Alec Baldwin shooting

[charltom]

Some disgruntled (there were many on set apparently) trying to fuck up baldwins life, or trying to fuck up the movie, by getting a live round through?

I am not usually the one to go straight to the conspiracy theory, but America is fucking nuts now.

A situation where actor and producer are one and the same is perfect for such a disgruntled employee, particularly one who doesn't like Baldwin's opposition to the NRA and.notices that he doesn't check firearms that he is given.

[notfatcat]

Some disgruntled (there were many on set apparently) trying to fuck up baldwins life, or trying to fuck up the movie, by getting a live round through?

I am not usually the one to go straight to the conspiracy theory, but America is fucking nuts now.

A situation where actor and producer are one and the same is perfect for such a disgruntled employee, particularly one who doesn't like Baldwin's opposition to the NRA and.notices that he doesn't check firearms that he is given.

If that's the case no doubt they'll make a film about it. A film about an accidental shooting while shooting a the film about an accidental shooting.

[charltom]

There should have been no lives rounds period. If filming loading, the dummies would do.

Are you not aware of how different they look?

Did you read the claimed explanation?

Yes. And I do have some.knowledge in the area.

[charltom]

Well, I’d say legally the buck stops with the person with the weapon.

So if it is a child actor doing the scene they are legally responsible for ensuring the prop gun is safe? I'm guessing you're not an actual lawyer right?

It wasn't a child actor.

However, I know a large number of people under 18 who know that the first thing to do on receipt of a firearm is to check it.

There is no reason for anyone handling a real firearm not to have the (very basic) safety training required to ensure negligent discharges cannot happen. Nor for actors not to perform simple checks for themselves, over and above what the armourer or equivalent does. There is no reason at all to abdicate responsibility here.

[Openside]

I still don’t get this. Anyone hands me a gun and the first thing I’ve done is check that it is safe. Blanks don’t have a bullet. They’re just wadding. Shells with a bullet don’t have a primer. I just can’t get my head around someone who would take on faith that a gun you’re about to point at someone is safe.

There should have been no lives rounds period. If filming loading, the dummies would do.

Are you not aware of how different they look?

They don’t look any different in the breach…

[charltom]

There should have been no lives rounds period. If filming loading, the dummies would do.

Are you not aware of how different they look?

They don’t look any different in the breach…

Supposedly a live round had been used for verisimilitude during loading, hence this discussion.

[Calculon]

Well, I’d say legally the buck stops with the person with the weapon.

So if it is a child actor doing the scene they are legally responsible for ensuring the prop gun is safe? I'm guessing you're not an actual lawyer right?

It wasn't a child actor.

However, I know a large number of people under 18 who know that the first thing to do on receipt of a firearm is to check it.

There is no reason for anyone handling a real firearm not to have the (very basic) safety training required to ensure negligent discharges cannot happen. Nor for actors not to perform simple checks for themselves, over and above what the armourer or equivalent does. There is no reason at all to abdicate responsibility here.

I'd be surprised if the actor in this instance has not had very basic safety training. He's still not legally responsible (in his role of actor) for what happened.

[Ymx]

Could be right. Though the same guy, different role might be in trouble.

Torygraph

Alec Baldwin risks being prosecuted for involuntary manslaughter over the accidental shooting of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins, legal experts have warned. 

The Hollywood star could face the charges because of his role as the executive producer of the film, rather than for pulling the trigger, suggested US attorney Joseph Costa. 

The comments came after news emerged of a crew walk-out in protest over working conditions and safety concerns shortly before the shooting.

Ms Hutchins, a 42-year-old mother of one, died on a film set near Santa Fe, New Mexico on Thursday afternoon after Baldwin fired a prop gun which he thought was loaded with blanks.

“As an executive producer, you are in a position of control and you can get prosecuted criminally,” Mr Costa, an attorney with Costa Law in Los Angeles, told the New York Post.

“It’s the equivalent of drinking and driving, meaning someone may not have intended to cause great harm but they do.”

The distraught actor, who described how his heart was broken by the tragedy, was pictured at the weekend hugging Ms Hutchins’ husband, Matthew and his young son.

