# Never point a gun at anyone



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

There was a horrible accident, where Alec Baldwin shot a prop gun (containing a live round) and killed someone on the movie set.

A good reminder that whether it's a fake gun, prop gun, UNLOADED gun, or whatever ... never point a gun at anyone.

Something to teach the kids, as they start playing with things like airsofts and BBs. Mistakes can happen.


----------



## birdman (Feb 12, 2013)

The first thing they teach you in the firearms course is "Always point the gun in a safe direction"!!! Also, whenever someone hands you a firearm the first thing you do (after pointing it in a safe direction) is to check to see if it is loaded. I wonder if actors check the ammunition to be sure they are blanks and if not they should. This should not have happened.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

james4beach said:


> There was a horrible accident, where Alec Baldwin shot a prop gun (containing a live round) and killed someone on the movie set.
> 
> *A good reminder that whether it's a fake gun, prop gun, UNLOADED gun, or whatever ... never point a gun at anyone.
> 
> Something to teach the kids, as they start playing with things like airsofts and BBs. Mistakes can happen.*


 ... the latter (bolded) parts is great advice for everyday setting for the average Joe. Better yet, don't bother buying anything projectile-shooting devices (other than a "water gun" for hot summers). There're plenty of other toys to play with.

As for that tragedy Mr. Baldwin experienced, rather unbelieveable a movie set would allow "live" rounds (or not even bother checking) for its "prop" guns. Well, then that's the USAmerica, the guns-loving land.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

james4beach said:


> There was a horrible accident, where Alec Baldwin shot a prop gun (containing a live round) and killed someone on the movie set.
> 
> A good reminder that whether it's a fake gun, prop gun, UNLOADED gun, or whatever ... never point a gun at anyone.
> 
> Something to teach the kids, as they start playing with things like airsofts and BBs. Mistakes can happen.


Basic handling skills, but keep in mind the details aren't all out. Given who was killed, it is likely that it was during filming and that the victim was in the position to view and frame the shot, so avoiding pointing the gun in her direction may not be an option.


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

just...stay away....from guns. period.


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> As for that tragedy Mr. Baldwin experienced, rather unbelieveable a movie set would allow "live" rounds (or not even bother checking) for its "prop" guns. Well, then that's the USAmerica, the guns-loving land.


It's unfortunate, though totally expected, that the focus of the media coverage will continue to be on Baldwin, and not on the victim(s). But then again, had this been caused by a crew member, or a faulty prop or whatever, it hardly would have made the news.Tragedy all around...I kinda always like Alec too..


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

Could have been a squib load or someone just mixed up blanks with real bullets.

Usually when these types of things happen, it's due to a squib load.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

jargey3000 said:


> It's unfortunate, though totally expected, *that the focus of the media coverage will continue to be on Baldwin, and not on the victim(s).* But then again, had this been caused by a crew member, or a faulty prop or whatever, it hardly would have made the news.Tragedy all around...I kinda always like Alec too..


 ... that's part of the tragedy -Mr. Baldwin will be the "living" victim.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> UNLOADED gun


No such thing, guns are always loaded.
Unless you have your finger in the chamber, it's loaded, and even then be doubtful.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

KaeJS said:


> Could have been a squib load or someone just mixed up blanks with real bullets.
> 
> Usually when these types of things happen, it's due to a squib load.


It was a live round, and there is no excuse for this ever happening.
Honestly a whole pile of people should go to jail here.



Beaver101 said:


> ... that's part of the tragedy -Mr. Baldwin will be the "living" victim.


How do you shoot a gun at someone without checking to ensure that there aren't live rounds in there?

He's a victim of someone elses negligence, but he's also guilty of killing a person.

At least careless use of a firearm, and negligence causing death.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> ...
> 
> How do you shoot a gun at someone without checking to ensure that there aren't live rounds in there?


 ... 'cause shooting is 2nd nature in the USAmerica with its pro-gun culture. Along with some USA movie studios that never learn (as this is not the first incident of an accidental shooting that killed on the set - recall death of Brandon Lee), that's how. Obviously Mr. Baldwin assumed the gun given to him was not only a prop one but one not loaded with a "live" bullet. 



> He's a victim of someone elses negligence, but he's also guilty of killing a person.
> 
> At least careless use of a firearm, and negligence causing death.


... obviously. And he's going to carry that guilt for the rest of his life, as a victim of someone else's negligence and his own (to a lesser degree). 

As jargey3K mentioned, it's a tragedy all around which I agree.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> No such thing, guns are always loaded.
> Unless you have your finger in the chamber, it's loaded, and even then be doubtful.


Can you explain more about this? Are you saying "guns are always loaded" to mean -- one should always assume a gun is loaded, as a safety perspective?

Or are you saying that in firearm terminology, loaded / unloaded means something different than what I'm thinking.

I completely agree that a gun should always be treated as loaded and lethal.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> ... obviously. And he's going to carry that guilt for the rest of his life, as a victim of someone else's negligence and his own (to a lesser degree).


Nope, he is 100% responsible.
He took a loaded gun, pointed it at someone, and discharged it.
He killed someone, there is no lesser degree of blame.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> Nope, he is 100% responsible.
> He took a loaded gun, pointed it at someone, and discharged it.
> He killed someone, there is no lesser degree of blame.


And what about soldiers who accidentally kill someone during training, due to some mixup in equipment. Here's a recent example and there have been many others in military settings.

There's obviously no intention to harm someone.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Can you explain more about this? Are you saying "guns are always loaded" to mean -- one should always assume a gun is loaded, as a safety perspective?


Yes. It's a basic part of firearms training.

Secondly you should assume a gun will go off, without notice at any time. 
So always point it in a safe direction.

Third, never put your finger on the trigger, unless you want to destroy what it is pointed at.

Look at any picture of trained military/police, or even realistically movies. Their fingers are never on the trigger unless they're about to shoot.
Remember this protest group (NFAC), who actually had a member "accidentally" shoot someone.









FYI, accidental discharge doesn't exist in the military. They're all negligent discharges.





Unintentional discharge - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> FYI, accidental discharge doesn't exist in the military. They're all negligent discharges.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintentional_discharge#Negligent_discharge


Wow, so even someone in a training exercise who makes this mistake and kills someone... is considered *guilty* of killing someone?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> And what about soldiers who accidentally kill someone during training, due to some mixup in equipment. Here's a recent example and there have been many others in military settings.
> 
> There's obviously no intention to harm someone.


From the article
"The training exercise remains under investigation."

We don't know what happened. 
Why do you think there was a "mixup" in equipment? 
It was a live fire exercise.


In the Alec Baldwin case, he took a loaded gun, aimed, shot and killed someone.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Wow, so even someone in a training exercise who makes this mistake and kills someone... is considered *guilty* of killing someone?


