Alec Baldwin Shoots and Kills Cinematographer, Wounds Director

[Dutchrudder 11137]

It would be something if there was a camera rolling that caught the events.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

25 minutes ago, Dutchrudder said:

It would be something if there was a camera rolling that caught the events.

That's just crazy talk....

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

2 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

All of his comments are just trying to create doubt and an  unclear series of events that occurred Beyond his control.

AKA, Jury tampering. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

17 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

AKA, Jury tampering. 

Well I'm sure he saw how it worked in a movie...

 

[Red Five 40852]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/alec-baldwin-charged-manslaughter-fatal-shooting-set-rust-d-says-rcna7189

[Pancho 44757]

Welp

 

 

[GoPokes83 2240]

Jerry Lee Lewis wants his nickname back!

[MonkeyDoughnut 10232]

guess this changes their October plans....

 

[GoPokes83 2240]

guess this changes their October plans....
 

Why? Any publicity is good publicity? This was going to be another low budget straight to dvd Alec Baldwin POS, but it’ll probably get a decent distribution deal just for the curiosity value of people wanting to see the murder scene. I’m sure they had an insurance policy on the production, just cash it in and move along IMO.

[Red Five 40852]

1 minute ago, GoPokes83 said:

but it’ll probably get a decent distribution deal just for the curiosity value of people wanting to see the murder scene.

You think they're going to put the cinematographer and director being shot, into the movie? 

[futureman 22453]

24 minutes ago, Red Five said:

You think they're going to put the cinematographer and director being shot, into the movie? 

it would certainly generate some buzz.

[Augustus 3061]

50 minutes ago, Red Five said:

You think they're going to put the cinematographer and director being shot, into the movie? 

He said the murder "scene" as in location, not a film scene in which the cinematographer gets whacked.

[HouTex 1866]

Sorry if it’s been covered ad nauseam, but did Baldwin have any reason to believe there was a live round in the weapon?  I have not read the statute but can’t he assume that any gun on the set would not be loaded with a live round?  He’s still a dumb ass though.   

[Armybrat 40832]

It’s about time.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4976]

2 hours ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

guess this changes their October plans....

 

Backup plan?

[Augustus 3061]

31 minutes ago, HouTex said:

Sorry if it’s been covered ad nauseam, but did Baldwin have any reason to believe there was a live round in the weapon?  I have not read the statute but can’t he assume that any gun on the set would not be loaded with a live round?  He’s still a dumb ass though.   

 

I don't know why he'd have reason to believe there's a live round in a gun on set. 

But I can't imagine there's any reason in the world he'd be pointing it at a cinematographer.  His claim that he didn't pull the trigger seems absurd.  

[C-Man 27214]

9 minutes ago, Augustus said:

 

I don't know why he'd have reason to believe there's a live round in a gun on set. 

But I can't imagine there's any reason in the world he'd be pointing it at a cinematographer.  His claim that he didn't pull the trigger seems absurd.  

Because it was a take where Baldwin was facing directly at the camera and presumably firing the weapon. I think Alec said the gun just "went off" without him pulling the trigger. I don't believe investigators were able to replicate the gun going off without pulling the trigger though. I could be mistaken. It's been awhile since this happened.

[Augustus 3061]

1 minute ago, C-Man said:

Because it was a take where Baldwin was facing directly at the camera and presumably firing the weapon. I think Alec said the gun just "went off" without him pulling the trigger. I don't believe investigators were able to replicate the gun going off without pulling the trigger though. I could be mistaken. It's been awhile since this happened.

I don't know why I was thinking that they weren't shooting (film) when this happened.  Somehow got it in my head he was horsing around and was pretending to shoot at someone.  Seems like if the were filming there'd be no question as to whether he pulled the trigger.

[HamsterHookah 112]

It's been a long time, can someone who has it top of mind give a cliffs notes or TLDR about this thing? Essentially what we want to know is, did Alec FAFO or is it wrong he's being charged?

