Alec Baldwin shooting

[Calculon]

I think here was meant to be a round or rounds in the revolver, blank or dummy ones rather than a live one obviously

Iirc the camera shot was the actor pointing the revolver directly at the camera and firing, so presumably they would want some dummy rounds in the revolver otherwise it would look a bit unrealistic

[Torquemada 1420]

This shit is so annoying.

If Mr Baldwin had performed mandatory safety checks with armourer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed and not pointed the gun at Hutchins, the "tragedy would not have occurred", Mr Shilling argued.

"This reckless deviation from known standards and practice and protocol directly caused the fatal shooting," he said.

"Baldwin knew the first rule of gun safety is never point a gun at someone you don't intend on shooting," Mr Shilling added.

In the world where guns fire real rounds, this is the first rule; in the world where Baldwin makes his living, people point guns at other people every day, & don't intend killing them; it's called working !!

Baldwin existed; like every other actor in a world where real rounds don't exists, because that's the only way everyone can go to work, & do what they do.

This fuckup happened because someone brought real live rounds into a place where they should never have been present; because every day people would be pointing viable firearms at each other, & pulling the triggers, & not planning on killing anyone.

If you have a gun capable of firing lethal rounds, whether you expect such rounds to be there or not, you check what is or is not in the gun when you take control of it. Always.

I have checked guns quite literally thousands of times when I have "known" them to be safe, precisely because of how serious the consequences can be if I am wrong in the assumption of safety.

Shooters all over the world know to do this. No actor should be excused it. Someone could die!

I agree with what you are saying but I think the confusion here is where the buck stops with that checking. My presumption would be that firearms and safety experts would be employed to ensure at all stages the situation was safe. Therefore, unless Baldwin breached protocol (e.g. he grabbed a gun from a box before being told by the proper staff member that it was safe to do so), I think prosecuting him directly for the incident it going to be a reach. However, if we was in overall charge of staff and failings are found in the safety procedures, he's in the frame under vicarious liability.

[Line6 HXFX]

Just say'in...its funny that the people usualky screaming about health and safety gone mad, are now going mad, and want to drag Alec Balwin over the hot coals on a health and safety issue..just because he is a lefty who supports liberal politics.

It's not like they actually want more health and safety regulations to come from this.

[charltom]

Regardless of your opinion, if it was/is SOP for actors not to check the weapon handed to them, if would presumably be difficult to convict him on that particular point. He might well be found guitly of something else.

It's SOP for everyone (everywhere) to check any firearm as they assume control of it. That is as true in the civilian world as in the military.

You don't have to be an "expert" to know how to do that. For most firearms, it is really easy.

If it is not SOP on a particular film set, I would expect the person in charge of that film set to be in trouble.

[Sandstorm]

Regardless of your opinion, if it was/is SOP for actors not to check the weapon handed to them, if would presumably be difficult to convict him on that particular point. He might well be found guilty of something else.

It's SOP for everyone (everywhere) to check any firearm as they assume control of it. That is as true in the civilian world as in the military.

You don't have to be an "expert" to know how to do that. For most firearms, it is really easy.

If it is not SOP on a particular film set, I would expect the person in charge of that film set to be in trouble.

But is it easy to see whether the pistol is loaded with live or dummy ammunition?

[Torquemada 1420]

Worth a read
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-diffe ... ive-rounds

[charltom]

Regardless of your opinion, if it was/is SOP for actors not to check the weapon handed to them, if would presumably be difficult to convict him on that particular point. He might well be found guilty of something else.

It's SOP for everyone (everywhere) to check any firearm as they assume control of it. That is as true in the civilian world as in the military.

You don't have to be an "expert" to know how to do that. For most firearms, it is really easy.

If it is not SOP on a particular film set, I would expect the person in charge of that film set to be in trouble.

But is it easy to see whether the pistol is loaded with live or dummy ammunition?

Yes. A dummy round has no primer.

[Sandstorm]

Yes. A dummy round has no primer.

[Calculon]

Regardless of your opinion, if it was/is SOP for actors not to check the weapon handed to them, if would presumably be difficult to convict him on that particular point. He might well be found guitly of something else.

