I really enjoy all your videos and am happy to subscribe. Baldwin did nothing wrong, except lie about not pulling the trigger, which is irrelevant to the issue of criminal liability. That is my legal opinion as a lawyer working for the New York State Court System for 35 years, the last 17 of which was as the Principal Law Clerk to a Supreme Court Justice. I’m also a gun owner and an avid shooter with more that 30 years experience. Now that I’m retired, I am no longer prohibited by the Rules of Judicial Conduct from commenting publicly on cases. So here it is from the horse’s mouth: If this case had come before us, it would have been dismissed on motion and not even have gone to trial. And this is coming from New York City, not some deep red jurisdiction. Actors are not responsible for assuring that prop guns given to them for a scene are safe. That is what the armorer is hired to do. And actors are entitled to rely upon the armorer for their safety. The rule that you should never point a gun at anyone or anything you don’t intend to destroy, while applicable at shooting ranges, gun shops or in the home, where guns are expected to be in proximity to live ammunition, is nonsensical in the context of a movie set. How do you film a Western otherwise, where much of the action consists in pointing guns at the bad guys and pulling the trigger? What was Baldwin expected to do? Refuse? Unload the revolver and examine the rounds and be expected to identify which were dummy rounds and which were live ammo? Most actors know nothing about guns. Would you even want one to tinker with a gun that had been prepared by the set’s armorer and declared safe? In fact, production companies would prohibit them from doing so, for liability reasons. The charge of Criminally negligent homicide requires the prosecution to prove that the defendant committed an act that was unreasonable and outrageously hazardous and likely to cause death or serious injury, and that a reasonable defendant should have known that but acted in complete disregard. The DA didn’t demonstrate any of these elements. Actors in Westerns point guns at others in their scenes and don’t expect the props to be loaded with live ammo. I wonder what Clint Eastwood did on the sets of his Westerns, or James Arness, or John Wayne? Whether Baldwin lied about pulling the trigger doesn’t change anything. It only served to confuse the unsophisticated lay people on the jury. Baldwin actually had a lot of experience shooting single actions. He knew it was impossible for a SAA to go off without cocking the hammer all the way back and pulling the trigger. And he fired it several times! I’m More than certain that he said he didn’t pull the trigger because his idiot attorney, who knew nothing about guns and never bothered to learn anything, advised him to say that. And the jurors were wrongly allowed to infer guilt based upon this obvious lie. This is a tragedy, but not a crime on the part of Baldwin, not even civil negligence. And it’s a shame that the armorer is the daughter of the great and legendary Hollywood armorer and fast draw coach, Thell Reed. I’m no fan of Baldwin, but fair is fair, and the law is the law.
I have no legal training, but to me it's just common sense, and you summed it up very well. All of our sacred rules for firearms safety pretty much go out the window when it comes to making movies. I ain't too bright, but even I have figured out that movies do not depict the real world. It's almost as if they are fiction. :-) Other basic rules of safety go out the window, as well: driving through red lights, speeding, punching people in the nose, etc. I see in the comments that while some just don't see it my way, many commenters admit that Baldwin should not be blamed, at least directly, for the armorer's failing. Thanks for your legal perspective.
Thank you for saving me from writing a similar comment. You beat me to it. I have one thing to say about Baldwin "lying" about pulling the trigger: Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. When I was in first or second grade, I hit a base hit in softball during P.E. one day. It was close, but I clearly remember the sound of my foot slapping down on first base preceding the sound of the ball hitting the first baseman's glove. Every other person present said that I had been thrown out. Was I lying? Were they? Human memory and perception are weak straws on which to establish facts.
I’m a moderate when it comes to most issues and some of Hickok45’s opinions are well to the “Right” of my own, but I enjoy the channel and his perspective for the reasons that shine through this video - he seems to be a decent guy, who loves his hobby, and keeps a reasonable perspective on life.
Baldwin violated the SAG Safety Bulletin. Your posted legal credentials do not change that fact. He was negligent under NM law. The case was dismissed on a technicality, not based on the facts of what Baldwin did.
My only problem with Baldwin is that he shot the cinematographer and the videos of him immediately after on his cell phone, don't show a guy that remorseful about the 'accident'. It shows a guy fighting against potential criminal and civil liability....most likely on the phone with his attorney. Maybe there's more we're not seeing. Baldwin has quite a wit.....I'm assuming that most 10-year-olds could understand the workings of a SAA if it was explained to them with a gun in hand. There are videos of Baldwin shooting the SAA which would indicate he's been coached with the basic SAA fundamentals. I agree that some nitwit lawyer probably told him to say he never pulled the trigger and he stuck with that defense. Baldwin has no mettle, he's a sniveling coward/actor afraid to take any kind of a fall or responsibility for a tragic 'accident'. Posterboy for blaming 'the gun' as it were. As in most of these high-profile cases, the victim and family are soon forgotten.
I've worked in the Hollywood film industry for 25 years, seen lots of films made using lots of guns. Never seen a film armourer using live rounds as dummy or prop rounds. The Rust investigation needs to follow up the supply of the dummy rounds to the film production. There has already been connections made with the prop rounds supplier and live rounds used to train actors with guns on previous productions. As for Baldwin he needed to be taken to court as the Producer and not Actor. In the end on any film the buck stops with the Producer because that's the tip of the pyramid in any film production. But as I've seen over and over the top end of Hollywood is well protected. Just look at Landis & Spielberg related to the Twilight Zone Movie helicopter crash that killed Vic Morrow and two young children, all caught on camera. Who copped the blame, the poor pyro guy. The blame always takes out the workers on a film set and never the bosses.
Just so. Notice that the judge kept Baldwin’s producer role excluded from evidence. After some rumbles from the 350,000-member film industry unions in support of Baldwin, she threw the case out. I noted that she had her law and citations all ready, without retiring to her chambers during the circus-like motion hearing to dismiss. It would seem that New Mexico would like to remain a friendly venue for dramatic productions. In a sense, Halyna Hutchins was sacrificed on that altar.
Nobody ever talks about the day before when the cast were out back of the set shooting live rounds out of the movie guns. I heard that on MSM the day after the shooting. Thats how the live rounds got on the set.
My question has always been why was there live ammunition on the set. If anyone on the crew wanted to shoot the prop guns they should have taken them to a shooting range. There is no reasonable reason to have live ammunition on a movie set or stage.
IIRC, there actually "wasn't" live ammo on the set. A day before, maybe a couple of days before, the armorer and some of the crew took the guns out for some plinking on their day off. Apparently, the armorer forgot to unload the live ammo from that pistol before giving it to Baldwin.
@panderson9561 Is that how the live ammo got in there? How the hell did the armorer only get 18 months for something like that? That's so incredibly irresponsible. That's no different than someone being killed by a drunk driver. It's probably even worse because this is supposed to be a professional and this is what she gets paid for.
@@SleepWith1iOpen-X she didn't chose to create a deadly situation like a drunk driver. what she did is closer to negligently running a stop sign, if it happened like they say. negligent but not aggravated or something...
Especially when there are guns that can actually fire! Even those are highly rare onsets, especially when pointing at others! We have prop departments that make perfect replicas. For mid and wide shots I cast a fair few out of resin or rubber. And our metal workers make perfect aluminium replicas in a few days. I only worked on one set (low budget) where there was a gun capable of firing. My friend was the armorer on that set, he rent d this museum break away revolver, which was not allowed to be changed or cast. Not did that indie movie have the money to do that. So that scene has two people in it officially but the other person (a kid) wasn’t allowed onset that day. The cartridge was shown to be absolutely free of cordite, the primer was not marked (dummy) and at notime was the gun allowed to aim towards anybody by him. He treated that gun as a live gun. And it was an intense scene. Whereas the other scene with a .38 things were cool because it was made incapabel of firing but he didn’t even let that prop out of sight. Out of fear it could be swapped (rare but not impossible). And also there he showed that the strike pin was removed the barrel was welded shut. And that the cartridges had been cleaned of any substance that could even remotely ignite.
100's if not 1000's of rounds fired in that movie and the actor is portrayed, filmed, and directed as invincible. So knowing there will be scenes where an actor will be in frame while being shot at there would surely have been a ton of extra precautions taken? I don't get how it could happen at all.
@@SkyHigh1911BINGO! In Canada's CFSC they teach us two acronyms. "ACTS" and "PROVE" EVERYTIME you are handed a firearm you... Assume it's loaded Control the Muzzle direction Trigger discipline See that it is unloaded Now "PROVE" that it's indeed unloaded. Point it where it's safest Remove ammunition/mag Observe the chamber Verify the feed path Examine the bore Notice how there is no mention of the safety. A mechanical safety can fail no matter how unlikely, it has happend before. Best to just assume that is loaded and the safety is off, even if it isn't. Once it is in your hands it becomes your responsibility.
EXACTLY RIGHT! Years ago in an interview I heard this explained by John Wayne. In movie making guns are pointed slightly off-angle to the person being shot at. The area the gun is pointed is defined ahead of the scene and that area is off-limits. The camera angle makes it look like the gun is aimed at the bad guy, but it never is. By the way, a brother of mine was in Tombstone (non-speaking but carried guns in scenes) and he was instructed in this during the making of that movie.
Yeah well this didn't happen in Texas. There are other random laws that "protect" people from idiocy, yet many think they are irrelevant and unnecessary. Not trying to diminish pointing a gun at someone, but... as Hickock45 said: They were making a fictional movie.
Not quite right. It's part of the disorderly conduct statute ... "displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;" Obviously that would not be applicable to the use of a gun as a prop on a movie set.
The armorer was completely incompetent and bears most of the responsibility. But who hired her and who was responsible for the conditions and discipline on the set? Alec Baldwin.
There are 13 producers for Rust Alec Baldwin almost 100% did not hire Hannah Gutierrez Reed. He was most likely partially responsible for casting the actors.
So if the movie management know that only the armourer is supposed to hand firearms to anyone, why did the executive producer accept a firearm from anyone other than the armourer? She cannot be effective if she is ignored.
@@edwardjones8724 because of Covid they had rewritten the rules to only allow for certain amounts of people to be on set at one time. The primary concern isn't who handed the gun, but who loaded the gun and how actual ammo got on set. I could be wrong but I believe the person who loaded the live rounds was the armorer, not Alec Baldwin.
I used to get misfires and hang fires with older cartridge firearms and would keep the muzzles pointed away from people and downrange, in case the cartridge fired on it's own. It was always un-nerving when the barrel would suddenly fire the cartridge after waiting up to and more than 30 seconds. Hang fires are extremely rare these days and mostly occurs with rimfire cartridges.
