Alec Baldwin fires prop gun on movie set, killing cinematographer

[Citizen T]

Oh this one is still going.

Eh, I'm not convinced Baldwin is guilty. Under any other circumstances, he should have checked the gun, but in a movie set, he shouldn't, as that would invalidate the check made by the professional.

But we'll see. I haven't paid too much attention to this.

How does him checking the weapon invalidate the one done by the professional? Are you implying that observation alters the behavior of the weapon? Quantum mechanics only applies to sub-atomic particles.

[Celista]

Alec Baldwin and armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed are both being charged with involuntary manslaughter:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/19/enter...ion/index.html

Good, that death was 100% preventable and both the person shooting the gun and the armorer should be held accountable for not checking to see if the gun had a live round. How this level of negligence even happened is incredible to me.

[Santti]

Good, that death was 100% preventable and both the person shooting the gun and the armorer should be held accountable for not checking to see if the gun had a live round. How this level of negligence even happened is incredible to me.

There are professionals whose job is to check the gun. It's their job. Baldwin checking the gun would invalidate the check. In any other circumstance, I'd agree, the one holding the gun should check it. Just not here.

[cubby]

There are professionals whose job is to check the gun. It's their job. Baldwin checking the gun would invalidate the check. In any other circumstance, I'd agree, the one holding the gun should check it. Just not here.

Exactly. A literal professional on the scene whose entire job was to ensure firearm safety. And yet somehow a complete non-professional is expected to do the same task, and then be held accountable for it because the hired professional failed.

Alex Baldwin is getting railroaded here.

The Armorer is solely responsible. Period.

- - - Updated - - -

How does him checking the weapon invalidate the one done by the professional? Are you implying that observation alters the behavior of the weapon? Quantum mechanics only applies to sub-atomic particles.

How does a non-professional doing something to a device invalidate the one done the professional? Are you kidding me? How do you not understand that if a Senior Nuclear Engineer validated a power plant and then I went in to check on it makes the first validation undone?

Baldwin had no responsibility for checking the safety of that weapon. Period.

- - - Updated - - -

Involuntary manslaughter is about as light as it gets with this sort.

It's the lightest possible sentence given the circumstances. Ridiculous nonetheless.

[Endus]

Exactly. A literal professional on the scene whose entire job was to ensure firearm safety. And yet somehow a complete non-professional is expected to do the same task, and then be held accountable for it because the hired professional failed.

Alex Baldwin is getting railroaded here.

The Armorer is solely responsible. Period.

To draw an example, it's like if you had explosives on set for a stunt, and the actor threw a "grenade" that the explosives expert used as their timing to trigger the boom, and that explosive was way bigger than it needed to be given how close other actors were and someone got killed.

That's 100% on the explosives expert, not the actor who threw the fake grenade to trigger the explosion.

Here, the Armorer was responsible for A> ensuring the weapon was empty or filled only with blanks, depending on the scene, and B> ensuring there was no live ammunition on set for any possible mishandling to lead to an accidental firing. They failed on both points. It's their responsibility. To prove involuntary manslaughter for Baldwin, you'd have to demonstrate he did something negligent. And I don't see any such thing, here; if the weapon was properly loaded as it was described to him, nobody would have been hurt.

And no; Baldwin should nothave checked the load. That violates the Armorer's security checks which are meant to guarantee safety, and inserts a possibility for the actor to screw that up. They should not be checking the weapon's load.

[PACOX]

I don't understand charging Baldwin unless the theory is as producer on set he should dealt with the issue surrounding not respecting the props.

Last time I looked into this story the armorer had effectively lost control of the props because they crew, I think director(?) was non-compliant/reckless. Because of her inexperience and I guess not being backed up by production she didn't know how to handle the situation. The person going over her head, again I think it was the director but I have to look it up, had a history of being reckless on set and a past not without incident. I don't think that let's the armorer off the hook but it does that all the blame off her shoulders to hold others involved accountable as well.


Armorer - She was hired to deal with the gun. Even if the situation got away from her she was supposed to alert authorities. Inexperience and not wanting to be blackballed would have made anyone not want to tell but that doesn't absolve you from responsibility, especially when your job is to make sure everyone is safe around live ammo. An experienced armorer would have left the production at the very least. Definitely would be named in a civil case.


