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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ it wasn’t Baldwin at fault. It was the employee that gave him a loaded gun telling him it was a cold gun(clear of ammo). That’s the one negligent.

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

That makes the sheriff's job easy.

Why doesn't he know that?

It’s only been a few days. Alec Baldwin will 100% face manslaughter charges at some point.

Considering we don't always charge adults with a crime when they knowingly leave a gun around and a kid fires it and kills or injures someone I doubt Alec Baldwin is going to face any charges.

This LA Times story indicates he may not have even fired/discharged the gun - that is misfired when he took it from the holster while he was practicing for the scene:

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2021-10-22/alec-baldwin-rust-camera-crew-walked-off-set

Gun manufacturers should be held liable for misfiring when it hurts or kills someone. Car manufacturers couldn’t get away with cars that occasionally have all the wheels falling off or the steering wheel flying off and killing people. I don’t know why gun companies aren’t held to higher standards to ensure they don’t kill anyone.

Improper cleaning isn't really the fault of the gun manufacturer.

Maybe, but with cars, there are safety mechanisms in place for when people fail to perform maintenance, so that they aren’t out killing innocent people. Firearms need that as well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the LA Times article:
“ The actor was preparing to film a scene in which he pulls a gun out of a holster, according to a source close to the production. Crew members had already shouted “cold gun” on the set. The filmmaking team was lining up its camera angles and had yet to retreat to the video village, an on-set area where the crew gathers to watch filming from a distance via a monitor.

Instead, the B-camera operator was on a dolly with a monitor, checking out the potential shots. Hutchins was also looking at the monitor from over the operator’s shoulder, as was the movie’s director, Joel Souza, who was crouching just behind her.

Baldwin removed the gun from its holster once without incident, but the second time he did so, ammunition flew toward the trio around the monitor. The projectile whizzed by the camera operator but penetrated Hutchins near her shoulder, then continued through to Souza. Hutchins immediately fell to the ground as crew members applied pressure to her wound in an attempt to stop the bleeding.”

So it doesn’t sound like he was pointing it at them

Not trying to put blame on anyone, but why pull the trigger if it is a cold gun?

If it was truly a cold gun, which it was not (obviously), there would be no danger in pulling the trigger. One reason someone might pull the trigger in a cold gun would be if you were using a real gun for the shot itself (for authenticity, looks, and to help the actor feel more immersed in the moment), but planned to add a flash in post-production. This would be rare though and probably only selected if the director had a specific ifuc plan for a highly stylized effect with the gun. Otherwise, it’s so much cheaper to just fire the gun on set. If following proper procedures, it is not any more dangerous than using a cold gun.

This case was unique because they were using a cold gun for a rehearsal, presumably to facilitate Baldwin practicing unholstering the gun. In that case, him pulling the trigger shouldn’t be a problem IF it really is a cold gun and proper procedures were followed.

The ideal way to handle this situation, IMO, would be to do three stages:

1) a rehearsal with a rubber gun to set up shots, get actors familiar with marks, the angle he will hold the gun, etc. Anyone could be on set and wandering around for this rehearsal since no actual weapon in set.

2) a short and tightly controlled rehearsal explicitly for the actor to practice unholstering the real gun, with a set cleared to essential personnel and people in the locations they will be for the real shot. And the armorer and only the armorer handling the gun before handing it to the actor, then taking it right back.

3) the actual take with the live ammunition, with the exact same procedure as above.

Part of the reason for step 2 is to rehearse protocols for the live ammunition. Partly it’s to guard against an accident just like this, with a gun believed to be cold malfunctioning in a dangerous way. Guns are deadly weapons.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ETA my sentiment about checking a weapon is not to hold Baldwin culpable--just to say that in situations like this, gun safety should be everyone's priority, not just the armorer, because clearly mistakes are made.

By this logic, an actor about to drive a car on a movie set should also check the engine before starting the car.

Not really. A gun is used to shoot things such that they are killed or maimed or incapacitated. Any reasonably cogent and sentient person knows that you don't point a gun, loaded or unloaded, at another person or live being unless you are intending to kill, maim or incapacitate them.[b] Yet Alec Baldwin did. That's a problem. He was holding the gun and he squeezed the trigger while pointing the gun at people. He, and he alone, is responsible for that.

But....what if you are shooting a scene for a movie or tv show? Still you should never point a gun at a person? How do you think all of those movies and tv shows were filmed?

And who said he pointed the gun at anybody?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Long work hours aren't unsafe, and not getting put up in Santa Fe hotels isn't unsafe.

Filming during covid is stressful and unfun but still happening. What happened is that someone made a mistake. Whether it was the head armorer or someone else will be determined.

^ Typed by a lazy loser who has never worked a long day in their life. Get bent you worthless jerk.

Filming involves long hours. And living in the West involves lots of driving. Santa Fe isn't Taos but it's still $$$$.

There are always massive problems during shooting. Usually, people do their jobs effectively enough for people not to die. Not this time though.

Are you the one hoping that Baldwin is charged with manslaughter?

No. I’m a member of the IA that drove 70 miles to set yesterday.

I am so sorry. What happened out there was unacceptable. Sending solidarity your way. -AFT member

Thank you. I’m currently working in the Midwest under a standard area agreement. We had a head on collision on second unit a few weeks ago. BG was in the car. No one can explain why BG was in the car. We had a teenager with a head injury for what? There doesn’t seem to have been any thing done about it. The industry has been a slow moving train wreck for a while now.