?
It matters what the mistake was, if you didn't intend to shoot and you discharge your firearm, yes, that's negligence. I know of people brought up on charges for negligent discharge of blanks during a training exercise. 

Now if you intended to shoot, into a safe area, and it happened to not be safe, that's for the investigation to determine.

There is no reason, or excuse for shooting a gun "by accident".


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Thanks @MrMatt for these details.

I'll share an example of how relaxed the gun culture can be in the US. While I was working in the US, I once complained to a coworker that huge numbers of crows were hanging out by my home and I couldn't sleep due to the constant noise.

He offered to lend me a gun so that I could shoot / scare the birds. I couldn't tell if he was joking, and I told him that I have no license and no firearms training.

His reply was: no big deal, come over some time and I can show you how to shoot. Then you can borrow a gun for a few days.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Thanks @MrMatt for these details.
> 
> I'll share an example of how relaxed the gun culture can be in the US. While I was working in the US, I once complained to a coworker that huge numbers of crows were hanging out by my home and I couldn't sleep due to the constant noise.
> 
> ...


Because in many places in the US you don't need a license, so that's a non issue.

Secondly guns are really really simple. Follow the rules
1. Always assume it's loaded and going to go off at any second, handle it appropriately. 

2. If you want it safe, unload it, and ensure it's unloaded.
- Most ranges require that you leave the action open, or open with a plug. So anyone coming by can see that the gun is unloaded, and if it is plugged it's physically unable to even accept a bullet.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> Because in many places in the US you don't need a license, so that's a non issue.


It's true that no license was needed where I was living.

But don't you think it's a crazy idea to lend a gun to someone else, when that other person has NO training, and for the purpose of shooting it *inside a densely populated city*, in a residential area???


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Nope, he is 100% responsible.
> He took a loaded gun, pointed it at someone, and discharged it.
> He killed someone, there is no lesser degree of blame.


What the hell?
Are you feeling okay?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> It's true that no license was needed where I was living.
> 
> But don't you think it's a crazy idea to lend a gun to someone else, when that other person has NO training, and for the purpose of shooting it *inside a densely populated city*, in a residential area???


He offered to train you, and since you're so shocked you're likely to be quite careful.
Honestly I don't see a problem if that's the norm in the area.

FYI, it's illegal to even have a loaded gun near a house in Ontario.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

KaeJS said:


> What the hell?
> Are you feeling okay?


Yes, why do you ask?

Are you suggesting someone who takes a loaded gun, sees a person, points it at them, and pulls the trigger ISN'T responsible for the resulting injury?
Add in that he apparently didn't even check if it was a loaded gun and I think he should be in jail.
But he's a celebrity so I expect he'll get off.

Maybe it will be a cautionary tail to comply with the basics of firearm handling.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

In this day and age it surprised me that movies don't use fake replica guns, which would remove all the risk.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Yes, why do you ask?
> 
> Are you suggesting someone who takes a loaded gun, sees a person, points it at them, and pulls the trigger ISN'T responsible for the resulting injury?
> Add in that he apparently didn't even check if it was a loaded gun and I think he should be in jail.
> ...


Where is the Mens Rea in any of your logic?


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

sags said:


> In this day and age it surprised me that movies don't use fake replica guns, which would remove all the risk.


It really is quite ridiculous that this is not the case.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

KaeJS said:


> Where is the Mens Rea in any of your logic?


He took a loaded gun, pointed it at someone and shot them, killing them.

Apparently he didn't check to see if it was loaded with live ammunition, or treat it as if it was loaded with live ammunition.

I would suggest that not following the most basic of commonly accepted safety principles is negligent if not reckless.

FYI in my mind, choosing to discharge a firearm at someone IS "Guilty mind". You only do this if you're intending to kill them.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> He took a loaded gun, pointed it at someone and shot them, killing them.
> 
> Apparently he didn't check to see if it was loaded with live ammunition, or treat it as if it was loaded with live ammunition.
> 
> ...


He was making a movie, dude.
There is no mens rea.

He has no intention on killing someone.
He's not guilty.
It was an accident. It also was not his fault.


----------



## hfp75 (Mar 15, 2018)

To me it shows how much if a goof Baldwin is. Take guns seriously, they are seriously impactful tools. 

Dont blame the gun, its the user/owner….. weather its a mall shooting or an accident on a set…..


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

Do you guys think he intentionally did this?

He was probably just given the gun by the director or prop team and told what to do. I'm sure he thought it was taken care of.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

It is a movie prop and isn't supposed to have live ammunition, so why would an actor check to see if it is loaded ?

Do people check a toy gun in a store to make sure it doesn't contain live rounds ? 

Any negligence falls onto the company using the movie props. It is their responsibility to maintain a safe workplace.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

sags said:


> It is a movie prop and isn't supposed to have live ammunition, so why would an actor check to see if it is loaded ?
> 
> Do people check a toy gun in a store to make sure it doesn't contain live rounds ?
> 
> Any negligence falls onto the company using the movie props. It is their responsibility to maintain a safe workplace.


This.

Thank you.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

KaeJS said:


> He was making a movie, dude.
> There is no mens rea.
> 
> He has no intention on killing someone.
> ...


He didn't intend to kill someone, he intended to discharge the firearm in the direction of people, and didn't take the most basic of precautions, such as checking to ensure it wasn't loaded with live rounds.

This was the fourth "accidental" discharge on that set, people were walking off set because it was unsafe.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> It is a movie prop and isn't supposed to have live ammunition, so why would an actor check to see if it is loaded ?


Because you always check.



> Any negligence falls onto the company using the movie props. It is their responsibility to maintain a safe workplace.


No, when someone hands you a gun, you're responsible.
Maybe they got sloppy the first time someone slipped real ammunition in there, and the second, and the third.

But by the fourth time they load a gun with real ammo, you're being negligent if you "just trust them".


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

KaeJS said:


> Do you guys think he intentionally did this?


Yes
He intentionally took a gun, from someone with a history of handing over loaded guns, didn't check to see if it was clear, aimed and fired at someone.

He showed extreme carelessness with the gun.
It's no different than driving a car drunk, you might not be trying to kill someone, but you sure aren't acting in a reasonable manner.

The question isn't if he meant to kill someone, the question if he acted in a reasonable manner, and if the outcome was reasonably foreseeable based on his actions.

He didn't act in a reasonable manner, and the possible outcome is clear to anyone. You don't point loaded guns at people unless you want to kill them.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

What I find interesting is that the progun people think the shooter did something wrong, by shooting and killing someone.

And the anti-gun people seem to think it's somehow okay, or at least not his fault.

There's a clear unwillingness to take responsibility for your actions.


----------



## Retiredguy (Jul 24, 2013)

MrMatt said:


> From the article
> "The training exercise remains under investigation."
> 
> We don't know what happened.
> ...


