Alec Baldwin shooting

[*zap*]

Technically speaking, the term "pistol" is a hypernym generally referring to a handgun and predates the existence of the type of guns to which it now applied as a specific term, that is: in colloquial usage it is used as a hyponym to specifically describe pistols with a single integral chamber within its barrel. The American Webster's Dictionary defines it as "a handgun whose chamber is integral with the barrel". This makes it distinct from the other types of handgun, such as the revolver.

 

[nksmfamjp]

Bingo. Illinois.

Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner!

 

[accountantsanonymous]

Technically speaking, the term "pistol" is a hypernym generally referring to a handgun and predates the existence of the type of guns to which it now applied as a specific term, that is: in colloquial usage it is used as a hyponym to specifically describe pistols with a single integral chamber within its barrel. The American Webster's Dictionary defines it as "a handgun whose chamber is integral with the barrel". This makes it distinct from the other types of handgun, such as the revolver.

Pistol - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Actual_Cryptid]

Nobody is talking about the difference between criminal and civil violations. Like OJ.

I'm pretty sure that AB is guilty of New Mexico's "involuntary manslaughter" and could easily be convicted (penalties is another story). No one else is guilty of that crime.

On the other hand, the failure of cast, crew, and management of that particular production to follow basic and universal firearms safety protocols, well established movie industry standards for firearms safety on the set, and staffing standards, reeks of high-dollar settlement in a civil suit.

Reading the statute, I'm not sure Baldwin would get hit by the criminal statute. He didn't cause the death by a non-felony criminal action, and given the standards and practices in use on every other film set (see the prior 10 pages) alleging that he didn't exercise due caution is a tough sell.

My guess, AD and armorer get the involuntary manslaughter charge, and they as well as the production company get hit with a civil suit. Baldwin might end up making a charitable donation of some kind both as a gesture of goodwill as the most famous guy involved, which will of course set off the conspiracy crowd again.

 

[slvrslngr]

Gun safety 101, treat EVERY gun as if it were loaded. NO EXCEPTIONS! AB is 100% culpable.
Unfortunately the buck passing has already started. I’d be surprised if anyone is charged, Hollywood has a lot of pull and they want this whole thing to go away, pronto. Money will be exchanged for favorable treatment of the lot of them and under the rug it will be swept. I hope I’m wrong though.

 

[Actual_Cryptid]

Gun safety 101, treat EVERY gun as if it were loaded. NO EXCEPTIONS! AB is 100% culpable.
Unfortunately the buck passing has already started. I’d be surprised if anyone is charged, Hollywood has a lot of pull and they want this whole thing to go away, pronto. Money will be exchanged for favorable treatment of the lot of them and under the rug it will be swept. I hope I’m wrong though.

Same question I've asked others. How do you stage and film literally any gunfight where people will point guns at each other and the camera while also:
Treating every gun as if it were loaded
Only pointing them at someone you are willing to destroy
Keeping your finger off the trigger until you're ready to fire

Can you answer that one for me?

 

[slvrslngr]

Same question I've asked others. How do you stage and film literally any gunfight where people will point guns at each other and the camera while also:
Treating every gun as if it were loaded
Only pointing them at someone you are willing to destroy
Keeping your finger off the trigger until you're ready to fire

Can you answer that one for me?

In reality, they can’t. The basic rules are ignored all the f¥cking time and it drives me nuts. Hollywood rails on about how bad gun violence is but they continue to portray it in gratuitous fashion and profit off of it.

Why are they using a gun capable of firing a live round in a movie? Why was there live ammo on set? Why didn’t Alec Baldwin check to see if there were rounds in the cylinder?

Are we willing to accept the occasional “unintended discharge” for the sake of entertainment? If the person holding the gun and pulling the trigger isn’t responsible, tell me, who is?

How about you answer me this?

If you were in a gun shop and the clerk handed you a gun, would you check to see if it were loaded? Would you point it at someone and pull the trigger without checking? If it went off and killed someone would you be held responsible?

When a person holds a gun, points it at another person, pulls the trigger and shoots them, the ONLY person responsible for that gun discharging is the person holding it. Period.

 

[cmahoney]

Same question I've asked others. How do you stage and film literally any gunfight where people will point guns at each other and the camera while also:
Treating every gun as if it were loaded
Only pointing them at someone you are willing to destroy
Keeping your finger off the trigger until you're ready to fire

Can you answer that one for me?

