Actor Alec Baldwin charged w involuntary manslaughter - Is It fair?
So how much do you want to bet we never get to find out just how the trigger was supposed to have been modified? I wound up looking a lot into revolvers due to to this case and learned a lot in addition to what I already knew. Revolvers don't have safeties, instead they are made to operate in a safe way where only a deliberate action can have the gun fire. Other pistols can be ready to go off with accidental pressure on the trigger, or maybe even a jostling, with the safety off. A revolver can only be fired in two ways, if double-action type. You need to pull the hammer back till it cocks, then pull the trigger [the only way if not double-action], or, while uncocked, you need to pull the trigger very deliberately so that this action draws the hammer back a long ways. You simply never hear about revolvers going off accidentally this way though in theory it would be possible. It is considered very safe.
If the claim is that it's about a modified trigger, as per below, then is it possible that means it now had a 'hair trigger'? I could see that being possible once the gun is cocked that at that point, a gunsmith could create a hair trigger, maybe, maybe not. Still, clearly the gun has to be cocked first.
The big question, then, is why did the FBI miss this? They took weeks and weeks to examine this gun. Clearly the trial should merely be postponed to hash this out. Instead, case dismissed. I'm going with my original thought: face-saving development here.
Quote: linkAccording to the LA Times, prosecutors had recently learned that the gun used in the shooting, a .45 Colt revolver, had been modified with a new trigger in a way that could have made a misfire more likely.
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-65343821
A video taken on set during the incident (and now being studied frame-by-frame like a Zapruder film) shows Baldwin pulling back the gun's hammer to the cocked position and then placing his finger on, or at least near, the trigger. The finger was definitely inside the trigger guard.
The report was included in a motion filed Tuesday by the attorneys of the film's armorer who remains charged with involuntary manslaughter in the case. Prosecutors are now deciding if charges should be refiled against Baldwin.
Full Story at NBC News
Story at NBC News.
Quote: GialmereAlec Baldwin indicted for involuntary manslaughter by grand jury.
Story at NBC News.
link to original post
Makes sense. Point a gun at somebody thinking it's not loaded or it's loaded with blanks and not double checking you just involuntarily killed them. He'll never do any time though.
Quote: EvenBobQuote: GialmereAlec Baldwin indicted for involuntary manslaughter by grand jury.
Story at NBC News.
link to original post
Makes sense. Point a gun at somebody thinking it's not loaded or it's loaded with blanks and not double checking you just involuntarily killed them. He'll never do any time though.
link to original post
Probably not. In New Mexico, involuntary manslaughter is punishable by "up to" 18 months in prison and a $5,000 fine. Likely he'll just get the fine and a few years of probation.
Baldwin is charged with felony involuntary manslaughter. If a jury unanimously convicts him, he could get 18 months in prison just like the film's armorer.
Part of his problem is that he was both star and producer and therefore can be attacked for both allowing an unsafe set and for negligence with a firearm. A crew member who was holding a boom microphone during the rehearsal, will testify that he saw Baldwin pull the trigger of the revolver.
The trial is expected to last 9 days.
Quote: GialmereJury selection for the Baldwin trial begins tomorrow. This would have been a big story (indeed, there will still be more reporters than available courtroom seats) but has become more of a sideshow as the presidential election saga unfolds.
Baldwin is charged with felony involuntary manslaughter. If a jury unanimously convicts him, he could get 18 months in prison just like the film's armorer.
Part of his problem is that he was both star and producer and therefore can be attacked for both allowing an unsafe set and for negligence with a firearm. A crew member who was holding a boom microphone during the rehearsal, will testify that he saw Baldwin pull the trigger of the revolver.
The trial is expected to last 9 days.
link to original post
I feel bad for ALEC Baldwin(I had JUST found out like literally a minute ago that the OP called him Alex and not Alec) He was told that the gun was filled with BLANKS. He had no idea it would shoot an actual live round and kill someone. 😫
Quote: NathanQuote: GialmereJury selection for the Baldwin trial begins tomorrow. This would have been a big story (indeed, there will still be more reporters than available courtroom seats) but has become more of a sideshow as the presidential election saga unfolds.
Baldwin is charged with felony involuntary manslaughter. If a jury unanimously convicts him, he could get 18 months in prison just like the film's armorer.