"aimed" ?


----------



## hfp75 (Mar 15, 2018)

KaeJS said:


> Where is the Mens Rea in any of your logic?


The actus reus will make it man slaughter or 3rd degree murder !!!!!!

If they can prove the common man would have known to check the gun for a bullet, & Baldwin didn't bother, then they could charge second degree.

Welcome to jail Mr Baldwin…. At the very least it should be lifetime parole !

Have fun with international travel !!!!

Lesson here…. Consider all guns as loaded until you can prove differently….


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> What I find interesting is that the progun people think the shooter did something wrong, by shooting and killing someone.
> 
> And the anti-gun people seem to think it's somehow okay, or at least not his fault.
> 
> There's a clear unwillingness to take responsibility for your actions.


Funny. Because I own multiple guns and hold an RPAL, but somehow your anecdotal information holds true?

Baldwin clearly did not mean to kill someone.

Why would a rich, successful, famous, decent looking man need to kill someone on set? Come on.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

This is some good background on this issue. If the video pasted below doesn't work, here's the video on Youtube.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> What I find interesting is that the progun people think the shooter did something wrong, by shooting and killing someone.
> 
> And the anti-gun people seem to think it's somehow okay, or at least not his fault.
> 
> There's a clear unwillingness to take responsibility for your actions.


Interesting. I must admit that I often have diverging opinions with you @MrMatt but in this case I'm in agreement with you, while being totally anti-gun.

I'm in agreement with you because of the negligence argument.

People make assumptions way too often, whether it's simply a discussion/debate/judgement or in this case a firearm, which is deadly.

There should never be assumptions and negligence like this.

Sure, maybe it's supposed to be a toy gun, but the same argument holds : if it looks like a gun, don't assume that it's a toy gun. Make sure if it.

He's guilty of negligence.

I know absolutely nothing about guns, but if you give me a toy gun and you tell me it's empty, I'll definitely take a step back and ask you how to validate that it's a toy gun, how to validate that it's empty and that there's nothing stuck in it and I'd do that validation routine every single time I'm pointing at a non-safe area. I'd also ask to know how to determine if an area is safe and where can I leave the gun if I don't want to hold it anymore.



KaeJS said:


> Baldwin clearly did not mean to kill someone.


Who cares about the intent? The result is more important. Negligence is negligence.

As @MrMatt said, if I drive my car while being totally drunk, do I intent to kill someone? No. If I do kill someone, am I guilty of negligence? Definitely.

That's exactly the definition of negligence. A bad event occurring that you had not intent to make it happen, but it did happen because you acted carelessly.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Experts predict the legal fallout from the Alec Baldwin prop gun shooting

Going to be a field-day with the litigations to follow.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

KaeJS said:


> Funny. Because I own multiple guns and hold an RPAL, but somehow your anecdotal information holds true?
> 
> Baldwin clearly did not mean to kill someone.
> 
> Why would a rich, successful, famous, decent looking man need to kill someone on set? Come on.


You own multiple guns and hold an RPAL, yet you think it's okay to accept a gun without checking to see if it's loaded?
I hope I'm never on a range with you.

I've walked off ranges due to a lack of compliance with safety rules, just like people walked off this movie set.

I'm not saying that he meant to kill someone, I'm saying he showed reckless disregard for his actions. He fired a loaded gun at a person FFS!!



For those not familiar with guns, if you see people being careless and throwing guns around, leave.
If they start "accidentally" firing bullets, RUN.

A movie set with a history of ignoring safety rules, and "accidentally" firing live ammunition isn't safe. I bet the guys who walked off the set are feeling very relieved that they did so. If anything they're likely feeling a bit guilty they didn't make more of a stink about the situation.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

Baldwin is not the prop manager. He is an actor. What is Baldwin to do? Are you saying he should have been doing the prop managers job? Should he have been checking every bullet? Tracing the source? Maybe he should also load his own casings so he knows just how much gun powder is in them?

He pointed a loaded gun because that was his role. That is what he is being paid to do. Just like whoever sourced the ammunition, it was their job to make sure that the gun and ammunition are safe.

Likewise, if the director chooses to use blanks and real guns instead of fakes or CGI, should Baldwin refuse the work? Should all actors refuse the work? Maybe so. I personally think it is ridiculous for them to use real guns.

Regardless - He did not intend to kill someone, and I hardly find him negligent as it wasn't his job to source the prop or ammunition.

@blackhill, I understand what negligence is, but your comparison to driving while drunk is not the same as this instance. If someone drinks and drives, the sole responsibility is on them and it is illegal. They ought to know it is not the right thing to do before they do it. In this case, Baldwin did not know he was doing anything wrong and was unaware.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

I'm just curious, do you guys think he should actually be charged? Do you think he deserves jail time? Should we label him a murderer?


----------



## Spudd (Oct 11, 2011)

To me, it sounds like negligence. Whose negligence is arguable. The armourer who put a loaded gun on a cart and then went home? The AD who took the gun and didn't double-check before telling Baldwin it was a cold gun? The actor who (possibly accidentally) fired the gun without checking? The producers who allowed the work to continue without the armourer present? The whole chain of events will need to be examined before guilt can be assigned. 

I do think it's likely standard procedure on a movie set to hand an actor an unloaded gun, tell them it's a cold gun, and for the actor not to check. They're not trained in gun handling, that's what the armourer is for.


----------



## afulldeck (Mar 28, 2012)

This is a processing error akin to the medical deaths that occur due to processing error. It was preventable and hopefully this will force the industry to change processes and props. Perhaps all actors should go through detailed gun training.....


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

KaeJS said:


> Baldwin is not the prop manager. He is an actor. What is Baldwin to do? Are you saying he should have been doing the prop managers job? Should he have been checking every bullet? Tracing the source? Maybe he should also load his own casings so he knows just how much gun powder is in them?


He should've known the basics, or at least ask for to basics to be aware of them and then act r accordingly.

But since he didn't need a license to manipulate the gun then I'd say that everybody should've signed a paper saying that there will be firearms used and they could get killed.

The same way that when I go skydiving since I can't check if the parachute is correctly folded and anyways I don't have the required training to fold a parachute, then I sign a paper saying I could die skydiving.

I accept the risks.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Spudd said:


> They're not trained in gun handling, that's what the armourer is for.


Yeah that would make sense. If someone's job is specifically to keep all the guns safe in his possession and then give a safe gun to the actor right before the scene and take it back from the actor right after the scene, then in that case the actor wouldn't be held responsible.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The "professional armorer" in charge of the weapons is an inexperienced 24 year old who handed a loaded gun to an 11 year old on a previous movie set.

There have been numerous similar shooting deaths on movie sets in the past.

People have been killed using blanks, so checking the ammo isn't a fail safe solution either.









