Alec Baldwin killed a woman on set with prop gun (1 Viewer)

[Ghost Rider]

Generally speaking, the casing extraction mechanism is powered by gases from the round being fired. That said, it shouldn't be hard to replicate with some sort of small electric or hydraulic mechanism. 

Regarding replica firearms on set... There is an entire community of Airsoft junkies who focus on realistic replica builds.  Its not hard to find very realistic looking replicas for use on set. 

There were clear ongoing safety issues on set. They are peeling back the layers, but blame should be spread to all parties involved, including executives who may have cut corners or pushed conditions that forced others to cut corners. 

So far it's looking like some degree of blame could fall on:

- Baldwin (actor): Failure to safety check firearm. Failure to keep pointed in a safe direction (unless the shoot somehow required him to point directly at the camera... which is dumb in 99% of cases, methinks).

- Armorer: Failure to properly safety check firearm. Failure to maintain control of set (w/r/t blank vs live ammunition. 

- Weapons prop staff who were allegedly taking the weapon off set to shoot live ammunition. 

- Executives (Baldwin? others?) who could have created an environment of corner cutting via poor management, budgetary cuts, poor hiring practices, etc. 

Based off everything I have ready by people in the know the last few days, actors are not allowed to check a firearm they are handed to use in a film.  If they do so, the director will yet cut and the armorer will have to do the entire safety inspection again.  It is not only not the actor's job to inspect the weapon, but they are not allowed to do so.  

 

[Hawks64]

Whatever happened to Mr. Ham?  I thought he was is in show biz?

Would like to hear him weigh in on the Baldwin shooting.

I think he was, but haven't seen him in a long time. @Mr Ham

ETA Looks like he had his account and his subsequent accounts nuked.

 

[[icon]]

Based off everything I have ready by people in the know the last few days, actors are not allowed to check a firearm they are handed to use in a film.  If they do so, the director will yet cut and the armorer will have to do the entire safety inspection again.  It is not only not the actor's job to inspect the weapon, but they are not allowed to do so.  

I find this terribly difficult to believe for a couple reasons: 

1) Literally Rule #1 of firearms handling is to check a firearm when handed it. 

2) The "Director yells cut" thing sounds made up... the actor has the weapon in hand well before they're rolling. You wouldn't wait until the director says "action" before checking... 

Of course, Hollywood is full of morons so this certainly COULD be some horribly dumb rule... in which case it needs to change. Anyone disagreeing with that hasn't spent any time around firearms  

 

[Da Guru]

I think he was, but haven't seen him in a long time. @Mr Ham

ETA Looks like he had his account and his subsequent accounts nuked.

I knew he went haywire for awhile.

 

[culdeus]

I knew he went haywire for awhile.

Was a COVID thing IIRC.  He just threw in the towel.

 

[Tom Servo]

The last death on set I can recall in the US was Sarah Jones, who was hit by a train when filming a scene on a bridge. The crew was not aware the train tracks on the bridge were actively in use. The producer/director of the film was found to be negligent and spent a year in jail for involuntary manslaughter.

Alec Baldwin MAY face criminal charges.

Under New Mexico law (negligent homicide) is defined as a death caused by the failure to exercise "due caution." In other words, while it might have been an accident in the conventional sense, Baldwin could still be prosecuted and convicted upon a showing that he was reckless or grossly negligent.  

If Baldwin was merely a hired actor who simply followed directions on the set by relying on the assurance of the assistant director, there would be insufficient evidence to support an involuntary manslaughter charge against him. He would not be culpable at all under the law. But this was not the case during the shooting of the film.  

Baldwin served as an on-location producer for the movie. The terms of his contract are not known.  

Nevertheless, his additional role may have imposed upon him an affirmative duty of supervision for many aspects of the production, including some responsibility for the safety of the crew.  

If he had any reason to believe that there was a problem that might jeopardize the lives of individuals on set, he had a legal obligation to take steps to ensure their safety and security.  

 

[Tom Servo]

OMG we used to have a poster that worked on movie sets. He was here for awhile (and didn't like me in our early years) and was a good poster. Forget his name though. I think it starts with a V?

