Alec Baldwin accidentally kills crew member with prop gun

Tools    





I'm starting to think you may have.

Yeah, you're totally not trolling.



What do we think about a 11 year old actress being given a real gun to use in filming a movie? Should kids in movies ever handle a real gun, even if it's been declared safe by a weapons master?

Thoughts???

https://meaww.com/armorer-hannah-gut...thout-checking

*I mean in general, not specifically about the actress pictured and the events surrounding that particular film.



Yeah, you're totally not trolling.
I'm joking, because most drivers do not require a stand-by mechanic to rule their car safe everytime they step into it. A ridiculous analogy deserves some ridicule.



It's hard to say in most circumstances, because Hannah Gutierrez-Reed appears to be an exceptionally irresponsible prop master. I haven't seen any evidence that she's received anyy of the necessary professional licenses to do the job.


Is it a coincidence that both films she's worked on were productions run by LLC capital funds? Such productions have taken advantage of the pandemic to make movies while most studio productions were scaling back. The cheapness of these productions are evident, and by most accounts this cheapness has directly led to cutting corners on maintaining safety protocols. Like with Zuckerberg, "safety" generally means "more costly".
For the record, let's forget about Hannah Gutierrez-Reed and that particular case for the moment.

I was wondering if people were in favor or oppose to kid actors using real guns in movies? Even with close supervision.



For the record, let's forget about Hannah Gutierrez-Reed and that particular case for the moment.

I was wondering if people were in favor or oppose to kid actors using real guns in movies? Even with close supervision.
Sorry then. I have no opinion on that.



I'm joking, because most drivers do not require a stand-by mechanic to rule their car safe everytime they step into it. A ridiculous analogy deserves some ridicule.

That's not the analogy I was appealing to. I was speaking of distracted driving as an example of comparable negligence (e.g., lighting a cigarette or working the radio). The analogy is not ridiculous as we have national ad campaigns against, for example, texting and driving. You have to misread the example to get access to the "joke."



Now it's my turn to be "staggered" that something is being asked, I guess. Safety is all about redundancy. You might as well ask why anyone double-checks anything, or takes any precautions they were not explicitly hired to take.
The redundancy is that the armorer AND the assistant director were supposed to have checked the gun. Most "safety chain" type protocols are made up of two professionals.

Again, if I go get my tires rotated and one mechanic says "I tightened the lug nuts." And then another mechanic wanders in and says, "Hey, yeah, I checked them too--you're good to go," that should be sufficient.

I'm also interested to find out if something I read online (yeah, yeah, I know) is true--someone asserted that safety rules require that if an actor does open a weapon it is then supposed to be re-checked by the armorer.

The part I'm still reeling from is that crew members--who KNEW that the gun was going to be used later that day--took it and put live rounds in it. Live rounds on a film set!! I cannot get over this. It's like putting poison in a kitchen in a container that looks generally like a salt shaker.



I'm joking, because most drivers do not require a stand-by mechanic to rule their car safe everytime they step into it. A ridiculous analogy deserves some ridicule.
Alec Baldwin probably owns the cars that he drives. He's exclusively responsible for its safety, maintainence and road-worthiness. Had Baldwin accidently shot someone with a gun he owned and was directly responsible for, then the analogy may have some merit. Instead, this is more like when someone rents a car, with the proper license and liability insurance, and that car ends up having faulty brakes, unbeknowst and undisclosed to the driver, causing the driver to crash into an unsuspecting pedestrian. If your analogy then is logically applied, you'd argue that it was the driver's responsibility to test the brakes himself because after all cars are very dangerous instruments responsible for thousands of deaths a year. Sound about right?



That's not the analogy I was appealing to. I was speaking of distracted driving as an example of comparable negligence (e.g., lighting a cigarette or working the radio). The analogy is not ridiculous as we have national ad campaigns against, for example, texting and driving. You have to misread the example to get access to the "joke."
There's no evidence that Baldwin was "distracted". If it comes out that he had been sipping on bourbon between takes or had a couple of vicodan for his back for lunch, then maybe I could see it. It's still a piss-poor analogy.



Alec Baldwin probably owns the cars that he drives. He's exclusively responsible for its safety, maintainence and road-worthiness. Had Baldwin accidently shot someone with a gun he owned and was directly responsible for, then the analogy may have some merit. Instead, this is more like when someone rents a car, with the proper license and liability insurance, and that car ends up having faulty brakes, unbeknowst and undisclosed to the driver, causing the driver to crash into an unsuspecting pedestrian. If your analogy then is logically applied, you'd argue that it was the driver's responsibility to test the brakes himself because after all cars are very dangerous instruments responsible for thousands of deaths a year. Sound about right?

The analogy to which I was appealing was not that of Alec Baldwin driving a car. Rather, I was speaking of how we have all been distracted while driving and that only moral luck separates us from Baldwin.



You're doubling-down on misreading, equivocation, and accusation.



Everything you accuse me of, you are engaging in in this thread.



You used to be better than this.



