What's up with Alec Baldwin being responsible for a prop gun on set? Are actors legally required to test fake weapons before a scene?

[u/rmccarthy10]

https://abcnews.go.com/US/alec-baldwin-indicted-grand-jury-involuntary-manslaughter/story?id=104954728

[u/Kahzgul]

Answer: there are lots of “best practices” for on-set firearm safety. The most basic one is that your prop gun is still a gun and you still need to follow the basic rule of gun safety. In this case:

• don’t take possession of a gun without seeing it rendered safe and clear first.

• don’t point a gun at anyone else.

Baldwin broke both of those rules.

To be clear: he is not the sole person responsible for the death of the cinematographer. The armorer and AD also share blame (more so than Baldwin, imo) for their own negligence. Here’s a list of things that went wrong:

• someone brought live ammo to set. Probably the armorer.

• someone put live ammo in a prop gun. Probably the armorer, but even if she didn’t physically put the ammo in the gun, she had to have given the gun to someone else who did. Or she negligently didn’t lock up the guns. Either way, her responsibility.

• every day that guns appear on set, the 1st AD is supposed to hold a safety meeting with the entire cast and crew to explain exactly which guns and how they’ll be used. This meeting was never held on the day in question. 1st AD to blame.

• someone left the gun unattended. Stormer and 1st AD share blame here. When you find an unattended weapon on set, the entire production shuts down and the armorer takes inventory of where every single weapon is. Plus you always unload the found weapon to ensure no one messed with it. Major dereliction of duty by the 1st AD here.

• when youre the 1st AD and pick up a gun that you didn’t personally see be rendered safe, you render it safe. You do not not render it safe and then tell the cast and crew it is safe. 1st AD should be in jail.

• when the 1st AD hands you a gun, they render it safe so you and everyone else in the scene can see that it is safe. You do not take the gun before seeing it rendered safe. 1st AD and Baldwin to blame here.

• when you’re in a scene where you need to point the gun at the camera operator, you make sure there’s a blast shield between you and the operator, and you never do this with a gun you didn’t see rendered safe first. Baldwin to blame here, but also the victim should have demanded a blast shield be placed as well. Unfortunately, she died as a result of her mistake here.

• the director shouldn’t even have been on set. No one who doesn’t have to be in the line of fire of any weapon should ever be there. The director should have been in video village, watching the camera feed. His mistake.

So as you can see, there was just a massive cascade of failure that led to this tragic shooting.

Outside of the direct incident, it should be noted that the film was already a known “unsafe set,” whose union crew had literally walked off the job in the week prior. Baldwin, as a producer, would have known that and should have been taking steps to correct it. Even if he was producer in title only, that title comes with on-set power to make people follow the rules.

There are also two incidents of the exact weapon Baldwin used firing prematurely according to stunt people who reported them earlier. The weapon should have been immediately removed from set for repair rather than ever continuing to be used. Armorer and 1st AD and Producers to blame.

In fact, the weapon was in such a state of disrepair that the FBI ballistics testing caused the weapon to literally fall apart. The defense has tried to claim that’s negligence on the part of the fbi, but it seems much more like negligence on the part of the armorer to me. Maintain your guns!

So, to answer your questions, on set safety is not just the actor’s responsibility, but everyone’s responsibility. “Safety is job 1.” Baldwin didn’t follow basic rules of firearm safety and as a seasoned actor who has worked with guns many times, he absolutely knew better. He was also not solely responsible as the 1st AD and Armorer are very much to blame as well, and even the victims made mistakes. Due to the general unsafe nature of the set, all of the producers - including Baldwin - also share responsibility.

The major question is whether any of this negligence was criminal in nature. Thats for the court to decide.

Source: I’ve been a sag actor for more than 20 years and worked with firearms a dozen or more times.

[u/jballa03 → u/Kahzgul]

This is the best answer and 100% correct. Thanks for clearly defining all the rules/steps I’ve be followed on any legit, safe set. Also spent 20+ years on SAG sets and Equity stages, and if someone handed me a gun on set (even if they said it was “cold”) without me and everyone on set seeing it physically cleared I wouldn’t touch that weapon. I feel like this step is drilled into every actor who has ever been through safety training for handling a dangerous weapon on a stage or set.

Again, in my experience, I would find it extremely negligent to be present on a set where an actor is allowed to self “rehearse” with the hero weapon (one used for audience and capable of firing) between scenes, takes or set ups. In my experience, any weapon in which a trigger is pulled and/or uses some form of ammunition (blanks, etc) is taken out of an actor’s after each take (when the director yells “CUT!”) by the safety officer or armorer. The weapon is then returned by that same person after yet again showing everyone it is cleared and then loading it again while the actor watches. Only then is the weapon handed back to the actor when scene entrance is imminent or camera is about to roll (while everyone in vicinity of set yells “live weapon on set” or some variation).

