Shooting death and injury on Alec Baldwin movie set.

[TSiWRX]

Are Reeves... or his co-stars supposed to check every single blank and dummy cartridge used?

Nobody is saying he's supposed to check every cartridge. (A)

What we ARE saying is that every time he is handed a gun he should check it to see if it's real or fake, empty or loaded, and loaded with what. (B)

Wouldn't YOU?

But how is (A) different from (B) in the context of a movie where literally thousands of rounds are used per take? Is the movie star going to take the time to inspect each link in the chain? each round that they stuff into each magazine?

They are actors, playing a role. When we have police and military personnel who barely know any better, how can we expect the same of an actor?

That job - to insure a prop is safe - is the sole duty of other individuals who are on-set.

What you and I do on an everyday basis is not comparable to what an actor/actress does as a part of their occupation: to perform a role that is written for them, with props which they are supplied with. And towards that:

The more I hear about this incident the more I believe it comes back to the firearms prop master not having proper controls in place.

^ This is where I am, too.

That the culpability is with those whose jobs are specifically to insure the safety of the PROP. Be it a firearm or a vehicle or an edged weapon, I think that the folks whose jobs on-set was to specifically insure the safety of the props are going to be the ones most at-fault (legally, though, I wonder if some fallout will also land on the producers).

I think that a part of the problem that we (as in at-large, not just here on this Forum ) are having trouble with is the language of the "prop gun." There's a lot of confusion as to what this should mean, where it applies to the physical make-up of the gun as well as its "status" (i.e. blank, dummy cartridge, non-functional replica, etc.). I think that even some of the various movie/TV stars that have been interviewed by various media fail to realize that the specific type of "prop gun" that they are talking about may not be the same type of "prop gun" that another of their colleagues or another production may use.

A "Blue Gun" painted to masquerade as a look-alike firearm in a scene is a "prop gun" just as much as the functional firearm that was filled with blanks (which had been previously filled with dummy cartridges for a close-up scene - of which one mistakenly also incorporated a live primer) which killed Brandon Lee was a "prop gun."

[bignflnut]

Baldwin, the Producer, hired the Prop manager/armorer, and is ultimately responsible for the safety of the set, particularly after various mishaps have already happened - hence various people leaving the set / quitting while expressing their concerns.

Baldwin, the actor, I agree with TSiWRX, shouldn't have the burden to understand the prop he is handed in rehearsal or when action is called.

What training was Actor Baldwin given by armorer? That would be the oversight duty of Producer Baldwin, right?

Doubt that this will continue very far in California, as AB is near royalty. He can write checks and get out of this...

[TSiWRX]

Baldwin, the Producer, hired the Prop manager/armorer, and is ultimately responsible for the safety of the set, particularly after various mishaps have already happened - hence various people leaving the set / quitting while expressing their concerns.

Baldwin, the actor, I agree with TSiWRX, shouldn't have the burden to understand the prop he is handed in rehearsal or when action is called.

What training was Actor Baldwin given by armorer? That would be the oversight duty of Producer Baldwin, right?

Doubt that this will continue very far in California, as AB is near royalty. He can write checks and get out of this...

^ That's my thinking.

It already looks/sounds like they are making this about a labor/safety issue, that to Baldwin (the actor), it's a "tragic accident."

I think that Baldwin the producer will get some legal blowback, but otherwise, he's got "Plot Armor."

[carmen fovozzo]

The blame ends with the ultimate user. Only one person pulled the trigger. If I give you a knife to throw at a target and you miss the target, and hit someone It’s the persons fault, not the person who gave the knife to the thrower.

[TSiWRX]

^ With a real knife, in the real-world, Carmen, I'd absolutely agree with you....

But if I were an actor, on a movie set, and you were a prop-master/armorer and handed me what was confirmed to be a safe prop with which I then throw at another actor - scripted - and it turns out that the knife I threw did not meet industry standards for (and I don't know the proper language here, because you know me, Carmen, and you know that I'm not handsome enough or tall enough to be an actor! at least not in Hollywood! ) "safety" and it harmed the actor I was throwing it at....

Who is really to blame?

