Alec Baldwin Fatally Shoots Crew Member With Prop Firearm, Authorities Say

[TSwizzle]

There is no reason for having live ammo on a movie site.

Whether this is true or not, if you are handed a gun, even if it is a prop, you should still check if it's loaded. If you assume "well, no live ammo is allowed on set then I'm good, I don't need to check this lethal weapon for ammo" you are making a potentially fatal error as Baldwin did. Even if someone you trust hands you a gun saying it's not loaded, you check it anyway.

That's true, but actors are not necessarily trained in gun safety, their role involves pointing guns at other actors and pulling the trigger, which is why they hire an armorer to ensure gun safety. On this occasion there was failure on multiple fronts. The armorer should have insisted that actors check firearms as a final step.

I suppose but I personally would never assume that a gun was unloaded unless I checked it myself no matter who handed it to me. It just seems so obvious to me and I'm not a gun owner and have rarely touched guns. But I guess people get complacent and ignorance plays a role too. The whole set up was very shoddy by the sounds of it.

That might seem like a sensible protective measure to take and isn't really that large an inconvenience to protect yourself and those around you, but given the extremely low probability that someone actually dies of a gunshot on a movie set can't you see why someone would forego such activity?

No, not really. I guess it’s just me but if someone hands me a gun, I’m checking it.

 

[TSwizzle]

There is no reason for having live ammo on a movie site.

Whether this is true or not, if you are handed a gun, even if it is a prop, you should still check if it's loaded. If you assume "well, no live ammo is allowed on set then I'm good, I don't need to check this lethal weapon for ammo" you are making a potentially fatal error as Baldwin did. Even if someone you trust hands you a gun saying it's not loaded, you check it anyway.

That's true, but actors are not necessarily trained in gun safety, their role involves pointing guns at other actors and pulling the trigger, which is why they hire an armorer to ensure gun safety. On this occasion there was failure on multiple fronts. The armorer should have insisted that actors check firearms as a final step.

When the armorer gives the actor the gun the actor assumes the armorer did the job properly for the scene being shot.

The armorer being an inexperienced 23 year old air head ? Yeah, I’m checking the gun for sure.

 

[Shadowy Man]

There is no reason for having live ammo on a movie site.

Whether this is true or not, if you are handed a gun, even if it is a prop, you should still check if it's loaded. If you assume "well, no live ammo is allowed on set then I'm good, I don't need to check this lethal weapon for ammo" you are making a potentially fatal error as Baldwin did. Even if someone you trust hands you a gun saying it's not loaded, you check it anyway.

That's true, but actors are not necessarily trained in gun safety, their role involves pointing guns at other actors and pulling the trigger, which is why they hire an armorer to ensure gun safety. On this occasion there was failure on multiple fronts. The armorer should have insisted that actors check firearms as a final step.

I suppose but I personally would never assume that a gun was unloaded unless I checked it myself no matter who handed it to me. It just seems so obvious to me and I'm not a gun owner and have rarely touched guns. But I guess people get complacent and ignorance plays a role too. The whole set up was very shoddy by the sounds of it.

That might seem like a sensible protective measure to take and isn't really that large an inconvenience to protect yourself and those around you, but given the extremely low probability that someone actually dies of a gunshot on a movie set can't you see why someone would forego such activity?

No, not really. I guess it’s just me but if someone hands me a gun, I’m checking it.

So, you do feel that taking small measures to protect yourself and especially those around you is a smart thing to do even when the probability of harm is vanishingly small?

 

[DBT]

There is no reason for having live ammo on a movie site.

Whether this is true or not, if you are handed a gun, even if it is a prop, you should still check if it's loaded. If you assume "well, no live ammo is allowed on set then I'm good, I don't need to check this lethal weapon for ammo" you are making a potentially fatal error as Baldwin did. Even if someone you trust hands you a gun saying it's not loaded, you check it anyway.

That's true, but actors are not necessarily trained in gun safety, their role involves pointing guns at other actors and pulling the trigger, which is why they hire an armorer to ensure gun safety. On this occasion there was failure on multiple fronts. The armorer should have insisted that actors check firearms as a final step.

