Alec Baldwin fatally shot someone on movie set with gun mishap

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve worked on many movie sets and several things went wrong to culminate in an accident like this. Several people f-ed up. Alec Baldwin, as the actor, is completely blameless. No actor can or should ever examine the firearm.

Alec’s Baldwin, a producer on this film, may well bear liability however.

Thank you. The actor never inspects the fire arm. That’s crazy talk.
- IA member from unthread

Then an actor should never touch a firearm.

PP, it may be that in the future there are better gun safety protocols and less gun use on set. I hope so.

But that is a different thing than stating what the rules/protocols are currently. If it is not the norm for actors to have anything to do with checking safety, and to rely on those that are hired to do so, then there is no culpabiltiy here for AB. What you think SHOULD be, is very different from what actually is.

Exactly, why would they rely on actors to know enough about a gun to check it?

What people with “navy seal” training aren’t understanding is that there is a very specific protocol put in place for firearms on set. I’m the person currently filming in the Midwest. Our film has a gun being fired in one scene and it’s definitely different on those days of the shoot. There is a way it’s handled and professionals are in charge of doing it. It’s not my department, so I won’t speak to the specifics. But people have been following these protocols for years without incident. When seasoned professionals are employed, and when work rules are followed, these things are much less likely.
Everyone on set has their job and in no scenario is it an actor’s job to inspect firearms. I sure as hell don’t want to be on set where an actor is messing around with a gun ( prop or no).

[Anonymous]

I'm stunned that they hired an armorer whose only qualifications appear to be "related to a well regarded armorer." I'm still trying to process how she didn't know how to load a blank into a gun. I mean, what? I handle a weapon maybe once every 5 years and I know how how load ammo. What's the point of hiring someone who can't do even the basics of her job? And if she can't load ammo, I guarantee she doesn't know how to disassemble and clean a weapon, which may account for all the misfires on set. They were out in a dirty ranch, those weapons must have been filthy. Very dangerous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve worked on many movie sets and several things went wrong to culminate in an accident like this. Several people f-ed up. Alec Baldwin, as the actor, is completely blameless. No actor can or should ever examine the firearm.

Alec’s Baldwin, a producer on this film, may well bear liability however.

Thank you. The actor never inspects the fire arm. That’s crazy talk.
- IA member from unthread

Then an actor should never touch a firearm.

PP, it may be that in the future there are better gun safety protocols and less gun use on set. I hope so.

But that is a different thing than stating what the rules/protocols are currently. If it is not the norm for actors to have anything to do with checking safety, and to rely on those that are hired to do so, then there is no culpabiltiy here for AB. What you think SHOULD be, is very different from what actually is.

Exactly, why would they rely on actors to know enough about a gun to check it?

What people with “navy seal” training aren’t understanding is that there is a very specific protocol put in place for firearms on set. I’m the person currently filming in the Midwest. Our film has a gun being fired in one scene and it’s definitely different on those days of the shoot. There is a way it’s handled and professionals are in charge of doing it. It’s not my department, so I won’t speak to the specifics. But people have been following these protocols for years without incident. When seasoned professionals are employed, and when work rules are followed, these things are much less likely.
Everyone on set has their job and in no scenario is it an actor’s job to inspect firearms. I sure as hell don’t want to be on set where an actor is messing around with a gun ( prop or no).

We understand it. We just think it’s stupid because protocol can fail. And did. I was taught that once a weapon is in your hands, YOU have to responsibility. Would you personally trust being handed a weapon that’s been cleared via protocol, aim it at your child, and shoot without checking it yourself? If the answer is yes, you need a basic course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"It’s the responsibility of the person holding the gun to make sure it is not loaded. Period."

Says who? In a normal situation when a person voluntarily shoots a gun without supervision, sure.

But lets say I am an actor with little or no knowledge of guns. I attend the required gun safety meeting.(Union was still there for that.) It's explained that the armorer will check the weapon. After that, the assistant director will check it to make sure it isn't loaded, and then hand it to me.

