Alec Baldwin did what?

[Cmaier]

Wow. What a story.

Sheriff's office: Alec Baldwin discharged prop gun that killed crew member, wounded director

Baldwin is one of the film's star actors and producers. He went to the sheriff's office willingly and provided a statement to investigators, sheriff's office spokesman Juan Ríos said.

www.santafenewmexican.com

 

[Yoused]

hey, man, it was just a prop

 

[DT]

Holy hell, that’s crazy, I’m sure - like when the same sort of thing happened with Brandon Lee - this will open up the discussions about real firearms with blanks being used in movies/films.

 

[Pumbaa]

Holy hell, that’s crazy, I’m sure - like when the same sort of thing happened with Brandon Lee - this will open up the discussions about real firearms with blanks being used in movies/films.

Real guns? As in “treat every single gun as if it was loaded” and “never aim your gun at anyone or anything you are not willing to kill or destroy”? Guns are weapons, not toys.

 

[DT]

Real guns? As in “treat every single gun as if it was loaded” and “never aim your gun at anyone or anything you are not willing to kill or destroy”? Guns are weapons, not toys.

Yeah, that's probably not accurate, this was indicated as a "prop gun", but with blanks, it's has the potential for the same force as a "real gun". Generally, I think actual, real firearms are only used for specific scenes, but in some productions they are present on set. So closeup, real, firing - prop, but with blanks that release significant pressures (which is what has happened, the blank wadding, or a part of the prop shattered and it was projected as high velocities).

[edit]

Though this is interesting from the Wiki on Brandon Lee:

In the film shoot preceding the fatal scene, the prop gun, which is a real revolver, was loaded with improperly-made dummy rounds, cartridges from which the special-effects crew had removed the powder charges so in close-ups the revolver would show normal-looking ammunitions.

Note the bold part.

 

[Pumbaa]

Note the bold part.

Yeah, prop does not mean fake, just that it is a portable object (other than furniture or costumes) used on the set.

Treat real weapons as if they were real weapons. Simple as that.

 

[Edd]

I actually feel sorry for Baldwin. That’s gotta fuck you up.

 

[JayMysteri0]

I actually feel sorry for Baldwin. That’s gotta fuck you up.

I do as well, but you know the inevitable 'million dollar question' will be, "Why was he pointing the gun in their direction?"

If they just happened be in the direction... that's one thing. Still begging why the gun was raised that high in their direction.

Baldwin can have a bit of a temper. If he believed the gun wouldn't fire, perhaps... All things investigators will be looking at.

 

[Cmaier]

I do as well, but you know the inevitable 'million dollar question' will be, "Why was he pointing the gun in their direction?"

If they just happened be in the direction... that's one thing. Still begging why the gun was raised that high in their direction.

Baldwin can have a bit of a temper. If he believed the gun wouldn't fire, perhaps... All things investigators will be looking at.

Presumably he pointed the gun in the direction they told him to point it in. When making a movie, all of these things are carefully determined, so that the camera angles are right, etc.

 

[Eric]

Presumably he pointed the gun in the direction they told him to point it in. When making a movie, all of these things are carefully determined, so that the camera angles are right, etc.

Right, it's hard to imagine this would be deliberate in any way. He must feel pretty terrible.

 

[JayMysteri0]

Presumably he pointed the gun in the direction they told him to point it in. When making a movie, all of these things are carefully determined, so that the camera angles are right, etc.

That's presuming.

There's also rehearsals, set up / positioning, downtime, discussions etc. Not EVERY move on a set at ALL times is orchestrated.

Which is why they will investigate, to find out what the circumstances were at the time. It isn't to say Baldwin is to blame directly, but all things have to be considered for a thorough investigation.

Alec Baldwin asked why was he given ‘hot gun’ after fatal film set shooting

The tragic accident unfolded while Baldwin was filming his upcoming western film “Rust” at Bonanza Creek Ranch in Sante Fe.

nypost.com

A distraught Alec Baldwin repeatedly asked why he was given a “hot gun” after his prop weapon discharged on his New Mexico film set Thursday, accidentally killing a cinematographer and injuring the director, witnesses have claimed.

The tragic accident unfolded while Baldwin was filming his upcoming Western film “Rust” at Bonanza Creek Ranch in Sante Fe.

Cinematographer Halyna Hutchins, 42, died and director, Joel Souza, 48, was injured after they were both struck when the gun discharged, the Santa Fe County Sheriff’s Office said.

Immediately after the incident, an eyewitness told Hollywood gossip site Showbiz 411 that Baldwin started asking how he could have been given a “hot gun” — meaning a firearm loaded with real ammunition.

“In all my years, I’ve never been handed a hot gun,” the actor allegedly kept saying.

The witness said Baldwin was in shock after the ordeal and he “had no idea how badly they were hurt or Halyna was dead.”

 

[Eric]

That's presuming.

Actually, the claim the this was deliberate with no basis in reality is presuming, do you REALLY think he deliberately shot someone on the set out of anger knowing there was a real bullet in the gun?

 

[Cmaier]

That's presuming.

There's also rehearsals, set up / positioning, downtime, discussions etc. Not EVERY move on a set at ALL times is orchestrated.

Which is why they will investigate, to find out what the circumstances were at the time. It isn't to say Baldwin is to blame directly, but all things have to be considered for a thorough investigation.

