Alec Baldwin fires prop gun on movie set, killing cinematographer

[RobertoCarlos]

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



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

Haha. Yes im so high up on my horse by suggesting when people use real guns and pretend to shoot at each other or at cameras with staff behind them. Maybe Dont do that. Like I know you americans love your guns but an average day of work where you're pretending to shoot at each other ranks pretty high in the "risky days at the office"

[Edge-]

Haha. Yes im so high up on my horse by suggesting when people use real guns and pretend to shoot at each other or at cameras with staff behind them. Maybe Dont do that. Like I know you americans love your guns but an average day of work where you're pretending to shoot at each other ranks pretty high in the "risky days at the office"

No, it was mostly this kind of quip -

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

The rest of your response is about as shitty and incorrect as your quip above, so I don't see any real value in a possible discussion on the topic. Even if it sure sounds like we're largely in agreement on it.

[RobertoCarlos]

No, it was mostly this kind of quip -



The rest of your response is about as shitty and incorrect as your quip above, so I don't see any real value in a possible discussion on the topic. Even if it sure sounds like we're largely in agreement on it.

It was a bit of humor about how seriously actors take themselves even when its puts themselves or others in danger because they think their art is changing the world and its ridiculous.

[Edge-]

It was a bit of humor about how seriously actors take themselves even when its puts themselves or others in danger because they think their art is changing the world and its ridiculous.

So you're just going to bring out an endless line of strawmen so that you can feel morally superior for some reason, gotcha.

I'm sure you're a much better human being than Alec Baldwin dude, even without this tragic event that's not exactly the most difficult hurdle to clear in the world. Because if that was any attempt at humor, it wasn't remotely clear nor was it funny.

[RobertoCarlos]

So you're just going to bring out an endless line of strawmen so that you can feel morally superior for some reason, gotcha.

I'm sure you're a much better human being than Alec Baldwin dude, even without this tragic event that's not exactly the most difficult hurdle to clear in the world. Because if that was any attempt at humor, it wasn't remotely clear nor was it funny.

Whats with this feeling superior buzz you keep repeating?

I like Alec Baldwin as an actor. He seems like a bit of douche but whatever. Ive never judged artists on their personality because I couldnt care less. Also lighten up, im sure her family isnt reading this forum so you can drop the superior act thanks.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Haha. Yes im so high up on my horse by suggesting when people use real guns and pretend to shoot at each other or at cameras with staff behind them. Maybe Dont do that. Like I know you americans love your guns but an average day of work where you're pretending to shoot at each other ranks pretty high in the "risky days at the office"

That is literally why they have an armourer on set. In real life, we don't have people whose job it is to make sure the gun isn't loaded with live rounds. On a movie set...people are often handed "loaded" guns....but they are loaded with blanks. So, Baldwin could have checked the gun...discovered it was "loaded"...but does he have the training to tell a live round from a blank? That's why there is a professional on set to handle these things. In this case, the "professional" was underqualified and negligent.

If Baldwin were to be charged at all...it should have been as a producer on a set where something like this happened. And all the other producers should be in fire with him. I'd be 100% behind the DA going after him for unsafe work conditions. But to charge him just because he was the poor son of a bitch that got handed that gun is wrong.

[RobertoCarlos]

That is literally why they have an armourer on set. In real life, we don't have people whose job it is to make sure the gun isn't loaded with live rounds. On a movie set...people are often handed "loaded" guns....but they are loaded with blanks. So, Baldwin could have checked the gun...discovered it was "loaded"...but does he have the training to tell a live round from a blank? That's why there is a professional on set to handle these things. In this case, the "professional" was underqualified and negligent.

If Baldwin were to be charged at all...it should have been as a producer on a set where something like this happened. And all the other producers should be in fire with him. I'd be 100% behind the DA going after him for unsafe work conditions. But to charge him just because he was the poor son of a bitch that got handed that gun is wrong.

Its a lot of trust you're putting in one "professional" in an industry famous for nepotism and cost cutting. I believe the armorer in question was a result of nepotism so when you one day read an article in the paper that reads "actor on set shooting real guns kills someone" im not gonna act surprised

[Witchblade77]

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.

I mean this makes sense that he would be charged as a producer if what I read about state of that shoot in general and his lack of action as far as complaints from the crew went. what doesn't make sense is that he is the only producer being charged. again, from what I understood, he wasn't the only producer on set, so it wasn't his sole responsibility to ensure that the set runs smoothly. other producers should have been charged as well.

edited to add... while the whole "check your gun yourself thing is nice and good" if you ever go to a range that rents out guns to newbies to try? they are 100% on top of you at all times and check the guns FOR you - and there you shoot live bullets too, not blanks. as much as I find Alec Baldwin annoying, it was not his responsibility to check the gun. I do think it was his responsibility to ensure qualified people on set and act on prior safety/ work environment issues from the crew - to correct them.

