to counter the statement that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people with guns" but saying that the gun killed her instead of admitting that he did.
“ My guess is that his excuse that he didn't pull the trigger is either his mind blocking out part of a traumatic event as a type of ptsd which wouldn't be uncommon after killing someone or he didn't realize his finger accidentally put enough pressure on the trigger to activate it”
Possible. I think it’s more likely that he’s just an arrogant blowhard who can’t admit he did something wrong.
"I don't care if I see someone check a gun in front of me before they hand it over. If it's in my hands I'm going to check it myself immediately."
You know what, if I was holding a revolver, and I opened the cylinder and found all six holes plugged with wooden dowels, I still wouldn't be able to point it at someone and pull the trigger. That little rule about "treat every gun as loaded" is something I take very literally.
But that's just me as a regular guy. I suppose if I was a big movie star and the scene called for firing a gun at someone, I would do it. But to your point, there is NO WAY I would do ANYTHING with that gun before I checked it myself. It wouldn't even be a deliberate action - more like muscle memory. My hands and eyes would be checking the gun before my brain even thought about doing it.
But some dipshit anti-gunner doesn't even have the common sense to check it or call someone else over if he doesn't know how. Apparently he was told the gun was unloaded... "cold gun" someone said. I wonder if the scene required him to put the gun to his own head and pull the trigger, would he have insisted on checking it again, or just took the guy's word for it?
"But some dipshit anti-gunner doesn't even have the common sense to check it or call someone else over if he doesn't know how. Apparently he was told the gun was unloaded... "cold gun" someone said. I wonder if the scene required him to put the gun to his own head and pull the trigger, would he have insisted on checking it again, or just took the guy's word for it?"
^^^ @misterorange this right here is the crux of my point that any actor handling a functioning firearm must go through gun safety training if they are going to handle one on set. An anti-gunner or just someone ignorant of handling one has no business having one in their hands. Alec just proved it.
I was never an anti-gunner but I'm a relatively new gun owner and I can say that I had poor trigger control and challenges in consistently following the safety rules myself when I started out. And training and practice and help from experienced gun owners is how I improved.
So now I'm reading this story and it is just boggling my mind how the movie industry doesn't just simply have that training requirement for actors. They should still have an armorer and prop guy and others doing their same thing with gun safety, and also not allow live ammo on the set, but these should be the additional precautions. The actor is the one holding the fucking gun at someone. Shouldn't they have the fucking MOST training AND responsibility out of anyone?
Well, I watched the full interview and took a few notes. It's hard to say what it all means or the reason for it.
My initial reaction is that it was very highly produced. One might even say "over-produced." The first thing that struck me was the lighting. Half his face in the dark, the other half well lit. Very dramatic.
Stephanopoulos did ask some ostensibly hard-hitting questions. But Baldwin's responses seemed extremely well scripted, obviously coached (and undoubtedly edited) by his legal team. I'll bet in the month and a half since this happened, he spent a week grieving, and the rest assembling a legal dream team of lawyers.
I'm not ready to say that him getting choked up and crying a few times was fake. I believe that even a douchebag like Baldwin would have to be going through terrible emotional distress over what happened. Yet he forcefully denied any responsibility. He even went so far as to complain about the response time of EMS, and how long it took them to transport her after they arrived.
Regarding the accusations that HE should have checked the gun, he made a convincing argument that in 40 years as an actor he relied on other people for that. Honestly, that would sound reasonable to me if I was some idiot who never owned a gun. But you would think that someone who's so "anti-gun" (but makes his living by handling REAL guns on a movie set) might make more of an effort to educate himself. He said (several times) he partially cocked the hammer and aimed it according to the direction of Halyna Hutchins, who was shot and killed. He walked the line of "blaming the victim" but didn't quite go there.
I think he's coming to terms with what a jerkoff he is, but has the means to make it less painful. Shit, if I was in that situation, I'd do the same thing. Not that I ever would be in that situation, because I'm educated on gun safety... and not a self absorbed millionaire.
Bottom line is Baldwin is a fucking idiot, corrupted and blinded by the riches of Hollywood. I don't want to see him serve life in jail for being a moron, as much as I hate the fucking asshole. I wish he would donate most of his money to realistic gun protocols on Hollywood movie sets, instead of blaming responsible gun owners... but I doubt he'll do that. He's more concerned about getting this behind him.
So fuck him. I hope he gets locked up for a few years. I don't care any more about him than he does about me.
I watched some of the excerpts later. He said he was rehearsing cocking the gun, pulled the hammer almost all the way back, then released it, and it fired. Well duh. That’s really no different than pulling the trigger to release the hammer. It never crossed my mind someone would do something like that. I don’t know if it’s really the standard in the movie industry for the actor to have no responsibility for the condition of a firearm that’s handed to him. If so, he may be off the hook. But it doesn’t seem to be the standard. I just saw a recent article where George Clooney said he always personally checks any firearm he uses in a movie. Regardless, Baldwin is still an arrogant ass, as the interview clearly showed. But he is a good actor. So who knows if the tears were real or not. Fuck him.
"He said he was rehearsing cocking the gun, pulled the hammer almost all the way back, then released it, and it fired."
Well, if he wasn't such an anti-gun asshole (who still relies on guns to make his living) maybe this wouldn't have happened. Only an idiot would fuck around with a gun that he didn't personally inspect.
