News Alec Baldwin Accidentally Shoots & Kills Cinematographer, Wounds Director with Prop Gun

Yeah, the more the details come out, the more I've become convinced the key person to blame in this would be the AD. They likely were the one to hire the armorer, who should never have been the armorer in charge to begin with given their inexperience, but the AD who should have been eagle-eyed about these things was so lax as to be careless and allowed the situation on set to get worse, leading to this fatal accident. As for the armorer, I kind of feel bad for them as they were just starting out and did feel like they weren't ready to be in charge, and now I'm guessing they won't be working in the industry anymore. There's a chance she could be charged and blacklisted, same as the AD.

 

With blanks the recoil is negligible.

 

Any weapon should be regarded as load unless directly proven otherwise and only while in your immediate possession. It should also be checked by every person handling it.

It's possible that the armorer could still have a career if she really learned the lesson as it was paid with a life.

 

It will depend on what the investigation shows, but in general, yes, taking a position of great responsibility and screwing up so badly that someone is killed may very well cause career setbacks.

 

... So? If it means a safer set then I say we do without the flinxh/recoil, etc. A good enough actor and director should be able to sell it without that.

That said, this accident seems like its all on those in charge of the weapons and apparently them not keeping live rounds out of the area and not double and triple checking the gun when using it. Hell, Baldwin himself should have checked it even after being told it was "cold."

 

Even if the armorer didn't do their job I'm not sure that Baldwin needed to aim directly at them. If we take to heart a gun should always be treated as loaded and never aim at anything you don't intend to kill it seems that Baldwin would know from previous work as well as the cinematographer and other crew to not be set up line in sight.

Is it that difficult to get the shot (no pun intended) otherwise? Is it common that actors aim guns with blanks toward the crew? I guess I never really thought about it before, I'm trying to think back to behind the scenes stuff but I never really paid attention.

EDIT: Actually, thinking about it, if the gun was supposed to be cold, were they planning on adding the gunfire effects in post? So I guess maybe that's a situation they expect to be OK to film?

CNN is reporting just now that the gun was apparently being used for target practice with live ammo on the set which sounds jawdropping if it holds up.

 

Why do you keep addressing me about it when I am just quoting what another member said. Perhaps you, @camerlengo biggles and @antinoos should clear up the confusion between yourselves. Thanks in advance.

I actually heard an armourer in the biz yesterday saying, anyone ever handed a gun should check it themselves to be sure.

 

This has been a major point of contention on a different forum I frequent, where we hare having this same discussion. People with industry experience are coming down on both sides. It requires the actor not just to have gun handling training but also know how to identify the different kinds of fake ammunition since, especially with revolvers, the lack of bullets might be visible on camera. The Actor is the last line of defense against incidents like this, but they are also the least trained on the subject. Regardless of their actual level of training it will be less than the expert hired for the movie, at least it should be I'm not so sure about this one.

 

If Baldwin shouldn't be pointing the gun at the angle he was would that be the directors fault? Was he asked by the director to point it where he did? I guess it goes back to a previous question. Did they assume the gun was empty and had nothing in it. Were they filming a scene or rehearsing a scene so they idea of searching for a cool pose was going on.

 

I don't disagree with this and it's an argument I make in Baldwin's defense for any legal culpability he has as the gun handler. Still, though... Someone hands you a gun and says it's not loaded regardless of the circumstances or your trust in the person you check. It's better to be 200% sure than 100% sure.

Regardless of what everyone thought of the state of the gun, no one should have been in front of it. Everyone should have been off to the side operating the cameras and stuff remotely.

 

Absolutely. It's the fact that it was allowed to escalate despite previous concerns that makes it so shocking. When done properly, it would have been prevented. And theoretically, even if the armorer could continue with her work, would she even want to at this point? I have my doubts as it would weigh heavily on her conscience, and from the sounds of things, she would likely not want to be in charge of anything. I mean, if she had doubts of being ready before this, this is not going to convince her.

From what I understand, they were rehearsing. What that entails regarding guns, I'm not sure, but I would assume the actor would be going through the motions, possibly depressing the trigger if the scene warrants it, under the assumption that the gun wasn't loaded. Somewhere down the line, he was told the gun was cold when it was handed to him, when in fact it wasn't.

 

That's what I always wondered about the Brandon Lee shooting. "Dummy" rounds are readily available in most common calibers (just hunks of metal or plastic formed in the exact shape and size of a loaded cartridge, used for safety training or for safely checking mechanical function and that sort of thing). It would be so easy to just paint the nose of the plastic dummy lead gray or copper or however you want, and leave the rest safety orange. Nobody would be able to tell onscreen. Using primed but uncharged cartridges with a seated bullet just seems bizarre.

 

The Armorer an AD are the most negligent and responsible here without a doubt. I still say Baldwin gets a tiny fraction of responsibility/guilt for not being "extra sure" at the end of the day he pulled the trigger.

What happens on a set is different than what happens on a range or out in the "real world" but, still Baldwin gets some ounce of guilt, if only on his own conscious and not on a legal or civil level.

 

I don't like how it is being described as a misfire. The cartridge behaved as it was designed. A misfire would have been if the gun didn't fire.

There are some blocking devices that provide a quick visual indicator that it is installed and is incapable of chambering a round.

 

To me that makes sense. The only reason I would assume someone would pull the trigger on a gun pointed at someone in that situation is if they didn't think anything would be coming out of it. Especially someone who like Baldwin who must be experienced enough to know something about using guns in movies before. I still think he might end up going to jail but more from his failure as a producer to keep the set safe than for the actual moment of shooting the gun. Even if that doesn't happen he is going to be sued big time and I think it might even be a end to his acting career.

 

Nothing significant happened to John Landis after The Twilight Zone Movie accident. Baldwin's production company will likely face fines and lawsuits that will be settled out of court, but Baldwin won't see any meaning impact. People have forgotten Baldwin's drunken rant to his 11-year-old daughter.