I think its more fair to put the blame on the Armourer than to blame the actor. Still 3 years in American prison is to much to put on someone with no criminal intent. She should be put on home detention or community service for 3 years.
Baldwin was the primary producer on the film and the set conditions had had numerous safety issues up until this point including 3 other firearm misfires. There was a documented safety issue on this set and while Gutierrez-Reed was part of it, the showrunners clearly were too by not taking steps to address it before the tragedy happened.
I don’t disagree that he may be civilly liable for the safety conditions in general on the set. I just don’t think that his role in this particular case amounts to criminal negligence. From what I have heard, he had every reason to think that his weapon was safe to handle and use. In order to be guilty of manslaughter, you have to act with gross negligence, meaning that you know the risk of harm to another due to your action is real and significant and yet you choose to do the action anyway. In this particular case, he would have reasonably believed that the risk in his actions was essentially none at all.
The negligence was primarily on the armourer and secondarily on the guy who was meant to confirm the armourer (the assistant director? I can’t recall), both of whom failed in their basic due diligence and assured the crew and cast that the firearm was safe when it was not.
So what matters for a manslaughter case is proving with evidence that the defendant was aware of the risk and ignored it. That is simple enough with an armourer who mismanaged rounds and didn’t do her due diligence. The very nature of her role, why she was hired, was to be aware of and minimize/eliminate the risks.
In Baldwin’s case, you would have to prove that, at the time, he understood that the armourer’s work (and the guy checking her work) was untrustworthy, and yet he pulled the trigger anyway. You can argue that he should have known that until you’re blue in the face. But a prosecutor would have to prove that he did know that, beyond reasonable doubt. The mental state of the individual determines whether the death they caused was murder, manslaughter, or just an accident beyond their control.
From what I have heard, he had every reason to think that his weapon was safe to handle and use.
Several members of the crew walked off set earlier that day because safety protocols were not being strictly followed.
Hours before actor Alec Baldwin fatally shot a cinematographer on the New Mexico set of “Rust” with a prop gun, a half-dozen camera crew workers walked off the set to protest working conditions.
…
Safety protocols standard in the industry, including gun inspections, were not strictly followed on the “Rust” set near Santa Fe, the sources said. They said at least one of the camera operators complained last weekend to a production manager about gun safety on the set.
If he were a greenhorn actor on his first day on a non-union set I might give him the benefit of the doubt… But do you know how often an actor handling a firearm gets the full run down on weapon safety procedure in our industry? Every. Single. Production.
Here’s what happened in Baldwin’s case. He, a seasoned veteran, accepted a weapon from not just an unauthorized person, but a highly visible person on the set. The 1st AD, the guy who handed him the weapon is responsible for enforcing safety on the set in a general sense to protect a production from liability. Everyone on that set who saw that handoff would have known instantly that was an unauthorized handoff because as regular crew the FIRST rule a newbie learns is you NEVER touch other departments stuff EVER. Someone leaves a box of lenses in your way you call someone from camera to pick it up and move it the nessisary three feet out of your way or else you risk being skinned alive.
But here’s the thing. Baldwin is a Producer. There is an implicit power balance on set. What happens when the guy with instant hiring and firing power, funding the project and given control of the creative and business aspects of production breaks a rule FLAGRANTLY on the set that even the GREENEST of greenhorns would know. A rule that every one knows because of the high profile deaths that caused those rules to come into being… And the chief onset safety officer charged by the production is the one that is the other half of the transaction? What the absolute fuck do you do?
Do you trust the Production Manager with your complaints? They are the one technically above the 1st AD in charge of Production liability and safety concerns but they are still beholden to the producers. Maybe you could call the Union hotline and get the entire thing shut down? Oh…But this wasn’t a union show? Well shit. Well I guess you got to consider taking the hit and quitting because that’s basically your only option. This particular production already had union numbers dropping and leaving production to unaddressed and flagrantly ignored safety concerns. Union members are allowed to work for non-union shows but the union safety training is hardcore and union guys know transgressions when they occur. They renew the main bullet points in safety talks every show start of every day of shooting where those safety concerns are likely to come up. After awhile there’s some you know by heart. Animals on the set, pyrotechnic safety, spfx weather, car stunts, process car guns… Basic basic shit.