It's SOP for everyone (everywhere) to check any firearm as they assume control of it. That is as true in the civilian world as in the military.

You don't have to be an "expert" to know how to do that. For most firearms, it is really easy.

If it is not SOP on a particular film set, I would expect the person in charge of that film set to be in trouble.

How long have you been working as an armorer on film sets? You do realize that you wanting it to be SOP doesn't mean it it so?

[Calculon]

Yes. A dummy round has no primer.

these are dummy rounds, you can see they are so because of the dimple on the primer, meaning the priming compound has already been fired


these are also dummy rounds



you can see they are so because they are orange and appear to be made of plastic

[Torquemada 1420]

Yes. A dummy round has no primer.

Hence my point to the link above. It's not a binary between dummy and live. There is a sh*tload in between.

[Torquemada 1420]

Yes. A dummy round has no primer.

these are dummy rounds, you can see they are so because of the dimple on the primer, meaning the priming compound has already been fired

I assume then that those have been retipped post firing?

[Calculon]

I assume so, presumably a cheap and easy way to get realistic dummy rounds

[Torquemada 1420]

I assume so, presumably a cheap and easy way to get realistic dummy rounds

Cheers. No gun expert hence why I asked.

[Calculon]

Oh, I'm definitely no gun expert. Only shooting I've done was as a teen in the cadet force.

[charltom]

Regardless of your opinion, if it was/is SOP for actors not to check the weapon handed to them, if would presumably be difficult to convict him on that particular point. He might well be found guitly of something else.

It's SOP for everyone (everywhere) to check any firearm as they assume control of it. That is as true in the civilian world as in the military.

You don't have to be an "expert" to know how to do that. For most firearms, it is really easy.

If it is not SOP on a particular film set, I would expect the person in charge of that film set to be in trouble.

How long have you been working as an armorer on film sets? You do realize that you wanting it to be SOP doesn't mean it it so?

Some things over-ride other things (for instance, you can't just choose to have SOP on a set that requires cast members to be murdered; similarly, if you use firearms, you respect standard firearms safety). If they don't, that's a problem. And (not wishing to be dramatic) people can end up dead.

[charltom]

Yes. A dummy round has no primer.

Hence my point to the link above. It's not a binary between dummy and live. There is a sh*tload in between.

Your link was blank vs. live.

Blanks are different from dummy rounds, as the former go bang.

[charltom]

Oh, I'm definitely no gun expert. Only shooting I've done was as a teen in the cadet force.

You will have learned basic gun safety then, including checking on taking control of the firearm and not ever pointing it at anyone, even when you know you have loaded it with blanks.

[Blackmac]

Oh, I'm definitely no gun expert. Only shooting I've done was as a teen in the cadet force.

You will have learned basic gun safety then, including checking on taking control of the firearm and not ever pointing it at anyone, even when you know you have loaded it with blanks.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure standard rules of firearms handling fully apply in this situation. I've checked hundreds of weapons before handling them but I know for a fact I have never checked every individual round. Usually because I expect the ammunition to be live so why check for a blank. I've also fired many blank rounds and whilst I know I would have noticed if I had loaded my own ammunition I have also fired pre loaded belts of blank ammunition and never did, nor was I ever expected to, check every individual round just in case there was the outside chance of a live round being mistakenly included.

Also you should obviously never point a firearm at any person, but we have a situation here where Baldwin was expected to point and fire the weapon directly at the camera, and presumably the camera and crews were outwith the expected range of the blank round so I don't think that point it relevant.

I can't stand Baldwin and I think he has run a pretty slack production but I'm not convinced he is that culpable of not noticing one live round in a pre loaded revolver that he has been assured by two trained professionals to be safe.

[Blackmac]

Yes. A dummy round has no primer.

these are dummy rounds, you can see they are so because of the dimple on the primer, meaning the priming compound has already been fired


these are also dummy rounds



you can see they are so because they are orange and appear to be made of plastic

There is a big difference between dummy and blank ammunition. I understand Baldwin expected the ammunition to be blank as they needed to show the weapon firing.

