Merged: Alec Baldwin fatally shoots crewmember on set of movie with prop gun

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Evidence that they even had a proper armorer? The person who got the gun seems to be an assistant director, no statements I have seen of a proper armorer being on set let alone going plinking with people. The guns just seem to have been left out.

She apparently wasn't on set when the accidental shooting happened. Which means either they weren't locked up overnight, or someone else had access to them, or I suppose its possible she opened the cabinet/safe then left. If plinking was going on, either she knew, or the guns weren't properly secured. It doesn't seem its a licensed position so... I don't know what kind of punishment she faces other than never working on movies again.

ETA: maybe her bacon will be saved if someone superior to her was overruling and allowing people to plink with guns on location, and she wasn't there because she left in protest <shrug>

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Jim_MDP

You're on the wrong plot.
This seemingly endless derail they're having is about the recent rifle kaboom of a popular youtubing gun dude. A 50 cal I believe.

What? No, there are allegations that this specific firearm previously went off unexpectedly on the set.

Quote:

The prop gun used in the fatal shooting of the cinematographer of the movie Alec Baldwin was producing had misfired before on the set, sources familiar with the situation told NBC News Friday.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...fired-rcna3635

[Steve]

Originally Posted by Jim_MDP

Just read a notice Fillion's cop drama The Rookie posted yesterday... they'll switch completely to the Airsoft and CGI route.
Didn't catch when, but I'd like to see if I notice the change. They're back on Halloween so it'll be an episode or three after that I'd guess. Maybe longer actually... gear, procedures, cast and crew to train.

Good for them.

There will be some here examining each frame through a microscope in order to point out any deviation from an actual gunshot. Their reviews will be interesting

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Evidence that they even had a proper armorer? The person who got the gun seems to be an assistant director, no statements I have seen of a proper armorer being on set let alone going plinking with people. The guns just seem to have been left out.

There is no doubt that Hannah Gutierrez was employed as the production armorer. Whether she was a proper armorer is the subject of intense debate.

Quote:

As an armorer on film sets, Hannah Gutierrez Reed often encountered cast and crew members who were scared of guns. But the part of her work she most relished was helping to shift that narrative, showing the world that “guns are awesome.”

“I think the best part about my job is just showing people who are normally kind of freaked out by guns how safe they can be and how they’re not really problematic unless put in the wrong hands,” Reed said in a podcast interview in September.

https://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...ooting-armorer

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Bob001

There is no doubt that Hannah Gutierrez was employed as the production armorer. Whether she was a proper armorer is the subject of intense debate.

https://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...ooting-armorer

Don't think she won hearts and minds on this one.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Jim_MDP

Just read a notice Fillion's cop drama The Rookie posted yesterday... they'll switch completely to the Airsoft and CGI route.
Didn't catch when, but I'd like to see if I notice the change. They're back on Halloween so it'll be an episode or three after that I'd guess. Maybe longer actually... gear, procedures, cast and crew to train.

I do kinda see the worry that "guns are bad" will be the takeaway here rather than a broader view that the entertainment industry, generally speaking, seems to often have a pretty self-regulating approach to workplace safety that is often quite poor.

The "Rust" shooting is looking less and less like a fluke accident with a dangerous prop and more like the inevitable outcome of a complete lack of any safety culture at all.

But then again, I imagine for a lot of TV shows real guns on set might actually be the most dangerous elements. Big movies often have huge physical stunts and car chases or whatever, but often TV shows like cop procedurals won't. Removing functional guns from these sets could be a huge reduction in the safety complications.

I wonder if there is any good statistics about the types of injuries and causes in the entertainment industry. I imagine it might vary depending on the type of show, big budget action movies vs TV dramas.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

I do kinda see the worry that "guns are bad" will be the takeaway here rather than a broader view that the entertainment industry, generally speaking, seems to often have a pretty self-regulating approach to workplace safety that is often quite poor.

The "Rust" shooting is looking less and less like a fluke accident with a dangerous prop and more like the inevitable outcome of a complete lack of any safety culture at all.

But then again, I imagine for a lot of TV shows real guns on set might actually be the most dangerous elements. Big movies often have huge physical stunts and car chases or whatever, but often TV shows like cop procedurals won't. Removing functional guns from these sets could be a huge reduction in the safety complications.

I wonder if there is any good statistics about the types of injuries and causes in the entertainment industry. I imagine it might vary depending on the type of show, big budget action movies vs TV dramas.

