Submit Your
2000s
List
The deadline for the Top Films of the 2000s list is TODAY! Submit your ballot now, or read about it here

Alec Baldwin accidentally kills crew member with prop gun

Tools    





I am also curious to know if the gun safety trainings that they do before each scene with a gun actually says anything about the actors themselves checking the weapons. Is it encouraged? Discouraged? Is it even mentioned?



Registered User
Yeah, maybe because I'm paying attention to the available information as opposed to punching my preferred object of derision.
I am just noting that Baldwin has a share of blame. That's it.

Here's some more info on the assistant director in question, a Dave Halls, who reportedly "had a troubling history of ignoring safety protocols", and who mocked safety meetings and training exercises, "He would always roll his eyes. ‘Do we need to do a safety meeting?’ He would do it and he would be flippant." "There was one day the actress was aiming it at her head. He didn’t want to do safety meeting! It took a person from another department demanding the meeting to finally hold it." And who had asked a non-trained crew member to light pyrotechnics (and was thankfully rebuffed). This is the man who handed Alec Baldwin a loaded weapon, the first loaded weapon Baldwin ever dischared in his 40 year career.
Sounds like other people, as I have already said, are to blame.

As you pointed out, Baldwin has had experience with guns on film sets for nearly 40 years. He's been handed, what?, a hundred guns in that time?
Having watched and enjoyed many of his films, I know that he has handled real guns. Real guns come with real responsibility. Love them or hate them, you have to treat them with respect if you are going to handle them.

How many had live ammo? Is it so difficult to develop a certain amount of confidence over than period of time that the crew members that handled weapons took professional safety seriously?
And I have said (repeatedly) upthread, this shows a flaw in the Hollywood model. A single person responsible for everything creates a model with a single point of failure, because there is a single point of responsibility. This is great if you are looking for a fall guy if things go sideways, but it is not ideal for actual gun safety.

If Baldwin took to casually externalizing his responsibility to people who did everything for him over the years, then this just show how he became negligent, it does not justify it. He still screwed up.

As illustrated in the above quote, your focus on Baldwin's blame has been disproportiante in this thread,
This is untrue. I have blamed the Hollywood safety model and the so-called prop-master. Most tragedies are an intersection of errors.

has has your reasoning based on schadenfreude shaming based on Baldwin's politics (specifically those involving the instrument of tragedy here).
You're speculating. Even if you were right, however, it is irrelevant. If you see a flaw in the reasoning, then point it out. That you don't like the alleged motivation of the reasoning proves nothing.

I'm not aware of what Baldwin knew, and neither are you.
I am aware that he pointed a gun at another person and shot them.

I know that if he followed the 4 Rules, that woman would still be alive.

I know that anyone can learn and follow these rules.

What else do we need to know?

I think he should be held responsible
Most importantly, he must hold himself responsible. He must make amends, as well as he can, and he must take steps to ensure that he never makes such a mistake again.

I don't want his head, but there is no moral hall pass for manslaughter, either.

if he had been involved in any of these decisions involving sacking his union crew over safety concerns (or simply ignoring Hutchins'), the decision to employ a nonunion prop master, or was one of the executives actively pressuring crew members like Halls into cutting safety corners in order to stay on schedule. As of right now, I see some more immediate actions that led to this death.
The most proximate/immediate action that led to this death was Baldwin pointing a gun and pulling a trigger.

I am not saying that he is a monster. I am not saying that this is all his fault. I am not saying he should go to prison (at least not given what we don't yet know).

I am simply saying that anyone who picks up a gun has a personal responsibility to be safe with it. That's all. I don't want Baldwin's head. I think he is already in hell.

Also, as an extra, I'd be curious to see which member of the production staff approved of the initial statement citing a "misfire of a prop gun with blanks", which anyone on the set must have immediately known to be a lie.
Yep.

And the negligent discharges that preceded this indicate a non-safe environment.

Honestly, I like Baldwin. He's a good actor. He's intelligent. He's funny. He's kind of an ******* on some other accounts, but I like seeing him on screen.