Part of his problem is that he was both star and producer and therefore can be attacked for both allowing an unsafe set and for negligence with a firearm. A crew member who was holding a boom microphone during the rehearsal, will testify that he saw Baldwin pull the trigger of the revolver.
The trial is expected to last 9 days.
link to original post
I feel bad for ALEC Baldwin(I had JUST found out like literally a minute ago that the OP called him Alex and not Alec) He was told that the gun was filled with BLANKS. He had no idea it would shoot an actual live round and kill someone. 😫
link to original post
If Alec Baldwin was told he would be okay if he jumped off a bridge should he still do it? Involuntary means accidental.
Alec isn’t even his name or any sort of real name anyways. It’s just a name people named Alexander (or Alex) who think they’re extra special make others call them.
My neighbor shot down dead tree branches with his gun this week. Weird tactic if you ask me but he called to let me know first and didn’t point it at me.
Quote: mcallister3200Quote: NathanQuote: GialmereJury selection for the Baldwin trial begins tomorrow. This would have been a big story (indeed, there will still be more reporters than available courtroom seats) but has become more of a sideshow as the presidential election saga unfolds.
Baldwin is charged with felony involuntary manslaughter. If a jury unanimously convicts him, he could get 18 months in prison just like the film's armorer.
Part of his problem is that he was both star and producer and therefore can be attacked for both allowing an unsafe set and for negligence with a firearm. A crew member who was holding a boom microphone during the rehearsal, will testify that he saw Baldwin pull the trigger of the revolver.
The trial is expected to last 9 days.
link to original post
I feel bad for ALEC Baldwin(I had JUST found out like literally a minute ago that the OP called him Alex and not Alec) He was told that the gun was filled with BLANKS. He had no idea it would shoot an actual live round and kill someone. 😫
link to original post
If Alec Baldwin was told he would be okay if he jumped off a bridge should he still do it? Involuntary means accidental.
link to original post
If that's the tactic to be used by prosecution then Alec will probably be found not guilty.
Defense puts on any number of actors who have jumped from bridges in action films. "Did the stunt coordinator tell you the setup was safe? Did you believe him because he was a hired specialist? Did you jump off that bridge in Rambo, Mr. Stallone?"
I mean, to ask the "would you jump off a bridge" question without putting it in a filmmaking context is awfully unfair.
Furthermore the question in general is somewhat loaded.
"If someone told you it was safe to jump off a bridge, would you?"
"Yes," replied the bungee jumper.
Quote: NathanI don't get why Alec Baldwin's gun wasn't CGI. It would have prevented the tragedy.🤔💡
link to original post
CGI is expensive. They go with what is less expensive. A prop gun with BLANKS is definitely less expensive (barring the cost of this tragedy)
Quote: mcallister3200
Alec isn’t even his name or any sort of real name anyways. It’s just a name people named Alexander (or Alex) who think they’re extra special make others call them.
link to original post
The name "Alec" has been around for centuries. It's just a shortened form of Alexander, like you said. Weird that you think there's some kind of "snobbery" involved.
Quote: darkozQuote: mcallister3200Quote: NathanQuote: GialmereJury selection for the Baldwin trial begins tomorrow. This would have been a big story (indeed, there will still be more reporters than available courtroom seats) but has become more of a sideshow as the presidential election saga unfolds.
Baldwin is charged with felony involuntary manslaughter. If a jury unanimously convicts him, he could get 18 months in prison just like the film's armorer.
Part of his problem is that he was both star and producer and therefore can be attacked for both allowing an unsafe set and for negligence with a firearm. A crew member who was holding a boom microphone during the rehearsal, will testify that he saw Baldwin pull the trigger of the revolver.
The trial is expected to last 9 days.
link to original post
I feel bad for ALEC Baldwin(I had JUST found out like literally a minute ago that the OP called him Alex and not Alec) He was told that the gun was filled with BLANKS. He had no idea it would shoot an actual live round and kill someone. 😫
link to original post
If Alec Baldwin was told he would be okay if he jumped off a bridge should he still do it? Involuntary means accidental.
link to original post
If that's the tactic to be used by prosecution then Alec will probably be found not guilty.
Defense puts on any number of actors who have jumped from bridges in action films. "Did the stunt coordinator tell you the setup was safe? Did you believe him because he was a hired specialist? Did you jump off that bridge in Rambo, Mr. Stallone?"
