Alec Baldwin Fires Prop Gun that Kills Individual on Movie Set

[Dr Prepper]

If this was Clint Eastwood rather than liberal comedian Alec Baldwin, everyone would be talking about how film sets employ credited experts as electricians, set builders, costumers, armorers, stunt coordinators, etc - and that poor old Clint is just an actor.

I don't know why anyone would expect actors - who often are flaky, drunk, learning impaired, etc - to interfere with the sometimes complex process of preparing prop firearms for use.

View attachment 1181030
This is a real revolver capable of firing .45 Colt. Does anyone actually expect that Harrison Ford took it apart to look into the cylinder every time they did a shot in Bladerunner? Should all actors know that a Colt SAA requires the hammer to be half cocked to open the loading gate, that you can't put the safety on a 1911 if not cocked, but that the safety on a P9S doesn't block the hammer or trigger? I've bought guns from guys in the infantry that didn't know that kind of stuff about the guns they owned.

We might as well be talking about Alec Baldwin inspecting the work of the eletricians on set. Maybe we should all help preflight the airplane next time we take a commercial flight and inspect the food storage practices of the restaurants we eat at.


I'm not speaking as a gun person or a from a particular political POV. I have a degree in filmmaking, and know quite a bit about the subject.

sounds perfectly reasonable to me!

 

[Dr Prepper]

How much knowledge does it require to NOT point a gun at someone when you pull the trigger?
I'm not an electrician but I know not to put a screwdriver into an outlet.

yeah thats what my dad thought one day too.. until he put a screwdriver in a socket! to make things even better he was at the top of about a 6' ladder it was like a real life Gary Larson cartoon. it was great!

 

[RX-79G]

How much knowledge does it require to NOT point a gun at someone when you pull the trigger?
I'm not an electrician but I know not to put a screwdriver into an outlet.

A better question:
How much trust does it take to allow someone to direct you to run through a fire, jump off a building or let other people point guns even within 90 degrees of you?

The actor claims the gun fired when he pulled back the hammer and the half cock didn't catch, not that he pulled the trigger. Local law enforcement agreed that this was possible with this gun.

The actor received the gun from the AD that received it from the Amorer. Those two experts certified that the gun was cold, which is the essential final check that actors expect to make ("Is this gun cold?" Yes or no.)

The actor was directed by the AD and the DP to point the gun in their direction. Both of these people were hit when the gun fired in the direction they directed the actor to point it - at or near them. For the actor to "shoot them", multiple other people had to go out of their way to violate the very precise rules of their jobs. The actor did not break any rule of his job as a prop gun manipulator, but did exactly as he was told to do by those other experts.


Virtually all parts of modern life involve trust. You don't expect to run a listeria test on the produce you buy because you assume that the grocer and farmer did their jobs. You don't inspect the bridges you drive over because your taxes pay experts to do that. Pilots don't do aircraft repairs. And film producers expect that set builders don't make unsafe structures, special effects people don't immolate the actors and electricians don't electrocute the camera operators. Prop people and directors don't want actors slowing things down and potentially screwing up a scene because they have to play amateur armorers. So they pay other people to be in charge of making sure that a cold gun is a cold gun, and that if you want to point a gun at a person that you have every reason to believe it is safe to do so.

It would be one thing if all guns operated basically the same, or if the 180 rule applied to filmmaking, but prop guns and prop ammunition are not utilized like at a shooting range. Which is ironic, because I've never been offered the ability to examine the backstop of my local shooting range to make sure it was constructed correctly before I shoot at it.

 

[Flopsweat]

If this was Clint Eastwood rather than liberal comedian Alec Baldwin, everyone would be talking about how film sets employ credited experts as electricians, set builders, costumers, armorers, stunt coordinators, etc - and that poor old Clint is just an actor.

I don't know why anyone would expect actors - who often are flaky, drunk, learning impaired, etc - to interfere with the sometimes complex process of preparing prop firearms for use.