Tragedies have no inherent value. They only have the instrumental value of teaching lessons. This tragedy will hopefully prompt actors take greater personal responsibility in the handling of firearms, show the dangers of cutting corners, and remind us that making film involves inherent risks (and that perhaps we should always whine for more and more realism).



minds his own damn business
And I have said (repeatedly) upthread, this shows a flaw in the Hollywood model.
This was not a "Hollywood" film. It's an independent production made up of non-studio companies, at least a couple of which (BondIt Media) appear to be nothing more than venture capital shell companies. There's no model protocol being followed here. There appear to have been at least a couple people in the production crew who sacrificed caution for expediency. If anything, it shows a flaw in using nonunion, nontrained crew members.

the so-called prop-master.
Mm-mm. "So-called". Not like it was an official title on the production or anything.


You're speculating. Even if you were right, however, it is irrelevant. If you see a flaw in the reasoning, then point it out. That you don't like the alleged motivation of the reasoning proves nothing.
It doesn't require speculating to point out something you mentioned twice before I said anything about it. I have been pointing out the flaw in your reasoning, as well as the biased motivation behind that reasoning. Such examples of your bias are not hard to cite in your posts.


Most importantly, he must hold himself responsible. He must make amends, as well as he can, and he must take steps to ensure that he never makes such a mistake again.
Such bias may involve the presumption of guilt that Baldwin must come to terms with, if he must make amends for such an obvious foregone conclusion. It almost sounds as if you've already indicted and condemned the man, and now it's only a matter of his stepping up and begging for your mercy. Any pesky little details like anyone else's stated and specific professional responsibility be as damned as he surely must be. Why on earth would I think that this reasoning is motivated by some kind of sour contempt based on your preexisting bias against Baldwin's moral character?


I think he is already in hell.
Oh.
__________________



Registered User
This was not a "Hollywood" film. It's an independent production made up of non-studio companies, at least a couple of which (BondIt Media) appear to be nothing more than venture capital shell companies. There's no model protocol being followed here. There appear to have been at least a couple people in the production crew who sacrificed caution for expediency. If anything, it shows a flaw in using nonunion, nontrained crew members.

Fair point. Nevertheless, they were aping the Hollywood model of leaving everything to a "prop master."


It doesn't require speculating to point out something you mentioned twice before I said anything about it. I have been pointing out the flaw in your reasoning, as well as the biased motivation behind that reasoning. Such examples of your bias are not hard to cite in your posts.


All these years, and I still have not taught you to avoid the genetic fallacy I have failed you. For that, I am sorry. The flaw in any chain of reasoning is not its motivation, but is in its validity conditions or premises, if any flaw is to be found.



Such bias may involve


Let the wild speculation begin now...



the presumption of guilt that Baldwin must come to terms with, if he must make amends for such an obvious foregone conclusion.


If it turns out he didn't shoot a woman, killing here, I shall eat my words. Fair enough?



It almost sounds as if you've already indicted and condemned the man, and now it's only a matter of his stepping up and begging for your mercy.


Except that I have repeatedly said that what he is experiencing is already punishment and that I am not calling for his head, that empathy for errors is appropriate, even if Baldwin must also own his part in the tragedy.



You've gone beyond mind-reading into willfully reading contrary to what I have explicitly stated and even wandered into some bizarre fantasy where Baldwin is asking me personally for forgiveness, immediately after I have noted that moral luck is the only thing that separates us from being Baldwin (in the context of driving a car).



Any pesky little details like anyone else's stated and specific professional responsibility be as damned as he surely must be.


This is pure spun fiction. Cotton candy for the reading impaired. I have repeatedly noted that other people also share responsibility. I am not the one who is unable to grock the idea that more than one party may be responsible for a tragedy (for indeed, most tragedies are a comedy of errors).



Why on earth would I think that this reasoning is motivated by some kind of sour contempt based on your preexisting bias against Baldwin's moral character?


I don't know why you say half the goofy things that you do.



