Alec Baldwin shoots and kills a woman, injures a man.

Page 31 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
69,519
4,941
126
You are completely hand waiving away Baldwin's responsibility in safe handling of firearms!

Why isn't understanding and following safety procedures part of his job, even as just an actor? Completely absurd.

How do we have hours and hours of TV and movies produced every week and no one else is killing anyone?

This was a half assed, idiotic and incompetent operation that killed someone.

In what other business would this be acceptable?
You are just being silly at this point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ivwshane

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
11,561
6,419
136
You are completely hand waiving away Baldwin's responsibility in safe handling of firearms!

Why isn't understanding and following safety procedures part of his job, even as just an actor? Completely absurd.

How do we have hours and hours of TV and movies produced every week and no one else is killing anyone?

This was a half assed, idiotic and incompetent operation that killed someone.

In what other business would this be acceptable?

I think I mostly agree with you, but I really find it hard to work out exactly how much blame belongs with each participant in this fiasco.

I just read this

Which just makes me relieved I'm not on the jury, as the sheer amount of mental work it's going to involve to follow the events and decide how to interpret them is exhausting to think about.

It seems to imply there's a real mystery about how live rounds came to be mixed in with the blanks and fake rounds. And also implies it's not necessarily true that crew members were shooting live rounds as recreational on-set. Plus yet more discussion over whether this gun could fire without a trigger-pull (something I'm entirely confused about at this point).

Seems a big part of it was the attempt to do everything on the cheap, and hence people had multiple jobs, including the armourer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: igor_kavinski

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
16,729
14,816
136
I think I mostly agree with you, but I really find it hard to work out exactly how much blame belongs with each participant in this fiasco.

I just read this

Which just makes me relieved I'm not on the jury, as the sheer amount of mental work it's going to involve to follow the events and decide how to interpret them is exhausting to think about.

It seems to imply there's a real mystery about how live rounds came to be mixed in with the blanks and fake rounds. And also implies it's not necessarily true that crew members were shooting live rounds as recreational on-set. Plus yet more discussion over whether this gun could fire without a trigger-pull (something I'm entirely confused about at this point).

Seems a big part of it was the attempt to do everything on the cheap, and hence people had multiple jobs, including the armourer.
Except nobody was saying this was acceptable, as per Bitek.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
15,283
12,358
136
Even if they do, still doesn't make a good case for safety and competence.

Alternate scenario, non-Hollywood:

I want to buy a gun, I go to Cabela's or my local gun store, see something in the case, and ask the salesman if a can handle it.

He takes it out of the case and gives it to me.

Is it ok for me to waive the gun at the people in the store? Ok to pull the trigger? Point it at my face to look at the barrel?
Do you want to be a customer in a store like that? Why not?

What if the salesmen first said it's unloaded?
Ok then? Just trust him?

If he checks it, says it's unloaded, do I still check it?
Yes I fing do.

Do I ever point it at anyone?
No.

Do I ask where is ok to point it, and if it's ok to dry fire it, even after verifying it's empty?
Yes

Do you ever want to be a shopper in a store where these rules are not followed and enforced?
I wouldn't.
I think your argument is unncessary. Because IMO Baldwin was negligent in the manner that would make him civilly liable. I just don't think any of it rises to the level of criminal negligence.

Waving a gun around that a store owner gave you is negligent, but what it isn't, is reckless. It's only reckless if you knew or had good reason to believe it was loaded. If the subsantial likelihood is that it wasn't loaded, but there was a very small chance it was, that's ordinary civil negligence. Those who fail to account for extremely low risks of nonetheless major calamities are generally civilly negligent. That is the exact situation here.

I keep hearing these arguments from people critiquing Baldwin because his practice was not ideal for safety. Those kinds of arguments are based on not understanding the difference between civil and criminal negligence. Which is why I keep repeating it in this thread.

Baldwin's council is clearly going to have to educate his jury on this distinction or he's in trouble. Because most people do not get it.
 
Last edited:

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
15,283
12,358
136
These are not prop guns.

These are working firearms they are recklessly using as props.

You had an actor pretending to be a cowboy, but the very real gun never pretended to be anything different than what it was.

The humans forgot/ignored that, and they killed one of themselves for it
I may be using incorrect terminology but to me a "prop gun" is a gun that is used [drumroll please] as a prop. Could be a real or fake gun.

As for the rest, see my prior reply.
 
Jul 9, 2009
10,688
2,047
136
Oh Not violent at all. As we've seen you crack pot right wingers are the violent ones.

I am just trying to warn sane people because they think that there are people to talk to on your side. And that's how we will be caught with our pants down.

Moderate and left of moderate people have too much faith in humanity, they don't realize how scummy and subhuman you people really are. There is nobody to talk to in regards to the millions of people like you. As we see people are still trying to speak to you like you are a rational human being with a soul and decency. This is completely wrong.

