There is no precedent in the DA jurisdiction for a case like this. Lots if legal analysis to do. Complicated case.

Apparently same round that killed the cinematographer is the one that they pulled from AD

Again urges anyone that was plinking or has knowledge of that to contact sheriff office.

Investigation ongoing on to how many live rounds were on set and how they got there. Rounds sent to fbi.

Not sure if Baldwin is still in NM.

Everyone on scene in the church have all been interviewed.

There IS a bridge to get to criminal behavior, need more facts to cross that bridge.

16 people on scene when it happened.

Q and A over. No real new news imo.

I guess the real news is that it's complicated to assign blame in a criminal sense in this case. Maybe because there are so many parties with shared responsibilities.

Yea, sounded like crossing the bridge from complacency to criminality is the main factor here, and assigning levels of culpability that cross that bridge may be difficult. Glad I dont have to study case law for a job, that's for sure.

JCA1 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

JCA1 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

jeffk said:

---

Yep, a lot of the "responsibilities of gun safety" that we've all been taught since childhood get contracted out to the experts that are on set. It's more efficient, faster, and honestly (when done with fidelity) more safe than if we let all the novice acting talent handle the weapons processing themselves. It'd be great if all of the talent could add an extra set of knowledgeable hands/eyes to the process, but if you've ever tried to teach a novice (especially a reluctant one) how to safely handle a gun, it can be a really strenuous and often dangerous process.

---

AGAIN, I'm not sayin get rid of that process. But add one last step where the actor himself checks prior to pulling the trigger. Sorta like how pilots still walk around their aircraft even though there are mechanics that know 1000X more than they do working on the aircraft and that aircraft are a gazillion times more complicated than a gun.

---

As tragic as this was, does the history of firearm usage in film suggest an additional step is necessary in the grand scheme of things? I mean, this never happens. The only other one I'm aware of in the last 30 years is Brandon Lee, and that involved a blank and a lodged projectile, so checking the "ammo" wouldn't have stopped that either.

Life is full of risks. We could reduce a lot of deaths by reducing speed limits, going back into COVID lockdowns, etc. There's lots of dangerous professions that exist purely for entertainment (Formula 1 racing comes to mind). As some point, you have to find the acceptable level of risk (but it's still some risk). By its historical track record, it seems like this risk has been sufficiently mitigated if the proper protocols are followed. Looks like they weren't here and that was the problem.

---

Outside of Hollywood (aka, the sane world), if somebody hands you a gun and tells you it's safe, do you blindly shoot? Even if he looks to be an expert? Of course not. You check the gun yourself to make sure it's okay. And a good expert would tell you (and show you if necessary) to check it yourself.

At the very least, if I'm an actor, I would want to check before pulling the trigger for peace of mind so that I do not have killing somebody in my brain for the rest of my life. Especially if there has been protocol issues like on this set. And I'm not talking about a new law, but a new rule within Hollywood.

Formula 1 drivers willingly accept the risk for themselves. That is much different than putting other people at risk.

---

This is a workplace safety question. There's no reason to consider the risks presented by guns any different than any other risk. What matters is the magnitude of the risk. What we know is the magnitude of the risk of death from an accidental/negligent discharge of a firearm on a movie set is virtually nonexistent (2 in the last 30 years).

Are you advocating that we revise all workplace safety rules for any workplace accidents that result in 2 or more deaths over a 30 year period? If not, why not? Those people are no less dead and additional safety protocols could have potentially saved them. But I'll let you in on a secret, if 2 workplace deaths in 30 years is unacceptable, you're basically going to grind our labor force to a halt.

---

A) You are counting deaths. Not shootings or even accidental discharges where it was lucky that nobody was standing in the path.

B) It's about cost/benefit. It practically costs nothing to add a training slide with a picture of blanks/dummys and for actor to check. I bet Baldwin wishes he checked right about now. Furthermore, it may cost LESS. It seems preposterous that they have 2+ full time employees check that and NOT the actor. If actors knew they would would be responsible (like the rest of us would be), then you know for damn sure they would check.

