Alec Baldwin

[Brooklyn 3.0]

Quote

While he might not have pulled the trigger, he did admit to pulling back the hammer on the gun while working with Hutchins to frame the scene they were rehearsing.

 

[LinvilleGorge]

12 minutes ago, Harbingers said:

I don’t get how this could have even been an issue. Was Baldwin never trained to hold guns? Ever? Literally even with BB’s or what not when I’m handed any gun I check it or confirm with whoever gave it, loaded it to me with what it’s status is. It’s literally second nature. 

My biggest “WTF” moment was the fact he claimed he never pulled the trigger. The only explanation to me is like I said when it happened if it was a very old antique gun, anything else he would have had to pressure the trigger. I feel like as a prosecutor they could run with that comment too, even with the amount of money going against them. If they can prove he pulled the trigger, it would be over now that he said he didn’t. 

Teaching someone to check the chamber is minimal. Him flexing that if you check every firearm every time good for you? Yikes.

 

[LinvilleGorge]

15 minutes ago, onmyown said:

Right. But that doesn’t solve anything or consider the full scope. Saying something happened because someone is ignorant and therefore negligent doesn’t do anything. Ignorance is just that. Some of society reinforces ignorance. That’s the point. That’s the part of the problem. And that shares the blame.

No one should think the answer is saying Baldwin should have known better without asking why he did not know better is all I’m saying. 

Have someone hand you a gun and that gun ends up somehow firing and killing someone. Trust and believe you're going to get charged. Ignorance isn't an excuse.

[Harbingers]

7 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Teaching someone to check the chamber is minimal. Him flexing that if you check every firearm every time good for you? Yikes.

 

I think Baldwin is expecting charges. 

[onmyown]

14 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Have someone hand you a gun and that gun ends up somehow firing and killing someone. Trust and believe you're going to get charged. Ignorance isn't an excuse.

Not saying he shouldn’t be charged. I’m saying how about something more productive come of this?

I dunno like make it a requirement to teach people about guns, and even better, the specific gun they’re handling, if they’re going to handle them. And in a perfect world, even if they’re not.

The majority of people have no clue what pulling the hammer back means in any capacity.

Just a recent thought. My ex’s parents bought her a gun for protection two years before I met her. She had never fired it. It was brand new when I messed with it. I took her to the range and taught her. That was a terrifying day. Yes, it was on her to learn about it. That isn’t the point.

I’d bet that sums up a lot of people’s reality who are anti gun or not fond of them (not opposing this to be clear).

It’s ok to be anti firearm and still realize you need to learn about them for the fact they exist in our reality. I think this point seems to not be understood or supported all that well.

Edited December 4, 2021 by onmyown

[LinvilleGorge]

10 minutes ago, onmyown said:

Not saying he shouldn’t be charged. I’m saying how about something more productive come of this?

I dunno like make it a requirement to teach people about guns, and even better, the specific gun they’re handling, if they’re going to handle them. And in a perfect world, even if they’re not.

The majority of people have no clue what pulling the hammer back means in any capacity.

Just a recent thought. My ex’s parents bought her a gun for protection two years before I met her. She had never fired it. It was brand new when I messed with it. I took her to the range and taught her. That was a terrifying day. Yes, it was on her to learn about it. That isn’t the point.

I’d bet that sums up a lot of people’s reality who are anti gun or not fond of them (not opposing this to be clear).

It’s ok to be anti firearm and still realize you need to learn about them for the fact they exist in our reality. I think this point seems to not be understood or supported all that well.

I know nothing about Hollywood standards but based on Clooney's comments I'm not so sure that isn't the standard. 

And you kinda hit on a sore spot for me. A LOT of Hollywood is anti-gun while literally getting wealthy of of movies that glorify gun violence. I mean, that's about as hypocritical as it gets. Just practice what you preach. If you're anti-gun, whatever. But don't cash those checks for those movies glorifying gun violence.

[onmyown]

9 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

I know nothing about Hollywood standards but based on Clooney's comments I'm not so sure that isn't the standard. 

And you kinda hit on a sore spot for me. A LOT of Hollywood is anti-gun while literally getting wealthy of of movies that glorify gun violence. I mean, that's about as hypocritical as it gets. Just practice what you preach. If you're anti-gun, whatever. But don't cash those checks for those movies glorifying gun violence.

Entertainment gets a pass, always has and always will. Comedians, music, movies…society is cancelling people outside these arenas (or worse), for saying or displaying things they’re so adamantly against, while at the the same time actually enjoying these very things in their entertainment.

It’s not just Hollywood, you think the anti-gun masses have never enjoyed an action flick? Yea, not even close. Hell, how many diehard Panther fans would allow their kid to play football all their lives? I’d bet there is quite a few.

And I’m not on a soapbox here, I am not perfect, I am guilty of this myself. Curiosity? Human nature? Some reflection of Psychology? Sociology? I’m sure there is a lot that goes into it.

[PhillyB]

3 hours ago, LinvilleGorge said:

I know nothing about Hollywood standards but based on Clooney's comments I'm not so sure that isn't the standard. 

