Alec Baldwin shot and killed someone on set

[Tokay444]

I believe the responsibility goes like this. The armorer is responsible for loading the gun. The Director or Assistant Director is responsible for checking the gun before handing it to the actor or stunt man. The actor has no responsibility as he just does what he is told to do.

That's incorrect. See post 103.

 

[Tokay444]

Here is a twist. For close up shots revolvers are often loaded with "dummy" rounds that have a bullet but no powder or primer. If a bullet from a dummy round became dislodged and moved forward into the barrel then the bullet would be shot when a blank was fired.

With a single action revolver like a Colt SAA either the cylinder needs to be removed so the barrel can be visually inspected or a rod needs to be passed completely through the barrel to verify there are no potential projectiles in the narrel.

We already know this wasn't the case. Have you read the whole thread?

 

[skeeljc]

That's incorrect. See post 103.

I am talking about LEGAL responsibility, not what the Screen Actors Guild says. There is a difference.

 

[Tokay444]

I am talking about LEGAL responsibility, not what the Screen Actors Guild says. There is a difference.

Everyone has the legal responsibility to not kill someone.

 

[davidjoe]

This did not happen actually filming a scene and there is apparently no footage of the occurrence. It was reported that Alec was practicing his draw for a scene. I have no idea whether he initiated this in down time or was told to go over there and do it, was supervised or not, or was even informally showing off to the crew without anyone expecting that he have the gun in his hands at that time.

But in any event, if I was the individual responsible for providing prop guns on a set, they aren’t going to be accessible outside my presence, arm’s reach and watchful sight if I know they have any charge, either loaded, or in close proximity to them, that someone might pick up and use.

I just saw the last 007. Craig returns a grenade in a scene to its sender, who drops 5 more down on him. There were certainly dangerous explosives used throughout that film along with what better be mock grenades, and he of course must assume no one got confused and brought mixed up live and inert.

This is a two way street. The actors have to be able to rely on what they are told about the condition of a weapon or mock weapon, dummy bullet, etc., consider the grenade example. Likewise, the armorers have to be able to trust that actors and crew don’t abuse the off limits bounds of their dangerous gear.

It’s going to be more clear in time that one of these extremities happened. Alec should have never drawn a weapon on or toward crew or cast even if he thought it was empty, in the informal setting of practice. There are certainly countless scenes of actual weapon pointing, but with the formality of every check happening first.

 

[Rick300]

This a two way street. The actors have to be able to rely on what they are told about the condition of a weapon or mock weapon, dummy bullet, etc., consider the grenade example. Likewise, the armorers have to be able to trust that actors and crew don’t abuse the off limits bounds of their dangerous gear.

That nails it

 

[INTJ]

I am talking about LEGAL responsibility, not what the Screen Actors Guild says. There is a difference.

That will come down to NM law. At best Baldwin was negligent, the question is was he criminally negligent under NM law? I could see him being charged with reckless endangerment or manslaughter. Perhaps an attorney could weigh in here.

 

[jackieschmidt]

A lot can be swept under the rug untill you have a dead body. Then, everything changes.

You can bet that the liability insurance carrier will do a VERY thorough investigation, since millions in restitution might be at play.

In layman’s terms, this is an open and shut case in Civil terms. We know for a fact that protocols directing the handling of weapons was not followed.

How do we know this? It’s really quite simple. There is a dead person.

 

[CT10ring]

On a film set, each trade performs their own craft, in concert with the others, and 99% of the time, there is no overlap of jobs performed, or tolerated... The gaffer does electric, the grip sets up lighting, dolly tracks, the rigger does rigging, script supervisor handles dialog, teleprompter inputs the dialog, props person handles props. Armorer supplies weapons, ensures safety. The actor acts. It's not likely that an actor needs to ask "are you sure this weapon is safe" any more than an actor needs to ask the DP "are you sure the focus puller is on it...?" They do their job, you do yours. A tragedy for sure, and someone made a huge mistake.

 

[davidjoe]

We have likely all seen the video of the law enforcement officer who believed she was holding her taser, when she fatally shot a young man in the chest with her pistol. She maintained it was a terrible mistake, and she’s fairly credible there, in my opinion, though ridiculously inept as a gun carrying peace officer, despite formal training and rank.