I'm also interested to find out if something I read online (yeah, yeah, I know) is true--someone asserted that safety rules require that if an actor does open a weapon it is then supposed to be re-checked by the armorer.
I haven't brought it up, but I've also seen where one professional armorer actively discourages actors to mess with a gun after it's handed to them, because that actor may accidentally cause the gun to jam or misfire, injuring the one holding the gun. I don't know how common this attitude is however among professional armorers.



The analogy to which I was appealing was not that of Alec Baldwin driving a car. Rather, I was speaking of how we have all been distracted while driving and that only moral luck separates us from Baldwin.
Somehow, that's an even worse analogy then. "Moral luck", indeed.





Somehow, that's an even worse analogy then. "Moral luck", indeed.

It's a fine analogy. It shows how a moment of inattention by any of us in some contexts can result in death. And indeed, it is offered to argue against treating Baldwin as a sort of reckless monster. This cuts against the grain of your repeated accusations that I am on a political mission to take him down because of personal politics (e.g., Don Don t-shirts), but you're still playing coy. Curious.



It's a fine analogy. It shows how a moment of inattention by any of us in some contexts can result in death. And indeed, it is offered to argue against treating Baldwin as a sort of reckless monster. This cuts against the grain of your repeated accusations that I am on a political mission to take him down because of personal politics (e.g., Don Don t-shirts), but you're still playing coy. Curious.
You specified Balswin's "inattentiveness", when there has yet to be any indication of his inattentiveness handling the firearm. The inattentivity appears to have been for the armorer who forgot to remove the live rounds she was partying with and the assistant director who, by his own admission, doesn't remember how thoroughly he checked the gun before handing it to Baldwin. I wonder why Baldwin, rather than his "underlings", has been so recurrent in your blame?



You specified Balswin's "inattentiveness", when there has yet to be any indication of his inattentiveness handling the firearm.


The gun was loaded. He did not check. The first rule is to assume that all guns are loaded. He was not attentive to the rules. He did not attend to the gun. He did not check the weapon. He shot and killed a woman. None of these facts are disputable.



The inattentivity appears to have been for the armorer who forgot to remove the live rounds she was partying with and the assistant director who, by his own admission, doesn't remember how thoroughly he checked the gun before handing it to Baldwin.


There are layers of inattention here.


For Baldwin's part, what matter is how thoroughly he (personally) checked the weapon.



I wonder why Baldwin, rather than his "underlings", has been so recurrent in your blame?

Because some people in this very thread have denied that Baldwin has any responsibility at all. Indeed, there has been a rush to shift the blame to anyone or anything else. And this is... ...curious.



For Baldwin's part, what matter is how thoroughly he (personally) checked the weapon.
Right. Like the driver who's inattentive over the state of the brakes in the rental car that was handed to them by their professional underlings. I gotcha.



Right. Like the driver who's inattentive over the state of the brakes in the rental car that was handed to them by their professional underlings. I gotcha.

Again, that's not the comparison. Your persistent doubling-down on misreading is rather conspicuous now. We are not speaking of Baldwin or of rental cars here. Rather, the axis of comparison is "inattentiveness in operating." Alec was inattentive in not clearing the gun for practicing his cross draw on set. As a driver, we are inattentive when were texting, or fishing for a radio station, or talking, or eating, or lighting a cigarette. What separates us from Baldwin in such moments of inattention is moral luck.



Again, that's not the comparison. Your persistent doubling-down on misreading is rather conspicuous now. We are not speaking of Baldwin or of rental cars here. Rather, the axis of comparison is "inattentiveness in operating." Alec was inattentive in not clearing the gun for practicing his cross draw on set. As a driver, we are inattentive when were texting, or fishing for a radio station, or talking, or eating, or lighting a cigarette. What separates us from Baldwin in such moments of inattention is moral luck.
The comparison is sound, it just pulls the rug out from under your preferred narrative. A professional handed Baldwin a gun that Baldwin does not own that he declared safe, unable to fire. A rental car service hands a driver a car that the driver has never driven and declares the car safe, unable to perform outside of the driver's control. Baldwin could have performed with his weapon exactly as he was supposed to have done (and there's still no indication that he did not) and the gun would have still have had an unauthorized live round in it, just as a driver can perform his driving in perfect concentration and vigilance and the car still would have had faulty brakes that undermined this performance.


Should Baldwin have trusted his professionals that they weren't lying to him? Should a rental car driver be ultimately responsible for trusting the professionals not to lie to them? Ultimately, what you're suggesting, is that the operator is responsible for verifying the safety of the thing they are operating, as opposed to the people whose job it is to not hand people dangerous instruments.



Word now is that Nicolas Cage had once walked off the set of the first Hannah Gutierrez-Reed film precisely because he was upset with her professionalism.


As far as Baldwin's culpability goes, it still remains to be seen whether he should have been responsible for similarly throwing his weight around in order to address and correct the set's safety lapses. A civil lawsuit, with Baldwin as co-defendent, is all but certain, I believe.