Crew/director - We know the they were going around the armorer and being reckless. Just because ultimate responsibly would fall on the armorer means that they get to reckless. Charges might even be criminal if they were told not touch the gun and did so anyway.


Baldwin/Producer - As an on set producer he is basically in charge of the floor. It's his job make sure the set is running how it's supposed to since it's his production. Obviously he was negligent in his duties and it seems like problems were known. Civil responsibility for sure criminal if he went against the armorer. If he was kept in the dark there no way he could have been responsible, though.

[RobertoCarlos]

To draw an example, it's like if you had explosives on set for a stunt, and the actor threw a "grenade" that the explosives expert used as their timing to trigger the boom, and that explosive was way bigger than it needed to be given how close other actors were and someone got killed.

That's 100% on the explosives expert, not the actor who threw the fake grenade to trigger the explosion.

Here, the Armorer was responsible for A> ensuring the weapon was empty or filled only with blanks, depending on the scene, and B> ensuring there was no live ammunition on set for any possible mishandling to lead to an accidental firing. They failed on both points. It's their responsibility. To prove involuntary manslaughter for Baldwin, you'd have to demonstrate he did something negligent. And I don't see any such thing, here; if the weapon was properly loaded as it was described to him, nobody would have been hurt.

And no; Baldwin should nothave checked the load. That violates the Armorer's security checks which are meant to guarantee safety, and inserts a possibility for the actor to screw that up. They should not be checking the weapon's load.

A professional can do a safety check on a car, check the tires, make sure the seat belt is working.

If you drive that car into someone, you're at fault.

[Edge-]

A professional can do a safety check on a car, check the tires, make sure the seat belt is working.

If you drive that car into someone, you're at fault.

Except that's not what happened at all and that's not a comparison.

If you want to make that into a topical comparison:

Professional looks over a stunt vehicle for a small stunt done by the actor themselves, full safety inspection and everything to ensure the car is fully prepared for the stunt. But when the actor goes to hit the brakes during the stunt at the appropriate time, they fail and the car careens into a cast/crew member, killing them.

Is the fault on the actor for not inspecting the brakes, personally? Or would it be on the professional whose job it was to ensure that the vehicle was in working order and prepared for the stunt?

[Doctor Amadeus]

A former vice president shot his friend in the face, a former president has yet to be charged with the murder of police defending the U.S Capitol that he sent people to attack.


But Alec Baldwin time to take him down before he shoots another gun and kills another assistant director

[RobertoCarlos]

Except that's not what happened at all and that's not a comparison.

If you want to make that into a topical comparison:

Professional looks over a stunt vehicle for a small stunt done by the actor themselves, full safety inspection and everything to ensure the car is fully prepared for the stunt. But when the actor goes to hit the brakes during the stunt at the appropriate time, they fail and the car careens into a cast/crew member, killing them.

Is the fault on the actor for not inspecting the brakes, personally? Or would it be on the professional whose job it was to ensure that the vehicle was in working order and prepared for the stunt?

Well doing a stunt jump is not the same as endangering someone else. What would be the same thing is if the stunt was to speed at someone and brake to avoid hitting them. Brake failure happens and you were speeding at someone even if its pretend on a movie set

[Edge-]

Well doing a stunt jump is not the same as endangering someone else.

...there are other people around when stunts are performed? The woman killed in this accident was the cinematographer, not another actor.

What would be the same thing is if the stunt was to speed at someone and brake to avoid hitting them. Brake failure happens and you were speeding at someone even if its pretend on a movie set

Yes, and if brake failure happened in a vehicle driven by an actor, after the vehicle was prepared for the stunt and signed off on as safe by a professional: who would ultimately be the person responsible for failing to identify the brake failure and the resulting tragedy?

[RobertoCarlos]

...there are other people around when stunts are performed? The woman killed in this accident was the cinematographer, not another actor.



Yes, and if brake failure happened in a vehicle driven by an actor, after the vehicle was prepared for the stunt and signed off on as safe by a professional: who would ultimately be the person responsible for failing to identify the brake failure and the resulting tragedy?

Both are responsible. The professional for negligence and the person who committed the act, because they committed the act and "the professional didnt do his job" doesnt bring someone back to life. You could have not aimed a gun at a cinematographer and fired it, thats one idea.

