Alec Baldwin fires prop gun on movie set, killing cinematographer

[LilSaihah]

Let's say Baldwin leans on a piece of the set that turns out to be built unsoundly and it falls over and kills someone.

Was Baldwin at fault for not checking the construction of the set before leaning on it?

What I would probably think is the divide here is "why was Baldwin leaning against it in the first place".

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Well, she doesn't seem like the best one - so she might have missed this, or maybe she has such a paper trail but it hasn't been leaked. I don't know.

Or maybe you're just looking for any reason to blame Baldwin when you have the answer:

"Well, she doesn't seem like the best one".

You're right. She isn't the best one. She somehow allowed a live round to be loaded into a gun that was meant to be loaded with dummy rounds.

[Endus]

It wasn't supposed to be loaded with Blanks...it was supposed to be loaded with Dummy Rounds. These are different terms for different things.

"Cold gun" means "there are no live rounds in the gun". That's a pretty clear communication. And even if it weren't clear...that's a criticism to make with the way the Film Industry handles firearms...not Alec Baldwin.

Specifically, "hot gun" on a set is for a gun with blanks. Since you never use proper live rounds with actual bullets. There's been a lot of bad info on this point, but a "cold gun" is just a lump of metal. Only dangerous if a sensitive bit gets punched or you pistol whip someone with it.

The idea that Baldwin was told the gun was filled with blanks and thus he was irresponsible is just false. He was told there were no firable rounds whatsoever in the gun, blank or otherwise. Thats what "cold gun" means.

[StillMcfuu]

This thread confuses me. I don't really see what the arguments are in here.
In a strict interpretation of involuntary manslaughter, he is responsible, but when you bring apply that law to a real situation, the whole situation is an accident. Alec Baldwin being formally charged likely has more to do with his envolvement as a producer and the person who pulled the trigger. Ie if he was just the producer or he was just an actor that pulled a trigger, he wouldn't have been charged.
Unless there is a component to the story that makes Baldwin seem more responsible. I imagine there could be evidence that shows an actual pattern of negligence that the prosecutor and defense know about and we won't see until it gets brought up in trial.

[Kaleredar]

What I would probably think is the divide here is "why was Baldwin leaning against it in the first place".

Because people lean on things from time to time.

Hell, let's make it even more akin to this scenario if you're gonna be needlessly obtuse:

Baldwin's character leans on a part of the set as part of the film. They're going through blocking out a scene and Baldwin does it and that causes the set to fall over because it was built improperly and it kills someone on the other side.

Is Baldwin, as an actor, liable for not knowing whether the set was properly built or not? When there are scads of people above him who are responsible for knowing and verifying such a thing? It's no different with a gun as far as hollywood is concerned, no matter how many good ol' boys out on the gunrange say that their pappys taught em different.

[Gabriel]

I will say it again. Just use a nerf gun or finger pistol and then use CGI. This is 2023 and we have technology. If you can't act shooting someone without it actually firing (with blanks) then maybe you shouldn't be getting paid millions as an actor. There shouldn't even need to be an armorer. In no situation whatsoever should it be possible for a weapon that could shoot projectile ever be aimed at another person.

I second this. I don't understand the need to use real guns on set or filming.
Muzzle flashes still done in post anyway, same with bullet holes.
Gunshot sound is also applied in post.

Yeah just use finger guns. Real gun looking CGI guns are barbaric anyway. Why even have violence in movies at all? We're supposed to be better than this.

[GreenJesus]

Yeah just use finger guns. Real gun looking CGI guns are barbaric anyway. Why even have violence in movies at all? We're supposed to be better than this.

My point is that the fake gun doesn't need to have a triggering system that can send out a projectile at high speeds. If you "press the trigger", nothing should happen.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

This thread confuses me. I don't really see what the arguments are in here.
In a strict interpretation of involuntary manslaughter, he is responsible, but when you bring apply that law to a real situation, the whole situation is an accident. Alec Baldwin being formally charged likely has more to do with his envolvement as a producer and the person who pulled the trigger. Ie if he was just the producer or he was just an actor that pulled a trigger, he wouldn't have been charged.
Unless there is a component to the story that makes Baldwin seem more responsible. I imagine there could be evidence that shows an actual pattern of negligence that the prosecutor and defense know about and we won't see until it gets brought up in trial.

There's a lot of people that are mad at Baldwin because he made fun of Trump. That's really what all the outrage is about.

The prosecution has already downgraded the charges against Baldwin...dropping the firearm enhancement.

[Kumorii]

Yeah just use finger guns. Real gun looking CGI guns are barbaric anyway. Why even have violence in movies at all? We're supposed to be better than this.

No one mentioned CGI guns. You can have fake guns that looks like real guns and you have NO need for any kind of ammunition, blanks or real.

Not sure what the violence comment is about since it also has nothing to do with the comments made.