That will, unfortunately, be the takeaway for some, on both sides of the gun debate. The takeaway really should be "(functioning) guns are unnecessary" on a movie/tv set.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Steve

That will, unfortunately, be the takeaway for some, on both sides of the gun debate. The takeaway really should be "(functioning) guns are unnecessary" on a movie/tv set.

I would like to see how good the down the barrel of a black powder gun would look with CGI and airsoft. I think like the electrical and building of sets that have killed people on sets also, this can be done safely if the rules are followed. If the rules are not followed as they were not here then accidents will happen.

Every shot should have it determined what is best for the shot and how to get it safely.

Here is a not to old death on set from electrical hazards.

https://www.foxnews.com/story/movie-...ains-a-mystery

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

I would like to see how good the down the barrel of a black powder gun would look with CGI and airsoft. I think like the electrical and building of sets that have killed people on sets also, this can be done safely if the rules are followed. If the rules are not followed as they were not here then accidents will happen.

Every shot should have it determined what is best for the shot and how to get it safely.

Here is a not to old death on set from electrical hazards.

https://www.foxnews.com/story/movie-...ains-a-mystery

Filming in Georgia practically guarantees it was another scab job.

One of the things that makes union work more expensive (besides better compensation for workers) is the insistence on following safety protocols.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

I would like to see how good the down the barrel of a black powder gun would look with CGI and airsoft. I think like the electrical and building of sets that have killed people on sets also, this can be done safely if the rules are followed. If the rules are not followed as they were not here then accidents will happen.

Every shot should have it determined what is best for the shot and how to get it safely.

Here is a not to old death on set from electrical hazards.

https://www.foxnews.com/story/movie-...ains-a-mystery

Remote camera. No need for a human to be in the fire path of a gun.

Further, every "down the barrel" shot of this type would look exactly the same so there is only ever a need to film it once and then the shot can be leased to every production company that needs it.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Steve

Remote camera. No need for a human to be in the fire path of a gun.

Further, every "down the barrel" shot of this type would look exactly the same so there is only ever a need to film it once and then the shot can be leased to every production company that needs it.

All depends on the focus and if say you can see Baldwin behind the gun or not.

I don't know enough about the kinds of cameras used in a list movies to comment on how remote they can readily be run.

But there are always ways to bypass safety equipment or ignore protocol, and that is the problem.

[Thermal]

I completely don't get any of this.

Why was Baldwin not in cuffs on the spot, having shot and killed someone? I sure would have been.

This is not remotely comparable to helicopter or car crashes. Those happen with professional stuntpeople, notrandom actors. Would you put Balwin at the controls of a helicopter and tell him to follow a pilot's instructions to the letter? Anyone touching a gun for any reason should be thoroughly and properly trained in their handling, or simply do not take roles that require guns. Just like driving; you can't proxy that responsibility entirely.

This is not comparable to food poisoning either. The odds of a prop gun firing should be pretty much dead zero, much like the odds of the ******* caterer's cucumber sandwich accidentally shooting you. The problem was a live bullet on the site, then someone thinking it was a good idea to load it into a prop gun, then skipping the presumably redundant double checking, and finally the end user performing a final check, as it will be 100% on him if he points, shoots, and kills with it.

Awful lot of utterly inexplicable mistakes going on here. In any other scenario, I'd say it strained credibility to call them mistakes. Especially calling it a "cold" gun, and they weren't even filming. A final flipping out of the cylander to verify daylight seen through each hole would have prevented this. But Baldwin was not trusted to do this, lacking enough familiarity with guns? Then he shouldn't be handed one under any circumstances. He might point it at someone and..., well, you know.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

All depends on the focus and if say you can see Baldwin behind the gun or not.

I don't know enough about the kinds of cameras used in a list movies to comment on how remote they can readily be run.

But there are always ways to bypass safety equipment or ignore protocol, and that is the problem.

And there are ways to make the bypassing and the ignoring less dangerous.

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by Thermal

I completely don't get any of this.

Why was Baldwin not in cuffs on the spot, having shot and killed someone? I sure would have been.

This is not remotely comparable to helicopter or car crashes. Those happen with professional stuntpeople, notrandom actors. Would you put Balwin at the controls of a helicopter and tell him to follow a pilot's instructions to the letter? Anyone touching a gun for any reason should be thoroughly and properly trained in their handling, or simply do not take roles that require guns. Just like driving; you can't proxy that responsibility entirely.

This is not comparable to food poisoning either. The odds of a prop gun firing should be pretty much dead zero, much like the odds of the ******* caterer's cucumber sandwich accidentally shooting you. The problem was a live bullet on the site, then someone thinking it was a good idea to load it into a prop gun, then skipping the presumably redundant double checking, and finally the end user performing a final check, as it will be 100% on him if he points, shoots, and kills with it.

