What's new
By:
Filters

Alec Baldwin Shot a Lady

WaterH said:
Can you rig cars to look like bullets are hitting them? Of course, and when people are involved, they have to. But is there a law that they can’t film live ammo? No. Do they ever film live ammo? Yes.
Click to expand...
Of course there's no law, just like there's no law stopping you from doing something dangerous and dumb with a helicopter. Don't even tell me every action you could possibly make is dictated by some imaginary law. In the 40 years I've been involved in Film and TV, I've never heard of anyone doing something so stupid on film. The Insurance and Bond companies would never allow anything like that. Youtube is a different story.

We had a general store set on Mag 7 that was rigged with 100ish hits. They ran out of time and weren't going to shoot it, we were told to rip them off and strip everything. I asked the 1st AD if they wanted to set up a camera to shoot element shots instead of wasting the time and money. They did not, the shots were worthless without an actor there.

If you stuck to what you know, your hypothetical scenarios could almost be believable:shaking:
 
Toreadorranger said:
Thats not true, as the shooter he can be held liable.
Click to expand...
To clarify: I was speaking about criminal liability, not civil.

There are roles and authorities / duties and responsibilities on a movie set and, as AB the actor, he was not personally responsible for the non-lethality of that revolver - that responsibility lay with the set armorer. As the producer (armorer's boss), it may be possible to hold him criminally liable for the death.

Civilly, the sky's the limit but, criminally, the law is cut-and-dried unless I'm missing something.

OK, I'm over it - I'm not stating anything new there^ so, if anyone wants to ask me more about this:

20841370-8e54-4bfe-981c-147ea70ffe2f_text.gif
 
Dude is an actor. They do things in a make-believe world. They're not even trusted to drive a car while filming. Look at all the BS film crews go through just to make sure they don't actually drive. Now imagine one of them with a gun. They aren't expected to know anything, someone else is supposed to spoon feed it for them.

1709927512388.png


1709927585365.png


1709927596223.png
 
det107 said:
AB keeps repeating over & over to anyone who will listen that he never pulled the trigger- :confused:

:flipoff2:
Click to expand...
He's completely full of shit about not pulling the trigger - is there any doubt about that?

Here, science-ish infotainment:





Alec Baldwin is a piece-of-shit liar and honorless weasel in addition to being too irresponsible to check any firearm he's handed, even by an armorer. That motherfucker should be under adult supervision because he lacks personal accountability. Spoiled Hollywierd royalty, and not a great actor, to boot :laughing:
 
Sandy Johnson said:
Dude is an actor. They do things in a make-believe world. They're not even trusted to drive a car while filming. Look at all the BS film crews go through just to make sure they don't actually drive. Now imagine one of them with a gun. They aren't expected to know anything, someone else is supposed to spoon feed it for them.

1709927512388.png


1709927585365.png


1709927596223.png
Click to expand...
Exactly! The new thing is shooting in front of wraparound LED panels with someone shaking the car to simulate driving.
 
Sandy Johnson said:
Dude is an actor. They do things in a make-believe world. They're not even trusted to drive a car while filming. Look at all the BS film crews go through just to make sure they don't actually drive. Now imagine one of them with a gun. They aren't expected to know anything, someone else is supposed to spoon feed it for them.
Click to expand...
Except the SAG has specific training and rules for actors handling firearms, so thats not exactly true.

This is straight out of the SAG safety bulletin

1709929785437.png
 
Toreadorranger said:
Thats not true, as the shooter he can be held liable. He talked to the police without a lawyer present and admitted he knew it was a real firearm. Under the 2nd half of the law he aimed a firearm he knew was real at an individual and it caused their death. It was a lawful act that produced death without due caution and circumspection. To top it off they have multiple videos of him practicing the shot in which he quick draws and has his finger on the trigger.
Click to expand...
Please show us in the law where having a professional armorer managing all weapons does not amount to "due caution and circumspection".
 
ExWrench said:
He's completely full of shit about not pulling the trigger - is there any doubt about that?
Click to expand...
Refer to Hanlon's razor. Having a Colt 45 go off in your hand when you're not expecting it is going to fuck with your psyche, especially if you're afraid of guns to begin with. He doesn't know what the fuck happened in that fraction of a second.
 
CrustyJeep said:
Refer to Hanlon's razor. Having a Colt 45 go off in your hand when you're not expecting it is going to fuck with your psyche, especially if you're afraid of guns to begin with. He doesn't know what the fuck happened in that fraction of a second.
Click to expand...
I've heard of Occams razor, what's Hanlons razor? [off to google]
 
CrustyJeep said:
Please show us in the law where having a professional armorer managing all weapons does not amount to "due caution and circumspection".
Click to expand...