Right, that's exactly what we were taught to do in NRA Hunter Safety class over 50 years ago. There's darned good lessons to be learned on being safe with firearms. If only Baldwin's big fat ego hadn't gotten in the way!
I'm an ex state prosecutor, and before the prosecutorial misconduct that got the case dismissed, as a practical matter the jury would have been thinking, "how did the live round get loaded, who did it, and why?" I think your comments are very rational and well taken. I like how you apply an objective opinion despite not liking Baldwin. We need more people like you.
I thought from day one he had argument for "reasonableness" as a defense IT was reasonable for him to believe the gun was not loaded with live ammo. Later, learning he skipped safety meetings, where not pointing the guns at people was discussed, I thought he might have issues.
@@pauljenkins6877 Which part of the scene involved pointing the gun at the director behind the camera? THAT wasn't the scene they were shooting. He was horsing around, not acting when it happened.
@@pauljenkins6877 False. Baldwin was the executive in charge. The safety of his employees was on his head. He refused to pay for the armorer to be present in all situations where guns were in use. He refused to follow even customary practices on movie sets in the safe use of firearms.
Most of stuff has already been discussed - that the typical "rules" that most people think about with firearms handling are turned on their head on a movie set. I remember seeing the actors' union commenting that their guidelines are that an actor is simply not qualified to brass check a firearm and must delegate that to crew on the set that are qualified. However, it's my understanding that there should be several things that can make the ammo readily seen as dummy rounds with a real bullet but without powder. One is placing something in the case that rattles. Another is that it can have holes drilled in the side of the case. And then there can be a rubber insert where the primer would be, or the primer hole is left open. But that's for the crew to check and see that it's just dummy rounds. The most notorious shooting on set was of Brandon Lee on The Crow. That one was senseless where they cheaped out and just made dummy rounds on the set by removing the powder by leaving the primer in place. One firing ended up shooting a bullet into the barrel but nobody noticed it. Then later on the gun was loaded with blanks, but nobody checked the barrel for obstructions and that lodged bullet was shot out at Brandon Lee.
Vilified the NRA while not utilizing a firearm safety training course. Hypocritically earned a living with firearms, not a prop gun (his decision). Privileged actor not sentenced to probation until completion of a gun safety course at the very least for involuntary manslaughter. Bad actor lied about pulling the trigger, that’s the character.
Here's my take, Alec Baldwin is no gun expert and insisted he didn't pull the trigger but all the gun experts say that particular gun cannot fire unless the trigger is pulled, period ! He pulled the trigger and lied about it.
It doesn't matter if Baldwin pulled the trigger or not. If he lied about it or just doesn't remember it properly. It doesn't matter. Because what happened is the armorer's fault. The person who's job it was to make sure everything firearm related was safe. A movie set is not like the real world. You can't expect actors to check if the harnesses and fall mattresses are up to safety standards. They are not competent for that. That's why you have stunt and security experts on set. You can't expect actors to check if the cars are up to standards before a chase scene because they are not competent for that. That's why you have mechanic experts on set. You can't expect actors to check if spot lights, cranes and scaffoldings are properly mounted because they are not competent for that. That's why you have technical engineers on set. And you obviously can't expect actors to properly check if a gun is real or not, safe or not, if the ammo is real or just movie props because they are not competent for that. That's why you have professional armorers on set. All these professionals are paid to make the movie set a safe place for actors and other workers. It's THEIR job. Not the actor's job. Actors are just there to act. People who are blaming Baldwin for what happened are totally ignorant of what a movie set is or are totally blinded by their hate of Baldwin because of his political ideas.
@@AxLWake The difference is that a gun is designed to hurt other people. If you can't trust an actor with a deadly weapon, you don't hand them a deadly weapon. Use a prop gun, get a stunt guy, or get a different actor.
I totally agree! Baldwin's an ACTOR, not a hunter, gunsmith, gun enthusiast, soldier, etc. Guns are not tools of his trade. The ARMORER is responsible to ensuring the safety of the firearms on the set. Actors are not trained gun-handlers; they rely on the "expert" (armorer) to ensure everything is safe. Most people rely on a mechanic/technician to repair/maintain the brakes on their cars...it's the SAME thing. ACTORS are NOT trained gun handlers. They use the gun the same way you use the brakes - you trust whoever made/adjusted/maintained them.
Ghost in the Noonday Sun is a 1974 British comedy film directed by Peter Medak starring Peter Sellers. The film suffered a difficult production due to Sellers's erratic behavior and was not theatrically released. Alec Baldwin was unable to control his emotions on the film set of Rust where a cinematographer was murdered. “To watch Mr. Baldwin’s conduct on the set of ‘Rust’ is to witness a man who has absolutely no control of his emotions and absolutely no concern for how his conduct effects those around him,” He took extreme Umbridge with Halyna Hutchins. Alec Baldwin's wife Hilaria, who claimed to be from Spain only to be outed as a white Bostonian named Hillary, has a long history of speaking with an inconsistent accent, this scam went on for decade. Now we have seen creative murder, and the best murder is the one you can get away with. The best magician performs a trick so well, that you believe it's magic. A murderer that can make you believe a murder was an accident is perhaps the best murderer, maybe he is guilty of that.
@@thebenevolentsun6575If Baldwin has to handle guns in a potentially unsafe manner for the movie he should be competent enough to check if it's loaded himself. And based on his experience, I would say he was, and was just being negligent. Besides, unless I'm misremembering the accident didn't even occur when they were shooting a scene so there was no reason to handle that gun in such a way in the first place. Not that the armorer isn't also to blame, though.
@@salacommander2674 Most guns used on set are non-functional and can only shoot blanks. If you know almost nothing about guns, you rely on the experts who are there to keep everyone safe.
Love you Hickock, have for years. There is plenty of blame to go around on this one, and some is Baldwin's. Us lay people don't necessarily know or understand all that is involved in making the "movie magic." When using actual, real, fireable weapons, actors do NOT actually point them at people -- it is done with angles, edits, cuts, etc. Blanks, dummies, or empty, you still have to follow gun safety with real guns. You know them and follow them. Even if he didn't follow them all, if he had only followed these two, no one would have been hurt: Always check it when you take possession of it (or see it checked with your own eyes if you're and actor and don't know how), and don't point it at anyone. You can bet if the scene called for him to point it at his head, he would have checked it.
My late step mother's first husband was a WWII vet, one of the first Americans to see combat, starting in North Africa in 1942. He fought as an infantryman from the first day to the last, finishing the war in Germany in 1945. He hunted his life after the war and knew as much about guns as anybody.. He died when he went outside on a winter night in North Georgia with a .22 to take care of a varmint (raccoon or possum) in the garbage bin. He slipped on some ice and fell with the gun. The impact with the ground caused the gun to discharge, the .22round went into his chest, nicked an artery, and he died. No matter how much experience you have with accidental firearms, death is always a possibility. My nearest brush with an accident was shooting a pistol. All the rounds in the mag were fired and it clicked empty. As I was handing it back to the owner a round discharged. The owner said it was a "hung round" --- a round that fires on delayed reaction seconds after the hammer strikes. Maybe happens one in a million times, but I was holding the gun when it did. Luckily I knew enough to keep it pointed straight up in the air as I handed it back to the owner when the round discharged, but if I didn't known any better, it could have hit someone. My finger was nowhere near the trigger when it discharged seconds after the firing pin clicked empty. I have never touched a pistol after that.
My first gun safety class was in 1971, an NRA Hunter Safety to get my first hunting license. I was taught then that to hand a gun to somebody, you open and clear the action, always. If the action type allows for it (most do) lock the action open. These lessons, well taught and paid attention to, well they just never leave you.
@@EnufIsTooMuch It was only the second time in my life shooting a pistol, so I hadn't been taught that. I can see how deadly accidents are more likely to happen with pistols. With a rifle, there is enough length on the barrel to keep it pointed away from people at all times. Pistols are more prone to being carelessly handled with one hand, and the direction of the barrel not controlled. It just so happened that the one-in-a-million "hung" round went off when I was returning the gun to the owner without clearing the action. I had put the safety on, but that didn't matter because the reaction in the last bullet was already in progress, but took about four seconds to detonate the charge, while the gun was being handed back. It was only luck that it wasn't deadly. I have determined never to touch a handgun again, although shoot rifles a couple times a week. I take out the mag and rack the bolt to make sure the chamber is empty every time I pick it and before I put it down.
Alec Baldwin has an EGO problem, and always has. He made a mistake and can't admit to it!! Money got him out this. Remember, first thing he said: I didn't pull the triger!! Lie right there! Colt will NOT fire without pulling the triger! Enough said. Thanks Hickok!!
I don't think you can blame someone for needing to delude themselves into believing they didn't pull the trigger that led to someone they knew dying. He obviously did not want anyone to die, I have not heard anyone dispute that. He seems like he is already hating himself and he does blame himself for the stupid mistakes on set. If him not pulling the trigger means he gets at least a little sleep at night, I don't think I can blame him
I don't think that armorer had any significant qualifications to recommend her to that role. Cannot state what Baldwin's exact thoughts might've been on hiring her, but ultimately, he is responsible for hiring someone who was under-qualified. Clearly, her over-sight was lax. "The buck stops here" (with Baldwin) As a responsible gun owner (which Baldwin is not), he should've checked the ammo himself. As an armorer (which she was), that bullet shouldn't have gotten in there.
I believe the woman who was working as the armorer had the job because her father was a Hollywood weapons guy and she grew up around it. Her father had also provided guns on movies.
I don't like the guy but there is zero evidence linking him to the hiring of the armourer. There were 7 producers involved in the movie and 6 production companies. He was reported to have done a bit of work on with scripting and casting, but high profile actors often get vanity producer credits for marketing purposes. I think the fact that he is an unlikeable shit smear is clouding people's judgement on the legality of the situation.
I don't care if 10 other people who handled (checked) that gun before Baldwin took possession of it deemed it safe, Baldwin should have checked it himself to verify that it WAS safe before pointing it and firing it at another human being. Period. No Excuses.
@@letstalkaboutit8254 It's sad how ignorant so many are of guns, though some hollywood stars (e.g. Keanu Reeves) are much more proactive. Sad how many would marginalize it, but I think the 2nd Amend. is the most important part of the US Constitution. I think Guns-Ed should be required in high school. And this has nothing to do with my dislike of Baldwin and wanting him to be held accountable instead getting a slimy pass. Even if he had basic acquaintance with guns, still might not be able to tell a blank from a live round. I'm surprised they don't use guns designed only for blanks.
