Alec Baldwin shoots and kills cinematographer.

Here you go, all you "poor Alec" folks, another article, buried in here was a quote from a cameraman who said (paraphrased): Alec was very worried about gun safety on the set, he would ask me before a scene where I was going to be located, I would say: over there, he would say good.

So he was very careful with guns, until you know, he pointed it at this lady, and pulled the trigger, oooops, he must've forgot.

Hall, the guy who said the gun was "cold", noticed that there were 3 rounds in the gun, but didn't bother to check them.

Bits and pieces of truth are in this story, the truth generally always comes out.

Halyna Hutchins' last words revealed after being shot by Alec Baldwin (nypost.com)
 
The industry standards for handling firearms on set.

https://www.csatf.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/01FIREARMS.pdf

Several people have said that Alec was just an actor and probably hadn’t been trained on firearm safety, they should find this paragraph interesting.

“No one shall be issued a firearm until he or she is trained in safe handling, safe use, the safety lock, and proper firing procedures. If there are any questions as to the competency of the person who will use the firearm, the Property Master (or, in his/her absence, the weapons handler and/or other appropriate personnel determined by the locality or the needs of the production) shall determine if additional training is required.”
 
I don't have personal opinions on Baldwin. Seems like a good actor. I really like beetle juice. And that is about as current is my movie watching experience is.

I had the thought. If this was a scene in which he as an actor was to commit suicide for the role, would he have checked the weapon first?
Just a thought. Not sure what to do with the thought at this time.
 
bflynn said:
Baldwin says it was a 1 in a trillion event. Are we supposed to say it’s OK because it’s rare? Oh, in that case, pilots practically never have heart attacks while flying, let’s not bother with them.

Still he’s exaggerating, it’s happened a half dozen times in the past 30 years.

If you follow gun safety, it’s a 1 in a never event.
Click to expand...
I’ll buy in on that no medical idea.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
I don't have personal opinions on Baldwin. Seems like a good actor. I really like beetle juice. And that is about as current is my movie watching experience is.

I had the thought. If this was a scene in which he as an actor was to commit suicide for the role, would he have checked the weapon first?
Just a thought. Not sure what to do with the thought at this time.
Click to expand...
I dunno. Unfortunately the cat is out of the bag and if it happens in the future I’m sure he’s checking…
 
Wheels said:
The industry standards for handling firearms on set.

https://www.csatf.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/01FIREARMS.pdf

Several people have said that Alec was just an actor and probably hadn’t been trained on firearm safety, they should find this paragraph interesting.

“No one shall be issued a firearm until he or she is trained in safe handling, safe use, the safety lock, and proper firing procedures. If there are any questions as to the competency of the person who will use the firearm, the Property Master (or, in his/her absence, the weapons handler and/or other appropriate personnel determined by the locality or the needs of the production) shall determine if additional training is required.”
Click to expand...

As Scooby Doo, another famous actor might say, “Rut-Row!”

Cheers.
 
Last edited:
Wheels said:
The industry standards for handling firearms on set.

https://www.csatf.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/01FIREARMS.pdf

Several people have said that Alec was just an actor and probably hadn’t been trained on firearm safety, they should find this paragraph interesting.

“No one shall be issued a firearm until he or she is trained in safe handling, safe use, the safety lock, and proper firing procedures. If there are any questions as to the competency of the person who will use the firearm, the Property Master (or, in his/her absence, the weapons handler and/or other appropriate personnel determined by the locality or the needs of the production) shall determine if additional training is required.”
Click to expand...
Literally Rule #1, for everyone who said it's totally cool and necessary and actors point guns at people all the time:

Screenshot_20211103-173219_Adobe Acrobat.jpg
 
Robert Gee said:
The opposite of projection is empathy so I'm not sure what to think you are suffering from BUT, the truth is no one has said "poor Alec." I haven't seen any sympathy either.
If some of us feel a bit of empathy for him its because we know we are not perfect beings.
Click to expand...