Wouldn't you be if you just wrongly killed a person?



minds his own damn business
There was only one man standing between those Asian children and the helicopter rotor. Vic Morrow should be ashamed of himself.



minds his own damn business
Fair point. Nevertheless, they were aping the Hollywood model of leaving everything to a "prop master."
A nonunion prop master. Key distinction. Out of all of those Hollywood modeled movie sets that Baldwin performed on, he never killed a person before. Wonder why?



Registered User
A nonunion prop master. Key distinction. Out of all of those Hollywood modeled movie sets that Baldwin performed on, he never killed a person before. Wonder why?

Because up until that point he was able to outsource his personal responsibility for handling a deadly weapon to another party. His privilege allowed him to externalize the costs of competence to someone else. And the day when those training wheels were removed, he killed someone.


There was only one man standing between those Asian children and the helicopter rotor. Vic Morrow should be ashamed of himself.

Yes, because picking up a gun and shooting a woman is the equivalent of being present when a helicopter crashes. Did you really think you scored a point with this one?



minds his own damn business
Because up until that point he was able to outsource his personal responsibility for handling a deadly weapon to another party. His privilege allowed him to externalize the costs of competence to someone else. And the day when those training wheels were removed, he killed someone.
Just as he's always outsourced the responsibility for handling the camera that was filming or the lighting that was illuminating him or the make-up artist and costume designer for making him look dashing or the editor to pick his best takes or the composer to give his close-ups gravitas or the director to make it all coherent. It's almost as if making movies is a collaborative enterprise that requires a lot of people to perform very specific roles in order for everything to run smoothly and efficiently. Turns out that one of these specific roles is the person professionally responsible (as in they are paid well for their trouble) to make sure the weapons are safe before handing them to an actor.


The fact that Reed delivered a gun to the set with live ammo is automatically criminally negligent. The fact that the assistant director handed a "cold gun" to an actor without verifying it is also criminally negligent. The fact that the latter had been mocking and skirting safety procedures throughout the shoot is simply proof of negligence. Baldwin's mistake was believing people who he's paying to be reliable, as reliable as hundreds of other set crew people he's worked with over the years.



minds his own damn business
Yes, because picking up a gun and shooting a woman is the equivalent of being present when a helicopter crashes. Did you really think you scored a point with this one?
You're more like blaming the helicopter pilot. What I'm pointing out is how you're ignoring everyone else behind the scenes who's responsible for creating the crisis.



Registered User
Just as he's always outsourced the responsibility for handling the camera
Except handling a camera does not come with the moral responsibility of a deadly weapons.

Except that, as an actor, he has not even personally handled a camera.

A disanalogy on two counts.

or the lighting that was illuminating him
Another disanology on the same two counts.

or the make-up artist and costume designer for making him look dashing or the editor to pick his best takes or the composer to give his close-ups gravitas or the director to make it all coherent.
More of the same.

It's almost as if making movies is a collaborative enterprise
Yes. And handling a gun is a personal responsibility. When activity of making a movie (who gives a care?) mixes with the activity of handling a gun (a deadly weapon) the personal responsibility supersedes the corporate activity in every case.

It takes a village to make a movie. It takes a responsible adult to handle a gun. If you don't get this, don't ever handle a gun.

the person professionally responsible (as in they are paid well for their trouble) to make sure the weapons are safe before handing them to an actor.
No one. I repeat, no one absolves you of your responsibility to handle a gun responsibly.

The fact that Reed delivered a gun to the set with live ammo is automatically criminally negligent.
OK.

The fact that the assistant director handed a "cold gun" to an actor without verifying it is also criminally negligent.
If you say so.

The fact that the latter had been mocking and skirting safety procedures throughout the shoot is simply proof of negligence.
If true, he deserves quite a bit, but not all, of the blame.

Baldwin's mistake was believing people who he's paying to be reliable, as reliable as hundreds of other set crew people he's worked with over the years.
No, his mistake was not treating a gun as a gun. His mistake was in breaking basic and simple rules of safe handling that apply to everyone. His mistake was in thinking that he was above learning and abiding by these rules. His mistake was pointing a gun at a woman and killing her.



minds his own damn business
Except handling a camera does not come with the moral responsibility of a deadly weapons.
Pretty much the entire stunt department involves potential deadly outcomes. Actors are not held responsible for faulty harnesses or faulty cars or faulty landing pads, etc. There are people who are responsible for these things, and this is neither new nor controversial except for some people choosing to opportunistically score points on politically outspoken actors.