View attachment 1181030
This is a real revolver capable of firing .45 Colt. Does anyone actually expect that Harrison Ford took it apart to look into the cylinder every time they did a shot in Bladerunner? Should all actors know that a Colt SAA requires the hammer to be half cocked to open the loading gate, that you can't put the safety on a 1911 if not cocked, but that the safety on a P9S doesn't block the hammer or trigger? I've bought guns from guys in the infantry that didn't know that kind of stuff about the guns they owned.

We might as well be talking about Alec Baldwin inspecting the work of the eletricians on set. Maybe we should all help preflight the airplane next time we take a commercial flight and inspect the food storage practices of the restaurants we eat at.


I'm not speaking as a gun person or a from a particular political POV. I have a degree in filmmaking, and know quite a bit about the subject.

A lot of us would have blamed Eastwood if he did the same thing. I for one would have. I also don't believe his story, based on statements he's made and all the bizarre behavior. He's hiding something.

 

[21tango]

If this was Clint Eastwood rather than liberal comedian Alec Baldwin, everyone would be talking about how film sets employ credited experts as electricians, set builders, costumers, armorers, stunt coordinators, etc - and that poor old Clint is just an actor.

I don't know why anyone would expect actors - who often are flaky, drunk, learning impaired, etc - to interfere with the sometimes complex process of preparing prop firearms for use.

View attachment 1181030
This is a real revolver capable of firing .45 Colt. Does anyone actually expect that Harrison Ford took it apart to look into the cylinder every time they did a shot in Bladerunner? Should all actors know that a Colt SAA requires the hammer to be half cocked to open the loading gate, that you can't put the safety on a 1911 if not cocked, but that the safety on a P9S doesn't block the hammer or trigger? I've bought guns from guys in the infantry that didn't know that kind of stuff about the guns they owned.

We might as well be talking about Alec Baldwin inspecting the work of the eletricians on set. Maybe we should all help preflight the airplane next time we take a commercial flight and inspect the food storage practices of the restaurants we eat at.


I'm not speaking as a gun person or a from a particular political POV. I have a degree in filmmaking, and know quite a bit about the subject.

Yeah he's just a flaky actor/producer we shouldn't hold him to the standard everyone else is held to. Lets just get rid of negligence as a crime for people with influence in the entertainment industry.

 

[21tango]

A better question:
How much trust does it take to allow someone to direct you to run through a fire, jump off a building or let other people point guns even within 90 degrees of you?

The actor claims the gun fired when he pulled back the hammer and the half cock didn't catch, not that he pulled the trigger. Local law enforcement agreed that this was possible with this gun.

The actor received the gun from the AD that received it from the Amorer. Those two experts certified that the gun was cold, which is the essential final check that actors expect to make ("Is this gun cold?" Yes or no.)

The actor was directed by the AD and the DP to point the gun in their direction. Both of these people were hit when the gun fired in the direction they directed the actor to point it - at or near them. For the actor to "shoot them", multiple other people had to go out of their way to violate the very precise rules of their jobs. The actor did not break any rule of his job as a prop gun manipulator, but did exactly as he was told to do by those other experts.


Virtually all parts of modern life involve trust. You don't expect to run a listeria test on the produce you buy because you assume that the grocer and farmer did their jobs. You don't inspect the bridges you drive over because your taxes pay experts to do that. Pilots don't do aircraft repairs. And film producers expect that set builders don't make unsafe structures, special effects people don't immolate the actors and electricians don't electrocute the camera operators. Prop people and directors don't want actors slowing things down and potentially screwing up a scene because they have to play amateur armorers. So they pay other people to be in charge of making sure that a cold gun is a cold gun, and that if you want to point a gun at a person that you have every reason to believe it is safe to do so.

It would be one thing if all guns operated basically the same, or if the 180 rule applied to filmmaking, but prop guns and prop ammunition are not utilized like at a shooting range. Which is ironic, because I've never been offered the ability to examine the backstop of my local shooting range to make sure it was constructed correctly before I shoot at it.

