Alec Baldwin [accidentally] Kills Crew Member with Prop Gun {2021-10-21}

Cafe Society
2069

So I’ll repeat: and the rest of the questions?

Film sets are dangerous places. Actors have been killed by lighting equipment falling on them, by being electocuted by a camera boom and by just having parts of the set collapse. Is it on them to check everything that they are interacting with? If they’re standing on a structure, do they need to know how to inspect it for structural integrity?

The most common kind of death is in a vehicle, helicopters especially, so do they need to know how to inspect a helicopter for safety? Or just how to fly one?

2070

He likely wasn’t just “practicing drawing the gun”, he was rehearsing the shot (heh). He was drawing the gun in the position and manner called for with that particular shot. It’s like a dress rehearsal. That means the DP and/or the director, or someone else might be watching through the camera or on a monitor.

They had the monitor near the camera which makes sense in many situations. After all, where the camera is is almost like the DPs office. She doesn’t want to be too far away–doesn’t want a long commute.

The monitor could have been in a different place but why? Now maybe if someone told her, “Hey. You’re going to be shot at in the next 5 minutes. You might want to move somewhere else.” they would have moved but of course no one foretold the future.

And even if they had moved there still would have been someone else at the camera, operating it, even if not recording.

(light snark warning)

So what they do is, they hire people to take care of securing and wrangling the props safely so that the actors and DP, and director, and assistant camera operator, and everyone else., can concentrate on their own jobs and not have to do the job of others.

2071

I do wonder how much correlation there is between personal gun ownership and being pro-2A as currently interpreted, and taking the (mistaken) view that responsibility for gun safety on a film set should fall to the actor holding the gun.

My view is that gun safety on set is the preserve of trained professionals, and that if another actor is pointing a gun at me, I do not want anything to depend on that actor’s amateur knowledge of guns, nor do I want that actor to do anything but follow strict safety procedures that have been formally specified by the armorer.

But I realize that this echoes my view of guns in ordinary life. I don’t want my life to depend on trusting any random person to be competent and safe with a gun, so (like most Europeans) I think people should not be allowed to own guns without good reason. And if they do, it should be a requirement that they be trained to stringent safety standards - essentially that any private gun owner should be obliged to become as skilled and as safe as a professional armorer, and formally licensed.

Whereas the prevailing 2A view in the U.S. is that such strict safety standards are a violation of individual rights; and I think that you will not meet a pro-2A gun owner who does not believe that they are personally as skilled and safe as a professional armorer.

2072

I took too long to edit and I left this part out:

(end of snerky snark)

Similar to a lion in the zoo who’s job isn’t to track, kill and eat prey, a prop gun’s job on a movie set isn’t to threaten or kill people. Obviously both the lion and the prop gun (if it’s an actual weapon) are still potentially dangerous. That’s why there are many safeguards in place to keep things safe.

If I’m acting in a film set at the zoo it’s not my job to grill the zookeeper or wrangler about all that’s needed to safely wrangle a lion. If I’m acting in a film set in the old west that features gunplay, it’s not my job to wrangle the prop guns.

2073

I was far too late to edit my original post to add this disclosure (I do this mostly because a lot of folks have run fast & loose with the facts–as we know them–in this thread and that bugs me. So I want to be sure to steer straight):

I don’t know for a fact that they were actually rehearsing and staging the scene but it seems to me all indications are that’s what was going on. Probably he did practice that shot, by himself, in his trailer or wherever. This was rehearsal, not “practice”.

Why else would Baldwin by fully costumed (and ‘made up’, it appears to me)? Why else a camera operator riding the camera and DP and director very close by monitoring the shot through the camera?

Point is, of course Baldwin pointed a gun in the direction of people. That’s what he was suppose to do.

@Broomstick There is no “downrange” on a movie set. Don’t confuse it with a firearms range (or NASA mission) just because there were prop guns around. The terminology doesn’t help things when so some people in this thread are already having much trouble discerning between the different safety rules for film actors and firearms operators.

2074

As a data point - I do not and never have owned a gun. I have been to a range and fired one with friends.