[JM2K6]

"Never point your gun at someone" isn't exactly applicable on a set where you're expected to do it over and over and over and over

[charltom]

No, but knowing that you're going to be asked to do that, you would naturally make absolutely damned sure that it is safe to do so!

And yes, it is entirely fair to expect that the first round to be fired would have been checked.

Not insisting on these checks every time is how lax protocols come about, and guess what can happen when there is a lax approach to firearms... yes, you've guessed it!

[Ymx]

In rest of world you never point your gun at anyone you don’t intend to kill! Even then, without pointing your gun at people, you are required to check a gun before handling it.

In this world you are pointing the gun at people, so surely this would demand a hugely increased level of safety guards. Especially checking the bloody ammo!!

[fishfoodie]

Oh, I'm definitely no gun expert. Only shooting I've done was as a teen in the cadet force.

You will have learned basic gun safety then, including checking on taking control of the firearm and not ever pointing it at anyone, even when you know you have loaded it with blanks.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure standard rules of firearms handling fully apply in this situation. I've checked hundreds of weapons before handling them but I know for a fact I have never checked every individual round. Usually because I expect the ammunition to be live so why check for a blank. I've also fired many blank rounds and whilst I know I would have noticed if I had loaded my own ammunition I have also fired pre loaded belts of blank ammunition and never did, nor was I ever expected to, check every individual round just in case there was the outside chance of a live round being mistakenly included.

Also you should obviously never point a firearm at any person, but we have a situation here where Baldwin was expected to point and fire the weapon directly at the camera, and presumably the camera and crews were outwith the expected range of the blank round so I don't think that point it relevant.

I can't stand Baldwin and I think he has run a pretty slack production but I'm not convinced he is that culpable of not noticing one live round in a pre loaded revolver that he has been assured by two trained professionals to be safe.

Well here again the process broke down disastrously.

The AD, who wasn't authorized to do so, was the one who handed the gun to him, & told him it was cold !

For obvious reasons, there is only one person who is supposed to do this, & that's the armourer, because they are ones who load the weapons, bring them to the set, & lay them out. The chain of control is crucial to keeping a safe set.

Its notable that the AD has already copped a plea, & gotten a pretty sweet deal, with 6 months & no jail time. A cynic might wonder if this deal is because the DA fancied enhancing their careers by taking down a big name actor.

[Blackmac]

No, but knowing that you're going to be asked to do that, you would naturally make absolutely damned sure that it is safe to do so!

And yes, it is entirely fair to expect that the first round to be fired would have been checked.

Not insisting on these checks every time is how lax protocols come about, and guess what can happen when there is a lax approach to firearms... yes, you've guessed it!

The expectations here are they have an experienced and competent armourer looking after and maintaining the weapons and ammunition during the production. The SOP is that live ammunition should not be present. That same armourer is expected to check the ammunition and load the weapon, then hand the weapon to a trained and experienced producer who checks the weapon for a second time, declare the weapon safe and hand it to the actor. If, as would appear to have happened on hundreds of other productions, that process is followed then I think that by any reasonable expectation we would hardly describe that process as lax.

If Baldwin is guilty of anything it is running an extremely shoddy operation and hiring and armourer who was clearly not experienced and competent.

I'm just not convinced that we can hold an individual operating in a situation where he has no expectation that live ammunition would be present to the same level of care expected of a firearms user who knows and expects to be handling live ammunition.

[Blackmac]

You will have learned basic gun safety then, including checking on taking control of the firearm and not ever pointing it at anyone, even when you know you have loaded it with blanks.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure standard rules of firearms handling fully apply in this situation. I've checked hundreds of weapons before handling them but I know for a fact I have never checked every individual round. Usually because I expect the ammunition to be live so why check for a blank. I've also fired many blank rounds and whilst I know I would have noticed if I had loaded my own ammunition I have also fired pre loaded belts of blank ammunition and never did, nor was I ever expected to, check every individual round just in case there was the outside chance of a live round being mistakenly included.

Also you should obviously never point a firearm at any person, but we have a situation here where Baldwin was expected to point and fire the weapon directly at the camera, and presumably the camera and crews were outwith the expected range of the blank round so I don't think that point it relevant.

