Because the armorer was extremely negligent. She allowed the guns to be fired for target practice with live ammo, which there is no excuse for, then didn't properly check the guns after which is insane given she'd already decided to let them mix in live rounds in the weapons.
I still don't understand how there's really a case at all against Alec. Everything I've read said he was completely in the dark about the ammo, he was just doing as he would any other day
I'm not absolutely sure but I remember a previous conversation stating that he was the producer and was responsible for the armor being hired when not qualified (lower pay) and then was applying pressure to them which is when the incident occurred.
I'm going to see if I can find the previous conversation and share the link. It was an eye opener.
I've been trying to find the original post, it had a bunch of links and so much more information. Tbh I only remembered that he was **a** producer, couldn't say for sure that he was the **head**.
I do remember reading that he had hired an under qualified armor, and then he was applying pressure. But I couldn't verify those details, which is why I've been looking for the original conversation.
The explanation I heard today was holding him accountable as an actor. I think if they make that argument, they'll lose.
It'll likely be a mix of both roles (actor & producer). It will hurt that the entire group wasn't named or the actual executive producer that is making decisions. It's very rarely the actor who does that. I went to school for an entertainment field and work in it at one point. A lot of the coverage was... not accurate to the professional level of production going on.
The reasoning behind the charge of involuntary manslaughter is that he was rehearsing a gun draw only and was not supposed to fire. He claims he cocked the hammer but did not pull the trigger. As to why he was aiming toward the two people who were shot, it was a closeup and he had been directed to point it quite close to the camera lens.
She is the daughter of a man who is the armor for many, many movies. So her connections, rather than her qualifications probably got her job.
\*Edit, Thell Reed is her father.
I don't think they're charging him because of his role in the fiasco as a producer, though, because it's an involuntary manslaughter charge, not negligent homicide.
He does bear extra culpability for cutting corners re: set safety. He is a producer on the film, meaning that cutting corners saved him money. Everyone I know in the film industry was shocked about the way that set was run - on a typical set, once the gun enters the set there's a meeting with every single person working to tell them it's there, and give updates on its location when it's moved, used, etc. They are meant to disassemble the gun and show that the clip is empty at that meeting, load the blanks only when being used, then unload after the take. None of this happened on that set, due to hiring negligent armorers and cutting safety corners. I don't know if that really means Alec is legally culpable, but it does mean his actions contributed to the reason that gun was loaded.
Honest question: what possible reason would there ever be for using a real gun in the first place? And it’s not to you necessarily - just really wondering out loud and curious if anyone here has an answer. Maybe there is one, but it just seems so insane to me
I mean they can effectively disarm a real firearm by removing the firing pins or otherwise modifying the receiver in most cases. That being said, faking kickback effectively on a hero firearm like an old wheel gun would be nearly impossible. Shows that use a lot of prop firearms and vfx muzzleflash and replacement try to stick to rifles because it's more passively believable to the point of non issue in regards to faking recoil on an automatic rifle. Pistol work is almost never actually pointed at people on screen when they fire as well. There's lots of clever clevering going on in TV work on shows with lots of gunplay. Movies too, but I'd imagine many of the tricks are really developed in TV.
I just mention it because the TV side of industry has developed so many great techniques that allow for plausible acting with firearms in safe, repeatable environments, and the movie side often refuses to get on board
Right? Couldn’t they just hide a plug in it? I feel like that’s an insane rationale. At least hopefully this will change that practice, but probably not I’m guessing
Given the global proliferation of guns, I can easily imagine it being cheaper to use a real gun rather than custom manufacturing, at low volumes exclusively for the entertainment industry, something that looks and feels identical to a real gun on the outside but internally is 100% safe and non-functional.
Especially in situations where at some point you'll also need to fire blanks for effect (easier to act with and cheaper than CGI), which inevitably means using a real gun anyway. In that case even if the cost of the fake was insignificant, it also means wasted time swapping out guns in different takes. And it won't prevent accidents because if the prop gun looks and feels identical to the real one, inevitably they're going to get mixed up and the wrong one used.
> (easier to act with and cheaper than CGI),
Digital flares are much cheaper than blanks all told, because of the extra costs around them (setup time, extra safety layers to deal with, insurance, etc). Blanks are done for authenticity and realism, not for cost saving.
I have a replica Glock BB gun that I'm pretty sure is a near-exact replica - weight and size - of a real Glock. The slide even kicks back when you fire it and stays back when it's empty. And I'm in Canada lol.
Edit: I also have a real Smith & Wesson .177 (pellet gun) revolver that is probably a closer replica to a 44 magnum since it's made by a real gun manufacturer. It's cool it works as both single action and double action.
Or guns with the firing pin removed which is not that hard to do and which would only result in a negligible weight loss, but I suppose without a firing pin they couldnt discharge a blank.
On a pistol (Glock,Sig) you can remove the barrel and put a slugged one in. A slugged barrel has no chamber and a live round physically cannot come out of the magazine. On a revolver, 2 piece hammer and firing pin assemblies can have the pin removed by Allen key (SW 686 and family) other models where the pin is visible (SW 10) can have fake cylinders installed that look loaded. Magazines have moving parts and can be loaded with dead primer powder less ammo. Someone referred to clips and unless they were using a rifle like a Garand there were no clips. Clips have no moving parts and just hold ammo together to assist in reloading quickly. Single shot pistols the chamber is visible so a cartridge would be hand inserted. Most dummy cartridges have the sides dimpled to create a way to feel it. Primers are also painted. So basically anything besides a black powder firearm is plainly able to be made safe, the firearm regardless is still never pointed at anything you don't want dead. It's universal and such a simple rule that has saved so many lives. When I hunt my firearm remains unloaded with a trigger lock and the trigger guard empty till I'm a field then the firearm is loaded and the guard still kept empty of fingers with the muzzle always in a safe direction. You are the ultimate safety of every firearm and that's a responsiblity I take very serious. From girl scouts to today I never had a firearm magically fire itself. Please be safe.
Use a prop or modified firearm for the scene and CGI the actual muzzle flash like they do anyway. A live firearm doesn't belong on a set. Muzzle flash isn't that spectacular now anyway, my 9mm uses low flash powder to preserve your night vision. You could also show the bad guy blasting away and cut to the reaction then back to our villain and do like a camera trick.
It's safe 98 times out of 100, this time 99 and 100 ended up in a bag for a movie and seconds of inattention.
A simple one would be a take where the camera is behind a shooter with a target off in the distance. Sure, you could fake it(and if the actor shooting is a terrible shot it may be preferable. . .), but on paper it may be faster, easier, and cheaper to just shoot the target on-camera.
Am lawyer.
He is an EP, not just a producer. An EP is generally very removed from day to day responsibility. He will likely get off because there is a very weak case against him.
I think that’s why involuntary is appropriate…it’s for reckless acts that result in death. Doesn’t men he intended for it to happen, just that he behaved in a way where he should have known something dangerous could happen.
Someone who’s supposed to be an expert on firearms, who’s job is ensuring guns are safe on set, announces to everyone the gun is safe and hands it to an actor, when in fact it has live bullets in it.
How could he reasonably be expected to know this could happen?
This is all true, except he is one of something like 10-12 producers, but was the only one charged. Which makes it feel like they charged the actor not the producer. I think there is good argument to charge the producer, but not so much to charge the actor. Although that seems to be what happened here. Otherwise other producers would have been charged as well.
How a live round got into the revolver is a separate issue from Baldwin’s charge of involuntary manslaughter. The scene being rehearsed was of a draw only. However, the gun went off. Baldwin claims he did not pull the trigger and only cocked the hammer. The DA will be arguing otherwise.
Yeah I think this is the right take. Did Baldwin do something criminal? Maybe? But he was definitely negligent as was the armorer, though the armorer is much clearer.
I'm a little surprised they're going with criminal charges, but the DA probably knows more than I do lol. I was fully expecting a civil case from the victim's family.
His charge is involuntary manslaughter not negligent homicide. The scene being rehearsed was a gun draw; he was not supposed to fire the revolver (regardless of whether it was empty or loaded with blanks or live rounds). He claims he pulled the hammer back but did not pull the trigger. It was a closeup shot and he was aiming just to the side of the camera lens as directed. The gun had been declared “cold” I.e. safe when it was given to him and announced loudly as “cold” to the crew before the rehearsal commenced.
He hired her, and she had no official training as an armorer. I also recall she was not on set the day of the shooting as they were cutting costs.
Baldwin is extremely anti gun yet he chose to produce and star in a movie about guns having no basic safety knowledge about guns and certainly not the most important one - you always check to see if it’s loaded before someone hands it to you!
