Accidently shot twice! without pulling the trigger! and shot two people! Hmmmm?
1 Like
One shot - went through the decedent, and into the survivor.
5 Likes
I agree with your thoughts. My first thoughts were a) why the heck was there ever live ammunition on the set in the first place and b) why aren’t all these Hollywood “experts” who have opinions on gun regulations and what would make Americans safer required to know at a minimum the safety rules we ask of 12-year-olds when they want to start hunting.
6 Likes
New poster boy!
We should make him write this on a worldwide chalkboard 1 million times.
Shouldn’t he be doing PSA’s by now. Not crying for the Academy!
If he actually knows theses rules, then it’s murder, plain and simple!
Maybe if we publicly taught this in schools, we wouldn’t have as many idiots. Just sayin!
4 Likes
Sorry, but with all the safety protocols that are supposedly in effect on every single movie set where firearms are used, there is NO viable excuse for what happened with Alec Baldwin. HIS top priority was to check the firearm first and foremost. Then not aim his gun at anyone. (How did live ammo get on the set? Who checked the firearm last before handing it to Alec?) I’m so tired of hearing these stories and the first thing reported on the news- “It was an accident” just like the other day where a 2 year old shot and killed a 4 year old… The parent said I heard a pop… What accident? How about gross negligence! How about irresponsibility! How about plain stupidity! These aren’t “accidents” they’re careless acts of irresponsible gun ownership. If you can’t afford a safe to keep your firearm in when not on your person or at least a trigger guard/lock, then maybe you are a person who shouldn’t own a firearm. Our children depend on us adults, us parents, to protect them and keep them safe from harm as best we possibly can… not create an environment of looming danger and potential catastrophic harm. My apologies for emphasizing a separate incident from the one you wrote about- it just hit a nerve when all I hear are bs excuses for every careless, irresponsible act.
5 Likes
Houston we have a problem!
IMO, All of the protocols are the problem.
It takes the responsibility and puts it on multiple people but not the individual who is in possession at the time of a negligent discharge.
Hence all of the finger pointing and obfuscation!
7 Likes
The question that repeatedly keeps popping up, “How did live rounds get into the property”. Wasn’t there reports of persons TARGET SHOOTING on the off time, or between breaks in the property? Are these persons being known, questioned, and investigated? Wasn’t there witnesses attesting to this type of activity occurring times before the incident that had raised safety concerns? Maybe rounding up EVERY SINGLE INDIVIDUAL that are employed in this “RUST” movie production all the way down to the LOCAL EXTRAS that were there within the specific time frame before, and on the property on the day of the incident. Somebody KNOWS something! Were these TARGET SHOOTERS shooting LIVE ROUNDS at WHATEVER they set up for targets, BEER CANS, piece of SCRAP wood, bottles, or whatever? HOW HONEST WILL THEIR ANSWERS BE IF QUESTIONED, “How did live rounds get into the property”, or better yet, “WHICH ONE OF YOU BROUGHT LIVE ROUNDS INTO THE PROPERTY”! IF there was target shooting going on, well HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE as well since there’s proof of LIVE ROUNDS in possession during IRRESONSIBLE PLAY TIME!
I read the report that had excerpts from George Clooney, discussing those protocols and he emphasized the fact that only one person, the same person, an armorer per say is the only person who handles a firearm used in the movie being made. Then the person handed the firearm is also responsible for checking the firearm handed him/her by the Armorer. A checks and balances procedure so to speak.
3 Likes
John Schneider streamed this video on December 1st and his statement @ 2:18 pretty much sums up the best response I can think of to the title of this thread.
6 Likes
Obviously we do not know all the facts in this case. I don’t think we will ever really know all the facts.
But, first I think it is typical elitist thought that it is always someone else’s fault when something goes wrong. It is never his own responsibility. A firearm as we all know just does not go off. The trigger HAS to be pulled and if he thinks he is fooling anyone, he is just fooling himself. Pointing a firearm at anyone is a huge violation of firearm safety.
Someone, (I forget who) made this interesting point. Would he have put the "unloaded: gun to his head and pulled the trigger without checking it?
JMO
3 Likes
Speaking of CGI - Al[though Keanu Reaves trains like crazy with real guns, none of the “action guns” used in the John Wick movies are real. They are all CGI. Static guns (non-firing props) are real props. This info comes from a 17-year veteran who works onset in the movie/TV business.
But I digress … Baldwin and his gun - for now who the hell knows what happened to make that bullet (if it was a bullet) leave its barrel. But I am sure that firearm is being thoroughly forensically examined. In the meantime, there is too much that we do not know … and I am a person who believes in following the evidence.
