Baldwin shoots two on movie set, accidental misfire???

[Lumber_Jack]

1 hour ago, Erik88 said:

Because a firearm was used the penalty becomes a mandatory 5 years in prison under NM law. I have a hard time believing he'll be convicted though. 

Yeah I can see his culpability on the producer side but the DA in the article specifically said he was be charged on two fronts as an “actor” and as a “producer”. It’s hard for me to see the actor side 

[DocHawk]

2 hours ago, deerslayer said:

  If I get hired to play the bad guy in the next Jack Ryan movie (probably not gonna happen), I’ll still immediately check any gun a prop guy hands me.  

Me too. However if I get hired to play the bad guy in the next Liam Neeson movie, all bets are off.
 

[Omega]

2 hours ago, Lumber_Jack said:

Yeah I can see his culpability on the producer side but the DA in the article specifically said he was be charged on two fronts as an “actor” and as a “producer”. It’s hard for me to see the actor side 

Many productions require everyone who handles a weapon, right down to the actors, to verify the weapon is clear.  If they had such a policy, and didn't follow those procedure, which is obvious he didn't,  he is subject to liability as an actor as well.

[Lumber_Jack]

10 minutes ago, Omega said:

Many productions require everyone who handles a weapon, right down to the actors, to verify the weapon is clear.  If they had such a policy, and didn't follow those procedure, which is obvious he didn't,  he is subject to liability as an actor as well.

To me it still falls all the way back to the person who brought live ammo onto a movie set. The gun wouldn’t be “clear” in the traditional sense. It would have likely used blanks. So the ammunition would have to be pulled from the gun and inspected. I imagine that type of tedious policy gets overlooked on the regular 

[Frog4aday]

8 hours ago, Lumber_Jack said:

So as an actor if you were in a movie set and an “armoror” gave you a gun presumed safe and the producer told you to point it at the camera and shoot, how are you responsible for the death of someone? 
 

as a producer you hire people to perform tasks  one of those tasks is firearms safety, that person failed. Why is she not on trial? 
 

I can see some level of culpability on the producer side but I fail to see how one iota of responsibility is on Baldwin as an actor  

 

The armorer did NOT hand Baldwin the weapon. Which begs the question WHY they had the weapons out & were using them w/o the armorer present. The assistant director Dave Halls handed Baldwin the gun (not a "prop" gun) & stated it was 'cold' to indicate unloaded. We know that was a lie.

Three people were charged. Dave Halls, who already pled guilty & struck a deal with the prosecutor to testify against Baldwin & the armorer, Hannah Gutierrez Reed.

Baldwin accepted a gun from a person who was not the hired armorer, accepted that it was not loaded w/o checking it himself, pointed it at a human being (Halyna Hutchins), cocked the hammer, & pulled the trigger. That makes him guilty & liable for the subsequent results. As the movie's director, he's guilty for not following safety rules on his own production.

I am pretty sure Mr. Baldwin did not intentionally shoot two people, killing one of them. But he's the big boss. It's his production & his movie set. He hired a young, inexperienced armorer, then handled weapons w/o the armorer present. He and Mr. Halls were sloppy in checking the gun & handling of the gun. They are both guilty. Hall has already pleaded out to that fact.

You have to wonder if the script had called for Baldwin to point the gun @ his own head or chest & cock the hammer & pull the trigger, would he have been so sloppy in accepting someone else's word that the gun was 'safe'? I doubt it. So, now he gets to explain to a jury why he was so negligent when it was someone else's life on the line.

Edited January 20, 2023 by Frog4aday
They vs the (fixed)

[monkeylizard]

16 hours ago, Erik88 said:

Because a firearm was used the penalty becomes a mandatory 5 years in prison under NM law. I have a hard time believing he'll be convicted though. 

That'll teach me to listen to the "legal experts" on the morning news shows.

[monkeylizard]

This has me wondering about other movie stunts that are inherently dangerous. If actor A throws actor B off a roof as part of the script and the safety harness or crash bag fails, would we be talking about how actor A is responsible? A stunt coordinator was supposed to setup the equipment properly. Why would we expect actor A to be knowledgeable about inspecting the safety gear? That's what the stunt coordinator is for. Or if actor A is handed a real knife instead of a collapsible prop knife and stabs actor B. Is actor A supposed to check the knife to be sure the spring works? Again, someone upstream is supposed to be getting all that stuff right so the actor can, you know, "act".

