Alec Baldwin shoots/kills cinematographer and injured director after firing a "prop gun".

[bcla]

There is probably plenty of precedent in New Mexico about someone shooting someone else accidentally. A tragedy doesn't have to occur only on a movie set to have close similarities in facts and how the law was applied.

Not sure if there's anything that quite applies. The situation someone posted about earlier where someone was charged with involuntary manslaughter for the shooting death of his father involved his own personal firearm.

I know there are some firearms experiences that are made available to people where a gun is literally handed over to the customer to shoot without training the customer on how to load or clear the weapon. But the point there is to only fire it at a target.

 

[JimMIA]

Not sure if there's anything that quite applies. The situation someone posted about earlier where someone was charged with involuntary manslaughter for the shooting death of his father involved his own personal firearm.

I know there are some firearms experiences that are made available to people where a gun is literally handed over to the customer to shoot without training the customer on how to load or clear the weapon. But the point there is to only fire it at a target.

Oh my goodness, of course there are lots and lots of similar cases! You're trying to make the similarities way to tightly matched.

Some examples of the types of cases that could form precedent for evaluating this case:

• The one you mentioned above where a merchant hands a customer a gun and it goes boom.
• Hunters getting ready to hunt, and a gun that was believed to be empty goes boom.
• People handling a gun at home, thinking it's empty and it goes boom.
• Police officers handling a gun believed to be empty, or with the safety on, and it goes boom.
• People removing a gun from a car trunk and it goes boom.

The only facts you really need to match are 1) someone handling a gun they believe to be safe, and 2) it goes off and someone gets hurt.

 

[MakiraMarlena]

not up on movie jargon within the industry. Is a prop gun understood to be a fake gun, or does it also refer to a real gun being used as a prop? Are most guns used as movie props actual guns? If not, why would they need a set armorer.

 

[DLgal]

not up on movie jargon within the industry. Is a prop gun understood to be a fake gun, or does it also refer to a real gun being used as a prop? Are most guns used as movie props actual guns? If not, why would they need a set armorer.

In the industry, "prop" just means anything that is used by the actors that is portable, so it doesn't include costumes and scenery or stage elements, but just objects that actors use. It doesn't mean "fake."

 

[JimMIA]

not up on movie jargon within the industry. Is a prop gun understood to be a fake gun, or does it also refer to a real gun being used as a prop? Are most guns used as movie props actual guns? If not, why would they need a set armorer.

Whatever any PR person calls a "prop" it's quite obvious that Baldwin was handling, and fired, a REAL gun.

It was clearly NOT a "prop gun," which is why the sheriff went after the media for using that bogus term.

 

[MakiraMarlena]

Yes, but a real gun can be a prop. so I guess the term was confusing as it somehow pointed to the gun not being real? I was always under the impression that it was a real gun and that real guns are often used in movies, not that the PR people were using the term to insinuate that Baldwin didn't consider it to be a real gun. Obviously it was a real gun.

 

[bcla]

Oh my goodness, of course there are lots and lots of similar cases! You're trying to make the similarities way to tightly matched.

Some examples of the types of cases that could form precedent for evaluating this case:

• The one you mentioned above where a merchant hands a customer a gun and it goes boom.
• Hunters getting ready to hunt, and a gun that was believed to be empty goes boom.
• People handling a gun at home, thinking it's empty and it goes boom.
• Police officers handling a gun believed to be empty, or with the safety on, and it goes boom.
• People removing a gun from a car trunk and it goes boom.

The only facts you really need to match are 1) someone handling a gun they believe to be safe, and 2) it goes off and someone gets hurt.

But in terms of criminal charges, he's got a "professional" on set whose primary responsibility was to ensure that there was nothing that would propel a bullet out of the barrel. And not where one is removing a firearm that was stored, but supposedly checked minutes before the scene.

In the case of the range shooting, obviously they hand a gun over and generally don't allow the customer to do anything other than point it down range and away from people. I've gone target shooting with a friend who had his own firearm. He loaded it, put it down, and told me to just point it down range and pull on the trigger. That was it. I don't know if that was irresponsible or not that he never went over anything else on its operation, but I think that's pretty common for a lot of people with their first time ever shooting a firearm.

That being said, there's still a certain amount of liability with rented firearms. At one of the ranges I went to with my friend, they no longer allowed people to rent if they didn't either come with their own firearm or come with someone else. They were worried about people using their rental guns to commit suicide. They figured someone who already owned a gun wouldn't bother to rent, and that people were less likely if they came with other people. And one of the rangemasters didn't have any problem telling us that half the carpet was new because they had to replace it after a suicide. Not sure exactly how that works in terms of liability because I'm sure the families will sue, as might someone else who happens to be there who witnesses it or even who might get injured.

 

[JimMIA]

But in terms of criminal charges, he's got a "professional" on set whose primary responsibility was to ensure that there was nothing that would propel a bullet out of the barrel. And not where one is removing a firearm that was stored, but supposedly checked minutes before the scene.