I mean, to ask the "would you jump off a bridge" question without putting it in a filmmaking context is awfully unfair.
Furthermore the question in general is somewhat loaded.
"If someone told you it was safe to jump off a bridge, would you?"
"Yes," replied the bungee jumper.
link to original post
It was meant in jest. Obviously the shooting was accidental is all I was saying. As noted by others he might not be able to credibly pull the “just an actor” card.
Quote: mcallister3200Quote: darkozQuote: mcallister3200Quote: NathanQuote: GialmereJury selection for the Baldwin trial begins tomorrow. This would have been a big story (indeed, there will still be more reporters than available courtroom seats) but has become more of a sideshow as the presidential election saga unfolds.
Baldwin is charged with felony involuntary manslaughter. If a jury unanimously convicts him, he could get 18 months in prison just like the film's armorer.
Part of his problem is that he was both star and producer and therefore can be attacked for both allowing an unsafe set and for negligence with a firearm. A crew member who was holding a boom microphone during the rehearsal, will testify that he saw Baldwin pull the trigger of the revolver.
The trial is expected to last 9 days.
link to original post
I feel bad for ALEC Baldwin(I had JUST found out like literally a minute ago that the OP called him Alex and not Alec) He was told that the gun was filled with BLANKS. He had no idea it would shoot an actual live round and kill someone. 😫
link to original post
If Alec Baldwin was told he would be okay if he jumped off a bridge should he still do it? Involuntary means accidental.
link to original post
If that's the tactic to be used by prosecution then Alec will probably be found not guilty.
Defense puts on any number of actors who have jumped from bridges in action films. "Did the stunt coordinator tell you the setup was safe? Did you believe him because he was a hired specialist? Did you jump off that bridge in Rambo, Mr. Stallone?"
I mean, to ask the "would you jump off a bridge" question without putting it in a filmmaking context is awfully unfair.
Furthermore the question in general is somewhat loaded.
"If someone told you it was safe to jump off a bridge, would you?"
"Yes," replied the bungee jumper.
link to original post
It was meant in jest. Obviously the shooting was accidental is all I was saying. As noted by others he might not be able to credibly pull the “just an actor” card.
link to original post
Sorry. My bad. I didn't get the humor.
I personally have worked in film so I don't think the "he was producer so holds responsibility " argument works actually.
His biggest defense is that as producer he hired a professional who has already admitted to negligence. But that professional had a documented history of good performance in prior production.
Imo it's like if Macy's VP hired a professional for their fireworks display and to start the proceedings the VP got to push the button that started the fireworks and due to the professionals miscalculation a fire starts that results in death...and now the VP is charged with manslaughter.
Quote: Nathan
I feel bad for ALEC Baldwin(I had JUST found out like literally a minute ago that the OP called him Alex and not Alec) He was told that the gun was filled with BLANKS. He had no idea it would shoot an actual live round and kill someone. 😫
link to original post
Thread title fixed from "Alex" to "Alec" to make it more readily searchable.
Quote: gordonm888Quote: Nathan
I feel bad for ALEC Baldwin(I had JUST found out like literally a minute ago that the OP called him Alex and not Alec) He was told that the gun was filled with BLANKS. He had no idea it would shoot an actual live round and kill someone. 😫
link to original post
Thread title fixed from "Alex" to "Alec" to make it more readily searchable.
link to original post
It turns out that the OP was originally right.. I looked up ,"Alec Baldwin birth name," and it's Alexander Baldwin. Alex for short.💡
Quote: camaplI think I’ve learned something from this thread… I never knew that “blowing one’s wad” meant that one was “shooting blanks”!
link to original post
You could be killed from the wad of an old black powder rifle or pistol in the old days. You can even have the wad jammed in there so tightly that the gun would blow up in your face.
In a significant victory for the defense, the judge ruled that Baldwin’s role as a co-producer on “Rust” isn’t relevant to the trial. Prosecutors had hoped to highlight Baldwin’s safety obligations on the set as co-producer to bolster an alternative theory of guilt beyond his alleged negligent use of a firearm. Instead it will all boil down to what responsibilities he had as an actor.