If you say so.

If true, he deserves quite a bit, but not all, of the blame.
Yes. I say so. Apparently a number of his collegues are saying so. I haven't seen anyone from that set calling out Baldwin yet though. He seems to be cooperating. Obviously you've spent most of your posts moralizing against Baldwin, with scant and usually dismissive mention of those paid professionals who happen to be more relevently responsible. You can call this speculation on my part, but it appears most people here can see this for what it is. All of this tangent talk about Baldwin's vanity and privilege only underscore the fact that you're using this tragedy to grind an unrelated axe. You do you.



Registered User
Actors are not held responsible for faulty harnesses or faulty cars or faulty landing pads, etc.


Harnesses are not known deadly weapons. Harnesses are safety devices. They have no intended design function of bringing harm to another person when they are working as they are designed to work. A gun on the other hand, will kill if it is set to operate as it is designed to operate.



A gun that is deadly is a gun that functions as it was supposed to from the factory. A faulty car, on the other hand, is a car that fails to perform as one would expect a car to operate. If an actor is not competent to operate a motor vehicle, but they decide to so anyhow (because it is only a movie) and someone gets killed because the car performs like a car, then that is on the actor.



If an actor goofs around messes with another actor's harness, there is blame to be had for the actor. If an actor decides to press the button on a pyrotechnics panel, there is blame to be had for the actor.



You're doing better now, but this is still not good enough. Not good enough to exculpate Baldwin for picking up a gun and shooting a woman, killing her.



There are people who are responsible for these things,


If you pick up a gun, you are one of these responsible people. If you decide to grab a detonator, you are one of these responsible people. If you decide to monkey around with a safety device, you are one of these responsible people.



Why are you so desperate to establish that Baldwin has no blame in this? He obviously does. What gives?



Obviously you've spent most of your posts moralizing against Baldwin,


Ah, so now it no longer the objection that I have not moralized against other responsible parties at all, but that I haven't moralized enough? Can you let me know when you're done shifting the goal posts so that I know where to kick the ball?



minds his own damn business
Not good enough to exculpate Baldwin for picking up a gun and shooting a woman, killing her.
Check out Jack Palance from Shane over here. Technically, he didn't "pick up a gun", he was handed a gun from someone who was being paid to assure him that it was a safe (cold) gun. Like the hundred previous people who had reliably and professionally handed him guns which were safe in his 40 year career.


Can you let me know when you're done shifting the goal posts so that I know where to kick the ball?
I think there's only one of us treating this like a sport. I'm concerned about getting a clear account of what happened on the set. Kick it wherever you like.



Registered User
Check out Jack Palance from Shane over here. Technically, he didn't "pick up a gun", he was handed a gun from someone who was being paid to assure him that it was a safe (cold) gun.

No difference. Once the gun is in your hands, it is your responsibility to inspect it. Doesn't matter if another person assures you it is unloaded. Doesn't matter who that person is. It is now your job to handle that gun safely. Rule #1. the gun is loaded until you (personally) prove otherwise. It doesn't matter how the gun gets into your hands. Once it is in your hands, responsibility falls on to you to handle it safely.



Like the hundred previous people who had reliably and professionally handed him guns which were safe in his 40 year career.


That he was able to outsource his responsibility and enjoyed moral luck in externalizing the cost of checking to them for 40 years is not proof that he is innocent. It is proof that he developed bad habits.



minds his own damn business
Like I said, it's pretty clear what the focus is here.



