Alec Baldwin shoots and kills cinematographer.

Bob Noel said:
How many of them are pointing actual functional firearms at other people?
Click to expand...
Presumably the goal is zero, and that goal was not achieved in this case. The trials are to determine whose fault it was that a non-functional gun (one loaded with blanks) turned out to be functional. So far the armorer was, correctly IMO, found culpable.

Unless there is evidence that Alec knew she was incompetent and turned a blind eye, it's hard to imagine a conviction in his case. Certainly there won't be one for brandishing a loaded (functional) gun since there was someone whose entire job was to make sure the gun was non-functional.
 
Racerx said:
I think Alec Baldwin the producer might be more culpable than Alec Baldwin the actor. Now, whether or not Alec Baldwin the actor followed standard Hollywood safety protocol I don't know. But it sure sounds like Alec Baldwin the producer let the production run a little loosey goosey.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. If they can show that Alec knew the armorer was incompetent, or failed to take the steps necessary to assure she was competent, then that's a stronger case. But Alec the actor had the responsibility to give a good performance, not to act as assistant armorer and learn gun safety.
 
172andyou said:
You are gonna be very, very surprised about the number of things actors do in performances, that they aren't qualified to do in real life, that have the potential to harm people.
Click to expand...

That they do or that they pretend to do? You do realize that they are actors, right? That the movies aren't real?
 
People who use guns for target shooting or hunting are generally imbued with the safety culture, i.e. "never point a gun at anything you don't intend to kill", and "keep your finger off the trigger until you intend to pull it." It becomes second nature (or should). It's harder to fault somebody with no real firearm experience for not knowing that.

However, there was ABSOLUTELY no reason for live ammunition to have been anywhere near the movie set, and for that, the blame rests squarely on the armorer, who SHOULD have known better... which is why she [rightly] got the maximum sentence. Even though she was relatively inexperienced as a professional armorer, she grew up in the gun culture and knew better.
 
2-Bit Speed said:
That they do or that they pretend to do? You do realize that they are actors, right? That the movies aren't real?
Click to expand...
Yes, that's kind of the entire point, isn't it... That they are actors, not gun experts. That the production crews including armorers, choreographers, stunt coaches, riggers, fight coordinators, etc all work together to make sure "the talent" doesn't hurt themselves or anyone else because the actors aren't expected to be able to assure everyones safety themselves while giving performances.

And it still sometimes fails. In addition to the case in this thread, actors regularly injure stunt people while "pretending", to use your word.
 
Last edited:
172andyou said:
But Alec the actor had the responsibility to give a good performance, not to act as assistant armorer and learn gun safety.
Click to expand...
Seriously? You’re being way too generous. For someone to be a good actor I expect them to know a thing or two about their subject material and how to use the tools, and how to make it look realistic and that most certainly includes if you’re gonna use a real gun, you better know how to use it safely.
 
172andyou said:
Yes, that's kind of the entire point, isn't it... That they are actors, not gun experts. That the production crews including armorers, choreographers, stunt coaches, riggers, fight coordinators, etc all work together to make sure "the talent" doesn't hurt themselves or anyone else because the actors aren't expected to be able to assure everyones safety themselves while giving performances.

And it still sometimes fails. In addition to the case in this thread, actors regularly injure stunt people while "pretending", to use your word.
Click to expand...
How many films have you worked on involving firearms? More or less than Alec Baldwin?
 
172andyou said:
He was not guilty of stupidity. You cannot make a gun movie without pointing guns at people.
Click to expand...
He was not making a movie, he was discussing a scene, pointing the gun at someone not only outside of the script, but also someone at whom that gun would not be pointed even if they were filming at that time.

The aviation equivalent would be sketching out an approach to a radio station antenna to simulate an NDB, and flying it at altitudes that are appropriate for a nearby airport but are below the elevation of the antenna.

Stupid.
 
I have to admit that I'd feel differently about this if Alec Baldwin weren't an anti-gun zealot.