But still, the other people on the set should have made sure this didn't happen.
I agree it was highly produced and it was scripted. Also his crying and the remorse he feels was genuine. I felt sorry for him.
I was glad to hear that some actors only trust themselves with checking the gun, but I was still WTF about how others, like Baldwin, trust the armorer or prop guy to check. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. The fact that it was always fine for 40 years prior in Baldwin's career is a poor excuse.
Releasing the hammer is still a negligent discharge as far as I'm concerned. It's just taking out the "middle man" being the trigger. Same rules of gun safety apply, as cocking and releasing the hammer is still a means to fire that type of gun. Again maybe if he understood the firearm's physics better, he wouldn't have released it like he did.
I also thought he came close to saying it was her own responsibility that the gun was pointed at her because she was asking him to do it as the cinematographer. In my book, still not OK to point a gun you didn't personally check yourself at another person. Still shouldn't point a gun at someone that you don't intend to shoot. The fact that they say it's OK doesn't mean you should do it.
Ultimately it reaffirmed my view of the lackadaisical nature of movie set gun safety. I know hindsight is 20-20 but really it's just bad. The actor still needs to be that last line of defense in the safety so he should have training and a lot more responsibility.
And Baldwin has got to bear at least some responsibility in this. At producer and shooter level.
It was a Colt single action .45, I could have told you from the get go that there was no way it fired without the hammer being cocked and then force being applied to the trigger. The only way it could have fired otherwise would be if the mechanism had be modified or seriously damaged and the investigation found neither.
Seems he forgot the two most basic rules of handling a firearm.
1) Treat every gun as if it is loaded
2) Never point a gun at anything that you don't want to kill or destroy
Not saying he is the only one to blame, whoever loaded live ammunition into a prop gun certainly should be held responsible as well. But, in the end he pointed the gun, cocked the hammer and pulled the trigger so he bears the ultimate responsibility.
You know what, at first I really felt sorry for the guy. But the more this fuckin cocksucker says and does to defend himself the less sincere he seems and the more I wish they'd lock his ass up.
"I hired a private investigator," Baldwin told CNN, later adding that the last 10 months have "taken years off my life."
What an interesting choice of words under the circumstances. Years off HIS life???
"Baldwin noted that he wanted to finish Rust for Halyna's family — 'we wanted to put the money in the kid's pocket.' Halyna and her husband, Matt Hutchins, shared one young son."
Sheesh... that's how he wants to take care of the kid, by getting his career back on track and profiting from the film where he shot the boy's mother? What's the plan, to donate her would-be salary to the child? Why doesn't he just reach in his own fucking pocket and set up a trust fund in the mother's memory?
He goes on to blame others on the set and says they should be banished from the film industry. And he whines and cries about not getting work in the year since the incident. Gosh, who would have thought killing a woman would be so inconvenient for him.
I think it's a coping mechanism and a legal defense thing with him not accepting any responsibility. If he admits to any amount of it, he's opening himself up to a manslaughter charge and civil case. He probably feels different inside but will never go in the record about it - and that's what's taking the 10 years off his life.
The Alec Baldwin trial began this week. Thought it was appropriate to bump this thread. Oh the irony of an ardent anti-gun activist killing someone with a gun
One person has already plead guilty or been convicted of manslaughter and will do minimum of 18 months for their part. This opens up for possible recklessness by Baldwin, but he’s got bigger and more powerful attorneys representing him.
I don't understand the theory of the case at all. It just seems a no-brainer to me, that Baldwin had no legal agency here. I may be wrong, please inform me.
I got the impression, generally speaking, that Baldwin was filming a scene which called for him to perform the action of shooting someone, and that in so doing, he was holding what he sensibly thought was a fake gun (a "prop" gun = "properties of the movie"). The script (so I guess) says that Baldwin's character points the gun and pulls the trigger and the other actor's character gets shot.
This happens in movies a lot. All the actors and director etc. etc. leave it up to the properties people to set up the fake gun. In this case, Baldwin uses the fake gun, as intended, all the while assuming it will be fake. But it turns out to work like a real gun, much to his surprise.
Why is he guilty of anything other than simply expecting the movie to be filmed the way all movies are filmed? Didn't he get surprised by the fact that the gun worked like a real gun? Was he somehow AWARE that the gun was not fake? Was he clued in to the fact that it would kill? If, instead, he genuinely thought it was fake, then how on earth would he film the scene in any other manner than pointing the gun and pulling the trigger? If he's guilty and yet thought the gun was fake, this means we can never again have any movie with a shooting in it because all filmed shootings are attempted murders.
Maybe I don't know all the facts, in which case please enlighten me. But I see people on this thread (two years ago) saying that because (a) he was holding the gun he must therefore (b) be guilty. No, he was holding WHAT HE THOUGHT WAS A FAKE GUN. I don't get how the mere act of holding it makes him the guilty one. If instead he knew it was going to be real (or work like a real gun); or he's responsible for loading it and chose non-fake bullets; or he's the one who commanded it to be loaded with non-fake bullets; or he changed the script which never called for him pulling the trigger, and ad-libbed the trigger-pull on his own; or ... any of a number of other scenarios, then yes, maybe he's guilty.
But if he genuinely (a) thought the gun was fake, therefore harmless, he must be, as far as I can tell, (b) entirely innocent of attempting or intending to cause harm.