[Edge-]

Its a lot of trust you're putting in one "professional" in an industry famous for nepotism and cost cutting.

Literally none of this is remotely unique to Hollywood or the film industry. If anything, given all the liability and money being dealt with on a regular basis they have an incredible overall track record for safety. Yeah, the accidents are huge news and tragic, but in part because they're so rare given how often stunts and other potentially dangerous things are performed.

I believe the armorer in question was a result of nepotism so when you one day read an article in the paper that reads "actor on set shooting real guns kills someone" im not gonna act surprised

Who were they related to? Honest question since all I know about them is that they were reportedly previously fired over issues and should not have ended up as the armorer on the set.

[RobertoCarlos]

Literally none of this is remotely unique to Hollywood or the film industry. If anything, given all the liability and money being dealt with on a regular basis they have an incredible overall track record for safety. Yeah, the accidents are huge news and tragic, but in part because they're so rare given how often stunts and other potentially dangerous things are performed.



Who were they related to? Honest question since all I know about them is that they were reportedly previously fired over issues and should not have ended up as the armorer on the set.

hannah reed is the daughter of Thell Reed who was a well respected armorer

[Witchblade77]

Literally none of this is remotely unique to Hollywood or the film industry. If anything, given all the liability and money being dealt with on a regular basis they have an incredible overall track record for safety. Yeah, the accidents are huge news and tragic, but in part because they're so rare given how often stunts and other potentially dangerous things are performed.



Who were they related to? Honest question since all I know about them is that they were reportedly previously fired over issues and should not have ended up as the armorer on the set.

an old and highly respected armorer who has worked in the business himself and supposedly trained his daughter. https://www.insider.com/who-is-hanna...ooting-2021-10

[Edge-]

hannah reed is the daughter of Thell Reed who was a well respected armorer

Gotcha, thanks.

[PACOX]

From what I read, he's being charged as an actor.

The district attorney for Santa Fe County, Mary Carmack-Altwies, said in an interview that Mr. Baldwin had a duty to ensure the gun and the ammunition were properly checked and that he should never have pointed it at anyone. “You should not point a gun at someone that you’re not willing to shoot,” she said. “That goes to basic safety standards.”

Honestly, the actor angle seems like an incredibly flimsy case.

If that's the DAs argument that's ridiculous. Going after Baldwin as a producer is one thing. There were things going happening that could be potentially be pinned on a producer not making sure things were proper. Baldwin as an actor using a prop that's supposed to be cleared by several people before it gets to him is insane.

[Citizen T]

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 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 - - -



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

So if a professional firearms trainer hands me a handgun and tells me it's unloaded I can break all rules of responsible firearms handling and point it towards you and pull the trigger? Ultimately with all firearms, the responsibility lies with the person handling the weapon.

Unlike your example, an untrained nuclear operator would not be allowed near a power plant controls. In the past I was a nuclear power operator in the Navy. I often had to verify/double check the work of more senior operators. Checking is an observation, not a change in status.

[PACOX]

If Baldwin were to be charged at all...it should have been as a producer on a set where something like this happened. And all the other producers should be in fire with him. I'd be 100% behind the DA going after him for unsafe work conditions. But to charge him just because he was the poor son of a bitch that got handed that gun is wrong.

Other producers wouldn't automatically be included because 'producer' means a lot to things. You can be a 'producer' because you more or less invested in a production but had nothing else to do with it. Or you can be a producer because you run the set and oversee the entire production process. Because Baldwin was a producer on set he can't just say his name is only there as a financer.

I am agreeing with you, he can't just at like he didn't know about the work conditions on set, of he did not it's willful ignorance on his part. We don't know how much any other producer was involved in actual production.

[Edge-]

So if a professional firearms trainer hands me a handgun and tells me it's unloaded I can break all rules of responsible firearms handling and point it towards you and pull the trigger? Ultimately with all firearms, the responsibility lies with the person handling the weapon.

In the context of the shoot in question: Yes.

You can argue whether that practice is a good idea or not given the risks, but it happens. All the time. And accidents like this are exceedingly rare, which is why something like this is so notable despite the number of movies made every year that involve the use of functional firearms.

This isn't a gun range. There's not supposed to be live ammunition. The whole purpose of having an armorer on set is to ensure that a trained profession is ensuring that any firearms being used are safe for use, including keeping track of them and all ammunition (live and blanks) and preparing them for use, and working with actors as needed to ensure they're doing things like holding the gun correctly for the shot etc.