Sane people need to be warned about the scum that are you.
"you people" "subhuman" The National Socialists are still alive and living in you.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
11,561
6,419
136
Waving a gun around that a store owner gave you is negligent, but what it isn't, is reckless. It's only reckless if you knew or had good reason to believe it was loaded. If the subsantial likelihood is that it wasn't loaded, but there was a very small chance it was, that's ordinary civil negligence. Those who fail to account for extremely low risks of nonetheless major calamities are generally civilly negligent. That is the exact situation here.
To decide how negligent Baldwin was, surely one would have to be very familiar with what standard practice is on movie productions? A key point, presumably, would be that the gun wasn't given to him by the actual armourer?

I don't know, I mean, just read the bit in the Vanity Fair article about how the live rounds (apparently they were "handmade" reloaded rounds) might have gotten on-set - it's as clear as mud. Beats me who was actually responsible for that.

But given that something like that can happen, maybe if there _isn't_ an industry rule for the bullets to be checked when the actor is given the gun, there should be? And if you can't expect the actor themselves to perform such a check, perhaps it's negligent for them to use a weapon that the armourer hasn't checked in their presence?
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
15,945
11,564
146
I think I mostly agree with you, but I really find it hard to work out exactly how much blame belongs with each participant in this fiasco.

I just read this

Which just makes me relieved I'm not on the jury, as the sheer amount of mental work it's going to involve to follow the events and decide how to interpret them is exhausting to think about.

It seems to imply there's a real mystery about how live rounds came to be mixed in with the blanks and fake rounds. And also implies it's not necessarily true that crew members were shooting live rounds as recreational on-set. Plus yet more discussion over whether this gun could fire without a trigger-pull (something I'm entirely confused about at this point).

Seems a big part of it was the attempt to do everything on the cheap, and hence people had multiple jobs, including the armourer.
The Vanity Fair article is pretty good. It states things I was expecting to find. The armorer was over worked and rushed (she was actually working two jobs on set and had been recently reprimanded for spending to much time on armorer).

She loaded 5 dummy rounds into the gun had an issue loading the sixth, dealt with a distraction came back cleaned the sixth chamber and loaded the potentially deadly last round. Did she check that one thoroughly? She thought she did, but probably not. She was being urgently called on the radio.

Ostensibly the AD should have also checked the gun as well but reportedly that wasn’t happening on set either.

If the process prevents a live round from being on set, the armorer verifies each round, as well as the AD then you are 2 fault tolerant to accidental discharge which is enough fault tolerance to catastrophic failures in my industry. (in some cases we make do with 1 FT).

The actor could also check but it wouldn’t be a requirement. For safety it’s better that the design or process meet the fault tolerance requirements rather than relying on the end user to be a control to a catastrophic hazard.

What was really going on here was the same issue most fatal accidents in a work setting have. Budget and schedule pressure (like requiring your armorer to work two jobs and hurry up) cause short cuts to be taken. Those short cuts don’t immediately lead to a problem so they become normal, (like the AD failing to double check the guns or actors leaving guns lying around). This is called “Normalization of Deviation” and it happens in many fatal accidents

All of these are easy to see in hindsight but difficult to see or mitigate when in the middle of, unless there is a strong safety culture in place.

I agree with what was posted above. It’s going to be hard to find anyone criminally liable. Civilly liable probably but not criminally liable.
 
Jul 9, 2009
10,688
2,047
136
"you people" and "subhuman" are phrases already owned by "the right", especially southern conservatives, when referring to POC.
Also used by the National Socialist Party, a word or a phrase isn't "owned" by anyone. It belongs to everyone that uses it. MrSquished now owns the words and phrases.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: pcgeek11

Lanyap

Elite Member
Dec 23, 2000
7,649
1,548
136
Also used by the National Socialist Party, a word or a phrase isn't "owned" by anyone. It belongs to everyone that uses it. MrSquished now owns the words and phrases.

Do you have proof the National Socialist Party uses this phrase on a regular basis?
Otherwise, you have been owned.
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
16,729
14,816
136
Also used by the National Socialist Party, a word or a phrase isn't "owned" by anyone. It belongs to everyone that uses it. MrSquished now owns the words and phrases.
You people are shite people, and missing basic human traits like decency. People need to be warned about how evil you are.

You are what you are buddy. Why aren't you proud of being the scumbag that you are?
 

Pens1566

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 2005
9,601
4,377
136
Also used by the National Socialist Party, a word or a phrase isn't "owned" by anyone. It belongs to everyone that uses it. MrSquished now owns the words and phrases.
It's as if you haven't been exposed to the raving masses of RWNJ shit-gibbons that have done just that with "woke" as a code word for every group they want to marginalize and now don't have to use the dirty words to do it anymore ...
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
49,606
12,171
136
"you people" "subhuman" The National Socialists are still alive and living in you.
Only a dishonest moron looks at "National Socialist" and ignores the "national" part.