On-set deaths from prop guns are rare — but not unheard of


The death of director of photography Halyna Hutchins on a film set in Santa Fe, N.M., is a reminder that prop weapons can pose a serious risk. But Hollywood history includes only a few such incidents.




www.npr.org





I can't think of a valid reason they need real guns on a movie set. This was a western movie set back in time. It isn't difficult to use fake weapons.

When they shoot an alien or futuristic movie they use fake weapons, because real ones like that don't exist.

Why do they need real weapons for a movie about the old west ?

I have heard of cops almost shooting a kid because they had a replica gun that looked real.

Nobody had any intention of someone getting shot with live ammunition, but it happened as it too often does.

American "gunslinger" mentality enters into it, as I think it would probably be illegal to use real guns on a movie set in Canada.

I doubt I could film an amateur movie, get real guns to hand out to actors, and claim it is okay because I am making a movie.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

KaeJS said:


> I personally think it is ridiculous for them to use real guns.





sags said:


> I can't think of a valid reason they need real guns on a movie set.


Yeah I don't know what's the rational behind this. I thought every movie used fake guns.

And that when they truly wanted to make a stunt real then it was in a highly controlled environment. (For instance fire a real fun on real explosives)

There's so many possibilities for movie magic nowadays, how is it even possible that such tragic event happen...


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

KaeJS said:


> Baldwin is not the prop manager. He is an actor. What is Baldwin to do?


He should have verified the gun wasn't loaded with live ammuntion.
As one of the big name actors on the set, he should have raised absolute hell over the first 3 "accidental" discharges.




> Are you saying he should have been doing the prop managers job?


No, he should have simply done what any reasonable person does upon receipt of a firearm.



> Should he have been checking every bullet?


Yes, it's a revolver, it's a quick and easy check.



> He pointed a loaded gun because that was his role. That is what he is being paid to do. Just like whoever sourced the ammunition, it was their job to make sure that the gun and ammunition are safe.


"Just doing what I was told"
Heard that one before, Chauvin is in jail for following established procedures and the training he was given.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

KaeJS said:


> I'm just curious, do you guys think he should actually be charged? Do you think he deserves jail time? Should we label him a murderer?


Everyone should be charged and it should be investigated and prosecuted the maximum extent.
Send a message "be careful with guns".
What's really troubling is that there is someone who claims to have an RPAL who thinks being careless with guns and violating the primary gun safety rule is just fine. Maybe the message to be careful with guns, and follow safety rules needs some reinforcement.

He's not a murderer, he just accidentally killed someone with carelessness.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Just for context, here is a nice article on gun safety in film. 





__





Explainer: the rules for shooting on film sets






theconversation.com


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

I suspect his legal troubles will be double given he was also a producer on the movie.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Everyone should be charged and it should be investigated and prosecuted the maximum extent.
> Send a message "be careful with guns".
> What's really troubling is that there is someone who claims to have an RPAL who thinks being careless with guns and violating the primary gun safety rule is just fine. Maybe the message to be careful with guns, and follow safety rules needs some reinforcement.
> 
> He's not a murderer, he just accidentally killed someone with carelessness.


So we should just ruin part of his life, then?
For something that was obviously an accident...

I assume if this happened to you and you were Baldwin, you'd be fine being persecuted to the maximum extent? You'd just lay down and accept fault and go to jail? You'd be fine with that?

You'd be okay with your kids now having a father in jail?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

KaeJS said:


> So we should just ruin part of his life, then?


that's for the court to decide, but the facts as we know it are.
1. He was completely reckless in his handling of the gun.

He didn't check if it was loaded.
He aimed it at a person.
2. He knew or out to have known that the set wasn't safe.

Multiple staff, including some of the film crew responsible for guns walked off the set due to poor safety protocols.
The set had multiple "accidents" with guns.



> For something that was obviously an accident...


No, I want him prosecuted for being negligent.

Your argument sounds like a drunk driver who kills someone and says "it wasn't my fault".
That hasn't been a defense for decades.

it's completely reasonable and foreseeable that shooting a gun at someone will hurt them.
So you should take some steps to ensure that doesn't happen.
Don't aim it at people.
Make sure it doesn't have live ammunition.
These are the real basics, you claim to be licensed and own several guns, you know this.

People with guns unwilling to take responsibility for their actions is very problematic.



> I assume if this happened to you and you were Baldwin, you'd be fine being persecuted to the maximum extent?


I'd like to think that if I was handed a gun, I'd check the state, like I have the other hundreds of times I've taken possession of a firearm.

Like I said, if I was on a movie set that wasn't handling guns properly (like this one), I'd walk off.
Like I said I've left ranges where the gun handling was substandard.
The fact that the guys handling the guns were walking off set because it was unsafe, that's one hell of a red flag.

I do not think I would be in Baldwins situation, because I, and most reasonable people wouldn't proceed down that path.


There is a reason that this is only the third fatal prop gun incident in nearly 4 decades.








Alec Baldwin Movie-Set Shooting: How Prop Guns SHOULD Be Used


Alec Baldwin reportedly fired a prop gun that somehow killed cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the set of a Western in New Mexico.




freerangeamerican.us





For all the thousands of gunshots in movies, these "accidents" simply don't happen, because almost everyone is WAY more careful than the idiots on this movie.


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

Question:
Why
are
LOADED
GUNS
even
ALLOWED
on
movie
sets???


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Why not Jargey ?

Why not have all kinds of guns laying around, some real and some fake, some loaded and some unloaded, some with blank rounds (which are also very explosive and have killed people) and some with live ammunition, and let the actors and actresses figure it out themselves or call in their expert gunsmiths to check it all out just to be safe ?

It could be a "make work" project for unemployed NRA members.

The last movie the same "weapons expert" armorer was on, she handed a loaded gun to an 11 year old.

I suppose if the kid had shot somebody.......it would be the kid's fault for not checking out the gun.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

jargey3000 said:


> Question:
> Why
> are
> LOADED
> ...


They're not.
That's why this situation is so troubling, they had multiple safety violations, a history of firearms accidents, and several of the firearms staff walked offsite because it was unsafe.


----------



## hfp75 (Mar 15, 2018)

the only reason to establish motive or if he needed or wanted someone dead is determining the degree of the murder...... not weather it was murder or not......

you cannot have someone dead on the floor and say they are not dead.... 

accidental homicide ? accessory to murder ? manslaughter ? 4th degree murder ?

Yes all very possible....


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

What if the victims asked him to shoot the gun directly at them? You know this will come up. He was likely asked to shoot directly at the camera and the victims were probably looking through the camera or were directly behind the camera.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I view this as a workplace accident, and the likely outcome will new gun regulations

The goal should be to prevent this type of accident from occurring again.

As they say.....every accident is preventable.