In a victory for the prosecutors, they successfully argued for the exclusion of summary findings from a state workplace safety investigation that placed much of the blame on the film’s assistant director, shifting fault away from Baldwin.
It's expected that jury selection will only take one day and the trial should start tomorrow.
Not because of this, just because I think anything he’s been involved in for over 15 years now has pretty much sucked.
Quote: mcallister3200I think he probably shouldn’t be found guilty, but should take a plea deal for a lesser charge and agree to not be involved with filmmaking.
Not because of this, just because I think anything he’s been involved in for over 15 years now has pretty much sucked.
link to original post
I just looked at his IMDB page and wow, he's done a lot of crap. Last good thing he did was 30 Rock.
Quote: GialmereA few developments from yesterday...
In a significant victory for the defense, the judge ruled that Baldwin’s role as a co-producer on “Rust” isn’t relevant to the trial. Prosecutors had hoped to highlight Baldwin’s safety obligations on the set as co-producer to bolster an alternative theory of guilt beyond his alleged negligent use of a firearm. Instead it will all boil down to what responsibilities he had as an actor.
In a victory for the prosecutors, they successfully argued for the exclusion of summary findings from a state workplace safety investigation that placed much of the blame on the film’s assistant director, shifting fault away from Baldwin.
It's expected that jury selection will only take one day and the trial should start tomorrow.
link to original post
I did call that angle.
My experience in film told me that would be the logical avenue.
BTW in filmmaking, accidents have occurred including stunt men killed. Producers simply can't be held responsible when every safety aspect on their end (hiring practices) was followed. The only truly negligent case imo was the twilight zone tragedy because Landis refused to listen to his tech people about safety concerns and that still wasn't a producer but a director liability
Quote: mcallister3200I think he probably shouldn’t be found guilty, but should take a plea deal for a lesser charge and agree to not be involved with filmmaking.
Not because of this, just because I think anything he’s been involved in for over 15 years now has pretty much sucked.
link to original post
If Alec gets convicted of anything, it will most likely be accidental involuntary manslaughter. If anything the ARMORER should be in even MORE trouble than Alec is in . The Armorer was the one in charge of the gun and told Alec it would only be shooting blanks, not actual live bullets. I saw an episode of Family Matters where Steve buys a "fake gun," from a costume store and aims the "fake gun," at the Thanksgiving turkey and pulls the trigger and the turkey ends up being blasted through the window with a real bullet while Steve is shocked and says that he's going to make a nasty report for the costume store that sold him a REAL gun and told him it was FAKE. Carl got mad at STEVE when Steve wasn't at fault, the store who sold him a real gun and told him it was fake was at fault. Just like the Alec Baldwin case. Armorer is MUCH more at fault in this tragic thing. In the blame pie, The armor gets 95 percent of the blame pie, and Alex gets 5 percent of the blame pie for actually aiming the gun at someone even though he was told it would only give out blanks. 🤔💡
Quote: NathanQuote: mcallister3200I think he probably shouldn’t be found guilty, but should take a plea deal for a lesser charge and agree to not be involved with filmmaking.
Not because of this, just because I think anything he’s been involved in for over 15 years now has pretty much sucked.
link to original post
If Alec gets convicted of anything, it will most likely be accidental involuntary manslaughter. If anything the ARMORER should be in even MORE trouble than Alec is in . The Armorer was the one in charge of the gun and told Alec it would only be shooting blanks, not actual live bullets. I saw an episode of Family Matters where Steve buys a "fake gun," from a costume store and aims the "fake gun," at the Thanksgiving turkey and pulls the trigger and the turkey ends up being blasted through the window with a real bullet while Steve is shocked and says that he's going to make a nasty report for the costume store that sold him a REAL gun and told him it was FAKE. Carl got mad at STEVE when Steve wasn't at fault, the store who sold him a real gun and told him it was fake was at fault. Just like the Alec Baldwin case. Armorer is MUCH more at fault in this tragic thing. In the blame pie, The armor gets 95 percent of the blame pie, and Alex gets 5 percent of the blame pie for actually aiming the gun at someone even though he was told it would only give out blanks. 🤔💡
link to original post
They were shooting a movie where people are supposed to be filmed getting shot. That was the point of having blanks. So you could aim at someone and not actually shoot them.