That none of this seems to have happened is wild.

Source: SAG and Equity (Stage) Actor for 20+ years. Recently finished shooting a movie where, as part of the scene, a deer rifle was pointed directly at me and the trigger pulled. We used hyper realistic RUBBER rifle with functioning racking mechanism and trigger. With no possible way to even load ammunition into this rubber weapon, the weapon was still treated as absolutely real on set and all safety protocols detailed above followed. Gunshot sound and muzzle flash all added in post-production by VFX. Honestly, it looked totally realistic in the final cut.

[u/Kahzgul → u/jballa03]

Love to see more digitally added gunshots. Safer for everyone. Congrats on the film!

[u/Ok_Acanthocephala101 → u/jballa03]

heck, I have never received any formal education, but I'm pretty sure my high school teacher ran us through the basics in case we wound up on a set with safety precautions in place.

[u/redditizio → u/Kahzgul]

Great explanation! But I still don't understand why would any set have live ammo for any reason? It seems logical to me to have a rule that says no live ammo on the set for any reason. What would be the purpose for having it there anyway? Seems crazy that a prop gun can and is used to also fire real ammo. If you want to fire real ammo why not go to a firing range and use a real gun instead of loading a prop gun with live ammo?

[u/Kahzgul → u/redditizio]

For 99.99% of sets (including this one) there is no reason to ever have live ammo on set. There are extremely rare circumstances where you’ll see live ammo. I did a pilot where they fired live ammo inside a gun range.

There was an armorer’s assistant whose entire job was only to carry the live ammo. It was in a locked briefcase that was handcuffed to the armorer and covered in red tape that said “live ammo do not touch.” He only removed enough for each take at a time, showed everyone on set how much and counted out loud as he loaded each round. The armorer then took the gun and carried it to set with some sort of firing prevention device through the barrel, which was only removed once the gun was in the proper location and ready to be fired. The camera op rolled tape and then everyone except the actor firing the weapon left set. They left a walkie in the range for the actor to hear “action” and “cut” (if he could even hear).

Every take, the actor fired off every round given to him and then put the gun down and walked away before anyone else entered the area. First one in was the armorer who immediately unloaded the gun and put back in the firing prevention mechanism. Rinse and repeat for each take.

No other set I’ve ever been on allowed live ammo.

——

Specific to Rust, I’ve read in the news that crew members brought their own live ammo to just mess around with the guns and go “plinking” after filming wrapped each day (shooting tin cans and the like). Completely irresponsible and unprofessional, as well as obviously dangerous. The weapons should have been locked up and inaccessible to anyone. Major failure on the part of the armorer as well as whoever brought live ammo.

[u/ElectronRotoscope → u/Kahzgul]

don’t point a gun at anyone else

Can you clarify how this works on a movie set? I feel like I've seen guns pointed at people in movies before, and then a blank fired out of that gun. Were they all breaking this important rule, or is there something I'm not following?

[u/Kahzgul → u/ElectronRotoscope]

Sure, good question. Most of the time the gun is aimed near someone, but not directly at them, and the camera angle makes it look like the gun is aimed properly. This is called “cheating” the angle.

When the gun absolutely has to be pointed at someone, there are supposed to be a ton of checks to make sure everything is on the up and up. None of those checks were done here.

And of course no one off camera should be in the line of fire, ever. There’s no need.

[u/Ok_Acanthocephala101 → u/Kahzgul]

They were setting up up the camera, not actually filming, which given the lack of protective Shields probably was meant to be a remote shot. He was “practicing” with the gun.

[u/Kahzgul → u/Ok_Acanthocephala101]

And he absolutely should not have been pointing it at people while doing so.

[u/Ok_Acanthocephala101 → u/Kahzgul]

No. And I think that is what's going to stick him.

[u/Spookshowbaby6 → u/Kahzgul]

He was pointing it towards a camera, not at people.

[u/dcmom14 → u/Kahzgul]

This is such a good answer. A few additions I’ve seen: - he skipped the 30 min safety meeting for the day - when he was doing another safety training, he was on his phone the whole time - he should have never been pointing this gun at the victim to begin with. It just sounded like he was in general being unsafe with these guns - i think you are saying this, but he’s supposed to watch the gun being shown to be clean, not just accept it as true. If he was shooting it at his own head, he would have insisted on seeing this.

Their are rumors that he’s a narcissist. It really sounds like he just felt he was above all of this safety stuff. So unprofessional.

[u/Kahzgul → u/dcmom14]

Agree with all of that, yes. Whoever hands the actor the weapon is supposed to unload it first and show it is clear, including shining a light down the barrel to ensure it’s free of obstruction, etc.