Awful lot of utterly inexplicable mistakes going on here. In any other scenario, I'd say it strained credibility to call them mistakes. Especially calling it a "cold" gun, and they weren't even filming. A final flipping out of the cylander to verify daylight seen through each hole would have prevented this. But Baldwin was not trusted to do this, lacking enough familiarity with guns? Then he shouldn't be handed one under any circumstances. He might point it at someone and..., well, you know.

Did you read any of the thread at all?

[dirtywick]

Originally Posted by Steve

That will, unfortunately, be the takeaway for some, on both sides of the gun debate. The takeaway really should be "(functioning) guns are unnecessary" on a movie/tv set.

Unnecessary is a poor barometer though. Movies are unnecessary. Can it be done safely is a better metric.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Steve

And there are ways to make the bypassing and the ignoring less dangerous.

Sure, like how britian has much more safely designed electrical plugs and outlets than other nations, in no small part because it had no standard and so depended on people to wire in their own plugs up until the 1990's, and they use those weird ring circuits.

But other countries have not adopted this clearly superior plug for some reason.

They (or even better twist lock versions of them) should be required to be used on all movie sets.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by dirtywick

Unnecessary is a poor barometer though. Movies are unnecessary. Can it be done safely is a better metric.

Yes like using properly trained armorer and not having functional guns on set except under their direct control/supervision.

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by Thermal

I completely don't get any of this.

Why was Baldwin not in cuffs on the spot, having shot and killed someone? I sure would have been.

This is not remotely comparable to helicopter or car crashes. Those happen with professional stuntpeople, notrandom actors. Would you put Balwin at the controls of a helicopter and tell him to follow a pilot's instructions to the letter? Anyone touching a gun for any reason should be thoroughly and properly trained in their handling, or simply do not take roles that require guns. Just like driving; you can't proxy that responsibility entirely.

This is not comparable to food poisoning either. The odds of a prop gun firing should be pretty much dead zero, much like the odds of the ******* caterer's cucumber sandwich accidentally shooting you. The problem was a live bullet on the site, then someone thinking it was a good idea to load it into a prop gun, then skipping the presumably redundant double checking, and finally the end user performing a final check, as it will be 100% on him if he points, shoots, and kills with it.

Awful lot of utterly inexplicable mistakes going on here. In any other scenario, I'd say it strained credibility to call them mistakes. Especially calling it a "cold" gun, and they weren't even filming. A final flipping out of the cylander to verify daylight seen through each hole would have prevented this. But Baldwin was not trusted to do this, lacking enough familiarity with guns? Then he shouldn't be handed one under any circumstances. He might point it at someone and..., well, you know.

No you wouldn't, not if you were an actor on a set, and were told it was a "cold gun", which means its a prop. BTW the guy who shot Brandon Lee in 1994 was not famous and he was not arrested on the spot. Baldwin is likely civilly responsible and might even face some sort of negligence charge depending on his responsibilities as a producer. That remains murky at the moment.

Underlined part.... see now your showing that you are also ignorant. You'd go to flip the cylinder out on a gate loaded SA revolver, find that impossible and would have to be shown how to check, and that each cylinder was empty. I mean thats not a bad idea... if you knew it was a real gun capable of firing actual ammo. And even then had it been loaded with dummy rounds would you know how to check that they really are dummy rounds? This is why there are supposed to be experts present.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Did you read any of the thread at all?

Yes, yes I did, thank you. Doesn't make the arguments any better.

"Alec can't be bothered to learn how not to shoot somebody; he is an actor", (presumably said with a theatrical flourish of the hand) is a profoundly stupid explanation, for instance.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

No you wouldn't, not if you were an actor on a set, and were told it was a "cold gun", which means its a prop. BTW the guy who shot Brandon Lee in 1994 was not famous and he was not arrested on the spot. Baldwin is likely civilly responsible and might even face some sort of negligence charge depending on his responsibilities as a producer. That remains murky at the moment.

...which is only a part of the problem. The great big fat throbbing part is Baldwin pointing the gun in someone's face and pulling the trigger (oversimplified).

The assurance of some teenybopper who was not even on the ******* set does not take you to that next "pointing the gun at someone's face and pulling" thing. I'm with some others here that the responsibility for that final action is not shirked off to anyone but the shooter.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Thermal

I completely don't get any of this.

Why was Baldwin not in cuffs on the spot, having shot and killed someone? I sure would have been.
....

By all accounts, it appears to be an accident resulting from negligence. An imperfect but close analogy would be a hunting accident. Hunters die every year because other hunters mistake them for a deer, or randomly pull the trigger on their "unloaded" gun. They don't go to jail.

Dick Cheney didn't kill anybody, but he shot somebody with a shotgun at close range. He didn't get cuffed either.

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by Thermal

...which is only a part of the problem. The great big fat throbbing part is Baldwin pointing the gun in someone's face and pulling the trigger (oversimplified).

The assurance of some teenybopper who was not even on the ******* set does not take you to that next "pointing the gun at someone's face and pulling" thing. I'm with some others here that the responsibility for that final action is not shirked off to anyone but the shooter.

Ok. For some reason the Santa Fe County Sheriffs Department has a different view. I implore you to write them a sternly worded letter.

BTW did you see my edit above, would you even have known how to check if a SA revolver was loaded, and if it was loaded with blanks. Would you be able to tell for sure it wasn't a replica?

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Sure, like how britian has much more safely designed electrical plugs and outlets than other nations, in no small part because it had no standard and so depended on people to wire in their own plugs up until the 1990's, and they use those weird ring circuits.
.

Why do you think there was no standard for British wiring or plugs until the 1990s?
the first British Standard for wall plugs and consumer sockets was BS 73 Wall plugs and sockets was published in 1915.
BS 1363 has been the standard used since 1947.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Bob001

By all accounts, it appears to be an accident resulting from negligence. An imperfect but close analogy would be a hunting accident. Hunters die every year because other hunters mistake them for a deer, or randomly pull the trigger on their "unloaded" gun. They don't go to jail.

Dick Cheney didn't kill anybody, but he shot somebody with a shotgun at close range. He didn't get cuffed either.

That's the point...he should have been. If you stick a gun in anyone's face and pull the trigger, you have some very serious problems with behaving in such a way that you don't wantonly kill others. That it has been similarly excused a priori at other times does not make it more reasonable.

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by Thermal

That's the point...he should have been. If you stick a gun in anyone's face and pull the trigger, you have some very serious problems with behaving in such a way that you don't wantonly kill others. That it has been similarly excused a priori at other times does not make it more reasonable.

He didn't stick a gun in anyone's face, he was pointing it at the camera as directed... had he been a normal under contract actor refusing to do so would likely result in breech of contract. If he'd been say, playing around on set, and DID stick it in someone's face, then my opinion would be very much different.

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Yes, yes I did, thank you. Doesn't make the arguments any better.

"Alec can't be bothered to learn how not to shoot somebody; he is an actor", (presumably said with a theatrical flourish of the hand) is a profoundly stupid explanation, for instance.

You seem to be the only one making that argument.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by dirtywick

Unnecessary is a poor barometer though. Movies are unnecessary. Can it be done safely is a better metric.

I took it as read that movies, specifically movies that involve the firing of guns, will continue to be made. The discussion is about specific aspects of movie making. And the fact that representation of the firing of guns in movies can indeed be done more safely than it currently is done is my entire point.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

He didn't stick a gun in anyone's face, he was pointing it at the camera as directed... had he been a normal under contract actor refusing to do so would likely result in breech of contract. If he'd been say, playing around on set, and DID stick it in someone's face, then my opinion would be very much different.

He also had been explicitly told by the responsible assistant director who handed it to him that the gun was unloaded. Part of the process on a set, or really in most workplaces, is that you trust the expert to do his job.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

Ok. For some reason the Santa Fe County Sheriffs Department has a different view. I implore you to write them a sternly worded letter.

Were they declared the unquestionable arbiter for reason and justice? Must have missed the memo.

Quote:

BTW did you see my edit above, would you even have known how to check if a SA revolver was loaded, and if it was loaded with blanks. Would you be able to tell for sure it wasn't a replica?

Posting in shorthand. I used to have single-action cap and ball revolvers back when you could buy "kits" through Cabela's and Gander Mountain. 1851 Rebel navy, Remington Army, etc. Yes, I know full well the cylanders don't swing out, and you have to rotate it and look for daylight off to the side while counting to six to verify empty chambers.

Do you think this gives you the right to point it in someone's face and pull? See, I still wouldn't.

[Warp12]

I was raised around guns. I can't imagine someone handing me a weapon, just saying "cold gun", and then I point it at someone and pull the trigger. I am not saying Baldwin did anything besides follow industry procedure, but his actions are foreign to me.

I am fairly certain that there is nothing in procedure that precludes him asking to be shown that the weapon is clear. Again, not saying he violated procedure.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Were they declared the unquestionable arbiter for reason and justice? Must have missed the memo.
.....