"While making a movie." That's always the craziest part, like Bruce Lee's son Brandon being accidently shot while filming The Crow. It doesn't seem like it should even be possible but accidents happen.
It shouldn’t have been a gun that could fire live ammo. Plus no live ammo should have been on set. Having said that. He was the producer and chose not to hire more qualified or more safety personnel. The buck stops with him…..the producer. 😢
Always the voice of reason. I could not agree more. Eat healthy and look both ways before crossing the street. You are irreplaceable for us and what we believe in.
Appreciate your thoughtful insights and ability to separate your personal feelings about someone, from the evidence and circumstances involved in film production, versus everyday citizens. The essential responsibility in these special conditions falls onto the armorer, who in this incident apparently had ridden her family reputation too rapidly up the hierarchy of experts, with tragic consequences. A separate aspect I've not heard clarified, is that the FBI disassembled, replaced damaged parts, then reassembled the gun BEFORE testing and declaring it was functioning properly!? That is tampering with evidence, and once altered, no one can state it did not behave as Baldwin described. For anyone who ever finds themselves facing a jury, hope they are all as willing as Hickok, to consider the evidence and not cloud judgement with preconceived bias against you.
My take is that he wasn't just an actor, he wrote the check for the real ammo. His job as producer was to ensure safety on the set. The crew was target practicing on the property, and didn't stop it. He was cutting corners, and gave the teenager, extra responsibilities, keeping her from preparing and checking the loaded firearm. She was the only one that had the responsibility to hand it to him. He knew this, and the guy who handed it told him it was good to go. Sitting there with the trigger pulled, fanning the hammer, sweeping the crew, and hated guns so much, he refused to learn gun safety, didn't bother to check it himself, and then claimed he never pulled the trigger, after fanning it. I don't think it would have happened to a responsible person with common sense. And involuntary manslaughter would be an appropriate charge. People get charged every day for never even seeing the pedestrian or bicycle, that's unfair. Alec willfully created the stacked up risks, that caused the tragedy.
There's quite a bit about these conclusions that contradict what I've heard about other movies. Plus, I've never heard of a movie where an actor points a gun at the director, Mr Baldwin was insistent on getting done faster and cutting corners, he signed the contract that stipulated the safety measures to be taken - which he ignored. The blanks used not only had a bb in the cartridge, but holes were drilled in them so they can't easily hold any powder and are easy to see as blanks before loading in the weapon. Many movies make it LOOK like a gun is being pointed at other actors while they aren't really. That's why there are so many different views from a single scene.
Agreed! I am an armorer and explained that in a bit more detail in my comment. But you are 100% correct. We dont point guns at actors. Especially prop guns that go bang.
@@OneWildTurkey well, I can tell you that insurance companies are now making it nearly impossible for film productions to use blank-capable props guns on film sets as a result of this tragedy. Not a single fatality in over 30 years. (Because competent armorers and performers follow the established rules) Now, it will all be CGI.
I always appreciate the sanity you bring to any discussion. It's worth pointing out that the expert in charge of keeping the firearms safe wasn't even in the building at the time which, to me, put more of a responsibility on Alec to check the gun himself. Also, they weren't filming, just blocking so he didn't need to know the difference between live rounds, blanks etc, he just needed to make sure the gun was unloaded.
As I recall they used the Prop Master and didn’t hire an Armorer to verify firearms on the set. This was to save money by eliminating one more employee.
The only thing that would've prevented, or changed, was instead of the trigger being pulled in rehearsal, would've been the trigger being pulled while actually filming the scene. Results would've been the same...that being someone behind the camera getting hit. In reality, there would've been more people behind the camera in a real shoot than in rehearsal.
Did you even watch this video? This is exactly like every movie & TV ever was made. You point what is supposed to be a FAKE gun and pull the trigger, dozens of times in practice and on film. And YES a real gun firing blanks is still a prop gun
Many years ago, I bought a replica of an open top single action revolver chambered in 44 Colt. It has a very sensitive trigger. It came that way from the factory, trigger has about a 2 lb pull. I’ve ALWAYS been very careful with it.
i agree with your take but with one caveat; if i call myself shooting an independent movie in my backyard and end up k*lling someone on accident, i'm pretty sure i'd go to jail. so where is the line drawn?
@@splashjayy the line is drawn at the employment of a licensed prop director and armorer. Just like if the prop guy used real dynamite instead of highway flares in a fake bomb with a timer and the actor cuts the blue wire and it blows up. Prop guy is guilty not the actor who had every reason to believe it was not a real bomb.
@@WheelgunsOnWheels Except the actor in this case was also one of the producers and signed agreements to use the existing safety protocols, which, after going over budget they decided to take shortcuts. Baldwin the actor knew the safety protocols. Baldwin the producer SIGNED the safety protocols.
I could see your point if it had happened in the course of filming where you are required to point the gun at someone and pull the trigger but as I understand it they were not shooting a scene.
You and I have no clue what it takes to prepare for a scene in a movie. Many actors know absolutely nothing about firearm safety. This is why they pay an armorer to keep the movie set safe. The right person went to jail.
@@albertforletta1498Preparing for a scene doesn't require the gun to be loaded with anything and by his own admission Alec knew how to check, he simply chose not to even though the armorer wasn't there.
I'm a pretty intense 2nd Amendment sort and no, if a famous pro-gun actor had done this thing I'd take the same view of it. Keep in mind, there is a heck of a lot more to Baldwin's culpability in this thing than simply being handed a gun with a live round in it. He did an awful lot to create the conditions on set. As the executive of this corporate endeavor he has personal responsibility for creating those unsafe conditions.
I agree with you H45, they were working under what could be called a standard procedural practice for the industry at that time. But I'll bet in the future...there will be an armorer checking the armorer, and maybe the actor checking his firearm as well.
Don't feel sorry for that guy. He got off anyway. So the person responsible for the armory got 1.5 years or something. All the woman shot got was dead. That's the real BS.
@@guaporeturns9472 People here aren't willing to crucify Michael Massee for shooting Brandon Lee, they're engaging in mental gymnastics because Baldwin made fun of Trump.
Much respect for not allowing politics or other distractions to cloud your judgment while viewing this case. You gave an accurate assessment with complete good faith. What a rarity nowadays. These people commenting however...
Salut Sir. Actually I believe the quotation is “life is hard …… it is even harder if you are stupid”, but hey we both know what the point being made was. John Wayne was the Man! Cordialement from France.
It was 100% that armorer girls fault. She got paid thousands of dollars to make sure the guns on set didn't have live rounds. That Was Literally Her Only Job & She Failed.
Who then took a file to the trigger sear, essentially disabling the half cock position.Undoubtedly live ammunition should not have been used for range use.
If the management of the movie ignores the armourer, how can she be responsible? She was the only person supposed to hand firearms to anyone, yet Baldwin accepted the gun from someone who was not the armourer.
@@edwardjones8724 well I guess she needs to grow some, speak up, and be more responsible..... If an armed guard that works for Wells Fargo leaves a bag of cash on the sidewalk & someone gets it, is it the person who picks it up & walks off with the cashes fault? Or the Bank security guards fault for leaving it on the sidewalk?
It is the prop managers responsability to see that all props are safe and in working order. As you say Mr. Hickok "There should be no live ammo on the set!"
But, Baldwin delegated authority, but he can’t delegate accountability. Ultimately, Baldwin is accountable for what happened, whether publically, professionally, civilly, criminally, or to his creator.
@@markwarnberg9504 how stupid of me. I forgot that we’re talking performing arts and safety practices aren’t a thing. Apparently, performing arts need to relook at firearms safety practices, otherwise Hitchens might still be alive.
@@ppainterco Of course the arts and gun safety are two different mind sets. There is a whole lot of BANG BANG BAN going on at the set, the propp manager refills the guns, see that they are working properly, the actor just shoots assuming they are blanks. From old training since i was a kid i NEVER LOADED MY GUN UNLESS I AM GOING TO SHOOT! In my mind set THE GUN IS ALWAYS EMPTY & SAFE!! So too with the actor, the gun is loaded with blanks as THERE IS NEVER LIVE AMMO ON THE SET! Some how a live round got mixed into the Blank Ammo Supply. It is the propp manager who should have caught that...not the actor...then... if you are refilling gun magazines and revovler for a lot of guns you can is the live round. A terrible accident...giveing blame will not bring back the dead.
Problem is that Baldwin was more than an actor. Baldwin was the producer, and then hired someone he had to know was not qualified. Baldwin then bullied this unqualified person who was handling firearms, and helped create a situation that caused the death of someone and the near death of another. He deserved to be tried by a jury of his peers, and should have been found guilty by that jury. The judge was wrong to toss the trial.
He was in charge of the production. The buck stops with him. He bullied the armorer to the point that she could not do her job effectively and even dismissed her the day or the shooting and was acting as his own armorer. If Alec isn't responsible for this incident then nobody is ever responsible for anything.
Yes a very sad and avoidable situation....I have worked as an armorer on movies and commercials for many years. The armorer is responsible and every situation is different necessitating the armorer to step in and make the call....many coulda-woulda-shoulda ....i have set up that exact same shot where an AR was pointed directly at the lens and fired.....BUT...a 1" acrylic sheet was placed to protect the camera and the DP was behind the gun with a remote monitor to adjust the camera.....no one was in the line of fire....But the actor is not responsible here....handed a 'cold gun' he was 'good to go'.....Sad.
I was working on 'Hudsucker' on an adjacent lot where the 'Crow' was being filmed.....in the case here the armorer was released and sent home by the producer when the director wanted an additional shot....on Rust covid protocols reduced the size of the crew and the armorer was kept outside......
@@glenndoell819 Yes, quite true. Also, there were cost limits placed on having the armorer on set at all times guns were to be used. From my perspective the most unfortunate decision by the armorer was not to quit the film after the first several incidents of the production company interfering with common safe practices.
@@Mike80528That's like saying a stunt man doesn't need to wear a seat belt because they are only driving a car on a closed track for a movie. That's not the way safety is supposed to work.
@@Mike80528it was both his responsibility and equally the armorers responsibility to make sure the firearm was unloaded because it's a deadly weapon and not a prop. he absolutely needed to take that safety class because that girl would most likely still be alive if he had just gone to the gun safety class. At that class he would have learned there's no such thing as an unloaded fire-arm. plus the fact that he thinks that the particular gun in question can go off by itself without pulling the trigger shows ignorance and negligence on his part.
@@JamesKite-r9oI completely agree. Movie or not if you are handed a deadly weapon and point it at somebody you bear the responsibility of making sure it's safe because at that point it's out of the armorers control. Sometimes you just have to do things yourself because other people are idiots, I couldn't trust someone to hand me an unloaded firearm when they tell me it's empty I would always check it myself.
