Alec Baldwin a murderer or an idiot?

Those images are carefully framed to not person in the line of fire or they put up invisible pixiglass walls.

Yep, carefully framed and plexiglass walls. Got it

What context are you talking about? FFS man, it sounds like you are talking about when actual live rounds are used (and obviously known about).

How many movies are people shot point blank range with blood effects. Geez. Go watch John Wick lol

Those interviews are talking about how it's done in movies.

Actors firing blanks at each other or the camera is generally dangerous. Aside from the fact that a blank can kill at close range, there could be debris in the barrel that gets expelled and can kill someone. There can also be a mix-up in the ammo, like the Baldwin case. This is why such precautions are made.

No matter how certain you are that the gun is safe, it must always be treated as if it is a loaded weapon. Literally the first rule of gun safety.

Yep, carefully framed and plexiglass walls. Got it

The actors aren't pointing directly at each other and they are misaligned, with the camera angle carefully set up to give that effect. And if they are pointing at each other, they are doing it wrong. There are many sources telling us that it is carefully staged to give the illusion that they are pointing at each other.

Considering that you are telling us that they regularly point weapons at the camera without clearing out the area, which has now been rebutted by an industry expert, we can rest easy knowing that you don't have the slightest idea of what you are talking about.

As far as the Armorer's job, here is yet another interview with a different armorer:



He says that he walks around the stage showing that the gun is empty to the director, cameraman, and to the actor before handing it to them. He opens the cylinder of the revolver and rotates through the cylinders to verify that they are empty with each person.

The actor sees for themselves that the gun is empty and that they are not blindly firing a gun they have not checked is empty.

Tom...
The Armorer's job is literally to tell actors what is or isn't safe.
Firing blanks at people is not safe.  Unless its at a range the armoror deems safe.
We know this.  Which is why you have an expert to ensure a gun is empty in a scene or they use camera tricks (like not showing the gun) when its meant to be fired point blank.

As far as the Armorer's job, here is yet another interview with a different armorer:



He says that he walks around the stage showing that the gun is empty to the director and to the actor before handing it to them. He opens the cylinder of the revolver and rotates through the cylinders to verify that they are empty with each person.

The actor SEES for themselves that the gun is empty and are not blindly firing a gun they have not checked.

Sounds like a good Armorer and not a scab one that let a live round be in a gun.
Again, the Armoror's job, not the actor's or director's.

Considering that you are telling us that they regularly point weapons at the camera without clearing out the area, which has now been rebutted by an industry expert, we can be rest assured that you don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about.

Where did I say “regularly”?

Just saying they have and do. And I assume very safely as evidenced by so few accidents over the past 100 years or so.

In this case, the armorer, the one responsible for all weapons safety, should have had the cinematographer and director clear out from behind the camera. Apparently no one thought that was necessary even considering, as you say, all guns should be treated as “hot”even if announced as “cold”.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 13, 2021, 11:23:34 AM

Considering that you are telling us that they regularly point weapons at the camera without clearing out the area, which has now been rebutted by an industry expert, we can be rest assured that you don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about.

Where did I say “regularly”?

Just saying they have and do. And I assume very safely as evidenced by so few accidents over the past 100 years or so.

In this case, the armorer, the one responsible for all weapons safety, should have had the cinematographer and director clear out from behind the camera. Apparently no one thought that was necessary even considering, as you say, all guns should be treated as “hot”even if announced as “cold”.

OMG, you are referring to a set where a fatality occurred as your source. What an abortion of an argument.

Veteran Hollywood munitions experts Bryan W. Carpenter tells us how the at-the-camera firing scenes work:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/alec-baldwin-shooting-rust-movie-munitions-experts-gun-safety-1235035713/

“You never aim a weapon directly at anyone, period.”

and

“If you need to point a weapon at the camera, the area must be locked off so that there is no one behind it. You never fire at or near the camera,” he adds. “Sometimes the shot may require it, in which case, the entire area must be cleared for safety precautions.”

and he leaves us with a story about how he conducted a scene:

Carpenter recalls recently being on set in Chicago for a scene that involved an actress chasing another character through a wooded space. The director wanted her to fire a gun in the direction of the camera to achieve a specific angle. To accomplish this, the entire area was locked off and a remote camera was used with no one anywhere in the vicinity.