As to culpability, the First Assistant Director is generally the person responsible for on-set safety. He delegates to people like armorers, but the responsibility is his. The "Rust" First AD, who actually handed the gun to Baldwin, was sentenced to six months of unsupervised probation. The armorer, who wasn't even present, was robbed.
 
Last edited:
Actors in western movies are trained in the basic movie safety procedures. As I posted last year, the protocols are rigid, and there should not be exceptions for the "Star", or anyone else. Baldwin has starred in many movies made by reputable companies. They followed the union rules and California law. This was a small, low budget effort to make a big profit by cutting corners. Accidents often occur in such programs, and in this case, a fatal one. The producers as a whole are responsible for running a production without customary safety procedures, and the armorer did not refuse to short the procedures. She had seen her Dad work an armorer, and knew the proper routines.

I feel sorry for her, but that does not change the fact that there is a dead woman, gone from life, and she could have prevented it from happening by simply doing her job correctly.

Tears ago, my brother made a few dollars as an extra in western films, and was impressed with the degree of safety that was constant on the sets, indoor or out.


My post from
I have been present when a "Simulated" shootout took place.

The cast 'Sheriff' was the armorer.
He lined up the entire armed cast, and facing them, the entire unarmed cast.
My son and I were behind the unarmed cast, and saw all the prep completely.
The armorer drew his revolver, swung out the cylinder, and showed first the armed cast, individually, that it contained inserts that prevented non blanks from being loaded, then turned to the unarmed cast, and showed each of them the same. I could clearly see the inserts.

Then the armorer repeated this with each of the revolvers of the entire armed cast.

Everyone present had personally verified that the conditions on the set were safe from a live round being loaded in any firearm present.

That is the LAST step that should take place, every time. The first step took place prior to the revolvers being transported to the set, the armorer inspected each revolver after removing it from the safe, to be sure that all still had the inserts from the last use.

The armorer handed each revolver to an individual cast member, and and each of the armed cast personally inspected their assigned gun before holstering it.

Thus, every gun was inspected 3 times before blanks were issued at the scene of the gunfight.

The armorer counted out 6 blanks, said they were blanks, and the armed member of the cast announced, "6 blanks", and inserted them.

At the end of the gunfight, the Sherriff/Armorer lined up the armed cast, and verified that all cartridges were removed from the revolvers, sorted into fired and unfired, and placed in the correct boxes.

No blank ammunition left the set in a firearm. Period.

This on set procedure was repeated at each set, or separate time, even after a coffee break.

All this safety verification was on a very low budget, non union company.


Obviously, in the low budget, fast moving, and stressful filming location where Baldwin was, he did not do his part, the armorer did not do her part, and the cast/staff on site did not do their part. A lot of carelessness and shortcuts by everyone present was required to have this happen.

Further, why was there even a live round present? A projectile that passed through one person's shoulder, and into another shoulder, is not a blank, or even the wrong version of a blank.





Sympathy is one thing, but the armorer or Baldwin would not want me on their jury. I worked for 45 years in an environment where even small mistakes could, and did kill co workers.
 
I was just texting about this case with my son, former First Assistant Cameraman. He said, "Sure she was an idiot. But she should've been able to have a live grenade on her table and nobody touch it."

That's one insider's perspective.
 
OneCharlieTango said:
I have to admit that I'd feel differently about this if Alec Baldwin weren't an anti-gun zealot.

As to culpability, the First Assistant Director is generally the person responsible for on-set safety. He delegates to people like armorers, but the responsibility is his. The "Rust" First AD, who actually handed the gun to Baldwin, was sentenced to six months of unsupervised probation. The armorer, who wasn't even present, was robbed.
Click to expand...
The First AD took a plea bargain. The armorer didn't. That's how that goes. What do you think Baldwin's going to do now? I have a guess....
 
OneCharlieTango said:
I was just texting about this case with my son, former First Assistant Cameraman. He said, "Sure she was an idiot. But she should've been able to have a live grenade on her table and nobody touch it."

That's one insider's perspective.
Click to expand...
He's not wrong. But that would still be reckless.
 
