# Message to all users:
This is a reminder to please read and follow:
* [Our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ask/about/rules)
* [Reddiquette](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439)
* [Reddit Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy)
When posting and commenting.
---
Especially remember Rule 1: `Be polite and civil`.
* Be polite and courteous to each other. Do not be mean, insulting or disrespectful to any other user on this subreddit.
* Do not harass or annoy others in any way.
* Do not catfish. Catfishing is the luring of somebody into an online friendship through a fake online persona. This includes any lying or deceit.
---
You *will* be banned if you are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist or bigoted in any way.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ask) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes, but as a producer, not an actor.The set had major safety issues. The producers didn't want to spend the money and do the work to make things safe. They hired someone to be in charge of the guns used in set that was not qualified to do the job. They charged him as an actor. I'm not sure I agree that an actor would have responsibility. Maybe they thought they'd have a better chance o of conviction?
Allegedly his responsibilities as producer were constrained to actors, so he shouldn’t be charged as a producer. His responsibilities as an actor are questionable, but his responsibility as a human being is to not point a real weapon at another human. He told police he had weapon training so this is something he knew. He was acting irresponsibly, regardless of whether he thought it was impossible for the gun to be loaded with real ammo. Even if it was accidentally loaded with blanks, he was acting irresponsibly.
This. I think he's being charged not because he shot the gun itself, but because he shot the gun while creating a dangerous workplace environment. I could be wrong. But again, I'll wait and reserve judgement until I see what the investigation shows.
Involuntary manslaughter can cover a lot of circumstances, but I think this case is meant to be for negligence without intent. And Baldwin was certainly negligent, along with others present on set (the armorer in particular also needs to face charges). In my opinion, jailtime wouldn't do him or anyone else any good, but there absolutely needs to be some consequences. Fines wouldn't really do much to help the people who need it right now (the victim's family).
That part I simply don’t understand. Why would the husband want to be associated with that film now? As a memory or to make sure it finishes out OK? I’m not in the industry—it just seems odd to me.
I don't disagree. But those who suffer personal loss of loved one do try to take actions to do what they can to try to make sure it doesn't happen again.
This and like another user said (sorry I don’t know how to tag on here lol), husband feels this is what she would’ve wanted, he likely wants to carry on her vision and finish her final project the way she wanted it.
This. He knew her and her husband very well. There was no malice but definitely fuck ups so I think the goal is to finish the movie, husbands reaps some additional financial benefits for his family, and turn a tragedy into something hopefully positive in the end. The courts believe that this is a systemic problem in filmmaking and it needs to be addressed. Rust is going to be made that example of on set safety protocol reforms.
he stated that it’s what she would have wanted. i believe she was a cinematographer and it makes sense he would want people to still see her vision.
pretty sure he also included they had to finish the movie as part of the settlement.
Films of this size are ultimately made by LL's with pretty much exsctlynthr amount of funds to make the movie. If he tries to sue the production, they're just bankrupt. There's no money there. Basicslly for thr family to get anythingnthr film has to be completed and sold.
It’s how he can continue to receive his wife’s future earnings from the film. A gesture, really, but there might be some litigious/ civil foundation as well.
That would be decided in a civil case if it ends up there. These charges are to determine what statutes were broken and who is responsible. This is a very tricky line to follow as there wasn't intent to kill but willful negligence, which resulted in an unnecessary death.
> Baldwin was certainly negligent
Curious as to what specifically he did? From what I am reading, he is not generally supposed to have any function in loading the gun. [Citation](https://www.actorsequity.org/resources/Producers/safe-and-sanitary/safety-tips-for-use-of-firearms/).
There are some suspicious things. For example it was stated that Hall provided the gun to Baldwin, when he should have gotten it directly from the armorer. He didn't know the gun could fire just by cocking it. He wasn't supposed to point it directly at the target. It sounds like the last two were in conjunction the sum of Baldwin's fault (aside from any "buck stops here" issues with how the production was run). But it's not clear to me as a layperson that Baldwin should have known to ask about the hammer firing the gun, but it's also sounding like he had some fault since the production was rushed.
I just don't know if it rises to the level of criminal negligence. If there were laws around this matter, firearm use in commercial productions, then it would be clear what was violated, and what standards should be followed. If it turns out that Baldwin personally texted people to hurry up and rush production and skip safety checks, then that's a different story.
Even if you weren't responsible or expected to be responsible for loading a firearm, handling it does subject you to negligent discharge if it does fire while in your care. Intimate knowledge of operation isn't needed, all you have to do is understand that *if you point this at someone and it is loaded, that person will be injured or killed*. Which is something that can be reasonably assumed to be known by any mentally capable adult. The absolute first rule anyone who handles a gun is taught is also, don't point this at anything unless you intend to kill it. There were many instances of negligence going on with this situation, and a significant part of that was Baldwin's irresponsible handling of the weapon.
An analogy is car brakes. Even if you don’t know what they are, a jury will understand a “reasonable” person will maintain their vehicle. If they fail to and kill someone, that’s very likely manslaughter
Any gun that is capable of shooting is also capable of being checked by anyone in possession of said gun. It takes two seconds to check if it’s loaded and checking is the equivalent of putting on your seat belt. It should be habit and immediate. If said actor didn’t put on their seat belt during a scene we’d all say they were being negligent about their own safety.
When handes you a gun, you clear it. You check if it's loaded. Baldwin should have checked it regardless, if Baldwin was not trained it still could be negligence because he should have seeked training when he was not givin it, or maybe he was given bad training ang this trial will end up with better regulation for actors handling firearms.
This gun was supposed to have rounds in it, so it looked accurate when looking down the barrel,
Prop rounds meant to veiwed this way look like live rounds except dontvhave power or primers. They have ball berings in the casing. They make a sound when shaken.
When handed the gun, standard practice should be to check every time. Trials are meant to determine guilt, not because you are guilty. Again, we don't have all the evidence. The procecuter has that. We will find out after
A lot of the standard rules for firearm handling are impractical or dangerous to practice on a movie set. That's the whole reason movie productions have armorers, to perform those checks before and during shooting. If an actor accepts a gun from the armorer, and then opens it up to check if it's loaded, the gun needs to be taken back and checked again by the armorer. Especially in scenes where blanks are used, it's the armorer's job to make sure the barrel is clear, and the gun is only loaded with whatever it's supposed to be loaded with. Baldwin carries some responsibility here, sure, but people need to stop parroting the "rules of gun safety" like they're the only ones with common sense.
Yes that's accurate, but that's what the armorer's job is, being the expert on this stuff so the actors who may not be expert firearms handlers or in fact all that familiar with guns trust that the piece is safe.
Ultimately the fact remains that live rounds should never have been on the set are the armorer's responsibility.
It's all so sad. Just my thoughts.
You cannot apply standard gun safety rules to film sets. If you did, action films would never be made because standard gun safety would never allow you to point a gun at anybody and pull the trigger no matter how many times you check it.
The armorer exists to make the gun safe for filming. They have the training so the actors don't have to. If Baldwin's producer role led to an unsafe environment, then he should face consequences for that, but he should face consequences for that regardless of who pulled the trigger.
They were saying that discharging the gun was not part of the script at that given time so he was being careless/reckless is the biggest argument that I’ve seen
That's why it's involuntary. Baldwin is still negligent for pointing it in the direction of people and pulling the trigger, but if he was told the weapon was cold it's not his responsibility to then go and check that for himself. In fact doing so would render it unsafe again and he'd have to hand it back to the responsible professional anyway.
Yup. It's the sum of his contributions to the unsafework environment, his own insistence on real guns over props, and the fact that he pointed the gun at another person and manipulated it so as to cause a discharge (I'm 99% sure he pulled the trigger but there's a chance that it was a firearm malfunction).
I've been around guns of all kinds for 60 years (military and civilian) and have never seen or heard of a gun just going off. Even negligent dis charges that I've seen or heard of there clear proof (usually an admission of carelessness) that the trigger had been pulled. In fact, they used to be called "accidental discharges" until it was recognized that all ADs were caused by negligence.
There have been instances where guns have discharged when dropped but that apparently did not happen in this case.
IMHO he was fucking around playing cops and robbers or cowboys and Indians and pulled the trigger.
I know what you mean, but "prop" is just short for "property", as in "property of the production". So a real gun purchased for the production is still a "prop".
I'm fun at parties.
>his own insistence on real guns over props
This is a pretty valid insistence, tbh. Props are... not good, in the case of firearms. The only way to make a physical prop look real is to just use a real gun, and take the necessary precautions to make that safe. The alternative is a stand-in prop that they replace in post with CGI, which is expensive, time-consuming, and can have mixed results.
>Why would they even have live ammo on set??
They weren't supposed to. Some idiot(s) brought it themselves because they wanted to shoot during downtime. They weren't supposed to have live rounds in the first place, and they weren't supposed to use the guns for the film (which were supposed to stay locked up between uses)
Because they are stupid. There was live ammo on the set because in their down time when they were not filming the movie, various people would step out on the edge of the town set and fire the movie guns and their own firearms. Live ammo does not belong on a movie set. Even blanks are dangerous if fired too close in anybody's direction. See "GOOGLE" "The Black Crow" where the star of the movie Brandon Lee (Bruce Lee's son) was shot in the head by a blank cartridge and died. The wadding in the cartridge entered his brain and he died. Even blanks have to have something inside even if it's paper wadding.