“I had verified it was blanks, and we made sure the distance was correct. And still, you have the actor point it away from the camera even though it’s all protected,” he explains. “At the end of the day, it’s a piece of equipment made by humans and accidents do happen, but you mitigate that by following all safety protocols to avert disaster, like what happened (in New Mexico).”

Why did they bother to do all of this with the remote camera? Why didn't the actor just aim and fire the weapon in the direction of the stage staff?

Maybe because “You never aim a weapon directly at anyone, period.”

Carpenter believes that rules were not followed:

The tactical trainer says there are fundamental safety rules you never breach when using guns for film and TV productions, guidelines that also translate to real life.

“Number one, always treat all weapons as if they are loaded — don’t treat them as props,” explains Carpenter, who has worked on such gun-heavy productions as Queen of the South, Power, Jack Reacher: Never Go Back, NCIS: New Orleans and Cloak & Dagger in addition to serving for 11 years as a professional instructor training agencies and stunt performers in how to handle firearms. “Number two, never have your finger on the trigger or pull the trigger until you’re ready to discharge the weapon. Number three, never point the weapon at anything that can be harmed or injured. And number four, always be aware of what’s in front, behind and on all sides of what you’re aiming for.”

Carpenter believes that if Nos. 1 and 3 had been followed on the set of Rust, “no one would’ve gotten hurt.”

Baldwin did not treat the gun as if it were loaded and he pointed the gun at things which could have been harmed or injured. If only these simple rules were followed this fatality would not have occured.

Quote from: Stash on November 13, 2021, 11:38:22 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 13, 2021, 11:23:34 AM

Considering that you are telling us that they regularly point weapons at the camera without clearing out the area, which has now been rebutted by an industry expert, we can be rest assured that you don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about.

Where did I say “regularly”?

Just saying they have and do. And I assume very safely as evidenced by so few accidents over the past 100 years or so.

In this case, the armorer, the one responsible for all weapons safety, should have had the cinematographer and director clear out from behind the camera. Apparently no one thought that was necessary even considering, as you say, all guns should be treated as “hot”even if announced as “cold”.

“If you need to point a weapon at the camera, the area must be locked off so that there is no one behind it. You never fire at or near the camera,” he adds. “Sometimes the shot may require it, in which case, the entire area must be cleared for safety precautions.”

Sure, sounds reasonable. And who's responsibility is it to clear the set? I'll give you a hint, it's not an actor nor a producer.

And your guy directly refutes that a gun is never shot at camera. He says it should never happen, but..."Sometimes the shot may require it..."

Clearly, a number of these rules were broken. The firearm was not treated as if it were a loaded firearm and this occurred through a series of negligent actions.

Which rule says to never give a loaded gun to an actor for a scene that doesn't require a loaded gun?

Sure, sounds reasonable. And who's responsibility is it to clear the set? I'll give you a hint, it's not an actor nor a producer.

It doesn't matter who failed at clearing the set. Baldwin could have alerted people himself that people were still in the area. Ultimately, Baldwin was the one who was holding the gun and who decided to aim and pull the trigger. Baldwin failed to follow the gun safety rules:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/alec-baldwin-shooting-rust-movie-munitions-experts-gun-safety-1235035713/

The tactical trainer says there are fundamental safety rules you never breach when using guns for film and TV productions, guidelines that also translate to real life.

“Number one, always treat all weapons as if they are loaded — don’t treat them as props,” explains Carpenter, who has worked on such gun-heavy productions as Queen of the South, Power, Jack Reacher: Never Go Back, NCIS: New Orleans and Cloak & Dagger in addition to serving for 11 years as a professional instructor training agencies and stunt performers in how to handle firearms. “Number two, never have your finger on the trigger or pull the trigger until you’re ready to discharge the weapon. Number three, never point the weapon at anything that can be harmed or injured. And number four, always be aware of what’s in front, behind and on all sides of what you’re aiming for.”

Carpenter believes that if Nos. 1 and 3 had been followed on the set of Rust, “no one would’ve gotten hurt.”

If rules had been followed, by Alec Baldwin, no one would have gotten hurt.

If every actor treated every gun as loaded you might as well have people using their own hands as guns going 'pew pew!'