I suppose but I personally would never assume that a gun was unloaded unless I checked it myself no matter who handed it to me. It just seems so obvious to me and I'm not a gun owner and have rarely touched guns. But I guess people get complacent and ignorance plays a role too. The whole set up was very shoddy by the sounds of it.

That might seem like a sensible protective measure to take and isn't really that large an inconvenience to protect yourself and those around you, but given the extremely low probability that someone actually dies of a gunshot on a movie set can't you see why someone would forego such activity?

No, not really. I guess it’s just me but if someone hands me a gun, I’m checking it.

Safety failures at every turn. Whoever hired an inexperienced armorer, the armorer, the crew using live ammo for target practice and the actor for not checking.

 

[none]

how many tests for blanks have to be performed?

 

[DBT]

Blanks are visibly different, crimped shells where the projectile is normally seated, but not if looking from the back, where you just see the base and primer in the revolver cylinder. They would need to be removed and checked.

 

[none]

err. who checks it after baldwin?

 

[TV and credit cards]

err. who checks it after baldwin?

Anyone receiving the weapon should be checking it and know how to check it. No one should be receiving the weapon who does not need to. Ideally the chain of custody would be armorer, Baldwin, armorer period

 

[none]

here's grenade it's live. here's a grenade it's cold.
now wtf are you gonna do?

 

[DBT]

There is no reason for having live ammo on a movie site.

Whether this is true or not, if you are handed a gun, even if it is a prop, you should still check if it's loaded. If you assume "well, no live ammo is allowed on set then I'm good, I don't need to check this lethal weapon for ammo" you are making a potentially fatal error as Baldwin did. Even if someone you trust hands you a gun saying it's not loaded, you check it anyway.

That's true, but actors are not necessarily trained in gun safety, their role involves pointing guns at other actors and pulling the trigger, which is why they hire an armorer to ensure gun safety. On this occasion there was failure on multiple fronts. The armorer should have insisted that actors check firearms as a final step.

I suppose but I personally would never assume that a gun was unloaded unless I checked it myself no matter who handed it to me. It just seems so obvious to me and I'm not a gun owner and have rarely touched guns. But I guess people get complacent and ignorance plays a role too. The whole set up was very shoddy by the sounds of it.

That might seem like a sensible protective measure to take and isn't really that large an inconvenience to protect yourself and those around you, but given the extremely low probability that someone actually dies of a gunshot on a movie set can't you see why someone would forego such activity?

No, not really. I guess it’s just me but if someone hands me a gun, I’m checking it.

So, you do feel that taking small measures to protect yourself and especially those around you is a smart thing to do even when the probability of harm is vanishingly small?

It is the smart thing to do.

 

[thebeave]

There is no reason for having live ammo on a movie site.

Whether this is true or not, if you are handed a gun, even if it is a prop, you should still check if it's loaded. If you assume "well, no live ammo is allowed on set then I'm good, I don't need to check this lethal weapon for ammo" you are making a potentially fatal error as Baldwin did. Even if someone you trust hands you a gun saying it's not loaded, you check it anyway.

That's true, but actors are not necessarily trained in gun safety, their role involves pointing guns at other actors and pulling the trigger, which is why they hire an armorer to ensure gun safety. On this occasion there was failure on multiple fronts. The armorer should have insisted that actors check firearms as a final step.

I suppose but I personally would never assume that a gun was unloaded unless I checked it myself no matter who handed it to me. It just seems so obvious to me and I'm not a gun owner and have rarely touched guns. But I guess people get complacent and ignorance plays a role too. The whole set up was very shoddy by the sounds of it.

That might seem like a sensible protective measure to take and isn't really that large an inconvenience to protect yourself and those around you, but given the extremely low probability that someone actually dies of a gunshot on a movie set can't you see why someone would forego such activity?

No, not really. I guess it’s just me but if someone hands me a gun, I’m checking it.

So, you do feel that taking small measures to protect yourself and especially those around you is a smart thing to do even when the probability of harm is vanishingly small?