MauleSkinner said:
He was not making a movie, he was discussing a scene, pointing the gun at someone not only outside of the script, but also someone at whom that gun would not be pointed even if they were filming at that time.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. They were "setting up the shot", which involved him pointing the gun where the director told him, while she positioned the camera to find the best angle and distance for the scene. That is very much part of making a movie.
 
172andyou said:
Yes, that's kind of the entire point, isn't it...
Click to expand...

But in this case, the actor was really and truly operating a deadly mechanism. He wasn't pretending. He was doing. Why compare one actor that was actually, really, truly operating a deadly machine to the infinite instances of actors not operating deadly machines?
 
Racerx said:
But remember, he didn't pull the trigger....
Click to expand...
That's what sickens me. If I was holding a gun that magically went off and killed someone, I would feel obligated to take responsibility even if I didn't think I had pulled the trigger. The fact that he thinks 1) people are stupid enough to believe this lie and 2) that it relieves him of responsibility, truly makes me sick.
 
Racerx said:
I think Alec Baldwin the producer might be more culpable than Alec Baldwin the actor. Now, whether or not Alec Baldwin the actor followed standard Hollywood safety protocol I don't know. But it sure sounds like Alec Baldwin the producer let the production run a little loosey goosey.
Click to expand...
I don't know if this was mentioned earlier but the entire camera crew had walked off the set earlier that day (before the accident) because of their substandard accommodations and the lack of compliance with firearm safety protocols. The union rep had brought this to the attention of management and they did nothing. Baldwin, as a producer, was part of "management."
 
RyanShort1 said:
Seriously? You’re being way too generous. For someone to be a good actor I expect them to know a thing or two about their subject material and how to use the tools, and how to make it look realistic and that most certainly includes if you’re gonna use a real gun, you better know how to use it safely.
Click to expand...
I watch a lot of movies and a lot of behind the scenes stuff. It's pretty uncommon for actors to know much about the subject matter. Anyone with any knowledge of a specialty will be able to look at a music scene, or war scene, or aviation scene or whatever and laugh and point out the mistakes being made.

Lindberg said:
How many films have you worked on involving firearms? More or less than Alec Baldwin?
Click to expand...
1713359975691.png

MauleSkinner said:
He was not making a movie, he was discussing a scene, pointing the gun at someone not only outside of the script, but also someone at whom that gun would not be pointed even if they were filming at that time.

The aviation equivalent would be sketching out an approach to a radio station antenna to simulate an NDB, and flying it at altitudes that are appropriate for a nearby airport but are below the elevation of the antenna.
Click to expand...
As has already been pointed out, discussing a scene, rehearsing a scene, blocking a scene are all part of making a movie.

But it is interesting that you bring aviation into it. I have never seen an aviation movie that got the facts rights. Sure, getting some facts wrong in a movie about Normandy isn't going to kill anyone, but it does serve as a useful illustration for the fact that actors can't be expected to be experts and why that task is outsourced to an armorer in cases where lack of safety can get someone killed.

OneCharlieTango said:
I have to admit that I'd feel differently about this if Alec Baldwin weren't an anti-gun zealot.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty well convinced that your honest self-appraisal is a big part of why people are holding Alec to an unreasonable standard. For example, no one ever suggested that Vic Morrow was at fault for not becoming a stunt expert and assuring the safety of the set in his incident.

geezer said:
The armorer drew his revolver, swung out the cylinder, and showed first the armed cast, individually, that it contained inserts that prevented non blanks from being loaded, then turned to the unarmed cast, and showed each of them the same. I could clearly see the inserts.

Then the armorer repeated this with each of the revolvers of the entire armed cast.
Click to expand...
Yep, this is part of what a competent armorer looks like...

2-Bit Speed said:
But in this case, the actor was really and truly operating a deadly mechanism. He wasn't pretending. He was doing. Why compare one actor that was actually, really, truly operating a deadly machine to the infinite instances of actors not operating deadly machines?
Click to expand...
So which is it? First you mocked me for thinking that actors were doing things when they were pretending. Now you're saying they are doing things?