But a lot of people here, many of whom may be intelligent guys with common sense, seem to think Baldwin ought to be found guilty. Right now I can't understand that at all. Will one of those intelligent guys with common sense please explain how Baldwin could be guilty if he really thought the gun was fake?
I am genuinely asking. If you rant back at me with "you idiot" type responses you will lose a great deal of the opportunity to convince me of the validity of your side. If instead you explain something that I don't understand, we might come to an agreement of one sort or another.
And as much as I despise that smug son-of-a-bitch, I tend to agree that he was probably the LEAST to blame. Anti-gun know-nothing asshole couldn't tell a real bullet from a snap cap. That's why they have professional armorers and safety people on the set.
That said, his handling of the situation since the shooting has been unbelievably pathetic and self-centered. For that, I wouldn't be sad if he did some time.
@misterorange OK so it WAS a real gun. But did Baldwin THINK it was fake? Is there some way to know the difference between fake guns and real guns? (I mean, I know there are SOME fakes that are obvious. But a kid recently pointed a convincing fake at a cop and got killed by the cop who reasonably thought it was real, so there are certainly some fakes that fool some experienced people.)
Main question. Did Baldwin believe it was a fake gun that would cause no harm?
Next question. If he did believe this, then he is not guilty, right?
Ultimately, I think the armorer was most at fault. As I understand it, she was using it with friends for target shooting when it wasn't needed on set. She would have been responsible for making sure it was cleared before returning it to the prop table.
Alec deserves probation for manslaughter, fines, community service, and a mnadatory NRA gun safety class. Even if an Assistant Director did pick it up off the prop table and declare "cold gun" when he brought it on set, it is the responsibility of the person pulling the trigger (really pointing it anywhere) to ensure that it is safe to use. Alex Baldwin has been in enough movies that he should be able to tell the difference between a blank and a live round. This " don't point the gun at anything you don't want to kill" maxim does not apply here. They were seeking point-blank twelve o'clock shooting footage, so the camera and cinematographer had to be in front of the barrel. Again, Alec should have been trained to ensure the gun was safe before pointing it anyone and pulling the trigger. Likewise, had I been the person the gun was pointing at, I would have insisted on being allowed to inspect the gun and the blank rounds to ensure I was satisfied that I was safe.
There are a lot of parallels on how unlikeable Alec Baldwin is as a defendant and Donald Trump. There are a lot of parallels in their behavior as defendants and their polarizing effect on jury pools. I won't state the obvious about dead bodies and who I feel is innocent.
Thanks for the info gammanu, so I'm learning, that it's usual movie procedure that the gun-shooter is responsible for taking his own steps to make sure the gun is harmless. I had assumed otherwise, as have most of the people I've talked to in non-internet life (of which I have scant little, but at least some). We're all of the (wrong) impression that for any movie the gun's harmlessness is absolutely sure in the first place. I'd think that a movie maker would want a gun that can't hurt. But I'm getting the impression that they need functioning guns which they then somehow limit the hurtfulness of. Why one earth would people who make movies want to use guns that can hurt people? Seems a bit over the top. Jurassic Park didn't actually clone dinosaurs just so they could film them.
^^ Yup, that was my question from the very beginning. With high-tech special effects being so commonplace these days, I can't see any reason why a real gun should ever be on a movie set. At the very least, they should be permanently and irreversibly modified to accept only special blanks that could be custom made for that purpose. Yet here we are, and that woman is dead.
Actually I'm getting the impression the withholding was deliberate, long-term, and carefully orchestrated. Whether the evidence is ACTUALLY helpful to the defense or not is beside the point. It could have POTENTIALLY been helpful. When I worked as a prosecutor our boss' instructions on turning over evidence to discovery motions was "give 'em your underwear!" Turn over everything. Keep nothing held back. The case-law (Brady v Maryland and related and their progeny) require that prosecutors have to give to defense any evidence that might help defense, and that the remedy for any failure to do so is to be at maximum level of harshness in order to incentivize future turning over. Case dismissal with prejudice -- same as not-guilty verdict, jeopardy attached. I heard as well hints that the lead prosecutor had resigned from prosecution in order that she could testify against herself (thereby in the State's behalf) that none of the withheld stuff would have been useful. They were doing double-backflips to play some kind of game which backfired on them.
The prosecution claims that a box of live ammunition from the Rust shooting was brought to LEO be a friend of someone from the set (I'm not quoting directly from the article, so forgive any minor inaccuracies). The prosecution determined that it was not from the set, did not match the live round Baldwin fired, and had no relevance. Thus, they filed it under a different case number and never provided it to the defense. The judge was correct that it may not have been exculpatory, but it certainly LOOKS so much like the prosecution went to the utmost extremes and gross violations of hiding this evidence that it may as well be the same. It was the right call. The Biden admin, DOJ, and NYC AGs could learn a lot about ethics from this judge.
117 comments
Latest
https://gunsafetyrules.nra.org/
I’m not saying something didn’t go wrong here. Something obviously did. Usually it would be the wadding from the blank, but killing one person and injuring another? That’s definitely a fuck up. There’s been some mention that they may have been filming at the time so a lot more will come out.
ffs, that's literally how it's being reported in some places.