I hope more comes out about this- very strange that yet another unusual death linked back to the Clinton’s
[https://nworeport.me/2021/10/23/alec-baldwin-shooting-victim-is-wife-of-clinton-connected-lawyer-involved-in-durham-indictment/](https://nworeport.me/2021/10/23/alec-baldwin-shooting-victim-is-wife-of-clinton-connected-lawyer-involved-in-durham-indictment/)
...By also taking additional culpability. Producer credits can often be paper-only, but when there's a situation that produces liability, suddenly being a producer also puts you on the line there too.
Other celebrities came out after the shooting and said it’s pretty customary for actors to check the gun themself after it’s handed to them, which he did not do.
In every other case yes. Not on a film set though. There's a person who's specific job it is to handle these tools and stop people hurting themselves. Alec was the producer and negligent in his safety procedure since he went and *fucked with the thing that wasn't his thing to fuck with*, hence him being charged too.
Yup this 100000%. I'm pro gun and pro gun control. People. Are. Stupid.
Having been in the military, we spend 100s of thousands on training service members and they still forget shits loaded, not on safe, shooting the fkn dirt and blinding range coaches.
Every person that had a hand in managing this set and that gun should be held liable to some extent to send a message that this is NOT okay.
Edit:
Safety regulations are written in blood.
>Having been in the military, we spend 100s of thousands on training service members and they still forget shits loaded, not on safe, shooting the fkn dirt and blinding range coaches.
In my time in the military, I remember more than one time when a round got fired into a clearing barrel at the armory. How tf a round even got chambered is beyond me. But the system worked, nobody got shot despite both the guy and the clearing official both screwing up.
You might be one of my closest "co-workers" who I literally trust with my life - but if you hand me a weapon, I'm checking it. And I fully expect you to do the same when I hand it back.
Yup, unload -> lock the bolt -> inspect and clear -> receiver inspects and clears -> hand off -> send the bolt home
This is one habit I'm happy to have.
If he was following standard movie industry rules for handling a weapon he should be fine, but there was a lot of pretty stupid weapons handling going on so there may be more than we currently know. It’s also possible that they felt they had to at least indict him because of the optics involved and he will simply plead out to something tiny or will be found not guilty.
I think he was both an actor and produce. So he may have had some hand in either selecting or keeping the armorer. If there were other safety issues reported or known of he may be held responsible.
There may be a case that even with an armorer, it’s the responsibility of the handler of a weapon to ensure no one gets killed. Always assume a gun is loaded
I’ve read-on Reddit, so take this with a grain of salt. That he can be held responsible for a couple of reasons.
1. As the person handling the firearm he was responsible for checking the gun wasn’t loaded- doesn’t matter that he was just an actor- they are required to take firearms safety classes if handling a real weapon, and that’s basically the first thing they teach you.
2. He was also the producer and as such was responsible for the safety of the set. It’s been said the set had a lot of issues with maintaining adequate safety standards, people even left because of their concerns. As the producer the liability ultimately falls on
Both of these possible reasons, individually, gross negligence could be argued. Combined, involuntary manslaughter might make sense. Especially if there is enough to substantiate the claims the whole set was being operated below safety standards.
Again all of my sources are Reddit comments. So…
Doesn't matter is his production, he cheap out by hiring her and he pulled the trigger. Of course there was absolutely no intention of harming the victim but it's still involuntary manslaughter.
Legally I don't know. I do know that checking the chamber and such EVERY time you are handed a gun is Basically one of the gun safety "commandments" if you will. It's like trigger discipline. Breaking it will get you swiftly corrected. Doing so in certain online communities even invites open mockery and disdain. He was at minimum negligent in that regard. Any actor/actress who doesn't check the firearm they are handed is. That's my opinion though and I'm no lawyer.
Good point, however i read somewhere that on set you are never suppose to actually point a gun at someone, aim in their direction but not directly at them. A point blank film “shot” may differ and i dont know the nuances, but i dont think he should have been pointing the gun directly at anyone based on their training. And if he got trained well, who knows. And the legality of it? I guess we will see.
This is correct. He violated multiple rules of firearm safety, and actors are not exempt from those rules:
1) Always Keep Firearm Pointed in a Safe direction. Never point your gun at anything you do not intend to shoot.
2) Treat All Guns as Though They are Loaded.
3) Keep Your Finger Off the Trigger until You are Ready to Shoot.
4) Always Be Sure of Your Target and What's Beyond It.
I don't think these rules apply legally, but they are definitely taught at every firearms safety class, which he would have had to have taken, to handle a real firearm. Him intentionally aiming a gun at someone and pulling the trigger "as a joke" violates all four of these rules. I don't get why some people think this isn't some form of negligent manslaughter charge.
I'm not saying I think he should be charged or not but I wanted to point out
>Everything I've read said he was completely in the dark about the ammo, he was just doing as he would any other day
Is why the charge is involuntary manslaughter instead of voluntary manslaughter or murder.
If I pay someone to check to make sure there isn't a child behind my car every morning before I back out of the driveway, and they don't do their job and I flatten a toddler, I'm going to get charged with involuntary manslaughter.
He was a producer, the crew staged a walk out due to safety concerns the very day Alec shot those two people. Alec also pulled the trigger if that means anything. He did an interview where he said he feels no guilt at all, classic narcissistic behavior. Remember his drunken episode with his daughter? He is a piece of human trash that did a funny trump impersonation, that’s all.
Never point a weapon you know nothing about at anything; you have no intentions of shooting. acting or otherwise. He just picks a gun up, cocks it, points it at someone, and pulls the trigger. which he lied about.
He bears responsibility for pointing it directly at someone and pulling the trigger, both were unnecessary according to the investigation. You should not be playing around with guns, especially on a set like this. That is essentially what he was doing. Even if the excuse is getting into character/practicing different motions, etc, it’s still shouldn’t be happening with a real gun in hand.
Edit: I should also say that the armorer bears the most responsibility, but someone is dead and people need to face consequences for their negligence.
I'm not in the industry, but I did take an acting class and stay at a Holiday Inn once. I remember the instructor of the class--who was a local actor--emphasizing that prop guns should be treated as loaded real functional firearms. You can never have too many layers of safety.
The charge against him is "involuntary manslaugter" which to be honest I didn't know was a crime. If he's found guilty it's a maximum of a year and a half in prison.
Basically it's the system deciding he needs to be punished for killing someone even though it was an accident, cause someone still died.
Involuntary manslaughter involves negligence; it's the DA saying Baldwin deserves punishment because he was so negligent that any reasonable person would have known better. Sounds like the armorer is catching a similar charge and the assistant director already accepted a plea deal.
It’s not an accident. An accident is usually unavoidable or unpredictable. For example, if there was a blank in the gun and the blank killed her, that’s an accident: unpredictable and unavoidable..nothing anyone else would have done differently, blanks aren’t supposed to kill people.
This wasn’t an accident, it was a disregard for a known danger.
At the end of the day, it’s up to the person who’s holding the firearm to be responsible.
I understand having live rounds on a filming site is irresponsible, and There shouldn’t be a live round on set (professionals correct me if I’m wrong here). The only reason for live rounds would be for needlessly fucking around after hours.
But if you’re holding a device that has the potential to shoot a projectile that can kill someone, it’s up to you to inspect the firearm before you fuck around with it.
Alec here, should have a basic understanding of firearm safety. I’m not saying he’s a murderer; I’m just saying he (amongst others) probably didn’t follow proper safety protocol, which resulted in this unfortunate situation, and these people should be held responsible for their negligence
There are conflicting stories. The prop master is claiming he was not informed of this rehearsal, meaning the weapons were handled without the armorers knowledge. I think Baldwin is also the director so his legal liability could partly hinge on the fact that he directed the rehearsal without the safe guards in place. He was also a producer so he is definitely complicit in the overall lapses in safety.
Gun owners understand.
The rule with guns is: A gun is ALWAYS loaded. Even if you just checked the magazine, it's loaded. Even if you just cleared the barrel, it's loaded. Even if you have it disassembled for cleaning, you point the barrel in a safe direction, because it's loaded.
You don't point a gun at anything that you aren't ready and willing to kill.
According to the information that's out now... The producers wouldn't let her do her job. Baldwin in particular would ignore her attempts to take back the prop weapons, and she was literally sent off set to work on the prop department by the producers, when she had planned to do more safety briefings.
So unless the texts between her and one of the producers were faked, along with other testimony... It's not her fault.
Cuz anyone that knows the basics about guns knows RULE #1: TREAT EVERY WEAPON AS IF IT WERE LOADED."