No. Everything about this situation screams to me that this show, this Production team specifically, was fucking dirty. People love to forget that Producers are employers. They focus on all the creative stuff they do forgetting that end of day someone is in charge of providing a safe working environment. The big studios have safety committees and oversight to take the weight off producers, the unions can shut you down for bad practice instantly… On union shows.
But not every show has these mitigating checks to producer power and liability. Particularly non-union gigs. That’s the implicit risk of them. Baldwin and every other producer on Rust deserves a slice of the penalty for negligence. They had multiple warning signs and people who took personal financial hits by leaving to protest the culture of safety on their show before this incident because there was no other authority to petition. When there’s no other authority to petition congrats, you are liable when you are found guilty of running a worksite that is flagrantly ignoring well trod industry wide safety standards.
Yeah, it was an AD. Armourer handed the gun to AD, AD shouted “cold gun” and handed it to Baldwin. Baldwin treated it like a cold gun and got someone killed. AD pleaded guilty.
You should blame Alec’s parents for giving birth to him. You know, because they were the ones that caused all this. Without them this wouldn’t have happened. Or maybe we should blame the person that introduced their parents together?
I agree. The entire situation is bad, and it’s gone on for years. I imagine anyone would have been going through hell all this time if they had any connection to the chain of events. Time in prison is pretty harsh at this point.
Edit. I think blaming Baldwin like they are (her lawyers) is also pretty disgusting. Which actually might have determined the harsh sentence for this lady.
Baldwin is responsible as an executive producer (along with whomever else was producing). It’s obvious the armourer was out of her depth and should’ve never been hired. Not saying she doesn’t bear any responsibility, but if you as an employer cut corners to save money, and someone dies because of that, there should be consequences.
I mean, he did. He pointed a gun at someone and shot them. Not saying that Reed is innocent; the fact that live rounds ever made it into the gun seems to be her fault. But Baldwin absolutely should not have pointed a gun at someone in the first place.
That’s standard procedure on a film set. Thousands of blanks a year are fired while pointing at people. That’s literally the point of blanks. I’m not saying that’s actually entirely safe, but it does mean that it is reasonable for the actor to expect it to be. Especially when you’re under the impression that a professional gun safety person has loaded the blanks by hand and that the gun has been checked twice by two separate people before given to you.
Never point a firearm at anyone including yourself. Always cheat the shot by aiming to the right or left of the target character. If asked to point and shoot directly at a living target, consult with the property master or armorer for the prescribed safety procedures.
It is important that everyone treat all firearms, whether they are real, rubber, or replica firearms as if they are working, loaded firearms.
Anyone handling the firearm will refrain from pointing a firearm at any person, including themselves. If it is necessary to aim a firearm at another person on camera, the Property Master will be consulted to determine available options.
Remember: a firearm, including one loaded with blanks, can inflict severe damage to anything/anyone at which/to whom the firearm is pointed.
And I want to re-iterate, Baldwin did not shoot another actor who his character shoots in the film. He was not supposed to have his finger on the trigger for this shot, nor was he even supposed to fully draw his weapon. This was not the first time he pointed a gun at a camera person and fired off-script; the footage played in the trial showed him shooting directly at the camera after the director yelled “cut”.
And again: even if it were industry standard to shoot blanks directly at another person: that’s a stupid and reckless standard, and any reasonable person should refuse. I really feel like most of the defense of Baldwin is borne out of well-meaning ignorance.
How else do you film a scene where you point a gun at someone? It’s really common to do this for a movie. That’s the entire point of why the role of the armorer exists, not make things like that safe on set.
You cheat the perspective. You use CGI. You use electronic sim guns.
John Wick, one of the most gun-heavy actions films in recent memory, never had one actor point a live firearm at another, because that’s stupid and dangerous.
I agree with that article, though I’d argue John Wick is the worst example to use as proof it can be done in other ways sure, they’ve got a lot of guns firing, but first is it’s super fast paced, so you can’t actually see a single shot. Second is that with that many rounds firing they probably wouldn’t have a choice, at least for interior scenes. Taking into account multiple takes, that would be so much gunpowder going off that you’d probably have to take a lot of time between takes for the smoke to clear.
For a slow scene with only one or a few rounds fired close to the camera, perspective tricks probably wouldn’t work, and CGI likely wouldn’t look as realistic either. Is that a good enough reason? I don’t know. I’m not a director or actor. I know some directors will go through a ton of effort for a tiny amount of added authenticity. John Wick goes the opposite direction with all their gun-magic after the first movie.