Again I'm not talking about adding any laws.

Other professions have continuing education, maybe the SAG needs a training center and mandatory classes.

JCA1 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

JCA1 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

JCA1 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

jeffk said:

---

Yep, a lot of the "responsibilities of gun safety" that we've all been taught since childhood get contracted out to the experts that are on set. It's more efficient, faster, and honestly (when done with fidelity) more safe than if we let all the novice acting talent handle the weapons processing themselves. It'd be great if all of the talent could add an extra set of knowledgeable hands/eyes to the process, but if you've ever tried to teach a novice (especially a reluctant one) how to safely handle a gun, it can be a really strenuous and often dangerous process.

---

AGAIN, I'm not sayin get rid of that process. But add one last step where the actor himself checks prior to pulling the trigger. Sorta like how pilots still walk around their aircraft even though there are mechanics that know 1000X more than they do working on the aircraft and that aircraft are a gazillion times more complicated than a gun.

---

As tragic as this was, does the history of firearm usage in film suggest an additional step is necessary in the grand scheme of things? I mean, this never happens. The only other one I'm aware of in the last 30 years is Brandon Lee, and that involved a blank and a lodged projectile, so checking the "ammo" wouldn't have stopped that either.

Life is full of risks. We could reduce a lot of deaths by reducing speed limits, going back into COVID lockdowns, etc. There's lots of dangerous professions that exist purely for entertainment (Formula 1 racing comes to mind). As some point, you have to find the acceptable level of risk (but it's still some risk). By its historical track record, it seems like this risk has been sufficiently mitigated if the proper protocols are followed. Looks like they weren't here and that was the problem.

---

Outside of Hollywood (aka, the sane world), if somebody hands you a gun and tells you it's safe, do you blindly shoot? Even if he looks to be an expert? Of course not. You check the gun yourself to make sure it's okay. And a good expert would tell you (and show you if necessary) to check it yourself.

At the very least, if I'm an actor, I would want to check before pulling the trigger for peace of mind so that I do not have killing somebody in my brain for the rest of my life. Especially if there has been protocol issues like on this set. And I'm not talking about a new law, but a new rule within Hollywood.

Formula 1 drivers willingly accept the risk for themselves. That is much different than putting other people at risk.

---

This is a workplace safety question. There's no reason to consider the risks presented by guns any different than any other risk. What matters is the magnitude of the risk. What we know is the magnitude of the risk of death from an accidental/negligent discharge of a firearm on a movie set is virtually nonexistent (2 in the last 30 years).

Are you advocating that we revise all workplace safety rules for any workplace accidents that result in 2 or more deaths over a 30 year period? If not, why not? Those people are no less dead and additional safety protocols could have potentially saved them. But I'll let you in on a secret, if 2 workplace deaths in 30 years is unacceptable, you're basically going to grind our labor force to a halt.

---

A) You are counting deaths. Not shootings or even accidental discharges where it was lucky that nobody was standing in the path.

B) It's about cost/benefit. It practically costs nothing to add a training slide with a picture of blanks/dummys and for actor to check. I bet Baldwin wishes he checked right about now. Furthermore, it may cost LESS. It seems preposterous that they have 2+ full time employees check that and NOT the actor. If actors knew they would would be responsible (like the rest of us would be), then you know for damn sure they would check.

Again I'm not talking about adding any laws.

---

And I'll again say that, statistically, there is no reason to think additional safeguards are necessary, despite this tragic episode.

I grew up around firearms and I would certainly check a gun handed to me. But I'm not everyone. A lot of people don't have any working knowledge of firearms, and you're not gonna teach them enough with a slideshow. And it's far from clear that having additional, inexperienced people load and unload weapons on a set is a net gain.

And, again, this is a workplace safety issue, not a gun issue per se. There are deadly risks that we subcontract out to experts on jobsites all the time. This is no different.