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4976]

That's basically the gist of it. He was probably pulling the trigger already when he pulled the hammer back and when he let go of the hammer it fell on the live round.

[Red Five 40852]

8 minutes ago, Augustus said:

But I can't imagine there's any reason in the world he'd be pointing it at a cinematographer.  His claim that he didn't pull the trigger seems absurd.  

It's tough to make sense out any of it. Do they still not know how a live round got on set?

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4976]

Cliffs notes is that actors are apparently inherently untrustworthy around firearms and the industry has adopted rules that would be considered unsafe in any other situation regarding firearms where the actors are not allowed to do anything but pick up the gun and shoot/pretend to shoot it. The armorer tells them whether it is safe to do so. Alec was practicing his fast draw for a scene and shot the cinematographer and the other dude because apparently it was actually loaded with live rounds.

[C-Man 27214]

4 minutes ago, Augustus said:

I don't know why I was thinking that they weren't shooting (film) when this happened.  Somehow got it in my head he was horsing around and was pretending to shoot at someone.  Seems like if the were filming there'd be no question as to whether he pulled the trigger.

I think they were rehearsing the scene and not actually filming at the time of the accident.

I'm no Surly Lawdog but I'm wondering how he can be charged criminally with involuntary manslaughter -- guess you can charge anybody but convicting is another story, especially when the victim's husband has settled a civil suit and has given his blessing for the film to be completed (with him as EP, of course). The armorer is straight fucked, though.

[C-Man 27214]

3 minutes ago, Red Five said:

It's tough to make sense out any of it. Do they still not know how a live round got on set?

Incompetent armorer + unprofessional production = tragedy

[Augustus 3061]

1 minute ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Cliffs notes is that actors are apparently inherently untrustworthy around firearms and the industry has adopted rules that would be considered unsafe in any other situation regarding firearms where the actors are not allowed to do anything but pick up the gun and shoot/pretend to shoot it. The armorer tells them whether it is safe to do so. Alec was practicing his fast draw for a scene and shot the cinematographer and the other dude because apparently it was actually loaded with live rounds.

 

So we're probably talking about a single action revolver and the dumbass had his finger depressing the trigger without realizing it so when he pulled the hammer...boom.  And that would explain why he thinks he didn't "pull" the trigger.

Seems like fault would have to lie with whoever loaded the weapon.  But the actors ought to be trained to check them anyway.

[Augustus 3061]

1 minute ago, C-Man said:

I think they were rehearsing the scene and not actually filming at the time of the accident.

I'm no Surly Lawdog but I'm wondering how he can be charged criminally with involuntary manslaughter -- guess you can charge anybody but convicting is another story, especially when the victim's husband has settled a civil suit and has given his blessing for the film to be completed (with him as EP, of course). The armorer is straight fucked, though.

I'd imagine even the actors are held responsible for ensuring their weapon isn't loaded with live rounds before they start shooting all over the place.  If so, then he was negligent.

[Gene Parmesan 4005]

Can't imagine they get a conviction unless he's the one who brought a live round on set.  I assume that's a big no no, but maybe it's common.  In other accidental deaths like Brandon Lee was anyone charged?

[Red Five 40852]

1 minute ago, Augustus said:

I'd imagine even the actors are held responsible for ensuring their weapon isn't loaded with live rounds before they start shooting all over the place.  If so, then he was negligent.

I don't believe this is the case. 

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4976]

4 minutes ago, Augustus said:

 

So we're probably talking about a single action revolver and the dumbass had his finger depressing the trigger without realizing it so when he pulled the hammer...boom.  And that would explain why he thinks he didn't "pull" the trigger.

Seems like fault would have to lie with whoever loaded the weapon.  But the actors ought to be trained to check them anyway.

Yep. I believe it was a Pietta repro, so it could have been a three click or a four click, not that it matters. Wheel gun goes boom.

3 minutes ago, Augustus said:

I'd imagine even the actors are held responsible for ensuring their weapon isn't loaded with live rounds before they start shooting all over the place.  If so, then he was negligent.

