Yeesh - Alec Baldwin just plopped into a world of hurt

[Baby Lee]

Breaking - details forthcoming

Discharged a 'prop' weapon that resulted in a death and another severe injury.

https://www.santafenewmexican.com/ne...c47b69ce5.html

[Raiderhater]

Originally Posted by jd1020

Also consider you aren't on the set of a ****ing movie.

This easy to understand fact is so hard for some of you to wrap your head around.

The location of where the handling of firearms takes place is irrelevant to the rules of safe firearm handling. A fact you cannot seem to wrap your mind around. There is no invisible force field around a movie set that deflects common sense and personal responsibility.

[srvy]

Blank ammo for western stage props.

[jd1020]

Originally Posted by Raiderhader

The location of where the handling of firearms takes place is irrelevant to the rules of safe firearm handling. A fact you cannot seem to wrap your mind around. There is no invisible force field around a movie set that deflects common sense and personal responsibility.

Ya you're right. At no point in a film is a gun ever pointed in the direction of someone without intent to kill.

Someone needs to go back to 1993 and charge someone with Lee's murder.

[Raiderhater]

Originally Posted by jd1020

Ya you're right. At no point in a film is a gun ever pointed in the direction of someone without intent to kill.

Someone needs to go back to 1993 and charge someone with Lee's murder.

Where have I stated, or even insinuated that Baldwin intended to kill anyone? You're off you're rocker here. Are you some kind of Baldwin fanboi? Someone who's life is so pedestrian that you live vicariously through celebrities to the point of losing touch with reality? "But, it's a movie set! But, He's an actor! But, it's Hollwood, the normal order of things does not apply to these people I want to be!"

Seriously, get a grip.

[jd1020]

Originally Posted by Raiderhader

Where have I stated, or even insinuated that Baldwin intended to kill anyone? You're off you're rocker here. Are you some kind of Baldwin fanboi? Someone who's life is so pedestrian that you live vicariously through celebrities to the point of losing touch with reality? "But, it's a movie set! But, He's an actor! But, it's Hollwood, the normal order of things does not apply to these people I want to be!"

Seriously, get a grip.

I knew you would miss the point entirely.

[Raiderhater]

Originally Posted by jd1020

I knew you would miss the point entirely.

The "point" was pointless in regards to the point of he who holds the weapon is ultimately responsible for the damage it causes.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by jd1020

Ya you're right. At no point in a film is a gun ever pointed in the direction of someone without intent to kill.

Someone needs to go back to 1993 and charge someone with Lee's murder.

We're kind of talking past each other here. The factors that suggest or obviate culpability are being weighed. The final decision is with prosecutors and ultimately a jury if necessary. No one is making a 'ruling' here.

But you are asserting that the fact that things have been done in the past and no one got hurt, therefore there is no possibility of culpability. That's not how it works. When bad things actually do happen, particularly involving dangerous instruments, . . . that is when you start tracking down proximate cause and who is responsible.

As regards the Lee case, I'm not going to track down primary documentation of what all went on in deciding how to proceed in the wake of that incident. But in that particular case, it was a particularly random factor that led to the injury and death. The gun was in proper working order, and the proper blanks were in it. What went wrong wasn't checking the normal danger signs like whether it's loaded and what it's loaded with. It happened, discovered through inference after investigation, that in prior use, a close-up was photographed down the chamber, and they but a piece of ordinance in there so you could see the 'bullet.' Then when it was used later, the piece of ordinance had lodged down in the barrel itself, and the blank was loaded behind it.

To find such an odd condition would require someone to do something well beyond normal safe handling of a weapon. Though the prosecutors COULD have charged if they weighed the factors differently, they used discretion to decide that, between the oddity of the facts and presumably the demeanor of the actor responsible, that it would be too difficult to convince a jury for conviction.

That's different from saying 'no one prosecuted this guy, so everyone can relax their standard of care, and stop worrying about how dangerous a gun is.'

[Jamie]

Originally Posted by srvy

Blank ammo for western stage props.