Not talking about a back stop. If i handed you a gun at my range and told you it was empty and you shot and killed somebody with it. We are both negligent. Just because it happened on a set and not my backyard makes no difference

 

[2ndtimer]

Ultimately, Baldwin is still responsible. As executive producer, he HIRED the supposed experts. He also dictated the pace of filming (allegedly rushing through scenes, ignoring safety protocols because of budget concerns), and he was holding the firearm when it discharged (and apparently managed to continue holding onto his cell phone for months afterward, despite demands from investigators to turn it over as part of the investigation.) Could that not be considered obstruction of justice by itself? Now, whether or not justice will be served, is a totally different question, given his wealth, fame, political influence and current wokeness that refuses to sacrifice one of their own, regardless of facts.

 

[RX-79G]

Yeah he's just a flaky actor/producer we shouldn't hold him to the standard everyone else is held to. Lets just get rid of negligence as a crime for people with influence in the entertainment industry.

What standard? Michael Massee wasn't charged for killing Brandon Lee. The person that killed the DP was the last person that certified the gun cold, because that is how negligence works in most industries.

In other words, you don't get blamed for a car accident due to your mechanic cutting your brake lines. Right?

 

[RX-79G]

Not talking about a back stop. If i handed you a gun at my range and told you it was empty and you shot and killed somebody with it. We are both negligent. Just because it happened on a set and not my backyard makes no difference

Wrong. Because an actor isn't a gun enthusiast at a range failing to follow rules. He's being told exactly what to do and the experts that told him where and what to aim had control.

Is the little girl negligent?

Child firing Uzi at Ariz. shooting range accidentally kills instructor, police say | CNN

A 9-year-old girl firing a submachine gun accidentally killed her instructor at a shooting range when the weapon recoiled, authorities said.

www.cnn.com

 

[Forester]

A better question:
How much trust does it take to allow someone to direct you to run through a fire, jump off a building or let other people point guns even within 90 degrees of you?

The actor claims the gun fired when he pulled back the hammer and the half cock didn't catch, not that he pulled the trigger. Local law enforcement agreed that this was possible with this gun.

The actor received the gun from the AD that received it from the Amorer. Those two experts certified that the gun was cold, which is the essential final check that actors expect to make ("Is this gun cold?" Yes or no.)

The actor was directed by the AD and the DP to point the gun in their direction. Both of these people were hit when the gun fired in the direction they directed the actor to point it - at or near them. For the actor to "shoot them", multiple other people had to go out of their way to violate the very precise rules of their jobs. The actor did not break any rule of his job as a prop gun manipulator, but did exactly as he was told to do by those other experts.


Virtually all parts of modern life involve trust. You don't expect to run a listeria test on the produce you buy because you assume that the grocer and farmer did their jobs. You don't inspect the bridges you drive over because your taxes pay experts to do that. Pilots don't do aircraft repairs. And film producers expect that set builders don't make unsafe structures, special effects people don't immolate the actors and electricians don't electrocute the camera operators. Prop people and directors don't want actors slowing things down and potentially screwing up a scene because they have to play amateur armorers. So they pay other people to be in charge of making sure that a cold gun is a cold gun, and that if you want to point a gun at a person that you have every reason to believe it is safe to do so.

It would be one thing if all guns operated basically the same, or if the 180 rule applied to filmmaking, but prop guns and prop ammunition are not utilized like at a shooting range. Which is ironic, because I've never been offered the ability to examine the backstop of my local shooting range to make sure it was constructed correctly before I shoot at it.

That's a good description of why the accepted protocols are poor. Following bad safety standards isn't a valid excuse.

 

[patrikky]

A better question:
How much trust does it take to allow someone to direct you to run through a fire, jump off a building or let other people point guns even within 90 degrees of you?

The actor claims the gun fired when he pulled back the hammer and the half cock didn't catch, not that he pulled the trigger. Local law enforcement agreed that this was possible with this gun.

The actor received the gun from the AD that received it from the Amorer. Those two experts certified that the gun was cold, which is the essential final check that actors expect to make ("Is this gun cold?" Yes or no.)

The actor was directed by the AD and the DP to point the gun in their direction. Both of these people were hit when the gun fired in the direction they directed the actor to point it - at or near them. For the actor to "shoot them", multiple other people had to go out of their way to violate the very precise rules of their jobs. The actor did not break any rule of his job as a prop gun manipulator, but did exactly as he was told to do by those other experts.


