Alec Baldwin fatally shot someone on movie set with gun mishap

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

No. It’s not on him. I sure wish he had, but this will be on the armorer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

No. It’s not on him. I sure wish he had, but this will be on the armorer.

It's on him, the armorer and the assistant director. The armorer shouldn't have had a loaded gun, the assistant director should have actually checked it before announcing it was unloaded and Baldwin should have checked it himself before taking it form the director.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

No. It’s not on him. I sure wish he had, but this will be on the armorer.

It's on him, the armorer and the assistant director. The armorer shouldn't have had a loaded gun, the assistant director should have actually checked it before announcing it was unloaded and Baldwin should have checked it himself before taking it form the director.

He did. The AD told him it was a cold gun when he handed it to him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

No. It’s not on him. I sure wish he had, but this will be on the armorer.

Who are you that you keep spewing this bs. Alec had ultimate responsibility to check the gun. He was the one who pulled the trigger. You think if the scene called for him to point gun at himself he wouldn’t have made sure it was empty?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

No. It’s not on him. I sure wish he had, but this will be on the armorer.

It's on him, the armorer and the assistant director. The armorer shouldn't have had a loaded gun, the assistant director should have actually checked it before announcing it was unloaded and Baldwin should have checked it himself before taking it form the director.

Exactly. It's already widely said the armorer, and AD will be liable. Unless they find someone tampered with the gun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

No. It’s not on him. I sure wish he had, but this will be on the armorer.

Who are you that you keep spewing this bs. Alec had ultimate responsibility to check the gun. He was the one who pulled the trigger. You think if the scene called for him to point gun at himself he wouldn’t have made sure it was empty?

How many times are these opposing opinions going to be restated. Agree to disagree already.

It is getting old and serving no purpose.

[Anonymous]

She very well may be telling the truth.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/krystieyandoli/rust-armorer-live-ammunition-gun-interview

[Anonymous]

Maybe I’ve watched too many murder mysteries like Perry Mason, but I’d be taking a long look at the disgruntled crew members who walked off the set the day before. Added to the rumor that people were firing live rounds for sport out in the desert area in their off time, I could totally see the possibility of someone adding a live round into a chamber and walking away. Assumes the armorer wasn’t removing all rounds each night and putting them in each morning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

No. It’s not on him. I sure wish he had, but this will be on the armorer.

Who are you that you keep spewing this bs. Alec had ultimate responsibility to check the gun. He was the one who pulled the trigger. You think if the scene called for him to point gun at himself he wouldn’t have made sure it was empty?

How many times are these opposing opinions going to be restated. Agree to disagree already.

It is getting old and serving no purpose.

So put your comments after an “Alec holds no responsibility post,” not mine. You don’t like my points because they are solid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

He should not be retweeting. Especially since they are still investigating.

[Anonymous]

Poor Alec! Forced to retreat to some idyllic New England village at peak Fall foliage season! So distraught!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
She very well may be telling the truth.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/krystieyandoli/rust-armorer-live-ammunition-gun-interview

One or more of them are lying. The reason I slightly lean toward thinking she is lying is that she appears to have embellished her experience and qualifications, and she previously was thought to be a bad armorer. She could well be telling the truth but her credibility is low.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

He should not be retweeting. Especially since they are still investigating.

Maybe he should be, maybe he shouldn't be. But he just retweeted an update with more details. There's a lot of focus on this and the details are more clear now but they weren't initially.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
She very well may be telling the truth.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/krystieyandoli/rust-armorer-live-ammunition-gun-interview

Sounds like an issue of semantics. There was no live ammunition "on set" yet people were shooting bottles in the nearby dessert during breaks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
She very well may be telling the truth.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/krystieyandoli/rust-armorer-live-ammunition-gun-interview

Sounds like an issue of semantics. There was no live ammunition "on set" yet people were shooting bottles in the nearby dessert during breaks.

"Deny everything." It might work.

She sounds like an idiot. And a liar. And probably both.