Alec Baldwin Shoots two, Kills One

[rondog]

IMO, there should never, EVER, be any live ammo on a movie set, period! That said, I've seen a LOT of TV shows where they're shooting live ammo, but they were shows where that's what was expected. Mail Call, Weaponology, others I can't name, Pawn Stars, etc. But not movies or drama-type TV shows where guns are being pointed at cameras and everywhere else.

And I still think it should be incumbent upon EVERY actor, of any kind, to know how to check a weapon that's handed to them, regardless of who hands it to them, armorer or not. That's just common sense.

[TFOGGER]

[Martinjmpr]

Just saw this today on MSN (don't judge me, my work computer defaults to it):

One year after the tragic "Rust" incident, in which the actor's prop gun fired a live round that injured director Joel Souza and killed cinematographer Halyna Hutchins, Baldwin has now been charged with involuntary manslaughter, along with armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed.

Good God, was that written by Baldwin's publicist? First of all "prop guns" don't chamber live rounds, that's what makes them prop guns.

Second, you gotta love how the "prop gun" apparently fired a round on its own. Baldwin just happened to be holding it when the gun apparently decided to fire sua sponte.

[DDT951]

Just saw this today on MSN (don't judge me, my work computer defaults to it):



Good God, was that written by Baldwin's publicist? First of all "prop guns" don't chamber live rounds, that's what makes them prop guns.

Second, you gotta love how the "prop gun" apparently fired a round on its own. Baldwin just happened to be holding it when the gun apparently decided to fire sua sponte.

I am not sure your definition of a "prop gun" is the actually accepted definition of a "prop"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prop

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionari.../prop_1?q=prop

"​[usually plural] a small object used by actors during the performance of a play or in a film"

There is no requirement that a "prop" not be able to fire live rounds.

Example:? Myth Busters. They used actual guns, and fired them, as "props".

[newracer]

OK. Lets explore that line.

I have seen more than one movie that has a chase scene that involves a crash. They are filming a movie. If something goes wrong, which it occasionally does, should the stunt people be charged with violating motor vehicle laws or manslaughter?

If you watch a real motor vehicle race, and a crash occurs, should a driver be charged? in the Dale Earnhardt death, should #36 have been charged with a crime since he ran into a car while he was obviously going well beyond a safe speed of 155-160mph? He knew that was a dangerous speed and could kill someone.

I will bet that Alec isn't convicted and very unlikely to take a plea.

I am not taking the stance that every action should be charged with a crime. My stance is there is no true accidents, they can all be prevented and ignorance or lake of training is not an excuse.

[BlasterBob]

I still fail to understand why an actor actually has to aim directly at an individual. Why can’t that actor merely aim a short distance to the left or right of the individual being fired at. That would certainly work except when the camera is directly behind the shooter with a close up of the sights of the firearm being fired.
I asked a person in the movie film making industry about firearms being used on a set. Here is what was passed along to me,

Firearms should be carefully guarded and supervised at all times. This is the ideal. Some prop supervisors are properly trained in the use of firearms but, because of the quantity of weapons used in the Tremors films, we have always had a dedicated “armorer” on the set to help train us in the proper use of weapons and supervise their use.
Proper protocol dictates that weapons are never left unattended, always stored in a secure location, and that the presence of a weapon on a set is always announced to cast and crew. When a weapon is passed from one person to another, it should be examined by both the person passing the weapon, and the person receiving the weapon. Nothing should be taken for granted.

From what has been heard, failure to follow some of these guidelines resulted in the terrible incident a year or so ago on the set of the Alec Baldwin film. The moment we heard about the incident, we knew it was a case of incompetence, someone cutting corners. It never should have happened.

Aside from safety, keeping track of weapons has a practical component, as some weapons are “rented” by the production. The Gatling gun used in the last minutes of Tremors 4 is a perfect example. It was owned by a private individual and had to be returned to him in perfect condition at the end of filming, and was not to touched aside from its actual use in the film.

[funkymonkey1111]

I am no Alec Baldwin fan, but the charges against him are idiotic and complete nonsense.

