Alec Baldwin Fires Prop Gun on Set, Killing Cinematographer

[thwhtGuardian]

Prosecutors lose cases all the time. If that’s what the prosecutor is thinking, they’re going to lose.

I had the very same impression as you, based on my own interactions with firearms at gun ranges and with rifles for hunting. But, no, the safety procedures are not the same at all, because making a movie is work. It’s not the same as going to the firing range. There are job descriptions, safety practices and even contractual obligations. An actor checking their own weapon is not part of those procedures according to all accounts. The most anyone has said about this is some actors claim they check, but they’re not supposed to do so, because they aren’t firearms experts.

Baldwin is going to walk if the prosecutor’s argument is Baldwin the actor didn’t check the gun.

On the other hand, if Baldwin is convicted and it is because as an actor he didn’t check the gun, that will be the end of weapons being on any set, ever again. No actor and no agent is going to take on that level of liability.

Guns are allowed on set because designated professionals handle them, and those are not actors.

That's my feeling, if the prosecutor does make the case that actors are ultimately responsible for the weapons they use on set we're going to see a huge move away from real guns on set. And while it'll be a little sad that Baldwin would have to go down to see that happen I wouldn't be opposed to the industry go that way at all.

[Scott Taylor]

Interesting indeed. Producers forevermore may pause before, or reconsider altogether, taking on that particular credit.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/31/alec...g-charges.html

So Baldwin was innocent in his role as an actor but guilty in his role as a producer?

Man that is a helluva fine line to tread.

[JBatmanFan05]

So Baldwin was innocent in his role as an actor but guilty in his role as a producer?

Man that is a helluva fine line to tread.

To some degree, I agree it could be difficult to tread that practically speaking, avoiding confusion. But broadly or generally, I think a jury could enough understand that people can wear different "hats" when it comes to some arena in life and those different "hats" could entail different responsibilities and levels of responsibilities.

Will the evidence be there? Will it be easy to argue? Not sure, have some doubts there.

[numberthirty]

Prosecutors lose cases all the time. If that’s what the prosecutor is thinking, they’re going to lose.

I had the very same impression as you, based on my own interactions with firearms at gun ranges and with rifles for hunting. But, no, the safety procedures are not the same at all, because making a movie is work. It’s not the same as going to the firing range. There are job descriptions, safety practices and even contractual obligations. An actor checking their own weapon is not part of those procedures according to all accounts. The most anyone has said about this is some actors claim they check, but they’re not supposed to do so, because they aren’t firearms experts.

Baldwin is going to walk if the prosecutor’s argument is Baldwin the actor didn’t check the gun.

On the other hand, if Baldwin is convicted and it is because as an actor he didn’t check the gun, that will be the end of weapons being on any set, ever again. No actor and no agent is going to take on that level of liability.

Guns are allowed on set because designated professionals handle them, and those are not actors.

While it doesn't really feel like it is common knowledge, there is a pretty obvious issue with treating it like it was just some "Garden Variety..." instance of a film being made.

While I would have to look around to site the exact article?

- Baldwin's stunt double discharge two blank rounds accidentally.
- Someone else actually managed to shoot themself in the foot with a blank.

This was not just a regular old film in progress where there were no glaring red flags that should have had an actor(never mind an actor who is also a producer...) making absolutely certain that there not blank rounds in a gun that they were handed.

[Kirby101]

So all the misshaps were blanks, so naturally everyone should assume there are live rounds, which are never on a set. Especially the actor who is not in charge of gun safety. That is some skewed logic.

[numberthirty]

So all the misshaps were blanks, so naturally everyone should assume there are live rounds, which are never on a set. Especially the actor who is not in charge of gun safety. That is some skewed logic.

Only if one is going to ignore quite a bit of "Basics 101..." reality.

Brandon Lee?

Killed by a blank round turning something lodged in a gun barrel into a projectile.

Never mind that a blank round is potentially dangerous all on it's own under certain circumstances.

Never mind that checking to make sure a blank round that should not have been in the gun for a rehearsal is completely logical. A logical move that would have saved a life here.

As for "The Actor..."?

That's what folks are going to for an out when there were clear issues with blanks being discharged when they should not have been in this production. The guy was not simply "The Actor..." in this instance. He was a producer.

That's two instances where he had a responsibility to be making sure that a set was safe when there were already issues when it came to safety.