I'm suffering from a dead mother of one unnecessarily shot and killed due to a litany of wrong moves by several, if not many people that culminated with Alec drawing a pistol, pointing it at the now deceased woman, and pulling the trigger, killing her. That is inexcusable and there is absolutely no reason for that gun to have been pointed at anyone. It was a rehearsal. The words "poor alec" may not have been used, but there are at least a few posts attempting to justify or rationalize his action here. It was a real gun, it should not have been pointed at anyone, never mind pointed and trigger pulled, unless it was carefully staged and checked by all parties in the danger zone to confirm it was safe. Like I said, inexcusable.

I had a little empathy for him until I saw the impromptu interview he gave where he seemed like he was almost talking about the incident in the third person and his wife was outraged at the press' intrigue as to why he was in Vermont. While I understand that he has probably been instructed not to apologize or imply that he had any culpability in the death of this woman. He probably also was instructed not to give press conferences. He should have heeded that advice, or if he wasn't given the instruction, he should fire his attorney.

We all make mistakes, but another poster just recently asked the question as to whether Alec would have put that gun to his head and pulled the trigger without checking it first. I suspect the answer is a resounding no.

My feeling is that Alec did not do this on purpose, point the gun at the lady and pull the trigger to kill her. Although hopefully what happened will truthfully come out. I don't believe he knew there was a live round in the gun. But I still think he should be charged with involuntary homicide or whatever the legal term is, with a sentence of not being allowed near a real firearm again in his life and maybe probation if found guilty.

If it turns out that he had been arguing with this woman before this incident, I think the penalty should be more severe.
 
Im glad to see you are moved by the needless loss of a life.
PaulS said:
I'm suffering from a dead mother of one unnecessarily shot and killed due to a litany of wrong moves by several, if not many people that culminated with Alec drawing a pistol, pointing it at the now deceased woman, and pulling the trigger, killing her. That is inexcusable and there is absolutely no reason for that gun to have been pointed at anyone. It was a rehearsal. The words "poor alec" may not have been used, but there are at least a few posts attempting to justify or rationalize his action here. It was a real gun, it should not have been pointed at anyone, never mind pointed and trigger pulled, unless it was carefully staged and checked by all parties in the danger zone to confirm it was safe. Like I said, inexcusable.

I had a little empathy for him until I saw the impromptu interview he gave where he seemed like he was almost talking about the incident in the third person and his wife was outraged at the press' intrigue as to why he was in Vermont. While I understand that he has probably been instructed not to apologize or imply that he had any culpability in the death of this woman. He probably also was instructed not to give press conferences. He should have heeded that advice, or if he wasn't given the instruction, he should fire his attorney.

We all make mistakes, but another poster just recently asked the question as to whether Alec would have put that gun to his head and pulled the trigger without checking it first. I suspect the answer is a resounding no.

My feeling is that Alec did not do this on purpose, point the gun at the lady and pull the trigger to kill her. Although hopefully what happened will truthfully come out. I don't believe he knew there was a live round in the gun. But I still think he should be charged with involuntary homicide or whatever the legal term is, with a sentence of not being allowed near a real firearm again in his life and maybe probation if found guilty.

If it turns out that he had been arguing with this woman before this incident, I think the penalty should be more severe.
Click to expand...
 
Daleandee said:
I'm an actor now ... just ain't nobody taking pictures of it. :)

Did spend some time in media classes and former employment meant some TV camera time but nothing that really counts.

As William said, "All the world's a stage ... "
Click to expand...
And if the reviews don’t get better, I’m closing the show.
 
PaulS said:
If it turns out that he had been arguing with this woman before this incident, I think the penalty should be more severe.
Click to expand...

What difference does that fact make? Unless you think he intentionally shot her, what does a prior argument with her have to do with anything?
 
PPC1052 said:
What difference does that fact make? Unless you think he intentionally shot her, what does a prior argument with her have to do with anything?
Click to expand...


I think it has a lot of relevance. If they did have it out, was he trying to put a scare in her by pointing the gun at her? He is a publicly documented hot head. Did he know the gun had a live round? I can't imagine this would be true, but there are a lot of whack a doodles out there and he is on the whacky side of the scale.
 