The shooting on the set of "Rust" occurred in the real-world, with real-world implications: but in so far as the actual act itself, unless Baldwin actually had malicious intent and he himself intended to actually shoot to harm the individuals he harmed....I really don't see how the fault rests with him as the actor (again, for Baldwin as the producer, I think there will be some fallout).

If we are suggesting that every actor needs to have armorer-level technical knowledge of weapons (ask the *_average_* gun-owner to differentiate between a dummy cartridge versus live, when both are cosmetically identical....or even present a wadcutter to a newer gun-owner....would they know the difference?) or have marksmanship and manipulations expertise like a few select actors/actresses do, then why would we not also ask the same of you, me, or every other average gun-owner?

Are actors supposed to also be pyrotechnics experts?

Are they supposed to actually know how to drive a race-car or fly a jet or perform surgery?

And again, I go back to a movie like Saving Private Ryan, The Matrix or John Wick, ones where tens if not hundreds of thousands of "rounds" are discharged (not only hundreds of rounds in the scenes that we see, but also all the film hat are left on the cutting room floor as well as for each and every take).

Logically, if an actor should make sure that the few cartridges in his Western-style 6-shooter are not live ammo, then shouldn't we also insist that the same actor verify each round in the tens of magazines that they go through? Or how about each drum? Each link?



The set armorers for that scene had to make sure there was sufficient distance to the windows to insure that debris -from the blanks used- would not blow back and harm the actors....that's on Keanu, right? And I am sure he checked each single round there, too?

What if the actor was handed an RPG?

Or a grenade?

[TSiWRX]

To-add:

Do I find fault with Baldwin?

I certainly do.

But, it's in the manner that bignflnut and others have written - I find fault in "Baldwin the producer."

To me, "Baldwin the actor" is just the patsy who was given something that he was not supposed to have had.

The safety issues that had already transpired on-set prior to this incident should themselves testify to the inadequacies of safety measures and the ineptness of those responsible for such props. Similarly, in so much as I lay the ultimate fault with these individuals, I also fault "Baldwin the producer" for having hired such individuals (and for keeping them on, despite their earlier transgressions), and for allowing such a laissez-faire attitude to not only spawn, but to propagate to the degree that it did.

To wit:

https://www.backwoodshome.com/blogs/Mas ... le-moment/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://safetysolutionsacademy.com/less ... at-mag-40/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Multiple involved individuals - including Mr. Ayoob - took responsibility for the unintentional discharge.

Does anyone here think that Baldwin knows guns better than Mas?

No-one was hurt in the incident above only because Ayoob did obey, to the extent that demo allowed, The Four Rules.

But "Baldwin the actor" - or, for that matter, the actor whose action that day killed Brandon Lee - wasn't running a demo in a training class. He was shooting a scene, one in which the "firearm" was supposed to be discharged: Baldwin's towards the camera, as some reports suppose; Lee was physically at the end of the muzzle, because the scene called for him to be there.

Can/Will "Baldwin the actor" take responsibility?

I actually think that he might. But it's my belief that if he does so, it'll be disingenuous and will be to advance his own agenda: that it's with the intent on portraying all firearms as a time-bomb waiting to happen - that it's some evil mojo that "made a good guy like me do something unspeakably bad."

The real failure of safety is not in that a "prop gun" was discharged towards those individuals. This is not "real-life" in that it is not any one of us making our weapons ready for defensive/duty use. It's not us clearing our weapons for cleaning or dry-fire practice or retrofitting it for UTM use for training. It is not us loading magazines and inspecting our weapons in preparation for a day's worth of training or competition. This is a tool that's handed to an actor with the specific idea that it is to be used in the confines of a movie scene: it's supposed to be fiction.

The real failure of safety is the failure of those whose jobs were specifically to insure that the firearm which they are using as a prop was actually properly made-safe for that specific scene. An additional failure can be put no those individuals whose job it was to oversee the hiring of such individuals as well as to insure the safety of their workplace.

[Bruenor]

The real failure of safety is the failure of those whose jobs were specifically to insure that the firearm which they are using as a prop was actually properly made-safe for that specific scene. An additional failure can be put no those individuals whose job it was to oversee the hiring of such individuals as well as to insure the safety of their workplace.

I'll refer back to a quote in one of my earlier posts.. The level of due diligence described below sounds much different than what we are hearing happened on the this movie set with Baldwin..

