Messages
15,209
Reactions
32,926
The deaths and tragedy obviously matter. My comment was directed more toward responsibility and intent. If it was part of the script to be pointing the gun in a certain direction and he was told and believed it to be a cold gun, even if he pulled the trigger, it doesn't seem to indicate any premeditation or intent to cause bodily harm.... (?)

That's all.

There was no scene being shot at the time... they were all on break when Hutchins decided she wanted to see what certain camera angles would look like.

If AB can be believed at all, Hutchins wanted to see what the gun looked like thru the lens in partial cock. Baldy then released the hammer (while the gun was pointed at Hutchins) and BOOOOOOOOOMMMM.

The ONLY way it can do that is if Baldy had the trigger pulled back.

If we accept that he was only doing what the director asked, when did she ask him to pull the hammer ALL THE WAY BACK while fully depressing the trigger, and then letting the hammer drop while the barrel was pointed at her abdomen???? Note that he claimed he only pulled the hammer to the safe cock, and that he never pulled the trigger. LIAR!!!

It is also worth noting that the statutes for Negligent Homicide and Manslaughter only require a reckless disregard for the life of another... they do NOT require premeditation, nor intent to cause bodily harm. I've never said this was murder, as it would be if what you are saying applied, but if I got filthy drunk, and drove my car into your house, thereby killing your family, would I be determined to not be responsible for their deaths if I claimed the bartender told me I was fine to drive?????

Plenty of blame to go around. I say civil penalties for all, and prison for that arrogant plick AB.
 
Messages
1,668
Reactions
3,248
Rule #1... Treat every gun as if it was loaded.
He didn't, his "armorer" didn't. I don't think the intent was there but the negligence certainly was.
Negligence is there, but the Negligence is on
1: whoever brought live ammo onto a movie set
2: whoever said the gun was properly loaded and "safe"
3: whoever hired the above two people.
 
Messages
15,209
Reactions
32,926
if all handling and typical safety procedures are removed from your control, are you still ultimately responsible for any resultant injury or death?
Well, not ALL gun handling and Hollyweird safety procedures were removed from Baldy's control. As PRODUCER, HE controls what safety procedures are followed... and he glaringly countermanded several such as those set by his own armorer. And, he was NOT supposed to be handling that weapon outside of actual shooting of the script, while on break and almost all of his safety crew, including the armorer, were gone elsewhere. NEGLIGENT ARROGANCE and he's thinking he can do anythiing he wants on his production site.

So, if all gun handling is removed from the actor, then it's ok to pull the hammer all the way back on a SAA firearm while holding the trigger all the way back with a finger, while simultaneously pointing it at production personnel, and then letting the hammer fly? Wow, no wonder so many union crew quit after the first few "mis-fire" adventures!!!

Seems like at the very least, they needed better training. However, AB overrules all training anyway. As producer, he is responsible for how his production is run.

There is much testimony from elsewhere that indicates ""cold gun" is not scrupulously relied up by all actors, directors, producers, etc. The Union has a full list of safety procedures that say not to point firearms at others, no matter what! When it needs to be done, even with blanks or dummy rounds, the angle is cheated off by some degrees, or ballistic plastic is placed in front of others, or remote cameras are used. This is all info contained in the other thread(s).

The Director made me do it. And the Asst Producer said it was a cold gun. That works for you????
 
Messages
4,875
Reactions
5,476
I'm sure we all do under normal firearm handling situations.

See post #15. I would believe that. The question begs then... if all handling and typical safety procedures are removed from your control, are you still ultimately responsible for any resultant injury or death?

If acting is your job, and that is SOP, I dunno if many on set would question it or stand too firm on personal handling practices. It's probably a good thing having professionals do all that since we all know that even among firearm owners, handling practices can vary and they aren't always "safe".

I'm not defending Baldwin. I don't even really know who he is or if he had motives or whatever... just talking about the mechanics and responsibility issues of it. It's kinda interesting to see where this all lands. ;)
What you say is true, so unfortunate that Alec chose to work for a cut-rate project-- if he had insisted on using actual professionals, this would have never happened
 
What you say is true, so unfortunate that Alec chose to work for a cut-rate project-- if he had insisted on using actual professionals, this would have never happened
Yup. He was one of the folks responsible for/in charge of the project. As one of the 6 producers behind the LLC.