Attorney for Rust armorer suggests sabotage on set of Baldwin shooting
Lawyer for Hannah Gutierrez says ‘disgruntled’ person could have placed live round in box of dummy rounds

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...tage-baldwin-live-round?CMP=oth_b-aplnews_d-1

The attorney "said Gutierrez had checked the gun before giving it to Halls. She spun the cylinder and showed Halls each of the rounds, which she believed were six dummy rounds, he said. Halls then took the gun into the church where Baldwin was rehearsing a scene."​

Could failure to detect a real bullet while doing that be a result of inexperience?
 
Allegedly, during the filming of The Deer Hunter,

“De Niro requested a live cartridge in the revolver for the scene in which he subjects John Cazale's character to an impromptu game of Russian roulette, to heighten the intensity of the situation. Cazale agreed without protest, but obsessively rechecked the gun before each take to make sure that the live round wasn't next in the chamber”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Deer_Hunter#Vietnam_and_the_Russian_roulette_scenes
 
Palmpilot said:
Attorney for Rust armorer suggests sabotage on set of Baldwin shooting
Lawyer for Hannah Gutierrez says ‘disgruntled’ person could have placed live round in box of dummy rounds

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...tage-baldwin-live-round?CMP=oth_b-aplnews_d-1

The attorney "said Gutierrez had checked the gun before giving it to Halls. She spun the cylinder and showed Halls each of the rounds, which she believed were six dummy rounds, he said. Halls then took the gun into the church where Baldwin was rehearsing a scene."​

Could failure to detect a real bullet while doing that be a result of inexperience?
Click to expand...


This is a different story from what supposedly the AD said, where he grabbed the gun directly from a nearby table that had three guns on it. This story still has a lot of inconsistency in it. But if what Gutierrez says is true, why was anything not associated with the gun not secure?
 
PaulS said:
PPC1052 said:
What difference does that fact make? Unless you think he intentionally shot her, what does a prior argument with her have to do with anything?
Click to expand...
I think it has a lot of relevance. If they did have it out, was he trying to put a scare in her by pointing the gun at her?
Click to expand...

*If* this is the case, I think it has relevance as well. It would mean that he was using the gun as something other than a movie prop. IF, of course.

We've had some discussions regarding the way older movies and TV shows handled weapons. Was amused by this scene from the old "Combat" series. The actor is shooting a BAR directly at the camera, in full auto*.
combat2.jpg
I'm sure there were massive safety precautions taken. Lots of automatic weapons in that series; it's impressive that the armorers were able to get them all to function reliably while shooting blanks.

Ron Wanttaja

* In bursts, of course...
 
ElPaso Pilot said:
Allegedly, during the filming of The Deer Hunter,

“De Niro requested a live cartridge in the revolver for the scene in which he subjects John Cazale's character to an impromptu game of Russian roulette, to heighten the intensity of the situation. Cazale agreed without protest, but obsessively rechecked the gun before each take to make sure that the live round wasn't next in the chamber”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Deer_Hunter#Vietnam_and_the_Russian_roulette_scenes
Click to expand...

Not a choice I would have made, for several good reasons, one of which is that revolver cylinders don't all rotate in the same direction. Colts rotate in the correct direction, Smiths rotate the wrong way. :)
 
GaryM said:
Not a choice I would have made, for several good reasons, one of which is that revolver cylinders don't all rotate in the same direction. Colts rotate in the correct direction, Smiths rotate the wrong way. :)
Click to expand...
Unless you normally carry a Smith & Wesson, in which case the Colts are all wrong.

Says the guy with both S&W and a Webley.
 
ElPaso Pilot said:
Allegedly, during the filming of The Deer Hunter,

“De Niro requested a live cartridge in the revolver for the scene in which he subjects John Cazale's character to an impromptu game of Russian roulette, to heighten the intensity of the situation. Cazale agreed without protest, but obsessively rechecked the gun before each take to make sure that the live round wasn't next in the chamber”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Deer_Hunter#Vietnam_and_the_Russian_roulette_scenes
Click to expand...

That's just stupid. I can't remember the actor, but when someone ask them if they actually "became" the character they were portraying, along the lines of method acting, they said "No, that's why they call it acting".
 
