Then Hutchins should have checked the gun herself as well, because she literally asked Baldwin not only to point it at her, but directed him *exactly* where to point it (which happened to be aimed at her torso). She put just as much faith in the protocols/process as Baldwin did.

Again, I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm simply saying the situation is more nuanced and complex than you're giving it credit for, if you watch the interview.

jackie childs said:

---

i listened to Clooney on Marc Maron's pod and found it interesting when they talked about this stuff. it wasn't particularly helpful to baldwin as Clooney said that he opens and inspects every gun he's handed on set and shows it to the person he's pointing it at too. also said he's never heard the expression 'cold gun' on a set before.

edit: also, i haven't followed this thread closely, so apologies if the clooney interview has already been discussed.

---

They address this in the interview and play the Clooney excerpt. Baldwin claims that an armor/prop master told him, on one of this early films, never to mess with the gun in that fashion after the armor/prop master hands it to him. Baldwin was told that an actor can end up inadvertently screwing up/dislodging/undoing whatever the armor/prop master did, by checking himself. Seems there are two schools of thought on this; that the actor should always check him/herself - or - the actor could end up *causing* an issue by checking himself, inadvertently undoing whatever the professional did who handed it to him. I have NO IDEA which is more valid, I'm simply relaying what was said in the interview (with more detail and examples than I can recall here).

I just don't agree there is any room for nuance here. The responsibility falls to the person who has the weapon in their hand.

On top of the very basics of firearm safety he was the producer. The process and protocols would fall under his discretion as well.

The issue boils down to lack of respect for the tool in hand and understanding of the consequences of mishandling it.

Again I am saddened about this happening. But it was 100% avoidable with even the most basic of firearm safety measures and training in place.

TCTTS said:

---

AgBQ-00 said:

---

Single action revolvers have to be manually cocked and then the trigger pulled for the hammer to fall. So either he was handed a cocked revolver that happened to have live ammo in it and it had a hair trigger so the lightest touch causes the hammer to fall; or he cocked it himself and either pulled the trigger or had a negligent discharge not intending to pull the trigger. Either way he pointed a loaded gun at people with the hammer cocked without knowing for positive that it was safe.

Considering he hied the armorer (who was in way over her head) who allowed live ammo to be used on set for plinking, he is still culpable.

---

I encourage everyone to watch the full interview. It's waaaaay more gray than that. I'm not saying he's not ultimately responsible, but it's not at all that simple either.

The entire thing is riveting. At times you feel for him, other times you can see him clearly shifting blame. Again, guilty or not, it's just a flat out fascinating and emotional interview.

---

Baldwin is an actor and this interview is just another script he's following except it's not for a paycheck, it's for his freedom. He's an expert at manipulating emotion and making people feel a certain way. That's been his job for decades.

Doesn't make it any less fascinating.

Also, I wasn't aware that Alec Baldwin was an actor, as I figured he was just another time traveling gunslinger from the 1800s. Thanks for heads up!

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

AgBQ-00 said:

---

I just don't agree there is any room for nuance here. The responsibility falls to the person who has the weapon in their hand.

On top of the very basics of firearm safety he was the producer. The process and protocols would fall under his discretion as well.

The issue boils down to lack of respect for the tool in hand and understanding of the consequences of mishandling it.

Again I am saddened about this happening. But it was 100% avoidable with even the most basic of firearm safety measures and training in place.

---

Not how it works on a movie set.

If you rent a car with faulty brakes and end up running someone over, who should be liable, you or the rental company?

In this case the rental company would be the AD, who's job it is to ensure a firearm is safe for the actor to handle.

---

What if you own the rental company and hired everybody in it? Baldwin has multiple roles and avenues of culpability in this. I think if he were just an actor in it, there would be a totally different view of the situation.

The more I've thought about this whole thing, the more in-line I am with this basic take. It just makes no sense that a bunch of actors should be the last line of defense in these situations. That, and the producer thing is spot on.

TCTTS said:

---

The more I've thought about this whole thing, the more in-line I am with this basic take. It just makes no sense that a bunch of actors should be the last line of defense in these situations. That, and the producer thing is spot on.

---

It's not a bunch of actors being the last line of defense. It's a human being in a situation where they're handling a deadly weapon. It doesn't matter that it's in the course of their job, it doesn't matter how comfortable (or uncomfortable) you are with the weapon, and it doesn't matter if the person you shot asked you to point it at them and fire.

If you are an actor that is uncomfortable handling weapons, then don't do a movie where you have to handle a weapon.

If you're in a situation where the person handling the weapon can 'mess up' what someone else did with it, you shouldn't be handling weapons. If you don't know how to handle the weapon without messing it up, either don't handle it or get the training required to handle it without messing it up.

It is asinine that this is even a discussion. If you have a potentially deadly weapon in your hands you are responsible for what happens with that weapon. This is Basic Gun Safety 101. If you can't handle that, don't handle a weapon, and don't work in a situation where you have to handle a weapon.