Other than having different procedures for a gun vs. a prop knife vs. a fall harness, what makes an accidental shooting different from an accidental stabbing or fall for the actor? I get the negligence issues for the armorer and producer (and whoever brought the live ammo onto the set).

Yeah, we all here on TGO know the proper safety steps with a firearm, but in that sense we're closer to being the stunt coordinators/armorers than we are being the actors. It seems that as an actor it's a stretch to charge him.

In that situation, even if someone hands him a revolver on a set and says "cold gun" AND he checks it and see shells in the cylinders, I can see where he might still think they're dummy rounds so the gun doesn't look empty. The cylinders need to have "bullets" in them or we'd be the first ones pointing at the screen saying "stupid liberal! his gun's empty!" He may not have the gun knowledge to make that determination and as an actor he shouldn't be expected to.

Edited January 20, 2023 by monkeylizard

[deerslayer]

20 minutes ago, monkeylizard said:

This has me wondering about other movie stunts that are inherently dangerous. If actor A throws actor B off a roof as part of the script and the safety harness or crash bag fails, would we be talking about how actor A is responsible? A stunt coordinator was supposed to setup the equipment properly. Why would we expect actor A to be knowledgeable about inspecting the safety gear? That's what the stunt coordinator is for. Or if actor A is handed a real knife instead of a collapsible prop knife and stabs actor B. Is actor A supposed to check the knife to be sure the spring works? Again, someone upstream is supposed to be getting all that stuff right so the actor can, you know, "act".

Other than having different procedures for a gun vs. a prop knife vs. a fall harness, what makes an accidental shooting different from an accidental stabbing or fall for the actor? I get the negligence issues for the armorer and producer (and whoever brought the live ammo onto the set).

Yeah, we all here on TGO know the proper safety steps with a firearm, but in that sense we're closer to being the stunt coordinators/armorers than we are being the actors. It seems that as an actor it's a stretch to charge him.

In that situation, even if someone hands him a revolver on a set and says "cold gun" AND he checks it and see shells in the cylinders, I can see where he might still think they're dummy rounds so the gun doesn't look empty. After all, the camera shot was more or less right down the barrel for this one. The cylinders need to have "bullets" in them or we'd be the first ones pointing at the screen saying "stupid liberal! his gun's empty!" He may not have the gun knowledge to make that determination as as an actor he shouldn't be expected to.

Makes sense.  As much as I despise Baldwin, I have mixed feelings about sending him to prison for this.  A trip to the local indoor range can look like somebody let loose a bunch of monkeys with chainsaws.  I would hate to imagine the safety picture on the set of a movie with untrained Hollywood egomaniacs pretending to shoot each other.  I suspect Baldwin did nothing different than he has done numerous times in his career, except this time, somebody loaded the gun.  

A friend completely disagreed and said if one of us were cleaning a gun, reassembled it, accidently loaded it, and pulled the trigger and shot somebody, we would go to prison and what he did was no different.  I think this is a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison.  We (should) follow Cooper’s four rules.   Those rules get murky when making a movie that involves people being shot.  
 

Whether he pulled the hammer or pulled the trigger, Baldwin pointed a gun at someone and shot them and is ultimately responsible.  If he had said something like “Wow, I screwed up and this is an eye opening experience.  I want to use this tragedy to establish and follow better procedures on sets and change our culture”, I would respect him for it.  Instead, he said “IT’S SOMEBODY ELSE’S FAULT!!”  So come what may.  

Edited January 20, 2023 by deerslayer

[crc4]

Anyone seriously interested and not just ill-informed speculation as to why Baldwin was charged with involuntary manslaughter,  can watch this excellent presentation by Andrew Branca, a noted legal Self-Defense attorney.

The Legal Charges Against Alec Baldwin

What counts is not the opinions of laymen, but what the law is.

Gun owners should realize this law also applies to them. 

 

Edited January 20, 2023 by crc4

[Grayfox54]

19 hours ago, Lumber_Jack said:

So as an actor if you were in a movie set and an “armoror” gave you a gun presumed safe and the producer told you to point it at the camera and shoot, how are you responsible for the death of someone? 

