Alec Baldwin gun incident

[DuckRyder]

Assuming what is posted here is true. Even if you accept that a movie set has it is own set of rules... it is still on him.

1) There was no scene where he was required to fire anything be it a "prop gun" or a "real gun" at anyone.

BTW I would bet that it one were to dive into the ATF book one would find that a "real gun" is always a "real gun" until it is permanently and irrevocably rendered incapable of firing live ammunition.

2) He accepted the weapon from someone other than the armorer.

3) Since he was the producer / director or whatever he was and not just an Actor he is even more responsible for knowing the rules.


Does Pietta even make cartridge revolvers? Was it modified to accept cartridge ammunition? Why?

 

[AZjeff]

This thread is beyond it's useable shelf life. Sides are drawn, neither will move.

 

[MNgopher]

One camp that believes all (or nearly all) blame lies with one party based on the one set of rules they adhere to. Its absolute in that worldview.

The other camp acknowledges that another set of rules was supposed to govern this situation. This is common in any industry. Follow rule A unless the special rules and conditions of Rule B is in place.

Problem in this case is that neither set of rules was followed. Reads like all sorts of industrial and construction accidents.

 

[eljefino]

If I were a "competent armorer" and saw the actor opening my gun up, I'd run up (from behind) and grab it and ask *** are you doing? He could have live ammo in his pocket that he's going to use against my policy and established practice. It was my job to give it to him ready-to-use and safe. These responsibilities should be and are clearly defined in the armorer's job, but weren't practiced on this set.

An answer to all this is a safety brief at the start of the production with a box of blanks, how to tell the difference etc. Then right before filming the scene bring everyone together to show the blanks are still installed, hand the weapon off to the actor, and film the scene without the armorer taking his/her eyes off the piece until done.

 

[eljefino]

I have thought of a good analogy here.

Imagine a situation where you are going to dive into an electrical repair or you hire someone to do it. Regardless this is dangerous. You don't have to be a "electrical geek" or a engineer to know that the basic fundamental rule is to turn off the circuit breaker before diving into wiring, cutting wires, etc.
It's your home, your insurance, you or someone you care about or hired is about to start cutting wires.

Do you trust "someone else turned off the circuit breaker?" Or, do you walk out to the garage and double check to ensure the breaker is in fact OFF?

So I work on submarines for the Navy and I do in fact have to trust that other people made the system safe for me. There's an ELABORATE LO/TO/ Red-tag/ Work authorization system that winds up on my paperwork before I can spin a wrench. And I, more often than not, cannot check the upstream valve as it'll be tagged out-- even confirming it's in a closed state by trying to turn it is a violation.

 

[ZeeOSix]

How many "users" and "other people" does it take to point an unchecked gun at a person you don't want to harm.... And pull the trigger, killing them?

If it was ultimately up to the "end user" there would be zero need for any gun experts on set. Not gonna happen no matter what you think.

 

[2005jettatdi]

One camp that believes all (or nearly all) blame lies with one party based on the one set of rules they adhere to. Its absolute in that worldview.

The other camp acknowledges that another set of rules was supposed to govern this situation. This is common in any industry. Follow rule A unless the special rules and conditions of Rule B is in place.

Problem in this case is that neither set of rules was followed. Reads like all sorts of industrial and construction accidents.

While I am in the camp that argues 100% of the blame lies with Baldwin since he is the one who pointed the pistol at another person, cocked it and pulled the trigger, I will not let anyone farther down the chain off the hook. If I give an 18 year old boy a pistol and he goes, robs a convenience store and shoot the clerk, the robbery and killing are 100% on him. However, I am not innocent since I gave the pistol to him. In my mind, the same applies here. At least one other person failed to do their job in a proper manner and a woman died.

and, yes, Pietta makes the 1873 SAA. Multiple other firearms companies do also, including Uberti and Ruger. You can get them in multiple calibers from .22 to .45.

 

[Jimmy_Russells]

While I am in the camp that argues 100% of the blame lies with Baldwin since he is the one who pointed the pistol at another person, cocked it and pulled the trigger, I will not let anyone farther down the chain off the hook. If I give an 18 year old boy a pistol and he goes, robs a convenience store and shoot the clerk, the robbery and killing are 100% on him. However, I am not innocent since I gave the pistol to him. In my mind, the same applies here. At least one other person failed to do their job in a proper manner and a woman died.

So 100% of the blame lies with Baldwin but then 100% of the blame does not lie with Baldwin. Got it.

 

[eljefino]

While I am in the camp that argues 100% of the blame lies with Baldwin since he is the one who pointed the pistol at another person, cocked it and pulled the trigger,

That was his job! It was supposed to be all pretend.

 

[billt460]

If it was ultimately up to the "end user" there would be zero need for any gun experts on set. Not gonna happen no matter what you think.