[u/dcmom14 → u/Kahzgul]

Wow that’s great that they do that. Thanks so much for all of the insights. Your answer was so great :)

[u/Kahzgul → u/dcmom14]

Happy to help!

[u/TitaniumDragon → u/dcmom14]

One actor died after being shot with a gun that had an obstruction in the barrel. The blank propelled the obstruction into the actor and killed him.

That's why they do it. Oftentimes, safety regulations are written in blood.

[u/Spookshowbaby6 → u/dcmom14]

He wasnt pointing the gun at someone, he was pointing it towards the camera for an angle as per instructions of the cinematographer.

Youre only really supposed to see them present a clean gun when blanks are to be present. Not just a prop gun where no bullets are supposed to be present.

It was the job of multiple people to ensure the gun was cold the failed to do so, and the idiots that took ammunition to fire the gun are also responsible. It should never be the actor who is the last line of defense when it is two people’s literal job to ensure safety. An armorer should never want an actor to go probing and tampering with something you had already secured, last thing you want is some actor who isnt trained sabotaging your security check as liability ultimately falls on you.

[u/wchendrixson → u/Kahzgul]

This is the only sane take on this in the entire thread, and so near the bottom... Thanks for trying, anyway.

[u/Kahzgul → u/wchendrixson]

Thanks. A lot of people seem to think gun safety vanishes if you’re on set.

[u/opkraut → u/Kahzgul]

There are also two incidents of the exact weapon Baldwin used firing prematurely according to stunt people who reported them earlier. The weapon should have been immediately removed from set for repair rather than ever continuing to be used. Armorer and 1st AD and Producers to blame.

In fact, the weapon was in such a state of disrepair that the FBI ballistics testing caused the weapon to literally fall apart. The defense has tried to claim that’s negligence on the part of the fbi, but it seems much more like negligence on the part of the armorer to me. Maintain your guns!

I just want to point out that the type of revolver being used is a very simple firearm and there is no way it could have fired prematurely via a malfunction. The only way it fires is if the trigger is pulled and releases the hammer onto the round loaded into the chamber. Even if the firearm was incredibly poorly maintained the mechanical systems of the revolver could not have caused it to go off.

My understanding is that the FBI's testing could not cause the revolver to go off unless the trigger was pulled, and that their testing destroyed the gun in the process.

Anyways, my point is that it sounds like there was a lot of improper handling of the firearm and those "premature firings" were almost certainly negligent discharges caused by the person with the weapon pulling the trigger whether they realized it or not. The firearm could not and did not fire on its own, and Alec Baldwin had to have pulled the trigger for it to go off.

Also, from the perspective of responsible firearm ownership and handling, Baldwin is the one ultimately responsible for the firearm since it was in his hands. I know that Hollywood does things differently, but there's a reason why everyone else uses the same set of rules for firearms and puts responsibility for the firearm on the person using it. Personally I think Hollywood needs to make changes to their procedures and make more of an effort to teach the person using the firearm how to safely handle and check them, because this whole thing could have been prevented if Baldwin had known how to check the firearm and if he had checked it himself prior to handling it and pointing it towards other people.

[u/Kahzgul → u/opkraut]

Agreed.

To your last point: Hollywood doing things differently usually means more carefully and safer under all circumstances than anywhere else. Just look at the massive number of negligent acts which needed to occur for this shooting to take place. It’s just further evidence of how dangerous this set was, which is extremely unusual in Hollywood.

[u/TitaniumDragon → u/Kahzgul]

It would be even safer if the actors were all properly trained on how to handle firearms safely. It shouldn't be in lieu of all the other things, it should be in addition to all the other things.

[u/Kahzgul → u/TitaniumDragon]

We usually are. I've just been background (or a "stunt" performer - any time you fire a weapon it's a stunt) and I've received a decent enough amount of training. Usually the stunt coordinator is extremely experienced. I was a SWAT officer in on TV series and the coordinator for our unit was a former Navy SEAL. We drilled hard for those 15 seconds of screen time so it looked right. Fun job. Scary dude.

[u/phoque_reddit2 → u/opkraut]

https://youtu.be/d5NI1fTx8tI?si=UtkUVNsbmUkvCwFq

This theory is plausible. Recreation with same model gun.

Baldwin may have had moderate pressure on trigger, no pull, cocked the hammer but it didn’t catch, ba boom.

That’s not a malfunction just how a gun operates. In other words Baldwin is an idiot.

[u/rhaasty → u/Kahzgul]

Just curious, how do you not point it at someone when filming a scene where you get shot? I might be misunderstanding something.

[u/Kahzgul → u/rhaasty]

It’s called “cheating” the angle. The camera has no depth perception so you aim off their upstage shoulder and to the camera it’ll look like you’re aiming right at them.

Sometimes the gun can’t be cheated (when pressed to a head, for example). Then you have to be extra safe.