Yep, and that is one explanation given by the production company which will be considered. But it's only one factoid out of thousands that could influence the prosecutor's decision.

As the sheriff explained in the press conference, they impounded more than 600 pieces of evidence at the scene. About 500 of those were pieces of ammunition of various types (blanks, fakes, and real stuff).

They impounded another 100+ pieces of evidence besides the ammo, each of which will have to be examined to determine what, if anything, they tell investigators. We don't know what those are, with the exception of a very few obvious items

There are 90 potential witnesses who were present on the set when the shooting happened. Each of those will be interviewed, many of them more than once, and some probably several times. We don't know what they know, saw, or will say.

We also don't know the details of what was happening during the actual shooting. All we know is some really basic (and unconfirmed) information saying that they were doing a walkthrough of a scene because they were having a problem with the lighting and shadows. That tells us almost nothing

This investigation is going to take weeks, and a lot of what we know right now will turn out to be trivial or downright irrelevant.

 

[luv2cheer92]

Whatever any PR person calls a "prop" it's quite obvious that Baldwin was handling, and fired, a REAL gun.

It was clearly NOT a "prop gun," which is why the sheriff went after the media for using that bogus term.

A prop gun can most certainly be a real gun. Not sure why that would be "bogus". Prop doesn't mean fake.

 

[dominiondad]

But in terms of criminal charges, he's got a "professional" on set whose primary responsibility was to ensure that there was nothing that would propel a bullet out of the barrel. And not where one is removing a firearm that was stored, but supposedly checked minutes before the scene.

In the case of the range shooting, obviously they hand a gun over and generally don't allow the customer to do anything other than point it down range and away from people. I've gone target shooting with a friend who had his own firearm. He loaded it, put it down, and told me to just point it down range and pull on the trigger. That was it. I don't know if that was irresponsible or not that he never went over anything else on its operation, but I think that's pretty common for a lot of people with their first time ever shooting a firearm.

That being said, there's still a certain amount of liability with rented firearms. At one of the ranges I went to with my friend, they no longer allowed people to rent if they didn't either come with their own firearm or come with someone else. They were worried about people using their rental guns to commit suicide. They figured someone who already owned a gun wouldn't bother to rent, and that people were less likely if they came with other people. And one of the rangemasters didn't have any problem telling us that half the carpet was new because they had to replace it after a suicide. Not sure exactly how that works in terms of liability because I'm sure the families will sue, as might someone else who happens to be there who witnesses it or even who might get injured.

I really think you are too fixated on his "actor" title. Baldwin is a professional gun handler. He is paid to do a job that requires him to handle a firearm. Just like a police officer is paid to do a job that requires him/her to handle a firearm. The biggest difference is that Baldwin has a net worth of about $60 million, which I suspect is more than most cops. The fact that there were other people who also had firearm responsibilities is irrelevant. My agency had its own armorers, which reduced my responsibilities around a firearm by exactly ZERO. If anybody is handed a gun, fails to check it, points it and pulls the trigger, they are responsible for any result. The fact that they have made a lucrative career out of pretending to be somebody else doesn't mitigate their culpability.

 

[bcla]

A prop gun can most certainly be a real gun. Not sure why that would be "bogus". Prop doesn't mean fake.

Doesn't it just mean property?

 

[bcla]

I really think you are too fixated on his "actor" title. Baldwin is a professional gun handler. He is paid to do a job that requires him to handle a firearm. Just like a police officer is paid to do a job that requires him/her to handle a firearm. The biggest difference is that Baldwin has a net worth of about $60 million, which I suspect is more than most cops. The fact that there were other people who also had firearm responsibilities is irrelevant. My agency had its own armorers, which reduced my responsibilities around a firearm by exactly ZERO. If anybody is handed a gun, fails to check it, points it and pulls the trigger, they are responsible for any result. The fact that they have made a lucrative career out of pretending to be somebody else doesn't mitigate their culpability.

I really don't consider him a professional gun handler any more than someone handed a firearm at one of those Vegas machine gun shooting ranges is a professional gun handler.

Heck - I remember with the Austin Powers series, Mike Myers was completely incompetent with the guns he was handling. He couldn't stop blinking every time a blank was fired, and it became a gag about his character.

 

[Skywalker]

I really think you are too fixated on his "actor" title. Baldwin is a professional gun handler. He is paid to do a job that requires him to handle a firearm. Just like a police officer is paid to do a job that requires him/her to handle a firearm. The biggest difference is that Baldwin has a net worth of about $60 million, which I suspect is more than most cops. The fact that there were other people who also had firearm responsibilities is irrelevant. My agency had its own armorers, which reduced my responsibilities around a firearm by exactly ZERO. If anybody is handed a gun, fails to check it, points it and pulls the trigger, they are responsible for any result. The fact that they have made a lucrative career out of pretending to be somebody else doesn't mitigate their culpability.