"Need for gun experts"? They had one and look what happened.

 

[2005jettatdi]

So 100% of the blame lies with Baldwin but then 100% of the blame does not lie with Baldwin. Got it.

Not even remotely what I said. Better would be to say 100% of the blame lies with Baldwin and somewhere getting close to 100% of the blame lies with others. No one else forced Baldwin to pull the trigger on a pistol pointed at another human being.

 

[Jimmy_Russells]

Not even remotely what I said. Better would be to say 100% of the blame lies with Baldwin and somewhere getting close to 100% of the blame lies with others. No one else forced Baldwin to pull the trigger on a pistol pointed at another human being.

So the script writer also carries some blame - Baldwin less than 100. Got it.

 

[MNgopher]

"Need for gun experts"? They had one and look what happened.

Did they? I'd argue that is clearly not a fact in this case... They had a 24 year old armorer who had previously stated she wasn't ready... Yet the show went on...

 

[c502cid]

Did they? I'd argue that is clearly not a fact in this case... They had a 24 year old armorer who had previously stated she wasn't ready... Yet the show went on...

So who hired that person?

 

[eljefino]

So who hired that person?

And like said on page one of this thread, Alec Baldwin, Producer.

This is why it's murky. It's about a Western but the people aren't wearing black or white.

 

[c502cid]

So taking it out of gun context. Baldwin jumps in an electric car, told it wasn't on. You can't hear it running so it's not obvious it is. He steps on the go pedal and runs over someone, killing them. Who is at fault?

 

[Jimmy_Russells]

So taking it out of gun context. Baldwin jumps in an electric car, told it wasn't on. You can't hear it running so it's not obvious it is. He steps on the go pedal and runs over someone, killing them. Who is at fault?

Don't forget the part where stepping on the pedal was his job.

 

[Propflux01]

They were on a movie set trying to follow gun protocols. Problem was, many people broke the rules. It can not be 100% the fault of the end user, regardless of how someone might think to handle a gun at home or in other settings. No different than if mechanics and head of maintenance wouldn't be held responsible for taking down an airplane from their incompetence. Many other people were involved with how this unfolded, and they are therefore responsible too.

Sure many did. But he was the driver. In the analogy of the plane, It is the pilots responsibility to ensure the craft is airworthy. That includes the others that have performed maintenance on it. In the case of the Alaska airliner, the fault was traced to a maintainer, who was identified and prosecuted. The pilot had no way to know that the maintenance wasn't performed correctly. One poster stated "It's not feasible for the pilot to go out and inspect the engine. Engine experts do that". But it is the pilots responsibility to identify that puddle of oil underneath, or that fuel leak, and to run up the engines and ensure they operate in accordance with, prior to take off. Now if something beyond control of the pilot (such as a fan blade failure or prop malfunction), then that I'll give, but in the Baldwin case, there was nothing on this gun that malfunctioned. Like the pilot that does his walk around, if he blows off a panel that is unlatched, then he is responsible. If he flies the plane knowing a maintenance item is not signed off, he is responsible, even though he didn't work on the plane. Just the same as Baldwin is responsible for himself not ensuring his gun was safe to use before he started pointing and shooting. Notwithstanding that sure, should the prop guy have made it safe, yes. Should all the people involved before the gun was given to Baldwin not "broke their rules"? Sure. Wasn't Baldwin on the the boss team, and responsible that set actions were to be followed in accordance? Yet in the end, Baldwin pulled the trigger. Baldwin pointed the weapon even though he didn't need to. Baldwin pulled the trigger when he didn't need to. I would lay money if it were you or me, we'd be in jail on a 500K bond because the prosecutor would say. "You were responsible, we don't care if uncle bob, the gun expert, said it was unloaded or safe."

 

[ZeeOSix]

"Need for gun experts"? They had one and look what happened.

If you've been keeping up she wasn't really an expert and operated very loosely. She was not vetted properly ... obviously.

 

[tshephard]

I have thought of a good analogy here.

Imagine a situation where you are going to dive into an electrical repair or you hire someone to do it. Regardless this is dangerous. You don't have to be a "electrical geek" or a engineer to know that the basic fundamental rule is to turn off the circuit breaker before diving into wiring, cutting wires, etc.
It's your home, your insurance, you or someone you care about or hired is about to start cutting wires.

Do you trust "someone else turned off the circuit breaker?" Or, do you walk out to the garage and double check to ensure the breaker is in fact OFF? Better yet, two people simultaneously ensure it is off, agree it is off, and then you close the breaker box and don't let anyone near it. In the service industry, they have "lock out" tags for dangerous electronical devices.

Failing to do this seems to me liability if the wires are cut into and zap, someone dies b/c nobody confirmed the breaker was off.

Actually, for electrical safety you first have to prove the breaker/switch operates the device, before you can rely on disengaging it, the positive case before the negative.