Apparently they aren't allowed get anywhere close to the boomy bits. They are supposed to trust the armorer, which is insane.

[Augustus 3061]

4 minutes ago, Red Five said:

I don't believe this is the case. 

How any human being, anywhere can point a loaded gun at someone and pull the trigger,  and not be responsible for knowing whether it's loaded or not would be beyond me.

[AUS-97HORN 11757]

1 hour ago, HouTex said:

Sorry if it’s been covered ad nauseam, but did Baldwin have any reason to believe there was a live round in the weapon?  I have not read the statute but can’t he assume that any gun on the set would not be loaded with a live round?  He’s still a dumb ass though.   

 

1 item that may have been overlooked and is in my mind a primary reason he is being charged, is he was one of, if not, the producer of the movie, which means decisions about the movie (incl hiring an obviously woefully too young and unqualified armorer) fell on his decision making shoulders.  

I thinks thats the angle they are going after him- rather than as the actual trigger puller

[GoPokes83 2240]

You think they're going to put the cinematographer and director being shot, into the movie? 

Scene as in location, or the scene they were practicing.

[0xdeadbeef 1648]

We've been through this shit, let's not rehash it all again.

Sometimes on a movie sets they use various blanks and dummy rounds.  Many guns need a firing pin to make a small bang and some smoke; telling an actor to "pretend the gun recoiled"  will make your movie look like a high school production.   There are all kinds of scenarios that require different tools.  If you need to shoot a front closeup of a western revolver, you don't want a bright orange safety tip showing.

As was posted a dozen pages back, some rounds look like the real thing, but simply have no powder and a dummy primer.  A actor isn't going to know the difference.   It hasn't been released what exactly the scene they were shooting called for, as far as I know, so we don't know what was appropriate.  But we can know that a live round had NO business being there and whoever lead to that should have be charged. 

It will be interesting to see if Bladwin was pressing folks as Producer to go faster and cut corners; that would be my guess why he's being charged.    I wonder if the assistance director (who handed Baldwin the gun and said it was clear) who cut a deal opened up on Baldwin-the-Producer.  

 

Edited January 19, 2023 by 0xdeadbeef

[Nicole44 22059]

53 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Incompetent armorer + unprofessional production = tragedy

Absolutely. Reckless indifference at best. 

[Nicole44 22059]

4 minutes ago, 0xdeadbeef said:

 

 

It will be interesting to see if Bladwin was pressing folks as Producer to go faster and cut corners; that would be my guess why he's being charged.    I wonder of the assistance director (who handed Baldwin the gun and said it was clear) who cut a deal opened up on Baldwin-the-Producer.  

 

I was thinking reckless indifference or something close because many articles I read at the time were suggesting what I quoted from your post. That corners were cut and things were fast and loose on the set because of it.

[Red Five 40852]

Wasn't Baldwin's production company one of many? It's not like he was interviewing and hiring armorers. 

[0xdeadbeef 1648]

6 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Wasn't Baldwin's production company one of many? It's not like he was interviewing and hiring armorers. 

It was certainly spun that his company was just one of many after the incident. 

The sheriff and DA have access to all emails and text messages, so they must have found a smoking gun.

Edited January 19, 2023 by 0xdeadbeef

[Deej 76759]

"Rookies!"

 

[Trey3216 15346]

1 hour ago, C-Man said:

I think they were rehearsing the scene and not actually filming at the time of the accident.

I'm no Surly Lawdog but I'm wondering how he can be charged criminally with involuntary manslaughter -- guess you can charge anybody but convicting is another story, especially when the victim's husband has settled a civil suit and has given his blessing for the film to be completed (with him as EP, of course). The armorer is straight fucked, though.

YEah, the likelihood of him being charged is extremely low.  They probably just needed to get some cases on the docket to help pay for some local judiciary salaries.  

[DixonHur 11296]

1 hour ago, Augustus said:

How any human being, anywhere can point a loaded gun at someone and pull the trigger,  and not be responsible for knowing whether it's loaded or not would be beyond me.