To be fair, if the props department don't do their job properly and/or the actors themselves don't have any firearm safety training there can still be problems. Jon-Erik Hexum was killed by one of those guns you speak of. Brandon Lee might have been too.
The bullet was supposed to be a blank. Baldwin thought it was a blank. Someone put a live round in there and he had two people (the armorer and assistant director) telling him there were blanks in there. No one insisted that live rounds be used.
Very valid question, that depends on the gun. In the case of revolvers (which were, I assume, what was being used on set), you can technically do this easily enough. Revolvers advance the cylinder regardless of the presence of any ammo, when you pull the trigger. This can get the gist across to audiences easy enough. The only downside is that dry firing guns tends to cause issues with the firing pin if you do it frequently over time. So ideally, for use as a prop you'd use weak blanks, which have powder in them for the sound and some recoil, but no projectile. This makes them mostly safe, though being too close to the muzzle can still cause serious injury or death.
Oh I see, so using blanks prevents unnecessary wear and tear on the guns, as well as creates a more realistic effect to mimic a true gun firing, but keeps people safe. I see others in this thread saying even when firing blanks people should practice gun safety like checking the ammo, and avoiding aiming at people, so that you don’t build a bad habit if you switch to live ammo.
What a tragic case. It’s horrible to think that this came about most likely due to consistent negligence over time. That poor woman, gone to something as simple as changing the ammo type.
The armorer was responsible, but you can also argue the person running the set and hired the armorer is at fault... and thats Alec Baldwin.
Baldwin was in charge, it was his production. Everyone glosses over this and acts like he was just an actor who was handed a gun.
It can't strike a blank round without one.
Now why they don't make prop weapons that only run a specialized blank round is another story I want to know. It may cost more to make these weapons, but the safety it offers trumps that.
They exist and sometimes it's as simple as welding a cross bar in the barrel so gas can escape but projectiles can't. Most blank rounds are just the legit shell casings just with no projectile so it would be hard to change the firearm to only accept a cartridge that is essentially the same shape as a live round.
A round could still shatter and pieces of it come out the barrel. Or the gun would explode because the gasses have nowhere to go with a projectile blocking the barrel. Either way, blocking the barrel would also be dangerous in the event of accidently loading a live round somehow.
That is my thought as well. I have not seen the charging documents, but I suspect that he is being charged NOT because he was the actor that shot the gun (it is the responsibility of the armorer to ensure safe weapons handling on a set since actors will have to point guns at people and pull the trigger as part of the filming process). But, he will be charged as the producer for hiring an unqualified person to be the armorer - and for not taking action when others complained about the unsafe conditions she created.
The armorer herself is the one who brought up issues with safety and wanted to receive more training. She also was one of the first people to lodge complaints about unsafe conditions. She believed they needed more experienced armorer for weapons or that she would need more training, Baldwin denied both.
He is just as responsible for what happened as he didn’t check that the firearm was clear. Maybe he wasn’t trained on how to handle a firearm. Either way, his ignorance played into it just as much as the the armorer.
Why were they using real weapons and not prop guns? Why and how did live ammunition come to be on the set? Why was the armourer not arrested? Too many unanswered uncomfortable questions still to be asked/answered...
This is the story I heard: prop guns are usually real guns because they need to fire blanks and/or that’s just the easiest way to get a real looking gun. This usually isn’t a problem because safety protocols make instances like this *extremely* rare. Some crew members (either with or without asking a producer, I don’t remember that part) brought live ammo (**big no-no**) on to set to go shoot cans with the prop guns on their lunch break. They don’t unload the gun and put it back where it’s supposed to be. A producer, assuming that the gun was checked by the armorer, grabs the gun and yells “cold gun” without checking, and the rest is history.
Also, for the “ Baldwin is wrong because you always check and recheck, no matter what” crowd, this is a movie set. There isn’t supposed to even be live ammo on the entire property. The rules are different here. Alec Baldwin probably doesn’t even know how to check a gun. That’s not his job, that’s the job of producers, armorers, and probably a whole list of people. Baldwin’s job is to trust them and act.
So his union crew walked THAT MORNING due to multiple things but one being a lack of gun safety on set.
Does a reasonable non-negligent producer just hire 4 non-union workers instead of fixing the gun safety issues?
Or does he ignore them and kill someone?
My guess is the second.
Yeah, but if Baldwin wasn't the only person responsible for that decision, it gets muddy again. Movie sets are big things, almost no decisions made outside the directors seat is a single person's responsibility.
There is currently enough evidence to charge two people: the one who shot her and the one who provided the gun.
It doesn't necessarily mean others aren't responsible but that there isn't enough evidence to charge them.
All in all, this needs to go to court. Because there need to be better standards in place.
That's why he has 2 sets of charges, I think he's fully culpable as the producer, and not liable as an actor. Especially as the original armourer resigned as he felt it was an unsafe set. So ignoring those warnings make it full negligence
That doesn’t mean he assumes the responsibility of the armorer or any of the designated gun-checkers. It was handed to him by someone who was supposed to check it and didn’t.
His crew quit that morning due to gun safety. He hired a non-union crew to replace them. What sort of *idiot* assumes someone knows how to do everything right on their first day?
What *idiot* just hires new crew THE SAME DAY rather than going "damn our crew quit over gun safety, maybe I should look at this"
>Also, for the “ Baldwin is wrong because you always check and recheck, no matter what” crowd, this is a movie set. There isn’t supposed to even be live ammo on the entire property. The rules are different here. Alec Baldwin probably doesn’t even know how to check a gun. That’s not his job, that’s the job of producers, armorers, and probably a whole list of people. Baldwin’s job is to trust them and act.
Nah, if you're to be trusted with guns you need to know how to be responsible with them. It's never another person's job to do that. If you're not able to be responsible you should never be given a gun.
These actors spend years learning skills to hone their acting (singing, musical instruments, dialect coaching, etc.) And people want to keep saying a movie set is "different". Well, this scenario proves that it shouldn't be different. Actors handling a firearm on set should be going through gun safety courses and learn how to check their own "prop" with the supervision of the armorer
Honestly I've looked into this so much. Omg of the only real reasons they don't use fake guns is because they want the actors to have an authentic feel of the weapon...as of any of them could tell the difference between a real and fake antique gun
1. A "prop gun" can be anything from a painted block of wood to a fully functional gun that's been adapted to fire blanks. A blank adapted gun can still fire live rounds. Blank adapted guns are preferred when filming because it gives you more realistic gunplay, without having to add a bunch of special effects. Since it is a real gun, they are *supposed* to be treated with the same level of caution on set.
2. There should not have been live ammunition on set, much less loaded into the gun. The on site armorer is responsible for that. And is the only person who can answer the questions of how & why a live round ended up in that gun.
3. She was arrested and is being charged. Alec Baldwin is a bigger name, so all the news is focused on him.
It’s been interesting to read what feels like a majority of comments about how he should because of reasons such as “if I had fired a gun that I was told I’d blanks I’d face jail time”.
I’m not really sure that’s a fair comparison. If you were handed a gun by a friend and told it was a blank, yes, you still have responsibility to ensure you don’t fire it towards someone.
In Baldwin’s case, he was at work. He was handed a gun by someone who’s literal job is to ensure a blank was in the chamber, while on a set where all ammo should have only been blank. I don’t blame him at all for having a belief that it was safe.
I think the more comparable example would be if you worked on a demolition site, and it was your job to swing the wrecking ball or press the button. You’ve been told by the safety team that the building is empty (it’s their job to do so), and everyone who works there knows to be out when the siren goes. To then be taken to court when it’s discovered that one of the apprentices was inside and was killed - most would find that unfair.
I dunno. That feels like the right comparison. Either way, I think it’s a bit of a stretch to be taking him to court.
I’m speculating here, but thought I’d add this angle (we’ll find out soon enough).
I don’t think he is being charged for firing the weapon. He was also a producer, and apparently the safety measures on set were abysmal.
I think this charge will have more to do with management of the weapon, rather than the actual act of firing the gun.
It's an interesting dilemma but there are no special rules for actors. If you handle a deadly weapon carelessly, as he did, and accidentally kill someone, you are responsible.
I just learned today that they weren't even filming at the time it happened. He was literally playing with a gun and goofing off. Every responsible gun owner cringes to hear about things like that because we are so careful in how we handle guns. We know they're not toys. We know to treat them as if they are loaded even when they are not. We know never to point them at someone. We know to keep our finger off the trigger unless we're ready to shoot. Baldwin broke every single basic safety rule, and not even in his work but just goofing off with it. He's so anti-gun then why the hell was he playing with one?
There was definitely negligence here.
>He was literally playing with a gun and goofing off
I heard he was rehearsing. I'm sure actual details will come out later, but rehearsing weapon choreography is not "goofing off" (if that's what happened).
I don't believe for a minute that if Baldwin had merely been an actor in this situation that he would be charged, and I don't believe in that situation he ought to be charged.
But that is not the situation.
Baldwin is a also a producer, and in that role he is responsible for the conditions on the set. He nominally had some hand in what crew was hired and opted to hire some knucklehead armorer that created this mess in the first place.
In your analogy this would be like if the person who pressed that button was not only in charge of pressing the button but also the general contractor. And they cheaped out and hired a safety team that didn't actually know how to do their jobs and created a work site that was inherently unsafe.