Here the gun was one of 3 guns on a cart outside the building. The armorer had checked them. The AD grabbed one off the cart. He was supposed to check it--despite several comments above that that wasn't his job, it sure sounds from reported protocols that it was. He probably should have attempted to fire it outside. We don't know it he did. Then he came into the building where AB was and handed it to AB saying "cold gun." Cold gun means there are NO blanks in the gun.

I don't think it's all that awful if the actor, who is not familiar with guns, assumes that the armorer and AD have checked the gun and there's nothing in it. AB might have thought the AD tested it outside the building where it was safer to do it. And he probably assumed that both the armorer and the AD were far more capable of checking the gun than he is.

Now there are reports that there were previous misfiring incidents. Company's release says there were no written complaints of any.

There is absolutely NO substantiated reports of ANY claim that the misfirings involved the same gun BaLdwin was using. Nor is there anything to indicate AB was aware of the misfirings. Please don't give me the "he was the producer" line. There were 3 other producers and an execurive producer.

Some of the claims that the union's complaints included gun safety were made AFTER the killing.

Neither the armorer nor the AD started working on the film after the union members quit. I have not seen ANY evidence that the presence of "scabs" was causually related in any way to the killing.

Personally, I think the union behaved badly by putting out the report that the gun had a live bullet, knowing full well that readers would think this means regular bullets.

Why don't we wait and see what the police investigation shows.

There’s a special kind of ‘I’m above it all because I’m the star’ arrogance that comes with that statement. Does not surprise me it came from someone who probably lives in the DC area, where the basic attitude is “I’m above it all - the peons do that for me”. When YOU handle a weapon, YOU are responsible for what comes out of it. I took safety lessons from a Navy Seal, and this was the first rule of thumb. The second was do not point a gun at anyone unless you intent is to kill”. So EVEN IF I’m a famous so-and-so, if the weapon is in MY hands, I not only know HOW to check that weapon, I CHECK IT. Trust but verify.

^. Another example of someone spouting off about something they don't know anything about.

What part of this is not logical? The arrogance in this area is beyond anything I’ve ever experienced - does your maid or butler do everything for you?

I don't know anything about actors and guns. But I listen to those people who know. And they say the actor is not supposed to check.

But you know better. Because you know better.

Why. Because the actor is above it all? Don’t handle a gun if you don’t know the basics regarding safety re: handling that weapon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel bad that this happened to Alec Baldwin, but let's face it: if this had happened to ANYONE else, he'd be ripping them apart for it.

+1. We wouldn't give a cop this benefit.

+2. Definitely.

BS. If every officer was provided with a dedicated professional (supposed) firearms expert, whose sole responsibility was ensuring that their gun was in perfect condition (always clean and free of debris and the safety on), and confirming that with another person who is supposed to check, before handing the gun to the officer at the start of the officer’s shift, you know there would be times officers failed to verify the condition of the gun. Because that’s human nature. We don’t have any way of knowing whether Baldwin would attack an officer who injured and killed people accidentally, due to the condition of the gun, under those circumstances.

There are plenty of stories in the news about police officers doing stupid things with their guns. For God’s sake, at a police academy (I think in Baltimore), an officer who had spent years training potential officers on safe gun handling shot a student because he thought he was holding a gun that wasn’t loaded (for instructional purposes) and he was goofing around and pointed the gun out the window at someone and pulled the trigger — but he was actually holding his service weapon, which was loaded. Does Baldwin have a history of making fun of such officers? Serious question, because I honestly don’t know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"It’s the responsibility of the person holding the gun to make sure it is not loaded. Period."

Says who? In a normal situation when a person voluntarily shoots a gun without supervision, sure.

But lets say I am an actor with little or no knowledge of guns. I attend the required gun safety meeting.(Union was still there for that.) It's explained that the armorer will check the weapon. After that, the assistant director will check it to make sure it isn't loaded, and then hand it to me.

Here the gun was one of 3 guns on a cart outside the building. The armorer had checked them. The AD grabbed one off the cart. He was supposed to check it--despite several comments above that that wasn't his job, it sure sounds from reported protocols that it was. He probably should have attempted to fire it outside. We don't know it he did. Then he came into the building where AB was and handed it to AB saying "cold gun." Cold gun means there are NO blanks in the gun.