The armorer had a job to keep the firearms safe. It's a specialized skill and one that requires a dedicated person (or team in some productions). She handed Alec a gun that he had every reason to believe was safe. Tragedy happened. I still haven't seen a convincing argument that actors need to become subject matter experts. There are *always* subject matter experts on set when safety is a concern. There are frequently subject matter experts on set even when the worst thing that can happen is simply getting the facts of physics, or music, or a historical event wrong.
 
172andyou said:
...

The armorer had a job to keep the firearms safe. It's a specialized skill and one that requires a dedicated person (or team in some productions). She handed Alec a gun that he had every reason to believe was safe. Tragedy happened. I still haven't seen a convincing argument that actors need to become subject matter experts. There are *always* subject matter experts on set when safety is a concern. There are frequently subject matter experts on set even when the worst thing that can happen is simply getting the facts of physics, or music, or a historical event wrong.
Click to expand...

Only an idiot doesn't pay attention to the SMEs, e.g., armorers or stunt coordinators). I've heard plenty of interviews with actors and directors talking about safety on the set.

I guess you lump actors into the idiot category.
 
172andyou said:
I watch a lot of movies and a lot of behind the scenes stuff. It's pretty uncommon for actors to know much about the subject matter. Anyone with any knowledge of a specialty will be able to look at a music scene, or war scene, or aviation scene or whatever and laugh and point out the mistakes being made.
Click to expand...
I HOPE you sump your fuel before flight. You may not be a line service guy, or knowledgable about fuel, but there are bare minimums that should be expected of you, and of anyone handling a REAL gun.
 
172andyou said:

"The armorer had a job to keep the firearms safe. It's a specialized skill and one that requires a dedicated person (or team in some productions). She handed Alec a gun that he had every reason to believe was safe."

Bad quote, the armorer did not hand Baldwin the firearm. She removed it from her safe, and placed it on the table/cart. She should have verified a that time that it was unloaded.

geezer said:
in previous post:
"The armorer drew his revolver, swung out the cylinder, and showed first the armed cast, individually, that it contained inserts that prevented non blanks from being loaded, then turned to the unarmed cast, and showed each of them the same. I could clearly see the inserts."

Alex Baldwin should have refused to take that firearm without that procedure taking place. That should have been as certain as a pilot removing the control lock before starting the engine, and yes, pilots do that, and die.
 
Every NRA basic gun safety class emphasizes, when handed a firearm, regardless of who handed it to you, YOU will check the firearm's condition ensuring it is safe. I have followed this advice even when shopping for a firearm. Salesperson pulls a pistol out of the case. Its slide is locked back. They check the chamber and hand it to me. I check mag and the chamber again, because now the pistol is MY responsibility.

Just like a aviation accident's "chain of events", a number of people hold responsibility for this tragedy.
 
172andyou said:
So which is it? First you mocked me for thinking that actors were doing things when they were pretending. Now you're saying they are doing things?
Click to expand...

Dear sir,

Your inability (or refusal) to comprehend my point is staggering. THIS ACTOR, Alec Baldwin, really operated a deadly mechanism. If the mechanism were not deadly, the poor woman would still be alive. This is in stark contrast to actors that pretend to operate other mechanisms like cars, planes, or boats. In those instances, the actor is almost never truly operating a real machine. They are very likely in a cardboard mock-up. If AB had been operating a cardboard mock-up or a plastic dummy, nothing would have happened, but he actually had a real, not-fake gun. Your conflation of actor's pretending to this actor's doing is dishonest.
 
Bob Noel said:
Only an idiot doesn't pay attention to the SMEs, e.g., armorers or stunt coordinators). I've heard plenty of interviews with actors and directors talking about safety on the set.

I guess you lump actors into the idiot category.
Click to expand...
1) Yeah, a lot of actors are idiots. It's actually a pretty well known stereotype for a reason.

2) I've seen nothing to suggest that Alec didn't pay attention to the armorer in this instance. And, if he had, I would have expected that to be the central point of armorers defense at trial.