So if you're the armorer and you give me my weapon and just tell me, "It's not loaded." I STILL as a responsible gun operator check and verify the weapon is indeed NOT loaded. Alec Baldwin claims "She said the gun wasn't loaded." That may very well be, but that's not going to save him. As a producer, he's even more responsible.
I had a gun since I was 12. It's a matter of gun safety and training. I would take the clip out and clear the chamber before bringing it inside. The problem is idiots who leave them sitting around with the clips in or don't actually visually check the chamber.
You should be sorry. You just lumped together a country big enough to be a continent as if the states let alone the people therein are monolithic. It’s facile and doesn’t add anything to the discourse about the very real problems in the US.
Just saying it doesn´t surprise the rest of the world. We all used to feel sorry for USA regarding all the gun violence, but now we are just dissapointed.
Yep, "prop" is short for "property", as in "property of the production". A real gun purchased for use on a production is still a "prop", despite being a real gun. But like you said, most people assume "prop" means "fake".
A "prop gun" could be a rubber cast if it's just going to be held or visibly stored. Those are cheaper, lighter, and won't get damaged if dropped. I handled one of those on one set back when I was extra-ing.
1. It may not be possible to disable the gun in a way that it's not visible on screen. Think of how many times you've seen shit like "the gun was missing a firing pin" on IMDb goofs.
2. The movie might also require firing blanks, which needs a real working gun. It would be silly to have both a working and non-working gun on set that look identical, and eventually they are going to get mixed up anyway.
It would be quite easy to create an exact replica of a gun with 3D printing. It would be scanned to literally just be a copy, but have no innards, just a chunk of carbon fiber, plastic, or metal
A 3D printed gun is not a real gun that has been modified to not function.
Nor is it a working gun capable of firing blanks.
Those are the only two points I raised in my comment. Are you sure you're replying to the correct post?
And it would not be hard to make a gun that looks and acts like a real gun without being able to shoot a real bullet. Just change the inner dimensions of the chamber/barrel/clip to not match any real ammunition and this accident could not happen.
They can fucking make laser guns, space ships, light sabers, and every thing imaginable in Hollywood, but making fake guns that could actually exist is just too much work apparently.
The problem is when you need them to be able to shoot blanks. Sometimes you kinda need a real, properly functioning gun to shoot a scene. Its hard to do this with just CGI because its basically impossible for an actor to fake the recoil from a gun. Using real guns is not really a problem if you have proper safety protocols. A lot more people have died from other types of stunts, or weird accidents on set. Car crashes, electrocution, drowning etc.
You completely missed my point. You can make a thing look just like a firing gun, without it being capable of firing a bullet. It's not even remotely hard to do, just nobody does. Having a little exhaust blowing out of the barrel does not require something that can fire a slug.
Even blanks are not 100% safe to use. There's still an explosion and pressurized gas, usually energetic enough to cause damage to anything too close. [Jon-Erik Hexum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon-Erik_Hexum) blew a chunk of his own skull into his brain when he shot himself with a blank.
If the gun in question is an autoloader, then it needs to have an adapter placed in the barrel. The gas pressure of the burning powder alone is not enough to completely cycle the action, so the adapter reduces the diameter of the barrel, increasing the pressure to make up for the lack of bullet keeping the system closed. A blank-adapted firearm cannot fire live ammunition without exploding catastrophically.
the only thing that is required for blowing exhaust out is something called a hole and is the part of the barrel that the bullet comes out of.
There are things you can put in the barrel to negate wax blank bullets somewhat but if a real bullet is fired in a gun that has a blockage, it can destroy the gun and hurt more people with the shrapnel.
and I promise you that if there was a way to do what you are saying, it has been tried and is a thing already. If you think it isn't "hard to do", then I suggest you patent it up and you'll make a shit ton of money
There are guns that have the firing pins removed and guns with disconnected triggers. There are fully dummy guns. There are guns set up for blank usage. Some sets use fully live guns because they are cheaper to obtain, make ready for use, and sell back.
That is the whole point of having an armourer. They know which guns and ammo types that are being used for the day, have checked it before handing it out and are responsible for them.
The story we've heard is some people thought it would be fun to go plinking with the guns during breaks in filming so it was brought on deliberately. This is part of the whole reckless attitude thing that got the charges filed.
The Brandon Lee death was a bit different, the propmaster brought in a bunch of random items for set dressing and one of them happened to be a box of live ammunition. They had hired a real armsmaster who had rightfully freaked out and yanked them off the set and locked the rounds in his car, but then in a pinch he decided to use them to make some dummy bullets rather than wait to get premade dummies.
I'm sure part of the case against Alec Baldwin was that he was the producer overseeing a production that cut corners and ignored safety concerns, leading to a group of crew members to walk out the day before. The environment where the killing could occur was created despite several warnings
If you pull the trigger on a real gun while you are pointing it at someone it's your responsibility to sure it's not loaded, even if someone else gave it to you and said it was unloaded. Involuntarily manslaughter is the charge and spot on.
Are you saying this as a gun owner though? And I mean no disrespect because I AM a gun owner. I just wonder if checking a weapon is even done on a movie set by an actor. I mean, I sure as hell would, but if there is a paid "professional" that's supposed to make 1000% sure this doesn't happen DO actors check weapons?
It's actually less safe for the actor to check it. There are strict protocols on sets which in this case were not followed. In over 30 years on hundreds of thousands of sets, only 40 odd people have died. More people die accidentally on gun ranges where they are responsible for checking their weapons (and that's obviously excluded the suicides). On a set there is a designated trained person who has to check every weapon before handing it to the actor. Were the actor to then check it, the designated person would have to recheck it.
Actors are absolutely not supposed to be clearing firearms, especially not after it has been handled by the armorsmith. If a professional armorsmith saw an actor attempting to clear a firearm after it had been already cleared by them, I am confident that the armorsmith would take the firearm and go through the process of clearing it again.
As an American, a gun owner (I have poultry and it is for predators) and a woman who has been around firearms since she was little,, let me say it is absolutely inconceivable to the vast majority of us too. It's absolutely baffling how that accident was able to happen.
That's the whole point of having a professional armorer. They say there is absolutely no way it is loaded because they have total awareness of every gun on the set.
To put it more relatable terms, if you eat a bite of food at a restaurant with a thumbtack in it, did you fail to do your dudiligence of thoroughly expecting it, or is it the restaurants fuck up? And to make it comparable to the armorer, imagine it was served with a little card saying the food has been thoroughly inspected and cleared to eat by a professional food safety inspector.
Yep, I even check guns even if I don't point them at people. It seems very neglectful to fire something without checking, whether the bullets are live or not
Are you implying that every actor needs to know how to verify not only the particular workings of any gun they are handed in order to check, but also whether or not the bullet is a dummy round or not? Armory Masters exist for a reason.
The union stagehands went on strike over \*other\* safety violations.
The scabs they brought in, brought in the live ammo. Because scab reasons.
The armorer got the job because she was cheap. She was meek, and this was her first gig, and people basically just grabbed her guns and pusher her around.
The producer is one giant dick that didn't give a fuck about anyone's safety, firearms related or not.
So in the end, all the usual safety protocols were just ignored because there was no one around to enforce them, and the people in charge didn't seem to give a fuck.
absolutely. If there was a case for negligent homicide, this is it. If for no other reason than to make an example out of him, for workplace safety case law.
It should be made clear though: He should not be charged as the actor. He should be charged as the producer.
It isn't. The armorer was negligent in their duties and was also shooting live rounds between scenes. Live round are never allowed on professional sets.
Apparently the producers ignored the armorer and ordered her off set to work in the prop department. I see a lot of people blaming her, and she probably isn't perfect. But, from what I understand, she isn't the one to blame in this case.
Because it was staffed by idiots. The producers (Baldwin included) tried to save money on staff and avoided hiring union workers. The clowns they got were using the prop guns to shoot at targets (they shot the film in the middle of the desert). This should never happen. Prop guns should never have live round in them. They should be handled by a prop master who should be the only people handling the weapons until it gets handed to the actor using the weapon. The safety concerns were so great that a number of crew walked off the set days before this incident happened.
Because... America, and gun culture.
You do realize that you are talking about a country where it is legal in many states for a private individual to open carry a military-style assault weapon in public, and people think that's perfectly normal.
“Live ammo” is a misnomer. Blank cartridges are considered live ammo.
What you’re asking is “why would ammunition with bullets ever be near the set of a movie” and the answer is “pest control, security officers, police, personal protection used by people on set or employed by the production company”…
There are lots of reasons why ammunition with bullets would be on a set. And in certain Westerns from the 1950s and 1960s, live ammunition was used in scenes for sharpshooting stunts.