I don't think it's all that awful if the actor, who is not familiar with guns, assumes that the armorer and AD have checked the gun and there's nothing in it. AB might have thought the AD tested it outside the building where it was safer to do it. And he probably assumed that both the armorer and the AD were far more capable of checking the gun than he is.

Now there are reports that there were previous misfiring incidents. Company's release says there were no written complaints of any.

There is absolutely NO substantiated reports of ANY claim that the misfirings involved the same gun BaLdwin was using. Nor is there anything to indicate AB was aware of the misfirings. Please don't give me the "he was the producer" line. There were 3 other producers and an execurive producer.

Some of the claims that the union's complaints included gun safety were made AFTER the killing.

Neither the armorer nor the AD started working on the film after the union members quit. I have not seen ANY evidence that the presence of "scabs" was causually related in any way to the killing.

Personally, I think the union behaved badly by putting out the report that the gun had a live bullet, knowing full well that readers would think this means regular bullets.

Why don't we wait and see what the police investigation shows.

There’s a special kind of ‘I’m above it all because I’m the star’ arrogance that comes with that statement. Does not surprise me it came from someone who probably lives in the DC area, where the basic attitude is “I’m above it all - the peons do that for me”. When YOU handle a weapon, YOU are responsible for what comes out of it. I took safety lessons from a Navy Seal, and this was the first rule of thumb. The second was do not point a gun at anyone unless you intent is to kill”. So EVEN IF I’m a famous so-and-so, if the weapon is in MY hands, I not only know HOW to check that weapon, I CHECK IT. Trust but verify.

^. Another example of someone spouting off about something they don't know anything about.

What part of this is not logical? The arrogance in this area is beyond anything I’ve ever experienced - does your maid or butler do everything for you?

I don't know anything about actors and guns. But I listen to those people who know. And they say the actor is not supposed to check.

But you know better. Because you know better.

Why. Because the actor is above it all? Don’t handle a gun if you don’t know the basics regarding safety re: handling that weapon.

^ Arrogance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve worked on many movie sets and several things went wrong to culminate in an accident like this. Several people f-ed up. Alec Baldwin, as the actor, is completely blameless. No actor can or should ever examine the firearm.

Alec’s Baldwin, a producer on this film, may well bear liability however.

Thank you. The actor never inspects the fire arm. That’s crazy talk.
- IA member from unthread

Then an actor should never touch a firearm.

PP, it may be that in the future there are better gun safety protocols and less gun use on set. I hope so.

But that is a different thing than stating what the rules/protocols are currently. If it is not the norm for actors to have anything to do with checking safety, and to rely on those that are hired to do so, then there is no culpabiltiy here for AB. What you think SHOULD be, is very different from what actually is.

Exactly, why would they rely on actors to know enough about a gun to check it?

Why wouldn’t an actor take on the personal responsibility of knowing that he/she is handling a dangerous weapon and learn?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"It’s the responsibility of the person holding the gun to make sure it is not loaded. Period."

Says who? In a normal situation when a person voluntarily shoots a gun without supervision, sure.

But lets say I am an actor with little or no knowledge of guns. I attend the required gun safety meeting.(Union was still there for that.) It's explained that the armorer will check the weapon. After that, the assistant director will check it to make sure it isn't loaded, and then hand it to me.

Here the gun was one of 3 guns on a cart outside the building. The armorer had checked them. The AD grabbed one off the cart. He was supposed to check it--despite several comments above that that wasn't his job, it sure sounds from reported protocols that it was. He probably should have attempted to fire it outside. We don't know it he did. Then he came into the building where AB was and handed it to AB saying "cold gun." Cold gun means there are NO blanks in the gun.

I don't think it's all that awful if the actor, who is not familiar with guns, assumes that the armorer and AD have checked the gun and there's nothing in it. AB might have thought the AD tested it outside the building where it was safer to do it. And he probably assumed that both the armorer and the AD were far more capable of checking the gun than he is.

Now there are reports that there were previous misfiring incidents. Company's release says there were no written complaints of any.

There is absolutely NO substantiated reports of ANY claim that the misfirings involved the same gun BaLdwin was using. Nor is there anything to indicate AB was aware of the misfirings. Please don't give me the "he was the producer" line. There were 3 other producers and an execurive producer.

