Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, January 19, 2023

Alec Baldwin will be criminally charged by New Mexico prosecutors for the 2021 fatal shooting of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the set of the film "Rust," authorities said Thursday.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Well that was quick. /s

#1 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2023-01-19 11:18 AM | Reply

----- needs serious prison time.

#2 | Posted by fishpaw at 2023-01-19 12:31 PM | Reply

Having grown up around weapons and having served in the army, I always check out what I am using before shooting just to make sure what the hell I am shooting. Preferably loading my own weapon for sure. That being said, as a film maker, I know that the armor on set is supposed to make damn sure any weapon is empty of a 'live' round. That person is ultimately responsible for this death and wounding on set. But then again, as a life time user of weapons I think that Alex should have inspected the weapon prior to aiming it at anyone.

#3 | Posted by Wildman62 at 2023-01-19 12:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

I think that Alex should have inspected the weapon prior to aiming it at anyone.

So should the director that told him to aim it at the camera. Hard to say if either of them would have known if the rounds were live or not.

#4 | Posted by REDIAL at 2023-01-19 12:42 PM | Reply

Had to be Trump's fault.

#5 | Posted by fishpaw at 2023-01-19 12:50 PM | Reply

As much of an ------- as Alec Baldwin is, this was a tragic accident.

I remember his news network talk show.

I have no doubt that if the roles were reversed, he would want anyone else prosecuted to the fullest extent.

#6 | Posted by jamesgelliott at 2023-01-19 12:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

As much of an ------- as Alec Baldwin is, this was a tragic accident.

He was one of the producers, and firearm handling on the set was extremely sloppy. There should never have been live ammo anywhere on set, and the armourer was incompetent.

#7 | Posted by REDIAL at 2023-01-19 12:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Who is this Alexander Baldstein or whatever?

#8 | Posted by tres_flechas at 2023-01-19 01:06 PM | Reply

This is a very interesting case

Alec ignored several basic firearms safety protocols. BUT ... .. Hollywood ALWAYS ignores basic firearms safety protocols. They HAVE to in order to greet their scenes to translate properly. Can you imagine if John Wick never pointed a gun at a bad guy? The movie would be worthless.

Hollywood relies on armorers to ensure that these deviations from basic safety rules stop result in a safe environment. Oh it's face? It seems like the armorer failed.

But, I'm also not privy to all of the information Mike the DA, so I have no problem with this playing out in court.

Gonna be a wild ride.

#9 | Posted by ABH at 2023-01-19 01:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

----- needs serious prison time.

#2 | POSTED BY FISHPAW

Oh please. If it was some yokel who shot a family member because "it just went off while I was cleaning it" you wouldn't push for jail time.

If a kid had found daddy's gun and shot someone, you wouldn't be all for jailtime for daddy.

You're just a "freedumz loving patriot" who loves to see the full power of government used against people you don't like.

#10 | Posted by jpw at 2023-01-19 01:10 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 5

Had to be Trump's fault.

#5 | POSTED BY FISHPAW

Someone get fisted here a new tampon. He's overflowing today.

#11 | Posted by jpw at 2023-01-19 01:11 PM | Reply | Funny: 3

You all are right Dick Cheney should be arrested for shooting some guy in the face.

#12 | Posted by truthhurts at 2023-01-19 01:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I'm still shocked they had a fully functional firearm on set, let alone live ammo.

Would have expected the weapon to be modified to only accept blanks.

#13 | Posted by jpw at 2023-01-19 01:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Does anyone know if the rounds (blanks) they use in Hollywood firearms are marked as such?

In the military, inert weapons are clearly marked. I assumed the same of dummy rounds.

#14 | Posted by madbomber at 2023-01-19 01:38 PM | Reply

Had to be Trump's fault.
#5 | POSTED BY FISHPAW AT 2023-01-19 12:50 PM

Do they even make guns that small?

