EXPERTS SAY BALDWIN IGNORED RULES - Alec Baldwin Discussion

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

I just read that article. Sounds like they were pretty careless about following safety rules in general. They had a 24 year old prop master who was inexperienced and non union. She even admitted she wasn't sure that she was ready for that job. A prop master or armorer should have been the one handling the gun and giving it to the actor after showing it to the assistant director and actor. Instead the AD just picked up a gun he thought was not loaded and handed it to Baldwin and neither of them checked it.

There's an unconfirmed story I came across that before the accident the owner of the ranch where they were filming had brought ammunition and guns to the set and people were firing them. That's how a gun with a real bullet in it ended up on the set.

edit: Damn. According to this, it sounds like not only was she not experienced on a set, but needed help from her father loading blanks into a gun because she found it scary.

She was THAT inexperienced. I wonder if she even knew how guns were supposed to be handled on set.

"Hannah Gutierrez-Reed (left) also admitted in the podcast interview she found loading blanks into a gun 'the scariest' thing because she did not know how to do it and had sought help from her father, legendary gunsmith Thell Reed, (right) to get over the fear"

reply

[–] DoctorThirteen (14202) 3 years ago

Yes, she doesn't sound the ideal person for the job.

reply

[–] TearofLys (2656) 3 years ago

Sounds to me like they are trying to make her the fallgirl. The young inexperienced armorer made a booboo.

reply

[–] DoctorThirteen (14202) 3 years ago

I'm sure someone somewhere's desperately looking where they can offload the blame!

reply

[–] maul (1642) 3 years ago

Was it not her responsibility?

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 3 years ago

She probably worked a lot cheaper than the ideal person for the job.

The thing is, the difficult part of the "armorer" job isn't loading the blanks into the gun, it's telling people that no, they can't play with the antique Colt 45 or do anything else unsafe, and getting them to actually refrain from doing unsafe things. Now that's difficult unless a person has a lot of experience, self-confidence, or chutzpah, and basically impossible if the management doesn't back up the armorer or give a rat's ass about safety. And by all accounts that was the case, the producers didn't do a damn thing when there were two previous safety incidents.

reply

[–] maximmm (3344) 3 years ago

Dude - Baldwin WAS the producer.
I find it funny how another person from the set made this long speech about producers not doing their job, hiring cheap inexperienced staff, taking shortcuts in terms of safety and causing an actor Baldwin to accidentally shoot someone. I wonder if he even realized that Baldwin was the producer of the film - he was the top listed producer, making him the main dude. Calling Baldwin an actor in this film, while dismissing his role as the main producer, sure as heck sounded like a way of making it seem like Baldwin was not responsible for this clusterfuck in any shape or form.

That makes me wonder how much sway Baldwin has in the hollywood, since everyone from the set is afraid to speak out against him and prefer to point fingers elsewhere. When you have a dude who is actor AND the producer of the film, he basically holds all the cards - can fire anyone right and left - and he was most certainly responsible for hiring a 24 year old chick who was too afraid to load a gun as the film's armorer - lol

Baldwin seriously fucked up - the only question is, how much sway does he have. I'd argue he's got plenty of it. His portrayal of Trump helped to elect the senile Biden - and Biden never forgets - lol - OK, not Biden, but Biden's puppeteers do owe him a favor. Biden doesn't remember what happened yesterday.
Point being, he's got peeps that will help him from the top of the presidential office and from hollywood - no wonder peeps from the set are not talking.

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 3 years ago

There were like ten producers on this film, and it's unclear if Baldwin was THE producer, the one who hired and fired and made financially motivated decisions. Probably not, usually when a film is being shot on location the producer in charge is the "line producer", the person whose job it is to keep things moving while away from the studio - they'd be the one who decides where money is spent and deals with problems that arise.