Love your videos, and respect you opinions. On this case I have different feelings: 1> This was a perfectly functional firearm. 2> They were blocking, not doing live filming. 3> Agree on the insanity of live ammo on site. And amateur armorer and FU by the AD. 4> Word is, Baldwin blew off all safety briefings. 5> Most important to me is what I was taught as a child: Whosoever holds the firearm holds all ultimate responsibility for that weapon. I will not accept or handle a weapon, even from a range master or my Dad, until I have verified it as cleared. Always downrange, and "hot" or "clear". And won't hand off or put it down until it is acknowledged by the other person. To me: Baldwin held the sidearm. He held the responsibility.
If you had a lit stick of dynamite in your hand.....would you not want to verify that it was a prop or a real stick of dynamite? I would want to know how I can tell the difference.
Baldwin is so incompetent he did not know he pulled the trigger when he fully gripped the gun. It fired when his thumb let go of the hammer. With baldwin going i did not know it could do that...
Hickok is correct. The rules of firearm safety to not apply here any more that what you learned in driver’s ed apply on a race track. They’ve been using real guns in Hollywood since the beginning, and it is solely the job of the armorer to make sure those guns are safe. It is inconceivable to me that live ammo was allowed within 20 miles of that set.
NO IT IS NOT SOLELY THE JOB OF THE ARMORER! People working on a movie set sign contracts. They're part of unions with even more contracts. The movie producers have more contracts with the specialists like the armorer that specify which already existing safety protocols MUST be followed. EVERYBODY using firearms on the set are part of those safety protocols and their responsibilities are in writing. The producers were complaining about being over budget and behind schedule. Safety protocols were then bypassed - violating the contracts and protocols.
@@OneWildTurkey I don’t know why you are yelling, but if you are trying to suggest that Baldwin had a duty to check his gun for live ammo, that’s wrong.
Thanks for a very thoughtful posting. I guess if Baldwin had a more positive attitude toward guns, he may have had a better attitude toward gun safety.
I agree with you... I never thought he should have been charged for pulling the trigger. Now I do believe he should have been charged for criminal negligence being the executive producer and not doing anything about the unsafe work environment for all the prior firearm incidents on the movie set.
Well thought out and well said. I do not have anywhere near as much knowledge or experience re: firearms as you (who does?), so I appreciate your breakdown. As far as all of the others who have used firearms in the making of movies over the years, the phrase "there but for the grace of God go I" seems very appropriate. ("Phew!) As has been said elsewhere- ' In a way, the attitude of “there but for the grace of God go I” is an antidote to judgmentalism. When we see someone who is down and out, who is suffering hardship, or who is reaping unpleasant consequences, we can respond in two basic ways. We can say, “He deserves it and should have made better choices,” or we can say, “There but for the grace of God go I.” '
The family of the victim is sueing Baldwin. And Baldwin is sueing the prosecutors. The gun handlers on set should also be held responsible. It’s the gun handler’s responsibility to ensure there is no live ammunition when there doesn’t need to be live ammunition.
According to the contract that Baldwin signed, it's the responsibility of each person in the chain of possession of the firearm. From the armorer to the actor with the weapon. It's in black and white text with his signature accepting the already existing safety policies and procedures.
I agree with the sympathy, what a horrible thing to live with. That’s why we have gun safety rules that should never be broken, even if you have support. Thanks for everything Hickok!!
Before I was ever permitted to touch a firearm I was taught to treat every firearm as if it was loaded. I was also taught to never aim at anything I wasn't going to shoot at. If Mr. Baldwin was taught like I was I believe this tragedy would have been avoided.
Did you even watch this video? This is exactly like every movie & TV ever was made. Point the gun at the bad guy and pull the trigger You point what is supposed to be a FAKE gun and pull the trigger, dozens of times in practice and on film. And YES a real gun firing blanks is still a prop gun
yes guilty as hell, he pointed a gun at someone, thats something you never do, he pulled the hammer and had the trigger pulled or pulled the trigger, so guilty as hell no doubt about that
@@alexmood6407 MOST of the time, they don't. GOOD actors never do without taking extreme safety measures. When pointing a weapon at another actor, they use different weapons than those used in close-ups.
@@oblivionpro69 Most of the time, when pointing something at other actors, those aren't real guns. When they are real, they point at a different target or the scenes are even filmed at different times. It looks different than reality - it's the movies.
In movies, the actors can't do the required safety check, that's why they have armorers - to always put a safe gun in their hand. Someone must have brought live rounds to "plink" off set. We'll probably never know who, but the armorer is 100% responsible for checking and guaranteeing a safe weapon.
@@chaseme9860 You're lost in your little fantasy that a movie set is like your world of gun lover. A movie set is not like the real world. You can't expect actors to check if the harnesses and fall mattresses are up to safety standards. They are not competent for that. That's why you have stunt and security experts on set. You can't expect actors to check if the cars are up to standards before a chase scene because they are not competent for that. That's why you have mechanic experts on set. You can't expect actors to check if spot lights, cranes and scaffoldings are properly mounted because they are not competent for that. That's why you have technical engineers on set. And you obviously can't expect actors to properly check if a gun is real or not, safe or not, if the ammo is real or just movie props because they are not competent for that. That's why you have professional armorers on set. All these professionals are paid to make the movie set a safe place for actors and other workers. It's THEIR job. Not the actor's job. Actors are just there to act. People who are blaming Baldwin for what happened are totally ignorant of what a movie set is or are totally blinded by their hate of Baldwin because of his political ideas.
False. Actors check firearms. Scenes are blocked so firearms are not pointed at anyone. Look for John Schneider's videos on the subject. He's been an actor for 40 years.
@@AlanRoehrich9651 Sure, some do check them. It would be better if all actors would be well trained in firearm safety and would be competent enough to check them properly. Doesn't matter. At all. It's not their job, as I made it very clear.
I really enjoy all your videos and am happy to subscribe. Baldwin did nothing wrong, except lie about not pulling the trigger, which is irrelevant to the issue of criminal liability. That is my legal opinion as a lawyer working for the New York State Court System for 35 years, the last 17 of which was as the Principal Law Clerk to a Supreme Court Justice. I’m also a gun owner and an avid shooter with more that 30 years experience. Now that I’m retired, I am no longer prohibited by the Rules of Judicial Conduct from commenting publicly on cases. So here it is from the horse’s mouth: If this case had come before us, it would have been dismissed on motion and not even have gone to trial. And this is coming from New York City, not some deep red jurisdiction. Actors are not responsible for assuring that prop guns given to them for a scene are safe. That is what the armorer is hired to do. And actors are entitled to rely upon the armorer for their safety. The rule that you should never point a gun at anyone or anything you don’t intend to destroy, while applicable at shooting ranges, gun shops or in the home, where guns are expected to be in proximity to live ammunition, is nonsensical in the context of a movie set. How do you film a Western otherwise, where much of the action consists in pointing guns at the bad guys and pulling the trigger? What was Baldwin expected to do? Refuse? Unload the revolver and examine the rounds and be expected to identify which were dummy rounds and which were live ammo? Most actors know nothing about guns. Would you even want one to tinker with a gun that had been prepared by the set’s armorer and declared safe? In fact, production companies would prohibit them from doing so, for liability reasons. The charge of Criminally negligent homicide requires the prosecution to prove that the defendant committed an act that was unreasonable and outrageously hazardous and likely to cause death or serious injury, and that a reasonable defendant should have known that but acted in complete disregard. The DA didn’t demonstrate any of these elements. Actors in Westerns point guns at others in their scenes and don’t expect the props to be loaded with live ammo. I wonder what Clint Eastwood did on the sets of his Westerns, or James Arness, or John Wayne? Whether Baldwin lied about pulling the trigger doesn’t change anything. It only served to confuse the unsophisticated lay people on the jury. Baldwin actually had a lot of experience shooting single actions. He knew it was impossible for a SAA to go off without cocking the hammer all the way back and pulling the trigger. And he fired it several times! I’m
More than certain that he said he didn’t pull the trigger because his idiot attorney, who knew nothing about guns and never bothered to learn anything, advised him to say that. And the jurors were wrongly allowed to infer guilt based upon this obvious lie. This is a tragedy, but not a crime on the part of Baldwin, not even civil
negligence. And it’s a shame that the armorer is the daughter of the great and legendary Hollywood armorer and fast draw coach, Thell Reed. I’m no fan of Baldwin, but fair is fair, and the law is the law.
I have no legal training, but to me it's just common sense, and you summed it up very well. All of our sacred rules for firearms safety pretty much go out the window when it comes to making movies. I ain't too bright, but even I have figured out that movies do not depict the real world. It's almost as if they are fiction. :-)
Other basic rules of safety go out the window, as well: driving through red lights, speeding, punching people in the nose, etc.
I see in the comments that while some just don't see it my way, many commenters admit that Baldwin should not be blamed, at least directly, for the armorer's failing.
Thanks for your legal perspective.
Thank you for saving me from writing a similar comment. You beat me to it.
I have one thing to say about Baldwin "lying" about pulling the trigger: Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. When I was in first or second grade, I hit a base hit in softball during P.E. one day. It was close, but I clearly remember the sound of my foot slapping down on first base preceding the sound of the ball hitting the first baseman's glove. Every other person present said that I had been thrown out. Was I lying? Were they? Human memory and perception are weak straws on which to establish facts.
I’m a moderate when it comes to most issues and some of Hickok45’s opinions are well to the “Right” of my own, but I enjoy the channel and his perspective for the reasons that shine through this video - he seems to be a decent guy, who loves his hobby, and keeps a reasonable perspective on life.
Baldwin violated the SAG Safety Bulletin. Your posted legal credentials do not change that fact.
He was negligent under NM law.
The case was dismissed on a technicality, not based on the facts of what Baldwin did.
My only problem with Baldwin is that he shot the cinematographer and the videos of him immediately after on his cell phone, don't show a guy that remorseful about the 'accident'. It shows a guy fighting against potential criminal and civil liability....most likely on the phone with his attorney. Maybe there's more we're not seeing. Baldwin has quite a wit.....I'm assuming that most 10-year-olds could understand the workings of a SAA if it was explained to them with a gun in hand. There are videos of Baldwin shooting the SAA which would indicate he's been coached with the basic SAA fundamentals. I agree that some nitwit lawyer probably told him to say he never pulled the trigger and he stuck with that defense. Baldwin has no mettle, he's a sniveling coward/actor afraid to take any kind of a fall or responsibility for a tragic 'accident'. Posterboy for blaming 'the gun' as it were. As in most of these high-profile cases, the victim and family are soon forgotten.
