Alec Baldwin Fires Prop Gun that Kills Individual on Movie Set

[CRBMoA]

Does your list of rules include not pointing a weapon at people you don't want to kill?

It is pretty damn high on MY list!

 

[RVTECH]

Does your list of rules include not pointing a weapon at people you don't want to kill?

This should be common sense!

Or should I say a commonly known (and practiced) basic rule of gun safety.

It would NOT surprise me if it were revealed AB completely ignored this and was in fact intentionally pointing the gun at her. Maybe not with the intention of shooting her but just gross mishandling, completely not even considering the ramifications. Not unlike a kid playing 'cowboys and Indians'.

 

[JohnnyMac]

It would NOT surprise me if it were revealed AB completely ignored this and was in fact intentionally pointing the gun at her.

Me neither.

 

[Member 52301]

Cate, this post was referenced but disappeared on the other forum. You delete, did it get deleted (too long), or do you have me on ignore over there???

bb

Hello BB,

My post was still on there this morning because that is where I looked it up to put it on THIS forum. Wherever that LONG AB thread is over there.

I have not signed in since this morning.

I have NO one on ignore HERE or THERE or on any place in the WWWeb.

Let me go over there in a bit and see what I can find.

ADDED MORE:

IT is still posted there - Post 200 on that LONG thread.

IT is on the 'I see why Hollywood is afraid, etc.' THREAD.

I do and did have THIS message thing shut off due to travel and I may put it on again.

My husband and I are making some FINAL decisions regarding the INTERNET - companies and telephones too. So that is coming up soon too.

Take care!

Cate

ADDED more.

 

[RVTECH]

Been listening to a live press conf with the DA in NM and the 'talk' is now a potential 'reckless' charge for AB as opposed to 'negligence'.

It was also revealed he had been dry firing the gun rehearsing a scene and then the live round indexed with the barrel. This supports my theory he was most likely intentionally pointing the gun at the lady which would support the more serious 'reckless' potential charge.

 

[titsonritz]

I mean, what could go wrong? Everything is good to go.

View attachment 1058748

EDIT! She is Thell Reed's daughter? Say it ain't so...

Thell Reed - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yep...
https://www.northwestfirearms.com/t...dual-on-movie-set.390780/page-15#post-3092055

 

[po18guy]

Does your list of rules include not pointing a weapon at people you don't want to kill?

It is pretty damn high on MY list!

Hollyweird, where common nonsense prevails.

Trusting an anti-gunner to safely handle a gun is like turning PeeWee Herman loose in a formula 1 car. What could possibly go wrong?

 

[wired]

It was the Armorers negligence. This is not a shooting range or a war. This is a movie set. Actors have to rely on the armorer to ensure the weapon is safe and suitable for the action on a movie set which includes point guns at people you do not want to destroy and pulling the trigger. What happened was not Alex Baldwins fault unless he ordered the Armorer to place live ammo in the gun.

 

[P7M13]

 

[Forester]

It was the Armorers negligence. This is not a shooting range or a war. This is a movie set. Actors have to rely on the armorer to ensure the weapon is safe and suitable for the action on a movie set which includes point guns at people you do not want to destroy and pulling the trigger. What happened was not Alex Baldwins fault unless he ordered the Armorer to place live ammo in the gun.

Is this for serious ?

 

[RVTECH]

This is a movie set. Actors have to rely on the armorer to ensure the weapon is safe and suitable for the action on a movie set which includes point guns at people you do not want to destroy and pulling the trigger. What happened was not Alex Baldwins fault unless he ordered the Armorer to place live ammo in the gun.

So because it was a movie set (and had an 'armorer') it relieves an actor from the basic rules of gun handling and safety, to include the freedom to point it at anyone - such as a person who was NOT an actor?

Sorry, I can't accept because it is a movie set and has an armorer this entirely negates personal responsibility and safety with firearms - or anything else used in the movie.

 

[wired]

So because it was a movie set (and had an 'armorer') it relieves an actor from the basic rules of gun handling and safety, to include the freedom to point it at anyone - such as a person who was NOT an actor?

Sorry, I can't accept because it is a movie set and has an armorer this entirely negates personal responsibility and safety with firearms - or anything else used in the movie.

Yes, It does. On a movie set its not like in the real world. You have people who's sole job it is to make sure they can hand a gun to an actor who will then fully violate every single gun safety rule. The armorer is culpable.

 

[Kruel J]

I've never seen a movie with guns where basic safety is even followed on-screen.

 

[mhayd93]

Yes, It does. On a movie set its not like in the real world. You have people who's sole job it is to make sure they can hand a gun to an actor who will then fully violate every single gun safety rule. The armorer is culpable.

So by not checking the weapon (a safety precaution to protect himself and others), was Alec Baldwin choosing to kill someone with the firearm?

 

[Flopsweat]

Yes, It does. On a movie set its not like in the real world. You have people who's sole job it is to make sure they can hand a gun to an actor who will then fully violate every single gun safety rule. The armorer is culpable.

Their own rules, posted earlier in this very thread, prohibit pointing guns of any kind at people.

 

[wired]

So by not checking the weapon (a safety precaution to protect himself and others), was Alec Baldwin choosing to kill someone with the firearm?

Having actors opening up weapons and potentially tampering with them on the set sounds like a good idea to you? They receive the gun in an inert condition from the armorer who certifies them as safe for the set. Its a movie set. Those are the rules.

 

[Camelfilter]

Having actors opening up weapons and potentially tampering with them on the set sounds like a good idea to you? They receive the gun in an inert condition from the armorer who certifies them as safe for the set. Its a movie set. Those are the rules.

That's the thing tho, the fellow in the video upthread (the guy whom used his finger & CGI'd using his finger as a pistol), mentioned IIRC that the actor shows clear in the presence of the armorer...

 

[wired]

That's the thing tho, the fellow in the video upthread (the guy whom used his finger & CGI'd using his finger as a pistol), mentioned IIRC that the actor shows clear in the presence of the armorer...

Actors dont know their @ss from a hole in the ground. Theyre actors. Theyre acting like they have a clue. They don't. Its the Armorers responsibility to ensure weapons are safe for the set. Not the faces.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

 

[Forester]

So if I get my own armorer I am no longer personally responsible for my actions ?