What you think you are doing matters in US criminal jurisprudence, and that’s not true everywhere. I can say that holding the requisite criminal intent, even if it is recklessness, as supportable by the circumstances leading up to the act, has to be weighed and proven by the prosecution and we haven’t heard much about the details of this event at all.

 

[Tokay444]

On a film set, each trade performs their own craft, in concert with the others, and 99% of the time, there is no overlap of jobs performed, or tolerated... The gaffer does electric, the grip sets up lighting, dolly tracks, the rigger does rigging, script supervisor handles dialog, teleprompter inputs the dialog, props person handles props. Armorer supplies weapons, ensures safety. The actor acts. It's not likely that an actor needs to ask "are you sure this weapon is safe" any more than an actor needs to ask the DP "are you sure the focus puller is on it...?" They do their job, you do yours. A tragedy for sure, and someone made a huge mistake.

False, and there are rules to the contrary that were broken.

 

[One Eye Pete]

I've been to the shot show many times. There are a lot of people and LOT of guns at the shot show. What isn't at the shot show is live ammunition.
What the heck was live ammunition doing anywhere near a movie set. There was simply no reason to have live ammo anywhere near the place. Yet in one of the latest reports (if you can believe any of the news reports) some of the crew were having target practice with live ammo sometime before the incident. And there obviously was live ammo around because someone was unfortunately killed.
If Mr. Baldwin wasn't at fault because he was told the gun was safe (that may be debatable), he most certainly was at fault for allowing lax safety standards and allowing live ammunition to be anywhere around the set. He wasn't just an actor in the movie he was an executive producer. I believe that title means that he was ultimately in charge of the entire production.

 

[garandman]

… never let anti gun people handle firearms or firearm laws. They are dangerous when handling either.

 

[Bill Norris]

… never let anti gun people handle firearms or firearm laws. They are dangerous when handling either.

But they are only liberals that don't know better. LOL.

 

[rr2030]

I would like to go on the record here for stating that; Alec Baldwin will be held harmless in this tragedy. As much as I find him disgusting, nothing will become of it.

That being said, I hope I am wrong. Not for any legal rational, I just don't like the guy.

 

[Twicepop]

Lots of speculation going around the internet as to how it could have happened. So far nothing has been announced as the real reason. This isn't the first time this has happened in Hollywood.

Back in 1984 a actor by the name of Jon-Erik Hexum shot himself with a .44 caliber blank and was killed. He was the boy-toy of model-actress Jennifer O'Neil, a vehemently outspoken anti-gunner. After his death she really got on the band wagon for the abolishment of personal handgun ownership. This went on until she was admitted to the hospital with a self inflicted (accidental?) wound as the result of shooting herself with a HANDGUN. After this incident she was no longer the darling of HCI and fell out of the public view.

 

[Adam in WI]

What isn't at the shot show is live ammunition.

Or a firing pin that could do anything about it. What I remember from the one year manning a booth was that firing pins could not protrude beyond the breech face.

 

[FNSafari]

I would like to go on the record here for stating that; Alec Baldwin will be held harmless in this tragedy. As much as I find him disgusting, nothing will become of it.

That being said, I hope I am wrong. Not for any legal rational, I just don't like the guy.

Probably criminally, but not in the civil actions sure to come imo.

 

[FNSafari]

If everyone on a movie set that includes the handling or discharge of a firearm would just take an NRA firearms safety course and abide by the training these things would be a super rarity.

God forbid any of these anti's recognize any value in the NRA. Sad!

 

[ringer]

I am talking about LEGAL responsibility, not what the Screen Actors Guild says. There is a difference.

Legal responsibility requires a “mens rea” which roughly translates to the defendants mental state, if he is unaware the gun is loaded with real ammunition he most certainly wouldnt have the “intent to kill” - keep in mind that these hollywood sets are filled with experts and consultants whose job is to supply these props - i seriously doubt baldwin had anything to do with the weapon prior to it being put in his hands - at best I think youre looking at criminal negligence, but i dont practice criminal law.