Prop Gun That Killed Cinematographer on Alec Baldwin Film Contained ‘Live Single Round,’ Union Claims
https://variety.com/2021/film/news/alec-…
That said, I think Baldwin is a major asshole and a total fucking moron, but I wouldn't wish this kind of thing on anybody. Unless something to the contrary comes out of the investigation, it seems a little soon to put this on him. I'm sure he's going through a ton of grief and guilt right now. I hope it will turn out to be some kind of freak accident, rather than a reckless disregard for safety.
It is a heavy weight to carry - even for a guy who appears to be a self important asshole like Alec Baldwin.
Regardless of who is ultimately deemed to be at fault - if he was holding the prop gun - he will feel guilt due to the circumstances.
Of course! It can't possibly be the fault of the person *holding* the gun, especially when that person is the great Alec Baldwin!
If you want to lock criminals up, start with Trump and his retarded insurrectionists.
Either a live round was mistakenly put in the gun or a foreign object was in the chamber with a blank round. Either way, somebody fucked up.
“I wonder how it must feel to wrongfully kill someone,” Baldwin tweeted.
An *avoidable* accident. Not *supposed* to have live ammo. Alec Baldwin *is* an asshole, and he's absolutely responsible for what happened while the gun was in his hand. Just as every single other shooter ever is responsible for what happens when the gun was in their hand.
He *should* have checked it to make sure it was *properly* loaded. If he didn't know how, he should have asked for instruction. Ignorance is no excuse, especially when it's *correctable* ignorance.
I have a good deal of experience with firearms starting with rifle team in High School (yes, public high schools used to have rifle team as a sport). Spent 8 years as an Infantry officer in the Army. NRA certified Range Safety Officer and taught classes on gun safety. So I know a lot about the huge responsibility that comes with handling firearms. When I'm at the range, I'm obsessive about safety for myself, any guest who I might bring with me, and of course it's EVERYONE'S responsibility to speak up immediately if they witness an unsafe act, no matter how minor.
I'll admit I know almost NOTHING about the movie business, but it seems to me that BY DEFINITION actors must intentionally point guns at each other and pull the trigger. I don't see any possible way to make a western style film while following rules designed for target shooting or hunting in the real world.
Clearly there must be very different safety measures used in film making, such as "prop guns" which I imagine are supposed to be incapable of firing actual ammunition. I don't know why it should even be necessary to use "blanks" which still force a massive amount of pressure into and out of the barrel of a pistol. It's enough pressure to cause serious injury or death if fired too close to someone's body. And if by some crazy accident an object became lodged inside the barrel, it could be almost as deadly as a real bullet. One would think with all the technology that goes into film making these days, they could use something no more powerful than a toy cap gun. Or even a prop gun that just makes a "click" sound without any sort of explosion at all, then add in the sound effects and muzzle flash later??? I don't know, like I said I'm not in the movie business.
Anyway, whatever safety protocols do exist in movie-making, all we know at this point is something went tragically wrong. In the absence of more information about what really happened, it's not fair to start blaming Alec Baldwin or assume he somehow acted recklessly (no matter how much of an ASSHOLE they guy might be).
SJG
Honeyybunn
https://tuscl.net/photo.php?id=8133
That said, this was a damn shame. And anyone who is tempted to cheer this happening to Alec Baldwin, you should be thinking about the completely innocent cinematographer and director who were killed and injured instead.
-The camera crew walked off the set hours before the shooting as a protest against working conditions. It is unknown whether the prop master also walked out.
- There were other problems with prop guns on the set prior to the shooting.
Thank you for you military service
SJG
SJG
Doesn't it make a lot more sense to use fake prop guns that can't possibly fire a live round of ammunition, than to use real guns and "be careful" about not putting actual bullets in them? Seriously, who are the assholes that make these decisions? And more importantly, who are the scumbag politicians who pass ultra-restrictive gun control laws, ostensibly for our safety, but allow real guns to be passed around a movie set as if they were toys?
They were filming in New Mexico. I wonder if the reason might be that in California they couldn't get permission to use real guns? Last year CA was ranked #47 in the Guns & Ammo list of gun-friendly states. The only ones lower on the list were NJ, MA, HI and NY. (Yes, that adds up to 51 because the list includes Washington DC. Apparently even DC is more gun-friendly than the five worst states.)
As a gun owner in NJ, I can tell you that NJ's gun laws are so restrictive, arbitrary and complicated, nobody in their right mind, whether you're a bum on the street or a big-shot movie producer, would even think of taking a gun out in public, much less passing it around to be used as a prop. (Exceptions of course would be gang members and other criminal shitheads who don't think twice about blasting away on city streets.)
Furthermore, one would think an anti-gun jerkoff like Baldwin would insist upon strict rules regarding the types of guns that may be used on a movie where he's the producer, since guns are such terrible things, especially in the hands of law-abiding citizens. I guess his political causes take a back seat to his earning potential.
Regardless of all that, I've gotta admit I feel some degree of sympathy for the dumb fuck. Obviously not in the same way as for the victims of this major screw-up, but man I'd hate to be in his shoes right now. As much as I can't stand the stupid blowhard, I wouldn't wish something this awful on him.
A Prop Gun cannot fire a live round. It cannot. Therefore, the weapon in Baldwin's hand was not a Prop Gun.