Thanks for the illustrations. I'm really not a fan of dimpled primers as the only indication that the round is a dummy. Light primer strikes aren't uncommon with a lot of guns (weak hammer springs, worn firing pins, primer not fully seated until the first strike drives it a little deeper into the case), and a LOT of times dropping the hammer on that round a second time will cause it to fire. Even assembling a powderless round on top of a dimpled primer can result in the bullet being driven forward to stick in the barrel if the primer (only) fires.

Leave the primer out, or replace it with a plug of rubber. And color or drill the case in a way that won't be obvious on film.
 
A very good analysis by a lawyer who knows what he's talking about (in stark contrast to all of us), with input from actual film armourers.

 
Lost me when he said this is speculative and hypothetical and we really don’t know what happened…but then goes into a narrative of what happened lol
 
Katamarino said:
A very good analysis by a lawyer who knows what he's talking about (in stark contrast to all of us), with input from actual film armourers.

Click to expand...
If you don’t know what you’re talking about how do you know he does?
 
Warlock said:
Lost me when he said this is speculative and hypothetical and we really don’t know what happened…but then goes into a narrative of what happened lol
Click to expand...

I spot checked the video ... didn't take too long to figure out he really had nothing much to add. ... yawn ...
 
Salty said:
If you don’t know what you’re talking about how do you know he does?
Click to expand...

He's a well known lawyer with solid credentials, talking about the law.

Your statement is bizarre. It's like asking a new flight student "If you don't know how to fly, how do you know that a flight instructor does?"
 
Katamarino said:
He's a well known lawyer with solid credentials, talking about the law.

Your statement is bizarre. It's like asking a new flight student "If you don't know how to fly, how do you know that a flight instructor does?"
Click to expand...
Just because someone has more training or experience in a subject than you do, does not mean every opinion they have on the subject is correct.
 
Katamarino said:
He's a well known lawyer with solid credentials, talking about the law.

Your statement is bizarre. It's like asking a new flight student "If you don't know how to fly, how do you know that a flight instructor does?"
Click to expand...
That is a common problem. It’s hard to find a good instructor if you don’t know how to fly.
 
Katamarino said:
He's a well known lawyer with solid credentials, talking about the law.

Your statement is bizarre. It's like asking a new flight student "If you don't know how to fly, how do you know that a flight instructor does?"
Click to expand...
It is like that. And the odds of throwing a dart and hitting a lousy lawyer are at least as good as throwing a dart and hitting a lousy CFI.
 
Salty said:
Just because someone has more training or experience in a subject than you do, does not mean every opinion they have on the subject is correct.
Click to expand...
They have a far greater chance of being correct than someone who doesn't have said training or experience.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
They have a far greater chance of being correct than someone who doesn't have said training or experience.
Click to expand...
Probably. But it doesn’t mean they are right.
 
Salty said:
Probably. But it doesn’t mean they are right.
Click to expand...
Doesn't mean they are wrong, either until events or better information show otherwise.
I don't know what work you do, but you are presumably an expert at it. Are YOU wrong more often than you are right?
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Doesn't mean they are wrong, either until events or better information show otherwise.
I don't know what work you do, but you are presumably an expert at it. Are YOU wrong more often than you are right?
Click to expand...
This case isn’t actually his. It’s not his job. He’s a YouTube moron. His job is to get you to watch, not to be right. Did you watch? I didn’t. So he failed in this case.
 
I'm imagining lawyers arguing on the internet: "This Gryder guy has formal training in airplanes and years of experience. Plus he gives his opinions on YouTube. I will assume he's correct unless you can prove him wrong!" :confused:
 
Salty said:
This case isn’t actually his. It’s not his job. He’s a YouTube moron. His job is to get you to watch, not to be right. Did you watch? I didn’t. So he failed in this case.
Click to expand...
How do you know might not be correct if you didn't watch it?
Again, are you wrong more often that you are right?

Lindberg said:
I'm imagining lawyers arguing on the internet: "This Gryder guy has formal training in airplanes and years of experience. Plus he gives his opinions on YouTube. I will assume he's correct unless you can prove him wrong!" :confused:
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure another lawyer has the knowledge to know whether another person posting on YT is a BS'er. Just as most of us here can get a sense whether an aviation video is BS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top