Corax, thank you for contributing your knowledge of gun safety practices to this thread. May I ask, how do you know this information related to gun safety? Are you in law enforcement? I would like to ask you and others who do believe that Baldwin did not follow standard protocol for the handling of firearms, do you know if it is standard practice on movie sets to inform the actors of these principles, or not? For example, are actors in scenes involving guns told, "always assume the gun is loaded," even if the prop master or Assistant Director has told them it is a "cold gun?" Are actors shown how to check the gun to determine if it is loaded or not? Are actors shown the difference between a live round and a blank, and how to examine the gun to determine whether it has been loaded with blanks? If the answer to any of these questions is no, then I think that rather than assigning even partial blame to Alec Baldwin, should we not be assigning blame to the Hollywood system and the training and education provided that does not educate actors in scenes involving guns to always assume a gun is loaded, for example? To never point it at a live person? Are actors trained on these things?

Also, the LA Times article states that Alec Baldwin was doing a scene when he was drawing a gun from his holster. The first draw was done without incident, but when he did this a second time, the gun appeared to go off. One of the principles that is being talked about is to never point a gun and fire at a live person. Do we actually know that that happened here? Is this an assumption being made because two people have been hit, or is there another way that you know that this actually happened based on these facts? If Baldwin did not cock the gun and point it at a live person in the scene, and then had the gun automatically misfire, or perhaps ricochet from where it was pointed to hit the two people in question, why attribute blame to him? Or, based on these facts, could that not have happened?

Also, it appears that the gun was loaded with live rounds rather than a blank. Based on these facts, why were live rounds taken to a movie set when they were entirely unnecessary, and in fact, could be quite dangerous, if used, and should not the lion's share of the blame fall on the person that brought live rounds to a movie set and then loaded those rounds into the gun, since live rounds should never be on a movie set in the first place?

The actor was preparing to film a scene in which he pulls a gun out of a holster, according to a source close to the production. Crew members had already shouted “cold gun” on the set. The filmmaking team was lining up its camera angles and had yet to retreat to the video village, an on-set area where the crew gathers to watch filming from a distance via a monitor.

Instead, the B-camera operator was on a dolly with a monitor, checking out the potential shots. Hutchins was also looking at the monitor from over the operator’s shoulder, as was the movie’s director, Joel Souza, who was crouching just behind her.

Baldwin removed the gun from its holster once without incident, but the second time he did so, ammunition flew toward the trio around the monitor. The projectile whizzed by the camera operator but penetrated Hutchins near her shoulder, then continued through to Souza. Hutchins immediately fell to the ground as crew members applied pressure to her wound in an attempt to stop the bleeding.



I can see a lot about this that's muddled. An actor on a scene is handed what's assumed to be a prop gun. It could be cheap plastic, a modified "real" gun or a completely real gun or it could even be that the actor points his finger, yells bang and the animators take over after that. In a murder case, much depends on intentional killing or negligent killing or a killing that's part of another crime or a tragic accident.

First degree just doesn't make sense for anybody, since the whole thing was witnessed and probably on video.

Motive wise, is there anything there? If it is, I have not read that anybody in the production really wanted to kill anybody.

Baldwin has nothing to gain and possibly a career and reputation to kill. He's dead meat in Hollywood now, or at least will have a long period of exile. I'm assuming that he probably was handed what he thought was a prop gun and didn't check for himself....negligence but not deliberate intent.

Even an inept prop manager or armorer would know enough to check the gun. Bullets are not hard to recognize or distinguish from blanks. There's no reason why there would ever be real bullets on a movie set, even if they are the ones that get loaded by the actors for a scene. Fakes will do as props.

So, in my whodunit mode, it almost seems like there's a whole chain of inept acts that are needed for this to happen, but there are lot of worms to be turned in this drama, like who had an attitude or who had a reason for this movie to be overwhelmed by controversy. Nothing about this makes any sense except as an amazing chain of incompetence OR, deliberate sabotage of the movie by some third party. It's not unlike the stuff that the mafia once did when producers wouldn't hire the "right" person.



Registered User
Corax, thank you for contributing your knowledge of gun safety practices to this thread. May I ask, how do you know this information related to gun safety?
I am no one in particular. I have handled and fired guns, including single action revolvers. I have cleared these devices and can affirm that it is a brief and simple procedure to do so. However, the information I am offering is Gun Safety 101 stuff.