#15 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2023-01-19 01:39 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

I'm sure Baldwin's opinions on politics have nothing to do with morons like Fishpaw wanting him to go to prison for an accident caused by the people who had the responsibility for loading the weapons used on the set.

#16 | Posted by danni at 2023-01-19 01:39 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

I'm still shocked they had a fully functional firearm on set, let alone live ammo. - JPW

Dude, that is a great point.

Why did the producer allow actors to have a gun capable of killing someone?

#17 | Posted by jamesgelliott at 2023-01-19 01:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It was ultimately the responsibility of the person pulling the trigger to check the ammo.

#18 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2023-01-19 01:53 PM | Reply

This does not bode well for Donald trump. If convicted it will reaffirm in the legal system that a person can be completely unaware of the damage their actions will do and still be held accountable for them.

#19 | Posted by Tor at 2023-01-19 01:57 PM | Reply

It was ultimately the responsibility of the person pulling the trigger to check the ammo.

#18 | POSTED BY WHATSLEFT

He is an a actor.

He was told it was a prop. By the specialist in charge.

Not negligent. Unless it was a rule or policy that he always double check the armorer and he broke it.

Not guilty.

#20 | Posted by donnerboy at 2023-01-19 02:04 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

This does not bode well for Donald trump.

#19 | Posted by Tor

holy moly geesus peter paul and mary.

I did NOT just read this stupid....XXXX....XXXX.

that's some funny stuff.

#21 | Posted by shrimptacodan at 2023-01-19 02:08 PM | Reply

Clearly you're not familiar with the American legal system.

Go back to your feudal life serf.

#22 | Posted by Tor at 2023-01-19 02:10 PM | Reply

Does anyone know if the rounds (blanks) they use in Hollywood firearms are marked as such?

I read where the dummy bullets (not blanks) have BBs in them so they rattle if you shake them.

#23 | Posted by REDIAL at 2023-01-19 02:10 PM | Reply

I'm sure Baldwin's opinions on politics have nothing to do.......

#16 | Posted by danni

HEY LOOK.....it's the same post / different people.

................
This does not bode well for Donald trump.

#19 | Posted by Tor

#24 | Posted by shrimptacodan at 2023-01-19 02:13 PM | Reply

Clearly you're not familiar with the American legal system.

Go back to your feudal life serf.

#22 | Posted by Tor

you're not familiar with mental health.

you're sick with TDS.

go back to making up stupid.....effing...sh**

#25 | Posted by shrimptacodan at 2023-01-19 02:15 PM | Reply

He was told it was a prop. By the specialist in charge.

Not negligent. Unless it was a rule or policy that he always double check the armorer and he broke it.

Not guilty.

#20 | Posted by donnerboy

I don't disagree at all, but will a scum sucking lawyer ( oops that doesn't exactly trim the list ) say that he "assumed" it was a prop

and thus negligent ?

#26 | Posted by shrimptacodan at 2023-01-19 02:17 PM | Reply

Sorry...aside from the usual rightwing haters
(whom of course think a liberal actor is guilty),
I fail to see how an actor, who is handed what
is supposed to be a (prop gun), and whom
supposedly double-checked with the producer,
that, "this is the prop gun, right" (or some such),
is then to be held liable for the gun's authenticity
or not, seconds before the shoot.

If anyone is to blame, it is the guy responsible for
the prop guns (perhaps w a vendetta to take down a
known liberal actor).

That the judge rules against the actor in this, also
calls into question the impartiality of the judge.

Sounds like a setup to me...

#27 | Posted by earthmuse at 2023-01-19 02:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Why did the producer allow actors to have a gun capable of killing someone?

It's quite common to use real guns on movie sets. Live ammo, not so much. Interesting the the assistant director who declared it a "cold gun" before he gave it to Baldwin got off on a plea deal already.

#28 | Posted by REDIAL at 2023-01-19 02:26 PM | Reply

coffee is for closers.