The responsibility for gun safety overall on a movie set should fall to the armorer. However, if someone puts a tool in your hand you should be told the basics of handling it safely, even if it is as simple as “don’t run with scissors” or “if you hand a knife to someone you hold it so you offer them the handle to grasp”. It is then your responsibility to follow those instructions and not run with scissors or hand a knife to someone blade first. Likewise, someone handling a gun as a prop should be given instructions as to how to properly handle the prop while using it as a prop. That doesn’t mean they have to be any sort of expert, just that they follow the instructions given to them by the person in charge of safety.

That’s not relying on an “amateur’s knowledge”, it’s everyone following the instructions of the person responsible for safety.

Now, if someone ignores their instruction and role and proceeds to run with scissors or hand a knife to someone blade first and someone gets hurt then I’d argue the person mishandling the object, contrary to instructions, bears some responsibility for not heeding the instructions of the actual expert.

When it comes to guns it is the responsibility of the actor to handle the prop as instructed. If the armorer screws up and a live round that shouldn’t be anywhere near the set gets onto the set, much less into a gun capable of firing it, then the armorer, IMO, bears ultimate and the greatest responsibility for anything negative that occurs.

So… did Mr. Baldwin mishandle the prop handed to him? Did he follow the safety instructions he had been given? I think that’s the crux of his case. But hey, I’m not a lawyer nor am I on that jury. My opinion is worth spit.

Well… having discussed this with some gun owners in real life I’m not so sure of that assertion. A number of them have stated that while they feel competent to own and use guns for their own purposes (two of them, for example, are deer hunters and one of them has been a hunter for more than 50 years) they don’t know the particulars of using them in the context of a motion picture production, haven’t used blanks and don’t know much about them, and so on. Some gun owners have their gun(s) for very specific and narrow purposes and acknowledge that outside those narrow purposes they aren’t experts (I also have known several gun owners who, when their reason for owning a gun ended/went away/whatever sold their guns because they didn’t want to have to bother with the security and other concerns involved with owning one.)

But yes, there are nutjob “ammosexuals” out there who are, pardon the term, loose cannons with more guns than sense. It’s a definite problem. Which, while I obviously have some support for the 2nd amendment I also support framing it as a limited right rather than an unlimited on. For which position I am often condemned by both sides.

2075

Point taken. I was trying to express “the area in which, if the gun fires, there’s a risk of injury or death” and opted for a word when a phrase probably would have been better.

2076

I still don’t get the deference to industry standards, the pervasive presumption that Baldwin relied on those standards (whatever they are), or the implicit assumption that it was reasonable for Baldwin to rely on industry standards in light of the totality of the circumstances (all the other things that went wrong with the production). Consider the following, pertaining to Baldwin’s appropriate level of concern/caution in handling a firearm in his role as an actor (setting aside his role as a producer here):

  1. How much should industry standards really matter when it comes to negligence? Industry standards are not the law. Industry standards may be evidence of what is reasonable, but they are not per se what is reasonable. With safety, as with anything else, industry can get it wrong wholesale.

  2. Whether great deference should be given to industry standards or not, how confident can we really be at this point that industry standards were followed? I get it. The industry has since come out and said “We fully agree with our big name actor friend that he acted appropriately and in accordance with industry standards. Nothing to see here folks, move along.” Color me… unsurprised. I frankly would not have expected Baldwin’s own union to come out with anything different in a press release. Not unlike when the police union or similar organizations come out with a statement in support of an officer after an “officer involved” shooting.

  3. Even if Baldwin acted in accordance with industry standards, and we might otherwise consider industry standards to be a good guide to what is a reasonable level of care, was it appropriate to rely on industry standards here, in light of all the circumstances, where two negligent firearms incidents had already occurred? It is perhaps one thing to trust the armorer or “industry standards” to do the job and ensure there won’t be any firearms incidents on set in a vacuum, with no other data points to consider. It’s something else entirely to trust the armorer and the existing industry standards to prevent firearms incidents when the armorer and the industry standards as applied to that particular production have already demonstrably failed to prevent firearms incidents.

For all those questions, I don’t think the answer is nearly as clear, nor the DA nearly as thoughtless or necessarily politically motivated for pressing charges, as some here would seem to assume. As I said before, if nothing else, I think this unfortunate incident raises some important questions about the use of real firearms, capable of discharging live rounds, in film productions and the adequacy (or not) of industry standards in preventing such tragedies.