She learned how to be an armourer from her dad and it seems like he was the one who provided her a live round. She had no idea what she was doing, he’s a bad armourer and a bad parent who raised and taught another bad armourer.
I don’t disagree that he may be civilly liable for the safety conditions in general on the set. I just don’t think that his role in this particular case amounts to criminal negligence. From what I have heard, he had every reason to think that his weapon was safe to handle and use. In order to be guilty of manslaughter, you have to act with gross negligence, meaning that you know the risk of harm to another due to your action is real and significant and yet you choose to do the action anyway. In this particular case, he would have reasonably believed that the risk in his actions was essentially none at all.
The negligence was primarily on the armourer and secondarily on the guy who was meant to confirm the armourer (the assistant director? I can’t recall), both of whom failed in their basic due diligence and assured the crew and cast that the firearm was safe when it was not.
Could be mistaken, but I think people were going after Baldwin for this because he was a producer? As in, he funded and hired the armourer so ultimately it was his fault.
Average Joe because he pulled the trigger.
The prosecutor because he was the one on site, in charge, and allowed unsafe conditions to persist even after many employees walked out due to the dangerous conditions.
He didn’t just point the gun. He had his finger on the trigger, and actually pulled it. Ask any responsible gun owner and you’ll get an earful about it.
Even if the armourer was found to be responsible, that does not absolve Baldwin’s grossly negligent behaviour.
Dude it’s a movie set not a firing range. That’s like saying that since it’s dangerous to drive fast that car chase scenes can’t exceed 25mph. It’s a movie set where the scene calls for people shooting at each other. Of course the actor would assume that the group responsible for making sure the weapons are safe did their job and made sure the weapons were safe. I wouldn’t assume an actor has any idea of how a gun works if it was my job to make sure they have something to point and shoot. The job of the actor is literally to point and shoot in a scene.
It was a gun. An actual, functioning firearm. He knew it was a gun & told the police as much afterwards. There is never any good reason to point a gun at someone you are not currently trying to kill. Even if you ignore the common sense and assume there are somehow different rules for movie sets & using blanks, the other armorer they brought in testified that no one should ever be in the line of fire. He absolutely roasted Reed for not telling Baldwin to not point the gun at people in the footage they played for him.
The scene did not call for him to draw his gun, let alone shoot it. He wasn’t pointing it at another actor and playing a scene where he shoots someone, he was pointing it at someone behind the camera for no good goddamn reason. We saw from the BTS footage played in court that this was not the first time he pointed a gun at the camera and shot it outside the actual filming of the movie.
Baldwin neglected to do the training for the seated cross draw, the same maneuver he was doing when he killed someone. No doubt Reed was negligent, but even she tried to get him to do that.
I simply do not understand why people are letting Baldwin off the hook. He pointed a loaded gun at someone and pulled the trigger. People fucking die when that happens.
But, you see, he’s one of the good ones. We must rationalize any way we can to save him. Don’t listen to other actors saying they were taught to verify the guns and ammo. Don’t listen to crazy gun nuts who say you don’t point a gun at people no matter what.
This was purely her fault. Case closed. Do not look any further into it.
They absolutely do because the guns often contain blanks. There was a great episode of What Went Wrong about this and about safety on set. There has been a huge push towards realism in gunfights, meaning blanks over sound effects and visual effects. Firing a gun obviously is far more dangerous than not firing a gun. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/what-went-wrong/id1512847066?i=1000617518180
They do, but not that scene, and they typically stop performing the scene when the director yells cut. On this day though, the scene ended, and a dude decided to play with a gun. That’s just my opinion of the event though, and I haven’t read anywhere near enough about it to make a real decision. From the little I did read though, he wasn’t even supposed to draw the gun in that scene, and the actual shooting took place after the scene was over.
Had he accidentally pushed over a prop house while rough housing and it crushed a person, would we be blaming the carpenter? Its definitely possible, but I think goofing around and playing with weapons should never be tolerated.
In real life yes. In movies, you have armorers who make sure that guns are not loaded or incapable of shooting, so that people can actually do point guns and pull the trigger while pointing at the baddies
I think its more fair to put the blame on the Armourer than to blame the actor. Still 3 years in American prison is to much to put on someone with no criminal intent. She should be put on home detention or community service for 3 years.