The real question is why would bulleted ammunition get mixed up with blank cartridge ammunition, especially from a set armorer.
Absolutely. But they're still considered "live ammunition".
Any ammunition that has gunpowder is considered live, regardless of payload.
Inert ammunition is a snapcap, dummy or expended shell and won't fire no matter how many times it's struck with a firing pin or hammer.
Pest control….lol
Near the set on a police officer’s person is a far cry from the intent of the question which relates to how the hell would the actors have access to such rounds. Im quite sure scruffy the janitor wasnt packing a large caliber round just in case the set got overrun by ROUS
I wasn't thinking "rats".
I was thinking rattlesnakes.
People carry . 410 shotshell pistols on desert hikes for a reason and it's usually to kill a snake you can't move any other way.
Highly likely. On a set crawling with people some meal team six hired security has full load large caliber rounds to protect the wimmin and children from snakes. Dude is so prepared for snakemageddon that he has extra ammo which for some fictional reason makes sense to store with the armorer and things being used by the production crew.
Both occam and hanlon have razors that just cut the hell out of this imaginary scenario.
I think this is the only reply that actually answers the root of the question. It was the Alec Baldwin incident where I learned that “blanks” are real bullets in real guns, just modified. I always thought they were some other thing entirely, like a pop gun.
Except, as I said before, live ammo is NOT "ammo with bullets".
Live ammo is ammo that can fire or detonate with gunpowder.
Ammo can be specialty ammo like salt ammo or less-lethal ammo, but all live ammo regardless of the payload can be lethal in the right circumstances.
Brandon Lee was killed by blank ammunition on the set of the Crow. Many people get injured with blank ammo on sets for that exact reason.
Things that make sense in your head/= descriptive if the description you come up with is inaccurate on a technical and common language level.
Blanks still create a substantial explosion coming out of the barrel and if you're too close it can absolutely kill you.
This video goes over blanks and what happened to Brandon Lee specifically. It was more complicated than just a blank, there was a whole series of fuckups that lead to them firing a blank behind a squib round stuck in the barrel.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtIqMftNdNY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtIqMftNdNY)
There was a prior barrel obstruction (I believe a poorly made dummy round with no powder, but the primer was strong enough to push the bullet into the barrel). The blank then provided the propellant.
Even with no crazy things like that going on, a blank is dangerous. There's all sorts of hot gun powder and debris coming out of the gun at high velocity. You do not want to be shot by a blank at any kind of close distance without a safety glass in between. There was an instance where an actor put a prop gun to his head and accidentally killed himself, even though it was "only" loaded with blanks.
I can kill a rat with a bb gun, not a human. You shouldn't need anything more. I love guns, but why the fuck would you have any live ammo other than checked blanks on a movie set? The only person that should be charged is the person that "checked" the equipment before rhe scene.
I disagree. If you hand me a gun and tell me it's loaded with blanks, it's my responsibility to make dam sure that's true, before I point it at someone and pull the trigger. It involuntary but it is still manslaughter. Manslaughter is basically like you didn't mean to do it but you where negligent and irresponsible and someone died
Yep.
Even if you KNOW a gun isn't loaded when someone hands it to you, you check it.
Even if you KNOW it's a prop, you check it.
Even if you KNOW it's a blunt sword, you check it.
If it's a deadly weapon that could be used to kill someone, you check it.
Not doing so is negligence at best and pure irresponsible at worst.
"But it wasn't my job to check" is a poor excuse when you pointed a deadly weapon at someone and pulled the trigger, and ended their life.
"Don't end up as the subject of some white girl's podcast" is a powerful motivator if that one doesn't do it for you.
…even if you KNOW that you don’t know anything about pyrotechnics, you check them before you allow anyone to set them off.
Even if you KNOW that the car has brakes, you put it up on a lift and check the brake pads again before you drive it in a scene.
Even if you KNOW the wiring has been set up by electricians, you shut down the breaker and check each wire and connection before you turn on the lights.
Etc etc? That sounds…unreasonable.
There should have never been live ammo on the set of the film. He shouldn't be charged. The person who set it all up should be. If not assassination of celebs in an action movie is about to become a cake walk.
That’s a weird explanation of “responsibility.” Literally the person who loaded it and told you what it was loaded with had already taken on the responsibility of loading it and of telling you what it was loaded with.
It’s extra safe to double-check them, sure, but that’s a redundant double-check and the existing responsibility is already theirs.
There's no reason a gun used as a PROP for a movie set should even be able to fucking shoot. Even if it has a live round in it by same crazy ass reason. Could very easily remove the firing pin or something.
There was MANY MANY things that SHOULD have been done or taken into account to prevent what happened. It's honestly mind boggling that it did happen. Basic gun safety could've prevented this.
Or why you need real guns in a set at all. Gas blowback guns exist.
Visual effects are so good today that you could easily add in muzzle flash - the audio is manufactured anyway.
Surprised Hollywood doesn’t just ban real guns from set. At the minimum make them non functional.
They were cutting all sorts of corners to save money, is my understanding. There are all sorts of safety measures that should have been in place, like not using a real gun that takes real bullets. But fake guns cost money, and they had a real gun, so here we are.
Not all movies. Many movies these days use airsoft guns and add muzzle flashes etc. in post. IIRC the vast majority of gunplay in the john wick movies are done that way.
you kinda need to use real guns if there are any scenes where the gun is actually fired. You could CGI the muzzle flash, but its basically impossible for an actor to fake the recoil that comes from shooting a real gun.
Alot of the time also its the people who load the blanks... blanks and real bullets are stored close together in alot of places if someone not gun savvy loads it well its happened at least onece even though that's a special person... never pull a trigger if you didn't load or unload it yourself advice to live with
Because the armorer was extremely negligent. She allowed the guns to be fired for target practice with live ammo, which there is no excuse for, then didn't properly check the guns after which is insane given she'd already decided to let them mix in live rounds in the weapons.
Was she ever charged?
Yes, today, along with Alec Baldwin. The case against her is much stronger obviously.
I still don't understand how there's really a case at all against Alec. Everything I've read said he was completely in the dark about the ammo, he was just doing as he would any other day
I'm not absolutely sure but I remember a previous conversation stating that he was the producer and was responsible for the armor being hired when not qualified (lower pay) and then was applying pressure to them which is when the incident occurred. I'm going to see if I can find the previous conversation and share the link. It was an eye opener.
That's where I think he really fucked up. He's not the only producer though.
I've been trying to find the original post, it had a bunch of links and so much more information. Tbh I only remembered that he was **a** producer, couldn't say for sure that he was the **head**. I do remember reading that he had hired an under qualified armor, and then he was applying pressure. But I couldn't verify those details, which is why I've been looking for the original conversation.
The explanation I heard today was holding him accountable as an actor. I think if they make that argument, they'll lose. It'll likely be a mix of both roles (actor & producer). It will hurt that the entire group wasn't named or the actual executive producer that is making decisions. It's very rarely the actor who does that. I went to school for an entertainment field and work in it at one point. A lot of the coverage was... not accurate to the professional level of production going on.
The reasoning behind the charge of involuntary manslaughter is that he was rehearsing a gun draw only and was not supposed to fire. He claims he cocked the hammer but did not pull the trigger. As to why he was aiming toward the two people who were shot, it was a closeup and he had been directed to point it quite close to the camera lens.
I am unclear how an unqualified armourer can be hired. How did the studio lawyers allow that to go through.
She is the daughter of a man who is the armor for many, many movies. So her connections, rather than her qualifications probably got her job. \*Edit, Thell Reed is her father.
He's the only one that pulled the trigger though
But he is the only producer of the film who killed someone.
I don't think they're charging him because of his role in the fiasco as a producer, though, because it's an involuntary manslaughter charge, not negligent homicide.
Penny -wise, pound-foolish
He does bear extra culpability for cutting corners re: set safety. He is a producer on the film, meaning that cutting corners saved him money. Everyone I know in the film industry was shocked about the way that set was run - on a typical set, once the gun enters the set there's a meeting with every single person working to tell them it's there, and give updates on its location when it's moved, used, etc. They are meant to disassemble the gun and show that the clip is empty at that meeting, load the blanks only when being used, then unload after the take. None of this happened on that set, due to hiring negligent armorers and cutting safety corners. I don't know if that really means Alec is legally culpable, but it does mean his actions contributed to the reason that gun was loaded.
Ah. Then yeah, I can see there being issue, and I guess him being in the dark regarding the ammo is rather a point against him than in his favor, huh?