I don't know why everyone is fixated on blanks, there's no indication that the gun was loaded or was supposed to be loaded with blanks. The description of the scene is that Baldwin draws his gun and backs out of the room, nothing about the gun being fired. I think it's likely the gun was supposed to be loaded with dummy rounds, i.e. rounds with no powder.

[jd1020]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

We're kind of talking past each other here. The factors that suggest or obviate culpability are being weighed. The final decision is with prosecutors and ultimately a jury if necessary. No one is making a 'ruling' here.

But you are asserting that the fact that things have been done in the past and no one got hurt, therefore there is no possibility of culpability. That's not how it works. When bad things actually do happen, particularly involving dangerous instruments, . . . that is when you start tracking down proximate cause and who is responsible.

And it's pretty clear who the responsible party is here. Supposedly live ammunition is prohibited from movie sets, which makes perfect sense because there's no reason for it to be there in the first place. There was apparently only 1 armorer on the set of this movie at the time because of a strike from the union employees.

I'll leave you to the math.

Gutierrez-Reed, the daughter of veteran Hollywood armorer Thell Reed, said on the Voices Of The West podcast that Rust was only her second film as a head armorer.

She had just finished shooting the movie "The Old Way" with Clint Howard and Nicolas Cage. "It was a really badass way to start off a really long and cool career," she said on the podcast.

"It was also my first time being head armorer as well," Gutierrez-Reed said. "I almost didn't take the job because I wasn't sure if I was ready, but, doing it, like, it went really smoothly."

Gutierrez-Reed added that she was initially fearful of loading blanks. "I think loading blanks was the scariest thing to me because I was like 'oh, I don't know anything about it,'" she said. But her famous father, she said, helped train her up.

That pretty much tells you all you need to know. A head armorer feared putting blanks in a gun.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by jd1020

And it's pretty clear who the responsible party is here. Supposedly live ammunition is prohibited from movie sets, which makes perfect sense because there's no reason for it to be there in the first place. There was apparently only 1 armorer on the set of this movie at the time because of a strike from the union employees.

I'll leave you to the math.



That pretty much tells you all you need to know. A head armorer feared putting blanks in a gun.

You're not proving what you think you are proving. The liability of the other people on set is a separate matter from Baldwin's duty with the gun in his hand.

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

Take everything else out of it, someone, . . . perhaps a very expert and very learned someone, but someone besides you is the point, . . . someone hands you an operational weapon and tells you to point it at your child and pull the trigger, . . . it's OK it's safe to do so. He even says live ammunition has been banned from the area. . .

What do you do?

[jd1020]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

You're not proving what you think you are proving. The liability of the other people on set is a separate matter from Baldwin's duty with the gun in his hand.

Yawn. I'm out. Let me know when Baldwin escapes prosecution because of his celebrity status.

[srvy]

Originally Posted by Jamie

I don't know why everyone is fixated on blanks, there's no indication that the gun was loaded or was supposed to be loaded with blanks. The description of the scene is that Baldwin draws his gun and backs out of the room, nothing about the gun being fired. I think it's likely the gun was supposed to be loaded with dummy rounds, i.e. rounds with no powder.

You should have ceased to hit the post right there.

[-King-]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

It is the same, in terms of danger and consequence.

He was handed a gun, he was told it was safe, it was an operational gun, he pointed it at someone and pulled the trigger. . . . What crucial distinction do you see?

I don't think your observation about separating a film prop from 'reality' settles the way you'd like to think. Reality is this was a real gun that really killed someone. That reality doesn't go away.

From what we've heard so far, that's not what happened. It fired when he was taking it out of the holster.

[Bwana]

Originally Posted by Raiderhader

BTW, for those of you think it is some how difficult to tell the difference between live and blank rounds -

I was going to post something similar earlier, but my give a shit just wasn't there. I mean, is there a bullet on the end or not? It shouldn't be hard to tell a blank round from the real thing, at least for most people.

[suzzer99]

Originally Posted by Raiderhader

BTW, for those of you think it is some how difficult to tell the difference between live and blank rounds -

So you want your actor or actress pulling all bullets out of the gun, making sure they're blanks, then reloading it? That seems super safe.