4 Likes
2 Likes
We can talk about the mechanics of the gun used or about how a real functioning firearm should never be on a movie set. I think it is a much simpler answer to what happened. The first thing you teach anyone about a firearm is when you pick it up you are responsible. Period!!! He claimed no responsibility That is the center of any discussion. That simple message has been lost. Lawyers will argue this case and whether or not he pulled the trigger. Bottom line is the gun was in his hands. He is responsible for any outcomes.
5 Likes
I have only one question:
“If told to point it at your own head would you have done anything different?”
My money says yes. That’s all you need to know.
Baldwin is a worthless lying POS and has been one for a long time.
3 Likes
That is where I was going with the original post. In order to have “real” firearms on a movie set, you need to have rules and protocols equivalent to a “real” firearms range. It is more difficult, but not impossible. I am a “Trust but verify” kinda guy. If someone hands me a “cold” gun, I’m gonna check it anyway. The “protocols” should require this regardless.
Personally, I think that CGI may be a better option. Either way, anyone who has a real firearm in their hand needs to understand the 4 rules of firearms safety, and also know that they are overall responsible for any projectile that may come out of that firearm.
6 Likes
I think that’s where a lot of the confusion and chest-pounding comes from.
Equivalent does not mean identical.
The purpose of a movie production is to produce the illusion of an actual thing.
The illusion of a dangerous activity like gunplay may be produced by a trick — like suggestion where the thing is never seen; like animation where effects are added artificially to the live action; like substitution where a series of completely inert guns might be exchanged whenever the front of the bullet needs to be shown, or the back of the cartridges, or the gun being loaded or unloaded, or the hollow of the bore, or the action of hammer or trigger or cylinder, or muzzle flash, etc but no actual gun is ever present.
Or the illusion may be created by a stunt — where an actual hazardous thing is used or done, and the dangers are mitigated by practices, protocols, skills, and other tools. There are no Four Universal Rules of Safely being dragged under a train, or falling from a skyscraper, or riding a bicycle through an explosion, or being sucked down a sewer drain, or filming the front end of a revolver action being operated, or being shot in the head.
Those things are made to be acceptably safe for participants and witnesses by developing a different set of Safety Rules than those which guide parallel exposure to the equivalent hazard in everyday life: what to add or subtract from tools, what required skillset, what specific practice or procedure, what oversight, what combination of all those things can allow the stunt to produce a successful illusion, while being no more dangerous than driving to the job site in the morning.
I don’t think there’s any question that the practices employed on the Rust film set were inadequate to the task, because the outcome was not as intended — tragic stunt failure. And real people are really responsible for the stunt failure. But all the hopping up and down about “Rule One Violation! Rule Two Violation! What a jerk!” is really pretty weak tea. Yeah, there was a safety failure, but it wasn’t Rule Two. It was some “rule” most of us don’t know about — and apparently they didn’t, either.
A very good and open discussion but it all comes down to how New Mexico State law is written.
A good source to hear why a very prominent self defense lawyer, Andrew Branca, holds Alec responsible and liable for criminal charges can be located at News and Q&A Podcast – Law of Self Defense
For those that may not know him he is a self defense lawyer, competitive shooter, firearms instructor and author.
As a USCCA member and what USCCA has taught it is too seek additional information and I think Mr. Branca is a great legal source that supports the USCCA self defense messaging and training.
4 Likes
First, welcome! I’ve been watching Mr. Branca’s videos about this, and totally agree that the points he’s been making are where this discussion should be focused. All of the other stuff about how the live ammo got there, whether he pulled the trigger, etc., is certainly relevant as far as civil negligence on the part of some others, but just a distraction in terms of Alec Baldwin’s criminal liability. It’s highly unlikely that he didn’t pull the trigger, and if there’s a defect or modification in the gun that would make that possible, it will be easy enough to test and verify. But it really doesn’t matter - maybe mitigates things slightly but bottom line he is still guilty (just watch the videos that Stephen links to).
1 Like
I’ve been thinking this, too. I did see another video similar to the demonstrations linked in this thread. The person doing the video did what you asked about a few times, and it doesn’t go back very far without engaging, but the rounds did not fire in his test. But, he also talked about the “cowboy load” method of loading only 5 rounds so that the firing pin would be resting on an empty chamber, rather than on a primer. If this is the case, it seems like it’s possible for the gun to discharge in some way other than the normal trigger/hammer function.
That being said, the hammer only goes back a short distance before it engages and the trigger (assuming a properly functioning gun) needs to be manipulated in order for the hammer to drop. AB talks about pulling it farther back multiple times, so it seems highly unlikely that it wasn’t at least half-cocked.
2 Likes
4 Basic Safety Rules and he violated them all.
2 Likes