Actor Alec Baldwin fatally shoots woman on film set.

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
I still go back to my previous point: why employ professionals if you don't trust them to use their "personal professionalism". Their primary purpose is to ensure the non-professionals or non-experts are safe.
If you truly believe that employing someone else to check that a firearm is safe means that one's personal professionalism and consideration for the safety of others can be switched off then we really do differ.
 
Why would you check yourself if two alleged professionals have stated it's safe; did we ever ask the thousands of kids and adults who handled weapons on recruiting stands to check, or did we assume we'd done a professional job and made sure they were safe?

After all the fake outrage earlier in the thread, it would be quite hard for people to get on their reversocycle now.
 
Obviously this is not a simple case .but ,
Was whoever gave him a loaded gun the person who was supposed to be handing him guns? if not he must bear some responsibility for accepting the gun from a non armour . If it was someone who should have been handing out guns the fault lays with them .
Probably.
And he obviously did point it at her and pull the trigger .
 

Obviously this is not a simple case .but ,
Was whoever gave him a loaded gun the person who was supposed to be handing him guns? if not he must bear some responsibility for accepting the gun from a non armour . If it was someone who should have been handing out guns the fault lays with them .
Probably.
And he obviously did point it at her and pull the trigger .
go back to #33.
 
It may have been wiser if the pistol had been loaded in front of Mr Baldwin before handing it to him. Doing that may have caught any live rounds.

The reason I say that is there was a film crew working in downtown Helena, Montana. I was on duty that day and stopped by to talk to a couple of the City PD guys I knew and have a nosy as well. There were three people with pistols, two of the pistols were semi autos and the third was a revolver.

Each magazine and the revolver were loaded by whom I assume were the armourers in front of the actors who were going to use the guns. This was back in 2001 though.
 

giatttt

War Hero
It may have been wiser if the pistol had been loaded in front of Mr Baldwin before handing it to him. Doing that may have caught any live rounds.

The reason I say that is there was a film crew working in downtown Helena, Montana. I was on duty that day and stopped by to talk to a couple of the City PD guys I knew and have a nosy as well. There were three people with pistols, two of the pistols were semi autos and the third was a revolver.

Each magazine and the revolver were loaded by whom I assume were the armourers in front of the actors who were going to use the guns. This was back in 2001 though.
Some stuff in the press suggesting that reloaded dummy rounds may have been contaminated with live rounds. I understand the reasons for dummy rounds, but if visually identical to live rounds then the emphasis on the armourer to check and double check weights etc.
 
"It just went off by itself". Hm.

I imagine the investigation will be demanding a report on the condition/mechanical safety of the pistol in question.
Indeed.

I think he's (at best) mis-remembering what actually happened.

I don't know anything about the design of the pistol. If it is single action (even with a light trigger) you'd still have to cock it, and if it's double action, you'd have to work the trigger to cock the weapon , before it would fire, so (unless someone turns up forensic evidence to support the poltergeist defence*) , he's talking through his arrse now.

* Stonkernote: @Provost - Kudos for that label :thumright:
 
Some stuff in the press suggesting that reloaded dummy rounds may have been contaminated with live rounds. I understand the reasons for dummy rounds, but if visually identical to live rounds then the emphasis on the armourer to check and double check weights etc.
I heard that a day or two ago. Investigation of a local supplier of ammo to the fillum trade.

It calls into question (on this thread, anyway) of assertions that dummy rounds are 110% of the time invariably uniformly doctored in some clearly-defined industry-standard way, to make them readily distinguishable from live ammo.

While I strongly suspect those assertions are just limey pipe-dreams, my instincts say this is not much more than frantic blame-dodging for a failure to stringently observe genuinely industry-standard, well known and well documented protocols to ensure safety of firearms and ammo on a film set.
 
It may have been wiser if the pistol had been loaded in front of Mr Baldwin before handing it to him. Doing that may have caught any live rounds.

The reason I say that is there was a film crew working in downtown Helena, Montana. I was on duty that day and stopped by to talk to a couple of the City PD guys I knew and have a nosy as well. There were three people with pistols, two of the pistols were semi autos and the third was a revolver.