Yes, if you see a gun on set and you have no idea if it's hot or cold or been cleared at all - treat it as loaded. But if an armourer hands you a gun and assures you that it has only dummy rounds in it, then given they are supposed to be a professional and trained how to load dummies and check, they take the responsibility if there is a fuck up. Their job responsibility means if a live round is in a gun when they clear it and that gun kills someone - it was essentially them who pulled the trigger

If each actor began unloading/checking/reloading the guns it would introduce a lot more variables and possibilities for mistakes and questions about who is ultimately responsible for what. Stupid idea. Please give an example where this is the SOP on a movie set.

As this is still under investigation, none of us know what really went down before, during and immediately after. There's Alec's truth, the armourers truth, their friends who weren't even there truth, disgruntled cast members truth, and everyone else nvolved truth.

Maybe this incident will pave the way for necessitating 2 armourers and even tighter security on movie sets with guns. Especially when you have a noob armourer. But one things for sure, no way in hell each actor is going to be responsible for loading their own guns. Holy shit that would be a hot mess.

Also, the gun was supposed to have dummy rounds. Not blanks. So plexi glass was not needed. It should have been safe to point and shoot. So your whole argument about plexi glass and off camera angles etc is not valid in this case

Quote from: Stash

Sure, sounds reasonable. And who's responsibility is it to clear the set? I'll give you a hint, it's not an actor nor a producer.

It doesn't matter who failed at clearing the set. Baldwin could have alerted people himself that people were still in the area. Ultimately, Baldwin was the one who was holding the gun and who decided to aim and pull the trigger. Baldwin failed to follow the gun safety rules:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/alec-baldwin-shooting-rust-movie-munitions-experts-gun-safety-1235035713/

An actor does not clear a set. They actually don't have the authority to do so. That's the Director or 1st AD's role and job.

Yeah it matters. You've quoted other armorers that say their protocol is to have the set cleared. So the armorer, in charge of weapons safety, tells the AD or Director that the set should be cleared. Then the AD clears the set - S/he has that authority. The armorer doesn't go to an actor and ask him or her to clear the set. That's an incredibly ignorant assumption.

It's the Director who designs the shot, calling out the blocking of a scene, where actors need to be and move to hit their marks, in this case, where to point a weapon, how to do it, should it be a straight draw or a cross draw, how he wants it portrayed on film. That's literally what a Director does. How you don't know this is beyond me.

From your link above:

"Gary Harper — a veteran industry armorer who has supplied weapons and consulted on productions for decades, from Rambo III and The Last Samurai to Flags of Our Fathers and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice — says that direct-to-camera, close-quarters shots are frequently requested and can be performed safely."

"says Carpenter. “As an armorer myself, I bring my own dummy rounds that I have secured from reputable sources and I have checked them multiple times before taking them to several on-set sources, including the director, AD, DP, so you can get double verification before we let those things go out on set and in the hands of actors.”

No where does Carpenter say a third verification is done by the actor. He says, "...including the director, AD, DP, so you can get double verification before we let those things go out on set and in the hands of actors." Verification is done by the armorer then an AD, DP or Director. In this case, verification was supposed to be done by the armorer, first verification, then the 1st AD, second verification, and then the AD called "cold gun" and handed it to the actor. Apparently the armorer did a shitty job on verification 1 and the AD did a shitty job with verification 2. According to your source, Carpenter, they failed in the verification process.

When I do training, we always start off using live rounds on targets. Afterwards, all live rounds are locked away. Every person then has to physically check themselves and make a declaration they have no live rounds on their person. Then we move on to simmunition training involving paint bullets in special coloured handguns. The instructors check and load and check the magazines with the paint bullets, before handing to participants. With simmunition, if the scenario calls for it, you shoot the role player and they wind up with paint on their special protective clothing.

My point is, someone is always responsible for loading a magazine and someone responsible for loading that into the handgun. Done responsibly and safely, there are no problems.

What I cannot fathom, is firearms firing blanks, or cap guns, or pop guns, or whatever, have been used safely and successfully with zero casualties (except Brandon Lee) in literally thousands and thousands and thousands of different movies and tv shows, the past hundred years? What the hell was so special or different, about what they were doing in this movie?

A movie or tv set should be safer than simmunition, because they don't even use paint bullets. It's all just actors acting, and guns that make a bang noise, if that. In fact it should be as safe as filming a script which requires no firearms.