#29 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2023-01-19 02:27 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Can you imagine if John Wick never pointed a gun at a bad guy? The movie would be worthless.

#9 | POSTED BY ABH AT 2023-01-19 01:09 PM | FLAG:

God I know right. Where would we be as a people without 4 feature length films centered on gun-fu?

#30 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2023-01-19 02:28 PM | Reply

"Alec Baldwin to be Charged with Involuntary Manslaughter"

Shouldn't we DR users trust the government???

#31 | Posted by jamesgelliott at 2023-01-19 02:33 PM | Reply

"Where would we be as a people without 4 feature length films centered on gun-fu?"

We would be a people without a Second Amendment that glorifies guns.

#32 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-01-19 02:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Where would we be as a people without 4 feature length films centered on gun-fu?"

#30 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

He did pretty well in a library.

#33 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2023-01-19 02:43 PM | Reply

This would not be a big deal if he had shot a teacher, in a classroom...

#34 | Posted by catdog at 2023-01-19 02:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Alec Baldwin to be Charged with Involuntary Manslaughter"
Shouldn't we DR users trust the government???

#31 | POSTED BY JAMESGELLIOTT

You really do see the world as that simple, don't you?

It explains a lot.

#35 | Posted by Sycophant at 2023-01-19 02:51 PM | Reply

"but will a ... lawyer ... say that he "assumed" it was a prop"

Absolutely. Because Baldwin absolutely assumed it was a prop; no one is disputing that fact.

In fact, he was TOLD it was a prop by the guy whose job it was to hand him the prop.

And I can't say this enough: On a film set, after being handed a gun by the armorer, the actor IS NOT ALLOWED to take the gun apart. Baldwin the actor is innocent.

Baldwin the Producer, on the other hand, I believe is guilty...maybe not of this specific charge, but certainly as the Producer, he was aware of the troubles with the guns on the set, and knew part of his crew had walked out due to safety concerns. Sounds negligent to me.

#36 | Posted by Danforth at 2023-01-19 02:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

but certainly as the Producer, he was aware of the troubles with the guns on the set, and knew part of his crew had walked out due to safety concerns.

That gets a bit complicated as well, since he was one of seven producers on that film. It looks more like they are going after the actor angle.

#37 | Posted by REDIAL at 2023-01-19 02:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"he was one of seven producers on that film."

And probably the only one on the set every day.

#38 | Posted by Danforth at 2023-01-19 03:06 PM | Reply

#36 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2023-01-19 02:56 PM | FLAG:

I get where you're coming from with protocols, but those protocols also violate tenets of gun safety people are taught since they are children and had they been adhered to nobody would have been shot in this instance.

#39 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2023-01-19 03:29 PM | Reply

" those protocols also violate tenets of gun safety"

Agreed. That's why armorers are hired.

Who do you want making the final call on the gun safety: the expert on the set hired for that specific purpose, or whatever random actor got the part?

#40 | Posted by Danforth at 2023-01-19 04:10 PM | Reply

Under New Mexico law, involuntary manslaughter is "the unlawful killing of a human being without malice ... in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death ... without due caution and circumspection."
law.justia.com

Anyone claiming to know every factual nuance of this case is lying. But i am hard pressed to say that he should not, at minimum, be charged with the above, with a judge and jury then sorting through the details to determine whether his conduct met that standard.

#41 | Posted by JOE at 2023-01-19 04:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#30 I wasn't making a statement on the genre, although I did like the movie. It was more of a statement about how a movie like John wick where he went around killing bad guys but never pointed a gun at anyone, it would be a horrible movie for people who like AND hate the genre.

#42 | Posted by ABH at 2023-01-19 04:50 PM | Reply

"But i am hard pressed to say that he should not, at minimum, be charged with the above"

You right we don't know the whole story.