@mad sweeneywas also in the business IIRC.

 

[timschochet]

If he had any reason to believe that there was a problem that might jeopardize the lives of individuals on set

I think this would be extremely difficult to prove. 

 

[Cjw_55106]

I think this would be extremely difficult to prove. 

You left out the end of the statement. Just having a real gun on site probably qualifies. 

If he had any reason to believe that there was a problem that might jeopardize the lives of individuals on set, he had a legal obligation to take steps to ensure their safety and security.  

 

[Da Guru]

Detectives searching the set found loose live ammunition inside a fanny pack as well as in boxes on the set, and lying around loosely, The New York Times reported. A police investigation is ongoing.

The death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins has also been painted as Alec Baldwin’s tragedy. 

Really, it’s not. In fact, Alec Baldwin is likely to be held, at least in part, responsible. 

“If you’re capable of memorizing 120 pages of dialogue, you can memorize four lines of gun safety,” special effects and firearms expert Steve Wolf tells The Post. 

“If that scene required him to put the gun to his head and pull the trigger, I’m sure he would have taken a look inside the gun. 

As a producer on “Rust,” Baldwin could be held culpable for the cost-cutting, chaos and eventual hire of a young head armorer with just one stint in said job on her résumé — because, according to Deadline, multiple other armorers turned it down over low pay and high stakes, with too many firearms to manage. 

 

[[icon]]

I think this would be extremely difficult to prove. 

Imagine you're running a dangerous construction site and all the qualified mangers / staff in charge of safety walk off the site. If you make the decision to keep building and someone gets killed... You'd have liability. 

We don't know what role Baldwin had in the decision to keep filming gun scenes with a diminished safety/prop crew on set... but it's feasible to think as the Producer on set he may some culpability. 

 

[timschochet]

Imagine you're running a dangerous construction site and all the qualified mangers / staff in charge of safety walk off the site. If you make the decision to keep building and someone gets killed... You'd have liability. 

We don't know what role Baldwin had in the decision to keep filming gun scenes with a diminished safety/prop crew on set... but it's feasible to think as the Producer on set he may some culpability. 

Liability is not the same as CRIMINAL liability which is what the article was addressing. The latter has a much higher standard of proof, rightfully so. 
Baldwin and the other producers are likely  financially liable for what happened (though I suspect insurance will take care of that) but criminally liable? As I wrote, that would be very difficult to prove. 

 

[[icon]]

Liability is not the same as CRIMINAL liability which is what the article was addressing. The latter has a much higher standard of proof, rightfully so. 
Baldwin and the other producers are likely  financially liable for what happened (though I suspect insurance will take care of that) but criminally liable? As I wrote, that would be very difficult to prove. 

State of Arizona requires these standards (quick google search):

• The existence of a duty of care (seemingly easy to prove if oversaw safety/prop team)
  
• A breach of that duty (Did he push for "The show to go on" in spite of multiple issues and diminished staff?)
  
• Causation - Must show breach was cause of damages. Did that "Push" despite warning signs contribute to the death
  
• Damages - Seemingly easy to prove. 
  

I do know the standard for criminal vs civil negligence is hgiher... but I don't know to what degree. That said, I'm no atty.... @Woz would be my go to for clarity on this... I think he practices in AZ?   

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Crew members were using the gun for target practice earlier in the day.

 

[BroncoFreak_2K3]

State of Arizona requires these standards (quick google search):

• The existence of a duty of care (seemingly easy to prove if oversaw safety/prop team)
  
• A breach of that duty (Did he push for "The show to go on" in spite of multiple issues and diminished staff?)
  
• Causation - Must show breach was cause of damages. Did that "Push" despite warning signs contribute to the death
  
• Damages - Seemingly easy to prove. 
  

I do know the standard for criminal vs civil negligence is hgiher... but I don't know to what degree. That said, I'm no atty.... @Woz would be my go to for clarity on this... I think he practices in AZ?   

Didn’t this occur in New Mexico? Even so, they may have the same standards apply in that state as well.

 

[Zow]

@mad sweeneywas also in the business IIRC.

@videoguy505 is who I was thinking of.