Here is an option, I’ll send the link to Alec too.

Blank-Firing Revolver - Californian 1873 - Single Action (.380 cal)

The Californian is a high-quality Italian-made blank-firing revolver. Perfect for collectors and reenactors on the stage or screen.

www.westernstageprops.com

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ucsdryder]

This is absolutely insane.

 

[Actual_Cryptid]

Here is an option, I’ll send the link to Alec too.

Blank-Firing Revolver - Californian 1873 - Single Action (.380 cal)

The Californian is a high-quality Italian-made blank-firing revolver. Perfect for collectors and reenactors on the stage or screen.

www.westernstageprops.com

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Firing blanks toward people is what killed Brandon Lee. If you'll hop back a page you'll see where the IATSE armorer I linked specifically mentions that they take a different set of precautions to not put someone in front of a blank, because they still jet hot gasses and the traps can fail.

Which brings us back to the other safety procedures that films use that have prevented death and injury in every other western, crime film, hundreds of episodes of TV...

In reality, they can’t. The basic rules are ignored all the f¥cking time and it drives me nuts. Hollywood rails on about how bad gun violence is but they continue to portray it in gratuitous fashion and profit off of it.

Why are they using a gun capable of firing a live round in a movie? Why was there live ammo on set? Why didn’t Alec Baldwin check to see if there were rounds in the cylinder?

Are we willing to accept the occasional “unintended discharge” for the sake of entertainment? If the person holding the gun and pulling the trigger isn’t responsible, tell me, who is?

How about you answer me this?

If you were in a gun shop and the clerk handed you a gun, would you check to see if it were loaded? Would you point it at someone and pull the trigger without checking? If it went off and killed someone would you be held responsible?

When a person holds a gun, points it at another person, pulls the trigger and shoots them, the ONLY person responsible for that gun discharging is the person holding it. Period.

In order: then stop watching movies and TV shows that feature gunfights, and send letters to all the studios letting them know you won't watch again until they do things the way you think is safest. Send a letter to IATSE as well. "Hollywood" doesn't rail about gun violence being bad, some people in film and TV do and some don't.

Live ammo being on set is one of the safety issues that lie at the feet of the AD, armorer, and whoever brought them. If you read back a couple pages you can see we have repeatedly covered the checking the cylinder question. We both know that Baldwin doesn't know a dummy from a blank from a live round, it's not his job to know, and the professionals that have managed to make every other movie without this happening do not want the actors trying to fiddle with an unfamiliar gun to check whether it is loaded, because that introduces the possibility of something going wrong.

When I'm in a gun shop I'm not on a movie set and there aren't dummy rounds in the gun. I would not point any gun at someone and pull the trigger in a gun shop. If I were trying to film a scene where someone is going to point a gun and pull the trigger using actors, i would also maintain the same rule I used for explosives. If I'm the expert tasked with setting it up, then I and one other person who knows what they're doing or is otherwise responsible (say, the platoon commander) will rig it and nobody else so much as looks at any of it unless I tell them to. If I rig a breaching charge, hand the blasting machine to the squad leader and tell him that it's a det cord charge with a min safe distance of 14 feet, he sets it off and the blast is too big and kills two people guess what? It's my fault as the guy who rigged the charge and told the squad it was safe, not the guy who pulled the trigger.

Which is coincidentally the same set of rules that IATSE uses (again, go back a couple pages) and the rules that were not followed in this case leading to the death of a person. A movie set is not a gun shop, a training range, a class, or a hunting trip.

Y'all would really have pooped your pants seeing the ranges where we practiced moving while machineguns shot overhead and relied on one guy to signal a cease-fire so we could move over the ridge into the impact zone. Had a bunch of M2s and M240s pointed at us the whole time. Of firing artillery over our heads. But by the maxim of "it's the person who pulled the trigger" it's the artillery gunner's fault for firing a shell and hitting friendlies even if the firing solution was correct but the target was incorrectly called by someone else.