But if he did not know the gun was live how could he be negligent? He was just supposed to be acting. With a prop. The armorer was responsible for making sure the prop was safe. Declaring it was safe as he handed to the actor was definitely a negligent act though. And deadly.

But we will see!

#43 | Posted by donnerboy at 2023-01-19 05:01 PM | Reply

#41 | Posted by JOE

I do agree with you. I read an email forwarded from someone in the movie industry back when this happened. I know he is in the industry because he is one of my best friends cousins and he is in the credits of several movies I have watched. He has worked on multiple movies with guns. Based on that email, the standard is the Armorer and Prop Master (possibly also Assistant Prop Master) are responsible for the gun. According to him, on the movies he has worked, if the actor were to open the cylinder to check the gun it technically has to go back to the Armorer and/or Prop Master for an inspection. So there is no "checking" of the weapon by the actor. Which does seem logical when you think about it - Did they pop in a bullet? People's lives are in their hands.

Now if what he says is true I don't know why Halls would be responsible either, but Halls signed a plea deal. He plead guilty for the charge of negligent use of a deadly weapon. He handed the gun to Baldwin proclaiming "Cold Gun" to the set. I don't know all the details in how he received the gun but apparently the Armorer at least was not present at the time. I see big problems for the Armorer. I think that Baldwin the actor it should be laughed out of court (sad situation it is.) There are certainly questions though that might be a problem for Baldwin the producer. I don't know who the "lead" producer was and he is just one of six on the movie. Funny as it sounds there were several Executive Producers on the project. To me that may make people rethink accepting EP credit if you aren't there for the day to day running of the production. Nobody else was charged including the Director though. An executive producer does have a defined role in movie and TV production.

I have also read about "gun training" and cross draw training being turned down. Shouldn't need either and frankly and it opens you up to negligence IMHO. (You KNEW so you should have...) He said he didn't pull the trigger - well he did. It's on film. It was a "cold gun" so that shouldn't matter at all either especially since he was working with the cinematographer preparing for a live shoot. It could have been shock or just outright a lie but why lie about it?

All that said I think this boils down to someone looking to make a name for themselves in charging Baldwin for future political purposes. I think he walks or charges are severely reduced and he pleas out.

#44 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2023-01-19 05:55 PM | Reply

But if he did not know the gun was live how could he be negligent?

This isnt a negligence case.

#45 | Posted by JOE at 2023-01-19 06:50 PM | Reply

It was reported that some of the cast or movie workers were shooting at beer cans with that gun during no-filming breaks.
This, if true, explains how live rounds were on the set. People that are not gun enthusiasts don't really realize how easy an accidental discharge is.
This looks like the on-set gun "expert" and the producer and Baldwin assumed the gun was ready.
Baldwin swears he didn't pull the trigger. This was a replica of an old single shot revolver which must be cocked (pull hammer back) for each shot.

#46 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2023-01-19 07:00 PM | Reply

"He handed the gun to Baldwin proclaiming "Cold Gun" to the set."

Something he's not allowed to do unless HE HIMSELF has inspected the gun. There's your culprit.

#47 | Posted by Danforth at 2023-01-19 07:04 PM | Reply

Something he's not allowed to do unless HE HIMSELF has inspected the gun.

He admitted he checked the gun but did not check all the cylinders. They also loaded it from a new box of shells, but no one knew where the box came from.

There are a lot of contradictory statements in all of this. Like if there was only one live round in the gun or all of them. The vendor that provided the dummy rounds also had live handloads made with the same casings.

It will be interesting to see what they can prove in court. Sounds like safety policy was either bad or not followed on that set.

#48 | Posted by REDIAL at 2023-01-19 07:34 PM | Reply

"He admitted he checked the gun but did not check all the cylinders."

Then, let's be serious ... he didn't check the gun.

#49 | Posted by Danforth at 2023-01-19 08:37 PM | Reply

"They also loaded it from a new box of shells, but no one knew where the box came from."

And he still yelled cold gun?

Once again, we've found our culprit.