Quote: darkozQuote: NathanQuote: mcallister3200I think he probably shouldn’t be found guilty, but should take a plea deal for a lesser charge and agree to not be involved with filmmaking.
Not because of this, just because I think anything he’s been involved in for over 15 years now has pretty much sucked.
link to original post
If Alec gets convicted of anything, it will most likely be accidental involuntary manslaughter. If anything the ARMORER should be in even MORE trouble than Alec is in . The Armorer was the one in charge of the gun and told Alec it would only be shooting blanks, not actual live bullets. I saw an episode of Family Matters where Steve buys a "fake gun," from a costume store and aims the "fake gun," at the Thanksgiving turkey and pulls the trigger and the turkey ends up being blasted through the window with a real bullet while Steve is shocked and says that he's going to make a nasty report for the costume store that sold him a REAL gun and told him it was FAKE. Carl got mad at STEVE when Steve wasn't at fault, the store who sold him a real gun and told him it was fake was at fault. Just like the Alec Baldwin case. Armorer is MUCH more at fault in this tragic thing. In the blame pie, The armor gets 95 percent of the blame pie, and Alex gets 5 percent of the blame pie for actually aiming the gun at someone even though he was told it would only give out blanks. 🤔💡
link to original post
They were shooting a movie where people are supposed to be filmed getting shot. That was the point of having blanks. So you could aim at someone and not actually shoot them.
link to original post
Hmm. A report said that Alec aimed the gun at the her because that particular scene, it was supposed to look like the Audience was getting the gun aimed at them. 🤔💡Why not have the crew member stand behind a bulletproof plexiglass barrier and then digitally remove the bulletproof plexiglass barrier? 🤔💡
Here is the scene where the costume store told Steve it was a FAKE gun and it not only turned out to be REAL, it was LOADED!
Quote: NathanQuote: darkozQuote: NathanQuote: mcallister3200I think he probably shouldn’t be found guilty, but should take a plea deal for a lesser charge and agree to not be involved with filmmaking.
Not because of this, just because I think anything he’s been involved in for over 15 years now has pretty much sucked.
link to original post
If Alec gets convicted of anything, it will most likely be accidental involuntary manslaughter. If anything the ARMORER should be in even MORE trouble than Alec is in . The Armorer was the one in charge of the gun and told Alec it would only be shooting blanks, not actual live bullets. I saw an episode of Family Matters where Steve buys a "fake gun," from a costume store and aims the "fake gun," at the Thanksgiving turkey and pulls the trigger and the turkey ends up being blasted through the window with a real bullet while Steve is shocked and says that he's going to make a nasty report for the costume store that sold him a REAL gun and told him it was FAKE. Carl got mad at STEVE when Steve wasn't at fault, the store who sold him a real gun and told him it was fake was at fault. Just like the Alec Baldwin case. Armorer is MUCH more at fault in this tragic thing. In the blame pie, The armor gets 95 percent of the blame pie, and Alex gets 5 percent of the blame pie for actually aiming the gun at someone even though he was told it would only give out blanks. 🤔💡
link to original post
They were shooting a movie where people are supposed to be filmed getting shot. That was the point of having blanks. So you could aim at someone and not actually shoot them.
link to original post
Hmm. A report said that Alec aimed the gun at the her because that particular scene, it was supposed to look like the Audience was getting the gun aimed at them. 🤔💡Why not have the crew member stand behind a bulletproof plexiglass barrier and then digitally remove the bulletproof plexiglass barrier? 🤔💡
link to original post
Because there is no need for a bulletproof plexiglass barrier when shooting blanks.
The FX guy didn't do his job properly and used live ammo.
There have been blanks used throughout the history of Hollywood. Shooting directly at camera is from the very earliest silent film. There have been 2 incidents like this I am aware of in over 100 years of filmmaking.
The shot is safe to do if done properly with blanks.
To put this another way, if you feel the need for a plexiglass bulletproof barrier then you must believe the gun is firing live ammo. At which point you would just replace it for blanks and have no need for the barrier.
Had the armorer done his job properly there would have been no discussion about the need for barriers. What needed to happen was the armorer following safety precautions established from over 100 years of precedent.
Is the other Brandon Lee? Didn't he die similarly during filming of The Crow?Quote: darkozThere have been blanks used throughout the history of Hollywood. Shooting directly at camera is from the very earliest silent film. There have been 2 incidents like this I am aware of in over 100 years of filmmaking.