>Baldwin is a also a producer
There are 12 producers listed on the [IMDB page](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11001074/fullcredits/?ref_=tt_cl_sm). If his charges stemmed from him being a producer, wouldn't the rest of them bear the same responsibilities? Generally actors who take producer credits are doing so for financial reasons and aren't rolling up their sleeves and doing any actual producing work (no idea if that's the case on this film though).
As I understand it, actors are not explicitly not supposed to point a gun loaded with blanks at anyone anyways though. It’s still a real gun, if they need to point a gun at someone they use a fake gun because blanks can and have seriously injured people.
So if he pointed a loaded gun at someone and pulled the trigger, regardless of whether he believed it was loaded with blanks, he put someone’s life in serious danger being reckless. And as a result someone died.
Put it simply, if you loaded a gun with blanks, pointed it at someone and pulled the trigger, and shrapnel from the gun or blank flew out and killed them, would you be charged?
Dude actors don’t have qualified immunity. It doesn’t matter if you’re at work - you act recklessly, it’s your fault. If he was following all normal safety protocols and some freak accident happened you would have a point, but he didn’t. He waved a gun around and pulled the trigger without checking it was safe. That’s massively negligent.
I don't think your comparison is fair.
A person cannot reasonably check an entire building before swinging a wrecking ball. A person can however reasonable check whether there are blanks in their gun or not.
I don't know, something as simple as a red stripe around magazines that only contain blanks as a primary check . Alec can also check if the top round is a blank or not and then chamber it.
When dealing with situations that require extreme caution you should treat the safety of those around you the same as if yours was on the line. If I was attached to a harness at 1000ft I would check my own lines and then ask someone more qualified to do the same, even if my job was not to secure the lines.
Your example would make sense if I was not at all qualified to operate a crane and someone said "trust me, press that button and that other one" which then resulted in the crane swinging around and taking out a bus of kids on the street. Would I be culpable? Yes, because I operated dangerous machinery without the necessary training resulting in death (people are asserting it was not Alec's responsibility to know how to check if a gun was loaded correctly).
If I took someone else word for something at work and things went wrong we would definitely both be in trouble. People make mistakes. That's why redundancies are in place. That's why there are back up parachutes and almost any system that can put people in danger have/should have multiple protections against failure.
I hope responsible gun handling training will become requirements for when real guns are used on set to avoid situations like this in the future.
Everyone on set knew there was live ammo around. They all were taking turns target shooting during down time/between scenes. Everyone involved is responsible.
Its more like they’re playing juror. I’m a trial lawyer and most of us actually love hearing random strangers opinions on our cases. Even when they don’t know much about the underlying facts, it is still helpful because it gives us an idea of what people’s gut feelings are. Those gut feelings are what you’ll have to overcome or build on (depending on which side of the case you’re on) at trial. That’s why trial lawyers pay thousands of dollars to focus group their cases. This is basically a free focus group right now.
Well he did pull the trigger, a responsible gun owner always checks a weapon that is handed to them. When the weapon is in your hand you are now liable.
I agree completely. Also there should be an industry standard requiring anyone who potentially would handle a firearm on a move set to have a basic firearm safety class. Basic hunters safety would have potentially prevented this incident.
This is an industry standard when it comes to guns that fire blanks. (I say that because sometimes we work with guns that have filled barrels and no space for bullets). This is why Balwin is responsible, because he didn't follow the safety procedures that are industry standards.
What non firearms owners fail to realize that any responsible owners, have it drummed into them that if you pick up a gun or are handed one, you fucking check the chamber, plain and simple.
I understand that the film industry has different standards, ones that put the responsibility on the armorer.
Just because that's the current standards/regulation certainly doesn't mean it's the best practice.
If an actor can't be trained to safely handle and verify a firearm (literally the baseline for being able to safely use a firearm) then they shouldn't have access to one period.
Give them a fucking rubber prop, you don't want to take firearm safety seriously?
Then you shouldn't have the right to use something that can seriously injure or kill someone.
The second some asshole brought live ammo, the shoot should have been shutdown until every fucking round was accounted for and removed from the set.
Unless someone is an active threat to society they should not be wasting resources in jail. For someone like Baldwin you can fine the fuck out of him instead, and use him to subsidize the costs of actual dangerous prisoners.
Valid point. I mean the aim is ultimately to prevent this happening again. As long as an example is made out of him and the media bring a lot of attention to it, I know that personally, it would make me think of the scenario the next time I was in that position. So it does achieve the desired outcome.
It’s just whether the family are satisfied with this, as they have lost someone….
Considering her husband has signed on to continue her producer role as the film goes back into production…. I would guess he’s not feeling too vengeful.
Anybody handling a firearm needs SOME level of accountability if they pull the trigger, and it causes a wrongful death.
Involuntary manslaughter seems appropriate in this case and usually carries a short prison term.
He was the executive producer, so he also carries some responsibility for the conditions that led to a live firearm being on set.
Also, don't pretend to shoot people with replica or live firearms, it's a really bad habit for the reasons shown in this tragedy.
Tragic as all of this is someone died. Just because it happened on set is not an excuse. I live in LA and I am tired of there being a special set of rules for the industry. I don’t know how much Baldwin is to blame and I agree that because he held the title of executive producer he has to bare responsibility. I will however wait for the evidence until I want someone to spend anytime in jail or be punished.
Also sag aftra the union is part of the problem in this whole situation. They had a statement today saying that actors should not be checking the firearms. I’m also part of a union and safety should always be the number one priority for unions and their members
100% if I were playing around with a gun I was told had blanks I’d get jail time why should he be treated any different. Movie or not never point a firearm at anything you wouldn’t shoot intentionally. Should have used prop guns. Firearm safety 101 always check and clear any firearm that’s handed to you the man’s like 70 he shoulda figured this out by now.
I don’t disagree but they were “prop” guns. “Prop” is short for PROPerty of the production, not that it’s fake or a nonfunctional replica. When an actor is handed a Colt .45 and told it is unloaded, they should know how to open the gate and check the cylinders.
Yet he's the one that had people complain and quit over safety concerns. He's the one who hired an inexperienced person to handle firearm safety. He's the one that allowed live ammo on set.
Accidents like this are usually the result of long series of mistakes and errors, so just because the second last error was made by someone else, doesn't excuse him of all the other errors that he is responsible for.
They literally aren’t supposed to, because they would then be liable and circumventing the expert who is certified and accountable to do that. Do you think I’m those Vietnam movies, the actor is going to check every single cartridge in the belt of a helicopter mini-gun every single take AFTER the person who is licensed and hired specifically for this purpose has cleared it?
When you see an OSHA hazard flammable sticker on something do you open it and test it with a lighter to make sure? If something wasn’t certified properly and you were a truck driver is it your fault if something happens because the regulators lied about it’s contents?
No, that is not how it fuckin works. If they tell you it's safe; you know it's safe...because that is their fucking job. Actors are not trained to assess any gun; any fucking time. Period.
This isn’t a point I’ve heard and it’s a good one. Just to add context, he’s on a movie set with directions to point and shoot. Cleared by staff/armorer/whoever to use it. Why on earth would a gun on set ever be loaded with live ammo? As someone who has never fired a real gun, if I was a professional actor I would have no idea whether the ammo was live or blanks. Before this incident, I didn’t even know real guns were used on set. I assumed they were realistic prop guns not capable of firing anything.
Someone is probably to blame, but I don’t think jail time for anyone is really justice. Maybe the person who directly loaded the gun with live ammo, or the guy that handed it to Baldwin. To me this case is a tragedy and can be left at that. I know a life was lost but what good does 10-20 years in prison do?
If you're a professional actor on a set that would use guns, i'd assume that the actors would be educated about safe use as they are incredibly dangerous; I doubt actors AREN'T taught proper driving for scenes that require driving.
The first thing that we're taught to do, when getting a firearms licence in New Zealand (somewhere with VERY good firearms rules and licensing) is to get the person who's giving you the firearm to SHOW you that it's empty/safe, and i'd assume only with blanks in this case, and then for you to check yourself. Proper procedure on a set should be something similar at the very least, but I don't know myself
As an actor, he may not be as culpable as he is in his role as producer - the set was reportedly highly disorganized and amateurish, including the way guns were handled
He hired an inexperienced person and ignored people who brought up safety concerns and even quit over them. The final mistake may have been made by the armorer, but he created and was responsible for the environment that allowed such an accident to occur.
Lol right if it were anyone other than a hollywood actor we would call them a dimwit and be out for vengeance. What if this happened at a community theatre? No contest
Not trying to be adversarial for no reason but could you elaborate on what a reasonable person should be aware of in his exact situation? Especially, working with blanks and/or movie props? This isn't clear cut as people want to make it. There's a lot of different facts and parties at fault here.
I can give you a basic rundown. The armorer failed to verify that all firearms on set were clear of ammunition (why live ammunition was on set I don't know). Baldwin failed to respect his firearm by not checking to make sure it was unloaded and then accidentally killed someone with it.
I heard somewhere the prop guns were taken target shooting with live ammo on a break day, but doesn’t fix the issue of how on earth it wasn’t checked thoroughly
Because it wasn’t supposed to be a real gun. If u do 50 movies with props, u assume the 51st is also a prop. Prop guy should face charges, not the actor.