It's totally unclear which producer was in charge of telling the camera crew they were fired before they could walk out, which producer was in charge of enforcing safety protocols, hiring and firing the incompetent, etc. It may have been Baldwin, maybe not.

reply

[–] Goliard (1421) 3 years ago

This.

The knuckleheads assigning blame because Baldwin was "the producer" do not, as usual, have Any Idea how anything works.

Example: if you put up enough money/ do enough favors/ connect enough dots, you can negotiate a "producer" credit on a movie. Period.

Assigning responsibility for this incident is gonna be a clusterf$%k. In all likelihood, there's a ton of blame to ration out; no doubt Baldwin deserves a portion. How *big* a portion is something randos on a message board are Never Gonna Know.

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 3 years ago

If Baldwin signed off on all the production documents then he's as liable as any of the other producers, and if he was made aware of the on-set gun safety issues the he's also liable there, along with various others.

Really, his legal position looks dreadful from here.

reply

[–] Goliard (1421) 3 years ago

No.

Liability. . .especially in an Extremely complicated (logistically and legally) situation such as this, is hardly as cut and dried as you seem to think.

That's not to say that his legal position isn't precarious. Simple fact of the matter is: None Of Us Know. There are a LOT of moving pieces.

reply

[–] maximmm (3344) 3 years ago

In films, the size of the sum invested determines if you are going to be the first billed producer or the last one. He was the top billed producer - not the last one.

reply

[–] Goliard (1421) 3 years ago

No.

No, no, no, NO.

Another person who simply doesn't know what they're talking about, but is happy to bleat nonsense.

Typical.

reply

[–] maximmm (3344) 3 years ago

As I've mentioned earlier, he was the top-billed producer, meaning he had the most say in all matters - providing the biggest chunk of the money. Him also being the lead and the writer gave him even more power.

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 3 years ago

I have no idea if there's a correlation between producer billing and degrees of responsibility for on-set problems. I would guess not, as people billed as "producer" can have any of several different jobs, which include arranging financing or being an executive at the company producing the film. Some of the producers have little or no responsibility for dealing with the location shoot or film crew.

We have no real information on the subject.

- - -

PS: An actor's billing is whatever their agent negotiates, there's no necessary correlation to the size of the role. But writer's credit is carefully regulated by the writer's guild, I think it has something to do with how much of the finished script was done by a specific writer. Who the hell knows about producer billing.

reply

[–] Goliard (1421) 3 years ago

(Slow clap)

This guy gets it.

reply

[–] Destinata (3411) 3 years ago

Isn't this what happens when you try to do a movie on the ultra-cheap?

In the end, the person who is finally given the gun -- the actor -- is the one who has to make sure the gun isn't dangerous. Baldwin has handled guns in movies before. He should have known this.

Finally, who's responsible for hiring these people? I think we'll find a scarcity of hands shooting up when it comes to who knew/did what.

reply

[–] bozo_500 (13151) 3 years ago

looking at the Rust wiki page it seems to be basically Baldwins film .hes the the star, producer, writer. probably helping fund it too (his production company?). as he states its his 'Unforgiven'

reply

[–] Destinata (3411) 3 years ago

Well, then. The buck stops with him.

reply

[–] maximmm (3344) 3 years ago

It does, but he'll well connected these days - another person will do time, while he'll be making another ton of crappy movies.

reply

[–] Destinata (3411) 3 years ago

It looked like they were fitting up the armorer. We'll see who goes down. You're right -- it won't be him.

On the other hand, there will likely be a ton of civil suits, including some aimed at Baldwin.

reply

[–] Keelai (34983) 3 years ago

So the film industry basically hires anyone off the street or with "connections" to handle guns.
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm10588398/?ref_=ttfc_fc_cr20

"A source who was working on the film tells us just last weekend there were several issues with blanks being shot when they weren't supposed to ... it's unclear who the head armorer was at that time."