----------



## hfp75 (Mar 15, 2018)

https://www.ladbible.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=648,quality=70,format=webp,fit=pad,dpr=1/https%3A%2F%2Fs3-images.ladbible.com%2Fs3%2Fcontent%2Fc57eefb16172431b5af293f6bd4b5daf.png


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> I view this as a workplace accident, and the likely outcome will new gun regulations


Why?
Why new regulations?
They already violated the existing regulations, their safety staff were walking out due to the unsafe practices.



> The goal should be to prevent this type of accident from occurring again.


When the safety staff walks out because it's unsafe, you should listen.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

hfp75 said:


> https://www.ladbible.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=648,quality=70,format=webp,fit=pad,dpr=1/https%3A%2F%2Fs3-images.ladbible.com%2Fs3%2Fcontent%2Fc57eefb16172431b5af293f6bd4b5daf.png


That didn't age well did it?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Workplace safety protocols are always evolving and improving. It sounds like the movie industry needs a complete overhaul of their safety procedures.

They can contact me anytime. My fee is $200 a day plus expenses and a 1978 Pontiac Firebird Formula ..... just like Jim Rockford had.









1978 Pontiac from The Rockford Files is one famous Firebird


Owned and driven by its star, the late James Garner.




www.hagerty.com


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Workplace safety protocols are always evolving and improving. It sounds like the movie industry needs a complete overhaul of their safety procedures.


Based on what?
When they stop following safety procedures, they get an accident.

When people repeatedly ignore the safety procedures, the problem isn't the lack of procedures, it's the lack of compliance.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

sags said:


> Workplace safety protocols are always evolving and improving. It sounds like the movie industry needs a complete overhaul of their safety procedures.
> 
> They can contact me anytime. My fee is $200 a day plus expenses and a 1978 Pontiac Firebird Formula ..... just like Jim Rockford had.
> 
> ...


From what I have been reading (and this is new area for me). The film industry went through a major saftey overhaul when Brandon Lee was killed on set in 1993. There were major requirements put including a role of Armourer whose sole job is to make sure all weapons and specifically guns are safe. Process and procedures where also put in place. From what I can tell, the Head Armourer is a 24 years and thi si heir first or second job. they even posted on social media that there weren’t sure if we’re ready for this job and almost turned it down. It looks like they should have turned it down.

this doesn’t sound like a question of lack of saftey protocols, but not following them. So it looks like the Armourer didnt do their job, the person that hirer them and didn’t fire them after the first few other incidents, the Assistant director for saying the gun with cold, and maybe a few others but I am not sure. the Questions are since there were saftey protocols on place, who was supposed to follow them and what prevented them from doing so.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Just based on the scant details from the media, some of which have been discussed here, I can readily see some problems with their safety protocols.

Mostly.........it doesn't appear they had ANY safety protocols at all.

It is stated there were previous complaints and concerns about safety with the guns at a previous movie set with the same armorer and this one in particular.

It is stated that people concerned about the gun safety walked off the job. Walking off the job is not a recommended practice in ANY safety protocol I was ever taught or encountered in decades of training in light to heavy equipment environments.

A worker concerned about safety in their workplace, doesn't simply walk away and leave the situation unresolved for the next hapless employee to encounter.

Imagine if a person was working on a large drill press where a safety mechanism was malfunctioning. That person doesn't say....this is not safe and walk away, allowing another employee to work on that same malfunctioning drill press.

A proper safety protocol would be to refuse to work with the press. Inform your supervisor of your refusal and outline the safety concerns to them. Inform your safety representative with your concerns about the safety of that machine. If another employee is assigned to work on that machine over objections, they MUST be informed there was a valid work refusal for safety concerns. Employees MUST refuse to work and demand a safety inspector investigate the situation. Employees are empowered to refuse the directives of supervisors if it involves the safety of themselves or others.

The supervisor also has responsibilities and liabilities. They must inform the employees of their rights and call in safety inspectors when required.

It is readily apparent in the scant details so far, there was no designated health and safety representative present on the movie set. 

That is standard safety protocol. No safety inspector was called to investigate. There was no resolution from previous incidents.

There must also be safety measures in place to prevent equipment or machinery from injuring or killing employees. 

Prevention of possible injuries is the most important part of safety protocols. You want to prevent accidents.......not assign blame after one happens.

Machines must have guards in place, and any gun that was used on a movie set should have been rendered unable to fire live ammunition.

From what I have read on this incident so far, there was no safety protocols at all on that movie set.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I also read that this particular armorer, worked on a previous Nicholas Cage western movie (which is when she said she didn't feel experienced enough), and handed an 11 year old girl a loaded gun by mistake.

An 11 year old on a movie set must have a guardian on the set. It would likely be one of her parents....maybe her mom. Is her mom supposed to check the gun to make sure it is safe ? Her mom is supposed to be a trained expert on guns ?

I can assure people from decades of experience that people who work in some settings take safety as their top priority every day.

They work in places where people have been seriously hurt and killed. I won't even describe the ramifications of workplace accidents I witnessed and had to deal with personally as a supervisor. It makes you well aware of how fast an accident can happen, which is exactly why the number one goal is to *prevent accidents before they happen*.

This movie set and it sounds like too many of them, don't appear to take safety all that seriously. *They are accidents waiting to happen.*

It kind of surprises me that since SAGS-AFTRA is one of the biggest unions in the world, they don't have union safety representatives on every movie set.

If you don't supervise and enforce....you don't get compliance. That is pretty well true in anything that involves human activity.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> An 11 year old on a movie set must have a guardian on the set. It would likely be one of her parents....maybe her mom. Is her mom supposed to check the gun to make sure it is safe ? Her mom is supposed to be a trained expert on guns ?


Trained yes, expert no.
Read up on the complaints against these guys, they had a history or skipping parts of the safety briefings.



> It kind of surprises me that since SAGS-AFTRA is one of the biggest unions in the world, they don't have union safety representatives on every movie set.


There were union safety reps, they walked off the set because it was unsafe.
Once the safety guys walkout, that should have been a red flag for everyone else.


----------



## newfoundlander61 (Feb 6, 2011)

During my time in the canadian military when ever we used blanks for training purposes we always used an insert (blank firing adapter) on the end of the barrel as an extra layer of protection. I am sure you can get one that is not easily seen from the viewers eyes.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

_There were union safety reps, they walked off the set because it was unsafe.
Once the safety guys walkout, that should have been a red flag for everyone else._

If that is true, then it illustrates the lack of basic safety protocols. They didn't know what to do, so they left the set and abandoned their members ?

They should have refused to work, informed their members to refuse to work, and remained on site to ensure they didn't continue to work.

They should have demanded government safety inspectors come to the set and investigate the problem, before any work resumed.

It isn't a negotiable protocol. It should be set in stone.

Given the history of past safety problems, the government inspectors should have been called in to investigate previous incidents and this tragedy may have been avoided.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The TV show "Rookies" announced they have banned all real weapons from their productions. 