It is ridiculous to think for one second that an actor in a movie should somehow be able to verify what is and is not a "live" round--the actor should be able to rely on the prop department to have their crap together. If not, shoot-em-up movies that we all enjoy end. Imagine John Wick where thousands of fake rounds are fired--is Keanu Reeves there before each take examining every cartridge? How about a war movie? How many rounds were fired in the first 10 minutes of Saving Private Ryan? was each actor charged with making sure every prop round was a blank? Of course not. The thought of it is completely absurd.

I get everyone is greasing up their privates because someone that is anti-gun leftist caused a gun death. However, this is not his fault, but instead the armorer's. Nor is it his fault that they hired the armorer or he was an exec producer that may or may not have been involved in hiring the armorer. The entire thing is nonsense.

[Martinjmpr]

I get everyone is greasing up their privates because someone that is anti-gun leftist caused a gun death. However, this is not his fault, but instead the armorer's. Nor is it his fault that they hired the armorer or he was an exec producer that may or may not have been involved in hiring the armorer. The entire thing is nonsense.

I understand where you're coming from but it really depends on what the investigation reveals. Apparently the Sheriff's office thinks there is enough evidence to hold Baldwin criminally responsible.

It's tempting to say that this is solely the armorer's fault, but without investigating, we don't know how much actual "authority" the armorer had. For example, let's say the armorer sees someone using a gun in an unsafe manner. Does the armorer have the authority to remove the firearm from that person? Does the safety manager? Does anyone?

We've all heard the phrase "with great power comes great responsibility" but the opposite is true, too: You can't give someone "responsibility" for something unless you also give them the POWER (authority) to ENFORCE that responsibility.

It's entirely possible that the "armorer" is a low-level prop technician who feels lucky to have a job and who may or may not know jack shit about guns. It also may be that the armorer knows a lot about guns but that every time she tries to enforce rules - like no live ammo around guns, no handling of guns unless needed for a specific scene, requiring actors or other crew members to "safe" each firearm before each scene - she is undermined by the director who refuses to enforce the safety rules and leaves her unable to actually do the job she was hired to do.

Now of course it's easy to say "well, if that's the case she should have just quit her job." Maybe, maybe not. Getting a gig in Hollywood is a pretty tough thing and it's easy to see why someone who is low on the totem pole might not want to rock the boat too much because not only do they not want to lose THIS job, they also don't want to get a "reputation" as a "troublemaker" on the set that could prevent them from getting future jobs.

IF that is the case - and I don't know if it is, but it makes some sense - then Baldwin IS responsible, not just as the actor who held the gun, but as the executive producer who bears a legal responsibility to make sure that safety rules are followed on his set. To put it in nautical terms, Baldwin is the captain of the ship, if the ship runs aground, he's legally responsible even if he wasn't at the helm or even on the bridge when it happened.

[eddiememphis]

The show must go on!

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/mo...ng-1235324972/

Rust will resume filming this spring with a mix of new and old crewmembers, including embattled star and producer Alec Baldwin...

The dead girl's family is suing Baldwin.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ne...st-1235321600/

Alec Baldwin is facing another lawsuit in connection with his role in the October 2021 fatal shooting of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the set of Rust, this time from her parents and sister, lawyers for the family said on Thursday.

It makes me wonder how much money Baldwin actually had before getting involved in this production. It seem a desperate act to finish this movie despite the tragedy.

Who will watch this "low budget western" knowing the background?

[Fromk]

Multiple news outlets report that the manslaughter charges against Alec have been dropped. As a gun owner I feel one way. As someone who has an understanding how film and theatre props work I feel another way.

Of course we all know the rules of firearm safety and it's easy to criticize from that perspective. It's just a different set of rules for props and that has to be recognized. I feel like this whole trial would have been a huge distraction in the way of who is actually to blame. Why were there live rounds on set? Who didn't do their job prepping the gun? Someone certainly has this woman's blood on their hands as well as the other guy who was injured. As hard as it is to say that ignorance shouldn't be an excuse and however you feel about him otherwise this wasn't exactly Alec's fault.