Alec Baldwin gun incident

[WylieCoyote]

Unfortunate death and injury resulting from a lack of respect for a firearm. You always treat them as if they're loaded with real rounds, and you never point them at someone even if you think you know it's empty. Poor judgement, and I'm sure his team of attorneys are preparing for the civil suit as we type. I'll be shocked if there are criminal charges.

 

[Bottom_Feeder]

So because they're on a movie set, basic firearm safety gets tossed out the window?

They aren't firearms, they're harmless movie props. It's the weapons master's job to make sure of that in a variety of ways so this kind of thing doesn't happen.

 

[Inked]

They aren't firearms, they're harmless movie props. It's the weapons master's job to make sure of that in a variety of ways so this kind of thing doesn't happen.

If so, they are apparently not so harmless. If your suggesting that an actual firearm was given to him instead of a prop, how is at least a partial onus not bestowed on Baldwin?

 

[WylieCoyote]

They aren't firearms, they're harmless movie props. It's the weapons master's job to make sure of that in a variety of ways so this kind of thing doesn't happen.

Harmless? Jon-Erik Hexum. Brandon Lee. Props, yes. Clearly not harmless.

 

[nomas]

Oh my God make it stop ...

 

[Quattro Pete]

That's not how making movies works, but go right ahead blaming Baldwin for this.

Baldwin may get the blame, not as an actor, but as producer.

Alec Baldwin Could Be Held Liable in 'Rust' Shooting As a Producer: Experts

"The producers had a duty to preserve the safety of the crew," said said Adam Winkler, an expert on gun policy and professor at the UCLA School of Law.

www.newsweek.com

 

[skyactiv]

‘Rust’ crew reportedly loaded Baldwin’s gun with live bullets for target practice

Production sources had previously revealed that the gun had been used for off-the-clock target practice — which could explain how a live round ended up in its chamber.

nypost.com

 

[fsdork]

If so, they are apparently not so harmless. If your suggesting that an actual firearm was given to him instead of a prop, how is at least a partial onus not bestowed on Baldwin?

Actors shouldn't be expected to have sufficient firearms knowledge to clear guns effectively. The person handing it to him needs to be responsible for clearing it.

In this case, it's a bit more complicated given that Baldwin was involved in the production of the movie. On that basis, I would suggest he bears at least some of the responsibility of failing to put the right people and/or procedures in place. If his involvement were purely as an actor, I would be of the opinion he would carry zero blame.

 

[UncleDave]

So many mistakes made here its hard to count them all.

Handing someone a firearm in condition 1, or 2 is a big no no - its your job to clear it and show that its clear before you hand it over.

Even if someone clears a firearm in front of you - its your job to clear it again.

 

[bullwinkle]

Prop guns are supposed to be checked THREE times, by THREE different people, before the actor takes it & uses it in a scene. I don’t pretend to know Alec Baldwin’s level of firearms knowledge & abilities, but it‘s hard to blame him as much as the people who’s #1 job it was to check it. He will live with it for the rest f his life, though-maybe that’s punishment enough. And, IBTL!

 

[Bottom_Feeder]

The point is that they are supposed to be altered/modified/whatever by the on-set weapons master to be harmless or have been manufactured in a way so they are harmless. They should not be able to fire live ammunition. The conditions are supposed to be controlled. Real and prop guns should never mix. Ammo should be nowhere in the vicinity. Actors, many who are non-gun types, put their faith in these weapons masters that they are safe from causing or receiving harm from the props they handle on screen. That's how it works.

Yes, to gun people, the amount of irresponsible handling in this situation is incredibly bad, but when the prop guy puts a gun in your (the actor's) hand and tells you and everyone else in earshot that it's safe, then there's no reason not to believe him. If you're not a gun person, your first reaction isn't going to be to clear it.

 

[Kestas]

The people handling these guns are actors, artists, and other creative people... not technical people. For example, if engineers were involved, they would have pulled out the safety protocol list and gone through it. These creative people don't follow 'rules' and work using emotion and ego. It would have been more like "Will you stop with the details, we need to film while the actors are still in character and we still have good light." Any technical person who has worked with artists would understand this. I wouldn't be surprised if this mood is pervasive on most film sets.