'I don't recall ever being handed a weapon that was not cleared in front of me - meaning chamber open, barrel shown to me, light flashed inside the barrel to make sure that it's cleared,' Wright said. 'Clearly, that was a mismanaged set.'

Actor Ray Liotta agreed with Wright that the checks on firearms are usually extensive.

'They always - that I know of - they check it so you can see,' Liotta said. 'They give it to the person you're pointing the gun at, they do it to the producer, they show whoever is there that it doesn't work.'

Firearms Prop master cleared a firearm, SHOWED the actor using it it was clear, SHOWED the actor it would be pointed at it was clear, Showed the producer or whomever, etc.. This is someone that understands these are actors not firearms experts.. They are taking the extra steps necessary to show them the firearm is clear, since they may not have the knowledge to do so themselves.. That is what this individual is paid to do, that's why they are there.

[catfish86]

Many here are mentioning that actors are not firearms experts...but you don't have to be an expert to know the safety rules. Anytime I go to the range with anyone, especially new shooters, I go over safety rules. Notice in the Ayoob negligent discharge...Ayoob owned up to it being his responsibility.

Now to the incident at hand and the unique movie set circumstances. Reality is that at certain times you have to point it at somebody to do a shot. Which makes clearing the weapon even more crucial and the final stop being the actor handling the firearm. The scenario is described as Baldwin and the camera crew lining up the cameras so the gun points at the camera. So in this case, cold gun meant NO ROUNDS were in the gun, meaning no special knowledge on the type of ammo.

Second, in this age, why were they not using an unmanned camera? Such a device allows them to follow the rule of not pointing a firearm at somebody?

[M-Quigley]

Firearms Prop master cleared a firearm, SHOWED the actor using it it was clear, SHOWED the actor it would be pointed at it was clear, Showed the producer or whomever, etc.. This is someone that understands these are actors not firearms experts.. They are taking the extra steps necessary to show them the firearm is clear, since they may not have the knowledge to do so themselves.. That is what this individual is paid to do, that's why they are there.

One report I read was that the prop master, armorer, whatever her title was, did NOT hand the gun to the asst. director, that there were 3 guns on a table, and that the AD merely picked up one of the 3 guns and without inspecting it himself, handed it to Baldwin. It's unknown at this time what or where the prop master was during all this, or whether she told the AD that the guns on the table were unloaded. Regardless, some are trying to throw her under the bus without all the facts, and of course topless pictures of her that she once posted are now on some so called news sites, as if that is relevant to the story today somehow. I suppose they might be if she was posting them while she was supposed to be doing her job, but the site I saw didn't say when the pic was posted, a few days ago or a few years.

[carmen fovozzo]

Find the moron that brought the live ammo onto the set.

[M-Quigley]

I'll preface this by confessing that I've never even been close to a movie set, let alone been in a movie, much less starred in one.

Is anyone here actually in the industry? or have experience being a set armorer?

The reason why I am asking is because I find it rather incredulous that the actor himself would be responsible for knowing the status of "the weapon" - and I'm putting that in quotes as, truly, it's not a "weapon" when on-set, right'? it's a prop, just like any other prop that the actor/actress would have interactions with, no?

Let's look at a film like John Wick or The Matrix. Are Reeves - since we're all speaking so highly of him, here - or his co-stars supposed to check every single blank and dummy cartridge used? Scene after scene, take after take? https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/the ... were-fired" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. Remember it's not about just the gunshots we see on-screen, but also every shot that was taken in order to get to what we do see - and also in all the footage we don't see, too.

Maybe that *_is_* the case, and hence it's why I'm asking. But in my mind, I don't see them preparing for stepping out onto the set like what any one of us would do in our preparations for a range day, training class, competition - or for that matter "gassing up" and preparing to step foot out of our door every morning.