Not checking all of the cylinders in the gun, especially after not knowing where the box of shells came from, especially after safety concerns on the set ... sure sounds like culpable negligence to me.

#50 | Posted by Danforth at 2023-01-19 08:40 PM | Reply

" Sounds like safety policy was either bad or not followed on that set."

Sounds like all Baldwin's defense team needs to point out is someone else has already admitted it was their fault.

I checked the gun but I didn't check the cylinders ... ?!?

GTFOH.

#51 | Posted by Danforth at 2023-01-19 08:43 PM | Reply

Once again, we've found our culprit.

I tend to agree. He has already signed a plea deal and got a suspended sentence and 6 months probation.

#52 | Posted by REDIAL at 2023-01-19 08:54 PM | Reply

The pedants will have a field day with the drum/cylinder and cylinder/chamber thing. And the blank vs dummy round concept. Is a cylinder a magazine or a clip? It will be amusing.

#53 | Posted by REDIAL at 2023-01-19 09:24 PM | Reply

Our entertainment matches our sick violent reality.

#54 | Posted by Brennnn at 2023-01-20 01:08 AM | Reply

Who do you want making the final call on the gun safety

#40 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2023-01-19 04:10 PM | FLAG:

Doesn't matter. The personal holding the gun is always responsible for the gun, and people are trained from birth to not believe the person handing them a gun and to check that it's loaded.

#55 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2023-01-20 07:49 AM | Reply

and in this case, the expert was out playing with the guns with real ammo.

I'm not an expert, but even I have enough sense to use 3D printed fake ammo with a brass paintjob and change out the hammer springs so they don't shatter when they're dry fired.

#56 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2023-01-20 07:52 AM | Reply

So there is no "checking" of the weapon by the actor.

It seems that movie industry standard practices are butting up against involuntary manslaughter laws. If you point a gun at someone and kill them with it, then maybe the word of someone who caused multiple people to walk off the set citing gun safety concerns isn't an ironclad defense.

#57 | Posted by JOE at 2023-01-20 09:09 AM | Reply

If he were a conservative he would not have been charged. Trump could have shot someone on 5th Avenue and no one would have cared.

#58 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2023-01-20 10:29 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The personal holding the gun is always responsible for the gun"

Tell me you've never worked on a movie set without using those specific words.

And tell us: if someone is doing a stunt, who should be in charge: the stunt co-ordinator specifically hired for that job, or whatever rando actor was cast that day?

#59 | Posted by Danforth at 2023-01-20 11:07 AM | Reply

"maybe the word of someone who caused multiple people to walk off the set citing gun safety concerns isn't an ironclad defense."

What if you aren't allowed to disassemble the gun once it's handed back to you?

#60 | Posted by Danforth at 2023-01-20 11:09 AM | Reply

the stunt co-ordinator specifically hired for that job, or whatever rando actor was cast that day?

Interesting point. I read that a previous movie the assistant director worked on had random extras doing vehicle stunts rather than actual stunt drivers.

#61 | Posted by REDIAL at 2023-01-20 11:11 AM | Reply

"Los Angeles entertainment attorney Tre Lovell described movie sets as "different from the real world," saying in an email that the "rules and protocols" in Hollywood are extremely specific in ascribing responsibility at every stage of production. Actors are not in charge of ensuring prop safety, and the idea that they might be tasked with inspecting their own equipment will never fly with the Screen Actors Guild."
currently.att.yahoo.com

Thank God for SAG, the one reasonable voice in the room.

Now please excuse me while I vomit in my mouth for typing that.

#62 | Posted by Danforth at 2023-01-20 12:07 PM | Reply

What if you aren't allowed to disassemble the gun once it's handed back to you?

What movie sets decide to "allow" may not always be in accordance with the law, which is what we're seeing here.

What if a movie set decided to let people use cocaine? Is that now legal because the producers said so? Of course not.

