Alec Baldwin accidentally kills DOP with prop gun!

[MrLongbeard]

It isn't impossible, late 19th Century revolvers don't have safety catches and if cocked were prone to firing themselves, I doubt if 150 years of wear have made the revolver less prone to this, it's why you never carry a weapon cocked.

There are 2 stops on the bottom of the hammer to prevent this, so in a well maintained modern replica (as is said to have been used) it should not be possible, hell even at half cock you can't pull the trigger on them.

That trigger was pressed / pulled, either deliberately or inadvertently.

I read somewhere it was an original, which seems odd, and a modern replica sounds more likely.

If it was, which I've read it wasn't, then it's just another failure to chalk up against the armourer for providing a firearm in an unsafe state.
Reports state / suggest it was a F.lli Pietta replica.

[Screwdriver]

It isn't impossible, late 19th Century revolvers don't have safety catches and if cocked were prone to firing themselves, I doubt if 150 years of wear have made the revolver less prone to this, it's why you never carry a weapon cocked.

Sten guns from WW2 were prone to firing by them selves nearly a 100 years later, guns are dangerous, especially old ones.

Whoever is responsible for a firearm with live ammunition ending up on set is responsible for this accident.

I say it is and while that is merely an opinion, we only have to wait for the weapon in question to be analysed to determine whether or not it was faulty. There are multiple "locking" positions when the hammer is drawn back, the first within 1/16th of an inch from rest. Unless the trigger is released, the hammer cannot fall back.

I accept there must be multiple examples of dangerous or poorly designed weapons plus of course the possibility of an actual fault. Personally, I don't buy it. What makes me say that is because no one has explained why Baldwin (a notorious anti gun lobbyist) was pointing it right at the unfortunate victim in the first place. It might easily have been a joke for all we know "Haha, you're fired.."

As for "whoever is responsible" I would suggest everyone on set is responsible for gun safety. A number of crew had already walked off because of previous incidents and a total disregard for safety. Yes the armorer (a relatively inexperienced young woman) is the first person I'd be looking at but she was not even present. When Baldwin asks for something like "give me a gun", anyone who says get it yourself might just as well go home now, so while he might want to blame some other unfortunate soul, these items should only every be managed by the armorer and in the presence of the armorer.

Asking anyone else to hand you a gun is in itself a breach of safety.

Plus of course Baldwin is a producer and if you hadn't already guessed, I don't like him. I have been in situations where you're in a production and you're told to do something you know is not exactly procedural/legal. In that moment you get to decide if you want to work in the industry or not.

[Mr. Dazzle]

I kinda guessed they were setting up a "looking straight down the barrel" close up camera angle...that's why the director or photography was right in the firing line?

[Screwdriver]

I kinda guessed they were setting up a "looking straight down the barrel" close up camera angle...that's why the director or photography was right in the firing line?

On the face of it, a very plausible explanation. Sadly the only person who could attest to their being happy for Alec Baldwin to point a gun right at them for test purposes, is no longer with us.

"Hi Screwdriver, I want you to look down the barrel and see what it looks like when I point a gun at you"
"Oh yeah? Is this the same gun that everybody has been playing with shooting at tin cans?"
"Dunno, it's a prop..."
"Will the armorer be present?"
"Nah"
"Who is responsible for safety"
"Oh, somebody is, not me haha".

I don't buy it. No one in their right mind would deliberately put themselves in danger, especially under those circumstances where a large number of crew had already walked off and the armorer wasn't even there especially when an asshole like Baldwin is running things.

It will all come out in the wash and while I may be guilty of believing the worst, I can't wait to hear the testimony from those present.

[Yambo]

There are a couple of youtube vids showing how Baldwin's statements about the gun going off are 'inaccurate'.

What surprises me that with so much knowledge around in the States about guns, and their use, no charges have been brought. Baldwin's televised statements don't hold up with the gun that was being used. I'm sure the police could do their own checks when youtubers are showing he was talking shite.

[McNab]

Yeah, but who do you charge?

Do you charge the actor who was handed the gun and told it was empty and was then practising a pre-agreed shot?
Do you charge the guy who handed the actor the gun and said it was safe?
Do you charge the armourer who is responsible for maintaining the gun and making sure it was safe and used in a safe manor?

I think there is still a lot for the police to consider who to charge and with what. Personally, I think the armourer is most at fault, but the guy who handed Baldwin the gun and Baldwin himself also bear some of the responsibility.

[Le_Fromage_Grande]

If you were on a film set and handed a gun that should have been safe, would you check it to make sure, you'd have to remove the bullets to be certain that they were either blanks or live rounds.

[Cousin Jack]

If you were on a film set and handed a gun that should have been safe, would you check it to make sure, you'd have to remove the bullets to be certain that they were either blanks or live rounds.

If I was handed a gun anywhere and told it was safe I would check. I would actually expect anyone handing me a gun to SHOW me it was safe. The only time I wouldn't check would be on a range, when told the gun was loaded.
That is what I was taught, and it was what I expected from others when I was acting as Range Officer.

[Le_Fromage_Grande]

If you were on a film set and handed a gun that should have been safe, would you check it to make sure, you'd have to remove the bullets to be certain that they were either blanks or live rounds.

If I was handed a gun anywhere and told it was safe I would check. I would actually expect anyone handing me a gun to SHOW me it was safe. The only time I wouldn't check would be on a range, when told the gun was loaded.
That is what I was taught, and it was what I expected from others when I was acting as Range Officer.

But you've been trained, I doubt if Alec Baldwin has had any firearms handling training, and if he did, did he listen to it?

The incident is a very nasty accident caused by unsafe firearms handling, whoever is responsible for firearms safety on set was responsible, it's why people are made responsible.

