Alex Baldwin will be charged with involuntary manslaughter

PanzerAce

OT Supporter
Feb 25, 2006
9,355
he didn't point it at an actor on set, it was a cinematographer that got shot. :dunno:

even with those guidelines, what did he do wrong?
He didn't treat it like it was loaded and deadly, especially knowing that they had live ammo on set.
 

MiseryIndex

open your eyes child, your sea is changing.
Nov 9, 2000
165,488
heaven's fence.
He didn't treat it like it was loaded and deadly, especially knowing that they had live ammo on set.
he pointed a loaded weapon at someone and pulled the trigger

1. was he instructed to pull the trigger as part of the shot? i'm confused, if you treat it like its loaded and deadly, you'd never pull the trigger and shoot in any film.

2. why did he know there was live ammo on set? was that proven? In January, Gutierrez Reed sued Seth Kenney, who supplied most of the guns and ammunition used on “Rust,” alleging that he had negligently mixed dummy and live rounds, leading to the tragedy.

"Investigators would later find seven other suspected live rounds on the set, mixed among dummy rounds. All of them — plus the round that killed Hutchins — were Starline Brass. But that didn’t make any sense. Starline Brass is the dummy round of choice for movie sets. This company doesn’t produce live ammo,”


to me, the part i'm bolding is the bigger problem here:

Gutierrez Reed acknowledged that she had only been working as an armorer for a few months, and had no formal training. There is no official certification process for film armorers.
 

Joe_Cool

Judge Judy and Executioner
OT Supporter
Jun 30, 2003
330,640
why does being an actor absolve him of the responsibility of checking the weapon?
Apparently this needs to be said again...

PCv15pI.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chuck Finley

MiseryIndex

open your eyes child, your sea is changing.
Nov 9, 2000
165,488
heaven's fence.


not watching all of that. sorry. what i skimmed i can't say i agree with. you think it wouldn't be burdensome to expect every actor handling a gun in a movie to take out every bullet and inspect to make sure its not a live round vs a dummy? especially when there is no reason or explanation why there would be a live round on the set in the first place? i suppose it'd be easier with a revolver like this to do so, but think about a movie with a lot of automatic weapons, and dozens of people holding them in any given scene. it's someones responsibility to check before handing it to an actor, but its not the actor, right?
 

sp00n155

You underestimate the insignificance of my penis
OT Supporter
Jan 30, 2006
21,535
Bisbee, AZ
The amount of people itt that seem to think you can't point guns at people on a Hollywood production set as part of the filming process is pretty lols. Have any of you seen a movie in your life? Do you think all these guns being pointed at people in movies dating back to the literal start of movies are CGI in post?

They aren't. They're live firearms with dummy "squib" ammo put in dumb shit actors hands by trained professionals. When the set armorer isn't a trained professional, this happens. This is the court case at hand. The semantics of pointing a weapon isn't the debate, as that is a part of getting the shot. Sheesh you fucking imbeciles
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paul Revere

Mariner

Well-Known Member
Nov 11, 2000
46,825
PNW
I don't see how this sticks. An actor is handed a gun, with a round already in the chamber, and is told, either in that moment, or it is implied by the general procedure of shooting films with firearms, that the round is a blank, and that he is to pull the trigger at x time. He has no reasonable opportunity to verify that the round is a blank. Ejecting the round either totally fucks up the shot, or introduces a new, equally unknown round into the chamber. The only way this sticks is if Baldwin actually circumvented procedure and picked up a gun or magazine that he wasn't supposed to.

What I don't understand is how the armorer could let this happen. There is exactly ZERO reason for any live ammunition to be on-set at all. It doesn't belong there, period.

The only scenario I can imagine where this happens without either intent or VERY gross negligence, is if someone (Baldwin or the armorer) is a daily-carry person, and decides to use their personal weapon in the shot instead of one from whatever collection they're supposed to draw from, and swaps to a magazine of blanks, but forgets to eject the live round in the chamber. Perhaps this is what happened. Baldwin does sort of strike me as the kind of guy who might carry. And if he made a decision to use his personal weapon, I can see why they would charge him. But then to also charge the armorer? I guess if they allowed it then they bear some responsibility.
 

