Like I said many pages ago, the person with the gun in his hand has the final responsibility!
Firearms Safety In The Entertainment Industry
- Thread starter K'Tesh
- Start date
Help Support The Rocketry Forum:
Well apparently there were 5 live rounds found in Baldwin's gunbelt as well as in the armourer's storage so obviously they looked so similar as to be mistaken. (Note, I choose to spell the word with the Canadian/British accent.
)
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2012
- Messages
- 6,355
- Reaction score
- 5,570
I think it's going to be difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury that Alec Baldwin was criminally negligent, since the armorer declared it safe. I do not hold out the same feelings for the armorer, however... it was their primary job to ensure that any weapons were properly safed. This is especially true since AFAIK the camera shot was supposed to be of Baldwin pointing the gun at the camera Bronson/Eastwood style.
lakeroadster
When in doubt... build hell-for-stout!
"The practical way to be sure a round is a dummy and not real is to shake it and listen for the distinct sound of B.B.s rattling inside."
The dummy rounds also have a hole in the side of the shell casing.
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/rust-shooting-dummy-rounds-alec-baldwin-45-long-colt
boatgeek
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2014
- Messages
- 7,414
- Reaction score
- 7,965
I agree with a lot of that, especially if the trials are separate rather than together. The one wild card is that I believe Baldwin was also a producer, so he bears some management responsibility as well as personal responsibility.
jahhash
Active Member
Bad deal around.
I did hear like the others had reported the cast and crew were target shooting with live ammo on the set prior to the deadly shooting.
I did hear like the others had reported the cast and crew were target shooting with live ammo on the set prior to the deadly shooting.
rharshberger
Well-Known Member
There are reasons, I looked it up once...way back when this happened...slept since then and now would need to research it again to get those reasons....I don't care enough to do it again.
Bottom line, the armorer was not in control of her responsibilities at all times, the shooter/trigger puller didn't check the condition of the gun, and it was pointed at someone when the trigger was pulled, three strikes and someone died.
Have you read about the armorer's background? This to me was one of the worst parts of the story, but that's my opinion.
Simon Auty
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2019
- Messages
- 127
- Reaction score
- 140
They didn’t adhere to Screen Actors Guild (the Actors Union) rules on the handling of weapons on set.
As near as there can be in the US, these are the basic minimum safety rules applicable on a movie set.
Once you stop using these rules your not only in danger (and if your on a set and they aren’t adhering to those rules quit your job and get out of there as fast as you can) your asking for an accident to happen and then the legal consequences that ensue
As near as there can be in the US, these are the basic minimum safety rules applicable on a movie set.
Once you stop using these rules your not only in danger (and if your on a set and they aren’t adhering to those rules quit your job and get out of there as fast as you can) your asking for an accident to happen and then the legal consequences that ensue
But still, the script didn't call for him to pull the trigger. There was not supposed to be anything shot that scene, so why not have a prop gun that looks real, looks like it has bullets in it, but doesn't have any moving parts and isn't capable of hurting anyone unless it was thrown really hard?
Live rounds on a movie set - never necessary. Who made the decision to have the guns be real? Who decided to bring live rounds and go target shooting with them in the days before the shooting? Who didn't check the *real* gun he was handed to make sure it wasn't loaded with *real* bullets? Who pulled the trigger while pointing a real gun at someone, when he wasn't supposed to pull the trigger for the movie?
Plenty of blame to go around, but Alec is not blameless at all.
Because there is no way putting a CGI gun in a live actor's empty hand during a movie firefight would look convincing. The last thing movies need is more CGI fakery.
"In his lawsuit, Baldwin said that while working on camera angles with Hutchins, he pointed the gun in her direction and pulled back and released the hammer of the weapon, which discharged."