That's what someone would say when they want to give the guy an out.

[numberthirty]

So, long story short?

"They Would Just Be Blanks..." is completely bunk to start with.

They still represent a potential danger, and you should be making sure they are not in a gun you are going to point at someone because of that potential danger.

That there is a one in a million chance that they could be a live round?

Separate issue that would be a non-issue if you had taken making sure there was not any sort of a round in the gun seriously to start with.

[Brian B]

While it doesn't really feel like it is common knowledge, there is a pretty obvious issue with treating it like it was just some "Garden Variety..." instance of a film being made.

While I would have to look around to site the exact article?

- Baldwin's stunt double discharge two blank rounds accidentally.
- Someone else actually managed to shoot themself in the foot with a blank.

This was not just a regular old film in progress where there were no glaring red flags that should have had an actor(never mind an actor who is also a producer...) making absolutely certain that there not blank rounds in a gun that they were handed.

It’s not most producers’ jobs to check guns, either, and it still wouldn’t be an actor’s job.

It could point to civil liabilities, but Baldwin’s already settled those, reportedly.

[numberthirty]

It’s not most producers’ jobs to check guns, either, and it still wouldn’t be an actor’s job.

It could point to civil liabilities, but Baldwin’s already settled those, reportedly.

Bare minimum?

It is absolutely a producer's job to provide a safe workplace.

Once the first accident with blank being discharged takes place?

You've got right around "Zero..." excuses for anything that happens after that as far as blank/live rounds being discharged.

So, "It's Not Most Producer's Job..."?

Well, most producers don't have a clear issue creating a situation where it is borderline inexcusable for them not to be making sure that guns were checked.

Especially after there is more than one of those clear issues. Especially in situation where they were given the option to check when they would be potentially discharging it while pointing it anywhere near any member of the crew.

[Brian B]

Bare minimum?

It is absolutely a producer's job to provide a safe workplace.

Once the first accident with blank being discharged takes place?

You've got right around "Zero..." excuses for anything that happens after that as far as blank/live rounds being discharged.

So, "It's Not Most Producer's Job..."?

Well, most producers don't have a clear issue creating a situation where it is borderline inexcusable for them not to be making sure that guns were checked.

Especially after there is more than one of those clear issues. Especially in situation where they were given the option to check when they would be potentially discharging it while pointing it anywhere near any member of the crew.

Yeah, those sound like civil liabilities. Producers don’t go to jail over accidents on a set.

There is a simple proof to this. We’ll see what happens at the trial. We’ll see what happens to the industry if he’s convicted as well.

[numberthirty]

Also worth taking note of...

https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/31/enter...ust/index.html

Alec Baldwin has been formally charged in ‘Rust’ shooting

Baldwin did not take firearm training on the “Rust” movie set seriously, prosecutors said in probable cause documents outlining evidence in the case.

“A training session for at least an hour or more in length was scheduled, but the actual training consisted of only approximately 30 minutes as according to (armorer Hannah Gutierrez) Reed, Baldwin was distracted and talking on his cell phone to his family during the training,” the document states.

Gutierrez Reed is also charged with involuntary manslaughter, with prosecutors stating she did not insist on Baldwin’s safety training, did not check each round loaded into the firearms, and did not follow appropriate safety protocols in storing ammunition.

“Gutierrez Reed was reckless in her responsibility to ensure set safety with the firearm. She failed to correct Baldwin from committing the dangerous and reckless safety violations by pointing the weapon at/towards people and by having his finger on the trigger,” according to the probable cause statement against Gutierrez Reed.

“The photos and videos clearly show Baldwin, multiple times, with his finger inside of the trigger guard and on the trigger, while manipulating the hammer and while drawing, pointing, and holstering the revolver,” prosecutors said.

Repeated FBI testing on the weapon determined it could not fire without the trigger being pressed. In interviews with CNN and ABC Baldwin has claimed he did not pull the trigger.

[bat22]

All I can say is it has been reported extensively that it is not an actor’s job to check the firearm. It doesn’t matter if he was offered the opportunity to do so, because it is not his job.

Unless they can show Baldwin brought the live ammo to the set, or that he inserted himself into the process of readying the gun — such as checking the weapon, which he should not be doing because he’s the actor, not the armorer or assistant director — then I think Baldwin will end up without a conviction eventually.