 

[ZiprHead]

Alec Baldwin Fatal Shooting Film’s First AD Was “Fired” From 2019 Movie Over Gun Going Off, ‘Freedom’s Path’ Producer Confirms

“I can confirm that Dave Halls was fired from the set of Freedom’s Path in 2019 after a crew member incurred a minor and temporary injury when a gun was unexpectedly discharged,” he added. “Halls was removed from set immediately after the prop gun discharged. Production did not resume filming until Dave was off-site. An incident report was taken and filed at that time.”

 

[ZiprHead]

Armorer on Baldwin set said guns are dangerous only 'in the wrong hands' “I think the best part about my job is just showing people who are normally kind of freaked out by guns, like, how safe they can be,” Hannah Gutierrez-Reed said on a podcast.

Famous last words.

 

[TSwizzle]

What scum Donald Trump Jnr is, selling t-shirts with "guns don't kill people, Alec Baldwin kills people." on his website.

 

[Politesse]

err. who checks it after baldwin?

Anyone receiving the weapon should be checking it and know how to check it. No one should be receiving the weapon who does not need to. Ideally the chain of custody would be armorer, Baldwin, armorer period

COVID rules apparently added a step in this case, given what the reporting has said. I generally agree, though.

 

[none]

err. who checks it after baldwin?

Anyone receiving the weapon should be checking it and know how to check it. No one should be receiving the weapon who does not need to. Ideally the chain of custody would be armorer, Baldwin, armorer period

COVID rules apparently added a step in this case, given what the reporting has said. I generally agree, though.

then the actors run the show not the directors.....

 

[TV and credit cards]

err. who checks it after baldwin?

Anyone receiving the weapon should be checking it and know how to check it. No one should be receiving the weapon who does not need to. Ideally the chain of custody would be armorer, Baldwin, armorer period

COVID rules apparently added a step in this case, given what the reporting has said. I generally agree, though.

then the actors run the show not the directors.....

The director should have no part in this transaction. The armorer should have "positional authority". That is, the director can tell the armorer that the actor needs the weapon for the gun scene but as far as the safe handling of the weapon is concerned, that is between the armorer and actor and no one interjects.
At one of my commands, my division was in charge of holding gun qualifications for the ship's crew. One of my guys was Range Master qualified. I was his chief but he was in charge of gun quals. I could say go hold gun quals but that was it. He was in charge of the range - positional authority.
Same would go for an instructor/student relationship. Some of the students may outrank the instructor but in the classroom, the instructor has the authority.

 

[none]

so the directors begin production with training... sure sure sure

 

[J842P]

What scum Donald Trump Jnr is, selling t-shirts with "guns don't kill people, Alec Baldwin kills people." on his website.

Truly. But I can't say I'm surprised.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

There is no reason for having live ammo on a movie site.

Whether this is true or not, if you are handed a gun, even if it is a prop, you should still check if it's loaded. If you assume "well, no live ammo is allowed on set then I'm good, I don't need to check this lethal weapon for ammo" you are making a potentially fatal error as Baldwin did. Even if someone you trust hands you a gun saying it's not loaded, you check it anyway.

That's true, but actors are not necessarily trained in gun safety, their role involves pointing guns at other actors and pulling the trigger, which is why they hire an armorer to ensure gun safety. On this occasion there was failure on multiple fronts. The armorer should have insisted that actors check firearms as a final step.

I suppose but I personally would never assume that a gun was unloaded unless I checked it myself no matter who handed it to me. It just seems so obvious to me and I'm not a gun owner and have rarely touched guns. But I guess people get complacent and ignorance plays a role too. The whole set up was very shoddy by the sounds of it.

That might seem like a sensible protective measure to take and isn't really that large an inconvenience to protect yourself and those around you, but given the extremely low probability that someone actually dies of a gunshot on a movie set can't you see why someone would forego such activity?

Had it been a more safety oriented set, I would agree with this. But given that there were 2 or 3 accidental discharges during the week (I know...WTF??) , both the AD and AB should have at least done a dry fire into the ground. Which brings up another point...why did AB not raise hell about the earlier accidental discharges? That's outrageous to keep going on like nothing happened.

I’m just catching up with this thread. Does anyone have a link to info about these earlier accidental discharges? The only ones I’ve read about were on a different movie set, which resulted in the assistant director being fired.