Safety protocols change according to what you're doing, and I would again cite the preponderance of films where nobody is injured by guns, cars, explosives, and other props against the frequency of self-inflicted gunshot wounds among police and gun owners as evidence that maybe, when dealing with non-experts who are distracted by a million things, these safety protocols are safer than expecting Man With Gun #4 to be able to safely check whether his prop is loaded with blanks, totally inert, loaded with dummies, or empty.

 

[slvrslngr]

@ActualCryptoid, so actors get a free pass? Because they're making a movie/TV show? What you're talking about is real world, when it matters knowing what being shot at feels like so you can do your job in a war zone.

Most of us, including actors, don't need that experience, so we're expected to follow basic gun safety rules. I'm having a hard time fathoming that the gun in question passed through a minimum of 3 sets of hands without someone catching that there was a live round(s) in it. Every one of them should have opened the loading gate and checked to see what was in the cylinder, including AB. If actors, or anyone else, can't tell the difference between a blank and live round, they have NO business handling firearms and ammunition.

We can mentally masturbate this ad infinitum, but that doesn't change the fact that people screwed up, someone died and another got injured, but it's unlikely that anyone will be held responsible. Yes, those involved will have to live with the fact that they contributed to the death of a co-worker, thats their burden, but personally, I don't think thats enough. The defense of "I didn't know it was loaded" can no longer fly, especially when someone is injured or killed.

 

[Actual_Cryptid]

@ActualCryptoid, so actors get a free pass? Because they're making a movie/TV show? What you're talking about is real world, when it matters knowing what being shot at feels like so you can do your job in a war zone.

Most of us, including actors, don't need that experience, so we're expected to follow basic gun safety rules. I'm having a hard time fathoming that the gun in question passed through a minimum of 3 sets of hands without someone catching that there was a live round(s) in it. Every one of them should have opened the loading gate and checked to see what was in the cylinder, including AB. If actors, or anyone else, can't tell the difference between a blank and live round, they have NO business handling firearms and ammunition.

We can mentally masturbate this ad infinitum, but that doesn't change the fact that people screwed up, someone died and another got injured, but it's unlikely that anyone will be held responsible. Yes, those involved will have to live with the fact that they contributed to the death of a co-worker, thats their burden, but personally, I don't think thats enough. The defense of "I didn't know it was loaded" can no longer fly, especially when someone is injured or killed.

My combat training example exists because y'all all start out at "no exceptions" but now you're making an exception. It's an illustrative example, now you and I both agree that actually there are some exceptions to the rules, times where they don't make sense.` It's also illustrative, by the "the man who pulled the trigger is guilty" argument, can you explain why the artilleryman who fires the round isn't liable if his round hits the wrong target because he was given the wrong coordinates?

You are correct in that it was the job of the armorer and the 1AD to confirm that the weapon was indeed "cold" before handing it to Baldwin. They did not do their job, and someone got hurt. On no movie set is it the actor's job to check whether a prop is hot or cold. Their job is that once they get handed a prop weapon, they memorize the status (hot, cold, blanks, rubber, retracting blade) and it doesn't leave their control until the 1AD or propmaster takes it back.

To repeat myself again, the gun was supposed to be loaded with dummy rounds, not blanks. Dummy rounds look identical to live rounds. The person who's job it is to ensure they are dummies and not live is not the actor, and we both know that Baldwin (and most gun owners) would not be able to tell the difference.

You are partially correct, Baldwin (and most actors) have no business being responsible for knowing the difference between different powers of blank, a dummy vs a live round, or trying to check safety conditions. Imma blow your mind, sometimes actors also trigger pyrotechnics that they have no understanding of. Their job is to learn the lines, hit the marks, and do what they're told. The technical stuff is beyond them. The defense is not "I didn't know it was loaded" either. It's "two professionals who are specifically charged with ensuring this was a safe prop did not do their job." If your line is "Nobody should have prop weapons on set unless they know how to check them" then there's going to be no more movies with dummies or blanks, which

The facts are pretty straightforward. No other set charges the actors with checking the props, and a real armorer would consider an actor opening a prop gun without being told and touching the "ammo" (whether it blank or dummy) to be unsafe, and would recheck the prop. Live ammo should never have been on the set, in that gun, and the armorer and AD bear the responsibility for letting that happen. Had Baldwin checked the gun, nothing would have changed, because he would have seen what looked exactly like the dummies he though were in there just like the AD told him.