Your looking at this backwards. Show us in law where they make exceptions for actors or any group of employees.
 
CrustyJeep said:
Please show us in the law where having a professional armorer managing all weapons does not amount to "due caution and circumspection".
Click to expand...

That doesn't relieve him off safely handling a firearm. He never checked the firearm then pointed and fired in another persons direction and that is enough to put his handling of the pistol under the following statute. Which also puts him under the first part of the Involuntary Manslaughter section, "unlawful act not amounting to felony". Either way you cut it, he as the shooter is criminally liable. If he had thought he was holding the "fake" version of his gun they had it would be different but he directly told the police that he new it was the real pistol.

A. Negligent use of a deadly weapon consists of:

(1) discharging a firearm into any building or vehicle or so as to knowingly endanger a person or his property;

(2) carrying a firearm while under the influence of an intoxicant or narcotic;

(3) endangering the safety of another by handling or using a firearm or other deadly weapon in a negligent manner; or

(4) discharging a firearm within one hundred fifty yards of a dwelling or building, not including abandoned or vacated buildings on public lands during hunting seasons, without the permission of the owner or lessees thereof.

B. The provisions of Paragraphs (1), (3) and (4) of Subsection A of this section shall not apply to a peace officer or other public employee who is required or authorized by law to carry or use a firearm in the course of his employment and who carries, handles, uses or discharges a firearm while lawfully engaged in carrying out the duties of his office or employment.

C. The exceptions from criminal liability provided for in Subsection B of this section shall not preclude or affect civil liability for the same conduct.

Whoever commits negligent use of a deadly weapon is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.
Click to expand...

Involuntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to felony
Click to expand...
 
WaterH said:
Your looking at this backwards. Show us in law where they make exceptions for actors or any group of employees.
Click to expand...
You seem incapable of seeing this in any way that doesn't meet your desired outcome.

There is no exception. There are, in fact, many different ways to achieve the safety needed in these situations. The firearm safety rules we all learned as kids is one way. They are by no means the only way, and again, I'd argue that expecting a gun fearing liberal actor to follow those guidelines with the necessary rigor to achieve real safety, is a lot like expecting people to avoid pregnancy by abstaining from sex. In other words, a recipe for disaster. What you advocate for would be deadly. The industry figured that out a long time ago, and that's why we now have :idea: fucking ARMORERS. Hopefully competent ones.

Tell me, do you know how to do all the maintenance that is required to keep your helicopter from randomly falling out of the sky? Or do you rely on someone else to handle most of that?
 
Toreadorranger said:
That doesn't relieve him off safely handling a firearm. He never checked the firearm then pointed and fired in another persons direction and that is enough to put his handling of the pistol under the following statute. Which also puts him under the first part of the Involuntary Manslaughter section, "unlawful act not amounting to felony". Either way you cut it, he as the shooter is criminally liable. If he had thought he was holding the "fake" version of his gun they had it would be different but he directly told the police that he new it was the real pistol.
Click to expand...
I think what you and WaterH don't realize is: a legally binding contract was made between the production company and the armorer's company, which put the armorer ultimately responsible for firearm safety on that set.

If this was you & some buddies fucking around in a parking lot, everything you're saying applies.

Butt, this was on a movie set where a person was legally responsible (by contract) for gun safety on that set.

There-fucking-fore: AB can only be held criminally responsible as the producer, not the gun handling actor monkey.
 
CrustyJeep said:
You seem incapable of seeing this in any way that doesn't meet your desired outcome.

There is no exception. There are, in fact, many different ways to achieve the safety needed in these situations. The firearm safety rules we all learned as kids is one way. They are by no means the only way, and again, I'd argue that expecting a gun fearing liberal actor to follow those guidelines with the necessary rigor to achieve real safety, is a lot like expecting people to avoid pregnancy by abstaining from sex. In other words, a recipe for disaster. What you advocate for would be deadly. The industry figured that out a long time ago, and that's why we now have :idea: fucking ARMORERS. Hopefully competent ones.

Tell me, do you know how to do all the maintenance that is required to keep your helicopter from randomly falling out of the sky? Or do you rely on someone else to handle most of that?
Click to expand...

Yes, I do know all the maintenance. (I have built helicopters from the ground up) I’m glad you brought that up. Let’s substitute helicopter for gun.

AB is in a scene where he is to start a helicopter and take off. He, of course, doesn’t know how to fly a helicopter and they have a pilot there for safety. The pilot shows him how to push the start button. Once the helicopter is running, they will change the angle of the camera and the pilot will climb in the other side and take off with the actor lightly holding the controls. The controls have locks that would need to be unlocked before the aircraft can take off. They also film a close up of AB pulling the collective when the helicopter is not running.