I can't stand Baldwin and I think he has run a pretty slack production but I'm not convinced he is that culpable of not noticing one live round in a pre loaded revolver that he has been assured by two trained professionals to be safe.

Well here again the process broke down disastrously.

The AD, who wasn't authorized to do so, was the one who handed the gun to him, & told him it was cold !

For obvious reasons, there is only one person who is supposed to do this, & that's the armourer, because they are ones who load the weapons, bring them to the set, & lay them out. The chain of control is crucial to keeping a safe set.

Its notable that the AD has already copped a plea, & gotten a pretty sweet deal, with 6 months & no jail time. A cynic might wonder if this deal is because the DA fancied enhancing their careers by taking down a big name actor.

Absolutely no doubt the process failed. My argument is that Baldwin can claim he had a right to expect it not to and I don't think he should be expected to operate to the same level of care of a firearms user who knows he is handling live ammunition.

[fishfoodie]

I'm sorry, I'm not sure standard rules of firearms handling fully apply in this situation. I've checked hundreds of weapons before handling them but I know for a fact I have never checked every individual round. Usually because I expect the ammunition to be live so why check for a blank. I've also fired many blank rounds and whilst I know I would have noticed if I had loaded my own ammunition I have also fired pre loaded belts of blank ammunition and never did, nor was I ever expected to, check every individual round just in case there was the outside chance of a live round being mistakenly included.

Also you should obviously never point a firearm at any person, but we have a situation here where Baldwin was expected to point and fire the weapon directly at the camera, and presumably the camera and crews were outwith the expected range of the blank round so I don't think that point it relevant.

I can't stand Baldwin and I think he has run a pretty slack production but I'm not convinced he is that culpable of not noticing one live round in a pre loaded revolver that he has been assured by two trained professionals to be safe.

Well here again the process broke down disastrously.

The AD, who wasn't authorized to do so, was the one who handed the gun to him, & told him it was cold !

For obvious reasons, there is only one person who is supposed to do this, & that's the armourer, because they are ones who load the weapons, bring them to the set, & lay them out. The chain of control is crucial to keeping a safe set.

Its notable that the AD has already copped a plea, & gotten a pretty sweet deal, with 6 months & no jail time. A cynic might wonder if this deal is because the DA fancied enhancing their careers by taking down a big name actor.

Absolutely no doubt the process failed. My argument is that Baldwin can claim he had a right to expect it not to and I don't think he should be expected to operate to the same level of care of a firearms user who knows he is handling live ammunition.

Oh I totally agree.

In this case it was just a single actor; imagine what would be necessary to carry out one scene in a movie like Saving Private Ryan, if the liability shifted to the actors ?

You could have a couple of hundred actors/extras all trying to do due diligence, & most of them having never handled a gun since they were playing cowboys & indians as a child

[charltom]

If Baldwin is guilty of anything it is running an extremely shoddy operation

Here we agree.

[charltom]

Well here again the process broke down disastrously.

The AD, who wasn't authorized to do so, was the one who handed the gun to him, & told him it was cold !

For obvious reasons, there is only one person who is supposed to do this, & that's the armourer, because they are ones who load the weapons, bring them to the set, & lay them out. The chain of control is crucial to keeping a safe set.

Its notable that the AD has already copped a plea, & gotten a pretty sweet deal, with 6 months & no jail time. A cynic might wonder if this deal is because the DA fancied enhancing their careers by taking down a big name actor.

Absolutely no doubt the process failed. My argument is that Baldwin can claim he had a right to expect it not to and I don't think he should be expected to operate to the same level of care of a firearms user who knows he is handling live ammunition.

Oh I totally agree.

In this case it was just a single actor; imagine what would be necessary to carry out one scene in a movie like Saving Private Ryan, if the liability shifted to the actors ?

You could have a couple of hundred actors/extras all trying to do due diligence, & most of them having never handled a gun since they were playing cowboys & indians as a child

That simply shouldn't be the case, for two reasons:
(i) It takes no more than five minutes to train people in all the firearms safety that they will need in a situation like this. You can train lots of people at the same time. They can perform their very simple checks in seconds;
(ii) I wouldn't expect scenes with hundreds of firearms to involve ammunition at all, particularly in the era of special effects.