Mr Hutchins said the 63-year-old actor had been “very supportive”.

The father of the late cinematographer meanwhile absolved Baldwin from blame, telling the Sun on Sunday that responsibility rested with the film’s armoury team.

The showbusiness website TMZ reported that the gun was used recreationally off the film set, while anonymous crew members told the New York Times there had been two other accidental weapon discharges on the set of Rust.

The incident is being investigated by the Santa Fe County Sheriff’s office.

Rebecca Roiphe, of the New York Law School, said Baldwin could be charged with involuntary manslaughter if he failed to exercise the appropriate degree of care.

“But even if a prosecutor determines that he was in some way at fault, these sorts of accidents are not regularly charged criminally," she said. 

"A prosecutor would likely look at a number of factors to determine whether it would be appropriate to do so here."

Prosecutors would look at how personally culpable Baldwin was, or whether mistakes were made by a number of people, she said.

“If he was seriously cutting corners, prosecutors may look at it differently,” she added.

[Ymx]

The gun was used recreationally off the set !!!!

[charltom]

The gun was used recreationally off the set !!!!

Most firearms are. It didn't say "during filming".

[fishfoodie]

The gun was used recreationally off the set !!!!

More than 300 million guns in the US frequently are !

The presence of the gun on the set is the first problem

[charltom]

So if it is a child actor doing the scene they are legally responsible for ensuring the prop gun is safe? I'm guessing you're not an actual lawyer right?

It wasn't a child actor.

However, I know a large number of people under 18 who know that the first thing to do on receipt of a firearm is to check it.

There is no reason for anyone handling a real firearm not to have the (very basic) safety training required to ensure negligent discharges cannot happen. Nor for actors not to perform simple checks for themselves, over and above what the armourer or equivalent does. There is no reason at all to abdicate responsibility here.

I'd be surprised if the actor in this instance has not had very basic safety training. He's still not legally responsible (in his role of actor) for what happened.

Either he hasn't had the training, or he ignored it for some reason, which may or may not relate to complacency or arrogance.

You seem fixated with whether Baldwin was legally responsible; it seems better to me to work out how to avoid such an event, which won't be achieved by denying responsibility.

[Ymx]

The gun was used recreationally off the set !!!!

Most firearms are. It didn't say "during filming".

There were quite strong implications above that it was used recreationally between sets.

Also offers an explanation as to how a live round may have got in there.

[Ymx]

Here you go …

The smoking gun that claimed the life of Halyna Hutchins might've been more than just an on-set prop -- it was also being fired recreationally, even when cameras weren't rolling.

Multiple sources directly connected to the 'Rust' production tell TMZ ... the same gun Alec Baldwin accidentally fired -- hitting the DP and director -- was being used by crews members off set as well, for what we're told amounted to target practice.

[Ymx]

We're told this off-the-clock shooting -- which was allegedly happening away from the movie lot -- was being done with real bullets ... which is how some who worked on the film believe a live round found its way in one of the chambers that day.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.tmz.co ... -practice/

[Torquemada 1420]

Are you not aware of how different they look?

Did you read the claimed explanation?

Yes. And I do have some.knowledge in the area.

But you didn't comprehend the claimed explanation so I'll try in words of limited syllables in case you are struggling.
1) Blanks and live look entirely different (although many would not know the absence of the bullet itself). Dummies are exactly the same as live in appearance: just empty cartridge.
2) One explanation was that a live round was chambered because the loading was part of the filming and it was exactly because gun geeks/snobs would say " I do have some.knowledge in the area. That's wrong." that is was done for realism.
But someone forgot to switch.
3) Hence my point that a dummy not only would have sufficed but that live should not be permitted on set ever.

[bok_viking]

Just seems like there were very little safety protocols or nobody cared to follow them.