Generally yes: You only point a gun at something you're willing to shoot and you always treat a gun as if it's loaded.

There's a stunt where the actor presses a button and blows something up a distance away. They're told that everything is prepped and ready and the shot is good to go and press the button. However the explosives were improperly packed and secured by the pyro/explosive team resulting in a tragic death of a cast member.

Does the actor who pressed the button hold responsibility for the death of the crew member because they didn't personally check the explosive setup and they personally pressed the button? Or would that still fall on the professionals who were hired to ensure that the stunt was performed safely and the explosives were showy, but not dangerous?

[Witchblade77]

Other producers wouldn't automatically be included because 'producer' means a lot to things. You can be a 'producer' because you more or less invested in a production but had nothing else to do with it. Or you can be a producer because you run the set and oversee the entire production process. Because Baldwin was a producer on set he can't just say his name is only there as a financer.

I am agreeing with you, he can't just at like he didn't know about the work conditions on set, of he did not it's willful ignorance on his part. We don't know how much any other producer was involved in actual production.

https://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...walked-off-set

they are trying to claim that he didn't know about the issues, but like... really? REALLY?

https://apnews.com/article/entertain...1f5d755ac4ca0c

I think they are possibly making him responsible due to this paragraph in a guidelines.

WHAT ARE THE RULES FOR FIREARMS ON SET?

The weapons master is required to be on set whenever a weapon is being used. The Actors’ Equity Association’s guidelines state that, “Before each use, make sure the gun has been test-fired off stage and then ask to test fire it yourself. Watch the prop master check the cylinders and barrel to be sure no foreign object or dummy bullet has become lodged inside.” Further, “All loading of firearms must be done by the property master, armorer or experienced persons working under their direct supervision.”

I'm guessing he didn't watch her do the check any more then she actualy did the proper check before handing him the firearm.

[Citizen T]

In the context of the shoot in question: Yes.

You can argue whether that practice is a good idea or not given the risks, but it happens. All the time. And accidents like this are exceedingly rare, which is why something like this is so notable despite the number of movies made every year that involve the use of functional firearms.

This isn't a gun range. There's not supposed to be live ammunition. The whole purpose of having an armorer on set is to ensure that a trained profession is ensuring that any firearms being used are safe for use, including keeping track of them and all ammunition (live and blanks) and preparing them for use, and working with actors as needed to ensure they're doing things like holding the gun correctly for the shot etc.

Generally yes: You only point a gun at something you're willing to shoot and you always treat a gun as if it's loaded.

There's a stunt where the actor presses a button and blows something up a distance away. They're told that everything is prepped and ready and the shot is good to go and press the button. However the explosives were improperly packed and secured by the pyro/explosive team resulting in a tragic death of a cast member.

Does the actor who pressed the button hold responsibility for the death of the crew member because they didn't personally check the explosive setup and they personally pressed the button? Or would that still fall on the professionals who were hired to ensure that the stunt was performed safely and the explosives were showy, but not dangerous?

Explosives handling/setup lawfully requires a significant amount of training/licensing; firearms handling does not. A moron is capable of checking a firearm - especially a revolver.

[Edge-]

Explosives handling/setup lawfully requires a significant amount of training/licensing; firearms handling does not. A moron is capable of checking a firearm - especially a revolver.

Sure, but can a moron differentiate between blanks and live ammunition just from the backside of a revolver? I don't think it's regular for actors to pull out every round and inspect them before reloading a gun/magazine, that would actually add additional liability and opportunity for accidents.

[PACOX]

After reading some of the new articles about this I kind of see the DA's angle. Baldwin and the crew have kind of been assholes about the incident and really haven't really accepted their responsibility and the mercy. They could not leave it at a tragic accident even if people messed up. So now they are being charged because they couldn't accept the little bit of consequences they have faced in case where a person died due to their negligence.


Doesn't help that Baldwin himself admitted, as a producer and experienced in the industry, that things on set weren't on the up and up. The added legal scrutiny might have been warranted even if it is unlikely they will be found guilty.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...walked-off-set

they are trying to claim that he didn't know about the issues, but like... really? REALLY?

https://apnews.com/article/entertain...1f5d755ac4ca0c

I think they are possibly making him responsible due to this paragraph in a guidelines.



I'm guessing he didn't watch her do the check any more then she actualy did the proper check before handing him the firearm.

Seems like Baldwin try to weasel himself out of a lawsuit despite being a producer on set. Starting to feel less sympathetic for him.