Alec Baldwin fatally shot someone on movie set with gun mishap

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If a reasonable person is expected to verify a gun is unloaded, and the local prosecutor has said that there is no precedent, arguing that an actor should be expected to exercise a lower duty of care seems like an argument that a defense would raise not an argument that would influence the decision to proceed with a case

How old are you? Do you remember what happened to Brandon Lee? And to the person who shot him?

[Anonymous]

I’ve heard interviews with several well regarded armorers and they have all said they don’t hold AB responsible.
They have also said that while AB should have been shown the gun was cold ( we don’t know for a fact that he wasn’t) he should not have been fiddling with the gun, which reflects my experience on movie sets. The talent doesn’t mess with the firearm, other than doing what is being directed for the scene.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The DA said criminal charges have not been ruled out.
Evidence has been sent to the FBI in Quantico.

Wow, FBI is getting involved. When you read the armorer's statements that she verified everything was fine, I think there are only 3 options. 1) she's incompetent and doesn't know that she loaded it with live ammo, 2) she's lying, or 3) someone else put live ammo in the gun.

Maybe they can get prints from the shells to find out who handled the ammo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The DA said criminal charges have not been ruled out.
Evidence has been sent to the FBI in Quantico.

Wow, FBI is getting involved. When you read the armorer's statements that she verified everything was fine, I think there are only 3 options. 1) she's incompetent and doesn't know that she loaded it with live ammo, 2) she's lying, or 3) someone else put live ammo in the gun.

Maybe they can get prints from the shells to find out who handled the ammo.

She removed the casing from the gun and handed it to police, so her prints are already all over it. I wonder if she was covering her tracks already at that point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ve heard interviews with several well regarded armorers and they have all said they don’t hold AB responsible.
They have also said that while AB should have been shown the gun was cold ( we don’t know for a fact that he wasn’t) he should not have been fiddling with the gun, which reflects my experience on movie sets. The talent doesn’t mess with the firearm, other than doing what is being directed for the scene.

I think Alec shouldn't have pointed the gun at anyone. But, I also think it's likely that Alec genuinely doesn't know that. He doesn't strike me as someone with any firearms familiarity, so while I started out thinking he was guilty as hell since he pointed the gun at her, I've slowly changed my position and think that he probably doesn't realize how dangerous that is and no one on set told him the rules. Now, it will be interesting to know what his role was re: personnel and budget decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ve heard interviews with several well regarded armorers and they have all said they don’t hold AB responsible.
They have also said that while AB should have been shown the gun was cold ( we don’t know for a fact that he wasn’t) he should not have been fiddling with the gun, which reflects my experience on movie sets. The talent doesn’t mess with the firearm, other than doing what is being directed for the scene.

I've watched several armorers being interviewed as well and all of them say that the only way something like this can happen is through negligence. They all state that the armorer AND the actor both check the gun--the armorer checking and showing the actor. They all state that protocol could not have been followed.

A very interesting point they made was if the scene required Alec to point the gun at his own head would he have followed protocol and checked the gun...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a reasonable person is expected to verify a gun is unloaded, and the local prosecutor has said that there is no precedent, arguing that an actor should be expected to exercise a lower duty of care seems like an argument that a defense would raise not an argument that would influence the decision to proceed with a case

How old are you? Do you remember what happened to Brandon Lee? And to the person who shot him?

That is a different situation. The gun that killed Brandon Lee was supposed to have dummy rounds and no actor could be expected to tell the difference between dummy and live. Baldwin's gun was supposed to be empty and any child who has had five minutes of gun training could tell the difference between a loaded and unloaded gun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve heard interviews with several well regarded armorers and they have all said they don’t hold AB responsible.
They have also said that while AB should have been shown the gun was cold ( we don’t know for a fact that he wasn’t) he should not have been fiddling with the gun, which reflects my experience on movie sets. The talent doesn’t mess with the firearm, other than doing what is being directed for the scene.

