Alec Baldwin fatally shot someone on movie set with gun mishap

[Anonymous]

I saw photos of the husband and son bringing in all her things they had delivered to their home from NM - how someone in charge didn’t make sure they had white glove, don’t you lift a finger treatment is beyond me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Apparently, Baldwin is now in Vermont clothes shopping.

So what life goes on. Plus he is not responsible, the armorer and AD is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Apparently, Baldwin is now in Vermont clothes shopping.

Ok and? The guys not allowed to be out?

I thought the investigation is ongoing, but the shooter is gone?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Apparently, Baldwin is now in Vermont clothes shopping.

Ok and? The guys not allowed to be out?

I thought the investigation is ongoing, but the shooter is gone?

Baldwin was not asked to stay in the area. So he didn't.

[Anonymous]

If AB had put the gun to his head and shot himself, people would be asking why he did not check the gun? Why did he take somebody's word for it? etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If AB had put the gun to his head and shot himself, people would be asking why he did not check the gun? Why did he take somebody's word for it? etc.

I think this is a valid point.

My hope is that gun safety regulations are upgraded and enforced on all film sets going forward.

[Anonymous]

I really wonder if she is telling the truth, and they are throwing her under the bus. Seems like there was plenty of time for someone to put a live round in there.

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/rust-armorer-breaks-silence-alec-baldwin-shooting-incident-blames-producers-unsafe-conditions#&_intcmp=lb_fourth-person-handled-gun-in-alec-baldwin-shooting-incident,-warrant-says:-live-updates_postclickthru_4_article1

[Anonymous]

Maybe they should not hire bimbos because of their name, but that goes on nearly everywhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe they should not hire bimbos because of their name, but that goes on nearly everywhere.

Can you try to stop using misogynist language? It is just not necessary. Unqualified professionals come in all genders.

[Anonymous]

I think it's very possible that sabotage was involved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe they should not hire bimbos because of their name, but that goes on nearly everywhere.

Amen to that. Would have saved us from the second Bush presidency and maybe even the first, not to mention Javanka.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe they should not hire bimbos because of their name, but that goes on nearly everywhere.

Can you try to stop using misogynist language? It is just not necessary. Unqualified professionals come in all genders.

What would be an equivalent non-sexist word? (She's not a professional at all.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If AB had put the gun to his head and shot himself, people would be asking why he did not check the gun? Why did he take somebody's word for it? etc.

I think this is a valid point.

My hope is that gun safety regulations are upgraded and enforced on all film sets going forward.

NP. If by "upgraded and enforced," do you mean actors should be responsible for opening a gun and checking inside it? If so, you and all the other "actors are responsible!" people here still can't, or won't, comprehend how firearms are handled on film and TV sets.

Armorers do not WANT actors opening and closing and inspecting firearms. The mere act of doing so could end up creating problems with the weapon which could be dangerous. It. Is. The. Armorer's. Responsibility. And in this specific case, it also is that AD's responsibility since he picked up a gun and clearly, verbally declared it "cold." It is not on actors to inspect every gun every time. They are not experienced in it. Their focus is elsewhre when they are working. The realities of filming a scene involving firearms don't allow for it. (Often the scene begins with a dummy gun in the actor's hand, then it's paused for the armorer to place a gun with a dummy round or blank into the actor's hand, and the film starts again -- it is rapid, and the actor can't just stop, alter positions, and take time to check a gun that multiple others would have checked already.)

The fact that countless shows and films have used firearms with zero accidents over many, many years fails to register with many PPs here. This incident is the exception, not the rule.

And those bringing up the Brandon Lee tragedy need to stop. That was nearly 30 years ago. Not diminishing how horrible it is for the victim and her family and not diminishing how VERY responsible the armorer, AD and possibly others are, in this specific case. But turning this into a call for all actors to inspect every gun is simply ridiculous and shows a complete failure to read the many articles in the past week where it's made clear that no one wants actors in the business of checking firearms. Does this bring up huge issues with set safety and the consequences of having criminally sloppy procedures that need serious fixes? Yes. Does that include making actors personally responsible for firearms? No.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If AB had put the gun to his head and shot himself, people would be asking why he did not check the gun? Why did he take somebody's word for it? etc.

I think this is a valid point.

My hope is that gun safety regulations are upgraded and enforced on all film sets going forward.

NP. If by "upgraded and enforced," do you mean actors should be responsible for opening a gun and checking inside it? If so, you and all the other "actors are responsible!" people here still can't, or won't, comprehend how firearms are handled on film and TV sets.

Armorers do not WANT actors opening and closing and inspecting firearms. The mere act of doing so could end up creating problems with the weapon which could be dangerous. It. Is. The. Armorer's. Responsibility. And in this specific case, it also is that AD's responsibility since he picked up a gun and clearly, verbally declared it "cold." It is not on actors to inspect every gun every time. They are not experienced in it. Their focus is elsewhre when they are working. The realities of filming a scene involving firearms don't allow for it. (Often the scene begins with a dummy gun in the actor's hand, then it's paused for the armorer to place a gun with a dummy round or blank into the actor's hand, and the film starts again -- it is rapid, and the actor can't just stop, alter positions, and take time to check a gun that multiple others would have checked already.)

The fact that countless shows and films have used firearms with zero accidents over many, many years fails to register with many PPs here. This incident is the exception, not the rule.

And those bringing up the Brandon Lee tragedy need to stop. That was nearly 30 years ago. Not diminishing how horrible it is for the victim and her family and not diminishing how VERY responsible the armorer, AD and possibly others are, in this specific case. But turning this into a call for all actors to inspect every gun is simply ridiculous and shows a complete failure to read the many articles in the past week where it's made clear that no one wants actors in the business of checking firearms. Does this bring up huge issues with set safety and the consequences of having criminally sloppy procedures that need serious fixes? Yes. Does that include making actors personally responsible for firearms? No.

No, that's not what I meant.

[Anonymous]

It's my understanding that the young armorer comes from literal generations (dad and granddad) in this professional. I would not call her inexperienced.