Yeah it matters. You've quoted other armorers that say their protocol is to have the set cleared. So the armorer, in charge of weapons safety, tells the AD or Director that the set should be cleared. Then the AD clears the set - S/he has that authority. The armorer doesn't go to an actor and ask him or her to clear the set. That's an incredibly ignorant assumption.

And if it's not cleared for some reason and you aim and shoot into a crowd anyway, you're still at fault for pointing your gun towards people. You could have decided not to point and fire your gun at people. There is no escaping that Baldwin is at fault here.

Quote from: Stash

Yeah it matters. You've quoted other armorers that say their protocol is to have the set cleared. So the armorer, in charge of weapons safety, tells the AD or Director that the set should be cleared. Then the AD clears the set - S/he has that authority. The armorer doesn't go to an actor and ask him or her to clear the set. That's an incredibly ignorant assumption.

And if it's not cleared for some reason and you aim and shoot into a crowd anyway, you're still at fault for pointing your gun towards people. You could have decided not to point your gun at people. There is no escaping that Baldwin is at fault here.

You have no idea how a set works nor the roles and authorities involved, that's abundantly clear.

Why wasn't anyone criminally charged in Brandon Lee's death? Those involved look back

North Carolina law requires criminal negligence to be “willful and wanton” and Spivey (former district attorney in Wilmington Jerry Spivey, who supervised the investigation of the Lee case) said at the time he could find no evidence of that during the investigation.

“Who are you going to charge? The guy who made the blanks? The guy who allowed live ammo to be on set? Who do you charge?” Spivey told USA TODAY. “There was a lot of negligence on the part of a lot of people, and that’s why we decided there was no basis for a criminal charge.”

Notice how he doesn't even mention the actor (Michael Massee) who pulled the trigger.

More on the Brandon Lee shooting:

That crew loaded the gun that eventually took Lee’s life with dummy bullets for a close-up shot taken prior to the scene. They then replaced those with blanks for the infamous flashback that would explain how Lee’s character had been killed prior to his resurrection.

But according to Moyer, a portion of one of the dummy bullets had become dislodged from its casing, remaining in the gun’s cylinder. When Massee pulled the trigger, he unwittingly discharged a live weapon.

That's the bit in bold that is one of the things the armorer and 1st AD are supposed to verify - That there's nothing in the barrel.

From the NYTs (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/30/movies/alec-baldwin-rust-shooting-timeline.html):

The protocol, Mr. Halls (1st AD on Rust) told a detective, was for Ms. Gutierrez-Reed to show him the gun so he could check its barrel for obstructions, and for her to then open the revolver and spin it so he could see the contents of its chambers. Then he would call out “cold gun,” signaling to the crew that the gun did not contain live rounds.

More on the Lee incident and the actor who pulled the trigger:

No criminal charges were ever brought against Massee and the death was ruled an accident. While no one ever blamed Massee for the actor’s death, he told the Telegraph in 2005 that he struggled to recover from the accident.

Quote from: Stash

Yeah it matters. You've quoted other armorers that say their protocol is to have the set cleared. So the armorer, in charge of weapons safety, tells the AD or Director that the set should be cleared. Then the AD clears the set - S/he has that authority. The armorer doesn't go to an actor and ask him or her to clear the set. That's an incredibly ignorant assumption.

And if it's not cleared for some reason and you aim and shoot into a crowd anyway, you're still at fault for pointing your gun towards people. You could have decided not to point and fire your gun at people. There is no escaping that Baldwin is at fault here.

So much stupid. His job as an actor was to point and fire the gun. I guess he could have chosen to quit his career and walk away that day but WTF? Seriously how can you be this dense?

So you don't attribute any fault to the armourer? Do you ever wonder why no one takes you seriously? Wonder no more. It's because you're an partisan idiot hack

Alec is still in deep shit and rightfully so don't worry. But it's pretty stupid to say he's responsible for murder when the rules on an acting set has the responsibility of guns delegated to the armourer


I notice you always ignore posts that call you out on your BS and avoid answering any questions but I'll ask again anyway

Do you think it would be safer if every actor was tasked with loading their own guns on set? Even if the set had many actors using guns?