Some of the claims that the union's complaints included gun safety were made AFTER the killing.

Neither the armorer nor the AD started working on the film after the union members quit. I have not seen ANY evidence that the presence of "scabs" was causually related in any way to the killing.

Personally, I think the union behaved badly by putting out the report that the gun had a live bullet, knowing full well that readers would think this means regular bullets.

Why don't we wait and see what the police investigation shows.

There’s a special kind of ‘I’m above it all because I’m the star’ arrogance that comes with that statement. Does not surprise me it came from someone who probably lives in the DC area, where the basic attitude is “I’m above it all - the peons do that for me”. When YOU handle a weapon, YOU are responsible for what comes out of it. I took safety lessons from a Navy Seal, and this was the first rule of thumb. The second was do not point a gun at anyone unless you intent is to kill”. So EVEN IF I’m a famous so-and-so, if the weapon is in MY hands, I not only know HOW to check that weapon, I CHECK IT. Trust but verify.

^. Another example of someone spouting off about something they don't know anything about.

What part of this is not logical? The arrogance in this area is beyond anything I’ve ever experienced - does your maid or butler do everything for you?

I don't know anything about actors and guns. But I listen to those people who know. And they say the actor is not supposed to check.

But you know better. Because you know better.

Why. Because the actor is above it all? Don’t handle a gun if you don’t know the basics regarding safety re: handling that weapon.

^ Arrogance.

Arrogance is handling a deadly weapon, expecting others to have ‘cleared it’, aiming at someone and pulling the trigger.

[Anonymous]

I don’t think anyone is arguing the actor should be the only one to check a weapon. Just that as a fail safe and a matter of personal responsibility, anyone who touches a weapon should have been shown it to ensure it is safe.

Which is what film folks here have said is the traditional protocol, and which seems not to have been followed in this case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve worked on many movie sets and several things went wrong to culminate in an accident like this. Several people f-ed up. Alec Baldwin, as the actor, is completely blameless. No actor can or should ever examine the firearm.

Alec’s Baldwin, a producer on this film, may well bear liability however.

Thank you. The actor never inspects the fire arm. That’s crazy talk.
- IA member from unthread

Then an actor should never touch a firearm.

PP, it may be that in the future there are better gun safety protocols and less gun use on set. I hope so.

But that is a different thing than stating what the rules/protocols are currently. If it is not the norm for actors to have anything to do with checking safety, and to rely on those that are hired to do so, then there is no culpabiltiy here for AB. What you think SHOULD be, is very different from what actually is.

Exactly, why would they rely on actors to know enough about a gun to check it?

Why wouldn’t an actor take on the personal responsibility of knowing that he/she is handling a dangerous weapon and learn?

For heavens sake just like any job there are protocols and people are assigned to various tasks. That is not the actors job, nor are they going to go through training for that.

For the AB hater. Did he steal your parking space or something because you are way over the top.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think anyone is arguing the actor should be the only one to check a weapon. Just that as a fail safe and a matter of personal responsibility, anyone who touches a weapon should have been shown it to ensure it is safe.

Which is what film folks here have said is the traditional protocol, and which seems not to have been followed in this case.

Who said that? I have been following fairly closely and have not seen anyone on this thread or elsewhere indicate that normal protocol involves the actor being involved in any safety check...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I just don’t see actors stopping and checking a prop gun every time it’s handed to them and the assistant director and armorer say cold gun.

I bet most actors won't mind checking, now.

Do they even know how to? I'd argue that the armorer should be there before the film starts rolling and walk them through it. I've had about 50 hours of weapons training with highly trained professionals that do it for a living. This was training for non-military, but official travel to a dangerous area, so we were trained with live rounds. A LOT of live rounds. 50 hours is not a ton, but I bet it's more that 90% of the adult population. On my own, I could reliably clear a Glock, a shotgun (probably), and a revolver. Something antique or replica? Very hard to say.

From my training I personally would not be comfortable using a weapon where the trigger worked without personally being walked through the clearing procedure. I don't think that is the same standard for actors on set where rule #1 is NO LIVE ROUNDS.