#63 | Posted by JOE at 2023-01-20 12:15 PM | Reply

I liked Team America's slight change from Screen Actors Guild to Film Actors Guild.

#64 | Posted by BellRinger at 2023-01-20 12:23 PM | Reply

"What if a movie set decided to let people use cocaine? Is that now legal because the producers said so? Of course not."

What part of "the pro admitted he didn't check the gun before vouching for its safety" did you miss?

And using your analogy, what if the pro said it was powdered sugar before the actor snorted it. Still the actor's legal fault?

#65 | Posted by Danforth at 2023-01-20 12:24 PM | Reply

"I liked Team America's slight change from Screen Actors Guild to Film Actors Guild."

Before SAG and AFTRA merged, there were horrible turf wars. Production companies would whipsaw one Union against the other, ESPECIALLY after digital hit the scene: it wasn't video, and it wasn't film, which had been the prior delineator.

#66 | Posted by Danforth at 2023-01-20 12:27 PM | Reply

Duh! If it isn't one thing, it's another in the USA comrades. Involuntary manslaughter? Oh! That's when the perpetrator says, "The Devil made me do it!".

#67 | Posted by wolfdog at 2023-01-20 01:55 PM | Reply

Tell me you've never worked on a movie set without using those specific words.

#59 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2023-01-20 11:07 AM | FLAG:

Not a day in my life. A play or two at best. At the same time, you sound exactly like somebody that didn't grow up with firearms without using those specific words. If you did you'd find yourself questioning the protocol regarding firearms, and check it yourself when handed one as you are now the responsible party. Under stringent gun control, you wouldn't even be allowed to be handed that gun without a background check and training classes that would tell you to check the firearm when handed it.

#68 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2023-01-20 03:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

In the event of fake cocaine, the only person liable to go to the hospital is the person snorting it. Not the people filming them snort it. Snort on, just know bronchitis comes with it. If the expert doesn't mention that, time to get a new expert.

#69 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2023-01-20 03:41 PM | Reply

What part of "the pro admitted he didn't check the gun before vouching for its safety" did you miss?

I didn't miss it at all. But the "pro" was so non-pro that multiple people walked off set over gun safety concerns. So "i took the pro's word for it" might not be the ironclad excuse you think it is.

#70 | Posted by JOE at 2023-01-20 03:52 PM | Reply

what if the pro said it was powdered sugar before the actor snorted it

If the pro was known to the snorter to be terrible at telling the difference, it might give the snorter pause.

I don't doubt that the way you describe SOP on a movie set to be accurate. I just wonder how much those procedures may not jibe well with involuntary manslaughter laws, and that we just haven't noticed that tension due to a lack of accidents.

#71 | Posted by JOE at 2023-01-20 03:54 PM | Reply

I don't doubt that the way you describe SOP on a movie set to be accurate.

Much of what I have read about this indicates procedures were pretty sloppy. There were at least 2 other accidental discharges on the same set that were not investigated. Apparently half of the rounds in the box of supposed dummys were live.

#72 | Posted by REDIAL at 2023-01-20 07:47 PM | Reply

According to my experts (a firearms instructor and a feature film director)..Danforth and Pete are 95% right. Many new union rules were implemented after Brandon Lee's death. ANY person on set has the right to halt production at any time to personally inspect a weapon, and the armorer must facilitate this upon request. This applies to everyone from actors to catering staff. Of course realistically this does not occur often, as nobody wants to be responsible for delays.

The armorer must retain custody and control of guns at all times. He/she personally inspects the weapon and should hand it directly to the actor, with no intermediary. If the weapon leaves the armorers sight, the inspection process must be repeated.

Obviously many of these protocols were violated. The armorer wasn't present, and the guns were left unattended. An intermediary handed the gun to the actor and declared it safe. Live ammo should never be stored with prop ammo and should never have been anywhere near the set.