I would like to ask you and others who do believe that Baldwin did not follow standard protocol for the handling of firearms,
Rule #1 is that every gun is loaded (even if the person who hands it to claims it is unloaded) until proved otherwise.

do you know if it is standard practice on movie sets to inform the actors of these principles, or not?
I am not in the industry. My understanding is that the prop master is God.

This is good and bad.

On the one hand, this ensures us that an expert is guiding the flock. On the other hand, with any God comes a Theodicy, the problem of evil. Why does God let bad things happen? If something bad does happen with an omnipotent God, isn't that God's fault? Prop masters are not really Gods, are they? They are still humans and humans make mistakes.

The idea of hierarchy is good, but on-set Gun Safety Gods should be assisted by on-set Gun Safety Saints (i.e., anyone else who handles a weapon), who learn the manual of arms for the device, understand safe handling, and personally check the condition of the device for themselves. To do otherwise introduces a single point of failure into model.

For example, are actors in scenes involving guns told, "always assume the gun is loaded," even if the prop master or Assistant Director has told them it is a "cold gun?"
Is the present case not an object lesson in why the actor should check? A five-second check would have saved a life. Is this too long? No. Is this too hard to do? No. Do experts screw up? Yes. Can film sets get chaotic? Yes.

If you are speaking to industry standards as a mitigating factor of Baldwin's personal blame in all of this, I agree. I think there are three problems here. One problem is procedural. No, it is not good enough for a prop master to simply tell an actor a gun is cold without the actor performing an independent check. That is bad practice which violates the basic rules of safe-handling. If your industry is breaking basic safety rules that apply to everyone else in any other context, your industry is doing something wrong. Another problem is the idiot who brought a loaded gun to a film set and then reported it clear. Holy s**t this is bad. A third problem is that Alec Baldwin didn't check. Regardless of what people told him, regardless of procedural norms, he had a prudential and moral obligation to check for himself. He didn't.

What you don't seem to quite grasp (you say, "If the answer to any of these questions is no, then I think that rather than assigning even partial blame to Alec Baldwin"), is that prudential and moral reasoning supersede industry norms.

EX: It used to be an industry norm that Harvey Weinstein and his ilk could sexually assault women. The industry has even protected him and others. The industry was wrong. People were harmed. Morality and prudence > Industry standards.

This is the crux of our dispute. I see these outside factors as mitigating factors of blame. You see them as eliminating factors, leaving Baldwin completely exculpated. I am not the one taking the extreme position here. I am not saying Baldwin should go to prison, but can we at least admit that he f*****d up? Just a little bit? Because I guarantee you that if I go to a gun range and a range officer hands me a gun and assures that it is clear and I then proceed to shoot another person dead (Oopsie!), I am going to bear some scrutiny for that act, as I should.

The first draw was done without incident, but when he did this a second time, the gun appeared to go off.
As a person "appeared" to die when he did so, I'd say it is a safe bet to say that it did, in fact, discharge.

One of the principles that is being talked about is to never point a gun and fire at a live person. Do we actually know that that happened here?
To a high enough degree of certainty forming a presumption which would have to overturned with evidence, the answer is unequivocally "Yes!"

Unless that was the magic bullet that killed President Kennedy it ballistically traveled in the direction the barrel was pointed. Guns don't point themselves. Moreover, guns don't shoot themselves. Two operations have to occur to fire a single-action revolver, both of which have to be performed by the operator (i.e., cock the hammer and then depress the trigger - both operations must be performed in this order to fire).

If Baldwin did not cock the gun and point it at a live person in the scene,
So, you're speculating that another person handed the revolver to Baldwin in a pre-cocked position? And we are further to suppose that he holstered the weapon in a cocked position? And that he drew it twice in that condition? That's quite a stack of assumptions you have. And this is where safety rules 2, 3, and 4 come into play. Rule 2. Never point a gun at something you are not willing to destroy. As already discussed, he pointed it at a person (per ballistic function). Rule 3. Keep your finger off the trigger unless you intend to fire. Guns don't shoot themselves, even when cocked, so Baldwin minimally broke this rule too. Rule 4. Be sure of your target and what is behind it.

Even if we assume he was handed the weapon cocked he should have de-cocked the revolver while pointing it in a safe direction and then inspected the weapon personally.

