Alec Baldwin Shooting

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Umm, from what I understand, they don't use real guns on set.

This was a real gun as far as I understand. After the horse has bolted people are calling for real guns to be banned from film making etc.

In terms of who is responsible, I don't know. Nor do I know if an examination of the weapon before firing would have revealed the fault.  I guess it's up to the local District Attorney/Grand Jury (?) to see if charges will be brought against Mr Baldwin. Isn't there a charge of "involuntary manslaughter"?  In principle, I agree with Biker.  

Isn't that similar to what happened to Brandon Lee, Bruce Lee's son?

I always thought  Baldwin seemed like a nice guy too. But then he's an actor, so he would wouldn't he.  Turns out he's as capable of being a cunt as the rest of us. I  do not have high expectations of actors. It's a difficult profession and attracts a lot of very unstable people. Seems Alec has some anger management issues.

https://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/alec...-behavior/

[Silver]

See, people who like guns have no sense.

---

This was a real gun as far as I understand.

Well I just recently saw a news story in the break room at my work place. It was regarding the show Supernatural and how fake guns were used. I just figured all film sets had the same common sense to not use real guns.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

It isn’t Baldwin’s legal or moral responsibility to check whether or not the pistol contained live rounds. The on-set armourer shouted ‘Cold gun!’ (when it wasn’t) and gave the gun to the assistant director, who was supposed to check it and failed to do so. Baldwin had every reason to expect he had been handed a ‘safed’ gun.

It’s neither usual nor reasonable to hold him responsible for the fuck ups of other people. Someone needs to be charged for this, but it ain’t Baldwin.

Boru

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

See, people who like guns have no sense.

 Just a smidge of an overstatement. However, as ex army and trained with a range of firearms, civilians with guns scare the crap out of me. Have never allowed firearms of any kind in anyplace I've lived since leaving home in 1966.

Here is Oz, it's almost impossible for an urbanite (that's 85% of us)  to own a working firearm and keep it at home. You may belong to a gun club, but the guns remain under lock at the club.

In Australia, real firearms may be used in film productions etc if and only if they have been modified to only fire blanks.  Even so,  blanks can still be dangerous, causing hearing damage at every least. This claim is anecdotal , based on army experience on exercise. All weapons  (rifles and machine guns) were modified so that they would only fire blanks.  If a live round was inserted into a weapon, it would explode if an attempt was made to fire it and could kill the idiot who inserted the life round. So I  guess that's alright then.. 

After all that, I feel great sympathy for Alec Baldwin. He must be shattered; it was an accident after all.  Sadly, no matter how awful he feels, the victim is still dead,

[Rev. Rye]

Fine, I'll attempt to meet you half way.

A publicity stunt gone disastrously bad.

But guns are still bad and unnecessary.

I would point out that Brandon Lee died in a very similar mishap on the set of The Crow in 1993. This isn’t a publicity stunt, and, by all accounts, it seems to have been a real fuck-up that’s led to the death of the cinematographer and the wounding of the director.

Apparently, from what I’ve been able to gather, the prop masters had been fired and replaced by non-union workers, and some other crew members decided to take several guns (including the one in the incident) and shot beer cans using live rounds, eventually returning them. Whether or not they were checked is unclear, but apparently, the AD, Dave Halls (a man with a record of safety violations, including another incident where a gun went off) several found it, announced it was not loaded, and then Alec Baldwin took it and started to rehearse a scene where he shot at the camera. While explaining how he was going to do it, the gun discharged (I’m not sure if this was an accidental misfire or if he just aimed wrong) and it hit both of them.

And, while there may be legitimate uses for proper firearms, with special effects having advanced the way they have, it’s honestly becoming harder to justify using proper guns in films when you can just use an Airsoft gun and have VFX take care of the muzzle flashes (The Rookie has apparently decided to do just that from now on.)

[brewer]

From what I've gleaned this whole movie set was one big cluster fuck.