Baldwin was the primary producer on the film and the set conditions had had numerous safety issues up until this point including 3 other firearm misfires. There was a documented safety issue on this set and while Gutierrez-Reed was part of it, the showrunners clearly were too by not taking steps to address it before the tragedy happened.
I don’t disagree that he may be civilly liable for the safety conditions in general on the set. I just don’t think that his role in this particular case amounts to criminal negligence. From what I have heard, he had every reason to think that his weapon was safe to handle and use. In order to be guilty of manslaughter, you have to act with gross negligence, meaning that you know the risk of harm to another due to your action is real and significant and yet you choose to do the action anyway. In this particular case, he would have reasonably believed that the risk in his actions was essentially none at all.
The negligence was primarily on the armourer and secondarily on the guy who was meant to confirm the armourer (the assistant director? I can’t recall), both of whom failed in their basic due diligence and assured the crew and cast that the firearm was safe when it was not.
They had 3 other firearm misfires on this set. That alone is unacceptable, but to assume any weapon on set is safe at this point would be insane.
So what matters for a manslaughter case is proving with evidence that the defendant was aware of the risk and ignored it. That is simple enough with an armourer who mismanaged rounds and didn’t do her due diligence. The very nature of her role, why she was hired, was to be aware of and minimize/eliminate the risks.
In Baldwin’s case, you would have to prove that, at the time, he understood that the armourer’s work (and the guy checking her work) was untrustworthy, and yet he pulled the trigger anyway. You can argue that he should have known that until you’re blue in the face. But a prosecutor would have to prove that he did know that, beyond reasonable doubt. The mental state of the individual determines whether the death they caused was murder, manslaughter, or just an accident beyond their control.
Several members of the crew walked off set earlier that day because safety protocols were not being strictly followed.
https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2021-10-22/alec-baldwin-rust-camera-crew-walked-off-set
If he were a greenhorn actor on his first day on a non-union set I might give him the benefit of the doubt… But do you know how often an actor handling a firearm gets the full run down on weapon safety procedure in our industry? Every. Single. Production.
Here’s what happened in Baldwin’s case. He, a seasoned veteran, accepted a weapon from not just an unauthorized person, but a highly visible person on the set. The 1st AD, the guy who handed him the weapon is responsible for enforcing safety on the set in a general sense to protect a production from liability. Everyone on that set who saw that handoff would have known instantly that was an unauthorized handoff because as regular crew the FIRST rule a newbie learns is you NEVER touch other departments stuff EVER. Someone leaves a box of lenses in your way you call someone from camera to pick it up and move it the nessisary three feet out of your way or else you risk being skinned alive.
But here’s the thing. Baldwin is a Producer. There is an implicit power balance on set. What happens when the guy with instant hiring and firing power, funding the project and given control of the creative and business aspects of production breaks a rule FLAGRANTLY on the set that even the GREENEST of greenhorns would know. A rule that every one knows because of the high profile deaths that caused those rules to come into being… And the chief onset safety officer charged by the production is the one that is the other half of the transaction? What the absolute fuck do you do?
Do you trust the Production Manager with your complaints? They are the one technically above the 1st AD in charge of Production liability and safety concerns but they are still beholden to the producers. Maybe you could call the Union hotline and get the entire thing shut down? Oh…But this wasn’t a union show? Well shit. Well I guess you got to consider taking the hit and quitting because that’s basically your only option. This particular production already had union numbers dropping and leaving production to unaddressed and flagrantly ignored safety concerns. Union members are allowed to work for non-union shows but the union safety training is hardcore and union guys know transgressions when they occur. They renew the main bullet points in safety talks every show start of every day of shooting where those safety concerns are likely to come up. After awhile there’s some you know by heart. Animals on the set, pyrotechnic safety, spfx weather, car stunts, process car guns… Basic basic shit.
No. Everything about this situation screams to me that this show, this Production team specifically, was fucking dirty. People love to forget that Producers are employers. They focus on all the creative stuff they do forgetting that end of day someone is in charge of providing a safe working environment. The big studios have safety committees and oversight to take the weight off producers, the unions can shut you down for bad practice instantly… On union shows.
But not every show has these mitigating checks to producer power and liability. Particularly non-union gigs. That’s the implicit risk of them. Baldwin and every other producer on Rust deserves a slice of the penalty for negligence. They had multiple warning signs and people who took personal financial hits by leaving to protest the culture of safety on their show before this incident because there was no other authority to petition. When there’s no other authority to petition congrats, you are liable when you are found guilty of running a worksite that is flagrantly ignoring well trod industry wide safety standards.