Then he was the last in a long line of negligence, which resulted in injury & death.

Not an accident. Negligence.
 
Messages
4,875
Reactions
5,476
Yup. He was one of the folks responsible for/in charge of the project. As one of the 6 producers behind the LLC.

Then he was the last in a long line of negligence, which resulted in injury & death.

Not an accident. Negligence.
Fortunately, much like hillary-- Alec didn't mean to break the law

Good thing 'real criminals' don't know about this liberal loophole...
 
Messages
756
Reactions
1,450
Guns don't know they are playing 'Make Believe'.

There is no such thing as a 'cold gun' in my world, and since I haven't killed anyone, I think it is working!
in over a hundred years of making movies where an actor points a gun at another or the camera, How many have been shot , injured or killed?
Almost always the actor is seen again next week on another movie.
This is a very rare event, Where all kinds of rules were suspended.
Just like our own 4 rules of gun safety You would have to break several to actually hurt someone.
The movie industry has their own set of rules. These rules were designed early on to keep this kind of thing from happening. The rules have evolved over the years as we design more effective idiots.
But like our own rules they overlap so that you would have to break several to hurt someone.
So saying "There is no such thing as a Cold Gun in my world" is fine if you live in a world of hunting and shooting where blanks, dummy rounds and Cold Guns are not the accepted norm. A world where a single live round should get you and everyone you work with fired.
A world where only a paid professional armourer is allowed to load the gun. That armourer is required only load the right number of blanks, and to have them clocked to the right place in the cylinder so that it only fires at the right point in the script. The armourer is also responsible to get the right power blank in place. Some give more smoke and less report [ for use on a soundstage,] some are louder for use outside.
Where this is going to come back on Baldwin is He as a producer did not hire a professional armourer. He hired a friends daughter who grew up on movie sets, and had once worked as an assistant armourer.
As producer he did not insist on only the armour handling the guns.
he did not insist that the gun be proven cold by a professional.
and he did not insist on the guns having a chain of custody where they were kept under lock till needed.
As a producer he did not insist on following the rules.
As a producer he let Covid rules keep the armourer off the set.
There are rumours that the crew was using the movie guns for target practice on time off. As the producer he should have fired everyone involved. But the rumour is he let it go on.
We know there was at least one live round. And all the ammo was taken in for testing by the FBI. All of it came from one common storage place. Live, blank, and dummy rounds.
There are a lot of blame to go around, and as producer he is responsible for day to day operation, so a lot of it comes back to him. DR
 
Messages
13,394
Reactions
52,043
This all goes back to the armorer. Period
It's the armorer's one and only job to make sure the guns are safe and safely handled. Baldwin is an actor and an idiot. That means the armorer should have shown a clear gun to Baldwin AND the director before putting it in Baldwin's hand. In that the armorer failed abysmally. I wouldn't blame Baldwin any more than I would blame a retarded child if he had shot the director.
The director wanted to set up the shot (I know, I know...) Baldwin did as the director instructed and tragedy happened. Unless they can absolutely prove that Baldwin loaded the gun or knew the gun was loaded, he should walk.
. hide.gif
 
Messages
1,668
Reactions
3,248
This all goes back to the armorer. Period
It's the armorer's one and only job to make sure the guns are safe and safely handled. Baldwin is an actor and an idiot. That means the armorer should have shown a clear gun to Baldwin AND the director before putting it in Baldwin's hand. In that the armorer failed abysmally. I wouldn't blame Baldwin any more than I would blame a retarded child if he had shot the director.
The director wanted to set up the shot (I know, I know...) Baldwin did as the director instructed and tragedy happened. Unless they can absolutely prove that Baldwin loaded the gun or knew the gun was loaded, he should walk.
. View attachment 1261604
The Armourer wasn't involved, at least from what I've read, which then the question becomes why not? To Actor Baldwin it was a complete accident and he shouldn't get criminal charges. To Producer Baldwin there were reports of unsafe practices and multiple negligent discharges before it happened, and the cinematographers family should sue him for all he's got.
 