Someone should be charged with negligence.

reply

[–] TerraFirma69 (2269) 3 years ago

Not to mention at that age she would also be very reluctant and unprepared to challenge people like Baldwin, who I imagine can be quite intimidating if he wants to be. She's less likely to say "I don't care how much of a hurry you're in, we need to check this stuff twice, etc"

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

Yes, definitely. Even if Baldwin didn't have that kind of personality, I think he would have been intimidating just due to his position.

reply

[–] ccr1633 (1526) 3 years ago

Ah...so that's the reason the name of the 24 year old prop master hasn't been splattered over all news media. It's a woman. We wouldn't ever want to give the impression that some women are bad at their jobs and whose carelessness has fatal consequences, now would we? Gotta keep up appearances that all women are flawless Mary Sues trapped in a brutal and incompetent world of men's making.

reply

[–] maximmm (3344) 3 years ago

You really gotto wonder how she got the job - is she a relative of Baldwin's friend? Cause armorers aren't that expensive - and she didn't even know how to load a gun with blanks - she was like Hunter Biden working for the Ukraine's gas company - no expertise - just family connections. In this case, we could also be looking at the casting couch scenario.
Meanwhile, this was Baldwin's film through and through - he was the lead, the producer and the writer - director of the film had less say/power in this film than Baldwin. Any way you put it, Baldwin holds the most responsibility for what happened. I suspect, however, the chick or another dude will be the fall guy.

reply

[–] Sandman3 (1453) 3 years ago

"EXPERTS SAY BALDWIN IGNORED RULES"

Well if you ignore the rules of driving while drunk and you hit someone and kill them you are in big, big trouble. Lets see if that applies to Baldwin or if like Simpson he has the money to hire a dream team and walks away free.

reply

[–] Octo (216) 3 years ago

Someone is responsible of the safety of the set, and it's not the actor.

reply

[–] bozo_500 (13151) 3 years ago

its the producer

reply

[–] Sandman3 (1453) 3 years ago

So you give a pass to Baldwin the actor. It was Baldwin the actor who pointed the gun at someone not even in the movie, pulled the trigger and that person is dead. Slap Baldwin on the wrist and say bad, bad boy. Now go finish the movie so you can add millions to your bank account.

reply

[–] Octo (216) 3 years ago

You probably know more about this than me.
I was under the impression that he got a prop gun handed to him, and he went to work.
If that is the case he is completely off the hook...he had no reason to believe a loaded weapon would be handed to him, or even be in the general area of a set, because there shouldn't be.
The person responsible is the one who brought a loaded gun to a movie set and left it unguarded, the one who handed him the weapon or whos job it is to make sure the movie is shot safely.
I guess I'll have to read about the details to see where exactly I'm landing when it comes to placing blame.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4647) 3 years ago

"If that is the case he is completely off the hook..."

No, he's not off the hook. Anyone who picks up a gun is responsible for handling it safely. If you don't know how, or are unwilling to do so, you have no business picking up a gun. You don't get to transfer that responsibility to someone else, nor do you get to take a pass on the rules of gun safety simply because you're an actor:

1. All guns are always loaded. Even if they are not, treat them as if they are.

2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy. (For those who insist that this particular gun is unloaded, see Rule 1.)

3. Keep your finger off the trigger till your sights are on the target. This is the Golden Rule. Its violation is directly responsible for about 60 percent of inadvertent discharges.

4. Identify your target, and what is behind it. Never shoot at anything that you have not positively identified.

Just the fact that he pointed a real gun at an innocent person constitutes negligence (the only time it's acceptable to point a gun at someone is if they are threatening your or someone else's life), and if the law were enforced correctly (which it probably won't be due to ineptitude and corruption throughout the system) he would be charged with, and convicted of, negligent homicide, sometimes called involuntary manslaughter.

reply

[–] KCurmudgeon (264) 3 years ago

You’re correct about the rules of gun safety in the real world. The movies aren’t the real world; at some point in movies and stage productions, it’s going to be necessary to point, ideally a prop, gun at a person to further the narrative. That’s why the armorer’s and set safety person’s job is so essential. TBF, I HOPE that if I was an actor handling real or prop guns that I would follow Rule #1, but also at some point, I assume this becomes routine and you expect that other people have done their job. Complacency kills.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4647) 3 years ago

"You’re correct about the rules of gun safety in the real world. The movies aren’t the real world"

Yes, they are the real world, obviously. What do you think, that movies are made inside a virtual world, like a video game? If that were the case, Baldwin's shot couldn't have killed, nor even harmed, anyone.