And thats why you do the math on the potential stunt area and where things can go wrong and people are standing in safe areas out of the line of fire..or car fire.

[cubby]

Both are responsible. The professional for negligence and the person who committed the act, because they committed the act and "the professional didnt do his job" doesnt bring someone back to life. You could have not aimed a gun at a cinematographer and fired it, thats one idea.

And thats why you do on the math on the potential stunt area and where things can go wrong and people are standing in safe areas out of the line of fire..or car fire.

You're using a bad comparison - it doesn't carry across to what Baldwin did.

Baldwin has zero responsibility for the safety of the weapon. Period. The on-set Armorer, specifically hired to safe all the weapons used on the set, was solely responsible. Until you understand that, you're not going to gain any ground in this conversation.

[RobertoCarlos]

You're using a bad comparison - it doesn't carry across to what Baldwin did.

Baldwin has zero responsibility for the safety of the weapon. Period. The on-set Armorer, specifically hired to safe all the weapons used on the set, was solely responsible. Until you understand that, you're not going to gain any ground in this conversation.

Yeah I get its a movie and said gun handling responsibilities are passed onto the "armorer". You still pointed a gun at someone and shot it which is gun safety 101 of what NOT to do. And its not the first time its happened on a movie set either.

[Milchshake]

Yeah I get its a movie and said gun handling responsibilities are passed onto the "armorer". You still pointed a gun at someone and shot it which is gun safety 101 of what NOT to do. And its not the first time its happened on a movie set either.

Yet more people have been shot on gun ranges than movie sets in the last 40 years. Come back to us after you learn to be an armorer and work on a set. Arguing as a terminally-online-gun-guy is not convincing anyone.

This is really just a transparent PR move to allow local cops and prosecutors to get media attention they crave. What a mess. Most states do not typically have superior liability in criminal law. Good luck proving Baldwin had intent.

[cubby]

Yeah I get its a movie and said gun handling responsibilities are passed onto the "armorer". You still pointed a gun at someone and shot it which is gun safety 101 of what NOT to do. And its not the first time its happened on a movie set either.

So you should have said that you were posting from a place of ignorance. He fired the gun during a rehearsal. They do that on sets, fire guns with blanks.

- - - Updated - - -

And it looks like Baldwin is being charged as a producer rather than the "actor" of the event. Interesting. I can't wait for all the other Producers to be charged, as they would be equally responsible for events on and off the set.

Holy fuck what a biased shitshow.

[s_bushido]

A professional can do a safety check on a car, check the tires, make sure the seat belt is working.

If you drive that car into someone, you're at fault.

This has to be the dumbest analogy I've heard in a long time.

Congratulations.

[RobertoCarlos]

So you should have said that you were posting from a place of ignorance. He fired the gun during a rehearsal. They do that on sets, fire guns with blanks.

- - - Updated - - -

And it looks like Baldwin is being charged as a producer rather than the "actor" of the event. Interesting. I can't wait for all the other Producers to be charged, as they would be equally responsible for events on and off the set.

Holy fuck what a biased shitshow.

remind me again why you cant aim 5 meters to the right of someone? Even blanks can be dangerous.

I guess he was just so in character he had to pretend to be a gunslinger getting off head shots every shot.

[Edge-]

remind me again why you cant aim 5 meters to the right of someone? Even blanks can be dangerous.

I guess he was just so in character he had to pretend to be a gunslinger getting off head shots every shot.

Man it would help if you actually like, appeared to have read anything about how this happened.

In his affidavit, released on October 24, Souza said the gun went off during rehearsal of a scene where Baldwin, seated on a church pew, pulls his firearm from its holster and aims directly “towards the camera lens.” The director explained that he and Hutchins were checking the camera angle at the time, and assistant director Dave Halls told Baldwin he was using a “cold gun” just before the shot.

But please, continue shouting from your moral high horse, more.

[cubby]

remind me again why you cant aim 5 meters to the right of someone? Even blanks can be dangerous.

I guess he was just so in character he had to pretend to be a gunslinger getting off head shots every shot.

I'm just saying that you don't seem to understand how a movie set works, how it goes down, or any other part of the movie set. Moreover, your concern is about the overall movie making industry rather than this particular incident.