Alec Baldwin Fires Prop Gun on Set, Killing Cinematographer

[The Cool Thatguy]

Why? The trigger still didn't pull itself. And the gun didn't point itself at people.

At half weight, it would have been easy for someone not to notice they were pulling the trigger at all. That would be especially true of someone experienced with prop guns, who would expect a heavier trigger pull.

[Gray Lensman]

At half weight, it would have been easy for someone not to notice they were pulling the trigger at all. That would be especially true of someone experienced with prop guns, who would expect a heavier trigger pull.

And once again, we have to ask if pointing the gun at the camera was part of the shot.

Normally, you never point a gun at another person, but in film, if you don't, no one will buy into the scene. A gunfight where I can easily tell nobody is pointing the gun anywhere near the person they are supposed to be shooting at? Sounds like a very bad movie, like Battlefield Earth bad.

[numberthirty]

At half weight, it would have been easy for someone not to notice they were pulling the trigger at all. That would be especially true of someone experienced with prop guns, who would expect a heavier trigger pull.

Which is the exact reason that Shannon said that you do not put your finger inside of the trigger guard.

That takes if the gun's trigger is X/Y/Z out of the equation entirely.

Never mind that there is absolutely no need for someone's finger to be in the trigger guard when the crew is simply setting up a shot.

There is no reason his finger should have been where it obviously was. Simple as that.

[Malvolio]

And once again, we have to ask if pointing the gun at the camera was part of the shot.

Normally, you never point a gun at another person, but in film, if you don't, no one will buy into the scene. A gunfight where I can easily tell nobody is pointing the gun anywhere near the person they are supposed to be shooting at? Sounds like a very bad movie, like Battlefield Earth bad.

Camera angles can make it look like one character is pointing a gun at another character when the actors really aren't doing that at all. It's done in movies all the time.

[Gray Lensman]

Camera angles can make it look like one character is pointing a gun at another character when the actors really aren't doing that at all. It's done in movies all the time.

When done wrong you get the clumsy attempt to make Greedo shoot first. The first one - the later one where Han slightly ducks is the attempt to clean it up.

[achilles]

And once again, we have to ask if pointing the gun at the camera was part of the shot.

Normally, you never point a gun at another person, but in film, if you don't, no one will buy into the scene. A gunfight where I can easily tell nobody is pointing the gun anywhere near the person they are supposed to be shooting at? Sounds like a very bad movie, like Battlefield Earth bad.

Normally, you don't point a gun and pull the trigger in rehearsal. Largely because you don't have to. If he wanted to check the angles as he said, he could have used literally anything other than a gun. His finger, in fact.

[Kirby101]

Normally, you don't point a gun and pull the trigger in rehearsal. Largely because you don't have to. If he wanted to check the angles as he said, he could have used literally anything other than a gun. His finger, in fact.

My understanding is they were blocking in the camera shot, that is why the director and cinematographer were in place. Not a rehearsal in the acting sense. So you go through the scene as it would be shot, with the gun.

[achilles]

And once again, we have to ask if pointing the gun at the camera was part of the shot.

Normally, you never point a gun at another person, but in film, if you don't, no one will buy into the scene. A gunfight where I can easily tell nobody is pointing the gun anywhere near the person they are supposed to be shooting at? Sounds like a very bad movie, like Battlefield Earth bad.

No, we don't really have to ask that at all, the shooting did NOT occur during actual filming, but during the set-up for the scene. He should not have been using a prop gun given his stated intent, his hand as a gun would have sufficed. Or a stick. And he certainly did not have to have his hand on the trigger.

[Kirby101]

No, we don't really have to ask that at all, the shooting did NOT occur during actual filming, but during the set-up for the scene. He should not have been using a prop gun given his stated intent, his hand as a gun would have sufficed. Or a stick. And he certainly did not have to have his hand on the trigger.

This is not true if they were setting up the shot. Things like the light on the gun are important. If the director said he wanted to see him pointing the gun, then that is what he should have done.

[numberthirty]

This is not true if they were setting up the shot. Things like the light on the gun are important. If the director said he wanted to see him pointing the gun, then that is what he should have done.

Which can obviously be done without putting one's finger into the trigger guard.

There are things here that are entirely impossible to get around...

- If you are lining up a shot, and not actually filming for a take? There is no justifiable reason that your finger should be inside of the trigger guard.

- If one's finger is not inside of the trigger guard? Every other mistake made up until that point becomes practically a non-issue in this instance.

[Gray Lensman]

The armorer was convicted of involuntary manslaughter. What that means for Baldwin remains to be seen, especially since shifting blame to him was a key part of the defense strategy. However, the prosecution consistently claimed that they would get to him later, so I can't claim to have any idea of what's going to happen next.

[JBatmanFan05]

A reminder of what Baldwin is precisely charged with now:
aaaf1.jpg

I think the prosecution will really struggle establishing the mens rea (the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing) regarding the "without due caution" invol man, that's where they probably have to try to bring in the past gun mishaps on the set and Baldwin's role as a producer, his general influence on what was happening with the film. Negligent use of a firearm seems to be the relatively easier count to prove perhaps.

[krazijoe]

Rust Armorer gets 18 months.

[Scott Taylor]

Considering the circumstances, I can't see a jury finding Baldwin guilty.

[Gray Lensman]

Considering the circumstances, I can't see a jury finding Baldwin guilty.

Depends partly on whether or not Baldwin can keep his monumental butthole issues under control during the trial. If he can't, a guilty verdict might be assured.