"at some point in movies and stage productions, it’s going to be necessary to point, ideally a prop, gun at a person to further the narrative."

It is never necessary, given that movies aren't even necessary in the first place. Again, the only time it's acceptable to point a real gun at someone is in a self-defense scenario.

Also, prop guns in movies or TV shows are nearly always real guns. "Prop" doesn't mean "fake", though a prop gun can be fake if that's what whoever is in charge wants. Prop is just an abbreviation for property. In general, any item an actor picks up/moves in a scene is a considered a prop (most props in general are real, but whether the item is real or fake is irrelevant to the meaning of the word "prop"), while other things like a bookshelf or whatever is considered a set piece.

"That’s why the armorer’s and set safety person’s job is so essential."

Redundancy is a good thing, but redundant safety measures don't relieve the person who is handling the gun from having to follow the rules of gun safety. If I'm holding a gun, its safety is my responsibility. If I hand it to you, it is then your responsibility. If you hand it to someone else, it becomes their responsibility, and so on. There are no exceptions at all, and even if there were (there aren't), something as trivial as playing make-pretend in front a camera certainly wouldn't qualify as an exception to life-or-death safety rules.

reply

[–] ccr1633 (1526) 3 years ago

MaximRecoil wrote:
"Yes, they are the real world, obviously. What do you think, that movies are made inside a virtual world, like a video game?"

Wow, you are dense. If Baldwin was pulling the trigger on this prop as part of a scene being filmed and had every reason to believe he was handed a gun with blanks, then he's not culpable. Following your stupid logic, every actor who held and fired a gun with blanks (or not) on a movie set should be subject to arrest for reckless behavior with firearms.

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

No, he's not dense. The rule that a gun should always be treated as if it's loaded applies on set. The fact that he had "every reason to believe" it wasn't loaded with a real bullet doesn't matter. The reason you treat a gun as if its loaded even if your sure it isn't should be obvoius now.

Even if there's a shot that calls for an actor to shoot at another actor, in frame together, they'd try to arrange it so the gun wasn't pointed directly at an actor. It'd be something they avoid at all costs. I can't think of a valid reason why Baldwin would be rehearsing firing at the camera with crew members behind it. Even if they wanted him there to set the shot up, it could be done without putting crew and the director in that spot, directly in the line of fire, so to speak.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4647) 3 years ago

"Wow, you are dense."

Comical irony coming from the moron who just demonstrated that he can't comprehend the simple rules of gun safety, and who thinks that movies are made somewhere other than the real world.

"If Baldwin was pulling the trigger on this prop as part of a scene being filmed and had every reason to believe he was handed a gun with blanks"

You aren't supposed to be pointing even a gun you believe to be unloaded at someone, let alone one known to be loaded with blanks, dumbass. Read rules 1 and 2 again; maybe get someone to help you with the "tricky" language.

"Following your stupid logic, every actor who held and fired a gun with blanks (or not) on a movie set should be subject to arrest for reckless behavior with firearms."

Since that doesn't logically follow from anything I said, it's a non sequitur, and since the sole source of non sequiturs of this type is idiots, this is further confirmation of your status as an idiot. Simply holding and firing a gun with blanks isn't a problem; pointing a gun at someone who isn't threatening your life is a problem, and then pulling the trigger is even more of a problem, obviously, and this Baldwin incident illustrates why it's a problem, i.e., one person is dead and another is injured due to him ignoring the rules of gun safety (negligence).