That's a stretch! A police officer is paid to handle a loaded firearm and has the right to use it. Alec Baldwin is paid to handle a safe, empty, unloaded gun that will pretend to go boom. Of course he bears some responsibility here, but ultimately (in my personal opinion) it is with the person whose JOB it was to ensure gun safety on the set.

 

[dominiondad]

I really don't consider him a professional gun handler any more than someone handed a firearm at one of those Vegas machine gun shooting ranges is a professional gun handler.

Heck - I remember with the Austin Powers series, Mike Myers was completely incompetent with the guns he was handling. He couldn't stop blinking every time a blank was fired, and it became a gag about his character.

If you go to a range in Vegas, and the guy in the station next to you points a gun at you, pulls the trigger, and shoots you in the chest, you think "they told me it was unloaded" is going to make a difference? And if you don't think Baldwin was a professional gun handler, he had no business running around work with a gun.

 

[dominiondad]

That's a stretch! A police officer is paid to handle a loaded firearm and has the right to use it. Alec Baldwin is paid to handle a safe, empty, unloaded gun that will pretend to go boom. Of course he bears some responsibility here, but ultimately (in my personal opinion) it is with the person whose JOB it was to ensure gun safety on the set.

I would say Baldwin is paid to handle a gun. If the gun was never supposed to be loaded, then why were there live rounds on the set? As a producer, I would suggest it was ultimately his job to ensure all safety on the set.

 

[Sinder]

That's a stretch! A police officer is paid to handle a loaded firearm and has the right to use it. Alec Baldwin is paid to handle a safe, empty, unloaded gun that will pretend to go boom. Of course he bears some responsibility here, but ultimately (in my personal opinion) it is with the person whose JOB it was to ensure gun safety on the set.

While his job title isn't "professional gun handler", this particular job he had required him to use a firearm.
Anyone that handles a gun, whether it is for their profession, or hobby, or whatever, is responsible for making sure it is safe. If on a movie set an actor is paid to handle a safe, empty, unloaded gun (which isn't exactly true if they are using blanks- that means they are in fact "loaded", just not with a projectile bullet) then that actor does have the responsibility themselves to make sure it is safe to use. Just like anyone else that would have a gun in their hand. Nobody should ever just rely on someone telling them it's unloaded. That is at least one irresponsible action that Alec Baldwin committed that day. He pulled the trigger without checking, the buck stops with him.

 

[JimMIA]

It sounds like a lot of the discussion about culpability of various parties is split between people who are accustomed to handling guns, and those who are not.

Anyone who is accustomed to being around guns -- whether for target, work, or hunting -- knows that the person with the gun in their hand has responsibility for the safe usage of the gun in their hand. You will not hear any disagreement on that point from any gun owner. If I'm holding the gun, I'm responsible.

People who do not handle guns look at a news story saying the film crew had an armorer, and an assistant director told Baldwin the gun was safe when he handed it to him -- and say, well it looks like those are the people primarily responsible.

I belong to, and agree with, the first group in thinking the person most responsible for this tragic shooting was Baldwin. However, I don't think he has sole responsibility.

The armorer may or may not have some responsibility, depending on what her actual duties were (as opposed to what we assume they were), and what she actually did with regard to that gun.

Surely, the assistant director has some significant responsibility. He handed the guy to Baldwin telling him the gun was safe without checking it. And, he also was involved in a situation previously where there was another gun safety problem.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Whatever any PR person calls a "prop" it's quite obvious that Baldwin was handling, and fired, a REAL gun.

It was clearly NOT a "prop gun," which is why the sheriff went after the media for using that bogus term.

The definition of a prop does not distinguish between real or fake. Props mean just about anything really that an actor uses. Nothing bogus about it.

A different topic of discussion, which I believe this thread had, was whether a fake gun is as easily distinguished between a real gun but a fake gun and a real gun are both prop guns when handed to an actor to be used.

 

[Cogswel_Cogs]

I think officially prop guns actually are altered that they can only fire blanks which are more like caps and not in bullet casings.. any gun can be a prop but not all guns used for props should be called prop guns.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I think officially prop guns actually are altered that they can only fire blanks which are more like caps and not in bullet casings.. any gun can be a prop but not all guns used for props should be called prop guns.

I found this a breakdown:
"the term prop gun can be used to describe non-firing weapons, rubber guns and toy guns. (The program site adds that prop weapons can be "capable of inflicting actual bodily harm" and need a to be handled with a level of safety protocol.) Prop guns can also refer to functional firearms that discharge blank ammunition. These can produce a noise and can also pose a fire hazard"

"Instead of using a bullet, blanks use wads of paper, plastic, felt or cotton – this wadding ensures you get a certain level of flame out of the gun" I haven't found anything that says a prop gun is actually altered such that it would only fire blanks and I would think in terms of using antiques and rare items that would be not something you would do.

Not everyone may agree on whether a real gun should be called a prop gun but it's an industry term. Maybe that will change where a new term is used specifically for these types of situations but it's not inaccurate to describe it or call something a prop gun.