As deerslayer pointed out, what's the first thing you do when handed a gun? You check it yourself! Baldwin didn't. The gun was in his hand. He pulled the trigger. HE is responsible for that bullet. 

Until now the armorer's part in all this has been unclear. Now they're saying that she loaded the gun. I'm afraid that girl is screwed. 

The producer that handed Baldwin the gun made a plea deal. Other wise, he'd be up on charges too. He knew he had screwed up and covered his ass. 

Bottom line: if someone hands you a gun, its YOUR responsibility to make sure its safe. 

So now charges have been filed. But given the state of our justice system, it could still be years before this actually goes to trial. 

[RED333]

6 hours ago, Grayfox54 said:

Bottom line: if someone hands you a gun, its YOUR responsibility to make sure its safe.

This about a million times!!!

We all know if this happened to any one of us charges would be filled with in a week.

[Capbyrd]

10 hours ago, monkeylizard said:

This has me wondering about other movie stunts that are inherently dangerous. If actor A throws actor B off a roof as part of the script and the safety harness or crash bag fails, would we be talking about how actor A is responsible? A stunt coordinator was supposed to setup the equipment properly. Why would we expect actor A to be knowledgeable about inspecting the safety gear? That's what the stunt coordinator is for. Or if actor A is handed a real knife instead of a collapsible prop knife and stabs actor B. Is actor A supposed to check the knife to be sure the spring works? Again, someone upstream is supposed to be getting all that stuff right so the actor can, you know, "act".

Other than having different procedures for a gun vs. a prop knife vs. a fall harness, what makes an accidental shooting different from an accidental stabbing or fall for the actor? I get the negligence issues for the armorer and producer (and whoever brought the live ammo onto the set).

Yeah, we all here on TGO know the proper safety steps with a firearm, but in that sense we're closer to being the stunt coordinators/armorers than we are being the actors. It seems that as an actor it's a stretch to charge him.

In that situation, even if someone hands him a revolver on a set and says "cold gun" AND he checks it and see shells in the cylinders, I can see where he might still think they're dummy rounds so the gun doesn't look empty. The cylinders need to have "bullets" in them or we'd be the first ones pointing at the screen saying "stupid liberal! his gun's empty!" He may not have the gun knowledge to make that determination and as an actor he shouldn't be expected to.

I don’t buy this at all.  Camera tricks have existed for decades that negate the need to ever point a gun at someone.  There is no reason that anyone on that set should ever need to point a gun anyone else.  

[Chucktshoes]

17 minutes ago, Capbyrd said:

I don’t buy this at all.  Camera tricks have existed for decades that negate the need to ever point a gun at someone.  There is no reason that anyone on that set should ever need to point a gun anyone else.  

There’s also the fact that that they make all sorts of fake and replica guns that can appear to function correctly on screen by gas operation and such. 

[Capbyrd]

1 hour ago, Chucktshoes said:

There’s also the fact that that they make all sorts of fake and replica guns that can appear to function correctly on screen by gas operation and such. 

Like I said, absolutely no reason to ever point a gun at someone. Stupidity 

[BigK]

11 hours ago, crc4 said:

Anyone seriously interested and not just ill-informed speculation as to why Baldwin was charged with involuntary manslaughter,  can watch this excellent presentation by Andrew Branca, a noted legal Self-Defense attorney.

The Legal Charges Against Alec Baldwin

What counts is not the opinions of laymen, but what the law is.

Gun owners should realize this law also applies to them. 

 

Wow, that video is INCREDIBLE! That is one talented lawyer right there.

[Erik88]

2 hours ago, Chucktshoes said:

There’s also the fact that that they make all sorts of fake and replica guns that can appear to function correctly on screen by gas operation and such. 

I know someone who works as an assistant director. He was telling me that there is really no need to use real guns anymore. They can add in muzzle flashes if needed. 

 

[Capbyrd]

35 minutes ago, Erik88 said:

I know someone who works as an assistant director. He was telling me that there is really no need to use real guns anymore. They can add in muzzle flashes if needed. 

 

 

this is YouTube in 2011.  Next to no budget using airsoft pneumatic guns.   If they can do this, no reason big budget (or even low budget) productions can’t make do.