 

[Zow]

State of Arizona requires these standards (quick google search):

• The existence of a duty of care (seemingly easy to prove if oversaw safety/prop team)
  
• A breach of that duty (Did he push for "The show to go on" in spite of multiple issues and diminished staff?)
  
• Causation - Must show breach was cause of damages. Did that "Push" despite warning signs contribute to the death
  
• Damages - Seemingly easy to prove. 
  

I do know the standard for criminal vs civil negligence is hgiher... but I don't know to what degree. That said, I'm no atty.... @Woz would be my go to for clarity on this... I think he practices in AZ?   

I do. There is a significant difference between civil negligence (you correctly list the 4 elements) and criminal negligence. 

Criminal negligence is defined in AZ as follows: (d) "Criminal negligence" means, with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense, that a person fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.

The possible charge I could see here, based on my limited knowledge of the facts (I really haven't been paying all that close attention to this situation), is negligent homicide. The analysis would be whether Baldwin's (and/or whoever was in charge of making sure the gun was safe) action(s) rose to the level of constituting a gross deviation from a reasonable standard of care. 

The negligent homicide cases I've either seen or been a part of were in situations of parents making really awful decisions which caused the deaths of their kids (e.g. leaving a baby in a car for hours on a summer day, driving through a wash during a storm, giving hard alcohol to a young child, etc.). Otherwise, negligent homicide is usually tacked on as a lesser included of homicide charges requiring an even more culpable mental state (e.g. manslaughter, murder). 

I don't think that this situation rises to such a level - though I could certainly see a viable civil claim that would likely successfully settle (I don't know much about movie making but I have to imagine a movie production has decent insurance). 

 

[Zow]

Didn’t this occur in New Mexico? Even so, they may have the same standards apply in that state as well.

Ah. If it was New Mexico I'm not familiar with their laws. 

 

[culdeus]

Why is Baldwin working on a set that can't afford to hire people?  We figure this out?

 

[Dezbelief]

Why is Baldwin working on a set that can't afford to hire people?  We figure this out?

Baldwin was also a producer on the movie. Cost cutting was saving Baldwin money.

 

[GreenNGold]

Initially I thought this was just a bad accident where Baldwin would share very little of the blame.  However, considering that they weren't even filming at the time of the accident, and Baldwin was just practicing with the gun, that leads me to believe he may have more responsibility than I initially believed.  They weren't filming a scene, he was practicing with the gun, so that gives him absolutely zero reason to be pointing the firearm at other people, there is no pointing the gun in the direction of another person as part of filming a scene excuse, it was just terrible negligence (by multiple parties I'm sure). 

 

[Dennis Castro]

Was a COVID thing IIRC.  He just threw in the towel.

As I understand it, Mr. Ham thought the FFA was heading downhill, with too much animosity and after having a run of bad experiences with ifriends, decided to reorganize his priorities in life. He asked the powers that be to kill off his account and seemed pretty content with that last I heard. 

That all went down toward the end of last year, so maybe it was part of a New Year’s resolution.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Imagine you're running a dangerous construction site and all the qualified mangers / staff in charge of safety walk off the site. If you make the decision to keep building and someone gets killed... You'd have liability. 

We don't know what role Baldwin had in the decision to keep filming gun scenes with a diminished safety/prop crew on set... but it's feasible to think as the Producer on set he may some culpability. 

If I recall one of the first articles that mentioned the walkout thingy mentioned that the walkout and safety concerns had not been relayed to Baldwin.  I don't remember which article that was though.

 

[CurlyNight]

Just reading up on this. So a disgruntled crew walked off the set. Could it be someone from that crew set it up to bring Baldwin down?

 

[Nick Vermeil]

Imagine you're running a dangerous construction site and all the qualified mangers / staff in charge of safety walk off the site. If you make the decision to keep building and someone gets killed... You'd have liability. 

We don't know what role Baldwin had in the decision to keep filming gun scenes with a diminished safety/prop crew on set... but it's feasible to think as the Producer on set he may some culpability. 

I really shouldn't get involved because I haven't done the research on this movie, but a star actor getting a Producer credit usually doesn't mean squat in terms of production responsibilities.  Most often it is a token title in lieu of money.  