Why would he assume anything other than that it was unloaded?  Movies are supposed to be make believe.  There is no legitimate reason for a live round to be anywhere near that set.  In my opinion the armorer is the only one at fault here.  

37 minutes ago, 0xdeadbeef said:

It will be interesting to see if Bladwin was pressing folks as Producer to go faster and cut corners; that would be my guess why he's being charged.    I wonder if the assistance director (who handed Baldwin the gun and said it was clear) who cut a deal opened up on Baldwin-the-Producer.  

That's not how it works.  Baldwin's production company was a "producer" because he was in the movie.  The movie probably got funded because his name was attached so he wanted a producer credit.  It's pretty common for well-known actors to ask for a producer credit when they are the lead in a movie.  Especially indie films.  It just means they get a cut of the revenue and a credit on producer credit on IMDB.

[Herpa Derpa 6125]

35 minutes ago, 0xdeadbeef said:

It was certainly spun that his company was just one of many after the incident. 

The sheriff and DA have access to all emails and text messages, so they must have found a smoking gun.

ISWYDT. But I doubt it. 

Here's an article with some quotes from the DA. BTW, this is not a DA looking to score against the dirty Hollywood scum. Former public defender and her background would not tend to put her at odds with Baldwin's politics.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/19/us/santa-fe-alec-baldwin-rust-charged/index.html

Don't know the statute, or what the DA has, but its pretty simple to me. He was handed a real gun, didn't confirm it was unloaded/safe, and pointed it at another person. I don't care if there is an armorer, that will always be wrong.

Edited January 19, 2023 by Herpa Derpa
forgot link

[Herpa Derpa 6125]

2 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Why would he assume anything other than that it was unloaded?  Movies are supposed to be make believe.  There is no legitimate reason for a live round to be anywhere near that set.  In my opinion the armorer is the only one at fault here.  

That's not how it works.  Baldwin's production company was a "producer" because he was in the movie.  The movie probably got funded because his name was attached so he wanted a producer credit.  It's pretty common for well-known actors to ask for a producer credit when they are the lead in a movie.  Especially indie films.  It just means they get a cut of the revenue and a credit on producer credit on IMDB.

What is put on film and shown on the screen is make believe. What you are doing on a set is not, it is a work site. And Baldwin was a paid worker on that site that behaved in such a manner that another worker died. That's not make believe. That's a workplace incident that requires accountability by those in charge and those responsible for the death. Baldwin happens to be both, though I do agree the "producer" line is probably just a contract title. But this isn't the same as Brandon Lee or Jon-Erik Hexum, both of whom died because of their own stupid fuckery because they didn't understand blanks will kill when you put the nozzle to your temple. This was a live bullet in a working gun on an active set. Someone fucked up bad. And the entire chain of responsibility to make sure that fuck-up didn't happen failed, including Baldwin's failure to engage in proper safety protocols by knowing the weapon he was pointing at another human being to avoid such a tragic outcome. He's not being charged with murder, he's being charged with involuntary manslaughter, which is probably the correct charge given the known circumstances.

[Red Five 40852]

Question from someone who knows nothing about guns. Had Baldwin decided to check the bullet (which as I understand it, is not customary), would he have been able to tell that it was real? 

[MonkeyDoughnut 10232]

The assistant directory who handed the gun to Baldwin and said it was "cold" (no live ammo) already pleaded to negligent firearm use or such for 6 months probation and will testify for the state.  I'm not sure how/why Baldwin is getting charged in this unless they are going after his Producer role in things. Seems like from an actor standpoint he's got multiple people telling him the ammo is fake.

 

For ammo check, shaking would tell if real or not based on rattling sound.

[0xdeadbeef 1648]

25 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Question from someone who knows nothing about guns. Had Baldwin decided to check the bullet (which as I understand it, is not customary), would he have been able to tell that it was real? 

There are a few edge cases where a movie round has to look exactly like the real thing. Think closeup of loading a gun.  But those cases are rare, and if it looks real, it should be treated like the real thing.   