2077

Is there any evidence that industry standards for gun safety have not been effective prior to this incident, or that they would have been ineffective in this case if they had been followed?

I don’t think that they have said that. They have pushed back against ill-informed opinions that everyday gun safety principles are applicable on a film set, and that actors (rather than professional armorers) are responsible for gun safety. So far as I know, they have not commented on the specifics here.

I think there are two ways Baldwin may be culpable here:

(a) As an actor, if he did not follow the normal safety protocols for an actor on a film set. But these protocols would not (and should not) include checking the bullets himself, nor would they dictate that he should never point a gun at someone.

(b) Through his control over the production through his star power and influence and financial interest, placing him in a de facto manager/employer role over the victims and the incompetent armorer.

In respect of (b), the SAG comments won’t help him:

In addition, the employer is always responsible for providing a safe work environment at all times, including hiring and supervising the work of professionals trained in weapons.

2078

It seams to me, in this case Baldwin could have followed that exact standard, and the accident would have still happened. He wasn’t horsing around; he was performing the requirements of the scene. If prior to the scene somebody had asked him if accidentally pulling the trigger or letting the hammer fall (as might have happened) would be dangerous, his response would have been, “no, it’s a cold gun, as I was told by the AD who was told by the armorer.” Of course we know that belief wasn’t true, but that’s what was in his mind when given the gun.

In this case the chain of events that lead to the shooting started long before the gun was ever in his hand.

Airplane accidents are often very similar. The accident doesn’t start when the plane is stalling towards the water. It started when the mechanic forgot to remove the cover from the pitot tube, or even before that if it was a deficiency in checklists or training that let the cover stay on.

Not a perfect analogy, as the pilots should see the covers on walk around, and should have noticed discrepancies in air speed indication, etc, but the only way Baldwin would have known the gun was not cold would have been to unload and and mess with it. Something he was not supposed to do.

2079

Yes there are people who are in charge of safety but it only works if they engage the people directly involved. They are part of the process. This didn’t happen with Baldwin. There is no legal safety dispensation just because it’s a movie set. And there is no legal construct I’m aware of that previous protocols meet the standards of safety just because that’s how it was always done.

also, there seems to be some assumption going on that Baldwin is being held soley liable for this and that is not the case.

2080

But that’s what Halyna Hutchins did. She trusted it was done correctly.

I was at a gathering years ago where someone wanted to show his friends his new gun. He’s very safety conscious but did not demonstrate it was empty. 3 people immediately yelled to stop and I mean YELLED. It was still loaded and chambered and the person it was handed to assumed it was empty. Even if the owner said it was empty nothing changed in the protocol. You check it in view of everyone.

2081

What’s your point? Nobody is disputing the fact that something was wrong with safety procedures on that set.

And when will the movie be released?

2082

My point is that you said you put your faith in what someone says and that’s not how gun safety works. You haven’t demonstrated that a movie set is exempt from proper gun safety procedures. Hollywood is no different than any other business when it comes to safety. This is why it’s in court.

You’re snark aside you’ll have to ask Baldwin that. He’s calling the shots on this one.

2083

If you need me to explain the snark, I was asking about the movie that you were making with your friends, because I assumed that your fascinating anecdote was about something relevant - gun safety procedures on a movie set.

You’re scraping the barrel on straw man arguments. “Exempt”?

2084

You have claimed gun safety protocols are somehow different when making movies. They are not.

2085

[my bold]

[my bold]

Thank you for withdrawing the straw man and stating my position accurately.

2086

Rehashing a statement from above, they absolutely are. How could they not be more different? In my gun safety training, one of the main rules I was taught was to never ever point a gun at someone I don’t intend to kill. On a set, you start by pointing a gun at a fellow actor or crew member behind a camera. Once you start with that change, everything that leads up to and then follows that aiming movement is seismically different.

If we were to apply the same real world gun safety rules on set that I follow at home, there would never ever be a gun on set, period.

2087

Maybe that’s the way it should be. No real guns on set. Dummy or blank firing only with mandatory training on the dangers of blanks.

2088

If actors and crew were regularly being shot, there might be a case for that. But is the problem that standard film industry safety protocols are inadequate, or simply that they were ignored on this set - to an egregious extent?