Alec Baldwin fatally shot someone on movie set with gun mishap

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If I were her I'd stick to that story. She did everything properly which means someone else tampered with it.

Since it was a hostile workplace it's a possibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That is the standard on set. What are you talking about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't believe her.
According to the Sheriff, he said at yesterday's press conference that they gathered about 500 rounds of ammunition which were a "mix of blanks, dummy rounds and what we are suspecting are live rounds".

[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.

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.

It seems clear (and a good idea) to me that the armorer checks the gun and shows the actor the gun. That's two sets of eyes. It doesn't make it "more dangerous" for 2, not just one people to do an inspection. Understanding that the actor's inspection is the visual confirmation of what the armorer is showing them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

It seems clear (and a good idea) to me that the armorer checks the gun and shows the actor the gun. That's two sets of eyes. It doesn't make it "more dangerous" for 2, not just one people to do an inspection. Understanding that the actor's inspection is the visual confirmation of what the armorer is showing them.

You are describing the protocols now in place. I am comfortable with the current protocols. Posters up thread are questioning why actors aren’t handling the guns beforehand. I don’t want to be on a set that operates that way.

[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.

And I think you think you know everything but aren't listening to anyone.

He certainly knew how dangerous guns are. Others have said that he always treated the prop guns properly. But you aren't listening to them because you think you know everything.

[Anonymous]

"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."

They were down a camera due to the walk out. It was getting later and the light had shifted. The camera had to be repositioned. The director told AB to practice and after pulling the gun from the holster to point it at the repositioned camera. That's what AB did. So he WAS doing what he was being directed to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That is the standard on set. What are you talking about?

So Alec Baldwin did not visually verify it was unloaded. Then it's on him as the final safety check

[Anonymous]

Alec in complete CYA mode, calling the paps (Backgrid) on himself to showcase how "distraught" he is -- sucking all the sympathy out of the room.

Blaming everyone but himself.

Here he is in Manchester, Vermont --

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10141023/Alec-Baldwin-pictured-family-Northeast-coast.html#comments

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Alec in complete CYA mode, calling the paps (Backgrid) on himself to showcase how "distraught" he is -- sucking all the sympathy out of the room.

Blaming everyone but himself.

Here he is in Manchester, Vermont --

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10141023/Alec-Baldwin-pictured-family-Northeast-coast.html#comments

Daily Mail?

The headline I saw this morning is that he's laying low. Who to believe?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Alec in complete CYA mode, calling the paps (Backgrid) on himself to showcase how "distraught" he is -- sucking all the sympathy out of the room.

Blaming everyone but himself.

Here he is in Manchester, Vermont --

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10141023/Alec-Baldwin-pictured-family-Northeast-coast.html#comments

Daily Mail?

The headline I saw this morning is that he's laying low. Who to believe?

There are actual photos of Alec and his family in that DM article. Pap photos of Alec from Backgrid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Alec in complete CYA mode, calling the paps (Backgrid) on himself to showcase how "distraught" he is -- sucking all the sympathy out of the room.

Blaming everyone but himself.

Here he is in Manchester, Vermont --

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10141023/Alec-Baldwin-pictured-family-Northeast-coast.html#comments

Daily Mail?

The headline I saw this morning is that he's laying low. Who to believe?

There are actual photos of Alec and his family in that DM article. Pap photos of Alec from Backgrid.

Because they wouldn't be looking for him right now if he didn't give them a call. No one is interested in Alec Baldwin right now...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Alec in complete CYA mode, calling the paps (Backgrid) on himself to showcase how "distraught" he is -- sucking all the sympathy out of the room.

Blaming everyone but himself.

Here he is in Manchester, Vermont --

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10141023/Alec-Baldwin-pictured-family-Northeast-coast.html#comments

Daily Mail?

The headline I saw this morning is that he's laying low. Who to believe?

There are actual photos of Alec and his family in that DM article. Pap photos of Alec from Backgrid.

Because they wouldn't be looking for him right now if he d give them a call. No one is interested in Alec Baldwin right now...

Oh, please. The Baldwins are always courting paps. Alec could hole himself up in his Hamptons home if he wanted privacy. Instead he’s out and about “looking distraught” again. And retweeting articles blaming others for the shooting.

[Anonymous]

I wonder if they ran a drug test on the armorer after the accident. I would assume so, only because that's common when there are serious workplace accidents for workers' comp purposes. Both the armorer and the AD should have been tested, and probably Alec as well.
Really wondering whose job it was to hire the armorer. Is that something the Prop Master usually does? We've seen the interview with he guy who turned down the Prop Master job because he was worried about safety, but I haven't seen much about the actual Prop Master. Is he like a department head that reports to the Director or Producers, and the Armorer reports to the Prop Master?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if they ran a drug test on the armorer after the accident. I would assume so, only because that's common when there are serious workplace accidents for workers' comp purposes. Both the armorer and the AD should have been tested, and probably Alec as well.
Really wondering whose job it was to hire the armorer. Is that something the Prop Master usually does? We've seen the interview with he guy who turned down the Prop Master job because he was worried about safety, but I haven't seen much about the actual Prop Master. Is he like a department head that reports to the Director or Producers, and the Armorer reports to the Prop Master?

He department heads report to the UPM