 

[Grayfox54]

4 hours ago, Capbyrd said:

I don’t buy this at all.  Camera tricks have existed for decades that negate the need to ever point a gun at someone.  There is no reason that anyone on that set should ever need to point a gun anyone else.  

All indications are that this whole production was a total mess from the get go. Lots of safety violations. Mostly due to cutting corners and being cheap. I hear that special effects are expensive. The camera shot in question was supposed to show the muzzle pointed directly at the camera. Seemed simple enough. 

Edited January 21, 2023 by Grayfox54

[Capbyrd]

1 hour ago, Grayfox54 said:

All indications are that this whole production was a total mess from the get go. Lots of safety violations. Mostly due to cutting corners and being cheap. I hear that special effects are expensive. The camera shot in question was supposed to show the muzzle pointed directly at the camera. Seemed simple enough. 

A camera is an inanimate object and does not currently require an operator behind it.  
 

yes some special effects are expensive.  But for a muzzle flash from a single action, high school kids can do that.  

[crc4]

Gun owners should take a wide view of the Baldwin case, what happened, and the ramifications going into the future.

Mishandling of firearms resulting in injury or death are considered criminal negligence, subject to criminal charges and civil suits, will be extremely costly financially, emotionally, and socially, and the future for the shooter isn't bright.

Whether Baldwin goes to jail or not is not the issue to be concerned with as that's not in your control.

Your concern should be 'what if my firearm negligence caused injury or death?" and how can I work to make sure it doesn't happen to me. That is in your control.

[Capbyrd]

3 minutes ago, crc4 said:

Gun owners should take a wide view of the Baldwin case, what happened, and the ramifications going into the future.

Mishandling of firearms resulting in injury or death are considered criminal negligence, subject to criminal charges and civil suits, will be extremely costly financially, emotionally, and socially, and the future for the shooter isn't bright.

Whether Baldwin goes to jail or not is not the issue to be concerned with as that's not in your control.

Your concern should be 'what if my firearm negligence caused injury or death?" and how can I work to make sure it doesn't happen to me. That is in your control.

This should have been a concern for you from the time you started handling firearms.  You shouldn’t need this case to teach that lesson.  

[crc4]

17 minutes ago, Capbyrd said:

This should have been a concern for you from the time you started handling firearms.  You shouldn’t need this case to teach that lesson.  

It should have been a concern, but sadly isn't. 

In the last few years over 5 million new gun owners have arrived. I don't have much faith that they've been taught, much less learned those lessons.

How many old gun owners know those lessons? They may know the myths, but don't know the laws.

Lessons are learned from repetition. When we think we know it all, that's the time to realize we don't. 

[Grayfox54]

Today Alec Baldwin and armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed were officially charged with Involuntary Manslaughter. 

I hate it for the girl, but the guns were her job. 

As for Baldwin: 'Bout damned time! 

[Lumber_Jack]

Why is everyone here so “ok” with Baldwin being charged? Because of his politics? Or did I miss something? 
 

I still stand by the fact that these people are actors paid to act. To expect them to be proficient in gun safety is beyond the scope of their obligation. The armorer however was hired for that EXACT purpose and she failed on multiple levels leading to the death of a cinematographer. I guess I’m just on an island here by myself with those opinions 

[Capbyrd]

3 minutes ago, Lumber_Jack said:

Why is everyone here so “ok” with Baldwin being charged? Because of his politics? Or did I miss something? 
 

I still stand by the fact that these people are actors paid to act. To expect them to be proficient in gun safety is beyond the scope of their obligation. The armorer however was hired for that EXACT purpose and she failed on multiple levels leading to the death of a cinematographer. I guess I’m just on an island here by myself with those opinions 

I don’t care about his politics.   Im okay with him being charged because we preach the four rules and the liability that comes along with those.  To let him off undermines that teaching.  
 

I don’t care who they, if they have a gun in their hand, they are responsible for anything that happens involving that gun.  I’d say the same for a sword.  Or a lawnmower.  You are responsible for your actions.  I go back to a previous remark, there is no reason for him to point a gun at anyone.   Not a soul.  That is on him.  No one can plead ignorance of that gun law. Pointing a gun at people is dangerous.