 

[Tom Servo]

Just reading up on this. So a disgruntled crew walked off the set. Could it be someone from that crew set it up to bring Baldwin down?

No. 

 

[culdeus]

Not sure how to link to a podcast but vox today explained did a good bit on this topic today.  

 

[Ghost Rider]

I find this terribly difficult to believe for a couple reasons: 

1) Literally Rule #1 of firearms handling is to check a firearm when handed it. 

2) The "Director yells cut" thing sounds made up... the actor has the weapon in hand well before they're rolling. You wouldn't wait until the director says "action" before checking... 

Of course, Hollywood is full of morons so this certainly COULD be some horribly dumb rule... in which case it needs to change. Anyone disagreeing with that hasn't spent any time around firearms  

If you want to argue that the rule is dumb, that is fine, but regarding number 1, I will repeat that actors are not (based on everything I have read and heard by insiders) allowed to check the firearm when handed it to use in a film.  That is not their job.  The fact that it might be the number 1 rule of firearms in everyday life is irrelevant. 

 

[eoMMan]

If you want to argue that the rule is dumb, that is fine, but regarding number 1, I will repeat that actors are not (based on everything I have read and heard by insiders) allowed to check the firearm when handed it to use in a film.  That is not their job.  The fact that it might be the number 1 rule of firearms in everyday life is irrelevant. 

Kinda agree with this. It's hard to imagine every actor using a gun in a scene knowing how to inspect it. I would expect them to think it was unloaded/fakegun/etc since it was given to them. 

Let's say it's a child actor using a gun. Or some 99 year old woman in a gun scene. Both know nothing of guns or even handled a gun prior to the scene. I would think they should be relying on the safety experts on set. Just my opinion. 

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Initially I thought this was just a bad accident where Baldwin would share very little of the blame.  However, considering that they weren't even filming at the time of the accident, and Baldwin was just practicing with the gun, that leads me to believe he may have more responsibility than I initially believed.  They weren't filming a scene, he was practicing with the gun, so that gives him absolutely zero reason to be pointing the firearm at other people, there is no pointing the gun in the direction of another person as part of filming a scene excuse, it was just terrible negligence (by multiple parties I'm sure). 

They were setting up the scene for the camera angles and rehearsing.  That is part of making the movie.  I don't understand your point -- he wasn't just playing around.

I am not sure how we are trying to point to negligence for the producers here, particularly criminal or gross negligence.  If there are some blatant corners being cut at the direction of the producers, that is one thing.  But being "cheap" but still hiring people who are otherwise qualified to do their jobs is not negligent. 

If the armorer allowed mixing of ammunition, didn't properly know the chain of custody of a firearm, and/or did not properly inspect it, then that person could be held liable and criminally negligent.  I am sure that the production company will also be sued and ultimately settle, but there won't be anything close to criminal charges for anyone at that level including Alec Baldwin as actor or producer.

 

[Dezbelief]

If you want to argue that the rule is dumb, that is fine, but regarding number 1, I will repeat that actors are not (based on everything I have read and heard by insiders) allowed to check the firearm when handed it to use in a film.  That is not their job.  The fact that it might be the number 1 rule of firearms in everyday life is irrelevant. 

The AD broke the first rule of firearms when he called it a cold gun without checking to see if it was loaded. It was his job to do so. If charges are brought he will be the most likely target.

 

[tonydead]

If you want to argue that the rule is dumb, that is fine, but regarding number 1, I will repeat that actors are not (based on everything I have read and heard by insiders) allowed to check the firearm when handed it to use in a film.  That is not their job.  The fact that it might be the number 1 rule of firearms in everyday life is irrelevant. 

Making a rule that is the exact opposite of the #1 rule of firearms would officially make it the dumbest rule ever.

 

[[icon]]

If you want to argue that the rule is dumb, that is fine, but regarding number 1, I will repeat that actors are not (based on everything I have read and heard by insiders) allowed to check the firearm when handed it to use in a film.  That is not their job.  The fact that it might be the number 1 rule of firearms in everyday life is irrelevant. 