Since the first word you quoted was “presumably,” yes “that’s presuming.”

Still a good bet.

 

[JayMysteri0]

Actually, the claim the this was deliberate with no basis in reality is presuming, do you REALLY think he deliberately shot someone on the set out of anger knowing there was a real bullet in the gun?

No.

MY claim in stating it was presuming Baldwin was directed / told to point the gun, which we just don't know YET.

It's presuming that all sets & productions are run the same, with no variations. There was no stating anything was deliberate. It's that that is something will be considered in the investigation as everything has to be considered possible.

Since the first word you quoted was “presumably,” yes “that’s presuming.”

Still a good bet.

My point. Linguistics aside.

We DON'T know.

Thus the investigation. A true investigation can NOT leave out that maybe it was or was NOT deliberate. Saying otherwise is inserting one's own bias about the subject.

 

[Eric]

No.

MY claim in stating it was presuming Baldwin was directed / told to point the gun, which we just don't know YET.

It's presuming that all sets & productions are run the same, with no variations. There was no stating anything was deliberate. It's that that is something will be considered in the investigation as everything has to be considered possible.


My point. Linguistics aside.

We DON'T know.

Thus the investigation. A true investigation can NOT leave out that maybe it was or was NOT deliberate. Saying otherwise is inserting one's own bias about the subject.

The implication that he may have done this out of anger is ridiculous. I could just as easily say "he also ate live puppies behind the barn, WE DON'T KNOW".

Let's be realistic here. It was a prop gun on a movie set filled with people, it's also likely all caught on film.

 

[Cmaier]

The implication that he may have done this out of anger is ridiculous. I could just as easily say "he also ate live puppies behind the barn, WE DON'T KNOW".

Let's be realistic here. It was a prop gun on a movie set filled with people, it's also likely all caught on film.

No, Eric. He figured out how to commit the perfect murder. Makes much more sense.

 

[JayMysteri0]

The implication that he did may have done this out of anger is ridiculous. I could just as easily say "he also ate live puppies behind the barn, WE DON'T KNOW".

Let's be realistic here. It was a prop gun on a movie set filled with people, it's also likely all caught on film.

Your conclusion is based on what?

It's been observed that Baldwin had no reason to believe he had a 'hot firearm' ( to paraphrase ), so it' not out of the realm of possibility he pointed the gun in that direction believing it would NOT fire, as he was making a point. Looking at a ham sandwich. Saying "look over there". Etc

Your implication is that I'm trying to make Baldwin out to be a bad guy. I'm NOT. I'm just saying what investigators will be looking at, as they consider EVERYTHING. You don't discount something in an investigation, because YOU personally couldn't see it happening. YOU aren't the one being investigated.

No, Eric. He figured out how to commit the perfect murder. Makes much more sense.

Once again, nothing close to what I've been plainly saying.

ALL options are possible, until they are seemingly definitively eliminated.

It's possible that without realizing the gun could be lethal, they were pointed at that direction & fired. You wait until it's discounted with fact that wasn't a thing, moving onto discounting the next possible thing.

No one's presuming guilt. Only asking until we know definitively why the firearm was being pointed. You maybe both correct. You don't know definitively yet. That's what investigations are for. To determine what was what, regardless of one's personal presumptions.

 

[Alli]

It’s something out of a mystery show. We’ve seen it dozens of times. It usually winds up being the props guy.

I feel so very sorry for Baldwin.

Let’s just hope this is a big, tragic accident.

 

[Cmaier]

Your conclusion is based on what?

It's been observed that Baldwin had no reason to believe he had a 'hot firearm' ( to paraphrase ), so it' not out of the realm of possibility he pointed the gun in that direction believing it would NOT fire, as he was making a point. Looking at a ham sandwich. Saying "look over there". Etc

Your implication is that I'm trying to make Baldwin out to be a bad guy. I'm NOT. I'm just saying what investigators will be looking at, as they consider EVERYTHING. You don't discount something in an investigation, because YOU personally couldn't see it happening. YOU aren't the one being investigated.


Once again, nothing close to what I've been plainly saying.

ALL options are possible, entirely they are seemingly definitively eliminated.

It's possible that without realizing the guns could be lethal, they were pointed at that direction & fired. You wait until it's discounted with fact that wasn't a thing, moving onto discounting the next possible thing.

No one's presuming guilt. Only asking until we know definitively why the firearm was being pointed. You maybe both correct. You don't know definitively yet. That's what investigations are for. To determine what was what, regardless of one's personal presumptions.

It need not be said that something is *possible* In response to posts saying that things are *unlikely.*.

Yes, maybe he got angry and tried to kill someone with a gun he thought was loaded with blanks. Possible, but not likely.
Yes, maybe he pre-loaded the gun with live rounds and intended to commit murder. Possible, but not likely.
Yes, maybe space aliens snuck into the prop storage and messed with the gun. Possible, but not likely.

 

[Eric]

No, Eric. He figured out how to commit the perfect murder. Makes much more sense.

Once again, nothing close to what I've been plainly saying.

I see, I must have misinterpreted this statement

Baldwin can have a bit of a temper. If he believed the gun wouldn't fire, perhaps... All things investigators will be looking at.

my bad