Alec Baldwin Insists He ‘Didn’t Pull the Trigger

[Callisto]

Well that is more money. You tell that to investors.

It's simpler to just have competent armorers on set, as many shows/films do already. This was a rare exception. Someone needs to be held accountable for an unsafe gun on set.

Whose job is it? Armorers. It's their one job.

At the very least, the line producer and the armorer. The LP hired the armorer, who was simply too young and inexperienced for the position. There were 3 previous instances of guns misfiring prior to the Baldwin mishap and, apparently, nothing was done to either shore up protocols after the 1st, 2nd or 3rd accidents nor to replace an armorer who was clearly in over her head and, from the sounds of it, is too immature to admit accountability.

 

[Callisto]

They were making a movie, where firearms are ROUTINELY POINTED AT PEOPLE for visual effect. In fact, that's exactly what the actors are HIRED TO DO with them. And in no instance is there ever a live round in a prop gun. So the question is not about Baldwin pointing a gun at someone, or fiddling with the hammer (as instructed). The question is how did a live round get into a prop gun that is NEVER supposed to have a live round in it.

One thing that gets overlooked in the media reports is that "live" in movie terminology doesn't simply mean somehow real ammo was loaded, it means the gun is loaded with blanks. A similar term is "hot gun", whereas a "cold gun" is one that's empty, void of blanks. Apparently, Baldwin was to use a cold gun and aim it toward the camera and was told it was cold but was handed a hot gun.

Though that doesn't change the fact that, in this instance, there was actual ammo in the gun. And the question remains not only why was the gun loaded with anything, but how did actual ammo instead of blanks get loaded at all, ever?

 

[PureX]

One thing that gets overlooked in the media reports is that "live" in movie terminology doesn't simply mean somehow real ammo was loaded, it means the gun is loaded with blanks. A similar term is "hot gun", whereas a "cold gun" is one that's empty, void of blanks. Apparently, Baldwin was to use a cold gun and aim it toward the camera and was told it was cold but was handed a hot gun.

Though that doesn't change the fact that, in this instance, there was actual ammo in the gun. And the question remains not only why was the gun loaded with anything, but how did actual ammo instead of blanks get loaded at all, ever?

My understanding is that it was supposed to have 'dummy' bullets in it. The reason being they were 'blocking' for a camera shot that would see the bullets in the cylinder chambers from the front as Baldwin was pointing it at the camera. So there is no possible way Baldwin could have examined the gun and known that they were NOT dummy bullets. And there was no reason for him to assume it was 'hot' because he was told it wasn't. It's why the cinematographer had him point the gun at her, as she sat right beside the camera. They wanted to see the camera being able to capture the image of Baldwin pointing the gun with the noses of the bullets in the cylinder chambers. (They do that occasionally in movies. Something no one in their right mind would do, otherwise.)

So yes, the real question is how did a real bullet get into that gun. There were not supposed to be any real bullets anywhere on the set. Because they were not intending to use real bullets in any of the scenes in the movie (some movies have done so, but it's very dangerous and quite rare, I don't think they're even allowed to do it, anymore).

 

[PureX]

That's the armorer, who was not truly qualified for the job, especially on a set that, apparently, was disorganized and disregarded protocols. A seasoned armorer would have found it challenging, let alone someone with minimal experience. This was her second time as an armorer and, from the sounds of it, she lucked out on her first gig, being on a well-run set with veterans to mitigate any novice slip-ups she would have had.

edited typo.

Maybe so. But so far, we still don't know how a real bullet got into that gun, so we still can't put the blame on her, or on anyone.

 

[esmith]

Maybe so. But so far, we still don't know how a real bullet got into that gun, so we still can't put the blame on her, or on anyone.

The blame goes to the person who fired the shot and I expect whomever was incharge of the weapons.
There are numerous outhers that are at fault, but at thhs time their names are not known.
That is what a civil court will say.

 

[PureX]

The blame goes to the person who fired the shot and I expect whomever was incharge of the weapons.
There are numerous outhers that are at fault, but at thhs time their names are not known.
That is what a civil court will say.

Civil courts are all about money. And I'm sure the lawyers will make SOMEONE pay ... as much as possible.

 

[Revoltingest]

Civil courts are all about money.

Not always.
Sometimes they're about specific performance.
Other times they're about recognition without
financial or performance consequences.