Yeah, it was an AD. Armourer handed the gun to AD, AD shouted “cold gun” and handed it to Baldwin. Baldwin treated it like a cold gun and got someone killed. AD pleaded guilty.
You should blame Alec’s parents for giving birth to him. You know, because they were the ones that caused all this. Without them this wouldn’t have happened. Or maybe we should blame the person that introduced their parents together?
Obligatory PBF
Makes sense to me.
Jesus Christ.
I agree. The entire situation is bad, and it’s gone on for years. I imagine anyone would have been going through hell all this time if they had any connection to the chain of events. Time in prison is pretty harsh at this point.
Edit. I think blaming Baldwin like they are (her lawyers) is also pretty disgusting. Which actually might have determined the harsh sentence for this lady.
Baldwin is responsible as an executive producer (along with whomever else was producing). It’s obvious the armourer was out of her depth and should’ve never been hired. Not saying she doesn’t bear any responsibility, but if you as an employer cut corners to save money, and someone dies because of that, there should be consequences.
That’s not what they’re arguing though. Read the article. They’re arguing he physically pulled the trigger.
I mean, he did. He pointed a gun at someone and shot them. Not saying that Reed is innocent; the fact that live rounds ever made it into the gun seems to be her fault. But Baldwin absolutely should not have pointed a gun at someone in the first place.
That’s standard procedure on a film set. Thousands of blanks a year are fired while pointing at people. That’s literally the point of blanks. I’m not saying that’s actually entirely safe, but it does mean that it is reasonable for the actor to expect it to be. Especially when you’re under the impression that a professional gun safety person has loaded the blanks by hand and that the gun has been checked twice by two separate people before given to you.
Judging by the downvotes, this seems to be a common thought here. Let me cite some applicable industry standards: https://www.actorsequity.org/resources/Producers/safe-and-sanitary/safety-tips-for-use-of-firearms/
https://www.csatf.org/01_safety_bltn_firearms/
And I want to re-iterate, Baldwin did not shoot another actor who his character shoots in the film. He was not supposed to have his finger on the trigger for this shot, nor was he even supposed to fully draw his weapon. This was not the first time he pointed a gun at a camera person and fired off-script; the footage played in the trial showed him shooting directly at the camera after the director yelled “cut”.
And again: even if it were industry standard to shoot blanks directly at another person: that’s a stupid and reckless standard, and any reasonable person should refuse. I really feel like most of the defense of Baldwin is borne out of well-meaning ignorance.
How else do you film a scene where you point a gun at someone? It’s really common to do this for a movie. That’s the entire point of why the role of the armorer exists, not make things like that safe on set.
You cheat the perspective. You use CGI. You use electronic sim guns.
John Wick, one of the most gun-heavy actions films in recent memory, never had one actor point a live firearm at another, because that’s stupid and dangerous.
https://www.slashfilm.com/1227707/john-wick-4-director-chad-stahleski-gets-candid-about-live-firearms-on-film-sets/
I agree with that article, though I’d argue John Wick is the worst example to use as proof it can be done in other ways sure, they’ve got a lot of guns firing, but first is it’s super fast paced, so you can’t actually see a single shot. Second is that with that many rounds firing they probably wouldn’t have a choice, at least for interior scenes. Taking into account multiple takes, that would be so much gunpowder going off that you’d probably have to take a lot of time between takes for the smoke to clear.
For a slow scene with only one or a few rounds fired close to the camera, perspective tricks probably wouldn’t work, and CGI likely wouldn’t look as realistic either. Is that a good enough reason? I don’t know. I’m not a director or actor. I know some directors will go through a ton of effort for a tiny amount of added authenticity. John Wick goes the opposite direction with all their gun-magic after the first movie.
I tend to assume an actor’s idea of executive producer is doing coke in his trailer and making a phone call before filming.
To be fair, I also assume that’s what real executive producers do, minus the filming.
She learned how to be an armourer from her dad and it seems like he was the one who provided her a live round. She had no idea what she was doing, he’s a bad armourer and a bad parent who raised and taught another bad armourer.