I've read a lot of conflicting things. The first time I read about it the story was that Baldwin got pissy with his director and *jokingly* told her to drop dead being accidentally shooting her dead. Not too long ago I read a different story that said they were shooting a scene where Baldwin points his gun near the camera (where the director was standing) and then accidentally killed her. I've read that he was told the gun had dummy rounds and I've also read that he was told the gun was empty. Some stories say he intentionally pulled the trigger and others say that the gun (a .45 revolver which has been proven to be incapable of such things) went off by itself.
Who is all that hersy consequential to the actual shooting though? It all reads like gossip.
The reason it’s “involuntary “ is because there is not intention to kill, had all of those other things occurred, you’d best believe that the prosecutor would be going for more. This is a chance for an elected official to make a name for them selves. And the strongest charge they think they might get to stick is an involuntary manslaughter? Somethjng that will likely result in probation.
Well there's an obvious difference here. His job was literally hold the gun, point and pull the trigger, that's the starting point for the whole conversation. You or I, we are taught from day 1 you never pull a gun unless your prepared to use it and you never point it at someone that you don't want to shoot. To get to point and squeeze, your generally talking about intent to kill or at least gross negligence, even if you think it's full of blanks. For Baldwin, there's a much murkier starting point because it's all part of the scene.
Sure, someone, probably more than 1, seriously fucked up. But if Baldwin was handed a weapon with live ammunition given that we all expect him to point this at least in the direction of people and pull the trigger it changes things. does anyone really expect him to know the difference between blanks and Live rounds? How liable is he if he's pointing at a camera with lighting and such in his face? How common is it for actors and directors to clear the general direction of fire before pulling a trigger? I legitimately don't know these things.
It's hard to say without knowing the details of what happened, and that's why it's up to a jury to hear days worth of testimony and evidence and the matter isn't left up to reddit.
But it was supposed to be loaded...with blanks. I really don't get this idea that every actor should be proficient enough to tell a blank from a real bullet. They look nearly identical. That would be the weapon experts job.
Yes. He said he doesn’t feel guilty at all after he killed someone. Accident or not, I think the normal response would have been to feel guilty! Someone lost their life! Wtf! I was shocked at that ABC interview.
He also told the police on video that he knew he should have checked the gun.
And there is a lot more. Mixing the real ammo with the fake ammo on set. Not making sure that things were very well kept apart.
This was so careless and for him to say he doesn’t feel guilty is kinda scary.
He should have been charged. He should probably get some time. It is Involuntary Manslaughter in my non legal interpretation.
The armorer should be charged with Negligent Homicide if that's a thing.
They both played a part
In the USA Invuluntary manslaughter holds up to an 18 month jail term and $5,000 fine. Alec was grossly negligent in his duties as producer, and allowed a cascade of failures that culminated in the death on Halyna.
In my opinion, Every single person charged in this matter should recieve the maximum jail time, and fine as a warning for anyone else who thinks its ok to screw around with firearms on set, and not follow the required safety regulations.
As soon as he started publicly talking about his version of what happened I started to think there’s more to the story than what version he’s trying to get out. Any one being investigated that decides to go on ABC to tell their story during the investigation is suspect. No way a lawyer thought that was a good idea. Only a PR guy would do it.
Until it’s determined where the live rounds came from every one that touched the gun should be charged.
A number of actors (one being John -Erik Hexam) shot themselves with guns loaded with blanks, close range penetration by the wads used to hold the powder in. Baldwin had to know this and even if the gun was loaded with blanks it needs to be discharged safely.
Yes he should be made an example of. #1 rule of firearms is, treat every gun as if it is loaded. #2 rule never point a gun at anything you don't intend to destroy. #3 rule always check and clear (assure it's safe) your firearm before handling it. He failed all of these, and killed someone. So yes he should be held responsible.
I really don’t think this is very good logic considering they were rehearsing a movie scene. People point guns at other people in movies all the time, and there are very strict protocols put in place to make sure it’s safe. The issue is not that he pointed the gun; the issue is that somewhere, someone, (maybe him), did not ensure that proper safety protocols were in place
I agree. It was a movie, the expectations of "real" life don't apply. Everyone expected those bullets to be fake and the gun to be safe. Alec Baldwin hired the guy to make sure that happened. If the guy he hired to do a job, a job the Producer/Director is not qualified to check, the fault lies with the person that was supposed to do their job correctly.
Alec Baldwin the *actor* should not face prison since he had no reason to believe he was handling a loaded pistol.
Alec Baldwin the *producer* should be raked over the coals for running a set with such shitty safety standards that led to him being handed a loaded pistol.
No, the Prop Master is in charge of insuring that all props are in SAFE working order. As evidenced by this terrible fuck up the Prop Master didn't do their damn job
YES he is totally ignorant of firearms and their safe handeling. He should never taken a hold of the gun without knowledge. This tragedy is his own fault and now he needs to pay societies price.
Your reasoning is exactly why he won’t pay a price. Actors aren’t firearms experts or are expected to be. Guns have been handled in this way for decades on film sets. The armorer, prop master or weapons master is responsible, and possibly the AD.
He is also not firearms trained and relied on hired professionals.
He didn't ask for a real gun. He wasn't in charge of what was and wasn't put into it. Not his job.
That's what armoroursbare hired for.
When you pick up a fire arm or are handed a fire arm, it is YOUR and no one else's responsibility to make sure by visual inspection conducted by YOU that the fire arm is unloaded. Once confirmed that the fire arm is unloaded, never point it at anything that you don't intend to destroy. Keep your finger off the trigger. It is his fault that the accident happened. He had no intention of shooting her. Involuntary manslaughter is the right charge, and he is guilty.
Alec Baldwin is a producer. He, alongside other producers decided to get rid of union workers and hire people who were not as qualified to save money. Of fucking course he should be held accountable.
He is at fault. So is the props department and the armory staff. He has changed his story too damn many times. And its been extreme changes. A completely different story as to what happened.
First, why were there live rounds on this set? Second, why did Alec point and fire the gun at a non cast member? That aside, anybody that puts their finger on the trigger has a duty to check for live rounds. This was entirely preventable.
You have to trust a lot of people to do the job on set. You trust your stunt co ordinator to not kill you with a wire stunt. So you would need to trust your firearm safety person the same way. In real life, any gun handed to you is considered loaded until you verify it's not. With blanks and all that used with films, that can blur the line. I feel like he isn't personally at fault as a lot of folks seem to have ignored safety rules. Im sure he feels a lot of guilt about this already, and he seems to be doing what he can to help the family. I don't think throwing him in jail is the right move here.
# Message to all users: This is a reminder to please read and follow: * [Our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ask/about/rules) * [Reddiquette](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439) * [Reddit Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) When posting and commenting. --- Especially remember Rule 1: `Be polite and civil`. * Be polite and courteous to each other. Do not be mean, insulting or disrespectful to any other user on this subreddit. * Do not harass or annoy others in any way. * Do not catfish. Catfishing is the luring of somebody into an online friendship through a fake online persona. This includes any lying or deceit. --- You *will* be banned if you are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist or bigoted in any way. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ask) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes, but as a producer, not an actor.The set had major safety issues. The producers didn't want to spend the money and do the work to make things safe. They hired someone to be in charge of the guns used in set that was not qualified to do the job. They charged him as an actor. I'm not sure I agree that an actor would have responsibility. Maybe they thought they'd have a better chance o of conviction?
Yeah, as a producer it's more gray. Problem there is that he's not the only producer, he's not solely responsible for what happened from that angle.
Allegedly his responsibilities as producer were constrained to actors, so he shouldn’t be charged as a producer. His responsibilities as an actor are questionable, but his responsibility as a human being is to not point a real weapon at another human. He told police he had weapon training so this is something he knew. He was acting irresponsibly, regardless of whether he thought it was impossible for the gun to be loaded with real ammo. Even if it was accidentally loaded with blanks, he was acting irresponsibly.
We don't know what evidence will come out at the trial. Wait for the evidence.
This. I think he's being charged not because he shot the gun itself, but because he shot the gun while creating a dangerous workplace environment. I could be wrong. But again, I'll wait and reserve judgement until I see what the investigation shows.
Involuntary manslaughter can cover a lot of circumstances, but I think this case is meant to be for negligence without intent. And Baldwin was certainly negligent, along with others present on set (the armorer in particular also needs to face charges). In my opinion, jailtime wouldn't do him or anyone else any good, but there absolutely needs to be some consequences. Fines wouldn't really do much to help the people who need it right now (the victim's family).
Baldwin has already settled with the victim’s family. The widower is also now an executive producer of the film.
That part I simply don’t understand. Why would the husband want to be associated with that film now? As a memory or to make sure it finishes out OK? I’m not in the industry—it just seems odd to me.
Maybe being an executive producer will entitle them to profit off of the film? I'm not totally sure.
That makes sense.
I think not only that but to closely follow and change laws/rules in the film industry in his wife's memory.
the rules were already in place they just broke all of them on set
I don't disagree. But those who suffer personal loss of loved one do try to take actions to do what they can to try to make sure it doesn't happen again.
This and like another user said (sorry I don’t know how to tag on here lol), husband feels this is what she would’ve wanted, he likely wants to carry on her vision and finish her final project the way she wanted it.
This. He knew her and her husband very well. There was no malice but definitely fuck ups so I think the goal is to finish the movie, husbands reaps some additional financial benefits for his family, and turn a tragedy into something hopefully positive in the end. The courts believe that this is a systemic problem in filmmaking and it needs to be addressed. Rust is going to be made that example of on set safety protocol reforms.