Quote: JoemanIs the other Brandon Lee? Didn't he die similarly during filming of The Crow?Quote: darkozThere have been blanks used throughout the history of Hollywood. Shooting directly at camera is from the very earliest silent film. There have been 2 incidents like this I am aware of in over 100 years of filmmaking.
link to original post
Correct, it was Brandon Lee.
That incident went like this.
They were shooting in South Carolina. Two weeks before the incident they wanted to shoot close ups of the bullets firing from the gun to be intercut with the death scene to be shot later.
But being in South Carolina all they could find were live rounds. In Hollywood blanks are sold everywhere for filming purposes.
So the armorer had a great idea at the time. He cracked open live rounds and dumped the gun powder so they acted like blanks. They shot the close ups and put the gun away until it was needed for the scene two weeks later.
What they didn't realize is the last round didn't fire all the way through. It had a little residual gun powder left and had lodged inside the shaft.
When they rehearsed the scene, several times the actor pulled the trigger directly at Brandon and nothing happened.
They went to shoot the scene. By this time blanks had been ordered and delivered from Hollywood. The close ups with live ammo had been shot 2 weeks earlier and somewhat forgotten in the mad rush of production. The mistake made was the armorer didn't check the barrel for obstruction or he would have seen the live bullet lodged inside. Productions are notorious for long exhausting hours and this scene was near the end of a grueling on location low budget Production (which is why they had enough footage to finish the film).
With an actual blank loaded, The gun was fired at Brandon during the take. The blank goes through the shaft, striking the real bullet with enough residual gunpowder to send it like a projectile through Brandon. The blank actually worked as the firing pin or sorts.
I read an extensive article on this in one of the big film magazines perhaps a year later once the investigation had concluded.
As for the Baldwin case, I’m not sure if this aspect has already been resolved, but if his being a producer is at all a factor in holding him responsible, then wouldn’t the DA be required to include all producers in the investigation? Isn’t it rare to have just one? I usually see more than one Producer and more than one Executive Producer in movie credits…
Quote: camaplThanks for that summation on the Lee case, DO. I don’t feel the need to research that now!
As for the Baldwin case, I’m not sure if this aspect has already been resolved, but if his being a producer is at all a factor in holding him responsible, then wouldn’t the DA be required to include all producers in the investigation? Isn’t it rare to have just one? I usually see more than one Producer and more than one Executive Producer in movie credits…
link to original post
To my understanding it's been resolved.
Alec's role as producer is not to be discussed. He is basically being held accountable as the actor who fired the weapon.
While I hear some people saying things like "so someone hand you a gun and says shoot someone, do you do it?" That question will fall flat when it's a prop gun handed over by a professional on a film shoot. I mean the proper question is "a seasoned film armorer hands you a gun and says it is safe to shoot in the filming of a scene, do you refuse to shoot the scene?"
If that was the case then no film with guns would ever be produced.
the link shows how the case opened up
the Prosecutor is trying to paint Alec Baldwin as "reckless" per the headline
in her opening statement she said: that he "violated the cardinal rules of firearm safety " and despite his contentions had to have pulled the trigger
she called Baldwin - "someone who played make believe with a real gun"
https://archive.ph/D1bZT
https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/2024/07/10/alec-baldwin-rust-shooting-trial-opening-arguments-takeaways/
Quote: NathanIf not CGI, they could have used a realistic toy gun for Rust. Lots of toy guns look real. 🤔💡
link to original post
That's just not the way it's done.
Not for Rust. Not for any Hollywood productions.
CGI is expensive. Gun safety has made it relatively safe considering two incidents in 100 years.
Quote: darkozQuote: camaplThanks for that summation on the Lee case, DO. I don’t feel the need to research that now!
As for the Baldwin case, I’m not sure if this aspect has already been resolved, but if his being a producer is at all a factor in holding him responsible, then wouldn’t the DA be required to include all producers in the investigation? Isn’t it rare to have just one? I usually see more than one Producer and more than one Executive Producer in movie credits…
link to original post
To my understanding it's been resolved.
Alec's role as producer is not to be discussed. He is basically being held accountable as the actor who fired the weapon.