DizzyEdge

Vax me Trudaddy
OT Supporter
Dec 16, 2007
22,027
Calgary, AB
I don't understand why prop guns can fire real bullets? They should be purpose made dummy weapons that can only use purpose made dummy rounds that just make smoke.
 

skeletor25rs

It feels like real butter
Jan 26, 2001
30,286
NBTX
1. was he instructed to pull the trigger as part of the shot? i'm confused, if you treat it like its loaded and deadly, you'd never pull the trigger and shoot in any film.

2. why did he know there was live ammo on set? was that proven? In January, Gutierrez Reed sued Seth Kenney, who supplied most of the guns and ammunition used on “Rust,” alleging that he had negligently mixed dummy and live rounds, leading to the tragedy.

"Investigators would later find seven other suspected live rounds on the set, mixed among dummy rounds. All of them — plus the round that killed Hutchins — were Starline Brass. But that didn’t make any sense. Starline Brass is the dummy round of choice for movie sets. This company doesn’t produce live ammo,”


to me, the part i'm bolding is the bigger problem here:

Gutierrez Reed acknowledged that she had only been working as an armorer for a few months, and had no formal training. There is no official certification process for film armorers.

I have hundreds of live rounds in Starline brass. There’s no factory ammo loaded in it, but that doesn’t mean live rounds can’t exist in Starline brass.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bob Sandvagene

skeletor25rs

It feels like real butter
Jan 26, 2001
30,286
NBTX
I don't see how this sticks. An actor is handed a gun, with a round already in the chamber, and is told, either in that moment, or it is implied by the general procedure of shooting films with firearms, that the round is a blank, and that he is to pull the trigger at x time. He has no reasonable opportunity to verify that the round is a blank. Ejecting the round either totally fucks up the shot, or introduces a new, equally unknown round into the chamber. The only way this sticks is if Baldwin actually circumvented procedure and picked up a gun or magazine that he wasn't supposed to.

What I don't understand is how the armorer could let this happen. There is exactly ZERO reason for any live ammunition to be on-set at all. It doesn't belong there, period.

The only scenario I can imagine where this happens without either intent or VERY gross negligence, is if someone (Baldwin or the armorer) is a daily-carry person, and decides to use their personal weapon in the shot instead of one from whatever collection they're supposed to draw from, and swaps to a magazine of blanks, but forgets to eject the live round in the chamber. Perhaps this is what happened. Baldwin does sort of strike me as the kind of guy who might carry. And if he made a decision to use his personal weapon, I can see why they would charge him. But then to also charge the armorer? I guess if they allowed it then they bear some responsibility.
You know 90% of old west pistols are revolvers, right?
 

Disguy

Batman > Moon Knight
OT Supporter
Oct 26, 2004
3,587
not watching all of that. sorry. what i skimmed i can't say i agree with. you think it wouldn't be burdensome to expect every actor handling a gun in a movie to take out every bullet and inspect to make sure its not a live round vs a dummy? especially when there is no reason or explanation why there would be a live round on the set in the first place? i suppose it'd be easier with a revolver like this to do so, but think about a movie with a lot of automatic weapons, and dozens of people holding them in any given scene. it's someones responsibility to check before handing it to an actor, but its not the actor, right?
Its EVERYONE'S responsibility to check the gun. The armorer, the shooter, the person being shot at. Would you let you neighbor point a gun at you? Would you pull a trigger of a gun if you didn't verify it was empty / using blanks? Why does it being on a set exclude the actor from responsibility?

Also it is stated by staff / actors that they would shoot at targets between shoots.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joe_Cool

Users who are viewing this thread

About Us

  • Please do not post anything that violates any Local, State, Federal or International Laws. Your privacy is protected. You have the right to be forgotten. Site funded by advertising, link monetization and member support.
OT v15.13.2 Copyright © 2000-2023 Offtopic.com
Served by fx.offtopic.com

Online statistics

Members online
429
Guests online
97
Total visitors
526

Forum statistics

Threads
79,411
Messages
7,731,473
Members
87,089
Latest member
olegarchy