Messages
756
Reactions
1,450
This all goes back to the armorer. Period
It's the armorer's one and only job to make sure the guns are safe and safely handled. Baldwin is an actor and an idiot. That means the armorer should have shown a clear gun to Baldwin AND the director before putting it in Baldwin's hand. In that the armorer failed abysmally. I wouldn't blame Baldwin any more than I would blame a retarded child if he had shot the director.
The director wanted to set up the shot (I know, I know...) Baldwin did as the director instructed and tragedy happened. Unless they can absolutely prove that Baldwin loaded the gun or knew the gun was loaded, he should walk.
. View attachment 1261604
But only as his part as the actor, Baldwin the producer still has some "splainin to do".
He hired the armourer, he oversaw the day to day operations, He set up and approved of the covid rules that kept the armourer out of the set, etc...
And if the rumours are correct he also knew the crew was target shooting with the movie guns.
Without any of these things , Could the Cinematographer been killed?
Without live ammo on set, even if they got the wrong ammo , could she have been killed?
With a professional armourer on set and doing their duty ,would their regular duties have caught the round left in the gun?
Had they not allowed an untrained assistant director handle the gun and declare it cold, etc....
All of this approved by the producer.... Baldwin.
 
Messages
756
Reactions
1,450
I confess I was unaware of the responsibilities of a producer so with that new knowledge, yes he is responsible, particularly of gross negligence if he chased the armorer off the set.
I would not say he chased her off the set. He hired an inexperienced person he knew, and was involved in writing the Covid rules that excluded her from the set as un needed personnel.
No profesional armourer would have allowed that. And the normal movie crew said no way!
Baldwin hired a friends daughter that had only worked as an assistant once before this movie. She was not qualified, and did not know enough to put a stop to things when they were cutting corners.
A lot of this is going to fall back on her, but Baldwin was in on every angle and made the day to day decisions. DR
 
Messages
13,394
Reactions
52,043
I would not say he chased her off the set. He hired an inexperienced person he knew, and was involved in writing the Covid rules that excluded her from the set as un needed personnel.
No profesional armourer would have allowed that. And the normal movie crew said no way!
Baldwin hired a friends daughter that had only worked as an assistant once before this movie. She was not qualified, and did not know enough to put a stop to things when they were cutting corners.
A lot of this is going to fall back on her, but Baldwin was in on every angle and made the day to day decisions. DR
How can Baldwin's stupidity be blamed on her if his rules had her off the set? Were the guns her property that she should have taken with her?
 
Messages
756
Reactions
1,450
I have worked on construction crews where the General contractor hired inexperienced people he could push to do things that no one else would ever do. And when things went bad the General was right there pointing fingers at those that broke the rules.
Its the same as this. when you know you are doing something sketchy, hire someone who does not know better! DR
 
Messages
5,167
Reactions
13,574
I have worked on construction crews where the General contractor hired inexperienced people he could push to do things that no one else would ever do. And when things went bad the General was right there pointing fingers at those that broke the rules.
Its the same as this. when you know you are doing something sketchy, hire someone who does not know better! DR
Exactly. I wouldn't be surprised if the armorer decision was more about who could be bullied and wouldn't put too many restrictions in place than a matter if expertise.
 
Messages
16,687
Reactions
40,658
I'm sure we all do under normal firearm handling situations.

See post #15. I would believe that. The question begs then... if all handling and typical safety procedures are removed from your control, are you still ultimately responsible for any resultant injury or death?

If acting is your job, and that is SOP, I dunno if many on set would question it or stand too firm on personal handling practices. It's probably a good thing having professionals do all that since we all know that even among firearm owners, handling practices can vary and they aren't always "safe".

I'm not defending Baldwin. I don't even really know who he is or if he had motives or whatever... just talking about the mechanics and responsibility issues of it. It's kinda interesting to see where this all lands. ;)
There is no amount of money that you can pay me to point a gun at an innocent person and pull the trigger, whether I have personally inspected it or not.
 

Upcoming Events

2A Rally at the Capitol
Salem, OR
Wes Knodel Gun Shows
Chehalis, WA
Wes Knodel Gun Shows
Redmond, OR

Latest Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top