I agree with Sitz about gun safety in general but movie sets are are a different world, and actors are often not knowledgeable about guns.. Requiring training for actors handling prop guns may be a good idea, but they should never have the primary responsibility for gun safety. There are too many variables in weaponry to expect laymen to reliably tell the difference between a safe prop gun with realistic appearing mock ammo and a real gun with live ammo. That responsibility should rest with the armorer, and the actors should be able to rely on them to ensure props are safe..

That being said, IMO, Real guns, Blanks and dummy rounds are unnecessary on set and should be prohibited Dummy rounds are used to make a revolver appear loaded in closeups. Blanks go "bang" and create muzzle flash and recoil. All of these effects are usually enhanced in post production anyway, a good editor can create that from scratch. If there if an antique weapon is important to the plot and can't be replicated with a safe model, closeup footage can be shot in a controlled environment off set

#73 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2023-01-21 01:12 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Alec Baldwin trusts that the professional who handed him a weapon didn't hand him a real weapon. He's getting charged for it. People who don't know jack squat about movies are claiming that he is supposed to check each and every weapon every time he is handed one... how WOULD he? Is he supposed to crack open every dummy round to ensure there's no gunpowder? Check every blank in the mag to ensure there's no "real" bullets? That would make a shoot take hours longer than it otherwise would. Even though this is entirely not his fault, he's still facing punishment.

I'm gonna guess he's not a Republican, because the rules are different for left-leaning Hollywood stars.

#74 | Posted by VictorZiblis at 2023-01-21 02:08 AM | Reply

Oh, and just so you all get this extremely clear in your heads:

The actor is not ALLOWED to open the action. If he does so the weapon must immediately go back to whoever is in charge of the prop. Even if he was somehow able to tell what is in there magically, he's still not allowed to.

#75 | Posted by VictorZiblis at 2023-01-21 02:15 AM | Reply

Is he supposed to crack open every dummy round to ensure there's no gunpowder?

The New Mexico H&S investigation report said the only difference between the dummy rounds and the live rounds without removing each one from the chamber was the colour of the primers. Dummy round primers were brass, the live round primers were silver. Not likely an actor would even know about that, since no one else did at the time.

That said, firearm security on the set sucked. There should not have been live ammo on the property, but for some reason there was. The armorer had secondary duties that took her focus off the guns. It will be an interesting case.

#76 | Posted by REDIAL at 2023-01-21 02:29 AM | Reply

"The actor is not ALLOWED to open the action. If he does so the weapon must immediately go back to whoever is in charge of the prop. Even if he was somehow able to tell what is in there magically, he's still not allowed to.

#75 | POSTED BY VICTORZIBLIS AT 2023-01-21 02:15 AM | FLAG: "

The "person in charge of the prop" should be standing right there, and IMO, the armorer should open the action, remove the ammo and demonstrate to the actor that the weapon is safe when it is handed to the actor. That is what we do with police training guns, every, single, time. When we take a break and return to the training area, we clear and verify again. . The actor (And anyone else on set) has the right to request that.

Both Baldwin AND the Director who was killed had the opportunity to request to inspect the weapon. Neither did, but that is their right not their responsibility. It would be pointless (and create a false sense of security) for an untrained person to inspect a weapon. That responsibility rests with the armorer.

As others have Said, the bigger picture is that the set was out of control and rules were not followed. As a "producer", Baldwin has some overall responsibility for that, but the 1st AD generally has the primary responsibility to runs the set. (Dave Hall) . He is also the one who handed the gun to Baldwin, and likely s the person who assigned the armorer other prop duties so she wasn't available to properly maintain control of the guns.

The armorer should have flat out refused to accept other duties and abandon protocol, The ammo sourcing (multiple sources) was frighteningly sloppy. Plenty of blame to go around.