if you can explain to me why Baldwin is at fault when he did exactly what eh and every other actor have done on set, trusting the propmaster and AD to maintain the safety of the props and stunts, then I'm all ears. But if it's "I don't like the way movies do it" then that ain't it. Maybe going forward movies use only rubber guns and CGI everything, because blanks and "cold" guns have the same bodycount in Hollywood. But here's the thing about the law. You can't be charged with a crime if what you were doing at the time was legal, and you can't be held civilly liable if what you were doing was widely considered safe, prudent, and proper by industry standards. You hate Baldwin and want him to suffer, fine be petty or whatever, but stop the armchair expert BS. He'll lose a bunch of money because of this and I can go back to only thinking about him when I watch 30 Rock, The Hunt for Red October, or make a Glengarry Glen Ross joke.

 

[TheGDog]

So you can tell the difference between a dummy round and a live round?

Can you tell me how?

All rounds *can* be dangerous, even ones where it's just a primer only.

As far as blanks, most of the time they are just a cartridge whose end is crimped shut so no projectile. (Such as the rounds which power a nail-gun) OR they use a wax plug as the projectile if they want a pretty flame out the end of the barrel and need to use normal amount of powder.

So if it's a dummy round where they need to use a real-looking projectile, (first of all... I can't imagine why they'd EVER put powder in such a cartridge.) if you don't observe it's a wax load, or a crimped up blank... my assumption would then be there's either no or very little powder, so you shake the cartridge in your hand and compare against a known live round. And I gotta figure those would only be used in something like close-up shots on film, not intended for scenes where the actor can actually have the possibility of pointing at another person.

But you'd be surprised what kinda damage can be inflicted at close range with just a primer. My StepDad had these plastic target rounds for .357 Mag. The cartridge and the projectile were this very light plastic. Powered only by the primer.

We'd occasionally shoot them with his Colt Python inside the house at an air rifle pellet trap. As a Jr High aged kid? That was mega awesome!

 

[TheGDog]

Baldwin should make a movie with the cast of The View.

IF he did.. and nobody showed up to watch it... was there really a movie made?

 

[slvrslngr]

@Actual_Cryptoid, We can agree to disagree on this issue.

 

[Actual_Cryptid]

All rounds *can* be dangerous, even ones where it's just a primer only.

As far as blanks, most of the time they are just a cartridge whose end is crimped shut so no projectile. (Such as the rounds which power a nail-gun) OR they use a wax plug as the projectile if they want a pretty flame out the end of the barrel and need to use normal amount of powder.

So if it's a dummy round where they need to use a real-looking projectile, (first of all... I can't imagine why they'd EVER put powder in such a cartridge.) if you don't observe it's a wax load, or a crimped up blank... my assumption would then be there's either no or very little powder, so you shake the cartridge in your hand and compare against a known live round. And I gotta figure those would only be used in something like close-up shots on film, not intended for scenes where the actor can actually have the possibility of pointing at another person.

But you'd be surprised what kinda damage can be inflicted at close range with just a primer. My StepDad had these plastic target rounds for .357 Mag. The cartridge and the projectile were this very light plastic. Powered only by the primer.

We'd occasionally shoot them with his Colt Python inside the house at an air rifle pellet trap. As a Jr High aged kid? That was mega awesome!

As I explained previously, a dummy round is inert. It is a bullet in a case with a fake primer. Unless the prophouse or manufacturer adds some feature that confirms that one if a dummy (marking, added weight, hole in the side unsuitable for filming) you can't tell the difference. That's why the propmasters exercise the controls like keeping ammo off the set and minimizing the number of people who touch the "ammo" (blanks, live, dummy, etc) to the propmasters.

 

[Fatcamp]

My combat training example exists because y'all all start out at "no exceptions" but now you're making an exception. It's an illustrative example, now you and I both agree that actually there are some exceptions to the rules, times where they don't make sense.` It's also illustrative, by the "the man who pulled the trigger is guilty" argument, can you explain why the artilleryman who fires the round isn't liable if his round hits the wrong target because he was given the wrong coordinates?

You are correct in that it was the job of the armorer and the 1AD to confirm that the weapon was indeed "cold" before handing it to Baldwin. They did not do their job, and someone got hurt. On no movie set is it the actor's job to check whether a prop is hot or cold. Their job is that once they get handed a prop weapon, they memorize the status (hot, cold, blanks, rubber, retracting blade) and it doesn't leave their control until the 1AD or propmaster takes it back.