From my recollection during my student days when i did some work on sets. Guns used in filming was never allowed to leave the the storage area when it was not used during filming, there were very strict rules related to getting the gun from the set to storage and vice versa. It was not supposed to be handled by anyone not responsible for it during those times either. Live ammo and blanks are not even supposed to be stored in the same area to reduce the chance of one being mistaken for the other. They used to lock live rounds away in a safe between the shots, and only a minimal amount was kept around for the use on set, and afterwards they would be counted, returned, signed for and locked away, there were loads more rules related to the handling of guns and ammo. So it seems the recreative shooting between filming was a massive breach as well as several other things that happened and whoever allowed that should be held responsible as well if it is someone else than the Executive producer. But I do think the executive producer should be held responsible together with whatever person allowed guns and ammo to be played with when not on set. There was absolutely no care and control on those sets it seems. So Bladwin the actor might not be responsible, but Baldwin the Executive Producer should definitely be,

[inactionman]

Just seems like there were very little safety protocols or nobody cared to follow them.

From my recollection during my student days when i did some work on sets. Guns used in filming was never allowed to leave the the storage area when it was not used during filming, there were very strict rules related to getting the gun from the set to storage and vice versa. It was not supposed to be handled by anyone not responsible for it during those times either. Live ammo and blanks are not even supposed to be stored in the same area to reduce the chance of one being mistaken for the other. They used to lock live rounds away in a safe between the shots, and only a minimal amount was kept around for the use on set, and afterwards they would be counted, returned, signed for and locked away, there were loads more rules related to the handling of guns and ammo. So it seems the recreative shooting between filming was a massive breach as well as several other things that happened and whoever allowed that should be held responsible as well if it is someone else than the Executive producer. But I do think the executive producer should be held responsible together with whatever person allowed guns and ammo to be played with when not on set. There was absolutely no care and control on those sets it seems. So Bladwin the actor might not be responsible, but Baldwin the Executive Producer should definitely be,

Perhaps a silly question, and I've no doubt missed where it was asked previously, but what possible use is there for live ammunition on a film set?

[Rinkals]

Totally agree with FF: if, as here, there is a full safety system put in place with a paid, professional armourer / wrangler who is responsible for ensuring weapons are safe, an actor is entitled to rely on that system.

On the other hand, the producer (and others) might be in trouble for not ensuring that that system is actually safe.

I'm sort of in agreement.

Apparently the gun had been used for target practice (WTAF?) before being placed on the table.

Baldwin, besides being anti-Trump was an advocate for gun control, which is why there is a certain amount of enjoyment over this from the NRA and the like, but it strikes me that the over-familiarity with guns which resulted in this accident is symptomatic of American gun culture.

[charltom]

Did you read the claimed explanation?

Yes. And I do have some.knowledge in the area.

But you didn't comprehend the claimed explanation so I'll try in words of limited syllables in case you are struggling.
1) Blanks and live look entirely different (although many would not know the absence of the bullet itself). Dummies are exactly the same as live in appearance: just empty cartridge.
2) One explanation was that a live round was chambered because the loading was part of the filming and it was exactly because gun geeks/snobs would say " I do have some.knowledge in the area. That's wrong." that is was done for realism.
But someone forgot to switch.
3) Hence my point that a dummy not only would have sufficed but that live should not be permitted on set ever.

Torq you are right with point 2 (your "realism" is my "verisimilitude" above).

However, you are wrong with 1, and thus with 3. Dummy rounds have no primer, so they are not "the same as live in appearance". The primer is the bit that causes ignition when struck by the firing pin, and it is an externally visible part of a round.

I applaud your attempt so far to understand this issue and hope that this helps in the process.

[Lobby]

Just seems like there were very little safety protocols or nobody cared to follow them.

From my recollection during my student days when i did some work on sets. Guns used in filming was never allowed to leave the the storage area when it was not used during filming, there were very strict rules related to getting the gun from the set to storage and vice versa. It was not supposed to be handled by anyone not responsible for it during those times either. Live ammo and blanks are not even supposed to be stored in the same area to reduce the chance of one being mistaken for the other. They used to lock live rounds away in a safe between the shots, and only a minimal amount was kept around for the use on set, and afterwards they would be counted, returned, signed for and locked away, there were loads more rules related to the handling of guns and ammo. So it seems the recreative shooting between filming was a massive breach as well as several other things that happened and whoever allowed that should be held responsible as well if it is someone else than the Executive producer. But I do think the executive producer should be held responsible together with whatever person allowed guns and ammo to be played with when not on set. There was absolutely no care and control on those sets it seems. So Bladwin the actor might not be responsible, but Baldwin the Executive Producer should definitely be,