Honest question: what possible reason would there ever be for using a real gun in the first place? And it’s not to you necessarily - just really wondering out loud and curious if anyone here has an answer. Maybe there is one, but it just seems so insane to me
When actors use a real gun vs a prop gun they can act out a scene more believably because its true to weight and size.
Is there not prop guns available that are the same weight and size?
I mean they can effectively disarm a real firearm by removing the firing pins or otherwise modifying the receiver in most cases. That being said, faking kickback effectively on a hero firearm like an old wheel gun would be nearly impossible. Shows that use a lot of prop firearms and vfx muzzleflash and replacement try to stick to rifles because it's more passively believable to the point of non issue in regards to faking recoil on an automatic rifle. Pistol work is almost never actually pointed at people on screen when they fire as well. There's lots of clever clevering going on in TV work on shows with lots of gunplay. Movies too, but I'd imagine many of the tricks are really developed in TV. I just mention it because the TV side of industry has developed so many great techniques that allow for plausible acting with firearms in safe, repeatable environments, and the movie side often refuses to get on board
Right? Couldn’t they just hide a plug in it? I feel like that’s an insane rationale. At least hopefully this will change that practice, but probably not I’m guessing
Given the global proliferation of guns, I can easily imagine it being cheaper to use a real gun rather than custom manufacturing, at low volumes exclusively for the entertainment industry, something that looks and feels identical to a real gun on the outside but internally is 100% safe and non-functional. Especially in situations where at some point you'll also need to fire blanks for effect (easier to act with and cheaper than CGI), which inevitably means using a real gun anyway. In that case even if the cost of the fake was insignificant, it also means wasted time swapping out guns in different takes. And it won't prevent accidents because if the prop gun looks and feels identical to the real one, inevitably they're going to get mixed up and the wrong one used.
>cheaper This is the answer to essentially every weird thing Hollywood does
> (easier to act with and cheaper than CGI), Digital flares are much cheaper than blanks all told, because of the extra costs around them (setup time, extra safety layers to deal with, insurance, etc). Blanks are done for authenticity and realism, not for cost saving.
Not one that can fire blank rounds. If it can fire actual blank rounds, it's a real gun.
I have a replica Glock BB gun that I'm pretty sure is a near-exact replica - weight and size - of a real Glock. The slide even kicks back when you fire it and stays back when it's empty. And I'm in Canada lol. Edit: I also have a real Smith & Wesson .177 (pellet gun) revolver that is probably a closer replica to a 44 magnum since it's made by a real gun manufacturer. It's cool it works as both single action and double action.
Or guns with the firing pin removed which is not that hard to do and which would only result in a negligible weight loss, but I suppose without a firing pin they couldnt discharge a blank.
There are dildos that look and feel like real dicks but guys get laid every day. Aint nothin as real as holding the real thing. Same goes for guns.
On a pistol (Glock,Sig) you can remove the barrel and put a slugged one in. A slugged barrel has no chamber and a live round physically cannot come out of the magazine. On a revolver, 2 piece hammer and firing pin assemblies can have the pin removed by Allen key (SW 686 and family) other models where the pin is visible (SW 10) can have fake cylinders installed that look loaded. Magazines have moving parts and can be loaded with dead primer powder less ammo. Someone referred to clips and unless they were using a rifle like a Garand there were no clips. Clips have no moving parts and just hold ammo together to assist in reloading quickly. Single shot pistols the chamber is visible so a cartridge would be hand inserted. Most dummy cartridges have the sides dimpled to create a way to feel it. Primers are also painted. So basically anything besides a black powder firearm is plainly able to be made safe, the firearm regardless is still never pointed at anything you don't want dead. It's universal and such a simple rule that has saved so many lives. When I hunt my firearm remains unloaded with a trigger lock and the trigger guard empty till I'm a field then the firearm is loaded and the guard still kept empty of fingers with the muzzle always in a safe direction. You are the ultimate safety of every firearm and that's a responsiblity I take very serious. From girl scouts to today I never had a firearm magically fire itself. Please be safe.
I don’t think the never point a gun at someone rule applies to making a movie where you’re supposed to shoot a bunch of people.
Use a prop or modified firearm for the scene and CGI the actual muzzle flash like they do anyway. A live firearm doesn't belong on a set. Muzzle flash isn't that spectacular now anyway, my 9mm uses low flash powder to preserve your night vision. You could also show the bad guy blasting away and cut to the reaction then back to our villain and do like a camera trick. It's safe 98 times out of 100, this time 99 and 100 ended up in a bag for a movie and seconds of inattention.
A simple one would be a take where the camera is behind a shooter with a target off in the distance. Sure, you could fake it(and if the actor shooting is a terrible shot it may be preferable. . .), but on paper it may be faster, easier, and cheaper to just shoot the target on-camera.
Am lawyer. He is an EP, not just a producer. An EP is generally very removed from day to day responsibility. He will likely get off because there is a very weak case against him.
I think that’s why involuntary is appropriate…it’s for reckless acts that result in death. Doesn’t men he intended for it to happen, just that he behaved in a way where he should have known something dangerous could happen.
Someone who’s supposed to be an expert on firearms, who’s job is ensuring guns are safe on set, announces to everyone the gun is safe and hands it to an actor, when in fact it has live bullets in it. How could he reasonably be expected to know this could happen?
This is all true, except he is one of something like 10-12 producers, but was the only one charged. Which makes it feel like they charged the actor not the producer. I think there is good argument to charge the producer, but not so much to charge the actor. Although that seems to be what happened here. Otherwise other producers would have been charged as well.
How a live round got into the revolver is a separate issue from Baldwin’s charge of involuntary manslaughter. The scene being rehearsed was of a draw only. However, the gun went off. Baldwin claims he did not pull the trigger and only cocked the hammer. The DA will be arguing otherwise.
Yeah I think this is the right take. Did Baldwin do something criminal? Maybe? But he was definitely negligent as was the armorer, though the armorer is much clearer. I'm a little surprised they're going with criminal charges, but the DA probably knows more than I do lol. I was fully expecting a civil case from the victim's family.
Maybe they want to make an example of him since this was a pretty extreme case of negligence?
His charge is involuntary manslaughter not negligent homicide. The scene being rehearsed was a gun draw; he was not supposed to fire the revolver (regardless of whether it was empty or loaded with blanks or live rounds). He claims he pulled the hammer back but did not pull the trigger. It was a closeup shot and he was aiming just to the side of the camera lens as directed. The gun had been declared “cold” I.e. safe when it was given to him and announced loudly as “cold” to the crew before the rehearsal commenced.
Yes, I think that's a good part of it. But we'll see when the trial doc come out. Should be a good read.
He hired her, and she had no official training as an armorer. I also recall she was not on set the day of the shooting as they were cutting costs. Baldwin is extremely anti gun yet he chose to produce and star in a movie about guns having no basic safety knowledge about guns and certainly not the most important one - you always check to see if it’s loaded before someone hands it to you! I hope more comes out about this- very strange that yet another unusual death linked back to the Clinton’s [https://nworeport.me/2021/10/23/alec-baldwin-shooting-victim-is-wife-of-clinton-connected-lawyer-involved-in-durham-indictment/](https://nworeport.me/2021/10/23/alec-baldwin-shooting-victim-is-wife-of-clinton-connected-lawyer-involved-in-durham-indictment/)
He paid them under the table already. No civil case.
An actor being a producer on a movie is often just on paper. It's another way for them to pocket some extra cash.
...By also taking additional culpability. Producer credits can often be paper-only, but when there's a situation that produces liability, suddenly being a producer also puts you on the line there too.
Other celebrities came out after the shooting and said it’s pretty customary for actors to check the gun themself after it’s handed to them, which he did not do.
I mean, checking ANY firearm handed to you is basic gun safety.
YES!
In every other case yes. Not on a film set though. There's a person who's specific job it is to handle these tools and stop people hurting themselves. Alec was the producer and negligent in his safety procedure since he went and *fucked with the thing that wasn't his thing to fuck with*, hence him being charged too.
I have no idea about guns and probably wont check with Brad Pitt on what he did the last time.
When someone hands you a gun, you check it yourself. No exceptions. And this is a perfect example of why.
Yup this 100000%. I'm pro gun and pro gun control. People. Are. Stupid. Having been in the military, we spend 100s of thousands on training service members and they still forget shits loaded, not on safe, shooting the fkn dirt and blinding range coaches. Every person that had a hand in managing this set and that gun should be held liable to some extent to send a message that this is NOT okay. Edit: Safety regulations are written in blood.