And with regard to your asinine idea that the rules of gun safety inexplicably don't apply to movie making, see here:

https://www.csatf.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/01FIREARMS.pdf

Right at the top it says:

INDUSTRY WIDE LABOR-MANAGEMENT SAFETY COMMITTEE
SAFETY BULLETIN #1

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SAFETY WITH FIREARMS AND USE OF
"BLANK AMMUNITION"

BLANKS CAN KILL. TREAT ALL FIREARMS AS THOUGH THEY ARE LOADED.

reply

[–] KCurmudgeon (264) 3 years ago

OK, we get it, you hate Baldwin and will construct all manner of straw-man arguments to bolster your hate. Thanks.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4647) 3 years ago

Your post is a non sequitur; consider it dismissed. Also, your laughable attempt to redefine the term "straw-man argument" is dismissed as well. And since you have no arguments, your tacit concession is noted.

reply

[–] ccr1633 (1526) 3 years ago

Oh shut up you tool. As has been made clear in the affidavit, Baldwin was rehearsing a scene that called for him to point his prop gun AT the camera. The director and cinematographer were repositioning themselves at some angle relative to Baldwin behind the camera when the gun went off for reasons unknown. You're basically asserting that Baldwin recklessly and willfully pointed a gun at his co-workers, something that hasn't been established in the slightest. You have no clue.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4647) 3 years ago

"As has been made clear in the affidavit, Baldwin was rehearsing a scene that called for him to point his prop gun AT the camera."

He pointed it at people, otherwise the bullet wouldn't have hit people, obviously. Anyone holding a gun is responsible for where its muzzle is pointing at all times.

"The director and cinematographer were repositioning themselves at some angle relative to Baldwin behind the camera when the gun went off for reasons unknown."

LOL at "for reasons unknown". The gun went off because Baldwin pulled the trigger, obviously.

"You're basically asserting that Baldwin recklessly and willfully pointed a gun at his co-workers, something that hasn't been established in the slightest."

Of course it was willfully. Are you suggesting that Baldwin couldn't see the people in front of him when he was practicing his cross draw in their direction? Is he blind? Were they hiding? Or maybe you're suggesting that Baldwin was being remote-controlled, like a radio-controlled toy car? How would that be done, exactly? And "reckless" goes without saying when willfully pointing a real gun at someone who isn't threatening you or someone else's life.

"You have no clue."

Comical Irony Alert

reply

[–] brux (14736) 3 years ago

I don't really agree with you, but let's say for the sake of argument -
> at some point in movies and stage productions, it’s going to be necessary to point, ideally a prop, gun at a person to further the narrative.

That is not pointing it at a non-actor, or cameraman or whatever. See the distinction?

If the gun needs to be pointed at the camera to get a shot, there is no reason that another person should be anywhere near that camera. Compared with say a high-noon gunfight where there are two actors facing each other and the scene says they have to draw and shoot at each other.

That is not what happened here though.

reply

[–] Sandman3 (1453) 3 years ago

"If the law were enforced correctly he would be charged with, and convicted of, negligent homicide, sometimes called involuntary manslaughter."

Agree 100%. But my guess is with all his money he will get the best lawyers money can buy and be charged with nothing.

reply

[–] brux (14736) 3 years ago

What is the point of guessing about something like that, except to tell us you personally are cynical and distrustful about everything? That's a possibility. Can you think of other cases like this that make you believe that or are you just trying to tear down American institutions, and trust?

reply

[–] brux (14736) 3 years ago

What do you mean he "went to work".
The point the OP made is that a gun should never be pointed or discharged at someone, so that is not work.
This is why I said on another blog that I think Alex Baldwin's career is dead.
I don't care that he was technically handed a gun he thought was safe, the fact that he is making that excuse ignores the OP's point - why was he pointing it at someone and discharging it?
Also ... in a case like this, he should either shut up and be totally quiet, or make very consistent honest statements that are not contradicted in the future.
I have a kind of sick feeling he was playing with the gun - which I hope is totally wrong.
Why was it pointed at someone, and why was the trigger pulled?

reply

[–] ccr1633 (1526) 3 years ago

"I don't care that he was technically handed a gun he thought was safe, the fact that he is making that excuse ignores the OP's point - why was he pointing it at someone and discharging it?"