Each magazine and the revolver were loaded by whom I assume were the armourers in front of the actors who were going to use the guns. This was back in 2001 though.
If you’d asked me before this how I thought safety was dealt with, then that’s what I would have assumed: that the handler actively showed it was safe before handing it to the actor. I hope it becomes standard practice.
 
It may have been wiser if the pistol had been loaded in front of Mr Baldwin before handing it to him. Doing that may have caught any live rounds.
Given that it was neither a rehearsal, nor were they intent on filming (AIUI, they were doing preliminary work to figure out details so the deceased cinematographer could deliver on the director's intent) then there was no reason for the weapon to have any type of ammo in its cylinder.
 

Bubbles_Barker

LE
Book Reviewer
If you truly believe that employing someone else to check that a firearm is safe means that one's personal professionalism and consideration for the safety of others can be switched off then we really do differ.
It’s not whether you, or he, or I believe it. It is whether US law believes that accepting a declared ‘cold gun’ on a movie set is good enough. Clearly it is unlikely to be so in the future but comparing the accepted drills on a movie set to those that we have all been brought up with (always assume a weapon is loaded etc) is a pointless exercise in this case and utterly irrelevant to the outcome.
 

Bubbles_Barker

LE
Book Reviewer
Given that it was neither a rehearsal, nor were they intent on filming (AIUI, they were doing preliminary work to figure out details so the deceased cinematographer could deliver on the director's intent) then there was no reason for the weapon to have any type of ammo in its cylinder.
No, but if the convention, rules, procedure, whatever was: call it a ‘cold gun’ and carry on then why would anybody think there was a problem. It’s a film set in the USA, it’s not a British Army range and hey, they do things differently there (for now anyway!)

I’m not saying their procedures were good (far from it) but stop trying to apply Pam 21 etc to a film set from the get go…
 

A.N.Other

War Hero
Indeed.

I think he's (at best) mis-remembering what actually happened.

I don't know anything about the design of the pistol. If it is single action (even with a light trigger) you'd still have to cock it, and if it's double action, you'd have to work the trigger to cock the weapon , before it would fire, so (unless someone turns up forensic evidence to support the poltergeist defence*) , he's talking through his arrse now.

* Stonkernote: @Provost - Kudos for that label :thumright:
It was a single action colt.
 
There are a lot of people here arguing about how many angels are dancing on the head of a pin. FFS, there should have been no live rounds on that film set. There is no reason to have them at all. On a film set if there is a need to illustrate rounds hitting something (like actors or the ground) you use squibs. If you need to show rounds in a revolver (so the anoraks don't jump down your throat saying you could see the gun was loaded with blanks) you use drill rounds which are absolutely identifiable because they have a hole in the side of case.

Obviously there were failures on this film set. The producers (of whom Alec Baldwin was one) were looking for a cheap production. There are numerous stories now about how the normal standards applicable on a film set were being broken (and I am not necessarily referring to the armourer here) and that many of the crew were very unhappy about it. The fact that someone got shot with a live round is a demonstrable failure in itself. For those here who have done safety management systems will know that the moment you start short-circuiting safety standards is the start of a slippery slope to a failure. Add firearms into the mix and the result can be fatal.

Edited 'cos @Cutaway correctly corrected me. Thank you.
 
Last edited:
No, but if the convention, rules, procedure, whatever was: call it a ‘cold gun’ and carry on then why would anybody think there was a problem. It’s a film set in the USA, it’s not a British Army range and hey, they do things differently there (for now anyway!)
I doubt that if a British soldier handed a rifle to a civvie on an open day/recruit stand/ranges and told them that the rufle wasn't loaded when in reality it was, it would be the civvie at fault.
 
It would probably be advisable to kit yourself and the family out if visiting the states.
I'll just buy us all earplugs.
Went to the States fifteen years ago, the proudly Liberal Vermont , to be exact. Never met so many people who felt entitled to make insulting comments about myself and my Asian wife to our face.
 

Latest Threads

Top