Actually Stash, the crew of the Brandon Lee shooting was found to be negligent. The district attorney just didn't bring charges. The police reserve the right to not bring charges even when guilt is suggested.

https://people.com/movies/brandon-lee-family-speaks-out-alec-baldwin-rust-accidental-shooting-on-set/

"Lee —  who was the son of martial-arts icon Bruce Lee — died in 1993 at age 28 while filming The Crow when he was shot by a real bullet fired by a co-star using a gun he believed to be loaded with blanks. A number of weeks later, an investigation found that the crew was negligent, but the district attorney involved in the case declined to bring charges against the production company."

What kind of negligence?

One of the problems was that guns were pointed at people

https://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-2532-i-teach-famous-actors-to-shoot-guns-and-hopefully-not-die.html

You have no idea how a set works nor the roles and authorities involved, that's abundantly clear.

Actually the authorities in this thread say never to point guns at people. It is you who apparently has no idea how it works.

The Actor's Equity Association says the same, in an article on the Baldwin incident:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/movies/2021/10/22/what-prop-gun-alec-baldwin-shooting-incident-raises-questions/6132220001/



Don't point guns at people. Is it just some coincidence that multiple authorities are saying this? Or, could it be that this is an already established rule that you are apparently ignorant of?

Should we be surprised that you have failed to produce a single source telling us that it's okay to point guns at people?

Do you think it would be safer if every actor was tasked with loading their own guns on set? Even if the set had many actors using guns?

The first armorer I shared a video of thought that Baldwin should have checked his gun when it was handed to him. Why would you blindly trust someone who we later found was still "learning the ropes" and was underpaid, and overworked juggling multiple roles?

If Alec Baldwin had inspected his gun, which would literally just take seconds, this wouldn't have happened.

If Alec Baldwin did not point his gun at people, this wouldn't have happened.

If it becomes the standard practice that every actor checks the guns you introduce a lot of risk. Not every actor is going to be versed on guns, types of ammunition, how to load blanks vs dummies etc.

It's much better to have one person delegated the responsibility rather than potentially dozens - most who might not know what the fuck they are doing, loading and checking the guns. Lets say I'm an actor and I was given a gun and told to check if it's safe. I wouldn't have a fuck what safe vs unsafe would be. I wouldn't know how to reload the ammunition correctly if there's any special way dummies or blanks need to be installed. So essentially a professional hands me the gun and my amateurish mucking around with it could potentially render what was a safe gun to be unsafe. And even if I was handed an unsafe gun, I may not be any the wiser anyway. Can you see how flawed your logic is?

Don't worry, Alec is still on a world of shit and financial pain being a producer. But it's a stretch to say that ONLY HE is responsible for the death.

Tom, as a self proclaimed expert, obviously thinks all actors should be versed in all jobs on set.
I mean, if an actir jumps onto a platform that is poorly built and it collapses and hurts someone, its ultimately the actor's fault for not inspecting and verifying the structure before leaping onto it.

Don't worry, Alec is still on a world of shit and financial pain being a producer. But it's a stretch to say that ONLY HE is responsible for the death.

This is all well and good but I don't think you've considered how badly Alec Baldwin hurt Trump's feelings.  And by extension Tom Bishop's.

Quote from: Stash

Yeah it matters. You've quoted other armorers that say their protocol is to have the set cleared. So the armorer, in charge of weapons safety, tells the AD or Director that the set should be cleared. Then the AD clears the set - S/he has that authority. The armorer doesn't go to an actor and ask him or her to clear the set. That's an incredibly ignorant assumption.

And if it's not cleared for some reason and you aim and shoot into a crowd anyway, you're still at fault for pointing your gun towards people. You could have decided not to point and fire your gun at people. There is no escaping that Baldwin is at fault here.

That's like saying if I'm doing simmunition training and one of my instructors somehow accidentally puts a live round in a magazine and puts that magazine in the paint gun he hands me, I'm responsible if I shoot one of the instructors role playing, believing I'm firing a paint pellet, but a hollow point round enters his body.

Alec Baldwin believed the gun he was handed was not firing anything, didn't he? There IS escaping for Alec Baldwin being at fault, Tom Bishop. Let's just say the script called for some child actor to fire a gun at someone and the child was somehow handed a gun with a live round. You're saying the child is criminally responsible? Like hell. Neither is the adult actor.

Do you think John Wayne personally checked every gun he used in every Western he acted in? Like hell he didn't point his gun at any other actor and pull the trigger. You're kidding yourself, Bishop. It's the make believe industry.

Actually Stash, the crew of the Brandon Lee shooting was found to be negligent.