Uhh...maybe because the director instructed him to do so? That's the most obvious reason. Whether that's the case I do not know, and neither do you.

reply

[–] brux (14736) 3 years ago

No, that is totally wrong, and very irresponsible of your to say.

reply

[–] brux (14736) 3 years ago

I imagine he will walk away free because it was most likely a terrible accident.
That does not mean he was not negligent, even if there was contributory negligence by both the weapons team, and the management who hired them. But to me the question is ... why was AB pointing a gun in the direction of a person, and why did he pull the trigger - no matter what state the gun was in?

reply

[–] brux (14736) 3 years ago

I like Baldwin, but I would stick my neck out and say he should be over.
Whether or not the gun was presented to him as unloaded ... I can forgive him for not checking it, if there was a responsible professional giving it to him - OR if he did not know how to check it ... the problem is that it was pointed and fired at a person - which should never have happened.
As far as punishment, I think losing his status and not working again is punishment enough, but I sure do not want to see him work in the industry any more. I mean, compare with with Louie CK who just offended some women and has been gone for years ... is someone going to say Baldwin should do less than that?

reply

[–] Gubbio (3893) 3 years ago

Still don't understand WHY REAL guns and LIVE ammo are NEEDED on a movie set. Can a movie audience tell the difference, and so what, if they can? It's a freakin' movie!

Bank robbers use toy guns and get away with it in real life.

Some fucked-up mess!

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4647) 3 years ago

"Still don't understand WHY REAL guns and LIVE ammo are NEEDED on a movie set. Can a movie audience tell the difference, and so what, if they can? It's a freakin' movie!"

Nothing "needs" to be on a movie set. Real guns are used for the sake of verisimilitude. It's not just a matter of looking the part while doing nothing, they also look the part while firing, since a real gun firing a blank looks like a real gun firing live ammo, aside from the almost complete lack of recoil. Live ammo shouldn't be on the set of a movie in which there's no intention to use live ammo (which includes nearly all movies; there's one movie that I know of that intentionally used live ammo but the actors were also real military guys).

Using real guns, and even live ammo, in your movie isn't a problem as long as you don't hire dipshits.

reply

[–] Gubbio (3893) 3 years ago

Nothing "needs" to be on a movie set. Real guns are used for the sake of verisimilitude. It's not just a matter of looking the part while doing nothing, they also look the part while firing, since a real gun firing a blank looks like a real gun firing live ammo

Thanks for your input, but I still don't buy it. Movies are fantasy, we all know that. How "real" does a gun have to look? The animals in "Jurassic Park" weren't real, but that didn't diminish our enjoyment of the film. 😕

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4647) 3 years ago

"but I still don't buy it."

You don't buy what? My post consisted of facts, and facts aren't up for sale.

"How "real" does a gun have to look?"

I already told you that there are no "needs" involved, obviously. They could make prop guns out of Play-Doh if they wanted to, or even just have the actors make "finger guns". However, whenever something lacks verisimilitude, it has the potential to take the audience out of the movie, i.e., interrupt suspension of disbelief, and that can negatively affect the success of the movie. Using real guns automatically gets you the highest level of verisimilitude possible, and it's easy and cheap, since there are hundreds of millions of guns out there, and firms that rent them to movie productions, such as Stembridge.

"The animals in "Jurassic Park" weren't real, but that didn't diminish our enjoyment of the film."