I stand behind Alec Baldwin.. because i definitely don't want to stand infront of him.
😂 funny!
What a sheep you are.
I've worked in the Hollywood film industry for 25 years, seen lots of films made using lots of guns. Never seen a film armourer using live rounds as dummy or prop rounds. The Rust investigation needs to follow up the supply of the dummy rounds to the film production. There has already been connections made with the prop rounds supplier and live rounds used to train actors with guns on previous productions. As for Baldwin he needed to be taken to court as the Producer and not Actor. In the end on any film the buck stops with the Producer because that's the tip of the pyramid in any film production. But as I've seen over and over the top end of Hollywood is well protected. Just look at Landis & Spielberg related to the Twilight Zone Movie helicopter crash that killed Vic Morrow and two young children, all caught on camera. Who copped the blame, the poor pyro guy. The blame always takes out the workers on a film set and never the bosses.
Just so. Notice that the judge kept Baldwin’s producer role excluded from evidence. After some rumbles from the 350,000-member film industry unions in support of Baldwin, she threw the case out. I noted that she had her law and citations all ready, without retiring to her chambers during the circus-like motion hearing to dismiss. It would seem that New Mexico would like to remain a friendly venue for dramatic productions. In a sense, Halyna Hutchins was sacrificed on that altar.
Vic left behind a family, lost his head, I think they should have never attempted it, the helicopter pilot, should have raised concerns.
His case as an "actor" was dismissed ...
THIS was his trial as the producer ....
Wonder what the going rate is to buy a judge to throw out a case ????
Is there somewhere to get a COMPLETE set of safety rules that Hollywood hands out for gun usage ???
Nobody ever talks about the day before when the cast were out back of the set shooting live rounds out of the movie guns. I heard that on MSM the day after the shooting. Thats how the live rounds got on the set.
My question has always been why was there live ammunition on the set. If anyone on the crew wanted to shoot the prop guns they should have taken them to a shooting range. There is no reasonable reason to have live ammunition on a movie set or stage.
IIRC, there actually "wasn't" live ammo on the set. A day before, maybe a couple of days before, the armorer and some of the crew took the guns out for some plinking on their day off. Apparently, the armorer forgot to unload the live ammo from that pistol before giving it to Baldwin.
@@panderson9561 I heard it was the asst. director that handed it to him. The armorer was not in the room.
@panderson9561 Is that how the live ammo got in there? How the hell did the armorer only get 18 months for something like that? That's so incredibly irresponsible. That's no different than someone being killed by a drunk driver. It's probably even worse because this is supposed to be a professional and this is what she gets paid for.
@@SleepWith1iOpen-X she didn't chose to create a deadly situation like a drunk driver. what she did is closer to negligently running a stop sign, if it happened like they say. negligent but not aggravated or something...
The incompetent female armorer was to blame for the conditions on the set which resulted in death.
After Brandon Lee and the movie The Crow, I don't understand how even a single round of live ammunition finds its way anywhere near a movie set.
Especially when there are guns that can actually fire! Even those are highly rare onsets, especially when pointing at others!
We have prop departments that make perfect replicas. For mid and wide shots I cast a fair few out of resin or rubber. And our metal workers make perfect aluminium replicas in a few days.
I only worked on one set (low budget) where there was a gun capable of firing. My friend was the armorer on that set, he rent d this museum break away revolver, which was not allowed to be changed or cast. Not did that indie movie have the money to do that. So that scene has two people in it officially but the other person (a kid) wasn’t allowed onset that day. The cartridge was shown to be absolutely free of cordite, the primer was not marked (dummy) and at notime was the gun allowed to aim towards anybody by him. He treated that gun as a live gun. And it was an intense scene. Whereas the other scene with a .38 things were cool because it was made incapabel of firing but he didn’t even let that prop out of sight. Out of fear it could be swapped (rare but not impossible). And also there he showed that the strike pin was removed the barrel was welded shut. And that the cartridges had been cleaned of any substance that could even remotely ignite.
100's if not 1000's of rounds fired in that movie and the actor is portrayed, filmed, and directed as invincible. So knowing there will be scenes where an actor will be in frame while being shot at there would surely have been a ton of extra precautions taken? I don't get how it could happen at all.
This happened because the people involved either forgot, or were never dedicated to the craft enough to know better.
When you inject females into potential serious situations....look out!!!
They don’t even need to use real guns anymore, with no good special effects and post editing is now.
My dad taught me there was no such thing as an unloaded gun.
as hickok says, there are unloaded guns in the movies though. hopefully...
The gun is unloaded when the person taking possession checks and verifies by sight and touch that the gun is unloaded.
You Dad is 110% RIGHT ABOUT THAT.
So very right. For me it was NRA Hunter Safety back around 1971. Those lessons have never left my mind.
@@SkyHigh1911BINGO!
In Canada's CFSC they teach us two acronyms. "ACTS" and "PROVE"
EVERYTIME you are handed a firearm you...
Assume it's loaded
Control the Muzzle direction
Trigger discipline
See that it is unloaded
Now "PROVE" that it's indeed unloaded.
Point it where it's safest
Remove ammunition/mag
Observe the chamber
Verify the feed path
Examine the bore
Notice how there is no mention of the safety.
A mechanical safety can fail no matter how unlikely, it has happend before. Best to just assume that is loaded and the safety is off, even if it isn't.
Once it is in your hands it becomes your responsibility.
In Texas it is illegal to point a gun at someone loaded or unloaded. It is a class B misdemeanor. That’s what camera angles are for.
EXACTLY RIGHT! Years ago in an interview I heard this explained by John Wayne. In movie making guns are pointed slightly off-angle to the person being shot at. The area the gun is pointed is defined ahead of the scene and that area is off-limits. The camera angle makes it look like the gun is aimed at the bad guy, but it never is. By the way, a brother of mine was in Tombstone (non-speaking but carried guns in scenes) and he was instructed in this during the making of that movie.
Yeah well this didn't happen in Texas. There are other random laws that "protect" people from idiocy, yet many think they are irrelevant and unnecessary. Not trying to diminish pointing a gun at someone, but... as Hickock45 said: They were making a fictional movie.
Not quite right. It's part of the disorderly conduct statute ... "displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;" Obviously that would not be applicable to the use of a gun as a prop on a movie set.
The armorer was completely incompetent and bears most of the responsibility. But who hired her and who was responsible for the conditions and discipline on the set? Alec Baldwin.
I blame Seth Kenny the FFL. It's highly possible the SAA .45 was a slap gun. Or a slap gun was "switched". Kenny gave Reed live .45LC rounds.
There are 13 producers for Rust Alec Baldwin almost 100% did not hire Hannah Gutierrez Reed. He was most likely partially responsible for casting the actors.
So if the movie management know that only the armourer is supposed to hand firearms to anyone, why did the executive producer accept a firearm from anyone other than the armourer? She cannot be effective if she is ignored.
@@edwardjones8724 because of Covid they had rewritten the rules to only allow for certain amounts of people to be on set at one time.
The primary concern isn't who handed the gun, but who loaded the gun and how actual ammo got on set. I could be wrong but I believe the person who loaded the live rounds was the armorer, not Alec Baldwin.
Thell Reed's daughter grew up on movie sets and knew a lot from helping Her Dad
I used to get misfires and hang fires with older cartridge firearms and would keep the muzzles pointed away from people and downrange, in case the cartridge fired on it's own. It was always un-nerving when the barrel would suddenly fire the cartridge after waiting up to and more than 30 seconds.
Hang fires are extremely rare these days and mostly occurs with rimfire cartridges.
Right, that's exactly what we were taught to do in NRA Hunter Safety class over 50 years ago. There's darned good lessons to be learned on being safe with firearms. If only Baldwin's big fat ego hadn't gotten in the way!
I respect that you have your own considered opinion and are willing to put it out there, knowing that many/most of your followers will NOT agree.
I'm an ex state prosecutor, and before the prosecutorial misconduct that got the case dismissed, as a practical matter the jury would have been thinking, "how did the live round get loaded, who did it, and why?" I think your comments are very rational and well taken. I like how you apply an objective opinion despite not liking Baldwin. We need more people like you.
I thought from day one he had argument for "reasonableness" as a defense IT was reasonable for him to believe the gun was not loaded with live ammo. Later, learning he skipped safety meetings, where not pointing the guns at people was discussed, I thought he might have issues.
Stunt people are held accountable for their actions. Fake actors should be too.
Baldwin is an actor, not a “fake actor”. His job was to handle the gun in a way that irl would be unsafe.
@@pauljenkins6877 Which part of the scene involved pointing the gun at the director behind the camera? THAT wasn't the scene they were shooting. He was horsing around, not acting when it happened.
@@pauljenkins6877 False. Baldwin was the executive in charge. The safety of his employees was on his head. He refused to pay for the armorer to be present in all situations where guns were in use. He refused to follow even customary practices on movie sets in the safe use of firearms.
@@OneWildTurkey True.
Most of stuff has already been discussed - that the typical "rules" that most people think about with firearms handling are turned on their head on a movie set. I remember seeing the actors' union commenting that their guidelines are that an actor is simply not qualified to brass check a firearm and must delegate that to crew on the set that are qualified.
However, it's my understanding that there should be several things that can make the ammo readily seen as dummy rounds with a real bullet but without powder. One is placing something in the case that rattles. Another is that it can have holes drilled in the side of the case. And then there can be a rubber insert where the primer would be, or the primer hole is left open. But that's for the crew to check and see that it's just dummy rounds.
The most notorious shooting on set was of Brandon Lee on The Crow. That one was senseless where they cheaped out and just made dummy rounds on the set by removing the powder by leaving the primer in place. One firing ended up shooting a bullet into the barrel but nobody noticed it. Then later on the gun was loaded with blanks, but nobody checked the barrel for obstructions and that lodged bullet was shot out at Brandon Lee.
Vilified the NRA while not utilizing a firearm safety training course. Hypocritically earned a living with firearms, not a prop gun (his decision). Privileged actor not sentenced to probation until completion of a gun safety course at the very least for involuntary manslaughter. Bad actor lied about pulling the trigger, that’s the character.
You are a logical man. Well said. Justice is never about liking or disliking the defendant
Here's my take, Alec Baldwin is no gun expert and insisted he didn't pull the trigger but all the gun experts say that particular gun cannot fire unless the trigger is pulled, period ! He pulled the trigger and lied about it.