It's EVERYONE'S Job when it comes to firearms safety. IF that rule exists where actors aren't allowed to safety check a firearm (still have seen no proof of this), it only solidifies the fact that Hollywood is by and large ####### clueless about firearms and further discredits any Anti-2A rhetoric they spew.

It's literally so stupid it reminds me of that GA congressman interviewing an Army general regarding military buildup in Guam, and expressing concern the added weight might flip the island over. 

Kinda agree with this. It's hard to imagine every actor using a gun in a scene knowing how to inspect it. I would expect them to think it was unloaded/fakegun/etc since it was given to them. 

Let's say it's a child actor using a gun. Or some 99 year old woman in a gun scene. Both know nothing of guns or even handled a gun prior to the scene. I would think they should be relying on the safety experts on set. Just my opinion. 

Actors learn all sorts of #### for roles.. many spend months if not a year training. They can handle a damn 15 minute firearms safety course if they're going to be.... you know.... handling firearms.

Safety checking takes 5 seconds and minimal knowledge. I've seen 5 year olds do it competently. 

Nobody's saying safety experts shouldn't be the primary layer in the protocol, but there is literally no excuse for the person who will be pulling the trigger to be one additional safety net. None. Zero. Exhibit A... the reason we had to make this thread. 

Making a rule that is the exact opposite of the #1 rule of firearms would officially make it the dumbest rule ever.

Exactly.  

 

[[icon]]

They were setting up the scene for the camera angles and rehearsing.  That is part of making the movie.  I don't understand your point -- he wasn't just playing around.

I am not sure how we are trying to point to negligence for the producers here, particularly criminal or gross negligence.  If there are some blatant corners being cut at the direction of the producers, that is one thing.  But being "cheap" but still hiring people who are otherwise qualified to do their jobs is not negligent. 

IF the people that walked off the set werein any way involved in firearm safety on set, and the producer/directors opted to continue the shoot without those measures/people in place... there is absolutely plausible they could be held accountable. 

 

[John123]

If you want to argue that the rule is dumb, that is fine, but regarding number 1, I will repeat that actors are not (based on everything I have read and heard by insiders) allowed to check the firearm when handed it to use in a film.  That is not their job.  The fact that it might be the number 1 rule of firearms in everyday life is irrelevant. 

I've read a lot of articles on this case and general firearms safety/rules on set and have not seen this.  You keep saying it but you haven't provided any supporting evidence that it is in fact SOP in Hollywood.  If that were the case I think it would make Hollywood part of committing a crime since it violates the first rule of gun safety.   Can you support this assertion?

 

[brun]

If you want to argue that the rule is dumb, that is fine, but regarding number 1, I will repeat that actors are not (based on everything I have read and heard by insiders) allowed to check the firearm when handed it to use in a film.  That is not their job.  The fact that it might be the number 1 rule of firearms in everyday life is irrelevant. 

I'd be willing to bet this is a union thing to ensure the value of the prop/gun people as well as insulate the actor people from responsibility if something goes wrong.

 

[John123]

If you want to argue that the rule is dumb, that is fine, but regarding number 1, I will repeat that actors are not (based on everything I have read and heard by insiders) allowed to check the firearm when handed it to use in a film.  That is not their job.  The fact that it might be the number 1 rule of firearms in everyday life is irrelevant. 

To this point, here is a link to the rules of gun safety from one of the unions for actors:

https://www.actorsequity.org/resources/Producers/safe-and-sanitary/safety-tips-for-use-of-firearms/

The text of the rules:

Safety Tips for Use of Firearms

Use simulated or dummy weapons whenever possible.

Treat all guns as if they are loaded and deadly.

Unless you are actually performing or rehearsing, the property master must secure all firearms.

The property master or armorer should carefully train you in the safe use of any firearm you must handle. Be honest if you have no knowledge about guns. Do not overstate your qualifications.

Follow all instructions given by the qualified instructor.

Never engage in horseplay with any firearms or other weapons. Do not let others handle the gun for any reason.

All loading of firearms must be done by the property master, armorer or experienced persons working under their direct supervision.