I think Alec shouldn't have pointed the gun at anyone. But, I also think it's likely that Alec genuinely doesn't know that. He doesn't strike me as someone with any firearms familiarity, so while I started out thinking he was guilty as hell since he pointed the gun at her, I've slowly changed my position and think that he probably doesn't realize how dangerous that is and no one on set told him the rules. Now, it will be interesting to know what his role was re: personnel and budget decisions.

He should have realized how dangerous it was, or he shouldn’t have been holding a firearm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ve heard interviews with several well regarded armorers and they have all said they don’t hold AB responsible.
They have also said that while AB should have been shown the gun was cold ( we don’t know for a fact that he wasn’t) he should not have been fiddling with the gun, which reflects my experience on movie sets. The talent doesn’t mess with the firearm, other than doing what is being directed for the scene.

He was practicing the action that was in the scene. That's not "fiddling with the gun". That's rehearsal.

Standard procedure would have been that the armorer would have supplied him with a rubber weapon, or a gun that had been rendered incapable of firing for that practice, but it appears that the armorer did not provide any such guns, and instead provided what was supposed to be an unloaded or "cold" weapon.

You could argue that AB should have objected to the armorer not providing a rubber weapon. But the need to practice a motion (drawing the gun and pointing it at the camera) and set up camera angles for it is part of filming a movie.

But the armorer's responsibility is much bigger here. The armorer should have 1) Not brought actual bullets on the set, and kept them mixed in with blanks, 2) Not allowed the gun out of her eye sight unless it was securely locked up (It seems that crew "borrowed" it for target practice, and 3) Checked the gun before giving it to the AD and watched the AD check it as well.

Those tasks are literally the armorer's entire job. On this set, there were 3 guns so the armorer's entire job was to keep those 3 items safe and secure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve heard interviews with several well regarded armorers and they have all said they don’t hold AB responsible.
They have also said that while AB should have been shown the gun was cold ( we don’t know for a fact that he wasn’t) he should not have been fiddling with the gun, which reflects my experience on movie sets. The talent doesn’t mess with the firearm, other than doing what is being directed for the scene.

I've watched several armorers being interviewed as well and all of them say that the only way something like this can happen is through negligence. They all state that the armorer AND the actor both check the gun--the armorer checking and showing the actor. They all state that protocol could not have been followed.

A very interesting point they made was if the scene required Alec to point the gun at his own head would he have followed protocol and checked the gun...

But let’s be clear. The actor doesn’t touch the gun. He is shown the gun.
I don’t know if that should change. I honestly don’t want to be on set where actors are physically checking guns.
That seems way more dangerous to me, and I work on set.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve heard interviews with several well regarded armorers and they have all said they don’t hold AB responsible.
They have also said that while AB should have been shown the gun was cold ( we don’t know for a fact that he wasn’t) he should not have been fiddling with the gun, which reflects my experience on movie sets. The talent doesn’t mess with the firearm, other than doing what is being directed for the scene.

He was practicing the action that was in the scene. That's not "fiddling with the gun". That's rehearsal.

Standard procedure would have been that the armorer would have supplied him with a rubber weapon, or a gun that had been rendered incapable of firing for that practice, but it appears that the armorer did not provide any such guns, and instead provided what was supposed to be an unloaded or "cold" weapon.

You could argue that AB should have objected to the armorer not providing a rubber weapon. But the need to practice a motion (drawing the gun and pointing it at the camera) and set up camera angles for it is part of filming a movie.

But the armorer's responsibility is much bigger here. The armorer should have 1) Not brought actual bullets on the set, and kept them mixed in with blanks, 2) Not allowed the gun out of her eye sight unless it was securely locked up (It seems that crew "borrowed" it for target practice, and 3) Checked the gun before giving it to the AD and watched the AD check it as well.

Those tasks are literally the armorer's entire job. On this set, there were 3 guns so the armorer's entire job was to keep those 3 items safe and secure.

You misunderstand. When I say fiddling with the gun, I’m not talking about rehearsal. I’m talking about the actor physically checking the gun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The DA said criminal charges have not been ruled out.
Evidence has been sent to the FBI in Quantico.