It doesn't matter if Baldwin pulled the trigger or not. If he lied about it or just doesn't remember it properly. It doesn't matter. Because what happened is the armorer's fault. The person who's job it was to make sure everything firearm related was safe.
A movie set is not like the real world.
You can't expect actors to check if the harnesses and fall mattresses are up to safety standards. They are not competent for that. That's why you have stunt and security experts on set.
You can't expect actors to check if the cars are up to standards before a chase scene because they are not competent for that. That's why you have mechanic experts on set.
You can't expect actors to check if spot lights, cranes and scaffoldings are properly mounted because they are not competent for that. That's why you have technical engineers on set.
And you obviously can't expect actors to properly check if a gun is real or not, safe or not, if the ammo is real or just movie props because they are not competent for that. That's why you have professional armorers on set.
All these professionals are paid to make the movie set a safe place for actors and other workers. It's THEIR job. Not the actor's job. Actors are just there to act.
People who are blaming Baldwin for what happened are totally ignorant of what a movie set is or are totally blinded by their hate of Baldwin because of his political ideas.
@@AxLWakeExactly. So many people assign blame based on whether they like someone.
@@AxLWake sure you can expect and you should …your response is so childish you assert everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant or irrational .
@@jayedwards4787 because there's no other way around it. It is what it is...
@@AxLWake The difference is that a gun is designed to hurt other people. If you can't trust an actor with a deadly weapon, you don't hand them a deadly weapon. Use a prop gun, get a stunt guy, or get a different actor.
Thank you for always bringing a humbled opinion to the discussion.
I totally agree! Baldwin's an ACTOR, not a hunter, gunsmith, gun enthusiast, soldier, etc. Guns are not tools of his trade. The ARMORER is responsible to ensuring the safety of the firearms on the set. Actors are not trained gun-handlers; they rely on the "expert" (armorer) to ensure everything is safe. Most people rely on a mechanic/technician to repair/maintain the brakes on their cars...it's the SAME thing. ACTORS are NOT trained gun handlers. They use the gun the same way you use the brakes - you trust whoever made/adjusted/maintained them.
Gun’s in your hands, it’s 100% your responsibility. He can ask someone to show him how to check the gun.
I would think the actors would at least be told basic things like “make sure there’s not a round in the chamber”
Ghost in the Noonday Sun is a 1974 British comedy film directed by Peter Medak starring Peter Sellers. The film suffered a difficult production due to Sellers's erratic behavior and was not theatrically released. Alec Baldwin was unable to control his emotions on the film set of Rust where a cinematographer was murdered. “To watch Mr. Baldwin’s conduct on the set of ‘Rust’ is to witness a man who has absolutely no control of his emotions and absolutely no concern for how his conduct effects those around him,” He took extreme Umbridge with Halyna Hutchins. Alec Baldwin's wife Hilaria, who claimed to be from Spain only to be outed as a white Bostonian named Hillary, has a long history of speaking with an inconsistent accent, this scam went on for decade. Now we have seen creative murder, and the best murder is the one you can get away with. The best magician performs a trick so well, that you believe it's magic. A murderer that can make you believe a murder was an accident is perhaps the best murderer, maybe he is guilty of that.
There never should have been live ammunition on set. Baldwin clearly violated gun safety rules, but this tragedy never should have happened...
I agree, 100% that armorer is who really committed this royal fuckup
It's necessary to violate gun rules in every action film.
There's literally no reason for ammo to be on set and certainly not in the gun
@@thebenevolentsun6575If Baldwin has to handle guns in a potentially unsafe manner for the movie he should be competent enough to check if it's loaded himself. And based on his experience, I would say he was, and was just being negligent.
Besides, unless I'm misremembering the accident didn't even occur when they were shooting a scene so there was no reason to handle that gun in such a way in the first place.
Not that the armorer isn't also to blame, though.
@@salacommander2674 Most guns used on set are non-functional and can only shoot blanks. If you know almost nothing about guns, you rely on the experts who are there to keep everyone safe.
@@Mike80528 Alec Baldwin did know something about guns. And clearly the gun he was using WAS functional.
I think you have a well thought out perspective. I agree Sir. Thanks for sharing.
Adding alcohol and firearms is just looking for an accident. Adding incompetence and firearms, same thing.
I think the latter 'incompetence and firearms' is way more dangerous.
Like when two female drivers meet at an uncontrolled intersection! Lol
@@johnswanson3741 😁😁😁😆😆😆
What's fair, is fair, you points are correct.
They used a real gun as a toy. This is exactly what happens. Can't change my mind
i agree 100 percent with everything you said
Love you Hickock, have for years. There is plenty of blame to go around on this one, and some is Baldwin's. Us lay people don't necessarily know or understand all that is involved in making the "movie magic." When using actual, real, fireable weapons, actors do NOT actually point them at people -- it is done with angles, edits, cuts, etc. Blanks, dummies, or empty, you still have to follow gun safety with real guns. You know them and follow them. Even if he didn't follow them all, if he had only followed these two, no one would have been hurt: Always check it when you take possession of it (or see it checked with your own eyes if you're and actor and don't know how), and don't point it at anyone. You can bet if the scene called for him to point it at his head, he would have checked it.
When Hickock45 stands in front of a fired weapon...Then I will believe that people do their jobs perfectly all the time.
My late step mother's first husband was a WWII vet, one of the first Americans to see combat, starting in North Africa in 1942. He fought as an infantryman from the first day to the last, finishing the war in Germany in 1945. He hunted his life after the war and knew as much about guns as anybody.. He died when he went outside on a winter night in North Georgia with a .22 to take care of a varmint (raccoon or possum) in the garbage bin. He slipped on some ice and fell with the gun. The impact with the ground caused the gun to discharge, the .22round went into his chest, nicked an artery, and he died. No matter how much experience you have with accidental firearms, death is always a possibility.
My nearest brush with an accident was shooting a pistol. All the rounds in the mag were fired and it clicked empty. As I was handing it back to the owner a round discharged. The owner said it was a "hung round" --- a round that fires on delayed reaction seconds after the hammer strikes. Maybe happens one in a million times, but I was holding the gun when it did. Luckily I knew enough to keep it pointed straight up in the air as I handed it back to the owner when the round discharged, but if I didn't known any better, it could have hit someone. My finger was nowhere near the trigger when it discharged seconds after the firing pin clicked empty. I have never touched a pistol after that.
But your finger did activate the trigger which started the sequence that caused that round to fire.
My first gun safety class was in 1971, an NRA Hunter Safety to get my first hunting license. I was taught then that to hand a gun to somebody, you open and clear the action, always. If the action type allows for it (most do) lock the action open. These lessons, well taught and paid attention to, well they just never leave you.
@@EnufIsTooMuch It was only the second time in my life shooting a pistol, so I hadn't been taught that. I can see how deadly accidents are more likely to happen with pistols. With a rifle, there is enough length on the barrel to keep it pointed away from people at all times. Pistols are more prone to being carelessly handled with one hand, and the direction of the barrel not controlled. It just so happened that the one-in-a-million "hung" round went off when I was returning the gun to the owner without clearing the action. I had put the safety on, but that didn't matter because the reaction in the last bullet was already in progress, but took about four seconds to detonate the charge, while the gun was being handed back. It was only luck that it wasn't deadly. I have determined never to touch a handgun again, although shoot rifles a couple times a week. I take out the mag and rack the bolt to make sure the chamber is empty every time I pick it and before I put it down.
Really appreciate your perspective. Thanks
Alec Baldwin has an EGO problem, and always has. He made a mistake and can't admit to it!! Money got him out this. Remember, first thing he said: I didn't pull the triger!! Lie right there! Colt will NOT fire without pulling the triger! Enough said. Thanks Hickok!!
Single actions can really have a hair trigger though... He may even not be aware that he touched it if he is not a gun person.
No money did not get him "out of it". The judge dismissed the charges because she saw the real truth that Baldwin was innocent from day one.
@@PaVVroo He choose to aim the (cold) pistol were he did when it fired.
I don't think you can blame someone for needing to delude themselves into believing they didn't pull the trigger that led to someone they knew dying. He obviously did not want anyone to die, I have not heard anyone dispute that. He seems like he is already hating himself and he does blame himself for the stupid mistakes on set. If him not pulling the trigger means he gets at least a little sleep at night, I don't think I can blame him
Money didn't get him out of this. Money wasn't a factor at all, it was total inept prosecution, not unlike the OJ Simpson trial.
If I have any questions or doubts I seek out professionals like you to shed some light on the subjects,... Never do things if it doesn't feel right
I don't think that armorer had any significant qualifications to recommend her to that role. Cannot state what Baldwin's exact thoughts might've been on hiring her, but ultimately, he is responsible for hiring someone who was under-qualified. Clearly, her over-sight was lax. "The buck stops here" (with Baldwin) As a responsible gun owner (which Baldwin is not), he should've checked the ammo himself. As an armorer (which she was), that bullet shouldn't have gotten in there.
I believe the woman who was working as the armorer had the job because her father was a Hollywood weapons guy and she grew up around it. Her father had also provided guns on movies.
She was qualified, but lacked the experience to know how to fight back when the producers complained about being over budget and behind schedule.
I don't like the guy but there is zero evidence linking him to the hiring of the armourer. There were 7 producers involved in the movie and 6 production companies. He was reported to have done a bit of work on with scripting and casting, but high profile actors often get vanity producer credits for marketing purposes. I think the fact that he is an unlikeable shit smear is clouding people's judgement on the legality of the situation.
I don't care if 10 other people who handled (checked) that gun before Baldwin took possession of it deemed it safe, Baldwin should have checked it himself to verify that it WAS safe before pointing it and firing it at another human being. Period. No Excuses.
@@letstalkaboutit8254 It's sad how ignorant so many are of guns, though some hollywood stars (e.g. Keanu Reeves) are much more proactive. Sad how many would marginalize it, but I think the 2nd Amend. is the most important part of the US Constitution. I think Guns-Ed should be required in high school. And this has nothing to do with my dislike of Baldwin and wanting him to be held accountable instead getting a slimy pass. Even if he had basic acquaintance with guns, still might not be able to tell a blank from a live round. I'm surprised they don't use guns designed only for blanks.
Excellent point.
"While making a movie."
That's always the craziest part, like Bruce Lee's son Brandon being accidently shot while filming The Crow. It doesn't seem like it should even be possible but accidents happen.
Hopefully this is the very last time this happens.
Complacency is what I've thought all along. Movies have used guns and live ammo for realism for decades. But eventually carelessness bites back.
1000% Agree. Great common sense explanation.
