richaveli83
Veteran
I still don't understand why they would even have live rounds to begin with, prop gun or not! 
Alec Baldwin accidentally kills woman on movie set
- Thread starter Morethan1
- Start date
nonot the dude who knocked out a vampire hooker with a thunderous backhand then screamed in agony as he put a lighter flame to his arm
edit, that was his brother
:35
Man some of you dudes are young.
The 3 Baldwin bros we’re running through Hollywood in the 90s
You'd think they would have learned after Brandon leeI still don't understand why they would even have live rounds to begin with, prop gun or not!
RhodyRum
Mark Gassed-A-Heaux
Here's the other issue and I think this is coming moreso from Hollywood lawyers in an attempt to shield the studios from liability: The use of this word "prop"
Like I said earlier, if this tool can fire off a live round that results in a projectile escaping its muzzle with the potential to hurt, maim, or kill another living organism, it ain't a prop.
Prop knives can't pierce or cut.
Prop missles can't detonate.
A prop hammer cannot bash.
So why are we allowing this faulty definition of "prop" to be extended to firearms on a movie set?
A true prop wouldn't allow for anything to discharge from a muzzle. They may be lower caliber weapons but what they're describing ain't no fukking "prop."
Like I said earlier, if this tool can fire off a live round that results in a projectile escaping its muzzle with the potential to hurt, maim, or kill another living organism, it ain't a prop.
Prop knives can't pierce or cut.
Prop missles can't detonate.
A prop hammer cannot bash.
So why are we allowing this faulty definition of "prop" to be extended to firearms on a movie set?
A true prop wouldn't allow for anything to discharge from a muzzle. They may be lower caliber weapons but what they're describing ain't no fukking "prop."
Last edited:
Brandon Lee's situation wasn't live round. It was actually the prop gun that had a malfunction, the cap filling the barrel rendering it incapable of firing live rounds was ejected like a projectile. Essentially a freak accident. I believe in that case the actor who pointed his prop and shot him with it wasn't charged with any crimes.
Last edited:
verbalkint
I see you niccas...
Yeah the fam won a civil suit against the studio that's it. I read the actor is still fukked up about it to this day, not sure if he ever acted again.
Yep, and realistically the scenarios are still the same in my opinion. This gun was intended to be used as prop, designed so the actor can point and fire it at people safely on set without harming them. Due the circumstances beyond their knowledge that wasn't actually the case. I see no grounds for manslaughter here, just a civil suit.
He has continued to act
RhodyRum
Mark Gassed-A-Heaux
Breh, you're comparing apples and oranges and dragging me into it.
One situation involved a faulty prop where the triggerman killed another person.
The other involved a faulty prop that hurt the actor holding the prop.
How the hell could Harold Lloyd be hit with charges for blowing his own hand up?
Your logic is all over the place in this one
NoBreh, you're comparing apples and oranges and dragging me into it.
One situation involved a faulty prop where the triggerman killed another person.
The other involved a faulty prop that hurt the actor holding the prop.
How the hell could Harold Lloyd be hit with charges for blowing his own hand up?
Your logic is all over the place in this one
The props weren't faulty in either example what are talking about?
Someone just mixed real explosives/live rounds with the prop rounds/prop explosives
hurting someone else versus hurting yourself just means a different charge. Instead of manslaughter, maybe reckless endangerment, no need to confuse yourself trying to separate those factors as if it will help your argument. the scenarios are literally identical. the outcomes were just different.
In either case if the person who uses the "faulty prop" is responsible, then it applies to the other case.
Eastside Get The Money
Veteran
Only thing I can see is that he is the producer or the movie so maybe that’s why they’re saying he’s responsible?
I’m confused too I can definitely see the prop master being charged or the arms specialist or whatever being charged but the actor who held the “prop gun” being charged doesn’t make sense unless he was being real foolish with it
Ridiculous decision. If anything it's a civil case against Baldwin. He's not the gun expert on set.
You are an idiot. The argument here is, that if you buy a gun that is marketed as a toy, you don't expect it to be able to fire live rounds. So if it does, it's the companies fault, because they sold it to you as a toy when in reality it's a deadly weapon. If you bought it under the assumption that it is a toy, knowing that toy guns are constructed in a way that makes them safe and unable to harm anyone, you can't be expected to check it for live ammunition. The analogy here is obviously that just like you as a customer rely on accurate information by the company when buying a toy, Baldwin relied on the information of staff on set that he was handling a prop that shot blanks. This isn't really hard to understandBro, you cannot make / market/ sell a toy gun that has the potential to fire off a live round.
If you have a tool that has the potential to discharge a projectile fueled with gunpowder and a primer, do you understand that what you have is called...
A GUN.
You obviously have no idea how a gun works in relation to the bullets nor it's anatomy so please stop with this faulty analogy. Pellet guns, air guns, and BB guns aren't created with the proper internal system to fire off a bullet intended for a pistol or rifle, or a shell for a shotgun.
Therefore, even if a so-called prop gun existed that can discharge a lethal round, you still have a gun! A true "prop gun" wouldn't be able to discharge something that can potentially harm or kill another person. Does this make sense to you now???
This is why gun debates amongst the masses suck so much. Y'all have no idea how guns even operate but try to shape arguments around them, Jesus Christ
I still don't understand why they would even have live rounds to begin with, prop gun or not!
There weren't supposed to be live rounds. The girl they hired to handle the guns was unqualified (if I remember correctly they were using non union workers).
I believe someone said they heard her firing live rounds a previous day on set and she got reprimanded for it. She was supposed to make sure the gun was okay to use and the first AD was supposed to double check. They messed up.
It's not the actor's job to inspect prop weapons so Baldwin being charged for involuntary manslaughter is ridiculous. He was a producer so he should be held accountable financially.