Lights, Camera, Action!

File photo from the Daily Mail article. Things are looking even worse for multiple people involved in this incident.

Gun lock

I have a number of these at home. There’s no mention of these being using on the set. Prior reports speak of multiple members of the production team using a number of the production’s guns off-site for target practice after hours; and that there was both blank and live ammunition on the site.

This entry was posted in Current Affairs, Fred, Gun Control, Politics and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to Lights, Camera, Action!

  1. Babeltuap says:

    People need to go to jail period including him. We don’t get to fire guns at people without a function check by the operator which he did not perform.

  2. MapleLeaf says:

    Alec Baldwin did not play that role for 15 seasons, Jensen Ackles was the actual actor involved, which makes me doubt the veracity of the rest of the article if that is indeed what it stated.

    Someone’s idea of a joke perhaps?

    • Fred says:

      I simply quoted the article on the daily mail, they quoted the man making that comment. He’s been in multiple movies with guns and served as producer on multiple movies.

      • MapleLeaf says:

        I see what happened, Ackles was being referred to, as he was actually on set, it was your attribution that was mistaken.

        I agree, Alec Baldwin certainly has extensive experience. Sometimes it’s a cascade of a dozen minor failures that makes a disaster.

        Apportioning blame and accountability is a complex task, but should certainly be done, as something like this doesn’t need a sequel.

        • Fred says:

          “Apportioning blame and accountability is a complex task”
          There’s nothing complex about it in this case.

  3. Condottiere says:

    It was the “armorer” or wanna be. She was the single point of failure. I would not have trusted her with a cap gun.

    • Deap says:

      I would not have trusted her with a hot glue gun.

    • Fred says:

      I disagree that she’s the single point of failure. He had a responsibilty he handled the weapon. He had responsiblity every time he handled them. I think his lawyers will find that is the case under New Mexico law also. Whether he is charged is another matter entirely.

      • Condottiere says:

        It was a movie set. People point guns at each other and squeeze triggers in movies all the time. She was responsible for the weapons, the ammo, all safe handling, and all protocols. On a military range we have one person in charge who delegates responsibility, one in charge of safety, one person who issues and maintains the weapons, and one person in charge of issuing blank and live ammo. She was the armorer, the range OIC, the RSO, and ASP all rolled into one. She was a single point of failure and a dumb bitch that can only be trusted with a blow dryer.

        • Fred says:


          Baldwin and others can claim there is only one person with any legal liability at all all he wants. His responsiblity can not be delegated, all he can delegate is authority to perform the job function. Just because this woman did that poorly does not relieve him of his responsiblity any more .This wasn’t a military range and she wasn’t an NCO incharge. If I, while on active duty, had killed one and injured another with live ammo it wouldn’t have mattered where that ammo came from; and claiming that only the range master or someone else, anyone else but me, was responsible, would have gotten me nowhere. I would still have been held responsible for my role in not inspecting the weapon before firing it.

          • Condottiere says:

            If there was a 15-6 investigation, the armorer would go down for not securing the weapons after hours, the ASP NCO would go down for mixing live and blank ammo, the RSO would go down for not recognizing and intervening unsafe practices, and the OIC would go down for being blind to it all. The E-4 who was handed a rifle with a blank adapter and peppered someone with fragments( that particular part, seen it happen) didn’t get so much a slap on the wrist. She did it all.

            I would love to see Alec burn on hell, but his “armorer” is who is criminally negligent.

          • Fred says:

            Perhaps so, yet my ship’s XO would have fried my ass at NJP under 1 or more acticles of the UCMJ at a minimum. Then there would have been the repercussions from the dead party’s friends and relatives to deal with. It wouldn’t have been civil lawsuits either. Regarding the movie it appears that Alec made no attempt to inspect the weapon before doing what he did with it. I have no idea what the NM prosecutor will do in regards to the case.

    • Barbara Ann says:

      If Lord God almighty came down and told me a gun was safe, I would still not point it at someone I liked and pull the trigger. Anyone properly trained in gun safety will feel similarly.

      The fundamental issue here is personal responsibility. Baldwin, an anti gun hypocrite who makes movies with real guns, considers his profession absolved him of the responsibility to check the gun himself and of the consequences when he pointed it at Hutchins and shot her. Yes others messed up, but there is no excuse for what he did. If he had an ounce of self respect he’d come out and say that.

  4. Deap says:

    Read an article from the perspective of the film crews who also follow industry protocol that requires them to inspect all guns used on the set as well, especially when they are close to the line of fire. Their own self-preservation requires they intervene for their own protection. This inserts another intermediate lapse in the overall on-set safety protocol.

    However, only one person actually pulled the trigger, so there is no escaping ultimate culpability for the one firing the lethal shot.

    Who was it here who recently wrote …a short cut is the longest distance between two points.

  5. JK/AR says:

    Having performed “some stuff” (remunerated) for attorneys [gonna be purposefully vague] in three states, New Mexico’s § 30-2-5 is a new one on me. Be that as it may I’m not an attorney nor will I play one on the internet (though I have taken some university coursework akin to “learning [some] of the ropes” a paralegal might be expected to know.

    – Schooled for my self protection .. *some attorneys, in my opinion, used words like “Would you JK, perhaps be willing to do [so & so]” which at times rang sketchy to my ear. Hence the book learnin’. –

    Here I think are the applicable statutes to be in play in re Alec Baldwin:

    (I pay for access to the Arcode necessarily but that Nmcode link is publicly accessible.)

  6. cofer says:

    The producers who approved the use of an unmodified gun that can shoot real live ammunition as oppose to a modified gun with a plugged barrel that can only fire blank ammunition, are the guilty party. Baldwin included.

  7. JK/AR says:

    Good presentation here on “blank firing.” There’s only the one revolver though (19+ minute mark). But as the ‘apple/watermelon demo’ described herein ought be sufficient to any and all individuals who’d be doing this sort of stuff …

  8. TV says:

    Baldwin will skate.
    He’s a bigtime left wing celebrity.
    The Santa Fe DA is a far left pro-criminal type.
    The NM Governor ditto.
    Likely the gophers (Assistant Director, armorer) will take the fall and, BTW, these 2 are apparently culpable.
    AND Hollywood spends a lot of money in NM.

Comments are closed.