They will use replica guns and add muzzle flashes with technology later.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

sags said:


> The TV show "Rookies" announced they have banned all real weapons from their productions.
> 
> They will use replica guns and add muzzle flashes with technology later.


I think it's actually due to American gun & violence culture, why there was such a commitment to have "realistic" gunfire in movies.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

Just an example of how well you can do things in post, because of India's ban on import of guns, they had to use rubber guns to produce this sequence.





There are some obvious challenges like lack of recoil, sound and added resources, but it's safer.


----------



## milhouse (Nov 16, 2016)

Money172375 said:


> What if the victims asked him to shoot the gun directly at them? You know this will come up. He was likely asked to shoot directly at the camera and the victims were probably looking through the camera or were directly behind the camera.


That sounds like the case.
Just watched a seqment on CBC today where they say per piecing together statements by the director and cameraman among others, that Baldwin was rehersing a scene where he was supposed to fire at the camera (and was told it was cold gun).


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The easy solution is to ban real weapons, but the US gun lobby goes insane when any restriction is contemplated. 

They invevitably bring out the "slippery slope" argument.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Assistant director of Baldwin film fired from Northwest Arkansas movie set after gun went off


Dave Halls was fired from the production of "Freedom's Path" after a gun went off on set and wounded a film crew member.




www.5newsonline.com





Dave Halls was *fired from the production of "Freedom's Path"* after a gun went off on set and wounded a film crew member. PRAIRIE GROVE, Ark. — The assistant director who handed Alec Baldwin the gun that killed a cinematographer was fired from a movie set in Northwest Arkansas in 2019 for a similar incident.

This is so messy.
It's incredibly obvious that a lot of people were totally reckless in this.


----------



## hfp75 (Mar 15, 2018)

If someone handed you a nail gun and said, 'its empty, now, shoot it at your kid'. Would you ?


----------



## hfp75 (Mar 15, 2018)

Here is a better question, why is an 'anti-gun' actor even using gun(s) in his movies ? He should stop glorifying guns and only make movies that do NOT have guns in them !

BUT, he realizes that guns are popular and sell, so he will compromise his personal morals for movie sales ?

Hes first a hypocrite and second careless.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

hfp75 said:


> Here is a better question, why is an 'anti-gun' actor even using gun(s) in his movies ? He should stop glorifying guns and only make movies that do NOT have guns in them !
> 
> BUT, he realizes that guns are popular and sell, so he will compromise his personal morals for movie sales ?
> 
> Hes first a hypocrite and second careless.


That's pushing it a bit far....

Everyone is so quick to jump on the bandwagon. You're telling me you wouldn't be paid millions to make a movie with guns? Come on...

Sign me up. I'd do it for 100k lol.


----------



## coptzr (Jan 18, 2013)

I get made to feel guilty about this all the time by kids(and some adults). I've broke a few Nerf guns over my knee in recent years after warnings not to point at someone, threaten, or shot them in face or when unprepared. I saw teenager and adult jokes go bad with real guns when I was younger.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

coptzr said:


> I get made to feel guilty about this all the time by kids(and some adults). I've broke a few Nerf guns over my knee in recent years after warnings not to point at someone, threaten, or shot them in face or when unprepared. I saw teenager and adult jokes go bad with real guns when I was younger.


This is the right message: don't point guns (of any kind) at people


----------



## off.by.10 (Mar 16, 2014)

james4beach said:


> This is the right message: don't point guns (of any kind) at people


Not really in that case. I'd make the message more about toy safety and consent to play than "guns". The fact that it's a gun has little to do with the dangers of shooting in the face. They make a Nerf bow too. You can have the same problem throwing rocks or snowballs (especially if actually ice). I've had a kid send a tennis racket flying at my head once, at the park, around toddlers. Clear lack of parenting there.

Not that I disagree about gun safety of course. But what you can do safely with a Nerf gun has little to do with real guns.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

james4beach said:


> There was a horrible accident, where Alec Baldwin shot a prop gun (containing a live round) and killed someone on the movie set.
> 
> A good reminder that whether it's a fake gun, prop gun, UNLOADED gun, or whatever ... never point a gun at anyone.
> 
> Something to teach the kids, as they start playing with things like airsofts and BBs. Mistakes can happen.


Well, actors kind of need to point prop guns at people unless we want to ban guns from film and television.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Maybe they could use clothespins for "pretend" guns, like we did as kids.

Seriously, there is absolutely no reason they need real guns to film. Just use fake guns and live ammo mixups aren't possible anymore.

Why make it any more complicated than that ?

Sure the NRA and gun lobby would object to any ban on any guns in any circumstances.......but who cares what they want.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

sags said:


> Maybe they could use clothespins for "pretend" guns, like we did as kids.


Or sticks maybe? If you get a wooden stick with the right kind of joint, it looks kind of like a gun.

Then Baldwin can point it at the bad guy and say "pew pew"... that's how we used to do it.


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

sags said:


> The easy solution is to ban real weapons,


or course! it's a MOVIE! it's NOT real! it's just a make-believe movie! 
why use REAL weapons? who are they trying to fool?
we all know it's NOT REAL! ....don't we?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Well, actors kind of need to point prop guns at people unless we want to ban guns from film and television.


That's why they shouldn't be loaded, and you should have a responsible person manage them.

Not some goofball who was fired for handing loaded guns to actors.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

andrewf said:


> Well, actors kind of need to point prop guns at people unless we want to ban guns from film and television.


There are realistic rubber guns and post-production effects that can replace actual firearms. For this particular production, they went cheap and used the real thing.

There's no issue with the guns themselves, the issue is the lack of handling and safety measures that took place. 

The first one is that you never mix blanks with live rounds. Supposedly, crew members would take the same guns and do target practice that morning on cans, and then return them: https://www.thewrap.com/halyna-hutchins-live-ammo-target-practice/. That's just an accident waiting to happen. In fact, that's probably what happened, someone left a bullet after they had their fun and returned it. They've examined the gun and found that all but one was a dummy round. Real Bullets Among the Movie Props: New Details of ‘Rust’ Shooting Death

The second is that you never just pick up a gun off a table and hand it to someone saying it's clear. You need to open it and both examine it to make sure that the chambers (revolver used here) are all empty, and never let it out of your possession once that happens. In fact, the gun should have been drawn directly from the armourer who would show that it's clear and not just dropped off on a table to be picked up with no supervision. Given that there were supposed to be dummy rounds in the chambers, that should have been verified on the exchange. Worst case scenario, you go to a clearing bay and cycle through the cylinders to make sure that there are no live rounds, and if there are, at least they are fired off in a "safe" manner.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

The "armorer" was a goofball that has no business handling guns.