And you kinda hit on a sore spot for me. A LOT of Hollywood is anti-gun while literally getting wealthy of of movies that glorify gun violence. I mean, that's about as hypocritical as it gets. Just practice what you preach. If you're anti-gun, whatever. But don't cash those checks for those movies glorifying gun violence.

profoundly dumb take 

[LinvilleGorge]

4 minutes ago, PhillyB said:

profoundly dumb take 

I'd honestly be interested in hearing your take. I'm not interested in calling you dumb even though I'm very confident I know a lot more than you do about firearm safety. It's very possible the movie industry has a profoundly dumb take on firearm safety.

[PhillyB]

I just wrapped up production on a feature film set during world war two. It was a scale or two below RUST; I'm guessing that was a ~5MM production but there are some structural similarities. Couple of decent-sized names as leads - we had Arnold Vosloo, Michael Ironside, and a few others to sell the picture - and going with non-union crew to save a buck (ours was done out of absolute fiduciary necessity as above-line costs ate up the majority of budget and I'm also a nobody who needs to crank out a good return to cement a career in the industry.)

My film had a lot of guns. Arnold Vosloo fires a Luger at a bunch of downed American aviators. Germans are firing full-auto machine guns. The film's lead goes HAM at the end of the movie with a German machine gun emplacement. Dozens of rounds fired from a .38 special, a car chase with guys leaning out the windows with full auto MGs and a MOSSAD agent with a full auto Uzi letting rip from the back seat of a sedan. Tons and tons of guns.

We didn't have any accidents because despite being non-union I hired a competent armorer, hired a stunt coordinator who worked with him hand-in-hand, and ensured (along with my production staff) that we had a specific protocol for handling weapons. All weapons (blank firing or dummy) were stored in a vault in his locked vehicle which only he could access. Any time Arnold got handed a pistol for rehearsal the armorer cleared the gun, showed everyone on set it was empty, verified with Arnold, and then went through with the rehearsal. That was a real pistol with blank rounds used. The other ones were all BATF approved blank-firing weapons props and we utilized the same protocol (those rounds can still spit shrapnel on forward-venting weapons.)

No accidents, not even close. On a margin of the RUST budget we were far safer, far better equipped, and the results showed.

Here's the thing with Alec Baldwin. He's a producer on the project, so whether he pulled the trigger or didn't (he did lol) whether it was his fault or not as a performer (I'd argue it wasn't, if my armorer stuck a hot pistol in my lead actor's hand and yelled cold gun and he pulled the trigger, he's not culpable in the same way because while not personally checking it was dumb, it was a reasonable expectation in this line of work that the pistol was in fact cold. Negligent? Sure. Criminally liable? ...that gets muddy.) But regardless of whether he's culpable as the trigger man (I'd argue he's not) he's absolutely culpable as a producer. RUST had long-standing issues. Guns had gone off before. The camera department walked off set over it a few days earlier.

And this was all part of a larger pattern of putting the bottom line over safety. With the industry then in the middle of grappling with how union productions should provide for their employees, this production (union cast but not union crew) tone-deafedly made their crew, who were working sixteen hour days, drive fifty miles to and from the hotels each day because they were able to save a few thousand on lodging by keeping them out of nearby Santa Fe. People were falling asleep on the way home. The producers cared more about preserving their seven-figure bottom line than marginally carving into it to keep the people making them rich safe and cared-for. It's unconscionable, and in this case, I'd argue, criminal. Alex Baldwin the actor is an idiot but criminally innocent; Alex Baldwin the producer is an asshole and criminally guilty. fug Alec Baldwin and fug productions that put profit margins over the people allowing them to profit.

Oh yeah and why the fug is a first AD handing out the weapons? That makes zero sense. First ADs don't do that. I hope that's a weird missed detail by reporters who got their wires crossed. If his production was letting a 1AD handle firearms in the chain of custody that's another black mark on Baldwin (and the other producers, and the armorer who should've put her foot down, and the first AD himself, who apparently has a rep for being a real piece of poo.)

Anyway your comment on Hollywood using guns in movies being hypocritical is the profoundly stupid take. As an anti-racist am I hypocritical for having Nazis in my movie? As someone who opposed to big tobacco am I hypocritical for having my characters chain smoke? As someone opposed reckless driving am I hypocritical for writing a scene where the film's protagonist hauls ass down a dirt road swerving around without a seatbelt? No? Good, don't die on that hill 

[LinvilleGorge]

Good. We're pretty much on the same page in terms of firearms safety on set.

 

[PhillyB]

1 hour ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Good. We're pretty much on the same page in terms of firearms safety on set.

 

everyone is. the entire industry is outraged at that production's fugshittery.

your point was still really dumb tho

[LinvilleGorge]

12 minutes ago, PhillyB said:

everyone is. the entire industry is outraged at that production's fugshittery.

your point was still really dumb tho

Sorry man. I'm not willing to give people a pass on artistic license when their work often times portrays a very different viewpoint than what they profess to stand for. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one if you feel differently.

[PhillyB]

7 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Sorry man. I'm not willing to give people a pass on artistic license when their work often times portrays a very different viewpoint than what they profess to stand for. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one if you feel differently.

lol