Again, responsibility is still present.

Also, it appears that the gun was loaded with live rounds rather than a blank.
This speculation does NOT help your side of the case. It is a rule in the real world and the movie industry to not point a gun loaded with blanks at another person, as they can kill (a lesson the movie industry learned the hard way more than once). If Baldwin believed that the gun was loaded with blanks, then he was criminally negligent in pulling the trigger while the gun was pointed at another person.

I advise that our future speculations suppose that Baldwin believed that the gun to be empty or loaded with snap-caps. And then I will remind you that we would be wrong on this supposition as well.



Corax, as I stated earlier, I think in his capacity as a producer, Baldwin may be culpable here, or may have some contributory negligence, if it is substantiated that he knew about the previous gun safety concerns expressed by members of the crew, and did nothing about them, and/or if he was aware of the accidental gun discharges previously on this set.

You express a general principle that actors should always assume a gun is loaded, and that they need to check to determine if it is. How far does this responsibility extend, in your mind? Let's say for his first scene of the day, he does exactly what you suggest, and he finds the gun is either not loaded or loaded with blanks. If Baldwin then does his scene, and then takes a break to go to his trailer while they do another scene not involving him or this gun, and comes back a few minutes later, does he need to check the gun again? What if he does a second scene, then has to go to the bathroom? When he returns, should he do another check? What if they break for lunch, and he comes back, does he need to check a third time? If the answer to all of these questions is yes, prior to this incident, given that this almost never happened on a movie set before, do you think that is a reasonable expectation of the actors? This is not a trivial point. This is exactly how movie sets likely run.

I am not suggesting that someone handed the gun to Baldwin in a pre-cocked position. I am asking whether it is possible, since there were accidental discharges on this set with other guns, whether it is possible for no one to have intended to fire, and for the gun to have gone off anyway due to faulty mechanics. This seems to be something that you dismiss, saying that a gun can't fire without being cocked or putting your finger on the trigger, but there were accidental discharges, so it seems like this may be possible, and may have even happened previously. I don't actually have a case here at all. I'm just asking questions to try to learn more about the circumstances under which something like this could happen.

I do think that you are also making a lot of assumptions here about what actors might know about gun safety, or what they "should" know. For example, do actors even know that the guns that they are using, which are colloquially called "prop guns," are in many cases real guns, and that the only difference between a "prop gun" and a real gun is that a prop gun is supposed to be loaded with blanks rather than live rounds? If actors don't always know that, because they haven't been told that, then your entire argument about following standard protocols of gun safety does not hold, does it?

Prior to this incident, although I am not in the movie industry, I had no idea that prop guns were kind of a misnomer, and that they are actually real guns. I would not be surprised if many actors did not know that either, unless that is something they have been trained about. What did people on this set know, what were they told, by whom? Was the training adequate? If it was not, whose fault was that?

Criminal negligence flows from what someone knows, or should know personally, based on a reasonable person standard, not what others in the industry might know based on previous incidents.



Corax, as I stated earlier, I think in his capacity as a producer, Baldwin may be culpable here, or may have some contributory negligence, if it is substantiated that he knew about the previous gun safety concerns expressed by members of the crew, and did nothing about them, and/or if he was aware of the accidental gun discharges previously on this set....
I read this earlier today:

Some crew members of the film “Rust” say that there were two accidental weapon discharges on the set before the apparent accidental shooting death of a cinematographer by actor Alec Baldwin last week, multiple reports say.
Three former members of the film crew told the Los Angeles Times that those discharges happened on Oct. 16, triggering complaints about safety on the set to a supervisor...


Baldwin is among the film’s producers who said in a statement on Friday they had not been told about those accidental discharges.
and this:
As to the gun involved in the shooting, TMZ reported that it was used by crew members off-set for fun. Multiple sources told the entertainment news outlet that the gun had been fired at gatherings not connected to the production of the film, which could explain how it may have had live rounds in it...


And another source told the outlet that when police arrived to investigate, they found live rounds in the same location as blank rounds, which could have resulted in a fatal mix-up.

Full News Story