It shouldn’t have been a gun that could fire live ammo. Plus no live ammo should have been on set. Having said that. He was the producer and chose not to hire more qualified or more safety personnel. The buck stops with him…..the producer. 😢
At the time they were not even filming ...
a pointed finger would have done just fine to figure out "camera angles"
Then also charge the gun store owner and the manufacturer.
Absolutely! It should have had a slugged barrel. Baldwin's next movie could have been titled "Three-fingered Jack rides the range"...
Always the voice of reason. I could not agree more. Eat healthy and look both ways before crossing the street. You are irreplaceable for us and what we believe in.
Had anyone of us done this we'd be in prison. Money talks and BS walks
Appreciate your thoughtful insights and ability to separate your personal feelings about someone, from the evidence and circumstances involved in film production, versus everyday citizens. The essential responsibility in these special conditions falls onto the armorer, who in this incident apparently had ridden her family reputation too rapidly up the hierarchy of experts, with tragic consequences. A separate aspect I've not heard clarified, is that the FBI disassembled, replaced damaged parts, then reassembled the gun BEFORE testing and declaring it was functioning properly!? That is tampering with evidence, and once altered, no one can state it did not behave as Baldwin described.
For anyone who ever finds themselves facing a jury, hope they are all as willing as Hickok, to consider the evidence and not cloud judgement with preconceived bias against you.
Of course he's guilty, a single action revolver cannot fire itself.
Great commentary. I've always considered you to be sensible, and once again you've proved it!
My take is that he wasn't just an actor, he wrote the check for the real ammo. His job as producer was to ensure safety on the set. The crew was target practicing on the property, and didn't stop it. He was cutting corners, and gave the teenager, extra responsibilities, keeping her from preparing and checking the loaded firearm. She was the only one that had the responsibility to hand it to him. He knew this, and the guy who handed it told him it was good to go. Sitting there with the trigger pulled, fanning the hammer, sweeping the crew, and hated guns so much, he refused to learn gun safety, didn't bother to check it himself, and then claimed he never pulled the trigger, after fanning it. I don't think it would have happened to a responsible person with common sense. And involuntary manslaughter would be an appropriate charge. People get charged every day for never even seeing the pedestrian or bicycle, that's unfair. Alec willfully created the stacked up risks, that caused the tragedy.
fantastic point of view, and articulate presentation of it. thanks.
There's quite a bit about these conclusions that contradict what I've heard about other movies. Plus, I've never heard of a movie where an actor points a gun at the director, Mr Baldwin was insistent on getting done faster and cutting corners, he signed the contract that stipulated the safety measures to be taken - which he ignored. The blanks used not only had a bb in the cartridge, but holes were drilled in them so they can't easily hold any powder and are easy to see as blanks before loading in the weapon. Many movies make it LOOK like a gun is being pointed at other actors while they aren't really. That's why there are so many different views from a single scene.
Agreed! I am an armorer and explained that in a bit more detail in my comment. But you are 100% correct. We dont point guns at actors. Especially prop guns that go bang.
@@chadhawthorneofficial Another reason they don't is because they'd NEVER be able to afford the insurance.
@@OneWildTurkey well, I can tell you that insurance companies are now making it nearly impossible for film productions to use blank-capable props guns on film sets as a result of this tragedy. Not a single fatality in over 30 years. (Because competent armorers and performers follow the established rules) Now, it will all be CGI.
I always appreciate the sanity you bring to any discussion. It's worth pointing out that the expert in charge of keeping the firearms safe wasn't even in the building at the time which, to me, put more of a responsibility on Alec to check the gun himself. Also, they weren't filming, just blocking so he didn't need to know the difference between live rounds, blanks etc, he just needed to make sure the gun was unloaded.
He didn't mean to hurt anyone...but he DID hurt someone. That's why it's INVOLUNTARY manslaughter.
Who was responsible for the prop, the actor, the director, or the prop manager?
If the gun is in your hand, YOU are responsible. @@mikegoodie7905
As I recall they used the Prop Master and didn’t hire an Armorer to verify firearms on the set.
This was to save money by eliminating one more employee.
Why did he say that he did not pull the trigger if he was supposed to pull the trigger?
The only thing that would've prevented, or changed, was instead of the trigger being pulled in rehearsal, would've been the trigger being pulled while actually filming the scene. Results would've been the same...that being someone behind the camera getting hit. In reality, there would've been more people behind the camera in a real shoot than in rehearsal.
That’s just not true. Once live round was loaded there was nothing Baldwin would do that would change the outcome.
Did you even watch this video?
This is exactly like every movie & TV ever was made.
You point what is supposed to be a FAKE gun and pull the trigger, dozens of times in practice and on film.
And YES a real gun firing blanks is still a prop gun
@@GMULEMANNY gun owned by the property department is a prop gun. That is what "prop" means.
Many years ago, I bought a replica of an open top single action revolver chambered in 44 Colt. It has a very sensitive trigger. It came that way from the factory, trigger has about a 2 lb pull. I’ve ALWAYS been very careful with it.
i agree with your take but with one caveat; if i call myself shooting an independent movie in my backyard and end up k*lling someone on accident, i'm pretty sure i'd go to jail. so where is the line drawn?
@@splashjayy the line is drawn at the employment of a licensed prop director and armorer. Just like if the prop guy used real dynamite instead of highway flares in a fake bomb with a timer and the actor cuts the blue wire and it blows up. Prop guy is guilty not the actor who had every reason to believe it was not a real bomb.
@@WheelgunsOnWheels Except the actor in this case was also one of the producers and signed agreements to use the existing safety protocols, which, after going over budget they decided to take shortcuts. Baldwin the actor knew the safety protocols. Baldwin the producer SIGNED the safety protocols.
The line is drawn with money , especially liberal money .
You are 100% right with everything you said
I could see your point if it had happened in the course of filming where you are required to point the gun at someone and pull the trigger but as I understand it they were not shooting a scene.
You and I have no clue what it takes to prepare for a scene in a movie. Many actors know absolutely nothing about firearm safety. This is why they pay an armorer to keep the movie set safe. The right person went to jail.
@@albertforletta1498Preparing for a scene doesn't require the gun to be loaded with anything and by his own admission Alec knew how to check, he simply chose not to even though the armorer wasn't there.
That is about rhe fairest analysis of the "Rust" shooting I have heard. Thank you very much!
I think most people can’t think straight because it’s Alec Baldwin. If this happened to Charlton Heston they would think exactly the opposite.
If it happened to Ted Nugent , the press would have crucified him .
I think if it happened to Charlton, many other questions would have been raised since he's been dead for 16 years.
@@TM_Stone Truth!
@@gypsyminstrels8744 Justifiably so :)
I'm a pretty intense 2nd Amendment sort and no, if a famous pro-gun actor had done this thing I'd take the same view of it. Keep in mind, there is a heck of a lot more to Baldwin's culpability in this thing than simply being handed a gun with a live round in it. He did an awful lot to create the conditions on set. As the executive of this corporate endeavor he has personal responsibility for creating those unsafe conditions.
I agree with you H45, they were working under what could be called a standard procedural practice for the industry at that time. But I'll bet in the future...there will be an armorer checking the armorer, and maybe the actor checking his firearm as well.
Don't feel sorry for that guy. He got off anyway. So the person responsible for the armory got 1.5 years or something. All the woman shot got was dead. That's the real BS.
Sympathy is a good thing. You obviously have an agenda
@@guaporeturns9472 sympathy my ass .. the victims own husband dropped all charges to get a lousy title job on the film .... ! ! ! !
@@guaporeturns9472 People here aren't willing to crucify Michael Massee for shooting Brandon Lee, they're engaging in mental gymnastics because Baldwin made fun of Trump.
@@orion3253 Apples and oranges
@@zincdramatic8092 No shit.
Much respect for not allowing politics or other distractions to cloud your judgment while viewing this case. You gave an accurate assessment with complete good faith. What a rarity nowadays. These people commenting however...
John Wayne, said life is hard it is harder for idiot's...
Salut Sir. Actually I believe the quotation is “life is hard …… it is even harder if you are stupid”, but hey we both know what the point being made was. John Wayne was the Man! Cordialement from France.
Interesting perspective. Thanks for sharing.
It was 100% that armorer girls fault. She got paid thousands of dollars to make sure the guns on set didn't have live rounds. That Was Literally Her Only Job & She Failed.
Who then took a file to the trigger sear, essentially disabling the half cock position.Undoubtedly live ammunition should not have been used for range use.
If the management of the movie ignores the armourer, how can she be responsible? She was the only person supposed to hand firearms to anyone, yet Baldwin accepted the gun from someone who was not the armourer.
@@edwardjones8724 well I guess she needs to grow some, speak up, and be more responsible..... If an armed guard that works for Wells Fargo leaves a bag of cash on the sidewalk & someone gets it, is it the person who picks it up & walks off with the cashes fault? Or the Bank security guards fault for leaving it on the sidewalk?
@@everettrhay4855 the person who was responsible for guarding it. That's who.
100% Correct
Thanks for the calm clear thinking.
It is the prop managers responsability to see that all props are safe and in working order.
As you say Mr. Hickok "There should be no live ammo on the set!"
But, Baldwin delegated authority, but he can’t delegate accountability.
Ultimately, Baldwin is accountable for what happened, whether publically, professionally, civilly, criminally, or to his creator.
Seth Kenny cough cough 🤧
@@ppainterco If you have been in theater plays you would know.
@@markwarnberg9504 how stupid of me. I forgot that we’re talking performing arts and safety practices aren’t a thing.
Apparently, performing arts need to relook at firearms safety practices, otherwise Hitchens might still be alive.
@@ppainterco Of course the arts and gun safety are two different mind sets. There is a whole lot of BANG BANG BAN going on at the set, the propp manager refills the guns, see that they are working properly, the actor just shoots assuming they are blanks.
From old training since i was a kid i NEVER LOADED MY GUN UNLESS I AM GOING TO SHOOT! In my mind set THE GUN IS ALWAYS EMPTY & SAFE!! So too with the actor, the gun is loaded with blanks as THERE IS NEVER LIVE AMMO ON THE SET!
Some how a live round got mixed into the Blank Ammo Supply. It is the propp manager who should have caught that...not the actor...then... if you are refilling gun magazines and revovler for a lot of guns you can is the live round. A terrible accident...giveing blame will not bring back the dead.
Great analogy with the "car and clear intersections" argument. Hickock your the amongst thee very best!
Problem is that Baldwin was more than an actor. Baldwin was the producer, and then hired someone he had to know was not qualified. Baldwin then bullied this unqualified person who was handling firearms, and helped create a situation that caused the death of someone and the near death of another. He deserved to be tried by a jury of his peers, and should have been found guilty by that jury. The judge was wrong to toss the trial.
