Crew member killed when shot by prop gun on set of Baldwin movie

[wcd]

A prop that imitates a weapon, and is capable of firing and killing a person.


Am I saying it’s 100% his fault? Depends. It was said he was the producer of the film and fired the person in charge of props, and continued using the props without one. If that’s the case, yes, it’s 100% his fault.


We shall see, although I’m skeptical investigators will admit it’s his negligence if it is. Hollywood has their own set of laws, as we know.

As does Washington rules are for thee not for me!

 

[BugI02]

It's a movie set. He wasn't holding a weapon, he was holding a prop.

No , he was holding a functional firearm. He shot and killed someone

None of my firearms become props if I load them with blanks

 

[BugI02]

Benefit of the doubt of what? That he didn't pull the trigger? That he didn't have it pointed in the direction of a human being?
Since that is what is being reported - that he was handling a firearm at the time said firearm shot 2 other people, exactly what does he get the benefit of the doubt for?

This^^^. Anything less is analogous to excusing the drunk driver who kills someone because the armorer should have taken his keys or given him a car with an empty tank

 

[singlestacksig]

'Rust' crew describes on-set gun safety issues and misfires days before fatal shooting

At least one of the camera operators complained last weekend to production managers about gun safety on the set.

www.latimes.com

 

[Shadow01]

It's a movie set. He wasn't holding a weapon, he was holding a prop.

So a “prop” is capable of firing real ammunition? That tells me it is a real gun.

 

[Shadow01]

Nope. That's what armorers are for.

But why don't we wait for the investigation to be complete?

So the salesman at the gun store is responsible for I handle my weapon?

 

[BugI02]

Were there any cameras running for this....?????

Yes, they were filming a scene. It seems possible, based on the sketchy information so far, that someone(s) were shot through the camera. I assume it is digital, though, so the footage up to a fraction of a second before the camera was damaged should be available

 

[manifest destiny]

'Rust' crew describes on-set gun safety issues and misfires days before fatal shooting

At least one of the camera operators complained last weekend to production managers about gun safety on the set.

www.latimes.com

If the parts, pieces and tidbits of information in this article are true somebody is ephed.

 

[Sylvain]

Wow. The first details finally come out. And it's from a source across the pond. And what kind of gun shoots two people, the set and leaves glass everywhere (unless shot more than once)?

You can easily shoot two people with one bullet.
The blast of a single gunshot can damage glass and cameras, it doesn't have to be hit by a bullet.

We don't know if a pistol was used, a rifle or a shotgun ...

 

[JCSR]

https://www.latimes.com/entertainme...-22/alec-baldwin-rust-camera-crew-walked-off-

Confirmed by someone in the industry.

"And it’s also important to note that the entire camera department (Minus the DP and B cam operator) quit the day before due to safety concerns and payroll issues. So there was already a track record of unsafe practices before this happened."

 

[manifest destiny]

Now when will they describe, in detail, this "prop"? The LA Times story quoted "misfires" from said "prop". Oh, really...

 

[hoosierdoc]

So a “prop” is capable of firing real ammunition? That tells me it is a real gun.

Right, a gun that is a prop is diff than a "prop gun" by my understanding

 

[wcd]

Right, a gun that is a prop is diff than a "prop gun" by my understanding

My understanding which may not be accurate, regardless a prop gun is just that a prop, a replica incapable of firing. I believe that is one of the ways Hollyweird is able to get around prohibited persons giving the appearance that they are using real firearms.

 

[bwframe]

Doesn't really matter what the contraption is called. There was a death and injury.

This is a safety violation. No one, at their job, should be exposed to negligence such as this.

There are people accountable for this, more than just one.

Would it be any differerent if the "prop" was a sword? Even an "unloaded" sword that killed and injured?

 

[hoosierdoc]

Doesn't really matter what the contraption is called. There was a death and injury.

This is a safety violation. No one, at their job, should be exposed to negligence such as this.

There are people accountable for this, more than just one.

Would it be any differerent if the "prop" was a sword? Even an unloaded sword that killed and injured?

Given CGI use today, it seems to be safe all gunfire could be CGI

 

[qwerty]

The woman Alec Baldwin killed

donsurber.blogspot.com

 

[wcd]

Doesn't really matter what the contraption is called. There was a death and injury.

This is a safety violation. No one, at their job, should be exposed to negligence such as this.

There are people accountable for this, more than just one.

Would it be any differerent if the "prop" was a sword? Even an "unloaded" sword that killed and injured?

Yes it would be different. It would not be able to be used in a perverse manner to further their agenda.

 

[Alpo]

So the salesman at the gun store is responsible for I handle my weapon?

comparison fallacy

 

[Ark]

I thought we usually believed that the gun was a neutral tool and it is the operator who is responsible for what is done with it

Unless you're a famous lefty, I guess

The issue is that a prop gun and prop ammunition is not handed to an actor with the instruction that it is a deadly weapon and a dangerous tool. It is handed to them as a stage prop that is safe to point at and shoot other people with.

I just don't see any negligence on the part of a person who is operating a safe movie prop in a manner understood to be safe. Going back to the exploding sandwich example, it's like blaming the Doordash guy for delivering you a sandwich that he had no reason to believe was any different than the dozen other sandwiches he delivered in the last hour. The fault is with the person who put the bomb in the sandwich.

If someone broke into my house and rewired my light switch so that turning it on electrocutes the downstairs neighbor in his shower, am I the negligent one for flipping the switch instead of smashing open the drywall to see what it was wired to first? Of course not.

As a producer on the movie, though, Baldwin could very well catch liability for this from the position of it being "his" production, even if he is cleared of his personal liability under the accident defense. An investigation will, presumably, discover the exact chain of how this happened and open the door to various actions under the umbrella of "unsafe conditions and practices". So he could pay up for the bullet getting into the gun, even if he doesn't for pulling the trigger.

 

[bwframe]

Yes it would be different. It would not be able to be used in a perverse manner to further their agenda.

I think this will not further their agenda. I think it will be the opposite.

Lot more gun owners than ever now. And "we" are a lot more educated than ever also.

On top of that, everyone knows Baldwin and the way he is.

Then there is the union angle. They cannot let this just fade away.

This isn't about guns, it's about negligence. The crew of this movie set is guilty of negligence. Maybe all of them? Except those who walked off the set, knowing it.