Never point a firearm at anyone including yourself. Always cheat the shot by aiming to the right or left of the target character. If asked to point and shoot directly at a living target, consult with the property master or armorer for the prescribed safety procedures.

If you are the intended target of a gunshot, make sure that the person firing at you has followed all these safety procedures.

If you are required to wear exploding blood squibs, make sure there is a bulletproof vest or other solid protection between you and the blast packet.

Use protective shields for all off stage cast within close proximity to any shots fired.

Appropriate ear protection should be offered to the cast members and stage managers.

Check the firearm every time you take possession of it. Before each use, make sure the gun has been test-fired off stage and then ask to test fire it yourself. Watch the prop master check the cylinders and barrel to be sure no foreign object or dummy bullet has become lodged inside.

Blanks are extremely dangerous. Even though they do not fire bullets out of the gun barrel, they still have a powerful blast than can maim or kill.

Never attempt to adjust, modify or repair a firearm yourself. If a weapon jams or malfunctions, corrections shall be made only by a qualified person.

When a scene is completed, the property master shall unload the firearms. All weapons must be cleaned, checked and inventoried after each performance.

Live ammunition may not be brought into the theatre.

If you are in a production where shots are to be fired and there is no qualified property master, go to the nearest phone and call Actors' Equity Association. A union representative will make sure proper procedures are followed.

State and federal safety laws must be honored at all times.

If any of the above safety tips conflict with the instructions given by a qualified instructor, abide by the instructions from the qualified instructor. If you are still not sure, contact your Equity Business Representative.

 

[[icon]]

SAFETY TIPS FOR USE OF FIREARMS - Actors Equity Association

• Use simulated or dummy weapons whenever possible.
  
  [*]Treat all guns as if they are loaded and deadly.
  
  [*]Unless you are actually performing or rehearsing, the property master must secure all firearms.
  
  [*]The property master or armorer should carefully train you in the safe use of any firearm you must handle. Be honest if you have no knowledge about guns. Do not overstate your qualifications.
  
  [*]Follow all instructions given by the qualified instructor.
  
  [*]Never engage in horseplay with any firearms or other weapons. Do not let others handle the gun for any reason.
  
  [*]All loading of firearms must be done by the property master, armorer or experienced persons working under their direct supervision.
  
  [*]Never point a firearm at anyone including yourself. Always cheat the shot by aiming to the right or left of the target character. If asked to point and shoot directly at a living target, consult with the property master or armorer for the prescribed safety procedures.
  
  [*]If you are the intended target of a gunshot, make sure that the person firing at you has followed all these safety procedures.
  
  [*]If you are required to wear exploding blood squibs, make sure there is a bulletproof vest or other solid protection between you and the blast packet.
  
  [*]Use protective shields for all off stage cast within close proximity to any shots fired.
  
  [*]Appropriate ear protection should be offered to the cast members and stage managers.
  
  [*]Check the firearm every time you take possession of it. Before each use, make sure the gun has been test-fired off stage and then ask to test fire it yourself. Watch the prop master check the cylinders and barrel to be sure no foreign object or dummy bullet has become lodged inside.
  
  [*]Blanks are extremely dangerous. Even though they do not fire bullets out of the gun barrel, they still have a powerful blast than can maim or kill.
  
  [*]Never attempt to adjust, modify or repair a firearm yourself. If a weapon jams or malfunctions, corrections shall be made only by a qualified person.
  
  [*]When a scene is completed, the property master shall unload the firearms. All weapons must be cleaned, checked and inventoried after each performance.
  
  [*]Live ammunition may not be brought into the theatre.
  
  [*]If you are in a production where shots are to be fired and there is no qualified property master, go to the nearest phone and call Actors' Equity Association. A union representative will make sure proper procedures are followed.
  
  [*]State and federal safety laws must be honored at all times.
  
  [*]If any of the above safety tips conflict with the instructions given by a qualified instructor, abide by the instructions from the qualified instructor. If you are still not sure, contact your Equity Business Representative.

So.. there is no rule saying you can't check a weapon.

In fact.. protocol dictates you must "Check the firearm every time you take possession of it". 

Not to mention the host of other rules violated on this set... total ####show.  