While I hear some people saying things like "so someone hand you a gun and says shoot someone, do you do it?" That question will fall flat when it's a prop gun handed over by a professional on a film shoot. I mean the proper question is "a seasoned film armorer hands you a gun and says it is safe to shoot in the filming of a scene, do you refuse to shoot the scene?"
If that was the case then no film with guns would ever be produced.
link to original post
Although, I suspect all actors are now checking their guns now. Maybe not before this case.
If the actor has not been trained in the proper use and handling of firearms, his "checking" it would most likely result in a more potentially dangerous situation than if he did not.Quote: rxwineAlthough, I suspect all actors are now checking their guns now. Maybe not before this case.
link to original post
Quote: JoemanIf the actor has not been trained in handling the weapon, his "checking" it would most likely result in a more potentially dangerous situation than if he did not.Quote: rxwineAlthough, I suspect all actors are now checking their guns now. Maybe not before this case.
link to original post
link to original post
Well, Hollywood will probably figure out the right process, just from the cost of shutting down production and lawsuits. (Humans dying probably not the main consideration unless lots of $$$ involved)
Quote: rxwineQuote: JoemanIf the actor has not been trained in handling the weapon, his "checking" it would most likely result in a more potentially dangerous situation than if he did not.Quote: rxwineAlthough, I suspect all actors are now checking their guns now. Maybe not before this case.
link to original post
link to original post
Well, Hollywood will probably figure out the right process, just from the cost of shutting down production and lawsuits. (Humans dying probably not the main consideration unless lots of $$$ involved)
link to original post
They had the right process figured out.
It wasn't followed hence the armorer went to prison already.
The question here is one of culpability
This is from an interview with a movie armorer, you can see with the situation on a movie set, nothing can be left to chance or the assumption something stupid won't be done
Quote:I prefer to come in the day before a shoot to pull all of the guns, blanks and dummy rounds being used and conduct a safety check.
After completing my checks, everything gets locked in a safe
I pull the items from the safe, and as a redundancy, I check them again. Then I load them onto a cart — preferably a locked one — that doesn't leave my sight. That means unless I have an assistant armorer or someone from the props department working with me, there are no bathroom breaks.
You'd be shocked by the number of actors who have never been shown how to safely handle a firearm
even blanks can kill at a close distance.
When it's time for the shoot, I bring the cart with the weapons onto the set, where the assistant director conducts a double-verification process to ensure the weapons have been checked. Then I load the gun and hand it off to the talent, announcing "hot gun" if there are blanks in it or "cold gun" if it's loaded with dummies
https://www.businessinsider.com/armorer-halyna-hutchins-alec-baldwin-not-enough-studios-prioritize-safety-2021-10
Quote: darkozQuote: rxwineQuote: JoemanIf the actor has not been trained in handling the weapon, his "checking" it would most likely result in a more potentially dangerous situation than if he did not.Quote: rxwineAlthough, I suspect all actors are now checking their guns now. Maybe not before this case.
link to original post
link to original post
Well, Hollywood will probably figure out the right process, just from the cost of shutting down production and lawsuits. (Humans dying probably not the main consideration unless lots of $$$ involved)
link to original post
They had the right process figured out.
It wasn't followed hence the armorer went to prison already.
The question here is one of culpability
link to original post
If what Baldwin did is still part of the process, I’d be worried since they’re trying to convict him for it.
It easy to understand what the armorer did wrong.
I believe he treated the prop gun not like a gun. But I don’t know what the process was?
Quote: rxwineQuote: darkozQuote: rxwineQuote: JoemanIf the actor has not been trained in handling the weapon, his "checking" it would most likely result in a more potentially dangerous situation than if he did not.Quote: rxwineAlthough, I suspect all actors are now checking their guns now. Maybe not before this case.
link to original post
link to original post
Well, Hollywood will probably figure out the right process, just from the cost of shutting down production and lawsuits. (Humans dying probably not the main consideration unless lots of $$$ involved)
link to original post
They had the right process figured out.
It wasn't followed hence the armorer went to prison already.
The question here is one of culpability
link to original post
If what Baldwin did is still part of the process, I’d be worried since they’re trying to convict him for it.
It easy to understand what the armorer did wrong.
I believe he treated the prop gun not like a gun. But I don’t know what the process was?
link to original post
Well for starters, using blanks and not live ammo.
Where did the bullet come from and how did it get on set?