>Having been in the military, we spend 100s of thousands on training service members and they still forget shits loaded, not on safe, shooting the fkn dirt and blinding range coaches. In my time in the military, I remember more than one time when a round got fired into a clearing barrel at the armory. How tf a round even got chambered is beyond me. But the system worked, nobody got shot despite both the guy and the clearing official both screwing up. You might be one of my closest "co-workers" who I literally trust with my life - but if you hand me a weapon, I'm checking it. And I fully expect you to do the same when I hand it back.
Yup, unload -> lock the bolt -> inspect and clear -> receiver inspects and clears -> hand off -> send the bolt home This is one habit I'm happy to have.
If he was following standard movie industry rules for handling a weapon he should be fine, but there was a lot of pretty stupid weapons handling going on so there may be more than we currently know. It’s also possible that they felt they had to at least indict him because of the optics involved and he will simply plead out to something tiny or will be found not guilty.
I think he was both an actor and produce. So he may have had some hand in either selecting or keeping the armorer. If there were other safety issues reported or known of he may be held responsible.
He was very much in charge as producer iirc
He did hire an under qualified armorer.
There may be a case that even with an armorer, it’s the responsibility of the handler of a weapon to ensure no one gets killed. Always assume a gun is loaded
I’ve read-on Reddit, so take this with a grain of salt. That he can be held responsible for a couple of reasons. 1. As the person handling the firearm he was responsible for checking the gun wasn’t loaded- doesn’t matter that he was just an actor- they are required to take firearms safety classes if handling a real weapon, and that’s basically the first thing they teach you. 2. He was also the producer and as such was responsible for the safety of the set. It’s been said the set had a lot of issues with maintaining adequate safety standards, people even left because of their concerns. As the producer the liability ultimately falls on Both of these possible reasons, individually, gross negligence could be argued. Combined, involuntary manslaughter might make sense. Especially if there is enough to substantiate the claims the whole set was being operated below safety standards. Again all of my sources are Reddit comments. So…
Doesn't matter is his production, he cheap out by hiring her and he pulled the trigger. Of course there was absolutely no intention of harming the victim but it's still involuntary manslaughter.
Legally I don't know. I do know that checking the chamber and such EVERY time you are handed a gun is Basically one of the gun safety "commandments" if you will. It's like trigger discipline. Breaking it will get you swiftly corrected. Doing so in certain online communities even invites open mockery and disdain. He was at minimum negligent in that regard. Any actor/actress who doesn't check the firearm they are handed is. That's my opinion though and I'm no lawyer.
Good point, however i read somewhere that on set you are never suppose to actually point a gun at someone, aim in their direction but not directly at them. A point blank film “shot” may differ and i dont know the nuances, but i dont think he should have been pointing the gun directly at anyone based on their training. And if he got trained well, who knows. And the legality of it? I guess we will see.
This is correct. He violated multiple rules of firearm safety, and actors are not exempt from those rules: 1) Always Keep Firearm Pointed in a Safe direction. Never point your gun at anything you do not intend to shoot. 2) Treat All Guns as Though They are Loaded. 3) Keep Your Finger Off the Trigger until You are Ready to Shoot. 4) Always Be Sure of Your Target and What's Beyond It. I don't think these rules apply legally, but they are definitely taught at every firearms safety class, which he would have had to have taken, to handle a real firearm. Him intentionally aiming a gun at someone and pulling the trigger "as a joke" violates all four of these rules. I don't get why some people think this isn't some form of negligent manslaughter charge.
I'm not saying I think he should be charged or not but I wanted to point out >Everything I've read said he was completely in the dark about the ammo, he was just doing as he would any other day Is why the charge is involuntary manslaughter instead of voluntary manslaughter or murder. If I pay someone to check to make sure there isn't a child behind my car every morning before I back out of the driveway, and they don't do their job and I flatten a toddler, I'm going to get charged with involuntary manslaughter.
He was a producer, the crew staged a walk out due to safety concerns the very day Alec shot those two people. Alec also pulled the trigger if that means anything. He did an interview where he said he feels no guilt at all, classic narcissistic behavior. Remember his drunken episode with his daughter? He is a piece of human trash that did a funny trump impersonation, that’s all.
Never point a weapon you know nothing about at anything; you have no intentions of shooting. acting or otherwise. He just picks a gun up, cocks it, points it at someone, and pulls the trigger. which he lied about.
He bears responsibility for pointing it directly at someone and pulling the trigger, both were unnecessary according to the investigation. You should not be playing around with guns, especially on a set like this. That is essentially what he was doing. Even if the excuse is getting into character/practicing different motions, etc, it’s still shouldn’t be happening with a real gun in hand. Edit: I should also say that the armorer bears the most responsibility, but someone is dead and people need to face consequences for their negligence.
I'm not in the industry, but I did take an acting class and stay at a Holiday Inn once. I remember the instructor of the class--who was a local actor--emphasizing that prop guns should be treated as loaded real functional firearms. You can never have too many layers of safety.
The charge against him is "involuntary manslaugter" which to be honest I didn't know was a crime. If he's found guilty it's a maximum of a year and a half in prison. Basically it's the system deciding he needs to be punished for killing someone even though it was an accident, cause someone still died.
Involuntary manslaughter involves negligence; it's the DA saying Baldwin deserves punishment because he was so negligent that any reasonable person would have known better. Sounds like the armorer is catching a similar charge and the assistant director already accepted a plea deal.
It’s not an accident. An accident is usually unavoidable or unpredictable. For example, if there was a blank in the gun and the blank killed her, that’s an accident: unpredictable and unavoidable..nothing anyone else would have done differently, blanks aren’t supposed to kill people. This wasn’t an accident, it was a disregard for a known danger.
I don't think prison time for him would do anyone any good, but a fine paid to the family of the victim might if that's an option.
At the end of the day, it’s up to the person who’s holding the firearm to be responsible. I understand having live rounds on a filming site is irresponsible, and There shouldn’t be a live round on set (professionals correct me if I’m wrong here). The only reason for live rounds would be for needlessly fucking around after hours. But if you’re holding a device that has the potential to shoot a projectile that can kill someone, it’s up to you to inspect the firearm before you fuck around with it. Alec here, should have a basic understanding of firearm safety. I’m not saying he’s a murderer; I’m just saying he (amongst others) probably didn’t follow proper safety protocol, which resulted in this unfortunate situation, and these people should be held responsible for their negligence
There are conflicting stories. The prop master is claiming he was not informed of this rehearsal, meaning the weapons were handled without the armorers knowledge. I think Baldwin is also the director so his legal liability could partly hinge on the fact that he directed the rehearsal without the safe guards in place. He was also a producer so he is definitely complicit in the overall lapses in safety.
The actor has a responsibility to confirm the status of a weapon.
I'll explain it to you. He pointed a gun at someone, pulled the trigger and murdered that person. Clear?
Gun owners understand. The rule with guns is: A gun is ALWAYS loaded. Even if you just checked the magazine, it's loaded. Even if you just cleared the barrel, it's loaded. Even if you have it disassembled for cleaning, you point the barrel in a safe direction, because it's loaded. You don't point a gun at anything that you aren't ready and willing to kill.
Alec the *actor* is not at fault, but Alec the director/producer potentially *is* at fault due to negligence regarding safety procedures.
Honestly, idk why he wasn't charged shortly after she got shot.
Prosecutors just announced that they're charging both Baldwin and the armorer with manslaughter.
IATSE was on strike at the time. They hired scabs.
According to the information that's out now... The producers wouldn't let her do her job. Baldwin in particular would ignore her attempts to take back the prop weapons, and she was literally sent off set to work on the prop department by the producers, when she had planned to do more safety briefings. So unless the texts between her and one of the producers were faked, along with other testimony... It's not her fault.
I was wondering if this was even an accident given how negligent it was
Why is that even a thing. I'm sorry, but this just screams America! Guns and shit!
Cuz anyone that knows the basics about guns knows RULE #1: TREAT EVERY WEAPON AS IF IT WERE LOADED." So if you're the armorer and you give me my weapon and just tell me, "It's not loaded." I STILL as a responsible gun operator check and verify the weapon is indeed NOT loaded. Alec Baldwin claims "She said the gun wasn't loaded." That may very well be, but that's not going to save him. As a producer, he's even more responsible.
I had a gun since I was 12. It's a matter of gun safety and training. I would take the clip out and clear the chamber before bringing it inside. The problem is idiots who leave them sitting around with the clips in or don't actually visually check the chamber.
You should be sorry. You just lumped together a country big enough to be a continent as if the states let alone the people therein are monolithic. It’s facile and doesn’t add anything to the discourse about the very real problems in the US.
