Much sympathy for the family of the young lady that was killed. You just have to hope an old school law enforcement officer gets the case and does a thorough investigation. I do think it's safe to assume that safety protocols were violated by someone.

Alec the Asshole probably has a Publicist spinning things for him.

I'm truly sorry that one person was killed and another injured.

Having said that, I hope he's charged with Manslaughter and has to spend a huge chunk of his fortune for legal representation, then found guilty and serve time, let him be someone's bitch.
.

quote:

Originally posted by Veeper:

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
https://www.pennlive.com/natio...GtcUy4x72hRH2xrwweFA

This report says it was a live round and that there were no union men on the set. I am no fan of unions, but the low budget of this film may have meant there was no experienced firearms prop men on the film.

If any of this is true, there will be blame to go around. What a fuck up.

I don’t get where the union is a requirement for experienced firearms prop humans.

It has to do with Safety Certification and Liability

When the trigger is pulled and a live round hits what the shooter is aiming at, it is not a “misfire”.

The bullet performed as designed.

A live single round was fired on set by Alec Baldwin, hitting both the Director of Photography, Local 600 member Halyna Hutchins, and Director Joel Souza, killing Haryana Hutchins.

Link

Did Alec, accidentally tweet in 2017, or was the tweet a misfire.

“I Wonder How it Must Feel to Wrongfully Kill Someone” – Alec Baldwin’s 2017 Tweet Attacking a Cop Comes Back to Haunt Him

Link

Makes me wonder, what is it that makes it a “prop gun”, if it can shoot live rounds?
Seems like a gun was being used as a prop.
Adding a descriptive name does not render a gun unable to be fired.

quote:

Originally posted by Veeper:

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
https://www.pennlive.com/natio...GtcUy4x72hRH2xrwweFA

This report says it was a live round and that there were no union men on the set. I am no fan of unions, but the low budget of this film may have meant there was no experienced firearms prop men on the film.

If any of this is true, there will be blame to go around. What a fuck up.

I don’t get where the union is a requirement for experienced firearms prop humans.

I did say "may." While you are right that being a union member is not a requirement to be experienced, a union guy would be experienced or he wouldn't be in the union and on the job. So the odds tip in favor of there being no experienced prop/gun person there.

How does a live round even get on the set? Someone dropped the ball on this.

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
How does a live round even get on the set? Someone dropped the ball on this.

I would assume that a live round would be a prohibited item on a set using blank ammo,but who knows.

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
How does a live round even get on the set? Someone dropped the ball on this.

Truly amateur hour on this set. And your point is well taken. How on earth was 'any' live ammo allowed onto a set using movie guns?

#justiceforhalyna

There’s no excuse to not have effective safety measures in place whenever firearms are in use no matter what the circumstances, but I must really wonder whether anyone who mentions “the four” safety rules has ever seen a movie or teevee show in which firearms were featured.

Probably the most important of the so-called “four” rules is to not point a firearm at someone we’re not intending or at least prepared to kill. But that happens all the time in movies and TV shows. Just how does anyone think that it would be possible to depict someone’s being shot or having a gun pointed at him without having a gun pointed at him? Today, perhaps, but certainly not even in the recent past. Real firearms being pointed at people whom there is no intention to kill is also a common feature of certain law enforcement training.

As I say, proper stringent safety measures are absolutely essential in such situations but they consist of far more than mindless reliance on “don’t point a gun at anything (or anyone) you don’t intend to destroy (or kill).”

Well this is interesting. VideoBob Moseley just put out a YouTube video, and he shows a movie prop gun he owns that resembles a Beretta 92.

It’s an 8mm round that resembles a 9mm round that won’t fit a real gun. The 8mm round is a blank and is loud when fired and with a big flash, but the barrel is not continuous, nothing can come out the barrel. There is a hole on top for the gas to escape.

Google Movie Prop Gun.

You can see the video on YouTube if you wish.

I googled 8 mm movie prop gun, it is real, and an interesting read.

I don’t know but perhaps all movie gun props are not real guns capable of firing real ammo?

We don’t yet know what gun and ammo was fired, of course, but this video was interesting.
.

I was never a fan of this Baldwin;..still, a tragic event. I spotted this headline, and clicked onto it. Perhaps it's not verbatim to the article mbinky linked to on page 6.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/movi...PQj5V?ocid=undefined

Many revolvers used in western movies are real guns, that the movie makers use 5 in 1 blanks. Meaning one blank will fit in five different caliber guns.

Movie makers and prop suppliers, including firearms, have been warehoused for years and rented out and used over and over again. Prop suppliers, especially firearms, don’t necessarily replace REAL guns, with blank firing replicas.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
Probably the most important of the so-called “four” rules is to not point a firearm at someone we’re not intending or at least prepared to kill. But that happens all the time in movies and TV shows. Just how does anyone think that it would be possible to depict someone’s being shot or having a gun pointed at him without having a gun pointed at him? Today, perhaps, but certainly not in even the recent past. Real firearms being pointed at people whom there is no intention to kill is also a common feature of certain law enforcement training.

As I say, proper stringent safety measures are absolutely essential in such situations but they consist of far more than mindless reliance on “don’t point a gun at anything (or anyone) you don’t intend to destroy (or kill).”

I’m not saying you are wrong, but I want to point out that one of the important features of the four rules is that you can break any single rule and still be safe. They have a layer of redundancy built in because people aren’t perfect and we make mistakes. With the four rules, you can make a mistake with one rule and still be OK.

Can you go beyond the four rules to be even safer? Absolutely, and if the activity you are engaging in requires breaking one of the four rules, you darn well better have more precautions in place. The more inept and inexperienced the people are handling the guns, the more precautions you probably need. Given who was handling this gun, perhaps giving him a green squirt gun and editing it out in post may have been a more adequate solution.

- Bret

Regardless of other failures, Alec is the one who pointed a gun at someone and pulled the trigger. The gun safety rules are individual. Each is responsible for his own actions.

What we do know is what little truth there might be will be quickly scrubbed and manipulated by the msm.

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
Regardless of other failures, Alec is the one who pointed a gun at someone and pulled the trigger. The gun safety rules are individual. Each is responsible for his own actions.

Agreed. I'm not sure how this would not be negligent homicide.

I'm curious what type of gun was fired. All I can seem to find is "prop gun".

I’m sure there will be Civil lawsuits.

In true leftist fashion, his first instinct was to blame someone else.

in a Better World©, Alec would have pulled a "Jon-Erik Hexum" dick move, rather than hurting other people.