It also being reported that the AD who handed the gun to Baldwin and told him it was safe had previously been the subject of a complaint about failure to follow safety protocols with guns:

"Maggie Goll, a prop maker and licensed pyrotechnician, said she filed an internal complaint with the executive producers of Hulu’s Into the Dark TV series in 2019 over concerns about assistant director Dave Halls’ conduct on set.

Goll alleged in an interview that Halls had previously not followed safety protocols for weapons and pyrotechnics when she worked alongside him on a TV series in 2019. ...

she also told the Guardian of concerns when she worked on the Into The Dark TV set during filming in California in 2019, where prop guns were being used and Halls was also first assistant director, overseeing the work on set to a tight schedule.

She recalled there were times when she and other crew felt unsafe. A fellow crew member had announced the presence on set of a firearm, she noted, when normally the first assistant director would do that, and this crew member “frequently admonished Dave for dismissing the talent [i.e. letting the actors know to stop work] without returning props – weapon included – or failing to make safety announcements”.

So as well as having an inexperienced armourer who had previously admitted to not being up to the job, you also have an AD with a history of not following safety protocols, and an increasing number of examples of safety being ignored on this particular set. The whole thing seems like a complete clusterfuck.

[Slick]

Yes. And I do have some.knowledge in the area.

But you didn't comprehend the claimed explanation so I'll try in words of limited syllables in case you are struggling.
1) Blanks and live look entirely different (although many would not know the absence of the bullet itself). Dummies are exactly the same as live in appearance: just empty cartridge.
2) One explanation was that a live round was chambered because the loading was part of the filming and it was exactly because gun geeks/snobs would say " I do have some.knowledge in the area. That's wrong." that is was done for realism.
But someone forgot to switch.
3) Hence my point that a dummy not only would have sufficed but that live should not be permitted on set ever.

Torq you are right with point 2 (your "realism" is my "verisimilitude" above).

However, you are wrong with 1, and thus with 3. Dummy rounds have no primer, so they are not "the same as live in appearance". The primer is the bit that causes ignition when struck by the firing pin, and it is an externally visible part of a round.

I applaud your attempt so far to understand this issue and hope that this helps in the process.

[Torquemada 1420]

Yes. And I do have some.knowledge in the area.

But you didn't comprehend the claimed explanation so I'll try in words of limited syllables in case you are struggling.
1) Blanks and live look entirely different (although many would not know the absence of the bullet itself). Dummies are exactly the same as live in appearance: just empty cartridge.
2) One explanation was that a live round was chambered because the loading was part of the filming and it was exactly because gun geeks/snobs would say " I do have some.knowledge in the area. That's wrong." that is was done for realism.
But someone forgot to switch.
3) Hence my point that a dummy not only would have sufficed but that live should not be permitted on set ever.

Torq you are right with point 2 (your "realism" is my "verisimilitude" above).

However, you are wrong with 1, and thus with 3. Dummy rounds have no primer, so they are not "the same as live in appearance". The primer is the bit that causes ignition when struck by the firing pin, and it is an externally visible part of a round.

I applaud your attempt so far to understand this issue and hope that this helps in the process.

You'd never see the inverted nipple in a film shot whereas the absence of bullet on a blank clearly would be. And even if you did see it, next to no-one would know the difference whereas a "bullet" is simply not a "bullet" without the errrrr........ bullet?

[Torquemada 1420]

There should have been no lives rounds period. If filming loading, the dummies would do.

Are you not aware of how different they look?

They don’t look any different in the breach…

Yes. This. See my previous post.

[charltom]

We're told this off-the-clock shooting -- which was allegedly happening away from the movie lot -- was being done with real bullets ... which is how some who worked on the film believe a live round found its way in one of the chambers that day.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.tmz.co ... -practice/

Cheers Ymx.