RyanShort1 said:
I HOPE you sump your fuel before flight. You may not be a line service guy, or knowledgable about fuel, but there are bare minimums that should be expected of you, and of anyone handling a REAL gun.
Click to expand...
I'm an SME in aviation. Yes, I sump my tanks.

I do not expect my passengers to know that tanks need to be sumped and double check my work. I certainly don't expect actors on in an aviation movie to be checking the rigging on a helicopter to make sure the jesus nut is properly secured. Pilots are held to a much higher standard than passengers in terms of required knowledge.

2-Bit Speed said:
Dear sir,

Your inability (or refusal) to comprehend my point is staggering.
Click to expand...
1713364074569.png
 
172andyou said:
I do not expect my passengers to know that tanks need to be sumped and double check my work. I certainly don't expect actors on in an aviation movie to be checking the rigging on a helicopter to make sure the jesus nut is properly secured. Pilots are held to a much higher standard than passengers in terms of required knowledge.
Click to expand...
Your analogy breaks down, though. A stunt pilot flying for the movie absolutely should do all the prefight steps. If an actor is using a dummy gun, then fine, cut him some slack, but if you're using the real thing, in this case a gun that doesn't just fire blanks, or in the aviation sense, actually piloting the helicopter, you should be held to the higher standard.
 
Domenick said:
Every NRA basic gun safety class emphasizes, when handed a firearm, regardless of who handed it to you, YOU will check the firearm's condition ensuring it is safe.
Click to expand...

That process is in direct contravention to movie industry standards of conduct.

The industry recognizes that having each actor be technically competent is not achievable. Therefore, they tightly control the handling of firearms and props under the supervision of an expert, the armorer.

Whoever is in control of props hands the weapon to the actor and tells them it is safe. In this case that was the assistant director. The actor is required to follow that process and is not allowed to manipulate the weapon themselves to load, unload, or check. Union rules.

That process is designed to make the use of firearms MORE safe. Clearly there were failures of the process here. But Baldwin following the rules of the process as an actor is not one of them.

Pulling the trigger is another matter, and the trial will likely focus on that. His plea deal was revoked mainly because they determined he lied about that. I personally suspect he did not do it on purpose, but he had his finger on the trigger and it had been lightened. A jury will decide whether that was negligent.

NRA rules are not relevant here. SAG rules govern the worksite.
 
RyanShort1 said:
Your analogy breaks down, though. A stunt pilot flying for the movie absolutely should do all the prefight steps. If an actor is using a dummy gun, then fine, cut him some slack, but if you're using the real thing, in this case a gun that doesn't just fire blanks, or in the aviation sense, actually piloting the helicopter, you should be held to the higher standard.
Click to expand...
Yes, a stunt pilot is an SME and responsible for doing all the preflight steps. An actor flying in the plane with the stunt pilot is not.

The armorer was an SME and responsible for rendering the gun safe. Alec had every reason to believe that he was holding a dummy gun, not rubber, of course, but similarly safe in the sense that it was a gun that had been rendered inoperable by being loaded with blanks.
 
172andyou said:
Fair enough. If they can show that Alec knew the armorer was incompetent, or failed to take the steps necessary to assure she was competent, then that's a stronger case. But Alec the actor had the responsibility to give a good performance, not to act as assistant armorer and learn gun safety.
Click to expand...
Responsibility doesn't play into a manslaughter charge. By definition, the death was accidental and Baldwin was complicit in causing it.

If I'm working in the shop and the head of my Thor hammer comes off and kills someone, the death is my fault. Anything else is just an argument for nullification. I don't get a pass because someone else (the manufacturer) was supposed to make sure the head of the hammer couldn't come off.
 
bflynn said:
Responsibility doesn't play into a manslaughter charge. By definition, the death was accidental and Baldwin was complicit in causing it.

If I'm working in the shop and the head of my Thor hammer comes off and kills someone, the death is my fault. Anything else is just an argument for nullification. I don't get a pass because someone else (the manufacturer) was supposed to make sure the head of the hammer couldn't come off.
Click to expand...
That's not the law. Criminal manslaughter requires recklessness or gross negligence.