So by his account, he never pulled the trigger, but instead pulled back and released the hammer, which I believe in some revolvers can still fire the bullet. Still, I thought you need to have the trigger held down in that case, but I'm not familiar enough with the older revolvers.
boatgeek
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2014
- Messages
- 7,414
- Reaction score
- 7,965
I am by no means an expert, but there were post-production people who talked about this at the time of the incident. They said that adding muzzle flash and appropriate sound to a real-looking-but-not-firing gun was extremely easy in post-production. I can try to dig it up again if you'd like. The gun doesn't have to be CGI, just the flash. It wouldn't surprise me if the foley artists reworked the noise even when blanks were fired.
dr wogz
Fly caster
yeah, that seems a little shady to me as well. you see it in movies, the "guy" will cock / pull back the hammer (to be quiet) then slowly returns it back once the threat passes by. it is not 'let go'
pulling it back, then letting it go / releasing it is, in my opinion / understanding, the same as it being cocked & released by the trigger.. (and from what I understand, pulling the trigger also rotates the barrel as it cocks the hammer..)
pulling it back, then letting it go / releasing it is, in my opinion / understanding, the same as it being cocked & released by the trigger.. (and from what I understand, pulling the trigger also rotates the barrel as it cocks the hammer..)
I'd still prefer the look of at least guns with blanks, but that's definitely preferable to an entire CGI gun. I'm of the opinion that the more you have in your movie that's actually real, the better.
dr wogz
Fly caster
you made me remember:
Remember when we were young, and played cowboys & Indians / cops & robbers / Star Wars, and we all had a variety of guns.. Some made noises, some didn't. And we would add our own personalized sound effects, be it a 'Pew-Pew' or a tikka-tikka-tikka, or even a simple 'bang -ptweeing'.... And we knew when our or their shot 'hit home' and we made extravagant death scenes.. and the odd time we woud argue (and have a 3rd party intervene) if the shot actually did 'hit home' or was a [near] miss...
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2015
- Messages
- 3,959
- Reaction score
- 2,725
I think that it was established what gun was used, and it has a transfer bar trigger mechanism. There are quite a few videos on how it works, but summary is that the weapon cannot fire unless the trigger is held back, even if the hammer is accidentally dropped.
dr wogz
Fly caster
dr wogz
Fly caster
The firearm in question is a Pietta Great Western II, another knock-off of a Colt's SAA (peacemaker). It is not a true clone of the original as it features transfer-bar ignition. That is how law-enforcement could be certain that the trigger had to be pulled for the firearm to be discharged. With this design, the trigger must be depressed to enable the firing pin to strike the primer. I am a big fan of 19th century firearms, but I always prefer a transfer-bar gun for competition or defense. They don't have as good of a 'feel' as the originals, but they are much safer.
Jim
Jim
Oh, yes, my emphasis was not spelling but to call out the supposed ability and definite responsibility of the position.Well apparently there were 5 live rounds found in Baldwin's gunbelt as well as in the armourer's storage so obviously they looked so similar as to be mistaken. (Note, I choose to spell the word with the Canadian/British accent.
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2019
- Messages
- 6,170
- Reaction score
- 4,358
Kind of betting you won't see him on the screen anytime soon. But I may be wrong, usually am. At least my wife thinks so
Even my Grandma's colt single action required the hammer to be pulled back to fire, two steps; cock, then fire. But, if it was cocked, bumping it into something would make it fire.
I dunno. He seems almost narcissistic to me. He said earlier that he doesn't feel the slightest guilt for her death. I know there's a difference between regret and guilt, but that still struck me as one who has no ability to empathize with others. I think he was slated to appear on Broadway recently. YMMV.Kind of betting you won't see him on the screen anytime soon. But I may be wrong, usually am. At least my wife thinks so
I just kind of thought nobody would want to use him now.
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2016
- Messages
- 8,996
- Reaction score
- 3,523
If he says he feels guilty it will absolutely be used against him in at least civil court, and probably attempted in criminal proceedings as well.
boatgeek
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2014
- Messages
- 7,414
- Reaction score
- 7,965
Sort of like Dick Cheney in that regard.
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2019
- Messages
- 6,170
- Reaction score
- 4,358
I've hunted quail in South Texas and my sister has hunted quail on that particular ranch. Harry Whittington approached a line of shooters from the front, coming from behind a rise, just as birds were flushing. If Cheney hadn't shot him, some other hunter in that line probably would have. Approaching a line of shooters from the front, even from an angle, is not a wise move, no matter who you are.
Didn't get reported that way because the media would have lost their sound bites to slam someone they didn't like.
DAllen
Well-Known Member
If I have to put up with a little bit more fakery to prevent someone needlessly dying I am all for it.