You are a class act, sir!
Whoever brought live ammo onto a movie set is responsible.
Female armorer
Her name is Helena Hutchins, and she was the Director of Photography (cinematographer).
If someone hands me a firearm, I check it immediately to make sure it's not loaded. Baldwin didn't do that. End of story.
He was in charge of the production. The buck stops with him. He bullied the armorer to the point that she could not do her job effectively and even dismissed her the day or the shooting and was acting as his own armorer.
If Alec isn't responsible for this incident then nobody is ever responsible for anything.
He was bullying her not only because of his ego, but because they were over budget and she was slowing them down with the safety procedures.
Yes a very sad and avoidable situation....I have worked as an armorer on movies and commercials for many years. The armorer is responsible and every situation is different necessitating the armorer to step in and make the call....many coulda-woulda-shoulda ....i have set up that exact same shot where an AR was pointed directly at the lens and fired.....BUT...a 1" acrylic sheet was placed to protect the camera and the DP was behind the gun with a remote monitor to adjust the camera.....no one was in the line of fire....But the actor is not responsible here....handed a 'cold gun' he was 'good to go'.....Sad.
I was working on 'Hudsucker' on an adjacent lot where the 'Crow' was being filmed.....in the case here the armorer was released and sent home by the producer when the director wanted an additional shot....on Rust covid protocols reduced the size of the crew and the armorer was kept outside......
@@glenndoell819 Yes, quite true. Also, there were cost limits placed on having the armorer on set at all times guns were to be used. From my perspective the most unfortunate decision by the armorer was not to quit the film after the first several incidents of the production company interfering with common safe practices.
He refused to attend the gun safety class they had for the crew because he didn't think he needed too.
He shouldn't have needed to.
@@Mike80528That's like saying a stunt man doesn't need to wear a seat belt because they are only driving a car on a closed track for a movie. That's not the way safety is supposed to work.
@@JamesKite-r9o Are you really a moron? Who manages safety for a stuntman? THEY DO.
For fucks sake, use what little brain you have.
@@Mike80528it was both his responsibility and equally the armorers responsibility to make sure the firearm was unloaded because it's a deadly weapon and not a prop. he absolutely needed to take that safety class because that girl would most likely still be alive if he had just gone to the gun safety class. At that class he would have learned there's no such thing as an unloaded fire-arm. plus the fact that he thinks that the particular gun in question can go off by itself without pulling the trigger shows ignorance and negligence on his part.
@@JamesKite-r9oI completely agree. Movie or not if you are handed a deadly weapon and point it at somebody you bear the responsibility of making sure it's safe because at that point it's out of the armorers control. Sometimes you just have to do things yourself because other people are idiots, I couldn't trust someone to hand me an unloaded firearm when they tell me it's empty
I would always check it myself.
Love your videos, and respect you opinions.
On this case I have different feelings:
1> This was a perfectly functional firearm.
2> They were blocking, not doing live filming.
3> Agree on the insanity of live ammo on site. And amateur armorer and FU by the AD.
4> Word is, Baldwin blew off all safety briefings.
5> Most important to me is what I was taught as a child: Whosoever holds the firearm holds all ultimate responsibility for that weapon. I will not accept or handle a weapon, even from a range master or my Dad, until I have verified it as cleared. Always downrange, and "hot" or "clear". And won't hand off or put it down until it is acknowledged by the other person. To me: Baldwin held the sidearm. He held the responsibility.
*THAT'S EXACTLY THE WAY IT IS!!!*
If you had a lit stick of dynamite in your hand.....would you not want to verify that it was a prop or a real stick of dynamite? I would want to know how I can tell the difference.
Yeah it’s bad deal but he’s guilty just like OJ was so
👍
Ok Judge Brown, like you know. Idiot
I agree with your analysis.
Funny that if he so "anti gun" and he is making a gun fighter movie....
He and Liam Neeson. Anti-gunners who glorify guns in most of their movies. Typical duplicity from their ilk.
He's a Hollywood clown and a hypocrite.
Spot on analysis.
Guilty. If it is in your hand you are responsible. Guilty
Well said Hickok.
Baldwin is so incompetent he did not know he pulled the trigger when he fully gripped the gun. It fired when his thumb let go of the hammer.
With baldwin going i did not know it could do that...
That ..THIS is very possible.
DITTO!
Your logic is indisputable!
No, the charges against Alec Baldwin were dismissed and he can’t be recharged. Any discussion on his guilt or innocence is mute.
“mute”?
Moot
@@albertforletta1498 Yep, it’s a common mistake.
You haw absolutt right., he was not to blame
Hickok is correct. The rules of firearm safety to not apply here any more that what you learned in driver’s ed apply on a race track. They’ve been using real guns in Hollywood since the beginning, and it is solely the job of the armorer to make sure those guns are safe. It is inconceivable to me that live ammo was allowed within 20 miles of that set.
NO IT IS NOT SOLELY THE JOB OF THE ARMORER! People working on a movie set sign contracts. They're part of unions with even more contracts. The movie producers have more contracts with the specialists like the armorer that specify which already existing safety protocols MUST be followed. EVERYBODY using firearms on the set are part of those safety protocols and their responsibilities are in writing. The producers were complaining about being over budget and behind schedule. Safety protocols were then bypassed - violating the contracts and protocols.
@@OneWildTurkey I don’t know why you are yelling, but if you are trying to suggest that Baldwin had a duty to check his gun for live ammo, that’s wrong.
@@aintgottime2bleed78 He signed the agreement with the armorer when he had her hired. It's in the safety protocols in writing.
Thanks for a very thoughtful posting.
I guess if Baldwin had a more positive attitude toward guns, he may have had a better attitude toward gun safety.
He's guilty of stupidity
C'mon bruh! He shot the woman in the stomach!
I agree with you... I never thought he should have been charged for pulling the trigger. Now I do believe he should have been charged for criminal negligence being the executive producer and not doing anything about the unsafe work environment for all the prior firearm incidents on the movie set.
GUILTY OF PULLING TRIGGER NOT MAKING SURE ABOUT AMMO
Well thought out and well said. I do not have anywhere near as much knowledge or experience re: firearms as you (who does?), so I appreciate your breakdown. As far as all of the others who have used firearms in the making of movies over the years, the phrase "there but for the grace of God go I" seems very appropriate. ("Phew!)
As has been said elsewhere- ' In a way, the attitude of “there but for the grace of God go I” is an antidote to judgmentalism. When we see someone who is down and out, who is suffering hardship, or who is reaping unpleasant consequences, we can respond in two basic ways. We can say, “He deserves it and should have made better choices,” or we can say, “There but for the grace of God go I.” '
The family of the victim is sueing Baldwin. And Baldwin is sueing the prosecutors. The gun handlers on set should also be held responsible. It’s the gun handler’s responsibility to ensure there is no live ammunition when there doesn’t need to be live ammunition.
is there ever a time when live ammo should be there when it comes to movie production?
According to the contract that Baldwin signed, it's the responsibility of each person in the chain of possession of the firearm. From the armorer to the actor with the weapon. It's in black and white text with his signature accepting the already existing safety policies and procedures.
I think this is the right take. People just prefer being armchair experts over being sympathetic human beings.
Of manslaughter yes, of murder no.
I agree with the sympathy, what a horrible thing to live with. That’s why we have gun safety rules that should never be broken, even if you have support. Thanks for everything Hickok!!
Before I was ever permitted to touch a firearm I was taught to treat every firearm as if it was loaded. I was also taught to never aim at anything I wasn't going to shoot at. If Mr. Baldwin was taught like I was I believe this tragedy would have been avoided.
Did you even watch this video?
This is exactly like every movie & TV ever was made. Point the gun at the bad guy and pull the trigger
You point what is supposed to be a FAKE gun and pull the trigger, dozens of times in practice and on film.
And YES a real gun firing blanks is still a prop gun
Negligent discharge should be prosecuted the same across the board.
yes guilty as hell, he pointed a gun at someone, thats something you never do, he pulled the hammer and had the trigger pulled or pulled the trigger, so guilty as hell no doubt about that
Yes so true. I don’t know how John Wayne got away with it. Actors shouldn’t be pointing guns at other actors.
@@alexmood6407 MOST of the time, they don't. GOOD actors never do without taking extreme safety measures. When pointing a weapon at another actor, they use different weapons than those used in close-ups.
@@alexmood6407 I think he just did not point it at someone and made sure there were no real bullits in it
People don’t point guns at each other in movies? 🤡
@@oblivionpro69 Most of the time, when pointing something at other actors, those aren't real guns. When they are real, they point at a different target or the scenes are even filmed at different times. It looks different than reality - it's the movies.
I absolutely agree with Hickock. Finally an honest, nuanced explanation that I actually agree with. Glad you posted this.
In movies, the actors can't do the required safety check, that's why they have armorers - to always put a safe gun in their hand. Someone must have brought live rounds to "plink" off set. We'll probably never know who, but the armorer is 100% responsible for checking and guaranteeing a safe weapon.
Wrong! The person holding the gun is 100% responsible. Actors don't get a free pass to circumvent gun safety.
@@chaseme9860 You're lost in your little fantasy that a movie set is like your world of gun lover.
A movie set is not like the real world.
You can't expect actors to check if the harnesses and fall mattresses are up to safety standards. They are not competent for that. That's why you have stunt and security experts on set.
You can't expect actors to check if the cars are up to standards before a chase scene because they are not competent for that. That's why you have mechanic experts on set.
You can't expect actors to check if spot lights, cranes and scaffoldings are properly mounted because they are not competent for that. That's why you have technical engineers on set.
And you obviously can't expect actors to properly check if a gun is real or not, safe or not, if the ammo is real or just movie props because they are not competent for that. That's why you have professional armorers on set.
All these professionals are paid to make the movie set a safe place for actors and other workers. It's THEIR job. Not the actor's job. Actors are just there to act.
People who are blaming Baldwin for what happened are totally ignorant of what a movie set is or are totally blinded by their hate of Baldwin because of his political ideas.
False.
Actors check firearms.
Scenes are blocked so firearms are not pointed at anyone.
Look for John Schneider's videos on the subject. He's been an actor for 40 years.
@@AlanRoehrich9651 Sure, some do check them. It would be better if all actors would be well trained in firearm safety and would be competent enough to check them properly. Doesn't matter. At all. It's not their job, as I made it very clear.
good talk sir i feel the same and i feel bad for the armorer think the lady got hung out to dry but it is sad that it happened