Whoever brought a live round or live rounds of ammo onto the set is in serious trouble, and Baldwin potentially is also. One NEVER aims at another on set, even with a Prop Gun. Camera angles trick the eyes of the viewers into imagining that, but on-set, it is strictly forbidden. And aiming at the cinematographer? Not part of the movie-making process, but a choice Baldwin made.
https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-ar…
It could be argued that Baldwin had some responsibility, even if there's no fault on his part. In similar situations, where the acting talent became aware of safety issues that threatened them and others, the lead actors have stopped working or walked off the set to leverage the production company into making changes. Who knows how much Baldwin did or didn't know (or care) about the conditions. Based on the stories I've read, this was the sort of movie where everyone is just trying to collect a paycheck.
And, if anything, this accident makes it even easier for Baldwin and others to trumpet about gun restrictions/control. So, if you're a gun rights enthusiast, you can chuckle all you want but this isn't helpful.
Not only is Baldwin acting in this movie, he is the Producer. As a result, he is ultimately in charge of all safety procedures and hiring the people to carry them out. The fact that there were 3 prior incidents, that he didn’t correct as producer, makes him all the more guilty.
Yes this is a tragedy that's pretty much the sum of the whole story.
BTW I agree with those who pointed out there's no legitimate reason that real firearms should be used for this type of work, I'm sure they could come up with very real looking non=lethal props.
This movie has seven producers (including Baldwin) and five executive producers. It's not uncommon for production companies to give a lead actor a producer credit as a perk to jump on a film. It includes an ego boost and (usually) a bump in pay, but essentially zero real duties other than showing up to act. The person on set who is responsible for safety is the director. That's the person everyone reports to on set. I'd still contend that all of the acting talent on that film could or should have done more to pressure the director and studio executives into taking safety seriously.
I know that you really want this to be the sole fault of the liberal actor you hate, but it's really not.
But it remains a horrible tragedy.
“Something seems fishy about this story”
Lots of comments on politics and who’s to blame but there is certainly more to the story. Let’s hear why the members of the prop union walked off the set hours earlier due to safety concerns. Fishy indeed.
Go with the full quote You left off half of the quote went from suspicious to an accusation, "Something seems fishy about this story." ("Gun control activist Alec Baldwin is a known hot head")
The latest reports say that he was handed a gun and told that it was a “cold gun.” If true, and if he didn’t check it himself to make sure it was really unloaded before pointing it at other human beings, in my opinion, that’s negligence at least.
I’ve never worked in Hollywood, but I would be surprised if the safety protocols don’t require the actor actually using the firearm to do the final check. If not, they should.
https://lawofselfdefense.com/alec-baldwi…
I have no quarrel with what are saying my point was quite simple, and thought it was obvious to any fair-minded people, my quarrel with the posters that are so quick to balkanize every story and make everything that happens a case of right vs left
I never thought and still don't think Baldwin intended to hurt or kill anyone. However, given his well known hotheadedness, I can easily see him creating conditions on the set that could lead to this kind of accident. I'm very sorry for the deceased and the injured director, but I'm not going to be a hypocrite and say I feel sympathy for Baldwin. I don't.
Also, it seems that Baldwin's spokesperson lied when they initially said this was a "misfire" incident. It appears that Baldwin pulled the trigger and the gun fired. That's not a misfire. That's what guns are supposed to do. It looks like there will be plenty of blame to go around
As much as I agree with most of what you post here, with this bit I vehemently *dis*agree. The gun was in his hand. He pointed it at someone and fired. He *is* responsible.
Whether or not *other* people said the gun was safe is irrelevant. He should have checked it himself. If he didn't know how, he should have asked for instruction before ever picking it up. Other people *might* share some responsibility, but his responsibility is absolute.
I follow a greater law than hairless ape law...THE LAW OF THE JUNGLE! ROAR!!!
How is his work on SNL back in the day ? It was less than 4 tears ago he was doing his Donald J. Trump impressions if that's back in the day wow !
LOL
Anyway I do feel for Alec Baldwin. I saw that photo of him on his phone, you could see a man broken. That’s not to say he wasn’t at fault but it’s just so crucial to be educated on firearms and practice safety No.1
I'll meet you halfway on this one. I think that any actor who is going to handle firearms on a set should be extremely familiar with guns and know how to check them for proper loading.
That said, the film industry set up its on-set safety rules based on the reality that most actors aren't knowledgeable about guns (or any other dangerous props) and are poorly equipped to make these checks.
As a matter of fact, insurance and the actor's agents usually require that the actor be shielded from any responsibility for gun safety (or any other prop) because they are not experts. And that's why production companies seek to surround the talent with experts so as to keep them removed from that liability.
(In another discussion, I saw it stated that talent is prohibited from checking their own weapons or props because, in doing so, they might compromise the work done by safety and stung engineers. But I have no idea if that's true.)
And, as this incident proves, that's an imperfect system. If I were pointing guns at people, I'd want to be able to check them, because how horrible would it be if something like this happened?
I think that this is a tragedy right now, but a developing story in terms of liability and blame.
Though it's only barely related to this thread, I think the last bit of acting of his I enjoyed was "Hunt for Red October".
Also worth mentioning that at least half the people on a movie set are probably high on who knows what kind of mind-altering substances.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/sheriff-baldw…
I think Papi raised the right question, why not use a fake gun?
But then how do you know it is a fake gun?