So they begin the scene, but for some unknown reason the controls are not locked. AB starts the helicopter and pulls the collective before the pilot can climb in. The aircraft takes off and immediately crashes, killing a crew member.

Yes, the control lock was not on. But AB pulled the collective on a running helicopter. Who’s fault is this? The pilots because he didn’t insure the control locks were on? I can see that. But that’s not what killed someone. AB is responsible for pulling that collective. Is he going to claim that he doesn’t know moving the controls could cause a crash? If he’s that dumb, he shouldn’t be allowed to touch the controls. The same goes for a gun.
 
WaterH said:
But AB pulled the collective on a running helicopter. Who’s fault is this? The pilots because he didn’t insure the control locks were on?
Click to expand...
The answer is: whomever was the LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE PERSON for ensuring the safe operation of that helicopter PER THE CONTRACT.

In the case of the Rust production, the ARMORER was responsible per contractual agreement.

Jesus motherfucking Christ, how many crayons do we need to wear down before you get that? :homer:
 
S
ExWrench said:
The answer is: whomever was the LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE PERSON for ensuring the safe operation of that helicopter PER THE CONTRACT.

In the case of the Rust production, the ARMORER was responsible per contractual agreement.

Jesus motherfucking Christ, how many crayons do we need to wear down before you get that? :homer:
Click to expand...
So if I have a contract with some company that they are legally responsible for the death of someone on my property, I can kill someone without going to jail. Got it.
 
WaterH said:
S

So if I have a contract with some company that they are legally responsible for the death of someone on my property, I can kill someone without going to jail. Got it.
Click to expand...
Yeah absolutely - try it :flipoff2:

Fucktard :shaking: :homer: - try reading. I hear it's fundamental.

the-more-you-learn-and-shit-the-more-you-know.gif
 
WaterH said:
To you guys sayin* real ammo is never used, I call BS. If they had a scrip call for an empty car to get shot up with an AK. They could set up a hundred explosive charges to create the rounds hitting the car or they could dump a couple clips in it. Which would make more sense?
Click to expand...

I'm not nearly as versed in this stuff as Firstram is, but I did work with a friend of mine to provide vehicles for the Tom Berenger movie 'Breaking Point' in '09*. There was a scene where Tom is driving his family in an older black Mercedes sedan and gets into an accident...the reason he's driving that car is because my friend had two of them at his junkyard, one that ran and one that was junk. The scene is one of those 'oh shit!' and then it cuts away to the aftermath of the accident (you never see it actually happen). The director gave us a general run down of how the accident was gonna go and we recreated it with the junk Merc in my buddy's back lot, which was a fun night with a lot of beer using wreckers and other junk cars to trash that Merc. When we brought them to NYC to film the scene they shot Tom's part driving, then had us place the car we wrecked on its side at the intersection while they brought the fire crews and ambulances etc for the next scene. All that to say...they could've rigged a car up for a stunt driver to execute the crash and hope it goes right, or it's just a doubled car prepped for whatever the scene is gonna be.

So something like you're talking about would likely be explosive charges for the motion shots/when people are involved and a double that was shot up off set per the director's instructions to use for the shots where they pull the bodies out or you see stuff close up.

*the movie sucked, but we also provided the '69 Riviera that he drives later in the movie, which we still have and he signed the visor. It was a total turd but they made it look good on screen :laughing:
 
CrustyJeep said:
Like... On purpose? You really have trouble keeping your eye on the ball here...
Click to expand...
Your sarcastic meter needs calibrating. My point is the police don’t give a shit about your contract. You may avoid liability with a good contract, but you can’t sign away criminal charges.
 
No one posted the video of the 'expert witness' pointing a gun at the judge yet? @0:30

 
ExWrench said:
I think what you and WaterH don't realize is: a legally binding contract was made between the production company and the armorer's company, which put the armorer ultimately responsible for firearm safety on that set.

If this was you & some buddies fucking around in a parking lot, everything you're saying applies.

Butt, this was on a movie set where a person was legally responsible (by contract) for gun safety on that set.

There-fucking-fore: AB can only be held criminally responsible as the producer, not the gun handling actor monkey.
Click to expand...

Sorry but he still negligently handled a firearm that led to someones death. A signed contract can not protect him in that case. He has guidance/training from the SAG that tells him how to handle a firearm on set which he did not follow and he knew he was holding a real firearm. If he had followed all his training and someone still got hurt then agreed the armorer would wear this whole thing, but that was not the case.

I also don't disagree that he has responsibility as the Producer for the armorers actions, but to say he isn't liable because a contract protects him as the shooter is just stupid.

If he had lawyer'ed up right away and not blabbed to the cops for 2 hours after waiving his miranda rights this would be a totally different case.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Back Refresh