"Lee —  who was the son of martial-arts icon Bruce Lee — died in 1993 at age 28 while filming The Crow when he was shot by a real bullet fired by a co-star using a gun he believed to be loaded with blanks. A number of weeks later, an investigation found that the crew was negligent, but the district attorney involved in the case declined to bring charges against the production company."

What kind of negligence?

I've been saying all along that the armorer and 1st AD totally failed in their weapons safety verification protocol. What are the armorer and 1st AD? They are CREW. Not Cast, but CREW. What is Baldwin? Cast, not CREW.

See above. Your own statement, "...the crew of the Brandon Lee shooting was found to be negligent.

And then again, "...an investigation found that the crew was negligent..."

Thanks for proving my point.

An armorer who has worked with Baldwin in the past is at a loss to explain how it happened.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59006905

Film sets usually have strict rules about the use of prop guns. Specialists provide weapons for use on film sets and advise on their use.

"There's basic safety measures on every set," said Mike Tristano, an armourer who has worked with Alec Baldwin in the past.

"You never point a gun, even if it is not a firing gun, at anyone else. I'm at a loss how this could have happened and how it could have done that much damage."

Almost first words out of his mouth are that you never point a gun at people. He is at a loss to explain how it happened because you never point a gun at people

I am still waiting on those sources stating that it's okay to point guns at people.

Maybe Stash can refer us to the time Alec Baldwin pointed a gun at a woman on the set of Rust again and say "see, they thought it was okay" lol

If it becomes the standard practice that every actor checks the guns you introduce a lot of risk. Not every actor is going to be versed on guns, types of ammunition, how to load blanks vs dummies etc.

Actors are often are expected to spend time training and practicing for the role. Many actors spend months training for their roles. Why not gun safety training too?

Alec Baldwin believed the gun he was handed was not firing anything, didn't he? There IS escaping for Alec Baldwin being at fault, Tom Bishop. Let's just say the script called for some child actor to fire a gun at someone and the child was somehow handed a gun with a live round. You're saying the child is criminally responsible? Like hell. Neither is the adult actor.

You're not supposed to point a gun at anyone, whether you think it's loaded with lethal ammunition or not. Special angling of the scene, illusions, pexiglass, post-secondary editing, etc. are supposed to make it seem like actors are pointing at each other.

Here is another quote on this:

https://radaronline.com/p/alec-baldwin-rust-team-told-never-point-gun-armorer-attorney/



And here is yet another quote from a movie industry expert on how this works:

What Went Wrong? Gun Prop Experts on Alec Baldwin Disaster

https://www.thedailybeast.com/what-went-wrong-gun-prop-experts-on-alec-baldwins-accidental-shooting-of-halyna-hutchins-on-rust-set

And just because the prop gun is firing blanks, that doesn’t mean it’s guaranteed as safe. Blanks can cause serious harm, and in most extreme cases death if fired at close range, so there are stringent protocols in place to ensure the safety of the cast and crew.

“Rule number one, when you’re doing these rehearsals, the firearm, even though it has blanks, it’s never fired at anybody, the angles are always cheated,” Howell says. “Those angles always look to the viewer as though it’s directed at them, but it isn’t, it’s always aimed off. So, the actors train, train, train, and then when the armorer decides that rehearsal is fine and lets everybody know, then you go ahead. So, it’s very, very controlled—health and safety risk assessments before you get there, and everybody is aware when there are live firearms on the set firing blanks.”

“We never point that barrel at another actor, even if it’s a gun that has a blocked barrel, it’s just good training,” Hunter added.

It was supposed to be loaded with dummy rounds and Alec was 'assured' the gun was. Dummy rounds are not blanks so your argument there is invalid Tom.

If Alec was told the gun had blanks and he fired within 2ft of a person as he was to the cinematographer well yeah, even if it really was a blank round he would deserve to be drawn and quartered.

Ive seen reports say blanks and others say dummies. I guess we have to wait for more information to come from the investigation.

You're not supposed to point a gun at anyone, whether you think it's loaded with lethal ammunition or not.

Why was there lethal ammunition on the set in the first place?

It was supposed to be loaded with dummy rounds and Alec was 'assured' the gun was. Dummy rounds are not blanks so your argument there is invalid Tom.