Alec might not be criminally liable but, growing up in gun culture, I'm having a hard time understanding why he didn't check. Why any actor handling a fire arm is not trained to check (it's not that difficult). The armorer won't be pulling the trigger, nor the prop master, nor the assistant director, .........

I reflexively check every time when someone hands me an 'unloaded' gun.

[onlinebiker]

It isn’t Baldwin’s legal or moral responsibility to check whether or not the pistol contained live rounds. The on-set armourer shouted ‘Cold gun!’ (when it wasn’t) and gave the gun to the assistant director, who was supposed to check it and failed to do so. Baldwin had every reason to expect he had been handed a ‘safed’ gun.

It’s neither usual nor reasonable to hold him responsible for the fuck ups of other people. Someone needs to be charged for this, but it ain’t Baldwin.

Boru

Utter bullshit.

The person who fires a gun is responsible for the outcome. I DEFY you to find any legal precidence otherwise.

Sure the armorer will have culpability - but the guy connected to the finger on the trigger is responsible.

I feel bad for all involved - but Mr Baldwin fucked up and MUST be held accountable.


"Gee - I thought it was unloaded/wasn' t real" is not a valid defense.

I find your lack.of commitment to responsibility shocking.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

It isn’t Baldwin’s legal or moral responsibility to check whether or not the pistol contained live rounds. The on-set armourer shouted ‘Cold gun!’ (when it wasn’t) and gave the gun to the assistant director, who was supposed to check it and failed to do so. Baldwin had every reason to expect he had been handed a ‘safed’ gun.

It’s neither usual nor reasonable to hold him responsible for the fuck ups of other people. Someone needs to be charged for this, but it ain’t Baldwin.

Boru

Utter bullshit.

The person who fires a gun is responsible for the outcome. I DEFY you to find any legal precidence otherwise.

Sure the armorer will have culpability - but the guy connected to the finger on the trigger is responsible.

I feel bad for all involved - but Mr Baldwin fucked up and MUST be held accountable.


"Gee - I thought it was unloaded/wasn' t real" is not a valid defense.

I find your lack.of commitment to responsibility shocking.

A child finds Daddy’s gun and accidentally shoots Mommy in the head and kills her. Is the child held accountable? No. Why? Because the father bears the responsibility of securing the firearm when a child is in the house. 

In much the same way, the armourer and the assistant director failed in their responsibility to make damned sure Baldwin had a prop gun without live rounds.

Try an analogy. You go to get your brakes fixed (yeah, yeah - you can do it yourself. Not the point). Your mechanic forgets to refill the brake fluid reservoir. On the way off the lot, your brakes fail and you crash into another car. When the cops arrive, the mechanic admits his mistake. Did you have a legal or ethical responsibility to check the fluid before you drive off?

Don’t be daft.

Boru

[Rev. Rye]

Here’s an article explaining the consensus of what I’ve heard about why Alec Baldwin is unlikely to face charges:

https://www.insider.com/alec-baldwin-lik...ts-2021-10

And, for the record, here's New Mexico Statute § 30-2-5 (Bold mine)

30-2-5. Excusable homicide.

Homicide is excusable in the following cases:

A. when committed by accident or misfortune in doing any lawful act, by lawful means, with usual and ordinary caution and without any unlawful intent; or

B. when committed by accident or misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or upon a sudden combat, if no undue advantage is taken, nor any dangerous weapon used and the killing is not done in a cruel or unusual manner.

The armourer and AD claimed that the gun was unloaded, and, in theory, would have been checked and double checked. There's no reason for Baldwin to have suspected them to be lying to him until the shot was fired. He was going to do a routine shot (in both senses of the word) that had been done in film since The Great Train Robbery in 1903. And then the gun discharged. That seems to fit well within the realm of Statute 30-2-5a.

It looks like Baldwin's only likely to get criminal charges if it turns out someone warned him that it was loaded and he did what he did despite that. Or maybe civil charges if the DP's family or the director charges them, but that doesn't seem to be happening.

[Silver]

But you know, we're supposed to stick to our guns (pun intended) regarding him being guilty for having the weapon in his possession when the shot was fired.