To repeat myself again, the gun was supposed to be loaded with dummy rounds, not blanks. Dummy rounds look identical to live rounds. The person who's job it is to ensure they are dummies and not live is not the actor, and we both know that Baldwin (and most gun owners) would not be able to tell the difference.

You are partially correct, Baldwin (and most actors) have no business being responsible for knowing the difference between different powers of blank, a dummy vs a live round, or trying to check safety conditions. Imma blow your mind, sometimes actors also trigger pyrotechnics that they have no understanding of. Their job is to learn the lines, hit the marks, and do what they're told. The technical stuff is beyond them. The defense is not "I didn't know it was loaded" either. It's "two professionals who are specifically charged with ensuring this was a safe prop did not do their job." If your line is "Nobody should have prop weapons on set unless they know how to check them" then there's going to be no more movies with dummies or blanks, which

The facts are pretty straightforward. No other set charges the actors with checking the props, and a real armorer would consider an actor opening a prop gun without being told and touching the "ammo" (whether it blank or dummy) to be unsafe, and would recheck the prop. Live ammo should never have been on the set, in that gun, and the armorer and AD bear the responsibility for letting that happen. Had Baldwin checked the gun, nothing would have changed, because he would have seen what looked exactly like the dummies he though were in there just like the AD told him.

if you can explain to me why Baldwin is at fault when he did exactly what eh and every other actor have done on set, trusting the propmaster and AD to maintain the safety of the props and stunts, then I'm all ears. But if it's "I don't like the way movies do it" then that ain't it. Maybe going forward movies use only rubber guns and CGI everything, because blanks and "cold" guns have the same bodycount in Hollywood. But here's the thing about the law. You can't be charged with a crime if what you were doing at the time was legal, and you can't be held civilly liable if what you were doing was widely considered safe, prudent, and proper by industry standards. You hate Baldwin and want him to suffer, fine be petty or whatever, but stop the armchair expert BS. He'll lose a bunch of money because of this and I can go back to only thinking about him when I watch 30 Rock, The Hunt for Red October, or make a Glengarry Glen Ross joke.

Baldwin is at fault because as the biggest boy in the room and the one producing the movie he knowingly allowed an unsafe environment to exist. The idea that a young armorer, new to productions of this level, was going to override Baldwin allowing this behavior on set is ridiculous.

While you obviously know something about this industry you are missing out on some insight into basic human interaction and influence.

 

[Actual_Cryptid]

Baldwin is at fault because as the biggest boy in the room and the one producing the movie he knowingly allowed an unsafe environment to exist. The idea that a young armorer, new to productions of this level, was going to override Baldwin allowing this behavior on set is ridiculous.

While you obviously know something about this industry you are missing out on some insight into basic human interaction and influence.

Once again, he was not *the* producer. He is a credited producer. There are 6 credited producers, one co-producer, six EPs, and one line producer. Alec Baldwin is the name you know because he's an actor, and I would bet my next paycheck his producer credit is for reducing his fee to work on the film.

PRIMETIME: Why Some TV Stars Get "Producer" Credits... and How Important is Life Experience?

You don't have to travel the world to have a smorgasbord of life experiences. You can have an infinitely rich life—full of fascinating characters, conversations, interactions, adventures, relationships—without ever leaving your hometown.

scriptmag.com

What are you proposing that Alec Baldwin did that makes him culpable? Are you claiming that he told the armorer to bring ammo on the set? Did he tell the AD to skip the second check on props? I'm all ears, spill and show me some evidence.

 

[AZ_Hunter_2000]

So there were three instances (so far) of an accidental discharge with a “blank” on set. This includes AB’s stunt double. Another individual in the prop department accidentally shot herself in the foot.

With this number of incidents involving “cold” weapons on set, I guess AB couldn’t be bothered to ask “ are you sure it is freakin’ “cold”?

There’s a point where stupidity should not be a viable legal defense to get away with homicide.

 

[Actual_Cryptid]

And if he asked and the AD said "yes" then what? Did the director ask for a double check? The cinematographer?Co-star Jensen Ackles? Are they all also liable as well?