I am VERY sure that if Hollywood would consider having someone from the NRA do a gun safety course for all involved staff of EVERY film that used guns, the NRA would be happy to do so. But most of Hollywood would say “NRA BAD” so they would not involve them.

Why on earth would the NRA subject themselves to that liability?

[Anonymous]

Lots of professions have safety protocols that would prevent fatal mishaps if followed, but accidents still happen due to human error. Surgeons still leave sponges inside of people. Nurses still administer the wrong medication. Foods containing nuts are still mislabeled sometimes. Bus drivers still run over children. This is a tragic situation and people need to be held accountable, but the people speculating that this was done on purpose (within just a few hours and without any evidence) or that Baldwin hasn’t lost a night of sleep over this are disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think anyone is arguing the actor should be the only one to check a weapon. Just that as a fail safe and a matter of personal responsibility, anyone who touches a weapon should have been shown it to ensure it is safe.

Which is what film folks here have said is the traditional protocol, and which seems not to have been followed in this case.

Who said that? I have been following fairly closely and have not seen anyone on this thread or elsewhere indicate that normal protocol involves the actor being involved in any safety check...

Perhaps I am mistaken. I reviewed the thread and early on this was posted:

Actor W. Earl Brown details strict weapon protocols:


"In the aftermath of Jon Erik Hexum, the dedicated crew job of Weapons Handler was created — someone whose sole responsibility is overseeing any and all firearms used on a movie set.

In the aftermath of Brandon Lee, the rules got much stricter and oversight increased.

For rehearsals, we are given rubber weapons.

Actor W. Earl Brown details strict weapon protocols:


"In the aftermath of Jon Erik Hexum, the dedicated crew job of Weapons Handler was created — someone whose sole responsibility is overseeing any and all firearms used on a movie set.

In the aftermath of Brandon Lee, the rules got much stricter and oversight increased.

For rehearsals, we are given rubber weapons.

When it is necessary for a real weapon to be used, the weapons handler clears the chamber, the cylinder, the clip, etc… anywhere a projectile can lodge is checked. If dummy bullets are required, each shell is checked before loading…

This process is then checked by an assistant director or director and then by any actors involved in the scene. The weapon is usually dry fired.

At all times, treat every weapon as if it’s loaded — barrel down, uncocked, finger off trigger.

If a live Blank is required, it is loaded at the last minute. The presence of a live round is always announced so that everyone knows the size of the load and that the round is live.
"
As soon as “Cut” is called, the weapon is to be returned to the Handler. No exceptions.

Those are the Rules."

https://twitter.com/WEarlBrown

I don’t think the actors bear any blame. I do think there should be multiple layers of safety checks so that tragic accidents like this are caught by second and third levels of safety checks. I do think that because guns are deadly weapons, I would want to see there was no live ammo in it before I handled it. But to each their own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I just don’t see actors stopping and checking a prop gun every time it’s handed to them and the assistant director and armorer say cold gun.

I bet most actors won't mind checking, now.

Do they even know how to? I'd argue that the armorer should be there before the film starts rolling and walk them through it. I've had about 50 hours of weapons training with highly trained professionals that do it for a living. This was training for non-military, but official travel to a dangerous area, so we were trained with live rounds. A LOT of live rounds. 50 hours is not a ton, but I bet it's more that 90% of the adult population. On my own, I could reliably clear a Glock, a shotgun (probably), and a revolver. Something antique or replica? Very hard to say.

From my training I personally would not be comfortable using a weapon where the trigger worked without personally being walked through the clearing procedure. I don't think that is the same standard for actors on set where rule #1 is NO LIVE ROUNDS.

I am VERY sure that if Hollywood would consider having someone from the NRA do a gun safety course for all involved staff of EVERY film that used guns, the NRA would be happy to do so. But most of Hollywood would say “NRA BAD” so they would not involve them.

Well, while we are exploring each other's biases, let me educate you about the fact that the NRA's education has been evaluated and it is not effective.

And why would you assign an organization that lobbies for an industry the assignment of teaching people the hazards associated with their own products. Here is how that story ends: they say that the product is absolutely fine, the humans are always at fault. And that achieves nothing.