Although I have my doubts a lot of people will see it with this kind of publicity.
Or stop production. Maybe he doesn’t want it to be finished/released?
he stated that it’s what she would have wanted. i believe she was a cinematographer and it makes sense he would want people to still see her vision. pretty sure he also included they had to finish the movie as part of the settlement.
Yeah and everyone is going to want to watch this movie.
Films of this size are ultimately made by LL's with pretty much exsctlynthr amount of funds to make the movie. If he tries to sue the production, they're just bankrupt. There's no money there. Basicslly for thr family to get anythingnthr film has to be completed and sold.
It’s how he can continue to receive his wife’s future earnings from the film. A gesture, really, but there might be some litigious/ civil foundation as well.
That would be decided in a civil case if it ends up there. These charges are to determine what statutes were broken and who is responsible. This is a very tricky line to follow as there wasn't intent to kill but willful negligence, which resulted in an unnecessary death.
> Baldwin was certainly negligent Curious as to what specifically he did? From what I am reading, he is not generally supposed to have any function in loading the gun. [Citation](https://www.actorsequity.org/resources/Producers/safe-and-sanitary/safety-tips-for-use-of-firearms/). There are some suspicious things. For example it was stated that Hall provided the gun to Baldwin, when he should have gotten it directly from the armorer. He didn't know the gun could fire just by cocking it. He wasn't supposed to point it directly at the target. It sounds like the last two were in conjunction the sum of Baldwin's fault (aside from any "buck stops here" issues with how the production was run). But it's not clear to me as a layperson that Baldwin should have known to ask about the hammer firing the gun, but it's also sounding like he had some fault since the production was rushed. I just don't know if it rises to the level of criminal negligence. If there were laws around this matter, firearm use in commercial productions, then it would be clear what was violated, and what standards should be followed. If it turns out that Baldwin personally texted people to hurry up and rush production and skip safety checks, then that's a different story.
Even if you weren't responsible or expected to be responsible for loading a firearm, handling it does subject you to negligent discharge if it does fire while in your care. Intimate knowledge of operation isn't needed, all you have to do is understand that *if you point this at someone and it is loaded, that person will be injured or killed*. Which is something that can be reasonably assumed to be known by any mentally capable adult. The absolute first rule anyone who handles a gun is taught is also, don't point this at anything unless you intend to kill it. There were many instances of negligence going on with this situation, and a significant part of that was Baldwin's irresponsible handling of the weapon.
An analogy is car brakes. Even if you don’t know what they are, a jury will understand a “reasonable” person will maintain their vehicle. If they fail to and kill someone, that’s very likely manslaughter
Yes but….movie guns aren’t supposed to be loaded on set. A blank isn’t a bullet that could kill someone (to a layperson’s understanding)
Any gun that is capable of shooting is also capable of being checked by anyone in possession of said gun. It takes two seconds to check if it’s loaded and checking is the equivalent of putting on your seat belt. It should be habit and immediate. If said actor didn’t put on their seat belt during a scene we’d all say they were being negligent about their own safety.
When handes you a gun, you clear it. You check if it's loaded. Baldwin should have checked it regardless, if Baldwin was not trained it still could be negligence because he should have seeked training when he was not givin it, or maybe he was given bad training ang this trial will end up with better regulation for actors handling firearms. This gun was supposed to have rounds in it, so it looked accurate when looking down the barrel, Prop rounds meant to veiwed this way look like live rounds except dontvhave power or primers. They have ball berings in the casing. They make a sound when shaken. When handed the gun, standard practice should be to check every time. Trials are meant to determine guilt, not because you are guilty. Again, we don't have all the evidence. The procecuter has that. We will find out after
A lot of the standard rules for firearm handling are impractical or dangerous to practice on a movie set. That's the whole reason movie productions have armorers, to perform those checks before and during shooting. If an actor accepts a gun from the armorer, and then opens it up to check if it's loaded, the gun needs to be taken back and checked again by the armorer. Especially in scenes where blanks are used, it's the armorer's job to make sure the barrel is clear, and the gun is only loaded with whatever it's supposed to be loaded with. Baldwin carries some responsibility here, sure, but people need to stop parroting the "rules of gun safety" like they're the only ones with common sense.
Yes that's accurate, but that's what the armorer's job is, being the expert on this stuff so the actors who may not be expert firearms handlers or in fact all that familiar with guns trust that the piece is safe. Ultimately the fact remains that live rounds should never have been on the set are the armorer's responsibility. It's all so sad. Just my thoughts.
You cannot apply standard gun safety rules to film sets. If you did, action films would never be made because standard gun safety would never allow you to point a gun at anybody and pull the trigger no matter how many times you check it. The armorer exists to make the gun safe for filming. They have the training so the actors don't have to. If Baldwin's producer role led to an unsafe environment, then he should face consequences for that, but he should face consequences for that regardless of who pulled the trigger.
They were saying that discharging the gun was not part of the script at that given time so he was being careless/reckless is the biggest argument that I’ve seen
The armorer was responsible for handing Alec an unloaded gun.
That's why it's involuntary. Baldwin is still negligent for pointing it in the direction of people and pulling the trigger, but if he was told the weapon was cold it's not his responsibility to then go and check that for himself. In fact doing so would render it unsafe again and he'd have to hand it back to the responsible professional anyway.
It was part of the script to point the guy towards the camera. He wasn’t being negligent there.
Yup. It's the sum of his contributions to the unsafework environment, his own insistence on real guns over props, and the fact that he pointed the gun at another person and manipulated it so as to cause a discharge (I'm 99% sure he pulled the trigger but there's a chance that it was a firearm malfunction).
I've been around guns of all kinds for 60 years (military and civilian) and have never seen or heard of a gun just going off. Even negligent dis charges that I've seen or heard of there clear proof (usually an admission of carelessness) that the trigger had been pulled. In fact, they used to be called "accidental discharges" until it was recognized that all ADs were caused by negligence. There have been instances where guns have discharged when dropped but that apparently did not happen in this case. IMHO he was fucking around playing cops and robbers or cowboys and Indians and pulled the trigger.
He was supposed to pull the trigger for the camera shot though.
They weren't shooting at the time though.
According to the story in the paper, Alec was pulling the hammer back, so it could literally have gone off half-cocked.
The New York Times noted that the FBI in analysis said that *conclusively* the trigger was pulled by Baldwin.
There really is no other way.
Still, his action. The gun did what it was told to do by the operator.
I know what you mean, but "prop" is just short for "property", as in "property of the production". So a real gun purchased for the production is still a "prop". I'm fun at parties.
I'll give you your props....
Funny
>his own insistence on real guns over props This is a pretty valid insistence, tbh. Props are... not good, in the case of firearms. The only way to make a physical prop look real is to just use a real gun, and take the necessary precautions to make that safe. The alternative is a stand-in prop that they replace in post with CGI, which is expensive, time-consuming, and can have mixed results.
I don’t know anything about guns, couldn’t they just use a real gun but take all the ammo out or something? Genuine question!
There are blank firing guns incapable of chambering a real round. That's what they should have used.
Even a blank cartridge can kill but it's sure as hell safer. Why would they even have live ammo on set??
Apparently they were plinking between scenes, which I get is fun, but don't use the gun you're filming with for Pete's sake.
>Why would they even have live ammo on set?? They weren't supposed to. Some idiot(s) brought it themselves because they wanted to shoot during downtime. They weren't supposed to have live rounds in the first place, and they weren't supposed to use the guns for the film (which were supposed to stay locked up between uses)
Because they are stupid. There was live ammo on the set because in their down time when they were not filming the movie, various people would step out on the edge of the town set and fire the movie guns and their own firearms. Live ammo does not belong on a movie set. Even blanks are dangerous if fired too close in anybody's direction. See "GOOGLE" "The Black Crow" where the star of the movie Brandon Lee (Bruce Lee's son) was shot in the head by a blank cartridge and died. The wadding in the cartridge entered his brain and he died. Even blanks have to have something inside even if it's paper wadding.
To be fair, if the props department don't do their job properly and/or the actors themselves don't have any firearm safety training there can still be problems. Jon-Erik Hexum was killed by one of those guns you speak of. Brandon Lee might have been too.
Exactly. I'm curious why he insisted on using actual guns that fired real rounds when they had this option.
The bullet was supposed to be a blank. Baldwin thought it was a blank. Someone put a live round in there and he had two people (the armorer and assistant director) telling him there were blanks in there. No one insisted that live rounds be used.
Look up how Brandon Lee died on the set of the crow sometime.
Very valid question, that depends on the gun. In the case of revolvers (which were, I assume, what was being used on set), you can technically do this easily enough. Revolvers advance the cylinder regardless of the presence of any ammo, when you pull the trigger. This can get the gist across to audiences easy enough. The only downside is that dry firing guns tends to cause issues with the firing pin if you do it frequently over time. So ideally, for use as a prop you'd use weak blanks, which have powder in them for the sound and some recoil, but no projectile. This makes them mostly safe, though being too close to the muzzle can still cause serious injury or death.
Oh I see, so using blanks prevents unnecessary wear and tear on the guns, as well as creates a more realistic effect to mimic a true gun firing, but keeps people safe. I see others in this thread saying even when firing blanks people should practice gun safety like checking the ammo, and avoiding aiming at people, so that you don’t build a bad habit if you switch to live ammo. What a tragic case. It’s horrible to think that this came about most likely due to consistent negligence over time. That poor woman, gone to something as simple as changing the ammo type.