Azariah said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

The more I've thought about this whole thing, the more in-line I am with this basic take. It just makes no sense that a bunch of actors should be the last line of defense in these situations. That, and the producer thing is spot on.

---

It's not a bunch of actors being the last line of defense. It's a human being in a situation where they're handling a deadly weapon. It doesn't matter that it's in the course of their job, it doesn't matter how comfortable (or uncomfortable) you are with the weapon, and it doesn't matter if the person you shot asked you to point it at them and fire.

If you are an actor that is uncomfortable handling weapons, then don't do a movie where you have to handle a weapon.

If you're in a situation where the person handling the weapon can 'mess up' what someone else did with it, you shouldn't be handling weapons. If you don't know how to handle the weapon without messing it up, either don't handle it or get the training required to handle it without messing it up.

It is asinine that this is even a discussion. If you have a potentially deadly weapon in your hands you are responsible for what happens with that weapon. This is Basic Gun Safety 101. If you can't handle that, don't handle a weapon, and don't work in a situation where you have to handle a weapon.

---

If the brakes went out on a stunt car, and the stunt car then ran over a camera man, is the stunt driver at fault? Should he have checked the breaks himself before each and every take? Or does he place a certain amount of trust in those who built and serviced the car and told him it was okay to drive?

Given everything I've heard so far, I just don't know that on a movie set it should be up to the actor to make the final call; someone even less qualified than a stunt man, who has a dozen other things on their mind, like remembering their lines, hitting their mark, etc. There should be wall after wall of safety measures *before* the gun is placed in their hand, no doubt, but entrusting an actor to check - as the final, end all, be all safety precaution - is what I find asinine.

If you have a problem with that, then your issue should be with using real guns on set, period. Something that is absolutely worth discussing.

Tibbers said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

maxag42 said:

---

Still at the end of the day, a person is dead and the one ultimately responsible for it is Alec himself. Now, anyone can tell that he obviously didn't do it intently. However, like it or not, he was still the one that pointed the gun. As an actor, he may not be fully culpable but as a producer, he has to bear at least some responsibly for it.

That interview by him with George was a f****** joke. It's clear it was all an act to avoid blame for it. Truly disgusting. And all this is coming from someone who enjoyed a lot of his movies growing up. I'm just tired of people trying to cover up or defend all these Hollywood people whose actions would have landed them in jail or at least experienced hardship for it if they were normal ordinary people.

---

I don't at all see that happening here. By and large, Baldwin is being raked over the coals, sh*t on left and right, perhaps deservedly so, even by George Clooney of all people. Hardly anyone is defending Baldwin, and the opinions expressed in the tweets I quoted above aren't particularly favorable either. As for this thread, we're simply having a conversation about the situation, trying to figure it out as we go, the more we learn.

---

Perhaps Baldwin being such a **** head throughout his life is why everyone in Hollywood has taken this very public and very terrible event to in effect cancel him. It's an excuse for them. He deserves far worse. He should be in jail.

---

Ok, dude, we get it. You hate Alec Baldwin. We all know how much so many of you can't stand him. That horse has officially been beaten.

No one thinks he did anything intentional. They hired a person who was supposed to be overseeing the weapons. They were stupid and chose someone clearly not suited for the job given the prior reports of guns being discharged.

The part that bugs me: a woman was shot in the chest by a gun you held. Don't make it out to be "aiming at her armpit", "the gun just went off", "I don't know what happened."

Accidents like this don't usually happen because there was one failure. It was multiple and he was the final one....

How many did he violate? If functioning guns are in use then every person who will handle that gun must be proficient enough to do basic checks. Don't give me this crap that actors are incapable, when every year there are thousands of preteens./children who do it with family and do it safely.

And yes a review over if the gun was in working order, what safetyeasures were in place and how they were followed is definitely needed. There is more than just one person responsible. But Baldwin killed a person because he did not do the basics. That is and always should be the last line of safety. The person handling the gun is responsible for that gun.

jeffk said:

---

I infer that he squeezed the trigger to lower the hammer back down but didn't "pull" it to fire it. Probably didn't execute that move correctly and fired the gun. Being trifling with his language, but that's expected at this point in the investigation.

---

It was all scripted by his lawyers. All an act to place blame solely on the armorer.

Guns are still guns even on movie sets. Actors are people even on movie sets. Guns are pretty simple overall. If an actor isn't capable of following standard gun safety practices, they shouldn't handle guns at all, even on a movie set.

People are trying to make this sound really complicated and it's just not. Multiple people screwed up. Alec Baldwin is one, and as the shooter he bears ultimate responsibility. Nobody thinks it was intentional (as far as I know), but he still shot somebody. He's an adult with the rights and responsibilities that come along with that.

Hollywood has a good safety record because of all the extra checks. I am certainly not saying to take the checks away. Baldwin got complacent and therefore sloppy because of that.