Not in any professional way but decades ago in school I was involved in a film class and we were doing a project involving making a short amateur film, with students doing the various roles that would be expected on most Hollywood productions. In this particular film an adult procured the blank guns, I suppose having the responsibility of the armorer, and he fully described and showed the students what he was doing. That might not happen on a Hollywood set maybe because those people aren't learning film making, IDK. These full size guns looked like the real thing except they allegedly could not fire live ammunition, only blanks designed for the guns. We never tried to stick real ammo in them to see if that was true however. The barrels also had a restriction in part of them to prevent a bullet or some object being propelled out of the barrel when the gases from the blank are discharged, and I think they might've helped the semi auto versions function correctly with just blanks. I think that they were guns specifically made to be blank firing guns only, but at least one of them appeared to be a former regular gun that had been modified to not allow regular ammo anymore. There were no guns on set that could've fired live ammo, period. The actors were given specific instructions that, although they were blank guns, they were NOT to directly aim at anyone, but off to one side slightly. The adult in charge made sure that no one was allowed to "play around with" the guns like some young people might be prone to do. The guy might've been considered a safety Nazi by some but no on died on the set. Sadly today some adults have less sense than teenagers did back then.

I can't imagine a school allowing a production today involving firearms, real or not.

[Bruenor]

Firearms Prop master cleared a firearm, SHOWED the actor using it it was clear, SHOWED the actor it would be pointed at it was clear, Showed the producer or whomever, etc.. This is someone that understands these are actors not firearms experts.. They are taking the extra steps necessary to show them the firearm is clear, since they may not have the knowledge to do so themselves.. That is what this individual is paid to do, that's why they are there.

One report I read was that the prop master, armorer, whatever her title was, did NOT hand the gun to the asst. director, that there were 3 guns on a table, and that the AD merely picked up one of the 3 guns and without inspecting it himself, handed it to Baldwin. It's unknown at this time what or where the prop master was during all this, or whether she told the AD that the guns on the table were unloaded. Regardless, some are trying to throw her under the bus without all the facts, and of course topless pictures of her that she once posted are now on some so called news sites, as if that is relevant to the story today somehow. I suppose they might be if she was posting them while she was supposed to be doing her job, but the site I saw didn't say when the pic was posted, a few days ago or a few years.

That quoted line was in reference as to what happens on other Movie sets per other actors, and the role of the firearm prop master. apparently none of which happened on this set. AD should not have been able to grab a firearm from a table if proper controls were in place.

[Bruenor]

The actors were given specific instructions that, although they were blank guns, they were NOT to directly aim at anyone, but off to one side slightly. The adult in charge made sure that no one was allowed to "play around with" the guns like some young people might be prone to do. The guy might've been considered a safety Nazi by some but no on died on the set. Sadly today some adults have less sense than teenagers did back then.

I can't imagine a school allowing a production today involving firearms, real or not.

You may recall Jon-Erik Hexum from Voyagers or Coverup , he mishandled a firearm with blanks and sadly paid the price.

Tom Gresham just had a prop master on the latest show talking about a movie he worked on where the cast and crew weren't taking things seriously enough with the blank firing guns.. He finally did a demonstration blowing a hole through the stucco on the side of one of the buildings with a shotgun loaded with blanks.. Cast and crew finally got the message that although they were loaded with 'just blanks' they were still very dangerous.

[catfish86]

Fox is reporting that the staff used these guns for plinking on breaks. It still comes down to if you are handling a firearm YOU should clear the gun before doing so. NO EXCEPTIONS. NO EXCUSES. The final act in this string of shoddy practices is the person ultimately handling the firearm. Sure others had a role BUT the REASON you as the handler always check for yourself is all kinds of things can happen if you haven't maintained chain of custody. If I clear a gun, set it down and go to the bathroom...when I get back I clear the gun again when I pick it up.

I was shooting with my brother, cousin and a friend. I loaded 5 in a magazine with one in the chamber. My cousin then took it to fire a five shot group and set it down to go check the target. The friend picked up the gun and casually pointed it down range. I slapped the rifle upward. After friend snorted in disgust at me, I took the rifle and pointed it into the farm field grass and pulled the trigger. The resulting bang stuck in everyone's head from then on. The friend lived and died that way, a few years later he wrapped his pickup around a tree going 80mph on a city street.

Another occasion had my nephew getting a failure to fire/eject with a .22 rimfire. I took the rifle, put it on safe keeping it down range. I dropped the magazine and worked the slide, inspecting the chamber to observe a round in the chamber. I worked the slide to try to eject it and it went off with no contact with the trigger. Following the keep the rifle in a safe direction prevented anything stupid from happening.