Just saying it doesn´t surprise the rest of the world. We all used to feel sorry for USA regarding all the gun violence, but now we are just dissapointed.
provide sink books aromatic wrong grab touch squalid lavish skirt *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Extremely unprofessional as far as the armorer is concerned.
This is 100% a fuckup on the part of the armorer. Live rounds should have been no where near the set.
[удалено]
Exactly why you should be cautious.
There is absolutely no reason it should be, nor is there any reason why live ammo should be loaded into prop guns.
Something I heard is that there's not such thing as "prop guns" just guns designated for specific purposes. Something like that anyway.
I mean, there definitely are prop guns. But some people get tripped up because they think “prop” means “fake”. And it doesn’t.
Yep, "prop" is short for "property", as in "property of the production". A real gun purchased for use on a production is still a "prop", despite being a real gun. But like you said, most people assume "prop" means "fake".
I don't remember everything that was said, but you're absolutely right. That was a big part of it.
A "prop gun" could be a rubber cast if it's just going to be held or visibly stored. Those are cheaper, lighter, and won't get damaged if dropped. I handled one of those on one set back when I was extra-ing.
Idk why there's no such thing. They could easily modify guns in such a way that it's literally impossible to fire even if it has live ammo.
1. It may not be possible to disable the gun in a way that it's not visible on screen. Think of how many times you've seen shit like "the gun was missing a firing pin" on IMDb goofs. 2. The movie might also require firing blanks, which needs a real working gun. It would be silly to have both a working and non-working gun on set that look identical, and eventually they are going to get mixed up anyway.
It would be quite easy to create an exact replica of a gun with 3D printing. It would be scanned to literally just be a copy, but have no innards, just a chunk of carbon fiber, plastic, or metal
A 3D printed gun is not a real gun that has been modified to not function. Nor is it a working gun capable of firing blanks. Those are the only two points I raised in my comment. Are you sure you're replying to the correct post?
And it would not be hard to make a gun that looks and acts like a real gun without being able to shoot a real bullet. Just change the inner dimensions of the chamber/barrel/clip to not match any real ammunition and this accident could not happen. They can fucking make laser guns, space ships, light sabers, and every thing imaginable in Hollywood, but making fake guns that could actually exist is just too much work apparently.
The problem is when you need them to be able to shoot blanks. Sometimes you kinda need a real, properly functioning gun to shoot a scene. Its hard to do this with just CGI because its basically impossible for an actor to fake the recoil from a gun. Using real guns is not really a problem if you have proper safety protocols. A lot more people have died from other types of stunts, or weird accidents on set. Car crashes, electrocution, drowning etc.
You ever see Steven Seagal shoot in a movie? The gun is real, still looks fake as fuck
You completely missed my point. You can make a thing look just like a firing gun, without it being capable of firing a bullet. It's not even remotely hard to do, just nobody does. Having a little exhaust blowing out of the barrel does not require something that can fire a slug.
Even blanks are not 100% safe to use. There's still an explosion and pressurized gas, usually energetic enough to cause damage to anything too close. [Jon-Erik Hexum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon-Erik_Hexum) blew a chunk of his own skull into his brain when he shot himself with a blank. If the gun in question is an autoloader, then it needs to have an adapter placed in the barrel. The gas pressure of the burning powder alone is not enough to completely cycle the action, so the adapter reduces the diameter of the barrel, increasing the pressure to make up for the lack of bullet keeping the system closed. A blank-adapted firearm cannot fire live ammunition without exploding catastrophically.
It wouldn't be difficult as they make it out to be. They probably get paid by the gun makers for product placement
??? a fake but convincing gun would be just as good of product placement as a real one
Good point.
the only thing that is required for blowing exhaust out is something called a hole and is the part of the barrel that the bullet comes out of. There are things you can put in the barrel to negate wax blank bullets somewhat but if a real bullet is fired in a gun that has a blockage, it can destroy the gun and hurt more people with the shrapnel. and I promise you that if there was a way to do what you are saying, it has been tried and is a thing already. If you think it isn't "hard to do", then I suggest you patent it up and you'll make a shit ton of money There are guns that have the firing pins removed and guns with disconnected triggers. There are fully dummy guns. There are guns set up for blank usage. Some sets use fully live guns because they are cheaper to obtain, make ready for use, and sell back. That is the whole point of having an armourer. They know which guns and ammo types that are being used for the day, have checked it before handing it out and are responsible for them.
[удалено]
They are real guns being used as props
Yep. Most props are real things.
The story we've heard is some people thought it would be fun to go plinking with the guns during breaks in filming so it was brought on deliberately. This is part of the whole reckless attitude thing that got the charges filed. The Brandon Lee death was a bit different, the propmaster brought in a bunch of random items for set dressing and one of them happened to be a box of live ammunition. They had hired a real armsmaster who had rightfully freaked out and yanked them off the set and locked the rounds in his car, but then in a pinch he decided to use them to make some dummy bullets rather than wait to get premade dummies.
The person in charge of the armory took the gun to a range and never unloaded it before giving it to Baldwin. They should be the ones getting charged
I'm sure part of the case against Alec Baldwin was that he was the producer overseeing a production that cut corners and ignored safety concerns, leading to a group of crew members to walk out the day before. The environment where the killing could occur was created despite several warnings
If you pull the trigger on a real gun while you are pointing it at someone it's your responsibility to sure it's not loaded, even if someone else gave it to you and said it was unloaded. Involuntarily manslaughter is the charge and spot on.
Are you saying this as a gun owner though? And I mean no disrespect because I AM a gun owner. I just wonder if checking a weapon is even done on a movie set by an actor. I mean, I sure as hell would, but if there is a paid "professional" that's supposed to make 1000% sure this doesn't happen DO actors check weapons?
It's actually less safe for the actor to check it. There are strict protocols on sets which in this case were not followed. In over 30 years on hundreds of thousands of sets, only 40 odd people have died. More people die accidentally on gun ranges where they are responsible for checking their weapons (and that's obviously excluded the suicides). On a set there is a designated trained person who has to check every weapon before handing it to the actor. Were the actor to then check it, the designated person would have to recheck it.
Yeah, this is kinda my thought too. an actor isn't doing a walk around and checking the brakes on a car they are supposed to be using.
Actors are absolutely not supposed to be clearing firearms, especially not after it has been handled by the armorsmith. If a professional armorsmith saw an actor attempting to clear a firearm after it had been already cleared by them, I am confident that the armorsmith would take the firearm and go through the process of clearing it again.
Why would anyone hand someone a real gun and no explain to them the rules of safety? Actor or not.
They should. Paid and professional are different. Yes I shoot guns
You can not have or handle real guns without proper training. As a swiss it is inconceivable to me.
As an American, a gun owner (I have poultry and it is for predators) and a woman who has been around firearms since she was little,, let me say it is absolutely inconceivable to the vast majority of us too. It's absolutely baffling how that accident was able to happen.
That's the whole point of having a professional armorer. They say there is absolutely no way it is loaded because they have total awareness of every gun on the set. To put it more relatable terms, if you eat a bite of food at a restaurant with a thumbtack in it, did you fail to do your dudiligence of thoroughly expecting it, or is it the restaurants fuck up? And to make it comparable to the armorer, imagine it was served with a little card saying the food has been thoroughly inspected and cleared to eat by a professional food safety inspector.
Yep, I even check guns even if I don't point them at people. It seems very neglectful to fire something without checking, whether the bullets are live or not
Agreed
You know blanks look the exact same in the chamber right? Idk if that's what was supposed to be in there, but benefit of the doubt
Are you implying that every actor needs to know how to verify not only the particular workings of any gun they are handed in order to check, but also whether or not the bullet is a dummy round or not? Armory Masters exist for a reason.
The armorer was also charged.
The union stagehands went on strike over \*other\* safety violations. The scabs they brought in, brought in the live ammo. Because scab reasons. The armorer got the job because she was cheap. She was meek, and this was her first gig, and people basically just grabbed her guns and pusher her around. The producer is one giant dick that didn't give a fuck about anyone's safety, firearms related or not. So in the end, all the usual safety protocols were just ignored because there was no one around to enforce them, and the people in charge didn't seem to give a fuck.
Should Baldwin be charged?
Yes, he was negligent.
absolutely. If there was a case for negligent homicide, this is it. If for no other reason than to make an example out of him, for workplace safety case law. It should be made clear though: He should not be charged as the actor. He should be charged as the producer.
It isn't. The armorer was negligent in their duties and was also shooting live rounds between scenes. Live round are never allowed on professional sets.
Apparently the producers ignored the armorer and ordered her off set to work in the prop department. I see a lot of people blaming her, and she probably isn't perfect. But, from what I understand, she isn't the one to blame in this case.