---

So clearly you aren't reading what I wrote. I am not talking about having hollywood actors load them. I've said that many times already. Just check before they shoot.

Let's use a hypothetical. First scene calls for a revolver with blanks. Second scene a revolver with dummies.

How do you want to check the blanks? They typically have a crimped nose, but since the gun is already loaded, do you recommend the actor looking down the barrel so he can see the noses in the cylinder?

How do you want to check the dummies? It's my understanding they look just like live ammo (that's the point). There's no way to look at a loaded revolver and tell.

JCA1 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

JCA1 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

JCA1 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

JCA1 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

jeffk said:

---

Yep, a lot of the "responsibilities of gun safety" that we've all been taught since childhood get contracted out to the experts that are on set. It's more efficient, faster, and honestly (when done with fidelity) more safe than if we let all the novice acting talent handle the weapons processing themselves. It'd be great if all of the talent could add an extra set of knowledgeable hands/eyes to the process, but if you've ever tried to teach a novice (especially a reluctant one) how to safely handle a gun, it can be a really strenuous and often dangerous process.

---

AGAIN, I'm not sayin get rid of that process. But add one last step where the actor himself checks prior to pulling the trigger. Sorta like how pilots still walk around their aircraft even though there are mechanics that know 1000X more than they do working on the aircraft and that aircraft are a gazillion times more complicated than a gun.

---

As tragic as this was, does the history of firearm usage in film suggest an additional step is necessary in the grand scheme of things? I mean, this never happens. The only other one I'm aware of in the last 30 years is Brandon Lee, and that involved a blank and a lodged projectile, so checking the "ammo" wouldn't have stopped that either.

Life is full of risks. We could reduce a lot of deaths by reducing speed limits, going back into COVID lockdowns, etc. There's lots of dangerous professions that exist purely for entertainment (Formula 1 racing comes to mind). As some point, you have to find the acceptable level of risk (but it's still some risk). By its historical track record, it seems like this risk has been sufficiently mitigated if the proper protocols are followed. Looks like they weren't here and that was the problem.

---

Outside of Hollywood (aka, the sane world), if somebody hands you a gun and tells you it's safe, do you blindly shoot? Even if he looks to be an expert? Of course not. You check the gun yourself to make sure it's okay. And a good expert would tell you (and show you if necessary) to check it yourself.

At the very least, if I'm an actor, I would want to check before pulling the trigger for peace of mind so that I do not have killing somebody in my brain for the rest of my life. Especially if there has been protocol issues like on this set. And I'm not talking about a new law, but a new rule within Hollywood.

Formula 1 drivers willingly accept the risk for themselves. That is much different than putting other people at risk.

---

This is a workplace safety question. There's no reason to consider the risks presented by guns any different than any other risk. What matters is the magnitude of the risk. What we know is the magnitude of the risk of death from an accidental/negligent discharge of a firearm on a movie set is virtually nonexistent (2 in the last 30 years).

Are you advocating that we revise all workplace safety rules for any workplace accidents that result in 2 or more deaths over a 30 year period? If not, why not? Those people are no less dead and additional safety protocols could have potentially saved them. But I'll let you in on a secret, if 2 workplace deaths in 30 years is unacceptable, you're basically going to grind our labor force to a halt.

---

A) You are counting deaths. Not shootings or even accidental discharges where it was lucky that nobody was standing in the path.

B) It's about cost/benefit. It practically costs nothing to add a training slide with a picture of blanks/dummys and for actor to check. I bet Baldwin wishes he checked right about now. Furthermore, it may cost LESS. It seems preposterous that they have 2+ full time employees check that and NOT the actor. If actors knew they would would be responsible (like the rest of us would be), then you know for damn sure they would check.

Again I'm not talking about adding any laws.

---

And I'll again say that, statistically, there is no reason to think additional safeguards are necessary, despite this tragic episode.