 

[[icon]]

 great minds. 

 

[John123]

Sheriff's news conference happening now in Santa Fe, NM. 

Well, that was anti-climactic.  Got some evidence, including the guns and live rounds.  Investigation ongoing.  Charges will be filed if the evidence supports......No one has been ruled out with regards to who might be charged.

 

[Courtjester]

Maybe this was mentioned up-thread somewhere, but a show last night was interviewing an armorer who had refused to work on this set because they wanted to cut corners and hire a prop-master/armorer dual role. I don't know anything about this subject, but he seemed pretty convincing that these two jobs should NEVER be performed by one person. 

 

[Doug B]

To this point, here is a link to the rules of gun safety from one of the unions for actors:

https://www.actorsequity.org/resources/Producers/safe-and-sanitary/safety-tips-for-use-of-firearms/

Actors Equity represents stage actors (Broadway, etc.). Their rules would not cover Screen Actors Guild members (movies and television).

 

[BroncoFreak_2K3]

Actors Equity represents stage actors (Broadway, etc.). Their rules would not cover Screen Actors Guild members (movies and television).

If they don’t they should have something similar I would hope.

 

[The General]

Didn’t read the thread all the way through has it been talked about why they still use real guns on movie sets? Seems  crazy.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Sheriff's news conference happening now in Santa Fe, NM. 

No one has been ruled out with regards to who might be charged.

That was the main take away.

This wasn't a prop gun, it was a gun.

 

[The General]

Have worked on some commercials and in my role was talking / working with prop people and art department.

Def not an expert and have just served as the client but having a person doing actual guns and all also having them have any other role in props seems crazy. 

They have to track hundreds of things for set, are going all over the set all day, moving crap everywhere, organizing, swapping stuff. It’s a lot. A gun seems like it would need a dedicated person to just that. 

 

[Doug B]

If they don’t they should have something similar I would hope.

There is -- the SAG-AFTRA Safety Bulletins. The most recent set I can find quickly is from 2009, but it covers the relevant points (bulletins #1 and #2, pp 13-22).

There are additional safety bulletins not included in this PDF, two of which also relate to firearm use (bulletins #16 and #30). I haven't yet found copies of those.

 

[John123]

Actors Equity represents stage actors (Broadway, etc.). Their rules would not cover Screen Actors Guild members (movies and television).

Okay, let's use the SAG guidelines instead, as they do differ a bit. They're longer so I won't quote all of them here but here are a few relevant ones:

- Refrain from pointing a firearm at anyone, including yourself.

- NEVER place your finger on the trigger until you're ready to shoot

- UTILIZE all safety devices until the firearm is ready to be used

- No one shall be issued a firearm until he or she is trained in safe handling, safe use, the safety lock, and proper firing procedures.

You can read the rest if you're so inclined but the number that were violated by Baldwin and/or others is staggering.

https://www.sagaftra.org/files/safety_bulletins_amptp_part_1_9_3_0.pdf

 

[John123]

Have worked on some commercials and in my role was talking / working with prop people and art department.

Def not an expert and have just served as the client but having a person doing actual guns and all also having them have any other role in props seems crazy. 

They have to track hundreds of things for set, are going all over the set all day, moving crap everywhere, organizing, swapping stuff. It’s a lot. A gun seems like it would need a dedicated person to just that. 

There is a person designated to do that.  In this case it was a very inexperienced person who likely got the job only due to nepotism and not qualifications.  She should probably be charged with something.  But her negligence doesn't necessarily free Alec Baldwin of responsibility as well, especially since he was not only acting on this project but one of it's producers who happened to be on set.

 

[The General]

There is a person designated to do that.  In this case it was a very inexperienced person who likely got the job only due to nepotism and not qualifications.  She should probably be charged with something.  But her negligence doesn't necessarily free Alec Baldwin of responsibility as well, especially since he was not only acting on this project but one of it's producers who happened to be on set.

What a tragedy. So bizarre they use real guns for this.

I imagine a large settlement coming the way of the victims. Rightfully so.

I will have to read more about how this happened and how I feel about someone being charged and any type of punishment that is given.