Wow, FBI is getting involved. When you read the armorer's statements that she verified everything was fine, I think there are only 3 options. 1) she's incompetent and doesn't know that she loaded it with live ammo, 2) she's lying, or 3) someone else put live ammo in the gun.

Maybe they can get prints from the shells to find out who handled the ammo.

But even if 3 is true, and it seems that crew members may have borrowed the gun to use for target practice, the armorer's job is still to make sure that the guns are secure every minute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve heard interviews with several well regarded armorers and they have all said they don’t hold AB responsible.
They have also said that while AB should have been shown the gun was cold ( we don’t know for a fact that he wasn’t) he should not have been fiddling with the gun, which reflects my experience on movie sets. The talent doesn’t mess with the firearm, other than doing what is being directed for the scene.

He was practicing the action that was in the scene. That's not "fiddling with the gun". That's rehearsal.

Standard procedure would have been that the armorer would have supplied him with a rubber weapon, or a gun that had been rendered incapable of firing for that practice, but it appears that the armorer did not provide any such guns, and instead provided what was supposed to be an unloaded or "cold" weapon.

You could argue that AB should have objected to the armorer not providing a rubber weapon. But the need to practice a motion (drawing the gun and pointing it at the camera) and set up camera angles for it is part of filming a movie.

But the armorer's responsibility is much bigger here. The armorer should have 1) Not brought actual bullets on the set, and kept them mixed in with blanks, 2) Not allowed the gun out of her eye sight unless it was securely locked up (It seems that crew "borrowed" it for target practice, and 3) Checked the gun before giving it to the AD and watched the AD check it as well.

Those tasks are literally the armorer's entire job. On this set, there were 3 guns so the armorer's entire job was to keep those 3 items safe and secure.

You misunderstand. When I say fiddling with the gun, I’m not talking about rehearsal. I’m talking about the actor physically checking the gun.

Everywhere else in the country, the standard procedure would be whoever hands him the gun does so in a way the demonstrates the gun is unloaded which he then verifies visually before accepting the gun. It's ridiculous that Hollywood is held to such a low standard based on nothing other than their own rules.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve heard interviews with several well regarded armorers and they have all said they don’t hold AB responsible.
They have also said that while AB should have been shown the gun was cold ( we don’t know for a fact that he wasn’t) he should not have been fiddling with the gun, which reflects my experience on movie sets. The talent doesn’t mess with the firearm, other than doing what is being directed for the scene.

He was practicing the action that was in the scene. That's not "fiddling with the gun". That's rehearsal.

Standard procedure would have been that the armorer would have supplied him with a rubber weapon, or a gun that had been rendered incapable of firing for that practice, but it appears that the armorer did not provide any such guns, and instead provided what was supposed to be an unloaded or "cold" weapon.

You could argue that AB should have objected to the armorer not providing a rubber weapon. But the need to practice a motion (drawing the gun and pointing it at the camera) and set up camera angles for it is part of filming a movie.

But the armorer's responsibility is much bigger here. The armorer should have 1) Not brought actual bullets on the set, and kept them mixed in with blanks, 2) Not allowed the gun out of her eye sight unless it was securely locked up (It seems that crew "borrowed" it for target practice, and 3) Checked the gun before giving it to the AD and watched the AD check it as well.

Those tasks are literally the armorer's entire job. On this set, there were 3 guns so the armorer's entire job was to keep those 3 items safe and secure.

The armorer claimed she didn't know there were live rounds on the set and that there were 3x people with access to the gun safe. So she may not have allowed people to play with the guns-- the other people with access may have. The other people with access were the prop master and the AD. I don't know the hierarchy on a set and whether these people were her boss. If they were her boss, she would have had difficulty maintaining positive control of the safe and the guns.

[Anonymous]

According to the affidavit, the assistant director said the armorer opened the gun so he could look at it, but he doesn't recall that she spun the barrel. He then handed it to Alec without another recheck.

Also, the scene they were practicing involved cross shooting in which Alec was supposed to shoot toward the camera. He wanted to rehearse with the gun to be used in that scene.