The prop Master or set armorer did not follow the proper safety precautions then handed a firearm ignorant individual a weapon. Baldwin may have assumed the firearm was unloaded or the segment being filmed called for the weapon to be fired into the camera. Either way, someone will be held liable for this incident and probably not Baldwin.
From reading all the reports, it looks to these eyes that: 1st, the Property Master “Screwed the Pooch” by NOT making it widely known that this FireArm was Loaded, at the time he turned it over to the Third Party, possibly the actor… 2nd, The Actor, “Screwed the Pooch” by NOT following the First Rule of FireArms Safety Protocols, and deliberately not treating the FireArm as Fully Loaded… 3rd, The Set Safety Officer “Screwed the Pooch” by not double checking the condition of the FireArm “as fully loaded” and making that fact announced and well understood, to ALL involved in the Scene…. This whole thing, goes directly to the complacency of the Crew and Actors about the use and handling of FireArm Props, on this Film Set.. This never was an Accident, but a Case of Terminal Stupidity, and Negligence, from the Get-Go…
I wonder what the circumstances were around the incident. given his record of being a hothead. Can't think of a reason why it would ever be pointed at a director/cinematographer.
Film shots directly into the camera have been a staple of western and modern shoot 'em ups forever. They, however have generally been done with all safety precautions being followed. Lack of safety protocol and following the basic rules of gun safety always end in disaster.
The term "prop gun" is used a lot by the media when commenting about this incident. It's as if the reporters want to convey the impression that the gun should not have fired, and somehow exonerate Alec Baldwin from any responsibility. No doubt non-firing replica guns are used in Hollywood productions. However, for scenes requiring a gun to go "bang", a true firearm loaded with blanks, or some form of customized squib load is the way things are done (if the firearm featured is supposed to look and function authentically, and is not some sci-fi phaser or ray gun to be dubbed in with firepower by the special effects people). There are methods of plugging the bore for use of low pressure blank rounds, but plugging leads to dirty weapons that need cleaning after relatively few rounds are fired. They could also produce unrealistic looking residue flying about the shooter with each shot, thereby messing up the film video effect. For all of his anti-gun rhetoric, Baldwin is a seasoned actor who has used firearms in his past films. He should know by now that even a blank round fired by a real gun with an un-plugged bore will emit a wadding as a projectile of some type for a short distance. We won't know the true details of this incident for a while (maybe never), but yes there are a number of individuals who can share the blame as to how safety was overlooked, and an innocent person lost her life. I would blame Baldwin the most because he was the final arbiter in the process of whether a "live blank" (or any other form of Hollywood ammunition) should have been fired in the direction that he did.
When my kids were little, they learned the first rules of gun safety with their toy guns. Baldnut obviously missed those lessons in his youth.
Kind of a mistake, in my judgement anyway, to allow live rounds on the set. With the numbers of firearms used in the movie-making, combined with confusion and the pressure, it's almost a sure thing that it will wind up the wrong place at the wrong time. And then how many of the cast and crew are experienced in firearms handling? A whole bunch of factors contributed to this.
Live rounds were not necessarily on the set. If a scene calls for a close-up of a revolver viewed from the front, they would most likely load the firearm with non-primed, empty shells in which a real bullet has been inserted. Then, they would remove those shells and replace with blanks for actually shooting to get the the noise and smoke effects for the next scene. However, the key is to remove ALL of the non-shootable rounds. If when removing those rounds, a bullet were to stick in the throat of the cylinder and be pulled from the front of the dummy round, putting the blank in behind it for the next take would effectively make that firearm a "loaded" firearm. That's apparently what happened when Brandon Lee was killed on the set of "The Crow". No one noticed that the "round" that was removed wasn't all there.
Two questions immediately occurred to me: (1) What was live ammunition doing on the set? THAT never should have happened. (2) Why did Baldwin point AND fire his real (not a prop) gun at the film's director and camera lady? I don't know, but there seems to be an element of both forethought and deliberate intent on this one. Too odd to be an accident!
oh here comes the gun control legislation. Baldwin will be up there sobbing and tossing guns into the shredder lamenting he ever picked one up.
Hot headed arrogant bastard. If the projectile that killed her was the wadding he had to be damn close.
Hard to believe it was just wadding since the projectile traveled through the camera lady and injured another individual. That has to be a chunk of lead. Still, pointing a firearm, and it was supposedly a "period" firearm probably meaning a single action revolver, at another individual, cocking the hammer and pulling the trigger had to be pretty deliberate.