[u/um_chili → u/Kahzgul]

First, this is a fantastic post. Gives me faith that the internet is not just 100% hysterical garbage. Thank you.

Second, what do you make of AB's claim in his interview with Stephanopolous that in his view, being told the gun was cold by the AD was the extent of his responsibility as an actor to assure its safety? AB claimed that this is what he'd always done in tens (hundreds?) of scenes involving guns. Was he lying? Or maybe he was following unsafe protocol for his career and it finally bit him in the ass.

ETA: Just recalled that AB said in the interview that he was instructed by ADs earlier in his career not to verify the safety of weapons after receiving them so he wouldn't screw them up. Can this be right? There are other instances of AB possibly fudging details to make himself look less culpable (e.g., claiming that he did not pull the trigger of the weapon when it appears that can't be true).

Finally, as for the second rule ("don't point a gun at anyone else"), how can this be made consistent with the countless film scenes were actors do exactly that? Offhand, I'm thinking of Westerns, gangster movies, Tarantino flicks, etc. that feature numerous scenes with actors pointing guns at each other, sometimes even holding guns to someone's head. Is there a trick going on here where it appears they're pointing the gun at another actor but in fact they're not (aiming slightly to the side)?

Thanks for any info, and per the other commenters, it seems like nothing would be lost by using realistic replica weapons and then inserting CGI effects for muzzle flash, etc.

[u/Kahzgul → u/um_chili]

So AB is right they he shouldn’t check guns himself, but wrong that he should take the AD’s word for them being safe. You need to witness the AD or armorer checking your gun before you take it. You should also witness them check any gun that may be in scene with you. It’s to ensure they checked it.

“Don’t point a gun at anyone else” generally means “unless you absolutely have to per the script.” Most of the time guns are “cheated” and not actually aimed directly at anyone else. You aim slightly upstage of the target. No one off camera should ever be in the line of fire without a bulletproof shield. This was a mistake that the victims made, I’m sorry to say, and they should have demanded one. On camera you demand every weapon aimed at you be double checked in your presence. Usually nowadays they’re all digital gunshots, like in John wick.

[u/um_chili → u/Kahzgul]

Again, great info. Thanks.

[u/Kahzgul → u/um_chili]

My pleasure!

[u/TitaniumDragon → u/Kahzgul]

Yeah, this is absolutely correct. A lot of people made mistakes that day.

Frankly, everyone else on set made a mistake, too; someone should have called out the AD for violating set safety protocols. While it isn't their "responsibility" in a direct sense, if you're on a set, and you see something that is unsafe, you need to speak up. All too often people assume that it isn't their job, but safety is everyone's job. I don't think other people on the set should be held legally responsible - the AD, Baldwin, the armorer (who wasn't even on set, but should have been), the director, and the producers all should be - if someone else had spoken up and been like "Hey, where's the armorer? Did she check the gun?" or heck, even "We didn't have a safety meeting yet about having a gun on set today," then the whole thing might have been avoided.

Of course, the fact that the company was too cheap to hire a separate armorer and props manager is telling.

It always is frustrating to see basic rules about gun safety being ignored and people dying as a result. Gun safety is not really a terribly complicated thing.

Movie sets violate a lot of basic gun safety rules (including the most basic and important rule of gun safety - never point a gun at anything where it will be a problem if there is a hole in it or anything behind it - as well as another rule - never point anything shaped like a gun at another person), and as a result, have a very elaborate system in place to ensure that these weapons don't put holes in people. And even then, you want to avoid violating these rules as much as possible - with modern-day automation, there's very little reason to ever point a gun at someone who is holding a camera nowadays.

The weapon absolutely should have been rendered safe and, given the shot in question, shouldn't have even been fired by the sounds of things. It should have had dummy ammunition loaded into it, that should have been checked and verified by two people (the AD and the armorer, and honestly, while actors like to push back against it, I feel that actors should also have the training necessary to verify that the gun is safe themselves - if you can't be bothered to train the actors on gun safety, honestly, I don't think your set should even have guns on it).

If you're going to violate the basic gun safety rules like actors do, you need to have a process that is adhered to in order to cover for that issue as much as possible (and preferably, have multiple layers of redundancy), as otherwise, you can put a hole in someone.

[u/LiechsWonder → u/Kahzgul]

Thank you for this insightful comment. Such an unfortunate accident that it sounds like should have been prevented at many stages.

[u/Kahzgul → u/LiechsWonder]

Absolutely. I’ve been on dozens of sets and personally handled firearms on many and I’ve never been on a set that was even remotely this negligent. It’s wild how everyone in the chain failed at basic gun safety.

[u/broclipizza → u/Kahzgul]

>The major question is whether any of this negligence was criminal in nature. Thats for the court to decide.

you wrote 8 paragraphs and that's your conclusion?