And sometimes you do want to show an actor firing a real gun.
So use a gun which has the barrel plugged, and then have under lock and key an unplugged gun.
I have seen movies about movie making where they have the person who will be holding the gun let the person whom it will be pointed at examine the breech.
Better if it could be inspected even more easily. Say you cut a piece of 16 gauge sheet steel so it just fits in the barrel. Then push it in and have it stop 2 inches short of the muzzle. Then weld it into the breech. Then you can verify by opening the breech, looking down the muzzle, or pushing something else into the muzzle, that this an an un-firable weapon. All weapons are kept under lock and key, and anyone who will be on the set when an unfireable weapon is being used, can inspect it.
THIS IS THE SUBJECT OF AN ONGOING CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION, so details will be sketchy. So just like doctorevils last thread, it is important that threads remain open, as people do need to be able to add to them when more information becomes available.
SJG
https://tuscl.net/photo.php?id=7607
https://tuscl.net/photo.php?id=6046
SJG
https://tuscl.net/photo.php?id=7607
https://tuscl.net/photo.php?id=6046
Maury Povich says “that is a lie!”
I have responsibilities, commitments, and obligations. So I must not disclose more.
SJG
"...describes a woman after copulation with Satan as 'very proud and satisfied'."
https://tuscl.net/discussion.php?id=7742…
SJG
There have been previous accidents on movie sets.
Also, for some scenes you need real guns, which will have revolver leak by, and which will cycle like a real automatic.
SJG
"You plug the barrel, but the plug is something which runs all the way into the breech, and the breech is where it is welded in. So no round could ever be gotten into it."
Let me get this straight. The plugged gun is completely inert, as not even a blank round can be inserted? So why the elaborate design? You might as well just use a rubber training gun. And then for the actual shooting parts you bring out the real (unplugged) gun which was under lock and key? So we're back to square one, with a real gun that actually functions, but no plug or muzzle dipstick contraption as you've devised for the plugged gun.
Y'know what, you really might be onto something here!
Everyone has the right to know that an able gun is not being pointed at them.
SJG
Also, to continue my previous point, I suspect that another reason why production companies want to keep actors out of the safety loop is the number of people (including actors) who think they are experts, but are aggressively not experts.
Case in point... SJG, who as usual has many opinions but a complete lack of applicable knowledge when it comes to guns and ballistics... or reality.
Side note... Hi, SCL troll. I see that you've added "nikau" to go along with "yarise9". You're still a twat.
And yes, sometimes they do need to use fully functional guns, but not ever pointed at anyone. Rather adequate safety precautions in place.
SJG
https://www.democracynow.org/2021/10/26/…
Must have been something strange going on with that movie set.
I remember about 20 years ago, there was a fatality in Formula One racing. It was related to recent modifications made to the car. People talked about it being prosecuted for criminal negligence.
We have some lawyers here, people who might know how fatalities like this have been treated before.
SJG
Bondage Harness
https://www.etsy.com/listing/856981278/b…
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/alec-baldwi…
I'll admit I have no evidence, but I'm willing to bet this is not true. When guns malfunction, it usually causes them to jam and not fire as opposed to fire without warning. It's hard to imagine a single action revolver just firing without warning while being held in the hand.
I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he didn't intend to pull it. He's clearly distraught about it and I doubt his mind will ever allow him to admit that he might have pulled it by accident.
The big question to me is whether or not his finger was physically on the trigger when he was pointing it. If it was, the I say it was a negligent discharge.
None of these idiots meant to pull their triggers but yet here they are...
https://youtu.be/mebcvnWc7ag
It will be interesting to see the full interview, which is tonight at 8:00 on ABC.
I said earlier that I feel bad for the dumb fuck, and I meant it. But depending on what he says, I might change my mind. If he takes ownership of what happened and is truly remorseful, that's one thing. But if the interview just looks like ass-covering and finger-pointing, that's something else. Claiming he "didn't pull the trigger" is not a good start, but let's see the rest of his explanation.
Sorry but I cannot wrap my head around this. Basic gun safety should trump everything else. If you are handling a gun you should be responsible for knowing and understanding the condition of it. Actors can be trained to do this. It doesn't have to be any more complicated than this. And you can still have an armorer and prop guy to still do their part on the safety of it too.
I don't care if I see someone check a gun in front of me before they hand it over. If it's in my hands I'm going to check it myself immediately. Gun safety 101. But this doesn't apply on a movie set? WTF???
Guns just don’t spontaneously fire on their own.
Only stupid people who have no mechanical understanding about how a firearm works would believe that.
But stupid people believed cars would suddenly accelerate on their own and couldn’t be stopped by a driver using the brakes. Ridiculous but idiots believed it.
Secondly, was his finger on the trigger or was he trained in proper firearms safety for the role?
Third, the weapon was described as a single action revolver which means even if pulled the trigger it wouldn't have fired unless the hammer had been cocked prior to pulling the trigger. If the hammer was cocked and he was pointing it at people he needs to face some type of charges for his reckless behavior because it is asinine to point a weapon that is cocked anywhere near a person you don't intend to shoot even if you don't think it is loaded.