'Rust' armorer once caused Nicolas Cage to storm off a film set after she repeatedly fired a gun without warning, former colleague says


Cage yelled at Hannah Gutierrez-Reed for firing a gun without warning, a key grip on "The Old Way" told The Wrap.




www.insider.com





The AD was previously fired for this behaviour.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> The "armorer" was a goofball that has no business handling guns.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


@James, yeah "Wow"








Assistant Director Who Gave Alec Baldwin Loaded Pistol Was Fired From 2019 Film Over Gun Incident


“I did not know that and definitely would have liked to,” actor Ian A. Hudson, who plays an outlaw in ‘Rust,’ tells ‘Rolling Stone’




www.rollingstone.com





“I can confirm that Dave Halls was fired from the set of _Freedom’s Path_ in 2019 after a crew member incurred a minor and temporary injury when a gun was unexpectedly discharged. Halls was removed from set immediately after the prop gun discharged. Production did not resume filming until Dave was off-site,” the producer said in the statement. “An incident report was taken and filed at that time.”

That's what should happen. Note it was "unexpected" = fired, which is at a minimum what should happen.


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

Alec Baldwin seems like an egomaniac. 

The real tragedy is the loss of life and that poor family. Shame on Baldwin for being an a$$.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

You are free not to like Baldwin, but it doesn't sound like he carries much fault here.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

andrewf said:


> You are free not to like Baldwin, but it doesn't sound like he carries much fault here.


People make a big deal about the fact that he was the last link in the chain, but if you recall Brandon Lee's death, no one went to jail.

However, Baldwin is one of the producers of the movie, so he does have overall responsibility of safety on the set. I imagine a civil suit against him is possible.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

bgc_fan said:


> People make a big deal about the fact that he was the last link in the chain, but if you recall Brandon Lee's death, no one went to jail.
> 
> However, Baldwin is one of the producers of the movie, so he does have overall responsibility of safety on the set. I imagine a civil suit against him is possible.


Brandon Lee was an accident, there was a piece of debris in the barrel.

This was clear and obvious negligence, multiple people refused to check for live ammunition. 
The fact that the AD handed the gun saying "cold gun" without even the most cursory of checks is IMO criminal.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> Brandon Lee was an accident, there was a piece of debris in the barrel.
> 
> This was clear and obvious negligence, multiple people refused to check for live ammunition.
> The fact that the AD handed the gun saying "cold gun" without even the most cursory of checks is IMO criminal.


There was a lot more to Brandon Lee's death.
1. They had bought live ammunition and as a cost savings tried to make them into dummy rounds by removing the gunpowder and not removing the primer.
2. They fired it once like that and the primer was enough to get the bullet lodged in the barrel, but not enough to exit.
3. They let the gun sit for 3 weeks, and no one ever checked it, much less right before they used it.
4. They used a blank which had enough primer to cause the lodged bullet to fire.

So there was a lot more than just debris stuck in the barrel. There was a lot of negligence on that one, but no one ever got charged. It obviously led to changes on how they operate, i.e. make sure the barrel is clear before using.


----------



## Tostig (Nov 18, 2020)

When I first heard the story, my initial reaction was that somebody had loaded the gun. Then after the first day of interviews, I threw that suspicion out the window fir all the safety protocols in the film- making industry.

Now, today's story ( CTV news at noon) is that the police is investigating if somebody did knowlingly load the gun with a live round.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Previous news was that the gun was used for target practice by workers on the set and they didn't unload the bullets.

Based on where they were filming, I wouldn't be surprised they were shooting at golphers for amusement.

All the discussion seems to be around having people check, double check and triple check the weapons before use.

I suppose they could set up a congo line of "gun checkers", but it would be much simpler and safer to use realistic fake guns that don't hold any ammunition at all.

But it is the US..........and now States and the SCOTUS are considering allowing people to carry concealed weapons everywhere.

Just what they need.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

bgc_fan said:


> There was a lot more to Brandon Lee's death.
> 1. They had bought live ammunition and as a cost savings tried to make them into dummy rounds by removing the gunpowder and not removing the primer.
> 2. They fired it once like that and the primer was enough to get the bullet lodged in the barrel, but not enough to exit.
> 3. They let the gun sit for 3 weeks, and no one ever checked it, much less right before they used it.
> ...


I'd like to see evidence to support that for a few reasons.

When you make dummy rounds, you simply don't put a primer in.
Dummy ammo is cheaper than live ammo. Case + bullet is cheaper than live ammo.

Casings + primer is cheaper than live ammunition.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> I'd like to see evidence to support that for a few reasons.
> 
> When you make dummy rounds, you simply don't put a primer in.
> Dummy ammo is cheaper than live ammo. Case + bullet is cheaper than live ammo.
> ...


Google "brandon lee's death"
Brings you to a recent newspaper article comparing: https://www.usatoday.com/story/ente...ting-brings-questions-brandon-lee/8570212002/

Quote:
_Lee was killed by a fragmented .44-caliber bullet left in the barrel of a .44 Magnum pistol used in an earlier scene. Later, the *gun was loaded with blanks, hastily made by a crew member from live bullets with the gun powder removed, Spivey said.* One of those blanks still had a little gun powder left in the cartridge, Janowitz said. 

But the gun was not checked before it was used in the scene with Lee. When it was fired, the bullet fragment exploded out of the barrel and struck Lee at close range._

Or another link: D.A. announces negligence caused death of “The Crow” actor Brandon Lee
_As the police investigation began, little was certain about how Lee died, and rumors circulated that the film set was jinxed (there had been a series of accidents), or that his death had been plotted by some unknown enemy. In the end, the truth was far less sinister, but no less tragic.* Hollowed-out cartridges are often used to film close-ups of a gun being loaded; the “dummy” cartridges are then supposed to be removed and replaced with blanks before being fired. The police investigation into Lee’s death concluded that a tip of one of the cartridge’s bullets broke off from the cartridge and lodged in the gun, then fired at Lee along with the blank.*

D.A. Spivey eventually decided against bringing charges against Crowvision, the production company making the movie. Though Lee was to have appeared in nearly all of the scenes left to be shot, the filmmakers completed The Crow using another actor as a double and a good deal of digital technology. The movie went on to make $50 million at the box office._

Yes you aren't supposed to take live ammunition and make them into blanks or dummy rounds, but that's what they did.









What happened to The Crow star Brandon Lee? Story behind tragic accidental death of Bruce Lee’s son


What happened to Bruce Lee’s son Brandon on the set of 1993 film The Crow? After being uploaded to Netflix, haunting memories of tragic Hollywood star have flooded back.




www.scotsman.com





_Commercial dummy cartridges are usually fitted with bullets, *though powder and primer are removed*.