[StillMcfuu]

There's a lot of people that are mad at Baldwin because he made fun of Trump. That's really what all the outrage is about.

The prosecution has already downgraded the charges against Baldwin...dropping the firearm enhancement.

From what I was reading, the Firearm Enhancement was dropped because the law didn't exist when the incident happened.

[Gabriel]

My point is that the fake gun doesn't need to have a triggering system that can send out a projectile at high speeds. If you "press the trigger", nothing should happen.

Nothing would have happened if the armorer wasn't a mouth breathing retard.

No one mentioned CGI guns.

Except the person I was quoting.

[Endus]

My point is that the fake gun doesn't need to have a triggering system that can send out a projectile at high speeds. If you "press the trigger", nothing should happen.

That's what the gun in question was supposed to be. That's what a "cold gun" is, and Baldwin was told it was a cold gun when it was handed to him.

Which is why he shouldn't be liable, other than possibly as a producer for hiring an incompetent armorer.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

From what I was reading, the Firearm Enhancement was dropped because the law didn't exist when the incident happened.

Kinda proves how ill-considered thesee charges against Baldwin were to begin with. Charging him is a publicity stunt.

[GreenJesus]

That's what the gun in question was supposed to be. That's what a "cold gun" is, and Baldwin was told it was a cold gun when it was handed to him.

Which is why he shouldn't be liable, other than possibly as a producer for hiring an incompetent armorer.

But it wasn't a "cold gun". A projectile was shot out of it fast enough to kill someone. It wasn't inert.

[Endus]

But it wasn't a "cold gun". A projectile was shot out of it fast enough to kill someone. It wasn't inert.

You're saying that like anyone's unaware of that fact. That's why there was a tragic shooting. Because someone handed Baldwin a gun and told him it was a "cold gun", and he treated it accordingly, and it wasn't.

That makes it not Baldwin's direct fault. It's the fault of the armorer, who's meant to be checking every weapon's load and ensuring such accidents can't happen on set.

Again; no one but the armorer is expected to check the load, and a cold gun wouldn't be particularly easy for a non-professional to check, necessarily; dummy rounds look just like actual live-fire rounds. Which is why you need a trained armorer.

And your argument that there shouldn't be "hot" guns on set with blanks is ridiculous. Hollywood sets have one of the best safety track records in any industry with regards to this stuff. The last major story was Brandon Lee's tragic death in the '90s, and that was also down to a bad armorer, and why much stricter requirements went into practice.

[Celista]

Why even have violence in movies at all? We're supposed to be better than this.

This is a really good societal question that I haven't seen addressed on a widespread scale yet. Movies and TV and video games have become a lot more violent (and graphically violent) over the past several decades. How is this impacting our brains? What about child development? Why are we entertained by violence?

We definitely can do better than this. I am not buying the argument that the impact is benign. I would like to see more quality research in this area.

[GreenJesus]

You're saying that like anyone's unaware of that fact. That's why there was a tragic shooting. Because someone handed Baldwin a gun and told him it was a "cold gun", and he treated it accordingly, and it wasn't.

That makes it not Baldwin's direct fault. It's the fault of the armorer, who's meant to be checking every weapon's load and ensuring such accidents can't happen on set.

Again; no one but the armorer is expected to check the load, and a cold gun wouldn't be particularly easy for a non-professional to check, necessarily; dummy rounds look just like actual live-fire rounds. Which is why you need a trained armorer.

And your argument that there shouldn't be "hot" guns on set with blanks is ridiculous. Hollywood sets have one of the best safety track records in any industry with regards to this stuff. The last major story was Brandon Lee's tragic death in the '90s, and that was also down to a bad armorer, and why much stricter requirements went into practice.

So why was there a real gun on set? Some shitty hollywood movie doesn't need to have that level of risk. Guns aren't toys. It's literally just a play put on film.

[Endus]

So why was there a real gun on set? Some shitty hollywood movie doesn't need to have that level of risk. Guns aren't toys. It's literally just a play put on film.

Because real guns are the safest option when you're firing blanks. Again; Hollywood has an insanely good track record for firearms safety. This isn't an issue with guns on set in general, its only an issue with this productions neophyte armorer specifically.

[unfilteredJW]

This is a really good societal question that I haven't seen addressed on a widespread scale yet. Movies and TV and video games have become a lot more violent (and graphically violent) over the past several decades. How is this impacting our brains? What about child development? Why are we entertained by violence?

We definitely can do better than this. I am not buying the argument that the impact is benign. I would like to see more quality research in this area.

You are already drawing the conclusion you want absent of the information you asked. It’d be a waste of time.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

So why was there a real gun on set? Some shitty hollywood movie doesn't need to have that level of risk. Guns aren't toys. It's literally just a play put on film.

"That level of risk" is easily made negligible simply by following the on-set gun safety standards...the proof is in how rare these incidents are. Statistically, you're more likely to be attacked by a lion than shot with a bullet while filming a movie.