I don’t disagree that he may be civilly liable for the safety conditions in general on the set. I just don’t think that his role in this particular case amounts to criminal negligence. From what I have heard, he had every reason to think that his weapon was safe to handle and use. In order to be guilty of manslaughter, you have to act with gross negligence, meaning that you know the risk of harm to another due to your action is real and significant and yet you choose to do the action anyway. In this particular case, he would have reasonably believed that the risk in his actions was essentially none at all.
The negligence was primarily on the armourer and secondarily on the guy who was meant to confirm the armourer (the assistant director? I can’t recall), both of whom failed in their basic due diligence and assured the crew and cast that the firearm was safe when it was not.
Sentencing hasn’t happened yet, three years is the maximum sentence possible.
Actors literally get paid to point guns at each other, handle them unsafely, and click the trigger.
Could be mistaken, but I think people were going after Baldwin for this because he was a producer? As in, he funded and hired the armourer so ultimately it was his fault.
No, they’re blaming him for physically pointing the gun.
Average Joe because he pulled the trigger.
The prosecutor because he was the one on site, in charge, and allowed unsafe conditions to persist even after many employees walked out due to the dangerous conditions.
He didn’t just point the gun. He had his finger on the trigger, and actually pulled it. Ask any responsible gun owner and you’ll get an earful about it.
Even if the armourer was found to be responsible, that does not absolve Baldwin’s grossly negligent behaviour.
Dude it’s a movie set not a firing range. That’s like saying that since it’s dangerous to drive fast that car chase scenes can’t exceed 25mph. It’s a movie set where the scene calls for people shooting at each other. Of course the actor would assume that the group responsible for making sure the weapons are safe did their job and made sure the weapons were safe. I wouldn’t assume an actor has any idea of how a gun works if it was my job to make sure they have something to point and shoot. The job of the actor is literally to point and shoot in a scene.
Cillian Murphy actually became a nuclear physicist so he could play Oppenheimer.
I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.
It was a gun. An actual, functioning firearm. He knew it was a gun & told the police as much afterwards. There is never any good reason to point a gun at someone you are not currently trying to kill. Even if you ignore the common sense and assume there are somehow different rules for movie sets & using blanks, the other armorer they brought in testified that no one should ever be in the line of fire. He absolutely roasted Reed for not telling Baldwin to not point the gun at people in the footage they played for him.
The scene did not call for him to draw his gun, let alone shoot it. He wasn’t pointing it at another actor and playing a scene where he shoots someone, he was pointing it at someone behind the camera for no good goddamn reason. We saw from the BTS footage played in court that this was not the first time he pointed a gun at the camera and shot it outside the actual filming of the movie.
Baldwin neglected to do the training for the seated cross draw, the same maneuver he was doing when he killed someone. No doubt Reed was negligent, but even she tried to get him to do that.
I simply do not understand why people are letting Baldwin off the hook. He pointed a loaded gun at someone and pulled the trigger. People fucking die when that happens.
Yes there is. The good reason is being an actor who is playing a character who’s trying to kill someone.
But, you see, he’s one of the good ones. We must rationalize any way we can to save him. Don’t listen to other actors saying they were taught to verify the guns and ammo. Don’t listen to crazy gun nuts who say you don’t point a gun at people no matter what.
This was purely her fault. Case closed. Do not look any further into it.
Actors don’t pull the trigger on guns during a scene?
They absolutely do because the guns often contain blanks. There was a great episode of What Went Wrong about this and about safety on set. There has been a huge push towards realism in gunfights, meaning blanks over sound effects and visual effects. Firing a gun obviously is far more dangerous than not firing a gun. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/what-went-wrong/id1512847066?i=1000617518180
They do, but not that scene, and they typically stop performing the scene when the director yells cut. On this day though, the scene ended, and a dude decided to play with a gun. That’s just my opinion of the event though, and I haven’t read anywhere near enough about it to make a real decision. From the little I did read though, he wasn’t even supposed to draw the gun in that scene, and the actual shooting took place after the scene was over.
Had he accidentally pushed over a prop house while rough housing and it crushed a person, would we be blaming the carpenter? Its definitely possible, but I think goofing around and playing with weapons should never be tolerated.
In real life yes. In movies, you have armorers who make sure that guns are not loaded or incapable of shooting, so that people can actually do point guns and pull the trigger while pointing at the baddies
Actually, he didn’t pull the trigger. It was a revolver and he fired it by pulling the hammer back.