Law enforcement determines whether there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. They don't lock people up because you they they should.

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Were they declared the unquestionable arbiter for reason and justice? Must have missed the memo.



Posting in shorthand. I used to have single-action cap and ball revolvers back when you could buy "kits" through Cabela's and Gander Mountain. 1851 Rebel navy, Remington Army, etc. Yes, I know full well the cylanders don't swing out, and you have to rotate it and look for daylight off to the side while counting to six to verify empty chambers.

Do you think this gives you the right to point it in someone's face and pull? See, I still wouldn't.

No, just the people who decide whom to arrest or not in that locality. Them or the state police. I suppose the DA could convene a grand jury as well.

Again, this is not what happened. If the director who is supposedly in charge on set, says yeah this is safe to do, now point the gun at me. You as the actor take the direction. This is not the same as playing Russian roulette with an involuntarily chosen target. Are you really saying it is?

I have a feeling you are arguing in bad faith, and just want to see the bad liberal man arrested.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

He didn't stick a gun in anyone's face, he was pointing it at the camera as directed... had he been a normal under contract actor refusing to do so would likely result in breech of contract. If he'd been say, playing around on set, and DID stick it in someone's face, then my opinion would be very much different.

You are seriously worrying about breach of contract versus killing someone?

This is exactly my argument. These yahoos are not taking any of this remotely seriously, from "dude just trust the armorer (who is not even on set) and point this gun at the director behind that camera and pull" is just ludicrous, to my ear.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Thermal

....
Do you think this gives you the right to point it in someone's face and pull? See, I still wouldn't.

As has been pointed out, he aimed it at the camera, as directed. That's not the same as pointing it in someone's face.

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by Warp12

I was raised around guns. I can't imagine someone handing me a weapon, just saying "cold gun", and then I point it at someone and pull the trigger. I am not saying Baldwin did anything besides follow industry procedure, but his actions are foreign to me.

I am fairly certain that there is nothing in procedure that precludes him asking to be shown that the weapon is clear. Again, not saying he violated procedure.

I'd kinda like to get the thoughts of an actor like Tom Selleck who obviously knows a thing or two about guns. Does he always check? And sure, I couldn't see it being a big deal for the actor to check in this situation but what about big complicated scenes with many actors. Did every actor and extra on SPR check all their mags every single time to make sure dummies were dummies and blanks were blanks?? That would cost tons of time, and you don't piss off Spielberg if you want to continue working.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

No, just the people who decide whom to arrest or not in that locality. Them or the state police. I suppose the DA could convene a grand jury as well.

Again, this is not what happened. If the director who is supposedly in charge on set, says yeah this is safe to do, now point the gun at me. You as the actor take the direction. This is not the same as playing Russian roulette with an involuntarily chosen target. Are you really saying it is?

I have a feeling you are arguing in bad faith, and just want to see the bad liberal man arrested.

...wut?

I'm saying guns need far more respect than they are evidently given. The way this story plays out sounds like a bunch of kindergartners were given responsibility for safety.

If you think that has something to do with liberals, maybe it's time to sober up? Just a suggestion. I've been there.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Warp12

I was raised around guns. I can't imagine someone handing me a weapon, just saying "cold gun", and then I point it at someone and pull the trigger. I am not saying Baldwin did anything besides follow industry procedure, but his actions are foreign to me.

I am fairly certain that there is nothing in procedure that precludes him asking to be shown that the weapon is clear. Again, not saying he violated procedure.

But would you do that on a movie set every time you were supposed to handle a gun, maybe dozens of times a day? At some point you have to trust people to do their jobs.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Bob001

As has been pointed out, he aimed it at the camera, as directed. That's not the same as pointing it in someone's face.

Its a figure of speech. Where was she in relation to the camera? Off to the side and this was a ricochet situation? Do tell.

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by Thermal

...wut?

I'm saying guns need far more respect than they are evidently given. The way this story plays out sounds like a bunch of kindergartners were given responsibility for safety.

If you think that has something to do with liberals, maybe it's time to sober up? Just a suggestion. I've been there.

Wow I think I agree with you there. But the kindergartner wasn't the actor. He MAY HAVE been involved in hiring the kindergartners though and MAY deserve some sort of punishment for that.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Bob001

But would you do that on a movie set every time you were supposed to handle a gun, maybe dozens of times a day? At some point you have to trust people to do their jobs.

Comforting words to be read at the director's funeral.

And if it's me, you're god damned right I would check every time. Something about elementary safety and responsibility while handling a firearm. In just stunned at how many here pooh-pooh something so basic.