[Noggin]

I have ZERO knowledge of guns. Prior to this thread, if I was in a work situation and the guy in charge of the guns handed a gun to a co-worker and told them to pass it to me, would I have checked it? Well no. I wouldn't know what to look at to check it. I've never held anything other than a shotgun and I know how to check that. But, a handgun?? Zero idea

Now I've read all this, I would do a lot not to be in that situation!! LOL And would find out how to check it before I took it!!!

[McNab]

If you were on a film set and handed a gun that should have been safe, would you check it to make sure, you'd have to remove the bullets to be certain that they were either blanks or live rounds.

Possibly I would, and I've never touched a real gun in my life. I understand some guns are easier to check than others. Baldwin has been an actor a long time and I'm sure he's handled his fair share of firearms so should really be aware of on-set safety. How much that makes him responsible for what happened, I don't know.

[Screwdriver]

He also owns the film company and is "a" producer. I seriously doubt any other producer working on that title would have enough authority to question anything he says. That's probably why so many people walked off set.

Hollywood B list actor trying to cash in on the last vestiges of his career makes me think this was an exercise in low budget, cost cutting which ultimately led to a death.

[Mussels]

The armourer gave a public statement after the incident and said something about shaking the bullets to see if they were real or not, apparently the dummy ones rattle so maybe it isn't an easy thing to check on set.

Even if Baldwin as the actor isn't responsible, Baldwin as the producer will be.

[Cousin Jack]

Now I've read all this, I would do a lot not to be in that situation!! LOL And would find out how to check it before I took it!!!

And that ^^^ is the first, and arguably the most important safety lesson. If you don't knpw how to check it is safe, DON'T TOUCH IT.

Noggin, go to the top of the class! Not just a pretty face.

[Le_Fromage_Grande]

I've handled loads of firearms, mostly in contexts where there was no reason for them to be loaded and with supervision, I've never checked to make sure they were safe, it'd be a weird thing to do, you either trust the person handing it to you to do their job or you don't.

I don't really see what there is to discuss, Alec Baldwin didn't intend to kill anyone, it's an accident caused by sloppy procedures.

[Screwdriver]

The armourer gave a public statement after the incident and said something about shaking the bullets to see if they were real or not, apparently the dummy ones rattle so maybe it isn't an easy thing to check on set.

Even if Baldwin as the actor isn't responsible, Baldwin as the producer will be.

They would be dummy rounds. Why would you need a gun loaded with dummy rounds for a test shoot? They only fit them for a visul effect, i.e. decorating a belt, loading or perhaps more tellingly, because you can see the business end of a bullet in a revolver.

If as is being claimed this was some sort of practice session, you wouldn't need a toy prop gun let alone an actual working replica loaded with anything. I would bet my bottom dollar Baldwin was straight on the phone to his lawyer and they concocted a story which is designed specifically to minimise his potential charges.

Wasn't long after that he went on TV to get his side of the story in first. That will come back to bite him in the arse. The truth will out and he doesn't strike me as the sort of person who will have many friends who would be prepared to bend a story to his advantage.

[DefTrap]

I'd be well pissed off if someone handed me a gun telling me it wasn't loaded with genuine ammo, and it was.

We aren't all super into firearms the same as we aren't all into cooking. I dunno if a waiter is responsible for serving someone a contaminated salmon mousse.

[Cousin Jack]

I'd be well pissed off if someone handed me a gun telling me it wasn't loaded with genuine ammo, and it was.

We aren't all super into firearms the same as we aren't all into cooking. I dunno if a waiter is responsible for serving someone a contaminated salmon mousse.

I'd be pissed off too, but Alec was the boss man, responsible for everything on that film set.

The difference is that 99.99% of salmon mousse is ok, guns are actually designed to damage/kill stuff, so a higher standard is required.

[DefTrap]

I'd be pissed off too, but Alec was the boss man, responsible for everything on that film set.

The difference is that 99.99% of salmon mousse is ok, guns are actually designed to damage/kill stuff, so a higher standard is required.

There's always someone ultimately "responsible", typically the one at the top, where the buck stops. But in a normal organisation there's levels of responsibility based upon qualification, experience, guidance and training. It should say quite clearly that "there is a qualified bloke responsible for guns" and the man at the top is "responsible for ensuring there are qualified blokes in charge of guns".

This is all reasonable. That's how good practice works. Everything else is currently conjecture.

[Bwana]

The armourer gave a public statement after the incident and said something about shaking the bullets to see if they were real or not, apparently the dummy ones rattle so maybe it isn't an easy thing to check on set.

Even if Baldwin as the actor isn't responsible, Baldwin as the producer will be.

They would be dummy rounds. Why would you need a gun loaded with dummy rounds for a test shoot? They only fit them for a visul effect, i.e. decorating a belt, loading or perhaps more tellingly, because you can see the business end of a bullet in a revolver.

If as is being claimed this was some sort of practice session, you wouldn't need a toy prop gun let alone an actual working replica loaded with anything. I would bet my bottom dollar Baldwin was straight on the phone to his lawyer and they concocted a story which is designed specifically to minimise his potential charges.

Wasn't long after that he went on TV to get his side of the story in first. That will come back to bite him in the arse. The truth will out and he doesn't strike me as the sort of person who will have many friends who would be prepared to bend a story to his advantage.

It is my understanding that they were setting up the filming to get the camera and gun oriented for effect, so the gun was a necessary component of the rehearsal. I'm of the mind that I would have verified the gun was empty if I was the one that was going to end up holding it and pointing it toward a camera with a person behind it. If you want something done right, do it yourself. That and I've had three experiences involving guns that have left a bit of a mark, figuratively speaking.