#77 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2023-01-21 09:59 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

A long time ago, back when the NRA was about teaching kids safe shooting, I took part in a NRA shooting club. We used single-shot .22 rifles, and the instructor (jr high shop teacher) smacked you on the back of the head if you pointed the firearm anywhere but downrange when you were ready to shoot. The second offense got you kicked out.

#78 | Posted by john47 at 2023-01-21 10:08 AM | Reply

"the instructor (jr high shop teacher) smacked you on the back of the head if you pointed the firearm anywhere but downrange"

That was instantly effective, too bad you'd get fired for that today.

#79 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2023-01-21 11:23 AM | Reply

"Not a day in my life"

I believe you.

And if you insisted on getting the veto every time after the armorer handed you the gun, you wouldn't have been hired a second day.

#80 | Posted by Danforth at 2023-01-21 11:29 AM | Reply

The number of idiots here who know absolutely nothing about movie sets commenting as if they know shiut from shinola is both funny and irritating.

#81 | Posted by Angrydad at 2023-01-21 12:24 PM | Reply

"He is also the one who handed the gun to Baldwin, and likely s the person who assigned the armorer other prop duties so she wasn't available to properly maintain control of the guns."

I'd heard they were coming back from lunch, and some came back early to walk thru the upcoming scene. The fact the guns weren't locked up when the armorer wasn't in complete custody should set off alarm bells.

#82 | Posted by Danforth at 2023-01-21 12:34 PM | Reply

Other interesting tidbits I found. There were 13 functioning .45 Long Colt SAA replicas from 3 different manufactures on the set. They also found 500 rounds of 'ammunition' in several calibers from 5 different manufacturers. They were a mix of dummy rounds, blank rounds, and some (at least 7) live rounds. Of interest is the round that was fired in the incident was made by Star Line Brass, a popular vendor for dummy rounds for film sets. Star Line Brass does not even produce live rounds, so those were likely handloads.

#83 | Posted by REDIAL at 2023-01-21 12:36 PM | Reply

"The "person in charge of the prop" should be standing right there, and IMO, the armorer should open the action, remove the ammo and demonstrate to the actor that the weapon is safe when it is handed to the actor. "

That's exactly what's (supposed to be) done.

I got killed by gunshot in an Ang Lee movie. Before each take, the opened gun was presented to me, I got to inspect it to my satisfaction before it was reassembled, and then it was handed to the actor shooting me.

And the first thing that happens after "cut" is the armorer takes the gun from the actor.

#84 | Posted by Danforth at 2023-01-21 12:40 PM | Reply

Years back, I was in a movie where I played an FBI guy whose job required him to wear a gun. After fitting me with the holster and showing me the gun, the armorer started the usual schpiel: "Now...if you remove the gun..." I stoped her right there.

"I'm not going to touch the gun."

She gave sigh of relief, then leaned into my ear and said, "You wouldn't believe how many cowboys there are on a set."

Frankly, the last folks I would want in charge of gun safety on a set would be one of my fellow actors.

#85 | Posted by Danforth at 2023-01-21 12:47 PM | Reply

"Neither did, but that is their right not their responsibility."

You left out the salient part: One made a statement claiming he had.

No one forced him to call cold gun, and before doing so, he has an affirmative responsibility.

Anyone looking for culprits and landing on Baldwin, isn't looking for culprits. And until/unless the prosecution discovers how and why the live ammo got on the set and in the gun, the case against Baldwin will go nowhere.

#86 | Posted by Danforth at 2023-01-21 12:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Another tidbit: The armorer said when she loaded the gun, she use 4 dummy rounds that she had in her pocket that did not have primers in the case, and took two more out of the box they had on the prop cart.

#87 | Posted by REDIAL at 2023-01-21 12:59 PM | Reply

I'm guessing "involuntary manslaughter" can be a fairly serious crime.

Seems an odd state of affairs, to have committed a crime involuntarily.

Where's the mens rea I keep hearing is necessary for a crime to take place?

#88 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-01-21 12:59 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2023 World Readable

Drudge Retort