[Torquemada 1420]

We're told this off-the-clock shooting -- which was allegedly happening away from the movie lot -- was being done with real bullets ... which is how some who worked on the film believe a live round found its way in one of the chambers that day.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.tmz.co ... -practice/

Well, that would explain a lot. Moronic.

[Margin__Walker]

Sounds like an accident waiting to happen. Not a good look at all for the studio/production company.

[charltom]

But you didn't comprehend the claimed explanation so I'll try in words of limited syllables in case you are struggling.
1) Blanks and live look entirely different (although many would not know the absence of the bullet itself). Dummies are exactly the same as live in appearance: just empty cartridge.
2) One explanation was that a live round was chambered because the loading was part of the filming and it was exactly because gun geeks/snobs would say " I do have some.knowledge in the area. That's wrong." that is was done for realism.
But someone forgot to switch.
3) Hence my point that a dummy not only would have sufficed but that live should not be permitted on set ever.

Torq you are right with point 2 (your "realism" is my "verisimilitude" above).

However, you are wrong with 1, and thus with 3. Dummy rounds have no primer, so they are not "the same as live in appearance". The primer is the bit that causes ignition when struck by the firing pin, and it is an externally visible part of a round.

I applaud your attempt so far to understand this issue and hope that this helps in the process.

You'd never see the inverted nipple in a film shot whereas the absence of bullet on a blank clearly would be. And even if you did see it, next to no-one would know the difference whereas a "bullet" is simply not a "bullet" without the errrrr........ bullet?

Inverted nipple??? Do you mean this?
https://images.app.goo.gl/MxrNM2UE3hjryV8S6

If so, that is a spent primer. It has been fired, and sits in an empty case.

A new primer doesn't have the indentation. Like this:
https://images.app.goo.gl/8wgPxieTtXGckXu1A

Yes, the whole point was that a live round may have been introduced because of the act of loading being filmed in close-up. Where you *would* see the primer.

Just because you wouldn't know the difference doesn't mean "next to no-one" would. In the USA, the main market for such a Western, there are more firearms than there are people.

I don't expect my images to show properly, as I've never added any on NPR before and am happy to admit I might get that wrong. It's a shame I can't use my own pics too, as I don't keep ammunition (whether purchased or handloaded) at home.

Feel free at any point BTW to apologise for your insulting first line quoted above.

[Calculon]

Unfortunately no accompanying photo, but this is what a German armourer had to say about live ammunition on set

Perhaps the cartridge, which can also be a prop, was not modified accordingly. When we shoot scenes like that in Germany, the cartridge is opened, and the powder taken out. The primer, which starts the burn when I pull the trigger, is also modified for the shoot. That gives me something that looks like a cartridge, but it can't do any harm. It's possible that a prop was switched somewhere, perhaps in storage, but something like that can also happen for time or supervisory reasons. And of course, it's possible that someone smuggled real ammunition into the gun. The question is, didn't someone have an eye on the weapon throughout?

These are the replica rounds used in blade runner

[FalseBayFC]

This whole scenario smacks of carelessness. I've handled firearms as a soldier and police reservist nearly my whole adult life. Every second I've had a gun in my hand I've been in in a state of heightened awareness. As a climber I've felt the same when belaying someone. Constantly reviewing the environment, the equipment and the personnel. There was a failure by firstly the armorer who seems to have been a rank amateur, the actors - who should have been aware of the risk- and the safety officer/director or whoever is responsible for safety on the set.

[Rinkals]

As I understand it, the weapon had been used for recreational shooting, so using special cartridges would not have helped.

What it does show is that gun safety protocols were lax or were ignored, and this speaks to me of a cavalier attitude which is probably the product of an over-familiar gun culture where firearms are routinely carried when out shopping.

[charltom]

probably the product of an over-familiar gun culture where firearms are routinely carried when out shopping.

That's a bit of a leap. I would expect anyone entitled to "concealed carry" (very much the minority) to be acutely safety conscious.

Film crew who call a real firearm a "prop gun" though, not so much...