I did a low budget film which had a garbage can fire in the script. To get the city license I needed insurance, to get the insurance I needed a fire department official on set, and that was in order to get the licensed fire efx guy to do the scene.
Everything went well, but let's say the fire specialist had overlooked something and a fire erupted that spread and took lives, should I as the producer and director been charged with manslaughter when I did everything by the book?
Quote: darkozQuote: rxwineQuote: darkozQuote: rxwineQuote: JoemanIf the actor has not been trained in handling the weapon, his "checking" it would most likely result in a more potentially dangerous situation than if he did not.Quote: rxwineAlthough, I suspect all actors are now checking their guns now. Maybe not before this case.
link to original post
link to original post
Well, Hollywood will probably figure out the right process, just from the cost of shutting down production and lawsuits. (Humans dying probably not the main consideration unless lots of $$$ involved)
link to original post
They had the right process figured out.
It wasn't followed hence the armorer went to prison already.
The question here is one of culpability
link to original post
If what Baldwin did is still part of the process, I’d be worried since they’re trying to convict him for it.
It easy to understand what the armorer did wrong.
I believe he treated the prop gun not like a gun. But I don’t know what the process was?
link to original post
Well for starters, using blanks and not live ammo.
Where did the bullet come from and how did it get on set?
I did a low budget film which had a garbage can fire in the script. To get the city license I needed insurance, to get the insurance I needed a fire department official on set, and that was in order to get the licensed fire efx guy to do the scene.
Everything went well, but let's say the fire specialist had overlooked something and a fire erupted that spread and took lives, should I as the producer and director been charged with manslaughter when I did everything by the book?
link to original post
I think the answer pertains to what citizens are expected to do in regard to what a normal citizen would be expected to do? In other words, a jury would consider whether any part of this was careless on your part, not whether you knew everything a fire marshall would look at.
Quote: NathanIIRC, a Star on a hit TV show called Cover Up, Jon-Erik Hexum died a similar way in 1984. He was told that the gun in the show was only filled with BLANKS, so he jokingly shot himself in the head, fully expecting to survive and accidentally killed himself because the gun had live bullets in it, not BLANKS! 😱😳 The hit show was immediately cancelled after his accidental killing himself.
link to original post
That is simply not correct!!!!
The gun DID NOT have live bullets.
He died because he shot himself in the head with a blank. The force of the gun still propels a blank outwards. It is simply dangerous to be shot within close range even with a blank.
It appears from your belief it must have been a live bullet that you don't understand the dangerous nature of blanks at close range.
In other words you also appear unaware of gun safety basics.
BTW I was aware of this case but don't consider it of a similar nature as the Rust and Crow films. For one the gun had blanks and Secondly, the guy pretty much blew his own brains out in commission of a joke.
If anything that incident demonstrates just how untrained in gun safety actors generally are.
Quote: darkozQuote: NathanIIRC, a Star on a hit TV show called Cover Up, Jon-Erik Hexum died a similar way in 1984. He was told that the gun in the show was only filled with BLANKS, so he jokingly shot himself in the head, fully expecting to survive and accidentally killed himself because the gun had live bullets in it, not BLANKS! 😱😳 The hit show was immediately cancelled after his accidental killing himself.
link to original post
That is simply not correct!!!!
The gun DID NOT have live bullets.
He died because he shot himself in the head with a blank. The force of the gun still propels a blank outwards. It is simply dangerous to be shot within close range even with a blank.
It appears from your belief it must have been a live bullet that you don't understand the dangerous nature of blanks at close range.
In other words you also appear unaware of gun safety basics.
BTW I was aware of this case but don't consider it of a similar nature as the Rust and Crow films. For one the gun had blanks and Secondly, the guy pretty much blew his own brains out in commission of a joke.
If anything that incident demonstrates just how untrained in gun safety actors generally are.
link to original post
Thank you for your explanation. I remember it being told to him that the fun had only blanks in it, but instead it was live bullets in it. I had it correct when he did it as a joke however. Poor guy had no idea that his "joke," would end up accidentally killing him. 😫
It's like if a city's civil engineer inspects a bridge and then concludes that it is safe. Then, I drive over it, and it collapses, killing someone below. Should I be culpable for that death because I didn't inspect the bridge myself before driving over it?