The only way this could have been an accident that wasn't caused by his recklessness is if the gun was uncocked and his finger wasn't on the trigger when it fired. That would take either an extremely rare mechanical defect or if it was a rimfire cartridge that somehow was bumped hard enough to ignite the primer. A rimfire accidental discharge is slightly more common but usually involves it being dropped or hit up against something fairly hard which seems unlikely since all witness statements describe the gun as being in his hand when it fired. Even if it was a true accidental discharge it was still reckless to point a gun at multiple people without being 100% sure it wasn't loaded.
My guess is that his excuse that he didn't pull the trigger is either his mind blocking out part of a traumatic event as a type of ptsd which wouldn't be uncommon after killing someone or he didn't realize his finger accidentally put enough pressure on the trigger to activate it but that could only happen if it was cocked and his finger was on the trigger.
That or he is trying to counter the statement that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people with guns" but saying that the gun killed her instead of admitting that he did.
Possible. I think it’s more likely that he’s just an arrogant blowhard who can’t admit he did something wrong.
"I don't care if I see someone check a gun in front of me before they hand it over. If it's in my hands I'm going to check it myself immediately."
You know what, if I was holding a revolver, and I opened the cylinder and found all six holes plugged with wooden dowels, I still wouldn't be able to point it at someone and pull the trigger. That little rule about "treat every gun as loaded" is something I take very literally.
But that's just me as a regular guy. I suppose if I was a big movie star and the scene called for firing a gun at someone, I would do it. But to your point, there is NO WAY I would do ANYTHING with that gun before I checked it myself. It wouldn't even be a deliberate action - more like muscle memory. My hands and eyes would be checking the gun before my brain even thought about doing it.
But some dipshit anti-gunner doesn't even have the common sense to check it or call someone else over if he doesn't know how. Apparently he was told the gun was unloaded... "cold gun" someone said. I wonder if the scene required him to put the gun to his own head and pull the trigger, would he have insisted on checking it again, or just took the guy's word for it?
^^^ @misterorange this right here is the crux of my point that any actor handling a functioning firearm must go through gun safety training if they are going to handle one on set. An anti-gunner or just someone ignorant of handling one has no business having one in their hands. Alec just proved it.
I was never an anti-gunner but I'm a relatively new gun owner and I can say that I had poor trigger control and challenges in consistently following the safety rules myself when I started out. And training and practice and help from experienced gun owners is how I improved.
So now I'm reading this story and it is just boggling my mind how the movie industry doesn't just simply have that training requirement for actors. They should still have an armorer and prop guy and others doing their same thing with gun safety, and also not allow live ammo on the set, but these should be the additional precautions. The actor is the one holding the fucking gun at someone. Shouldn't they have the fucking MOST training AND responsibility out of anyone?
My initial reaction is that it was very highly produced. One might even say "over-produced." The first thing that struck me was the lighting. Half his face in the dark, the other half well lit. Very dramatic.
Stephanopoulos did ask some ostensibly hard-hitting questions. But Baldwin's responses seemed extremely well scripted, obviously coached (and undoubtedly edited) by his legal team. I'll bet in the month and a half since this happened, he spent a week grieving, and the rest assembling a legal dream team of lawyers.
I'm not ready to say that him getting choked up and crying a few times was fake. I believe that even a douchebag like Baldwin would have to be going through terrible emotional distress over what happened. Yet he forcefully denied any responsibility. He even went so far as to complain about the response time of EMS, and how long it took them to transport her after they arrived.
Regarding the accusations that HE should have checked the gun, he made a convincing argument that in 40 years as an actor he relied on other people for that. Honestly, that would sound reasonable to me if I was some idiot who never owned a gun. But you would think that someone who's so "anti-gun" (but makes his living by handling REAL guns on a movie set) might make more of an effort to educate himself. He said (several times) he partially cocked the hammer and aimed it according to the direction of Halyna Hutchins, who was shot and killed. He walked the line of "blaming the victim" but didn't quite go there.
I think he's coming to terms with what a jerkoff he is, but has the means to make it less painful. Shit, if I was in that situation, I'd do the same thing. Not that I ever would be in that situation, because I'm educated on gun safety... and not a self absorbed millionaire.
Bottom line is Baldwin is a fucking idiot, corrupted and blinded by the riches of Hollywood. I don't want to see him serve life in jail for being a moron, as much as I hate the fucking asshole. I wish he would donate most of his money to realistic gun protocols on Hollywood movie sets, instead of blaming responsible gun owners... but I doubt he'll do that. He's more concerned about getting this behind him.
So fuck him. I hope he gets locked up for a few years. I don't care any more about him than he does about me.
Well, if he wasn't such an anti-gun asshole (who still relies on guns to make his living) maybe this wouldn't have happened. Only an idiot would fuck around with a gun that he didn't personally inspect.
But still, the other people on the set should have made sure this didn't happen.
Yep. Especially when it’s something that’s so easy to do. It would take a few seconds at most.
I agree it was highly produced and it was scripted. Also his crying and the remorse he feels was genuine. I felt sorry for him.
I was glad to hear that some actors only trust themselves with checking the gun, but I was still WTF about how others, like Baldwin, trust the armorer or prop guy to check. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. The fact that it was always fine for 40 years prior in Baldwin's career is a poor excuse.
Releasing the hammer is still a negligent discharge as far as I'm concerned. It's just taking out the "middle man" being the trigger. Same rules of gun safety apply, as cocking and releasing the hammer is still a means to fire that type of gun. Again maybe if he understood the firearm's physics better, he wouldn't have released it like he did.