[Insane_Homer]

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-a ... ch-warrant

Search warrant reveals grim details of ‘Rust’ shooting and Halyna Hutchins’ final minutes

[FalseBayFC]

probably the product of an over-familiar gun culture where firearms are routinely carried when out shopping.

That's a bit of a leap. I would expect anyone entitled to "concealed carry" (very much the minority) to be acutely safety conscious.

Film crew who call a real firearm a "prop gun" though, not so much...

Yeah nah! The US has a very high unintentional firearm fatality rate. About 430 deaths per year. I suspect that there is no correlation between lax gun laws and responsibility of use. Its like using a table saw, ironically most injuries occur amongst experienced woodworkers. Over familiarity results in a lowering of caution.

[Grandpa]

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-a ... ch-warrant

Search warrant reveals grim details of ‘Rust’ shooting and Halyna Hutchins’ final minutes

The way they describe it, he didn't actually mean to shoot the gun?

[Chilli]

Ms Hutchins, a 42-year-old mother of one, died on a film set near Santa Fe, New Mexico on Thursday afternoon after Baldwin fired a prop gun which he thought was loaded with blanks.

Hang about.
Was it a real gun firing a real bullet?
A real gun firing a blank?
A prop firing a real bullet?
A prop firing a blank?

If a bullet came out the barrel then it was a real gun firing a bullet. The armourer must be to blame.

[FalseBayFC]

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-a ... ch-warrant

Search warrant reveals grim details of ‘Rust’ shooting and Halyna Hutchins’ final minutes

The way they describe it, he didn't actually mean to shoot the gun?

It sounds like an accidental discharge to me. There is no way, even if it was loaded with blanks, that any crew should have been in in the line of fire. In this case two people were.

[Calculon]

Ms Hutchins, a 42-year-old mother of one, died on a film set near Santa Fe, New Mexico on Thursday afternoon after Baldwin fired a prop gun which he thought was loaded with blanks.

Hang about.
Was it a real gun firing a real bullet?
A real gun firing a blank?
A prop firing a real bullet?
A prop firing a blank?

If a bullet came out the barrel then it was a real gun firing a bullet. The armourer must be to blame.

"Prop" refers to any object used on set/stage. It could be a working firearm or one made of rubber.

[charltom]

probably the product of an over-familiar gun culture where firearms are routinely carried when out shopping.

That's a bit of a leap. I would expect anyone entitled to "concealed carry" (very much the minority) to be acutely safety conscious.

Film crew who call a real firearm a "prop gun" though, not so much...

Yeah nah! The US has a very high unintentional firearm fatality rate. About 430 deaths per year. I suspect that there is no correlation between lax gun laws and responsibility of use. Its like using a table saw, ironically most injuries occur amongst experienced woodworkers. Over familiarity results in a lowering of caution.

That figure would be less than 1.5 per million firearms.

Unintentional fatalities in the USA tend to be in the home and usually result from insufficient security keeping firearms and non-shooters apart.

In this instance, the anti-gun actor is unlikely to have been lax because of overfamiliarity with guns - quite the contrary. He even seems to have thought it was someone else's job to check the firearm for him. It's not - even if it's been checked before, it's the recipient's responsibility to check it himself. That's how trained shooters behave, and that's how accidents are eliminated.

[fishfoodie]

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-a ... ch-warrant

The way they describe it, he didn't actually mean to shoot the gun?

It sounds like an accidental discharge to me. There is no way, even if it was loaded with blanks, that any crew should have been in in the line of fire. In this case two people were.

This was something I was trying to get my head around tool but gradually the bits are filling in.

They were in the line of fire, because the scene was for Baldwin to point the gun at the camera, after drawing it; & fire. So they were getting the camera's eye view, before the actual take; & Baldwin was apparently practicing the draw as part of this, so they could get the lighting right. Baldwin, either accidentally, or a part of this practice, discharged the weapon.

The other thing of note; was the, chain of custody, of the gun was broken, in part, because of Covid; that was why the guns were left on the cart away from the actors; & presumably why the AD took the gun off the cart, & handed it to Baldwin, & told the set, in the fatal mistake; that it was a cold gun.