[JM2K6]

There's absolutely no way 5 minutes of training is worth a damn in this scenario. Yes, you can impart the information on how to check a gun at the most basic level, but that's a world away from drilling into people exactly what they're doing, what they're looking for, and making it an unbreakable habit.

[charltom]

There's absolutely no way 5 minutes of training is worth a damn in this scenario. Yes, you can impart the information on how to check a gun at the most basic level, but that's a world away from drilling into people exactly what they're doing, what they're looking for, and making it an unbreakable habit.

This scenario or that scenario?

In the "hundreds of people on set" scenario, of course it's worth a damn. You can do it as you draw the weapons. The check happens immediately. No problem. And because it takes so little time, you can do it each time they are drawn. That way, nobody misses the instruction, and those that are in multiple scenes get used to it. (NB there are some military weapons where you would need more than five minutes just to understand how each part operates, but there are many where you would not).

In the Baldwin scenario, five minutes is way more than you would need. His pistol is a very simple firearm.

You just need to preface the instruction with "This could be the difference between life and death." And now people will listen.

[JM2K6]

There's absolutely no way 5 minutes of training is worth a damn in this scenario. Yes, you can impart the information on how to check a gun at the most basic level, but that's a world away from drilling into people exactly what they're doing, what they're looking for, and making it an unbreakable habit.

This scenario or that scenario?

In the "hundreds of people on set" scenario, of course it's worth a damn. You can do it as you draw the weapons. The check happens immediately. No problem. And because it takes so little time, you can do it each time they are drawn. That way, nobody misses the instruction, and those that are in multiple scenes get used to it. (NB there are some military weapons where you would need more than five minutes just to understand how each part operates, but there are many where you would not).

In the Baldwin scenario, five minutes is way more than you would need. His pistol is a very simple firearm.

You just need to preface the instruction with "This could be the difference between life and death." And now people will listen.

OK, so you're saying they get instructed every time the armorer hands the weapon out? That would work much better from an actual teaching-and-learning standpoint, I agree. But I also don't know if that's feasible on set.

[Torquemada 1420]

"Never point your gun at someone" isn't exactly applicable on a set where you're expected to do it over and over and over and over

Was thinking the same.

[Sandstorm]

"Never point your gun at someone" isn't exactly applicable on a set where you're expected to do it over and over and over and over

Was thinking the same.

If you two are agreed on something, then Baldwin will get the electric chair!!

[Torquemada 1420]

"Never point your gun at someone" isn't exactly applicable on a set where you're expected to do it over and over and over and over

Was thinking the same.

If you two are agreed on something, then Baldwin will get the electric chair!!

Nah. It's all good. We've become symbiotes in the last few weeks.

[fishfoodie]

Let me throw another spanner in trying to make the actors liable

Spoiler

Show

I recommend people read the Quora article linked above, & take onboard the complexity of how weapons are handled on set.

[mat the expat]

Let me throw another spanner in trying to make the actors liable

Spoiler

Show

I recommend people read the Quora article linked above, & take onboard the complexity of how weapons are handled on set.

Indeed - it's the Armourer's responsibilty.

[Uncle fester]

Don't mind charltom. Right wing gun lover who can't believe his luck that a lib like Baldwin is up in front of a judge.

[fishfoodie]

Don't mind charltom. Right wing gun lover who can't believe his luck that a lib like Baldwin is up in front of a judge.

It'll never get in front of a Judge & Jury. The Armorers team will fight to get her the least time possible, & will settle for minimum Jail time; & Baldwins Insurance & lawyers will be the same, & while she might see the inside of a jail, he won't do a day, but he'll also probably be un-insurable for anything other than just being an actor, which feels about right.

He ran a chaotic production, but she was criminal in her inability to keep the site safe; she was the certified professional.

[charltom]

Don't mind charltom. Right wing gun lover who can't believe his luck that a lib like Baldwin is up in front of a judge.

Sounds like a bit of prejudice on your part there Fester. I have no idea of Baldwin's politics just as you have no idea of mine, so it's hard to see how I could consider myself "lucky". "Guns" may be political symbols in the USA but they're not in the UK and certainly not in competitive sport.