I also thought he came close to saying it was her own responsibility that the gun was pointed at her because she was asking him to do it as the cinematographer. In my book, still not OK to point a gun you didn't personally check yourself at another person. Still shouldn't point a gun at someone that you don't intend to shoot. The fact that they say it's OK doesn't mean you should do it.
Ultimately it reaffirmed my view of the lackadaisical nature of movie set gun safety. I know hindsight is 20-20 but really it's just bad. The actor still needs to be that last line of defense in the safety so he should have training and a lot more responsibility.
And Baldwin has got to bear at least some responsibility in this. At producer and shooter level.
https://variety.com/2022/film/news/rust-…
Seems he forgot the two most basic rules of handling a firearm.
1) Treat every gun as if it is loaded
2) Never point a gun at anything that you don't want to kill or destroy
Not saying he is the only one to blame, whoever loaded live ammunition into a prop gun certainly should be held responsible as well. But, in the end he pointed the gun, cocked the hammer and pulled the trigger so he bears the ultimate responsibility.
"I hired a private investigator," Baldwin told CNN, later adding that the last 10 months have "taken years off my life."
What an interesting choice of words under the circumstances. Years off HIS life???
"Baldwin noted that he wanted to finish Rust for Halyna's family — 'we wanted to put the money in the kid's pocket.' Halyna and her husband, Matt Hutchins, shared one young son."
Sheesh... that's how he wants to take care of the kid, by getting his career back on track and profiting from the film where he shot the boy's mother? What's the plan, to donate her would-be salary to the child? Why doesn't he just reach in his own fucking pocket and set up a trust fund in the mother's memory?
He goes on to blame others on the set and says they should be banished from the film industry. And he whines and cries about not getting work in the year since the incident. Gosh, who would have thought killing a woman would be so inconvenient for him.
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/alec…
Bacon!!
I got the impression, generally speaking, that Baldwin was filming a scene which called for him to perform the action of shooting someone, and that in so doing, he was holding what he sensibly thought was a fake gun (a "prop" gun = "properties of the movie"). The script (so I guess) says that Baldwin's character points the gun and pulls the trigger and the other actor's character gets shot.
This happens in movies a lot. All the actors and director etc. etc. leave it up to the properties people to set up the fake gun. In this case, Baldwin uses the fake gun, as intended, all the while assuming it will be fake. But it turns out to work like a real gun, much to his surprise.
Why is he guilty of anything other than simply expecting the movie to be filmed the way all movies are filmed? Didn't he get surprised by the fact that the gun worked like a real gun? Was he somehow AWARE that the gun was not fake? Was he clued in to the fact that it would kill? If, instead, he genuinely thought it was fake, then how on earth would he film the scene in any other manner than pointing the gun and pulling the trigger? If he's guilty and yet thought the gun was fake, this means we can never again have any movie with a shooting in it because all filmed shootings are attempted murders.
Maybe I don't know all the facts, in which case please enlighten me. But I see people on this thread (two years ago) saying that because (a) he was holding the gun he must therefore (b) be guilty. No, he was holding WHAT HE THOUGHT WAS A FAKE GUN. I don't get how the mere act of holding it makes him the guilty one. If instead he knew it was going to be real (or work like a real gun); or he's responsible for loading it and chose non-fake bullets; or he's the one who commanded it to be loaded with non-fake bullets; or he changed the script which never called for him pulling the trigger, and ad-libbed the trigger-pull on his own; or ... any of a number of other scenarios, then yes, maybe he's guilty.
But if he genuinely (a) thought the gun was fake, therefore harmless, he must be, as far as I can tell, (b) entirely innocent of attempting or intending to cause harm.
But a lot of people here, many of whom may be intelligent guys with common sense, seem to think Baldwin ought to be found guilty. Right now I can't understand that at all. Will one of those intelligent guys with common sense please explain how Baldwin could be guilty if he really thought the gun was fake?
I am genuinely asking. If you rant back at me with "you idiot" type responses you will lose a great deal of the opportunity to convince me of the validity of your side. If instead you explain something that I don't understand, we might come to an agreement of one sort or another.
Main question. Did Baldwin believe it was a fake gun that would cause no harm?
Next question. If he did believe this, then he is not guilty, right?
Or maybe not ...
Alec deserves probation for manslaughter, fines, community service, and a mnadatory NRA gun safety class. Even if an Assistant Director did pick it up off the prop table and declare "cold gun" when he brought it on set, it is the responsibility of the person pulling the trigger (really pointing it anywhere) to ensure that it is safe to use. Alex Baldwin has been in enough movies that he should be able to tell the difference between a blank and a live round. This " don't point the gun at anything you don't want to kill" maxim does not apply here. They were seeking point-blank twelve o'clock shooting footage, so the camera and cinematographer had to be in front of the barrel. Again, Alec should have been trained to ensure the gun was safe before pointing it anyone and pulling the trigger. Likewise, had I been the person the gun was pointing at, I would have insisted on being allowed to inspect the gun and the blank rounds to ensure I was satisfied that I was safe.
There are a lot of parallels on how unlikeable Alec Baldwin is as a defendant and Donald Trump. There are a lot of parallels in their behavior as defendants and their polarizing effect on jury pools. I won't state the obvious about dead bodies and who I feel is innocent.