Virtually all parts of modern life involve trust. You don't expect to run a listeria test on the produce you buy because you assume that the grocer and farmer did their jobs. You don't inspect the bridges you drive over because your taxes pay experts to do that. Pilots don't do aircraft repairs. And film producers expect that set builders don't make unsafe structures, special effects people don't immolate the actors and electricians don't electrocute the camera operators. Prop people and directors don't want actors slowing things down and potentially screwing up a scene because they have to play amateur armorers. So they pay other people to be in charge of making sure that a cold gun is a cold gun, and that if you want to point a gun at a person that you have every reason to believe it is safe to do so.

It would be one thing if all guns operated basically the same, or if the 180 rule applied to filmmaking, but prop guns and prop ammunition are not utilized like at a shooting range. Which is ironic, because I've never been offered the ability to examine the backstop of my local shooting range to make sure it was constructed correctly before I shoot at it.

I haven't followed the story for over a month but last I read was that there was a broken chain of custody for the pistol. The armorer was doing a different job in wardrobe. An assistant producer(?) retrieved the pistol from storage and handed to to the actor. The actor was practicing a draw when when he pulled the trigger. Real bullets may have been mixed with blanks supplied by a friend of the armorer. This was a low budget movie that was understaffed and procedural shortcuts were taken. Baldwin is liable as he is also the producer. As for him being liable simply because he pulled the trigger may not be the case. This never would have happened with Eastwood because he is more firearms detail oriented and the armorers he worked with were most likely more experienced and professional. Two worthless Cents.

 

[EHJ]

If this was Clint Eastwood rather than liberal comedian Alec Baldwin, everyone would be talking about how film sets employ credited experts as electricians, set builders, costumers, armorers, stunt coordinators, etc - and that poor old Clint is just an actor.

I don't know why anyone would expect actors - who often are flaky, drunk, learning impaired, etc - to interfere with the sometimes complex process of preparing prop firearms for use.

View attachment 1181030
This is a real revolver capable of firing .45 Colt. Does anyone actually expect that Harrison Ford took it apart to look into the cylinder every time they did a shot in Bladerunner? Should all actors know that a Colt SAA requires the hammer to be half cocked to open the loading gate, that you can't put the safety on a 1911 if not cocked, but that the safety on a P9S doesn't block the hammer or trigger? I've bought guns from guys in the infantry that didn't know that kind of stuff about the guns they owned.

We might as well be talking about Alec Baldwin inspecting the work of the eletricians on set. Maybe we should all help preflight the airplane next time we take a commercial flight and inspect the food storage practices of the restaurants we eat at.


I'm not speaking as a gun person or a from a particular political POV. I have a degree in filmmaking, and know quite a bit about the subject.

Harrison Ford and Clint Eastwood vs Alec Baldwin...?


I too have stayed in a Holiday Inn.

 

[21tango]

Wrong. Because an actor isn't a gun enthusiast at a range failing to follow rules. He's being told exactly what to do and the experts that told him where and what to aim had control.

Is the little girl negligent?

Child firing Uzi at Ariz. shooting range accidentally kills instructor, police say | CNN

A 9-year-old girl firing a submachine gun accidentally killed her instructor at a shooting range when the weapon recoiled, authorities said.

www.cnn.com

Wrong it don't matter if you're a gun enthusiast if i hand you a gun and tell you its not loaded and you point it at someone and shoot them its a negligent act on both our parts. Not Being a gun enthusiast dont protect you from a negligent act

 

[RX-79G]

That's a good description of why the accepted protocols are poor. Following bad safety standards isn't a valid excuse.

Then you'll never see half the stuff you currently do in movies, because they constantly violate range safety rules. Movies also violate safe driving rules, safe flight rules, etc, etc. You can change the protocols, but the existing protocols work very well IF THE PEOPLE PAID TO DO THEM. That's why stuff like this only happens once every 30 years or so - not because actors are doing other people's jobs.

The armorer was doing a different job in wardrobe.

And the armory should have been full of safe weapons before she locked it up.