Sure it did, compared to a hypothetical version of Jurassic Park in which real dinosaurs were used.

reply

[–] moviechatterer (15796) 3 years ago

"Using real guns, and even live ammo, in your movie isn't a problem as long as you don't hire dipshits."

earlier you said to someone "read rules 1 and 2"

rule 1 is
"'There should have never been live rounds on a movie set, that's number one"

now you seem to be saying thats fine

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4647) 3 years ago

earlier you said to someone "read rules 1 and 2"

rule 1 is
"'There should have never been live rounds on a movie set, that's number one"

What are you talking about? That's not rule number 1, nor even a general rule of gun safety at all. Rule number 1 is:

1. All guns are always loaded. Even if they are not, treat them as if they are.

And rule number 2 is:

2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy. (For those who insist that this particular gun is unloaded, see Rule 1.)

Just scroll up to my post where I posted 4 rules of gun safety and read them again.

Also, I don't know where you got that "rule 1" that you put in quotes; I certainly never said it. The closest thing that I said is...

"Live ammo shouldn't be on the set of a movie in which there's no intention to use live ammo"

... and that would include the movie Baldwin was working on, as well as nearly all other movies. However, if you want to use live ammo in a movie, it can certainly be done so safely; they did it in Act of Valor (2012) for example. Or you can just go to a YouTube gun channel like Hickok45's to see that it's not at all difficult to fire live ammo safely while a camera is rolling. You simply need to obey the rules of gun safety, the same as if there were no camera.

reply

[–] Gubbio (3893) 3 years ago

You are entitled to your opinion, and I am entitled to mine.

reply

[–] elcamino (15540) 3 years ago

More movies now to be made for Megan Fox to be in them.

reply

[–] brux (14736) 3 years ago

> And number three is, there is no reason to ever put a person in front of a weapon that's firing.

Yeah, I think despite all the rest of it, that is key.
I wonder if he was playing around with it.
Whatever, if he was doing something work related there ought to be video evidence of that.
It's sad how these points dribble out over days and no responsible journalist or reporter has already created a framework or graphic explaining this. Doesn't matter if it gets updated over time, it has to start somewhere.

reply

[–] DoctorThirteen (14202) 3 years ago

It'd be nice to see a timeline too of every piece of info that's come out, including anything contradictory, exactly who said it, and when. They'll certainly have one for the legal proceedings.

reply

[–] moviechatterer (15796) 3 years ago

Rules 1 and 2 seem so obvious they shouldnt even need saying .

I'm not so sure about 3:
"And number three is, there is no reason to ever put a person in front of a weapon that's firing."

really? i mean , I've seen that happen quite a bit on screen!
was it all camera tricks?
I'd have thought firing blanks at someone was fine , above a certain range. once you've double checked the blank is blank.

reply

[–] Burk48917 (11386) 3 years ago

More ignorance from you. Blanks are still an incendiary device. There is always the potential discharge. I'm assuming you aren't a gun owner, and thank god for that.

reply

[–] fc31 (5509) 3 years ago

I don't think it is the responsibility of actors for gun safety compliance. It is the responsibility of producers and the gun experts they hired.

reply

[–] bozo_500 (13151) 3 years ago

Baldwin 'practiced drawing his gun and pointing it at the camera'

'A whip and a loud pop, then she stumbled backwards grabbing her midsection': Director relives horrific moment Alec Baldwin shot and killed cinematographer as he 'practiced drawing his gun and pointing it at the camera'

Baldwin was drawing a revolver across his body and pointing it at a camera during rehearsal on set of Rust

Alyna Hutchins was shot in the chest area and she stumbled backwards, unable to feel her legs, affidavit reads

The 63-year-old actor was 'hysterical and absolutely inconsolable for hours' after killing Halyna, 42, on set

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10127317/Alec-Baldwin-pointed-gun-camera-weapon-fired-rehearsal.html

reply