We still don't know the exact scene they were working on, but if the actor need to load real-looking ammo, fine, BUT there needed to be a 'cut', a gun-swap, and a visual confirmation of fake/blank/dummy/plastic ammo before getting to the part where the gun is pointed at the camera part. 

It more-than-likely didn't require real looking ammo for what they were rehearsing, so Baldwin _should_ have looked at the gun and said "Hey, this looks like real ammo, can we get the plastic stuff".  Not doing that is just crazy. 

 

 

 

[RomaVicta 29905]

3 hours ago, Augustus said:

I'd imagine even the actors are held responsible for ensuring their weapon isn't loaded with live rounds before they start shooting all over the place.  If so, then he was negligent.

There are two checks of a weapon before it is even handed to an actor. The armorer ensures the weapon is safe, and then the first AD (Assistant Director who acts as something of foreman on a set) asks the armorer and, I believe, is supposed to be shown that the weapon is safe.

At the time of the incident, there were reports of lax gun security on set. I think the armorer wasn't experienced. 

I also recall that the incident occured during a camera rehearsal when the scene's blocking and action are gone through before rolling film.

Blaming Baldwin is stupid. He was clearly shattered by the accident. People with political axes to grind muddied the story to score hits on someone they don't like and rouse the usual angry suspects.

I don't know the law well enough to know the implications of this manslaughter charge. It seems legally fair that the person who was holding the weapon be investigated and part of the charge in order to let a jury decide.

The repeated, "I was taught from a young age that all guns are loaded" was tedious and inapt then just as it will be now. 

It was a horrible accident. Somebody may have to be held accountable. I doubt Baldwin is the right guy.

Edited January 19, 2023 by RomaVicta

[RomaVicta 29905]

1 hour ago, Deej said:

"Rookies!"

 

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4976]

15 minutes ago, 0xdeadbeef said:

There are a few edge cases where a movie round has to look exactly like the real thing. Think closeup of loading a gun.  But those cases are rare, and if it looks real, it should be treated like the real thing.   

We still don't know the exact scene they were working on, but if the actor need to load real-looking ammo, fine, BUT there needed to be a 'cut', a gun-swap, and a visual confirmation of fake/blank/dummy/plastic ammo before getting to the part where the gun is pointed at the camera part. 

It more-than-likely didn't require real looking ammo for what they were rehearsing, so Baldwin _should_ have looked at the gun and said "Hey, this looks like real ammo, can we get the plastic stuff".  Not doing that is just crazy. 

 

 

 

Since you can see the bullets in the cylinder when a single action revolver is pointed at the camera, that would be one of those situations. Color coding the base or the round depending on whether it is a dummy or blank would be a real easy thing for people to be able to check without having to physically remove the round from the weapon.

[RomaVicta 29905]

2 hours ago, AUS-97HORN said:

 

1 item that may have been overlooked and is in my mind a primary reason he is being charged, is he was one of, if not, the producer of the movie, which means decisions about the movie (incl hiring an obviously woefully too young and unqualified armorer) fell on his decision making shoulders.  

I thinks thats the angle they are going after him- rather than as the actual trigger puller

The producer angle was brought up to the muddy the waters as well. I'm not saying you are doing that.

Look at a list of a producers for any movie. They don't make the kind of producorial decision that you describe. That person is the Unit Production Manager. Actors who get producer credits usually have them so they can be included in creative meetings. They leave crew decisions to the UPM.

[RomaVicta 29905]

2 hours ago, Nicole44 said:

I was thinking reckless indifference or something close because many articles I read at the time were suggesting what I quoted from your post. That corners were cut and things were fast and loose on the set because of it.

Again, Baldwin wouldn't have cared. He's getting a fee to be in the movie. He is not investing money. He gets paid no matter what and that happens on the first day of production. In fact, he'd want the production to be managed for greatest creative output because that's what reflects upon him.

The investors, who are also usually credited as producers, would be concerned. Some people get producer credits for just connecting a script with an actor or director. They are long gone before shooting starts.