However, *catastrophically in the instance, the prop crew took the decision to make their own dummy cartridges, thus removing the gun powder but, unbeknown to themselves, leaving the primer still inside of the cartridge.*

During filming, the revolver was then discharged with an improperly-deactivated cartridge in the chamber of the gun. Sadly, this meant the primer was set off with enough force to drive the bullet into the barrel, where it become stuck – known as a squib load.

Tragically, the prop crew either failed to notice, or perhaps didn’t recognise, the significance of this issue.

In the scene which proved fatal to Brandon Lee, the revolver was fired at Lee from a distance of 12-15ft as planned, though the dummy cartridges were swapped for blank rounds – which feature a live powder charge AND primer but no bullet._


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

bgc_fan said:


> _Commercial dummy cartridges are usually fitted with bullets, *though powder and primer are removed*.
> 
> However, *catastrophically in the instance, the prop crew took the decision to make their own dummy cartridges, thus removing the gun powder but, unbeknown to themselves, leaving the primer still inside of the cartridge.*_


Well commercially they're not "removed' they simply never put them in.

It also seems like a bad way to make dummy rounds IMO.
For one, if there is a primer there, they look identical to live rounds, and they'd be virtually indistinguishable.
Also you can't tell the weight of powerder in a bullet. It's typically only a few grains, which are a tiny fraction of an oz.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> Well commercially they're not "removed' they simply never put them in.
> 
> It also seems like a bad way to make dummy rounds IMO.
> For one, if there is a primer there, they look identical to live rounds, and they'd be virtually indistinguishable.
> Also you can't tell the weight of powerder in a bullet. It's typically only a few grains, which are a tiny fraction of an oz.


Regardless, the point is they bought live ammo and rather than buy dummy rounds they decided to just make the dummy rounds themselves. It was one of those negligent steps that contributed to the death. Just like Rust, The Crow was a low budget production where they were trying to cut costs and there were many safety issues. But, no one was charged because criminal negligence requires it to be willful or wanton, which they didn't find after investigation.

_“Who are you going to charge? The guy who made the blanks? The guy who allowed live ammo to be on set? Who do you charge?” Spivey told USA TODAY. “There was a lot of negligence on the part of a lot of people, and that’s why we decided there was no basis for a criminal charge.”

Janowitz, the lawyer for the film's producer, said he was not surprised at Spivey's decision given the lack of evidence of criminal intent. The odd nature of the accident "contributed to an understanding that no one (on the set) could have had criminal intent," he said.

Spivey said there was no outrage in his community when he decided not to press charges, nor pushback even from Lee’s family and friends. There was some media coverage dedicated to the case at the time, he said, but not the same level, nor the social media coverage, now aimed at the “Rust” tragedy._


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> Well commercially they're not "removed' they simply never put them in.
> 
> It also seems like a bad way to make dummy rounds IMO.
> For one, if there is a primer there, they look identical to live rounds, and they'd be virtually indistinguishable.
> Also you can't tell the weight of powerder in a bullet. It's typically only a few grains, which are a tiny fraction of an oz.


My understanding is that to anyone except a trained expert, the live (deadly) rounds look very similar to the blanks. The blanks are nearly full bullets, as shown in some of the diagrams posted earlier in this thread.

Actors don't have the expertise to reliably distinguish these, which is why specialized staff are relied upon to check and *double* check all of this.

Plus there should obviously be no live ammo anywhere near the movie set! Who on earth would think there's live ammo in the prop room?


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

james4beach said:


> My understanding is that to anyone except a trained expert, the live (deadly) rounds look very similar to the blanks. The blanks are nearly full bullets, as shown in some of the diagrams posted earlier in this thread.
> 
> Actors don't have the expertise to reliably distinguish these, which is why specialized staff are relied upon to check and *double* check all of this.
> 
> Plus there should obviously be no live ammo anywhere near the movie set! Who on earth would think there's live ammo in the prop room?


Doesn't take a trained expert. Dummy rounds are visually and sound different (filled with BB pellets). Where the primer would be on a dummy round, the cartridge is dimpled so you can visually see that they aren't real.








Weapons Safety for Film Expert Says Live Ammo Differs From Dummy Round


Weapons safety for film expert Steve Wolf explains the differences between live ammo and dummy rounds used on the 'Rust' set.




www.tmz.com





But, that's what the armorer and prop staff are supposed to do, check that the gun is safe because actors generally aren't going to know. People make a big deal about Baldwin being an actor and should know, but he's not exactly known as an action star and I can't really think of a recent role where he was an action star, firing a gun.

There shouldn't be live ammo anywhere on set. That's just basic common sense that you don't mix the two. Even on The Crow, the minute the staff showed up with live ammo, it was taken away and locked up in the car off-set. But then they needed some dummy rounds, they decided to use those.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> My understanding is that to anyone except a trained expert, the live (deadly) rounds look very similar to the blanks.


Nope, not even close.
They literally have no bullet. The bullet is the copper part. 




















> Actors don't have the expertise to reliably distinguish these, which is why specialized staff are relied upon to check and *double* check all of this.


Everyone handling a gun should be able to distinguish, however they should also have trained staff.



> Plus there should obviously be no live ammo anywhere near the movie set! Who on earth would think there's live ammo in the prop room?


Everyone agrees on that.

The issue here is the AD didn't even check, nor did the actor.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

I shot a gun for the first time in my life this summer. Was invited out to an “outdoor club”. Shot a 22 and a shot gun. Our lead was very safety conscious. I did it. Not for me.

don’t see the appeal. the atv ride out to the range was the best part.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> Nope, not even close.
> They literally have no bullet. The bullet is the copper part.


These are pretty fine nuances. They look pretty similar to me.

We're talking about *actors*. They aren't technical by nature... they're artists. One might say that actors have no business handling real guns, and I'd also agree with that and say that real guns (capable of firing rounds) should never be allowed in those places, period.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> These are pretty fine nuances. They look pretty similar to me.
> 
> We're talking about *actors*. They aren't technical by nature... they're artists. One might say that actors have no business handling real guns, and I'd also agree with that and say that real guns (capable of firing rounds) should never be allowed in those places, period.


That's a cop out, if they have no business handling real guns, they shouldn't handle real guns.
They wouldn't drive a car without proper license or training, why would they handle a gun without the proper license or training.

There are reasons to use real guns in movies, like it's kind of silly to show someone shooting targets, and not simply record someone shooting targets.

The issue here is quite simply multiple people were very unsafe, and had a history of being unsafe, and nobody in charge or in any position of authority did something. 
I would NEVER shoot a gun without checking if it was loaded.
I would NEVER hand a loaded gun to someone and say "it's unloaded" (like the AD did)
And the first time someone "accidentally" discharged a gun on set, I'd be out of there.

I'm pretty comfortable with guns, but if someone isn't perfectly safe, I'm out of there.
I've left many situations of all kinds when people aren't safe, even non gun situations. Really the lax attitude people have to safety is quite shocking.


----------