 

[ripcord]

They aren't firearms, they're harmless movie props. It's the weapons master's job to make sure of that in a variety of ways so this kind of thing doesn't happen.

The "harmless movie props" you're talking about were fully functional firearms which takes the "harmless" out of the equation. If the Pope handed me a revolver and told me it was unloaded, I'm still responsible to ensure that I don't injure anyone with it. Even when movie set guns are loaded with blanks, they're never supposed to be pointed directly at someone when fired. They always stage the angles so that they are pointed away from people.

EVERYONE in this situation was to blame. The actor was to blame for assuming he could point it anywhere he wanted and pull the trigger. The movie production people who hired an unqualified young female cinema studies graduate with no firearms expertise as the weapons prop master were to blame for putting affirmative action before common sense. That same young lady was to blame for bringing live ammo on the set so she could take the "harmless movie prop" guns out to the desert to impress her friends with.

 

[Bottom_Feeder]

The "harmless movie props" you're talking about were full functional firearms which takes the "harmless" out of the equation. If the Pope handed me a revolver and told me it was unloaded, I'm still responsible to ensure that I ensure that I don't injure anyone with it. Even when movie set guns are loaded with blanks, they're never supposed to be pointed directly at someone when fired. They always stage the angles so that they are pointed away from people.

EVERYONE in this situation was to blame. The actor was to blame for assuming he could point it anywhere he wanted and pull the trigger. The movie production people who hired an unqualified young female cinema studies graduate with no firearms expertise as the weapons prop master were to blame for putting affirmative action before common sense. That same young lady was to blame for bringing live ammo on the set so she could take the "harmless movie prop" guns out to the desert to impress her friends with.

Exactly! And why were they?

 

[ripcord]

Exactly! And why were they?

Movies often use real firearms on set. And since they want replicas to be completely lifelike for filming, it's impossible to guarantee that a real firearm is not accidentally mixed in with the dummies, so even non-functional replicas MUST be treated as if they were the real thing.

 

[Bottom_Feeder]

Movies often use real firearms on set. And since they want replicas to be completely lifelike for filming, it's impossible to guarantee that a real firearm is not accidentally mixed in with the dummies, so even non-functional replicas MUST be treated as if they were the real thing.

By the non-gun people who are paid to act? Nope, that's someone else's job, something they are hired specifically to do.

 

[MrHorspwer]

Yes, to gun people, the amount of irresponsible handling in this situation is incredibly bad, but when the prop guy puts a gun in your (the actor's) hand and tells you and everyone else in earshot that it's safe, then there's no reason not to believe him. If you're not a gun person, your first reaction isn't going to be to clear it.

This.

If you were to do a tandem skydive, part of the arrangement is that the expert is making things safe. The chute is packed properly, you're properly harnessed, the plane is being flown by someone competent.

You're not an expert on parachutes or harnesses or flying airplanes. They are. That's why they're there and that's what they're being paid to do.

On-set firearm safety the armorer's job: To facilitate the safe handling of prop firearms. They're the experts so the non-experts can work in safety.

This arrangement exists everywhere. The guy who fixes your HVAC is expected to be competent enough to not poison you with carbon monoxide in the night. Would you bend over backwards to blame a homeowner for an HVAC contractors negligence like you're bending to blame an actor for someone else's negligence? Well, I guess if that homeowner doesn't agree with my politics, I'd bend over backwards blame them...

The actor was to blame for assuming he could point it anywhere he wanted and pull the trigger.

Look at all them guns pointed where they shouldn't be. At actors. At camera operators. At anyone around the set. Shame on those actors for assuming they can point those just anywhere.

Shame on Tuco for assuming he could point that gun at our hero Clint.

 

[Bottom_Feeder]

Thank you for making my point beautifully. The parachute comparison is perfect.

 

[Bottom_Feeder]

Baldwin may get the blame, not as an actor, but as producer.

Alec Baldwin Could Be Held Liable in 'Rust' Shooting As a Producer: Experts

"The producers had a duty to preserve the safety of the crew," said said Adam Winkler, an expert on gun policy and professor at the UCLA School of Law.

www.newsweek.com

And yeah, unfortunately, he probably should be.

 

[ripcord]

Pointed is different than fired.
I would agree that it's probably not practical to expect every actor to chamber check every firearm