An assistant producer(?) retrieved the pistol from storage and handed to to the actor.

While stating that it was a "cold gun" because he had checked. He did not check it, and that was part of his job description.

Real bullets may have been mixed with blanks supplied by a friend of the armorer.

They don't look the same, and the armorer's job is to know what is in the armory and keep any sort of ammunition - dummy, blank or live - out of the stored guns.

This was a low budget movie that was understaffed and procedural shortcuts were taken. Baldwin is liable as he is also the producer.

If the AD was competent to certify the gun cold, he was competent to do so while walking back to the set. No lost time. Same with whatever the armorer was doing - her primary job is complete when the guns are stored safely. She also knows how to quickly and completely clear an SAA.


I imagine what is going to come out is that the armorer was allowing access to the armory by people that were target shooting. At that point, the only thing that prevents an accident is checking the gun, which the AD was taking responsibility for by declaring "cold gun". Neither did their job.

 

[RX-79G]

Wrong it don't matter if you're a gun enthusiast if i hand you a gun and tell you its not loaded and you point it at someone and shoot them its a negligent act on both our parts. Not Being a gun enthusiast dont protect you from a negligent act

Wrong. If you tell your dumb friend to help you make a youtube video about your new gun, tell him it is unloaded, tell him where to point it and what to do with the trigger and it goes off killing someone beyond the backstop you didn't reinforce - that would be all you. Because he doesn't necessarily know how to check your particular gun, and you're running the show.

Same thing with "here, drive this boat" and any other situation where the person with technical knowledge controls someone else without it. Alec Baldwin may not be dumb in the usual sense, but every non-weapons trained person on set is dumb about guns until certified differently.

 

[RX-79G]

Harrison Ford and Clint Eastwood vs Alec Baldwin...?

Harrison Ford and Alec Baldwin are Jack Ryan.

 

[patrikky]

Then you'll never see half the stuff you currently do in movies, because they constantly violate range safety rules. Movies also violate safe driving rules, safe flight rules, etc, etc. You can change the protocols, but the existing protocols work very well IF THE PEOPLE PAID TO DO THEM. That's why stuff like this only happens once every 30 years or so - not because actors are doing other people's jobs.


And the armory should have been full of safe weapons before she locked it up.


While stating that it was a "cold gun" because he had checked. He did not check it, and that was part of his job description.


They don't look the same, and the armorer's job is to know what is in the armory and keep any sort of ammunition - dummy, blank or live - out of the stored guns.


If the AD was competent to certify the gun cold, he was competent to do so while walking back to the set. No lost time. Same with whatever the armorer was doing - her primary job is complete when the guns are stored safely. She also knows how to quickly and completely clear an SAA.


I imagine what is going to come out is that the armorer was allowing access to the armory by people that were target shooting. At that point, the only thing that prevents an accident is checking the gun, which the AD was taking responsibility for by declaring "cold gun". Neither did their job.

Since you have an expert opinion on every point maybe you should testify in court.

 

[Flopsweat]

Since you have an expert opinion on every point maybe you should testify in court.

That's not nice. He is getting a little manic in his posting, but that's not sufficient reason to get bubblegumty.

 

[RX-79G]

Since you have an expert opinion on every point maybe you should testify in court.

I'm not an expert on movie sets, but so far no one who is seems to be giving much of an opinion. I am an expert in aviation, which suffers a similar problem in that the operator does not have complete control because the system is too complex for that.

 

[21tango]

Wrong. If you tell your dumb friend to help you make a youtube video about your new gun, tell him it is unloaded, tell him where to point it and what to do with the trigger and it goes off killing someone beyond the backstop you didn't reinforce - that would be all you. Because he doesn't necessarily know how to check your particular gun, and you're running the show.

Same thing with "here, drive this boat" and any other situation where the person with technical knowledge controls someone else without it. Alec Baldwin may not be dumb in the usual sense, but every non-weapons trained person on set is dumb about guns until certified So you're saying if i hand you a gun and tell tou its not loaded and you shoot someone im the only one who's negligent? If you honestly believe that you should not have access to firearms