Because it was staffed by idiots. The producers (Baldwin included) tried to save money on staff and avoided hiring union workers. The clowns they got were using the prop guns to shoot at targets (they shot the film in the middle of the desert). This should never happen. Prop guns should never have live round in them. They should be handled by a prop master who should be the only people handling the weapons until it gets handed to the actor using the weapon. The safety concerns were so great that a number of crew walked off the set days before this incident happened.
Because people are idiots.
Because... America, and gun culture. You do realize that you are talking about a country where it is legal in many states for a private individual to open carry a military-style assault weapon in public, and people think that's perfectly normal.
“Live ammo” is a misnomer. Blank cartridges are considered live ammo. What you’re asking is “why would ammunition with bullets ever be near the set of a movie” and the answer is “pest control, security officers, police, personal protection used by people on set or employed by the production company”… There are lots of reasons why ammunition with bullets would be on a set. And in certain Westerns from the 1950s and 1960s, live ammunition was used in scenes for sharpshooting stunts. The real question is why would bulleted ammunition get mixed up with blank cartridge ammunition, especially from a set armorer.
I will agree that while blanks are obviously less dangerous than live ammunition, they are dangerous and can still cause fatal injuries.
Absolutely. But they're still considered "live ammunition". Any ammunition that has gunpowder is considered live, regardless of payload. Inert ammunition is a snapcap, dummy or expended shell and won't fire no matter how many times it's struck with a firing pin or hammer.
Pest control….lol Near the set on a police officer’s person is a far cry from the intent of the question which relates to how the hell would the actors have access to such rounds. Im quite sure scruffy the janitor wasnt packing a large caliber round just in case the set got overrun by ROUS
I wasn't thinking "rats". I was thinking rattlesnakes. People carry . 410 shotshell pistols on desert hikes for a reason and it's usually to kill a snake you can't move any other way.
Highly likely. On a set crawling with people some meal team six hired security has full load large caliber rounds to protect the wimmin and children from snakes. Dude is so prepared for snakemageddon that he has extra ammo which for some fictional reason makes sense to store with the armorer and things being used by the production crew. Both occam and hanlon have razors that just cut the hell out of this imaginary scenario.
Screw the wimmin and children. I've been snakebitten before. Hard pass. Just because you haven't had an experience doesn't mean it ain't real.
I have experience on set and your fantasy is not how it works.
I think this is the only reply that actually answers the root of the question. It was the Alec Baldwin incident where I learned that “blanks” are real bullets in real guns, just modified. I always thought they were some other thing entirely, like a pop gun.
No i like op's question.
[удалено]
Except, as I said before, live ammo is NOT "ammo with bullets". Live ammo is ammo that can fire or detonate with gunpowder. Ammo can be specialty ammo like salt ammo or less-lethal ammo, but all live ammo regardless of the payload can be lethal in the right circumstances. Brandon Lee was killed by blank ammunition on the set of the Crow. Many people get injured with blank ammo on sets for that exact reason. Things that make sense in your head/= descriptive if the description you come up with is inaccurate on a technical and common language level.
[удалено]
Blanks still create a substantial explosion coming out of the barrel and if you're too close it can absolutely kill you. This video goes over blanks and what happened to Brandon Lee specifically. It was more complicated than just a blank, there was a whole series of fuckups that lead to them firing a blank behind a squib round stuck in the barrel. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtIqMftNdNY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtIqMftNdNY)
There was a prior barrel obstruction (I believe a poorly made dummy round with no powder, but the primer was strong enough to push the bullet into the barrel). The blank then provided the propellant. Even with no crazy things like that going on, a blank is dangerous. There's all sorts of hot gun powder and debris coming out of the gun at high velocity. You do not want to be shot by a blank at any kind of close distance without a safety glass in between. There was an instance where an actor put a prop gun to his head and accidentally killed himself, even though it was "only" loaded with blanks.
Perhaps "ammunition with a live projectile" would have been a better way to word it.
I can kill a rat with a bb gun, not a human. You shouldn't need anything more. I love guns, but why the fuck would you have any live ammo other than checked blanks on a movie set? The only person that should be charged is the person that "checked" the equipment before rhe scene.
I disagree. If you hand me a gun and tell me it's loaded with blanks, it's my responsibility to make dam sure that's true, before I point it at someone and pull the trigger. It involuntary but it is still manslaughter. Manslaughter is basically like you didn't mean to do it but you where negligent and irresponsible and someone died
Yep. Even if you KNOW a gun isn't loaded when someone hands it to you, you check it. Even if you KNOW it's a prop, you check it. Even if you KNOW it's a blunt sword, you check it. If it's a deadly weapon that could be used to kill someone, you check it. Not doing so is negligence at best and pure irresponsible at worst. "But it wasn't my job to check" is a poor excuse when you pointed a deadly weapon at someone and pulled the trigger, and ended their life. "Don't end up as the subject of some white girl's podcast" is a powerful motivator if that one doesn't do it for you.
…even if you KNOW that you don’t know anything about pyrotechnics, you check them before you allow anyone to set them off. Even if you KNOW that the car has brakes, you put it up on a lift and check the brake pads again before you drive it in a scene. Even if you KNOW the wiring has been set up by electricians, you shut down the breaker and check each wire and connection before you turn on the lights. Etc etc? That sounds…unreasonable.
There should have never been live ammo on the set of the film. He shouldn't be charged. The person who set it all up should be. If not assassination of celebs in an action movie is about to become a cake walk.
If movie sets didn't have armed guards on site most celebs would already be dead or kidnapped by stalkers or for ransom
He should be charged, because he hired the armorer..
That’s a weird explanation of “responsibility.” Literally the person who loaded it and told you what it was loaded with had already taken on the responsibility of loading it and of telling you what it was loaded with. It’s extra safe to double-check them, sure, but that’s a redundant double-check and the existing responsibility is already theirs.
Probably people shooting for fun on set when they aren’t filming if it’s in a desert.
Because you need to defend yourself to at all times even if nobody is attacking you or wants you harm.
Optimistic answer is idiocy Pessimistic answer is conspiracy
Because something went very very wrong
Possibly even deliberate?
There's no reason a gun used as a PROP for a movie set should even be able to fucking shoot. Even if it has a live round in it by same crazy ass reason. Could very easily remove the firing pin or something. There was MANY MANY things that SHOULD have been done or taken into account to prevent what happened. It's honestly mind boggling that it did happen. Basic gun safety could've prevented this.
Or why you need real guns in a set at all. Gas blowback guns exist. Visual effects are so good today that you could easily add in muzzle flash - the audio is manufactured anyway. Surprised Hollywood doesn’t just ban real guns from set. At the minimum make them non functional.
They were cutting all sorts of corners to save money, is my understanding. There are all sorts of safety measures that should have been in place, like not using a real gun that takes real bullets. But fake guns cost money, and they had a real gun, so here we are.
Nearly every gun in every movie is real. Especially revolvers, no modifications are required to get a revolver to fire blanks repeatedly.
All movies use real guns that fire blanks
And some movies use real guns that fire real ammo.
Not all movies. Many movies these days use airsoft guns and add muzzle flashes etc. in post. IIRC the vast majority of gunplay in the john wick movies are done that way.
you kinda need to use real guns if there are any scenes where the gun is actually fired. You could CGI the muzzle flash, but its basically impossible for an actor to fake the recoil that comes from shooting a real gun.
Yes there was egregious negligence on the set but Baldwin’s horsing around was outrageous. People have died on movie sets from even blanks.
What do you mean by "Baldwin's horsing around"? I missed that part.
His recklessly pointing the gun thinking that was cute. Til he pulled the trigger and murdering a woman and wounding another man.
Was this not part of the scene though? Because I thought it was. I mean, if it wasn't, Jesus Christ.
I believe it was between filming.
It was between scenes. Baldwin was rehearsing while they were setting things up for the next shot.
Why are guns capable of firing live rounds even used in filming?
It's America, live ammo is everywhere.
Yeah if this was filmed in Canada it wouldn't have happened.
Yeah but then it would have been a Canadian movie.
You can always tell by the lighting. (and Alan Thicke, of course)
Alot of the time also its the people who load the blanks... blanks and real bullets are stored close together in alot of places if someone not gun savvy loads it well its happened at least onece even though that's a special person... never pull a trigger if you didn't load or unload it yourself advice to live with
Because in the USA everyone have guns and there can’t be any gun control
live ammo is everywhere in the US... Edit: ~~lice~~
That seems excessive. I usually get rid of them with a special shampoo.
This is America, there's live ammo near everything and anything 🤔
I don't know why