Very true. However, I think it boils down to him hiring an inexperienced prop master to save money. That might play a roll into it. I don't know the law well enough to understand thought. I mean if you get into a car accident and kill someone, they still can and do charge some with manslaughter if it was their fault.
Alec Baldwin indicted
- Thread starter ClonesTwenty1
- Start date
Any time you have a firearm in your hand you are responsible. I was trained that you treat all firearms as if they were fully loaded and ready to fire.
A police officer was found guilty and sent to prison for mistaken her sidearm for her taiser. I have seen seen Soldiers get in huge trouble for failing to clear their weapon properly. I have also seen Soldiers get convicted for unintentional fratricide. An actor sound not get special treatment just because they were not the one that loaded the firearm. Once he took possession he was and is responsible.
Just my opinion and we all know what opinions are like. It was a terrible accident, but it does not mean that he is liable.
I get that BUT there is NO reason that a gun on a movie set is EVER loaded. Why a live round is even on set is incredibly stupid.
Generally only will see manslaughter in that kind of case in cases of extreme negligence where they knew the actions they were taking at that moment were high risk behaviors. (Things like driving drunk or street racing).
At the moment he fired the gun, he likely believed he was following the procedure. And as this would come down to what he was thinking, you'd have to clear a pretty high bar to prove otherwise.
Now, if you want to make the case he should have civil liability as a producer for not hiring a more experienced armorer? Absolutely I think that's a case worth exploring.
I'm surprised this thread has done as well as it has.
So many obvious Cave stuff...
Guns
Law/court stuff
Hollywood generally
Alec Baldwin... known for some outspoken politics
...and his impersonation of the Orange Man
Good job everybody!
So many obvious Cave stuff...
Guns
Law/court stuff
Hollywood generally
Alec Baldwin... known for some outspoken politics
...and his impersonation of the Orange Man
Good job everybody!
This just simply isn't how firearms work on movie sets, nor will it ever. The rules that apply for private gun use in a military\home\hunting setting don't apply. The rules are different for a reason. They specifically don't want actors messing with the guns once they are inspected by the armorer.
My father taught me in no uncertain terms you never point a weapon at something you're not intending to and willing to shoot. Period. Loaded or not, safety on or not. No exceptions.
I can only assume police and military personnel are trained in a similar way.
So, I get where you're coming from.
Actors are kind of a weird exception, though. Part of acting in a Western like that is pointing a gun at somebody you are very much not intending to and not willing to shoot.
What I don't understand is why would you even have a real gun on set. For as many guns are used in movies why don't they have an arsenal of good fakes that are incapable of actually firing a round?
And if I remember correctly, that was a really freak accident. Like something got stuck/jammed in the barrel and the blank used had just enough force? No live round I think?
You're remembering correct.
They'd had a dummy (no propellant) round in for a prior shot (a shot much like this one was supposed to be). The tip of that dummy round broke\fell off and ended up still in the barrel when the blank (propellant, no projectile) was loaded. When the blank was fired it fired the tip from the dummy round out.
he is a complete ******* lock him up for ever
The gun apparently wasn't properly inspected either as the armorer was sent home early that day and some assistant loaded the blank without clearing the barrel.
If I had to guess, fakes are a lot more detectable in the types of close-up shots of guns you tend to see in westerns, and the typical viewers of westerns would also be more likely to notice.
I guess my view is that when you have a gun in your hands, regardless of the situation, you are responsible. I keep seeing that "the rules are different on set", but I was taught in all the courses and trainings I have ever taken that you ALWAYS treat a gun as if it is loaded, and you ALWAYS confirm for YOURSELF that is is not. NEVER take anyone else's word for it. Ever. I don't care if I'm an actor on a set, if I am handed a gun, I'm confirming that it is not loaded, and if there are "rounds" in chamber or magazine, I'm confirming myself that they are blanks. I guess that's just what's I've been taught - and what makes sense. I'd never take someone else's word - even if they are supposed to be an arms expert for that reason.
Aside from it not being checked properly, how do actual real live guns get on set?
How can a prop gun not just be a cap gun? So many other props are made out of foam and light plastic and look very real in the movie. Why not a gun?
This.... 1000% Anyone that has ever taken a firearm safety class... this is covered several times in a class.
So we're supposed to have someone with no relevant training override the person with actual expertise? What makes Alec Baldwin able to deduce any of the things mentioned here better than someone who is a professional at it? I get that this is like the whole responsible gun owner trope at work here but it seems dumb.