Point is follow those rules...almost impossible to hurt somebody if you truly follow them. If you don't follow those rules you are responsible.

[TSiWRX]

Firearms Prop master cleared a firearm, SHOWED the actor using it it was clear, SHOWED the actor it would be pointed at it was clear, Showed the producer or whomever, etc.. This is someone that understands these are actors not firearms experts.. They are taking the extra steps necessary to show them the firearm is clear, since they may not have the knowledge to do so themselves.. That is what this individual is paid to do, that's why they are there.

Exactly.

And really, that's where I place the blame.

It's easy to crucify Baldwin because he's been such a vocal and visible anti-gunner. As many social media posts have noted, the schadenfreude comes easy here simply because of Baldwin's politics.

But I really believe that this is much more than a simple "personal responsibility" issue. There was something really, really wrong on this set, not the least of which is very well and simply stated by Carmen's last post:

Find the moron that brought the live ammo onto the set.

^ Right-on.

But it's more than this, too.

Brandon Lee was killed through a string of events, and other actors/crew have been harmed due to similar levels of negligence and incompetence. I truly believe that although it was Baldwin who pulled the trigger, the fault lies way upstream, and that the real attention should be placed there, instead.

-----

Many here are mentioning that actors are not firearms experts...but you don't have to be an expert to know the safety rules.

Absolutely - and that's what I can't get over......

Now to the incident at hand and the unique movie set circumstances. Reality is that at certain times you have to point it at somebody to do a shot.

^ Exactly -

A quick Google Image search for "movie where gun is pointed at head" shows countless still pictures of scenes where a gun - discharged or not - was pointed at one actor's head by another. But because safety rules were followed, nothing untoward happened.

Which makes clearing the weapon even more crucial and the final stop being the actor handling the firearm. The scenario is described as Baldwin and the camera crew lining up the cameras so the gun points at the camera. So in this case, cold gun meant NO ROUNDS were in the gun, meaning no special knowledge on the type of ammo.

^ Which is why I have trouble reconciling that with the "personal responsibility" part, with respect to "Baldwin the actor," as you'd followed-up in a later post, which I've quoted below....

Fox is reporting that the staff used these guns for plinking on breaks. It still comes down to if you are handling a firearm YOU should clear the gun before doing so. NO EXCEPTIONS. NO EXCUSES. The final act in this string of shoddy practices is the person ultimately handling the firearm. Sure others had a role BUT the REASON you as the handler always check for yourself is all kinds of things can happen if you haven't maintained chain of custody. If I clear a gun, set it down and go to the bathroom...when I get back I clear the gun again when I pick it up.

<snip>

Point is follow those rules...almost impossible to hurt somebody if you truly follow them. If you don't follow those rules you are responsible.

But how can the canonical Four Rules be followed, when there are scenes like this?



And this is where I ask again how is the actor supposed to know?

Can we expect an actor to really know the difference between a dummy cartridge versus a blank versus the intricacies of a modified non-live-fire-capable prop like what M-Quigley described above?

Was the instruction that Baldwin was given as to the status of the weapon sufficient under the specific circumstances of this having been on a movie set, where additional safety protocols were already have supposed to insured that said weapon was indeed "cold" as-described (let's cast aside the fact that it obviously wasn't, for the sake of this discussion).

Or would it have been sufficient had Baldwin, given that we *_do not_* expect actors to be firearms experts, had the wherewithal to have perhaps asked again "is the prop cold?"

I'm not defending Baldwin. I'm not defending that production. I'm not even defending that industry.

I'm simply trying to understand why we're placing blame on the actor instead of the system.

What if the actor had been Chow Yun-fat? Keanu Reeves? Clint Eastwood? Or, rest his soul, Charles Bronson? Hit up a list of "pro gun actors," and there's plenty of names in there who we can see abridge the cardinal rule of "finger off the trigger" on the silver screen, over and over again, year after year.

How about Mel Gibson?

http://www.popgun80sband.co.uk/blog/mos ... al-weapon/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

^ OK, so Mel's history with guns is a bit complicated - we've seen him engage in more than a bit of double-talk over the years.

But it's known that Brad Pitt is pro-gun. So how many rules did he violate, here?