I’m so sorry. What does BG refer to?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now I actually do wonder if it was tampered with, and would they be able to catch that person.

Someone disgruntled in the workplace.

It's an ugly thing to say at this moment, but I am going to say it anyway. Alec Baldwin has a reputation for explosive anger and he is widely disliked. It is absolutely possible that a disgruntled person decided to really complicate his life, with total disregard for how this would affect others (death), or thinking that Alec would follow gun safety protocol and not point the weapon at anyone. If they were trying to shut the set down, having a gun fire a live round is a pretty surefire way to do it.

IF this was a deliberate setup to hurt Alec Baldwin, it's far more likely that the motivation was political, not personal, despite Baldwin's reputation. The political climate right now is pretty freaking dangerous, and Baldwin did the worst possible thing-- he mocked the other side.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a good review of the legal issues:

https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/10/legal-analysis-does-alec-baldwin-have-criminal-exposure-after-shooting-woman-dead-in-apparent-mistake/

It was an interesting analysis with an overview of some protocols, but this attorney clearly doesn't understand how things work on set. Insisting that AB shouldn't have pointed a gun at anyone, because that's dangerous, makes no sense. Being an actor it's his job is to do exactly what's in the script.
I just don't understand why these prop guns have anything in them.

Anonymous wrote:This is a good review of the legal issues:

https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/10/legal-analysis-does-alec-baldwin-have-criminal-exposure-after-shooting-woman-dead-in-apparent-mistake/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ETA my sentiment about checking a weapon is not to hold Baldwin culpable--just to say that in situations like this, gun safety should be everyone's priority, not just the armorer, because clearly mistakes are made.

By this logic, an actor about to drive a car on a movie set should also check the engine before starting the car.

Not really. A gun is used to shoot things such that they are killed or maimed or incapacitated. Any reasonably cogent and sentient person knows that you don't point a gun, loaded or unloaded, at another person or live being unless you are intending to kill, maim or incapacitate them. Yet Alec Baldwin did. That's a problem. He was holding the gun and he squeezed the trigger while pointing the gun at people. He, and he alone, is responsible for that.

It's not clear that Baldwin pointed the gun at anyone or if it misfired and shot something in an unpredictable direction.

A misfire is when you pull the trigger and the gun does not fire. An accidental discharge is when a gun goes off with no one pulling the trigger. An accidental discharge can happen if a gun is dropped and the safety is off or cracked. Accidental discharges are very, very, rare. This gun did not go off magically, he pulled the trigger.

As far as blame, the person with the gun, is ultimately the one that should be 100% sure it is not loaded. This did not happen in this case.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ETA my sentiment about checking a weapon is not to hold Baldwin culpable--just to say that in situations like this, gun safety should be everyone's priority, not just the armorer, because clearly mistakes are made.

By this logic, an actor about to drive a car on a movie set should also check the engine before starting the car.

Not really. A gun is used to shoot things such that they are killed or maimed or incapacitated. Any reasonably cogent and sentient person knows that you don't point a gun, loaded or unloaded, at another person or live being unless you are intending to kill, maim or incapacitate them.[b] Yet Alec Baldwin did. That's a problem. He was holding the gun and he squeezed the trigger while pointing the gun at people. He, and he alone, is responsible for that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ it wasn’t Baldwin at fault. It was the employee that gave him a loaded gun telling him it was a cold gun(clear of ammo). That’s the one negligent.

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

That makes the sheriff's job easy.

Why doesn't he know that?

It’s only been a few days. Alec Baldwin will 100% face manslaughter charges at some point.

Considering we don't always charge adults with a crime when they knowingly leave a gun around and a kid fires it and kills or injures someone I doubt Alec Baldwin is going to face any charges.

This LA Times story indicates he may not have even fired/discharged the gun - that is misfired when he took it from the holster while he was practicing for the scene:

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2021-10-22/alec-baldwin-rust-camera-crew-walked-off-set

Gun manufacturers should be held liable for misfiring when it hurts or kills someone. Car manufacturers couldn’t get away with cars that occasionally have all the wheels falling off or the steering wheel flying off and killing people. I don’t know why gun companies aren’t held to higher standards to ensure they don’t kill anyone.

Improper cleaning isn't really the fault of the gun manufacturer.

Maybe, but with cars, there are safety mechanisms in place for when people fail to perform maintenance, so that they aren’t out killing innocent people. Firearms need that as well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ETA my sentiment about checking a weapon is not to hold Baldwin culpable--just to say that in situations like this, gun safety should be everyone's priority, not just the armorer, because clearly mistakes are made.

By this logic, an actor about to drive a car on a movie set should also check the engine before starting the car.

Not really. A gun is used to shoot things such that they are killed or maimed or incapacitated. Any reasonably cogent and sentient person knows that you don't point a gun, loaded or unloaded, at another person or live being unless you are intending to kill, maim or incapacitate them. Yet Alec Baldwin did. That's a problem. He was holding the gun and he squeezed the trigger while pointing the gun at people. He, and he alone, is responsible for that.

It's not clear that Baldwin pointed the gun at anyone or if it misfired and shot something in an unpredictable direction.