I think there's a good chance that, with his influence, Alec walks away without any jail time; though any firearm advocate (and any firearm critic for that matter) could argue that he should have known to do a cursory check. It's what is expected of anyone on a shooting range regardless if they're an actor, a banker, a nurse, whatever their vocation. It can be argued that someone with Alec's history of firearm handling on set should have known better, to do the check however infinitesimal he felt the risk was.

https://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Alec_Baldwin

[Kirby101]

And again, this was not a shooting range or a hunting trip or law enforcement. This was a movie set and the what is expected in any of those situations with live rounds is not what happens even remotely on a movie set, where blanks, and only blanks, are fired and aiming weapons at others is always a part of it. Unlike any of those other situations, the person firing the gun is by standard procedure, NOT suppose to be in charge of the weapon.
Actors are given the gun and should not take out the bullets, inspect them and reload the weapon. This is opposite of what the SOP is.
The whole question here, and Baldwin had nothing to do with this, is how a live round was in this gun.

[numberthirty]

And again, this was not a shooting range or a hunting trip or law enforcement. This was a movie set and the what is expected in any of those situations with live rounds is not what happens even remotely on a movie set, where blanks, and only blanks, are fired and aiming weapons at others is always a part of it. Unlike any of those other situations, the person firing the gun is by standard procedure, NOT suppose to be in charge of the weapon.
Actors are given the gun and should not take out the bullets, inspect them and reload the weapon. This is opposite of what the SOP is.
The whole question here, and Baldwin had nothing to do with this, is how a live round was in this gun.

Luckily, no one has said that they should do anything like that.

Now, what he absolutely should have done?

Make sure that there were no rounds of any sort in the gun that he had been handed. Because there is no version of things where there should have been any rounds in the gun during the incident in question.

Other actors have pretty clearly pointed out that they do just that. Sutter said that checking them right in front of the actors was something that they always did.


Trying to lay out a scenario that does not exist doesn't really change that reality.

[Brian B]

Luckily, no one has said that they should do anything like that.

Now, what he absolutely should have done?

Make sure that there were no rounds of any sort in the gun that he had been handed. Because there is no version of things where there should have been any rounds in the gun during the incident in question.

Other actors have pretty clearly pointed out that they do just that. Sutter said that checking them right in front of the actors was something that they always did.


Trying to lay out a scenario that does not exist doesn't really change that reality.

Except, there could be blanks in the gun that look like a round. How is an actor or a producer supposed to know the difference between a loaded gun and one with blanks? They’re not.

Do you do a safety check of an aircraft before boarding, including jet engines, hydraulics, landing gear, electrical system, CPUs, fly-by-wire code, weight balance in cargo (yes, that’s a thing), etc.? No, you do not, because it is not your job. They wouldn’t let you near those parts of an aircraft because of the danger you would represent by sticking your nose in somebody else’s business.

A movie set is not the same as a shooting range. There are other people — assistant directors and armorers — who have the job to handle and make sure the weapon is safe. If Baldwin checked the weapon, he would be going against safety procedures. This isn’t a gun range we are talking about here.

I thought the same thing as you when I first heard about this case. It was so clear, Baldwin didn’t check the firearm. Oh, no! He’s guilty!

Except, then I learned, the procedures I follow at a gun range are not the same as what happens on a movie set. Well, yeah, that makes sense. Think of my airplane analogy.

Baldwin will get off scot free, unless someone shows he brought live ammo to the set or that he picked up a gun he was not supposed to pick up. If he was told that gun was safe, “cold,” and they convict him, every set based out of Hollywood for all the shows and movies will immediately stop using real guns, which may not be a bad idea anyway. No agent, no producer, and no actor is going to take on the criminal liabilities for work to continue with real firearms after a verdict like that.

I’m done. I’ve said my peace. I’ve offered a proof to what I’ve said — Baldwin’s not guilty or if he is, Hollywood changes overnight to never use a real gone, again. You can continue on explaining why he’s guilty, but it’s pretty understandable why he is not or why TV and movie sets will never be the same again.

Yes, prosecutors do stupid crap all the time for vote-getting purposes. At best, that’s what you’re seeing here. At worst, it’s just a dummy of a prosecutor making bad calls.

Now, the armorer’s guilt maybe an entirely different matter.