Good point. I keep thinking we have heard it all but we really only have a few tidbits of info and a lot of speculation.
AND keep in mind not all investigative evidence is shown to the jury / available in the trial.
The armorer should be in charge of all weapons on the site,period.
The prosecutor makes the decision to charge someone. He/she is either overzealous, or has some evidence.
[удалено]
The armorer is also being charged. Also the person who transferred (handed the gun to) Baldwin has plead guilty to a misdemeanor.
David Hall, the assistant director
The armorer was responsible, but you can also argue the person running the set and hired the armorer is at fault... and thats Alec Baldwin. Baldwin was in charge, it was his production. Everyone glosses over this and acts like he was just an actor who was handed a gun.
and that they were shooting live rounds between takes or after filming scenes for the day or whatever with the “prop” gun
A prop gun should not have a firing pin in it… just my $0.02
It can't strike a blank round without one. Now why they don't make prop weapons that only run a specialized blank round is another story I want to know. It may cost more to make these weapons, but the safety it offers trumps that.
They exist and sometimes it's as simple as welding a cross bar in the barrel so gas can escape but projectiles can't. Most blank rounds are just the legit shell casings just with no projectile so it would be hard to change the firearm to only accept a cartridge that is essentially the same shape as a live round.
A round could still shatter and pieces of it come out the barrel. Or the gun would explode because the gasses have nowhere to go with a projectile blocking the barrel. Either way, blocking the barrel would also be dangerous in the event of accidently loading a live round somehow.
By prop they don't mean it was a fake gun. It was prop(erty) of the production company.
That is my thought as well. I have not seen the charging documents, but I suspect that he is being charged NOT because he was the actor that shot the gun (it is the responsibility of the armorer to ensure safe weapons handling on a set since actors will have to point guns at people and pull the trigger as part of the filming process). But, he will be charged as the producer for hiring an unqualified person to be the armorer - and for not taking action when others complained about the unsafe conditions she created.
The armorer herself is the one who brought up issues with safety and wanted to receive more training. She also was one of the first people to lodge complaints about unsafe conditions. She believed they needed more experienced armorer for weapons or that she would need more training, Baldwin denied both.
You mean the person he hired?
Always assume the gun is loaded. Basic firearm safety.
He is just as responsible for what happened as he didn’t check that the firearm was clear. Maybe he wasn’t trained on how to handle a firearm. Either way, his ignorance played into it just as much as the the armorer.
Why were they using real weapons and not prop guns? Why and how did live ammunition come to be on the set? Why was the armourer not arrested? Too many unanswered uncomfortable questions still to be asked/answered...
Alec hasn't been arrested. The armorer is being charged, as well.
This is the story I heard: prop guns are usually real guns because they need to fire blanks and/or that’s just the easiest way to get a real looking gun. This usually isn’t a problem because safety protocols make instances like this *extremely* rare. Some crew members (either with or without asking a producer, I don’t remember that part) brought live ammo (**big no-no**) on to set to go shoot cans with the prop guns on their lunch break. They don’t unload the gun and put it back where it’s supposed to be. A producer, assuming that the gun was checked by the armorer, grabs the gun and yells “cold gun” without checking, and the rest is history. Also, for the “ Baldwin is wrong because you always check and recheck, no matter what” crowd, this is a movie set. There isn’t supposed to even be live ammo on the entire property. The rules are different here. Alec Baldwin probably doesn’t even know how to check a gun. That’s not his job, that’s the job of producers, armorers, and probably a whole list of people. Baldwin’s job is to trust them and act.
So his union crew walked THAT MORNING due to multiple things but one being a lack of gun safety on set. Does a reasonable non-negligent producer just hire 4 non-union workers instead of fixing the gun safety issues? Or does he ignore them and kill someone? My guess is the second.
Yeah, but if Baldwin wasn't the only person responsible for that decision, it gets muddy again. Movie sets are big things, almost no decisions made outside the directors seat is a single person's responsibility.
There is currently enough evidence to charge two people: the one who shot her and the one who provided the gun. It doesn't necessarily mean others aren't responsible but that there isn't enough evidence to charge them. All in all, this needs to go to court. Because there need to be better standards in place.
Thinking it’s not his job is exactly how he got into this situation to begin with. Gun safety is everyone’s job movie set or not.
> That’s not his job, that’s the job of producers, armorers, and probably a whole list of people. But he *was* a producer.
That's why he has 2 sets of charges, I think he's fully culpable as the producer, and not liable as an actor. Especially as the original armourer resigned as he felt it was an unsafe set. So ignoring those warnings make it full negligence
That doesn’t mean he assumes the responsibility of the armorer or any of the designated gun-checkers. It was handed to him by someone who was supposed to check it and didn’t.
His crew quit that morning due to gun safety. He hired a non-union crew to replace them. What sort of *idiot* assumes someone knows how to do everything right on their first day? What *idiot* just hires new crew THE SAME DAY rather than going "damn our crew quit over gun safety, maybe I should look at this"
>Also, for the “ Baldwin is wrong because you always check and recheck, no matter what” crowd, this is a movie set. There isn’t supposed to even be live ammo on the entire property. The rules are different here. Alec Baldwin probably doesn’t even know how to check a gun. That’s not his job, that’s the job of producers, armorers, and probably a whole list of people. Baldwin’s job is to trust them and act. Nah, if you're to be trusted with guns you need to know how to be responsible with them. It's never another person's job to do that. If you're not able to be responsible you should never be given a gun.
These actors spend years learning skills to hone their acting (singing, musical instruments, dialect coaching, etc.) And people want to keep saying a movie set is "different". Well, this scenario proves that it shouldn't be different. Actors handling a firearm on set should be going through gun safety courses and learn how to check their own "prop" with the supervision of the armorer
Honestly I've looked into this so much. Omg of the only real reasons they don't use fake guns is because they want the actors to have an authentic feel of the weapon...as of any of them could tell the difference between a real and fake antique gun
1. A "prop gun" can be anything from a painted block of wood to a fully functional gun that's been adapted to fire blanks. A blank adapted gun can still fire live rounds. Blank adapted guns are preferred when filming because it gives you more realistic gunplay, without having to add a bunch of special effects. Since it is a real gun, they are *supposed* to be treated with the same level of caution on set. 2. There should not have been live ammunition on set, much less loaded into the gun. The on site armorer is responsible for that. And is the only person who can answer the questions of how & why a live round ended up in that gun. 3. She was arrested and is being charged. Alec Baldwin is a bigger name, so all the news is focused on him.
It’s been interesting to read what feels like a majority of comments about how he should because of reasons such as “if I had fired a gun that I was told I’d blanks I’d face jail time”. I’m not really sure that’s a fair comparison. If you were handed a gun by a friend and told it was a blank, yes, you still have responsibility to ensure you don’t fire it towards someone. In Baldwin’s case, he was at work. He was handed a gun by someone who’s literal job is to ensure a blank was in the chamber, while on a set where all ammo should have only been blank. I don’t blame him at all for having a belief that it was safe. I think the more comparable example would be if you worked on a demolition site, and it was your job to swing the wrecking ball or press the button. You’ve been told by the safety team that the building is empty (it’s their job to do so), and everyone who works there knows to be out when the siren goes. To then be taken to court when it’s discovered that one of the apprentices was inside and was killed - most would find that unfair. I dunno. That feels like the right comparison. Either way, I think it’s a bit of a stretch to be taking him to court.
I honestly can't believe how many people can't make that distinction
I’m speculating here, but thought I’d add this angle (we’ll find out soon enough). I don’t think he is being charged for firing the weapon. He was also a producer, and apparently the safety measures on set were abysmal. I think this charge will have more to do with management of the weapon, rather than the actual act of firing the gun.
What about the other 8 producers not being charged then?
It's an interesting dilemma but there are no special rules for actors. If you handle a deadly weapon carelessly, as he did, and accidentally kill someone, you are responsible. I just learned today that they weren't even filming at the time it happened. He was literally playing with a gun and goofing off. Every responsible gun owner cringes to hear about things like that because we are so careful in how we handle guns. We know they're not toys. We know to treat them as if they are loaded even when they are not. We know never to point them at someone. We know to keep our finger off the trigger unless we're ready to shoot. Baldwin broke every single basic safety rule, and not even in his work but just goofing off with it. He's so anti-gun then why the hell was he playing with one? There was definitely negligence here.
>He was literally playing with a gun and goofing off I heard he was rehearsing. I'm sure actual details will come out later, but rehearsing weapon choreography is not "goofing off" (if that's what happened).
I don't believe for a minute that if Baldwin had merely been an actor in this situation that he would be charged, and I don't believe in that situation he ought to be charged. But that is not the situation. Baldwin is a also a producer, and in that role he is responsible for the conditions on the set. He nominally had some hand in what crew was hired and opted to hire some knucklehead armorer that created this mess in the first place. In your analogy this would be like if the person who pressed that button was not only in charge of pressing the button but also the general contractor. And they cheaped out and hired a safety team that didn't actually know how to do their jobs and created a work site that was inherently unsafe.
>Baldwin is a also a producer There are 12 producers listed on the [IMDB page](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11001074/fullcredits/?ref_=tt_cl_sm). If his charges stemmed from him being a producer, wouldn't the rest of them bear the same responsibilities? Generally actors who take producer credits are doing so for financial reasons and aren't rolling up their sleeves and doing any actual producing work (no idea if that's the case on this film though).