If you are using your hammer correctly and it fails due to a defect, the death is NOT your fault as a matter of criminal law.
 
172andyou said:
I watch a lot of movies and a lot of behind the scenes stuff. It's pretty uncommon for actors to know much about the subject matter. Anyone with any knowledge of a specialty will be able to look at a music scene, or war scene, or aviation scene or whatever and laugh and point out the mistakes being made.


View attachment 127901


As has already been pointed out, discussing a scene, rehearsing a scene, blocking a scene are all part of making a movie.

But it is interesting that you bring aviation into it. I have never seen an aviation movie that got the facts rights. Sure, getting some facts wrong in a movie about Normandy isn't going to kill anyone, but it does serve as a useful illustration for the fact that actors can't be expected to be experts and why that task is outsourced to an armorer in cases where lack of safety can get someone killed.


I'm pretty well convinced that your honest self-appraisal is a big part of why people are holding Alec to an unreasonable standard. For example, no one ever suggested that Vic Morrow was at fault for not becoming a stunt expert and assuring the safety of the set in his incident.


Yep, this is part of what a competent armorer looks like...


So which is it? First you mocked me for thinking that actors were doing things when they were pretending. Now you're saying they are doing things?

The armorer had a job to keep the firearms safe. It's a specialized skill and one that requires a dedicated person (or team in some productions). She handed Alec a gun that he had every reason to believe was safe. Tragedy happened. I still haven't seen a convincing argument that actors need to become subject matter experts. There are *always* subject matter experts on set when safety is a concern. There are frequently subject matter experts on set even when the worst thing that can happen is simply getting the facts of physics, or music, or a historical event wrong.
Click to expand...
Thanks for confirming that you don't actually have first-hand knowledge. You're simply incorrect about what's expected of on-set firearms handling. That's ok, most people are. But you're speaking as though you're an authority on the subject. My point was that you're defending Baldwin of ignorant regarding on-set firearm safety, but, in reality, he likely knows way more about it than you.
 
Lindberg said:
Thanks for confirming that you don't actually have first-hand knowledge. You're simply incorrect about what's expected of on-set firearms handling. That's ok, most people are. But you're speaking as though you're an authority on the subject. My point was that you're defending Baldwin of ignorant regarding on-set firearm safety, but, in reality, he likely knows way more about it than you.
Click to expand...
Keep making it about me, boss. Whatever gets you through the morning. If you want to make the claim that Alec is legally responsible to know how to handle firearms, I'm all ears. Proving I'm not qualified to be an armorer is easy. Proving that Alec is legally responsible to be an SME is hard.
 
Ed Haywood said:
The industry recognizes that having each actor be technically competent is not achievable.
Click to expand...

Then they should not be equipped with functional firearms. Either train the gunmen or give them non-functional replicas.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Pulling the trigger is another matter, and the trial will likely focus on that. His plea deal was revoked mainly because they determined he lied about that. I personally suspect he did not do it on purpose, but he had his finger on the trigger and it had been lightened.
Click to expand...

I'll offer a little personal speculation, but I think it's reasonable....

Many western actors are trained in executing a fast draw. Whether AB was or not I don't know, but I'd be pretty surprised if he weren't.

A common quick-draw technique, and one that is taught to actors, is "holster cocking." When the hand grasps the gun in preparation for the draw, the thumb pulls back the hammer and holds it. As the gun clears the holster, the trigger finger automatically pulls back the trigger and holds it. As the gun is brought to bear on the target, the thumb is slipped off the hammer and the gun fires. This technique is blindingly fast.

I suspect what happened is that AB drew the gun using this technique without even thinking about it. He has no recollection of "pulling" the trigger because he was already holding it back when his thumb moved off the hammer. BANG!
 
2-Bit Speed said:
Then they should not be equipped with functional firearms. Either train the gunmen or give them non-functional replicas.
Click to expand...

Especially when they're just blocking out a scene and not filming. Absolutely no need for a firearm to function in this instance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top