Nope, see the last line in that quote. He says that even if it's a gun which has a blocked barrel, the rule is to never point it at anyone.

“We never point that barrel at another actor, even if it’s a gun that has a blocked barrel, it’s just good training,” Hunter added.

Even if the gun has a blocked barrel, they never point it at anyone.

The previous quote spells it out too - "According to safety recommendations from the Contract Services Administration Trust Fund and International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE), all firearms on set – whether real, replicas, loaded or empty – are to be treated as though they are loaded with live ammunition."

Armeror Mike Tristano said the same a few quotes ago:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59006905

Film sets usually have strict rules about the use of prop guns. Specialists provide weapons for use on film sets and advise on their use.

"There's basic safety measures on every set," said Mike Tristano, an armourer who has worked with Alec Baldwin in the past.

"You never point a gun, even if it is not a firing gun, at anyone else. I'm at a loss how this could have happened and how it could have done that much damage."

See: "You never point a gun, even if it is not a firing gun, at anyone else"

You never know whether you have what you think is an unfirable weapon that is firable. This is why you don't point it at people, as Alec Baldwin found.

An armorer who has worked with Baldwin in the past is at a loss to explain how it happened.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59006905

Film sets usually have strict rules about the use of prop guns. Specialists provide weapons for use on film sets and advise on their use.

"There's basic safety measures on every set," said Mike Tristano, an armourer who has worked with Alec Baldwin in the past.

"You never point a gun, even if it is not a firing gun, at anyone else. I'm at a loss how this could have happened and how it could have done that much damage."

Almost first words out of his mouth are that you never point a gun at people. He is at a loss to explain how it happened because you never point a gun at people

I am still waiting on those sources stating that it's okay to point guns at people.

Maybe Stash can refer us to the time Alec Baldwin pointed a gun at a woman on the set of Rust again and say "see, they thought it was okay" lol

The actor in the Brandon Lee incident pointed his gun at him as that was the shot. And that was a blank. Not a dummy round. A "hot" gun, not a "cold" gun.

Was the actor found to be negligent? No. Was the crew (armourer) found to be negligent? Yes. Were charges levied? No.

Should you point a gun at a human on a movie set? Probably not, but they do if it's required for the shot. And if so, safety protocols are to be put in place by the weapons safety expert (the armorer). That's literally their job and responsibility and duty. Otherwise, why have a weapons safety expert at all? As Shifter said, why not just let all the actors and stunt folks load their own guns and do their own safety checks. Does that seem reasonably responsible to you???

Your whole argument is that Baldwin, the actor, should be charged for criminal negligence. As we've seen from precedent in the Brandon Lee account, the CREW was found to be negligent, not the actor firing the gun. Thanks for teasing that out that the CREW was found negligent and not the actor. You neatly proved my point.

Someone arrest these gents. Look at all the people the gun was pointed at. Someone could have got hurt!

Or maybe they filmed this 3 times. One with just the crowd. One with only Keanu Reeves and another with only Common and then meshed it all together. LOL

To be fair, Alec was pointing his gun at a camera for the required shot, not specifically at the director behind the camera or the cameraman, or any other person in particular. A camera lens. (Great evidence for the trial and jury)

Tom, you're talking primarily about live round firearms. The other rule of thumb with firearms in general, is not only to know what your target is, but to know what is behind your target and to the sides of your target.

This is where Alec may fall short, but give him a break. He would be running around with plastic replica guns for some scenes, maybe a rubber replica gun in other scenes, a proper working gun with working revolver action in others, replica guns with solid filled chambers, and others with blanks. He might have to carry half a dozen different versions of the same gun, during the shoot of the movie.

I'm guessing you've never owned a water pistol, Tom Bishop? I'm guilty of pointing a water pistol at people and pulling the trigger. Lock me up and throw away the key!

What about the game, "skirmish"? Lots of fun with guns, and guess what? You have to point the skirmish gun at other players and pull the trigger. (That's how players get paint on them and the game is played.)

Same with gel blasters. You have to aim them at a person if you want to get that person wet.

Tom, as a self proclaimed expert, obviously thinks all actors should be versed in all jobs on set.
I mean, if an actir jumps onto a platform that is poorly built and it collapses and hurts someone, its ultimately the actor's fault for not inspecting and verifying the structure before leaping onto it.

I wonder why Tom isn't as weirdly obsessed with all workplace accidents?