Yaknow, nationalism... that ideology that would grenade children because they belong to a different nationality?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
78,569
37,547
136
It's as if you haven't been exposed to the raving masses of RWNJ shit-gibbons that have done just that with "woke" as a code word for every group they want to marginalize and now don't have to use the dirty words to do it anymore ...
I mean just yesterday he was outraged...OUTRAGED by the idea that a president might tell a lie.

lol.
 

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,550
5,063
136
You are just being silly at this point.
You are just dodging the questions.

Someone is dead due to someone else's reckless disregard for safety.

Expecting accountability for that is not silly.

Excusing them because they are rich, famous, and someone on my side of the aisle is shameful. Just letting the little person be the fall guy isn't liberal.

Don't be this guy
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
11,561
6,419
136
You are just dodging the questions.

Someone is dead due to someone else's reckless disregard for safety.

Expecting accountability for that is not silly.

Excusing them because they are rich, famous, and someone on my side of the aisle is shameful. Just letting the little person be the fall guy isn't liberal.

Don't be this guy
I don't know how much culpability Baldwin, or anyone else, has.

I just hope the Jury has the mental wherewithall to follow the details of this case (I'm not at all sure I do). And that they don't include any blind partisans like certain monomaniacal posters on this thread who have already made up their minds based entirely on their existing attitude to Baldwin.

To me it's just an intriguingly complicated whodunnit that distracts from my own problems (which I know is a callous way to look at it - obviously the death of Hutchins is tragic, and I can't help but feel it could have happened to anyone working in a job where there are risks, that regulations are _supposed_ to address, hence it seems important that this case ends up being resolved entirely on the facts).
 
  • Like
Reactions: ch33zw1z

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
15,945
11,564
146
You are just dodging the questions.

Someone is dead due to someone else's reckless disregard for safety.

Expecting accountability for that is not silly.

Excusing them because they are rich, famous, and someone on my side of the aisle is shameful. Just letting the little person be the fall guy isn't liberal.

Don't be this guy
You are missing the point though. It’s not “someone” else’s reckless disregard for their safety.

It’s about roughly a dozen “someone else’s” partial lapses in judgement.

It’s not satisfying. It’s not like TV where there’s a singular bad guy who’s completely responsible but it’s how these things happen.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
78,569
37,547
136
I think a lot of people have ignored @woolfe9998 here to keep fighting about dumb shit.

He is not certainly right, but he’s someone with genuine expertise. People should engage with that.
 

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,550
5,063
136
I may be using incorrect terminology but to me a "prop gun" is a gun that is used [drumroll please] as a prop. Could be a real or fake gun.

As for the rest, see my prior reply.
I'm making a distinction because the the gun was a fully functional and deadly firearm.

It wasn't disabled, it wasn't fake, and they choose to use it at that moment instead of something safer, but also disregarded the necessary safety practices that should have come along with that elevated risk. This was not even an isolated incident, it was within a systemic culture of disregard.

It wasn't even a filmed scene. He took a dangerous "prop" from a known unqualified person and started practicing stunt moves with it without the qualified expert in attendance nor doing simple safety checks.

In response to Clooney, he admits in the TV interview he's not that kind of actor who does safety checks, or understands the equipment he just "trusts the person that had the job" but he didn't really follow that either, and look at the result. "Not my problem, not my job"

He is producer, but claims he's not "involved in hiring" just writing the script. Hmm. Another convenient responsibility dodge.

He was the star of the movie, and experienced in movies with firearms. He's in squarely in the middle of this chaotic production, but said nothing. He accepted this behavior. He showed no leadership, and he actively took part in it.

No personal responsibility whatsoever. No consideration for the safety of those around him.

Compare that to Clooney's approach that Baldwin scoffed at.

Hell, even contrast that with Tom Cruise who ripped into his crew for not following covid safety protocols and threatening to fire people who didn't get take them seriously because of the harm it can do to everyone else on the crew.

Baldwin's behavior is a failure on multiple levels and it's why he should face serious consequences. Just a civil penalty that leaves him less rich is not justice when someone has lost their wife, and a son has lost their mother to his hands.

 

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,550
5,063
136
You are missing the point though. It’s not “someone” else’s reckless disregard for their safety.

It’s about roughly a dozen “someone else’s” partial lapses in judgement.

It’s not satisfying. It’s not like TV where there’s a singular bad guy who’s completely responsible but it’s how these things happen.
He's not the only one at fault, but he's a major part of the incident as well as the culture. He did nothing to stop it, he's in a leadership position, and he actively participated and promoted it.

Longer response above, otherwise I'm going with Clooney on this one

"“It’s infuriating,” the actor added, saying productions need to make sure that the heads of various departments “have experience and know what they’re doing.”
..
“I’d be so embarrassed if my kids in 20 years, who are 4 now, look back at this moment in time and said, ‘You were OK with this and you didn’t stand up and say something?’ I’d be humiliated by that.

“My father’s one mantra,” Clooney told Maron, was “to always challenge anyone in power and always defend anyone without power. And if you do that in life, you win.”"
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY