Alec Baldwin accidentally kills crew member with prop gun

Tools    





The trick is not minding
I think what's most important here is that Corax is having a good time. Maybe someone can get him a drink? A towel? Bag of nuts?
Lol. Most likely? Probably just sitting back laughing maniacally at us going after each other.



Lol. Most likely? Probably just sitting back laughing maniacally at us going after each other.



Pictured: Corax



I've read most of this thread, and although I find this topic interesting and thought-provoking, I don't think we're all going to agree on this, so I'd propose that we move this thread to a little bit of safer ground, which is that in the future, an actor should double check a gun that is being used by him or her in a scene, and should be trained on how to do so by the armorer on film and TV sets in which guns are used. Is that something that we can all agree on? I think given that this has now happened, and it's an easy thing to do, and it would prevent anything like this from ever happening again, it should likely be done, and this will provide an extra layer of protection and a safeguard on film sets. This doesn't absolve the armorer from following appropriate safety standards, but it does give the actor an affirmative duty to do this as well.

I think Corax has some legitimate points that the principles of gun safety were not followed on this set, and in the future, I think they should be. A gun is a deadly weapon, and if it could save someone's life, and it's relatively easy and not very time consuming to do, I think it should be done. Can we all agree on that?



That elusive hide-and-seek cow is at it again
I've read most of this thread, and although I find this topic interesting and thought-provoking, I don't think we're all going to agree on this, so I'd propose that we move this thread to a little bit of safer ground, which is that in the future, an actor should double check a gun that is being used by him or her in a scene, and should be trained on how to do so by the armorer on film and TV sets in which guns are used. Is that something that we can all agree on? I think given that this has now happened, and it's an easy thing to do, and it would prevent anything like this from ever happening again, it should likely be done, and this will provide an extra layer of protection and a safeguard on film sets. This doesn't absolve the armorer from following appropriate safety standards, but it does give the actor an affirmative duty to do this as well.

I think Corax has some legitimate points that the principles of gun safety were not followed on this set, and in the future, I think they should be. A gun is a deadly weapon, and if it could save someone's life, and it's relatively easy and not very time consuming to do, I think it should be done. Can we all agree on that?


wait. sorry. wrong gif. i meant:



__________________
"My Dionne Warwick understanding of your dream indicates that you are ambivalent on how you want life to eventually screw you." - Joel

"Ever try to forcibly pin down a house cat? It's not easy." - Captain Steel

"I just can't get pass sticking a finger up a dog's butt." - John Dumbear



On Yoda, I think these criticisms of Yoda within this thread are unfair. I have been a member here for a very long time, and I think Yoda does a nice job of balancing decorum and respect with the ability of board members to express themselves and generate thought provoking conversations here on the board. As he is human, like all of us, he may not have done everything right, and I'm sure he's made a few mistakes along the way over the more than 20 years of service he's given to this board. But, on balance, I think he does an excellent job.

As a moderator, it's important for Yoda to only intervene when necessary. It's not logical, or possible, since he has a life outside of the board, a family, and another job, for him to intervene at all times in exactly the same way. I also think that as a moderator, he tries to reserve his interventions to circumstances when the conversation is likely to generate heated and emotional responses. Not every topic is likely to generate the same emotion-based response, lead to personal attacks, or involve the same impassioned views being expressed that can frequently get out of hand and that need to be managed to ensure that they don't devolve further, or lead to members leaving the board due to a hostile tone from some members. Given that, it makes sense that as moderator he would try to gauge that before getting involved.

I also think it's a misinterpretation that Yoda picks on people he doesn't like, and intervenes on that basis. What I see is that he intervenes when he sees recurring issues arise with a member or a group of members. He also tends to escalate his rhetoric, and his enforcement, when he sees the same types of things happening again and again. Also, he gets involved when the members are not responsive to his efforts to point out where they are either violating community standards, or engaging in argument that is not moving the conversation forward and that is not constructive. He always gives everyone the opportunity to learn, and tries to model the behavior he'd like everyone to emulate. He even goes out of his way to concede points that he thinks have been well argued, even if he still doesn't agree with them, which is a rare quality, and one that I appreciate and respect.

Everything that he does in this regard is fully within his rights as moderator of this board. He doesn't have to be doing this at all, certainly not for as long as he has, so I'd like to see everyone give Yoda the respect that he deserves and stop criticizing him for doing his job. You don't have to agree with the way he does it. Reasonable minds can differ on that, but I think his heart is always in the right place, and it's a responsibility that not everyone here would want to have. So, its incumbent upon all of us to treat him with respect so that he continues to do this important job, and the board continues to be here for us all to discuss film and other related topics. Soap box over Feel free to continue your regularly scheduled programming now.



A system of cells interlinked
So who was responsible for bringing live ammunition to a movie set?
The person who brought live ammo to a movie set. They are distinct issues, yes?
__________________
“It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.” ― Thomas Sowell



A system of cells interlinked

As a moderator, it's important for Yoda to only intervene when necessary. It's not logical, or possible, since he has a life outside of the board, a family, and another job, for him to intervene at all times in exactly the same way.
I agree to a certain extent, but would just point out that sometimes us mods do like to get down in the trenches and discuss things as just a regular MoFo, at which point multiple mods might bounce in and out of the thread in case one of us (ahem, usually me) gets in the weeds in a discussion.

If a thread devolves to the point of getting far too political in nature, or too antagonistic, a mod might defer the overall decision on how to redirect or possible close the thread either temporarily or permanently to the mod who has spent the least amount of time in the heated discussion. Since, at this point, it's just Yoda and I working regularly, this has gotten a bit more tricky, but I think it's still the case.

My two cents would be for everyone involved to just take a step back for a few, refocus the discussion on the thread topic, and attempt to quell any personal animosity, if any, they may be feeling towards other MoFos. The site has a wide variety of people with vastly different personal and political views, and sometimes it's all to easy to get painted into argumentative corners hitting each other over the head on an issue that never really goes anywhere or gets resolved in any meaningful way. At that point, for me anyway, it's usually best to move on to something else, or just agree to disagree, and the quietly log out and burn that person in effigy decompress in a thread with some lighter content.

I think this thread hasn't totally caught fire politically yet, so perhaps just a bit of restraint for a few people can right the ship. I think all involved have made some good points.



The person who brought live ammo to a movie set. They are distinct issues, yes?
No, I don't believe so. They are directly interlinked issues. Live ammunition is strictly prohibited on movie sets for this very reason. It's one of the primary reasons why we haven't seen more of these kinds of accidents. There's never a good reason to have live ammo on set. The fact that loaded pistols were introduced on set at all is another example of the negligent and lax attitudes of the production towards safety concerns. There's a reason why the union crew walked off after two live round misfires. It's intolerable for that to happen even when it doesn't kill someone. The fact that it killed someone hours after this walk-off is simply mind-boggling. I think its why a number of people are suspecting something more foul at work here. But whoever brought the pistols with live rounds to the set is as guilty as anyone who brings vodka to a kindergarten class.


If Baldwin is culpable for anything it's whether or not he was aware of these gun safety issues, or if not, why wasn't he? If I were a producer, I think I'd be a little curious why my union crew walked off the set.



I was surprised by this quote in The NY Times today:

Larry Zanoff, an expert in the use of firearms on film sets who worked on the set of “Django Unchained” as an armorer, said that under industry standards, the first assistant director is the lead safety person on set, and commonly inspects a gun to ensure it is unloaded and safe to use.


Interesting. I would have thought the armorer had complete jurisdiction over the armory & that he/she was at the top of the totem pole in this regard.

(Looks like Dave Halls, the first AD, is being heavily criticized for his work standards or lack thereof on this production & many others.)
__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.



No worries. If I have made an error, I must own it.

Well, you did say this in response to me. When I pointed out your error (I said, "Don't take this the wrong way, but you don't know how guns work. You can't just spin the cylinder of a revolver when it is locked up, nor is this how you inspect to see if they are loaded.") you said in reply:
Then you just made my point for me, if I don't know how to check a 19th century revolver for safe handling, what makes you think Baldwin would know?
If I was wrong, why didn't you correct me? Rather, your response gives all appearance of confirming not only that you are ignorant of how guns work, but that you were guilty of the particular presupposition of which I accused you.

This looks like proof to me..
You're wrong it's not proof.

Not everyone on the internet needs to defend their honor and counter-post for every comment. You might need to do that, but I only respond when I want...and when I have the time for it. There's been plenty of things you've said that I could counter, but it's not worth the effort, no offense.

BTW I never claimed to be knowledgeable about Colt SAAs. I said
"By the way I'm a very safe person with a gun, you know nothing about me. But even if I knew nothing about SAAs that would not make me dangerous.''
That doesn't say I am knowledgeable about SAAs, only that I'm safe with guns.



A system of cells interlinked
There's a reason why the union crew walked off after two live round misfires. It's intolerable for that to happen even when it doesn't kill someone. The fact that it killed someone hours after this walk-off is simply mind-boggling.
Agreed. This is completely insane.

But whoever brought the pistols with live rounds to the set is as guilty as anyone who brings vodka to a kindergarten class.
I am guessing you are just trying to make a point of how absurd the situation was, and not actually comparing someone giving alcohol to small children to someone handing a firearm to a rational adult.



And if I read your comment wrong and you were, in fact, arguing that the gun could be fired with a misaligned cylinder, this also demonstrates your misapprehension of how revolvers work. Your correction shows that you are still in the wrong, because a functioning revolver won't discharge with a cylinder out of battery.
Strawman argument! I never said that! (and you said that in a veiled reference) but your post tries to make me look like I might have said that.

Of course if a cylinder on a revolver gets out of time so that the firing pin doesn't strike the center of the bullet then it won't work.

I'm done with you. Jinnistan is right you're just baiting us for our responses you're not interested in a two way dialogue. If you're this obstinate and stubborn in real life then you'd be dangerous with a gun, no offense.



I am guessing you are just trying to make a point of how absurd the situation was, and not actually comparing someone giving alcohol to small children to someone handing a firearm to a rational adult.
Some people (including some in this thread) might not consider Baldwin to be a “rational adult”. Always liked him myself.



A system of cells interlinked
Some people (including some in this thread) might not consider Baldwin to be a “rational adult”. Always liked him myself.
I actually had a joke about that halfway typed out before I deleted it and posted what I did instead. I am no Baldwin fan, and I am damned sure he wouldn't like me. I'll not lose any sleep over it.



I am guessing you are just trying to make a point of how absurd the situation was, and not actually comparing someone giving alcohol to small children to someone handing a firearm to a rational adult.
It's an absurd analogy. My point being that the fault lies more with the introduction of the dangerous element onto the set moreso than an actor, having the experience of dozens of sets under normal protocol standards, having the rational expectation of that a dummy gun handed to him by a professional is in fact a dummy gun.

But Baldwin is likely responsible for this set's lack of safety protocols anyway.



But Baldwin is likely responsible for this set's lack of safety protocols anyway.
I tell ya, you can go all night!

I’d ask how you came up with the above statement, but I need to go look at Twitter memes & relax.



It's an absurd analogy. My point being that the fault lies more with the introduction of the dangerous element onto the set moreso than an actor, having the experience of dozens of sets under normal protocol standards, having the rational expectation of that a dummy gun handed to him by a professional is in fact a dummy gun.

But Baldwin is likely responsible for this set's lack of safety protocols anyway.
He might be responsible as a producer for the lack of safety protocols. Though he's not the exectuive producer, or the only one. I seen this on IMDB
Produced by

Alec Baldwin ... producer
Kc Brandenstein ... co-producer
Allen Cheney ... executive producer
Matt DelPiano ... producer
Tyler Gould ... executive producer
Matthew Helderman ... executive producer
Nathan Klingher ... producer
Anjul Nigam ... producer
Emily Hunter Salveson ... executive producer
Ryan Donnell Smith ... producer
Luke Taylor ... executive producer
Ryan Winterstern ... producer


And aren't director's usually considered 'god' on the set? I don't know about how it was on Rust though?



A system of cells interlinked
It's an absurd analogy. My point being that the fault lies more with the introduction of the dangerous element onto the set moreso than an actor, having the experience of dozens of sets under normal protocol standards, having the rational expectation of that a dummy gun handed to him by a professional is in fact a dummy gun.

But Baldwin is likely responsible for this set's lack of safety protocols anyway.
Sure, and I wasn't squarely placing blame in either direction, to be sure, as I see it as more as a shared responsibility, and a clearly gross violation of safety measures on multiple levels. Me thinking Baldwin is **** does have me knee-jerking at least a bit in his direction. I did consider that perhaps they had done about 20 takes, everyone was tired, Baldwin was being an *******, and they had checked and re-checked the gun over and over, started cutting corners, got a bit careless and ended up paying the price.

I wasn't there, so I don't know for sure. Alas, in my experience, I was taught to always take extreme safety measures at all times no matter what the situation.


And aren't director's usually considered 'god' on the set?
Only if it's James Cameron.



He might be responsible as a producer for the lack of safety protocols. Though he's not the exectuive producer, or the only one.
This is true, and 'producer' can be a nebulous or even ceremonial title. Maybe Baldwin put up some funding. Maybe it was Baldwin who had the rights to the script. Maybe Baldwin was getting points on gross. But Baldwin is clearly the name attached to the project, and if he wanted to put his foot down over lax safety issues or supporting the greivances of his crew, I bet you his authority would be decisive. But maybe he wasn't aware of the issues. Or maybe he didn't care. These are details that will come out eventually, but we can see that this was a dangerous, dysfunctional set. As I mentioned earlier, I'd like to see who was making these decisions and creating the on-set culture.