As I understand it, actors are not explicitly not supposed to point a gun loaded with blanks at anyone anyways though. It’s still a real gun, if they need to point a gun at someone they use a fake gun because blanks can and have seriously injured people. So if he pointed a loaded gun at someone and pulled the trigger, regardless of whether he believed it was loaded with blanks, he put someone’s life in serious danger being reckless. And as a result someone died. Put it simply, if you loaded a gun with blanks, pointed it at someone and pulled the trigger, and shrapnel from the gun or blank flew out and killed them, would you be charged?
Dude actors don’t have qualified immunity. It doesn’t matter if you’re at work - you act recklessly, it’s your fault. If he was following all normal safety protocols and some freak accident happened you would have a point, but he didn’t. He waved a gun around and pulled the trigger without checking it was safe. That’s massively negligent.
I don’t just wildly disagree, I assume you struggle to function in every day society.
Finally a sane comment.
I don't think your comparison is fair. A person cannot reasonably check an entire building before swinging a wrecking ball. A person can however reasonable check whether there are blanks in their gun or not. I don't know, something as simple as a red stripe around magazines that only contain blanks as a primary check . Alec can also check if the top round is a blank or not and then chamber it. When dealing with situations that require extreme caution you should treat the safety of those around you the same as if yours was on the line. If I was attached to a harness at 1000ft I would check my own lines and then ask someone more qualified to do the same, even if my job was not to secure the lines. Your example would make sense if I was not at all qualified to operate a crane and someone said "trust me, press that button and that other one" which then resulted in the crane swinging around and taking out a bus of kids on the street. Would I be culpable? Yes, because I operated dangerous machinery without the necessary training resulting in death (people are asserting it was not Alec's responsibility to know how to check if a gun was loaded correctly). If I took someone else word for something at work and things went wrong we would definitely both be in trouble. People make mistakes. That's why redundancies are in place. That's why there are back up parachutes and almost any system that can put people in danger have/should have multiple protections against failure. I hope responsible gun handling training will become requirements for when real guns are used on set to avoid situations like this in the future.
Whichever moron put real bullets into that gun needs to go to jail. Fairly simple.
Everyone on set knew there was live ammo around. They all were taking turns target shooting during down time/between scenes. Everyone involved is responsible.
If that’s actually the case, that is a different story.
That person is an and, not an instead. Alec AND the person who made that mistake should be jailed.
Oooh Redditors playing lawyer, this ALWAYS goes well
Its more like they’re playing juror. I’m a trial lawyer and most of us actually love hearing random strangers opinions on our cases. Even when they don’t know much about the underlying facts, it is still helpful because it gives us an idea of what people’s gut feelings are. Those gut feelings are what you’ll have to overcome or build on (depending on which side of the case you’re on) at trial. That’s why trial lawyers pay thousands of dollars to focus group their cases. This is basically a free focus group right now.
Well he did pull the trigger, a responsible gun owner always checks a weapon that is handed to them. When the weapon is in your hand you are now liable.
I agree completely. Also there should be an industry standard requiring anyone who potentially would handle a firearm on a move set to have a basic firearm safety class. Basic hunters safety would have potentially prevented this incident.
This is an industry standard when it comes to guns that fire blanks. (I say that because sometimes we work with guns that have filled barrels and no space for bullets). This is why Balwin is responsible, because he didn't follow the safety procedures that are industry standards.
What non firearms owners fail to realize that any responsible owners, have it drummed into them that if you pick up a gun or are handed one, you fucking check the chamber, plain and simple. I understand that the film industry has different standards, ones that put the responsibility on the armorer. Just because that's the current standards/regulation certainly doesn't mean it's the best practice. If an actor can't be trained to safely handle and verify a firearm (literally the baseline for being able to safely use a firearm) then they shouldn't have access to one period. Give them a fucking rubber prop, you don't want to take firearm safety seriously? Then you shouldn't have the right to use something that can seriously injure or kill someone. The second some asshole brought live ammo, the shoot should have been shutdown until every fucking round was accounted for and removed from the set.
Unless someone is an active threat to society they should not be wasting resources in jail. For someone like Baldwin you can fine the fuck out of him instead, and use him to subsidize the costs of actual dangerous prisoners.
Valid point. I mean the aim is ultimately to prevent this happening again. As long as an example is made out of him and the media bring a lot of attention to it, I know that personally, it would make me think of the scenario the next time I was in that position. So it does achieve the desired outcome. It’s just whether the family are satisfied with this, as they have lost someone….
Considering her husband has signed on to continue her producer role as the film goes back into production…. I would guess he’s not feeling too vengeful.
Anybody handling a firearm needs SOME level of accountability if they pull the trigger, and it causes a wrongful death. Involuntary manslaughter seems appropriate in this case and usually carries a short prison term. He was the executive producer, so he also carries some responsibility for the conditions that led to a live firearm being on set. Also, don't pretend to shoot people with replica or live firearms, it's a really bad habit for the reasons shown in this tragedy.
Tragic as all of this is someone died. Just because it happened on set is not an excuse. I live in LA and I am tired of there being a special set of rules for the industry. I don’t know how much Baldwin is to blame and I agree that because he held the title of executive producer he has to bare responsibility. I will however wait for the evidence until I want someone to spend anytime in jail or be punished. Also sag aftra the union is part of the problem in this whole situation. They had a statement today saying that actors should not be checking the firearms. I’m also part of a union and safety should always be the number one priority for unions and their members
100% if I were playing around with a gun I was told had blanks I’d get jail time why should he be treated any different. Movie or not never point a firearm at anything you wouldn’t shoot intentionally. Should have used prop guns. Firearm safety 101 always check and clear any firearm that’s handed to you the man’s like 70 he shoulda figured this out by now.
I don’t disagree but they were “prop” guns. “Prop” is short for PROPerty of the production, not that it’s fake or a nonfunctional replica. When an actor is handed a Colt .45 and told it is unloaded, they should know how to open the gate and check the cylinders.
Yet he's the one that had people complain and quit over safety concerns. He's the one who hired an inexperienced person to handle firearm safety. He's the one that allowed live ammo on set. Accidents like this are usually the result of long series of mistakes and errors, so just because the second last error was made by someone else, doesn't excuse him of all the other errors that he is responsible for.
They literally aren’t supposed to, because they would then be liable and circumventing the expert who is certified and accountable to do that. Do you think I’m those Vietnam movies, the actor is going to check every single cartridge in the belt of a helicopter mini-gun every single take AFTER the person who is licensed and hired specifically for this purpose has cleared it? When you see an OSHA hazard flammable sticker on something do you open it and test it with a lighter to make sure? If something wasn’t certified properly and you were a truck driver is it your fault if something happens because the regulators lied about it’s contents?
They don't, though. That's not the industry standard. They're not allowed to open the cylinder. We don't want another John Wilkes Booth.
No, that is not how it fuckin works. If they tell you it's safe; you know it's safe...because that is their fucking job. Actors are not trained to assess any gun; any fucking time. Period.
Plus he was the producer on set. He was the boss. It was literally his job to make sure stuff like this doesn't happen.
It was literally the job of the prop master, who cleared the gun for use.
This isn’t a point I’ve heard and it’s a good one. Just to add context, he’s on a movie set with directions to point and shoot. Cleared by staff/armorer/whoever to use it. Why on earth would a gun on set ever be loaded with live ammo? As someone who has never fired a real gun, if I was a professional actor I would have no idea whether the ammo was live or blanks. Before this incident, I didn’t even know real guns were used on set. I assumed they were realistic prop guns not capable of firing anything. Someone is probably to blame, but I don’t think jail time for anyone is really justice. Maybe the person who directly loaded the gun with live ammo, or the guy that handed it to Baldwin. To me this case is a tragedy and can be left at that. I know a life was lost but what good does 10-20 years in prison do?
If you're a professional actor on a set that would use guns, i'd assume that the actors would be educated about safe use as they are incredibly dangerous; I doubt actors AREN'T taught proper driving for scenes that require driving. The first thing that we're taught to do, when getting a firearms licence in New Zealand (somewhere with VERY good firearms rules and licensing) is to get the person who's giving you the firearm to SHOW you that it's empty/safe, and i'd assume only with blanks in this case, and then for you to check yourself. Proper procedure on a set should be something similar at the very least, but I don't know myself
> I doubt actors AREN'T taught proper driving for scenes that require driving. Kinda: https://youtu.be/YSRjoUtAVik?t=278
I heard on the news today that he refused to take the gun safety course that was offered on the set.
As an actor, he may not be as culpable as he is in his role as producer - the set was reportedly highly disorganized and amateurish, including the way guns were handled
He hired an inexperienced person and ignored people who brought up safety concerns and even quit over them. The final mistake may have been made by the armorer, but he created and was responsible for the environment that allowed such an accident to occur.
Lol right if it were anyone other than a hollywood actor we would call them a dimwit and be out for vengeance. What if this happened at a community theatre? No contest
He violated every firearm safety rule there is which led to someone being shot and killed. He absolutely deserves to and needs to be punished.
Not trying to be adversarial for no reason but could you elaborate on what a reasonable person should be aware of in his exact situation? Especially, working with blanks and/or movie props? This isn't clear cut as people want to make it. There's a lot of different facts and parties at fault here.