I grew up around firearms and I would certainly check a gun handed to me. But I'm not everyone. A lot of people don't have any working knowledge of firearms, and you're not gonna teach them enough with a slideshow. And it's far from clear that having additional, inexperienced people load and unload weapons on a set is a net gain.

And, again, this is a workplace safety issue, not a gun issue per se. There are deadly risks that we subcontract out to experts on jobsites all the time. This is no different.

---

So clearly you aren't reading what I wrote. I am not talking about having hollywood actors load them. I've said that many times already. Just check before they shoot.

---

Check what exactly? Between blanks, dummies, and live ammo, you can't always tell without unloading.

---

Read what I wrote 20 times already.

Yeah, you can't convince me that between clear magazines, color coding, and stamping, you can't have a system that takes about 2 seconds for someone handed a weapon to check. With the gun safety drilled into my brain, if I was an actor, I would want that

You missed it then. He's mentioned clear mags and stamping ammo, at a minimum

And sure, the track record of accidents is good. That said, i always advocate looking for ways to do something better. And you may actually save time/effort/$$$ when you make it more obvious. The armorer and AD jobs get easier to check and not **** up

What caused one post to get split into 20?

The conversation that started by saying that Baldwin should have done more to check the ammo in his revolver has been slowly shifting to saying that the industry should have different standards and practices.

Which is a natural evolution when the excuse is "there's not enough time to expect Baldwin to check the weapon"

PatAg said:

---

What caused one post to get split into 20?

---

I said it more than once. 20 is clearly hyperbole.

I don't disagree that it would be wise to have better safety procedures in place. Generally speaking, it seems like the industry standards are pretty high when it comes to firearms safety and most incidents I'm aware of are due to folks short-cutting those established parameters. If I was an actor, I'd want to watch my props loaded too... but I'm familiar with guns and take safety as a personal responsibility.

The shift in conversation is fine, it just doesn't have much bearing on determining what happened on this particular set with Alec Baldwin.

Deaths make the news, but I think data on close calls, NDs, etc would be relevant to know. For instance, it sounds like there may have been 2-3 on this set before now, which clearly didn't make the news. Makes you wonder how often people have gotten lucky by someone not being in the way

Yeah, that would definitely be good data to consider.

DannyDuberstein said:

---

You missed it then. He's mentioned clear mags and stamping ammo, at a minimum

And sure, the track record of accidents is good. That said, i always advocate looking for ways to do something better. And you may actually save time/effort/$$$ when you make it more obvious. The armorer and AD jobs get easier to check and not **** up

---

That's all well and good as a prospective fix. But he's also said he bets Baldwin wished he had checked the gun. I just want to know what he wanted Baldwin to do last week. Rather than answer, he just says he's already explained it.

I bet Baldwin wishes he checked the gun too. For what he was using it for, there should have been no rounds in it. Is it that hard to check a cold revolver?

DannyDuberstein said:

---

I bet Baldwin wishes he checked the gun too. For what he was using it for, there should have been no rounds in it. Is it that hard to check a cold revolver?

---

Do we know they didn't want dummy rounds in it?

I think they wanted the dummy rounds in there so they could see what his draw was looking like on camera for an upcoming scene. That's the only explanation that makes sense to me.

jeffk said:

---

I think they wanted the dummy rounds in there so they could see what his draw was looking like on camera for an upcoming scene. That's the only explanation that makes sense to me.

---

It's certainly plausible that they were doing the walk through with dummies. If that's the case, the gun should be loaded, just with dummies. And there's no way Baldwin could differentiate the dummies from live ammo without unloading the gun and inspecting them.

jeffk said:

---

Yep, a lot of the "responsibilities of gun safety" that we've all been taught since childhood get contracted out to the experts that are on set. It's more efficient, faster, and honestly (when done with fidelity) more safe than if we let all the novice acting talent handle the weapons processing themselves. It'd be great if all of the talent could add an extra set of knowledgeable hands/eyes to the process, but if you've ever tried to teach a novice (especially a reluctant one) how to safely handle a gun, it can be a really strenuous and often dangerous process.