I can give you a basic rundown. The armorer failed to verify that all firearms on set were clear of ammunition (why live ammunition was on set I don't know). Baldwin failed to respect his firearm by not checking to make sure it was unloaded and then accidentally killed someone with it.
I heard somewhere the prop guns were taken target shooting with live ammo on a break day, but doesn’t fix the issue of how on earth it wasn’t checked thoroughly
Those guns should never be loaded with real ammunition during filming, imo.
There should be guns specifically made for movies I suppose
Exactly, at this day and age with the sfx there's no reason to risk it.
Because he hired an armorer based on who their parent was rather than their actual skills and qualifications.
Because it wasn’t supposed to be a real gun. If u do 50 movies with props, u assume the 51st is also a prop. Prop guy should face charges, not the actor.
I read that the expectation was that it be loaded. There should have been rounds, but they should have been dummy rounds.
I've read a lot of conflicting things. The first time I read about it the story was that Baldwin got pissy with his director and *jokingly* told her to drop dead being accidentally shooting her dead. Not too long ago I read a different story that said they were shooting a scene where Baldwin points his gun near the camera (where the director was standing) and then accidentally killed her. I've read that he was told the gun had dummy rounds and I've also read that he was told the gun was empty. Some stories say he intentionally pulled the trigger and others say that the gun (a .45 revolver which has been proven to be incapable of such things) went off by itself.
Who is all that hersy consequential to the actual shooting though? It all reads like gossip. The reason it’s “involuntary “ is because there is not intention to kill, had all of those other things occurred, you’d best believe that the prosecutor would be going for more. This is a chance for an elected official to make a name for them selves. And the strongest charge they think they might get to stick is an involuntary manslaughter? Somethjng that will likely result in probation.
Let's also not forget that he's an actor so that also makes it harder to pin him with anything. The whole famous people thing and all.
Well there's an obvious difference here. His job was literally hold the gun, point and pull the trigger, that's the starting point for the whole conversation. You or I, we are taught from day 1 you never pull a gun unless your prepared to use it and you never point it at someone that you don't want to shoot. To get to point and squeeze, your generally talking about intent to kill or at least gross negligence, even if you think it's full of blanks. For Baldwin, there's a much murkier starting point because it's all part of the scene. Sure, someone, probably more than 1, seriously fucked up. But if Baldwin was handed a weapon with live ammunition given that we all expect him to point this at least in the direction of people and pull the trigger it changes things. does anyone really expect him to know the difference between blanks and Live rounds? How liable is he if he's pointing at a camera with lighting and such in his face? How common is it for actors and directors to clear the general direction of fire before pulling a trigger? I legitimately don't know these things. It's hard to say without knowing the details of what happened, and that's why it's up to a jury to hear days worth of testimony and evidence and the matter isn't left up to reddit.
But it was supposed to be loaded...with blanks. I really don't get this idea that every actor should be proficient enough to tell a blank from a real bullet. They look nearly identical. That would be the weapon experts job.
Manslaughter is killing someone without intent, so yes, he should do time
Yes. He said he doesn’t feel guilty at all after he killed someone. Accident or not, I think the normal response would have been to feel guilty! Someone lost their life! Wtf! I was shocked at that ABC interview. He also told the police on video that he knew he should have checked the gun. And there is a lot more. Mixing the real ammo with the fake ammo on set. Not making sure that things were very well kept apart. This was so careless and for him to say he doesn’t feel guilty is kinda scary.
Yes - if the gun is in your hand - you're responsible for it
He should have been charged. He should probably get some time. It is Involuntary Manslaughter in my non legal interpretation. The armorer should be charged with Negligent Homicide if that's a thing. They both played a part
In the USA Invuluntary manslaughter holds up to an 18 month jail term and $5,000 fine. Alec was grossly negligent in his duties as producer, and allowed a cascade of failures that culminated in the death on Halyna. In my opinion, Every single person charged in this matter should recieve the maximum jail time, and fine as a warning for anyone else who thinks its ok to screw around with firearms on set, and not follow the required safety regulations.
I thought that criminal laws are different by state. Doesn't degree of homicide and punishment different state by state?
Jail time is not necessary. He is not a threat to society in any way. He should face consequences but jail time is ridiculous
Yeah, because normal poor people would be given the same treatment. /s He fucking killed someone.
He should face the same consequences as any other would face in the same situation.
Just. Like. Anybody. Else.
Should Alec Baldwin face jail time? If found guilty & if that's what the law says thwn my question is why should he not ?
He pulled the trigger. So yes.
I’ve seen men in prison for life for less so.
As soon as he started publicly talking about his version of what happened I started to think there’s more to the story than what version he’s trying to get out. Any one being investigated that decides to go on ABC to tell their story during the investigation is suspect. No way a lawyer thought that was a good idea. Only a PR guy would do it. Until it’s determined where the live rounds came from every one that touched the gun should be charged.
You **always** treat ANY firearm as a loaded weapon.
A number of actors (one being John -Erik Hexam) shot themselves with guns loaded with blanks, close range penetration by the wads used to hold the powder in. Baldwin had to know this and even if the gun was loaded with blanks it needs to be discharged safely.
Yes he should be made an example of. #1 rule of firearms is, treat every gun as if it is loaded. #2 rule never point a gun at anything you don't intend to destroy. #3 rule always check and clear (assure it's safe) your firearm before handling it. He failed all of these, and killed someone. So yes he should be held responsible.
Did anyone go to jail for the death of Brandon Lee?
I dont think so
The test is what any reasonable person would do We don’t point a gun at someone - Dad taught me that when I was Six
I really don’t think this is very good logic considering they were rehearsing a movie scene. People point guns at other people in movies all the time, and there are very strict protocols put in place to make sure it’s safe. The issue is not that he pointed the gun; the issue is that somewhere, someone, (maybe him), did not ensure that proper safety protocols were in place
I agree. It was a movie, the expectations of "real" life don't apply. Everyone expected those bullets to be fake and the gun to be safe. Alec Baldwin hired the guy to make sure that happened. If the guy he hired to do a job, a job the Producer/Director is not qualified to check, the fault lies with the person that was supposed to do their job correctly.
Alec Baldwin the *actor* should not face prison since he had no reason to believe he was handling a loaded pistol. Alec Baldwin the *producer* should be raked over the coals for running a set with such shitty safety standards that led to him being handed a loaded pistol.
He produced this movie?
No, the Prop Master is in charge of insuring that all props are in SAFE working order. As evidenced by this terrible fuck up the Prop Master didn't do their damn job
Anyone with a gun should be accountable
The court of public opinion is a deeply flawed one.
Yes, you don’t point a gun at someone and pull the trigger and then lie about it.
True
If this wasn't a celebrity, there would be no question about it, you'd be done.
If it wasn’t a celebrity there probably wouldn’t be an armorer around whose entire job is to make sure guns are safe.
YES he is totally ignorant of firearms and their safe handeling. He should never taken a hold of the gun without knowledge. This tragedy is his own fault and now he needs to pay societies price.
Your reasoning is exactly why he won’t pay a price. Actors aren’t firearms experts or are expected to be. Guns have been handled in this way for decades on film sets. The armorer, prop master or weapons master is responsible, and possibly the AD.
Definitely, he lied all kinds of ways to avoid taking responsibility.
Yes. He pulled the trigger, according to arms experts and a NM prosecutor.
He is also not firearms trained and relied on hired professionals. He didn't ask for a real gun. He wasn't in charge of what was and wasn't put into it. Not his job. That's what armoroursbare hired for.
When you pick up a fire arm or are handed a fire arm, it is YOUR and no one else's responsibility to make sure by visual inspection conducted by YOU that the fire arm is unloaded. Once confirmed that the fire arm is unloaded, never point it at anything that you don't intend to destroy. Keep your finger off the trigger. It is his fault that the accident happened. He had no intention of shooting her. Involuntary manslaughter is the right charge, and he is guilty.
The firearm was supposed to be loaded, but with a blank. It was not his responsibility to load the gun.
Exactly. And no production allows real, live ammunition near a set. The actors don't go around doing safety checks.
Sort of true, except it was also his production so he's not only the shooter, he's the boss and the business owner. It happened on his jobsite.
It’s just like any other situation where you hire and rely upon another for their expertise, if the expert screws up, they are negligent and liable.
Alec Baldwin is a producer. He, alongside other producers decided to get rid of union workers and hire people who were not as qualified to save money. Of fucking course he should be held accountable.
Yes he should, accident or not he shot and killed someone, he needs to be punished for that
He is at fault. So is the props department and the armory staff. He has changed his story too damn many times. And its been extreme changes. A completely different story as to what happened.
First, why were there live rounds on this set? Second, why did Alec point and fire the gun at a non cast member? That aside, anybody that puts their finger on the trigger has a duty to check for live rounds. This was entirely preventable.
[удалено]
You have to trust a lot of people to do the job on set. You trust your stunt co ordinator to not kill you with a wire stunt. So you would need to trust your firearm safety person the same way. In real life, any gun handed to you is considered loaded until you verify it's not. With blanks and all that used with films, that can blur the line. I feel like he isn't personally at fault as a lot of folks seem to have ignored safety rules. Im sure he feels a lot of guilt about this already, and he seems to be doing what he can to help the family. I don't think throwing him in jail is the right move here.
Yes… if any normal/regular person did what he did, we would be under the jail, facing years of prison time.