---

Easiest thing in the world to check a revolver to see if it's loaded. I have a .45 LC revolver and one of the things I've always liked about it is how obvious and easy it is to see if it's loaded. Release the cylinder and you can see all of the chambers in a split second. It's actually kinda fun to thumb the release and click the cylinder out and then pop it back in. That's part of the attraction of revolvers.

There's really no reason to have it loaded, even with dummy rounds, when they're not even shooting and the main purpose seems to be him practicing his draw from an awkward position.

If you wanted to have dummy rounds for some reason, like you're wanting to see what a closeup would look like that showed the bullets in the cylinder (seems unlikely from what we know) then you should have verified they were dummies.

This whole deal hits close to me a bit because II actually had a similar incident when i was a kid (10-11 I think) . My dad had a Colt .45 revolver, sweet handgun, which he had used as part of a Halloween costume for a party. He kept it in his armoire with the old-fashioned belt and bandolier style holster with rounds in it. We'd had a brief discussion about him carrying a "real gun" to the party but he said "yeah, but they're not real bullets."

So I got the gun out that afternoon to play with it and loaded the cylinder with the "not real" bullets. But I was still sufficiently scared of the gun, and before I started pointing it and shooting at anything I stuck the gun out the window and shot it into the air. I'd only shot .22s at that point and it was the loudest thing I'd ever heard. Almost crapped my pants and my dog went running off like she was shot out of a cannon. The "not real" bullets were blanks, not dummies, at least as far as I know to this day. I never asked my dad about it because I didn't want the whipping that would come with me playing around with something he'd told me I shouldn't touch without him supervising.

So, if 11 year old me had been handed a revolver loaded with "dummy rounds", I would have triggered thru the cylinder while pointing it at the sky just to be sure.

So either Baldwin didn't check the cylinder, which takes less than a second, or he saw there were bullets in it but took someone else's word that they were dummies and didn't check for himself.

You might say, well, he never could have guess that there were live rounds mixed in. But he damn well could have suspected that there could be blanks mixed in. Heck, I'd be worried about shooting a blank into my crotch while trying to execute a complicated cross draw.

So the final responsibility in my view, just as in any other person's view who's been taught correctly about firearms, is on the person holding the gun when it went off.

It doesn't make him a murderer, this was clearly an accident. But his negligence directly led to this woman losing her life. It was just lazy and sloppy on his part.

The people who mixed in the live rounds and the armorer who didn't enforce basic safety protocols, and the AD who handed him the pistol, are even more at fault IMO,, but that lady is still alive if Baldwin takes proper responsibility for using a firearm. When you're holding the firearm you don't get to outsource your responsibility for making sure it's handled safely. And that doesn't address whatever responsibility he may have for cutting corners in the production and hiring.

aTmAg said:

---

PatAg said:

---

What caused one post to get split into 20?

---

I said it more than once. 20 is clearly hyperbole.

---

Talking about Sea Speed's

Agree with you that it's easy to tell if a revolver is loaded. Like, impossible to miss easy. That's one reason I think it was intended to be loaded. Even as crappy as this set apparently was, I have a hard time believing the armorer, AD, director, Baldwin, and everyone else who were in the church when it happened didn't notice.

JCA1 said:

---

Agree with you that it's easy to tell if a revolver is loaded. Like, impossible to miss easy. That's one reason I think it was intended to be loaded. Even as crappy as this set apparently was, I have a hard time believing the armorer, AD, director, Baldwin, and everyone else who were in the church when it happened didn't notice.

---

These idiots had live ammo on site and were plinking with prop weapons. I give them zero benefit of the doubt.

And everything I've read was that the focus was on Baldwin's actual draw. It sounded like otherwise somewhat minimal folks were around, which to me makes it seem less likely it mattered whether dummy rounds were in it or not