Alec Baldwin fired prop gun, killing 1 on movie set, Oct 2021 #4

[Antimony]

There were three guns on the cart.
Why 3? Why not just one?
Were they loaded for different purposes?
Were they marked for the scene in question?
Were the guns identical? (Type, make, visually, id markings 1..2..3.)?
Was there ammo on the cart (dummy, inert, blank, spent)?
Was Armorer present when the gun was picked from the cart?
Were the guns on the cart covered to protect from blowing dust etc?
If it was important to lock up the guns and have the entrusted to an Armorer, then why were they left unattended and unsupervised on the cart for an extended period of time?

 

[altojack]

I've been busily reading to catch you guys up almost all morning. Got away to go but I just want to say, wait for me!
No seriously I just want to say this is a really upsetting case, and one that won't go away anytime soon.

I wondered if someone from the union crew became so disgruntled they decided to take action. Probably not, I'll read more later and catch up with things before I review my thoughts.

 

[DI_Isokawa]

There were three guns on the cart.
Why 3? Why not just one?
Were they loaded for different purposes?
Were they marked for the scene in question?
Were the guns identical? (Type, make, visually, id markings 1..2..3.)?
Was there ammo on the cart (dummy, inert, blank, spent)?
Was Armorer present when the gun was picked from the cart?
Were the guns on the cart covered to protect from blowing dust etc?
If it was important to lock up the guns and have the entrusted to an Armorer, then why were they left unattended and unsupervised on the cart for an extended period of time?

All excellent questions for which we currently have no answers. And we can add:

Who has custody of the shooting script including the alleged modifications made during lunch?
Who has custody of the call sheet for that day?
Who was inside the church at the time of the shooting?
Who had sight of the cart when the gun was picked up?
Where did the armorer sleep the night before?
Who ordered the gun to be unloaded after the shooting?
What was the chain of custody of the gun and the rounds after the shooting?

Basically, right now we know just about nothing except that the poor woman was shot. Not much of a basis for drawing conclusions.

 

[Gardenista]

There were three guns on the cart.
Why 3? Why not just one?
Were they loaded for different purposes?
Were they marked for the scene in question?
Were the guns identical? (Type, make, visually, id markings 1..2..3.)?
Was there ammo on the cart (dummy, inert, blank, spent)?
Was Armorer present when the gun was picked from the cart?
Were the guns on the cart covered to protect from blowing dust etc?
If it was important to lock up the guns and have the entrusted to an Armorer, then why were they left unattended and unsupervised on the cart for an extended period of time?

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/27/ale...rojectile-recovered-during-investigation.html

Other items collected from the set included clothing, accessories and three firearms. One is a long Colt revolver, which authorities believe is what was used in the shooting. The others were a single-action revolver that may have been modified and a plastic prop gun that was described as a revolver.

 

[10ofRods]

There were three guns on the cart.
Why 3? Why not just one?
Were they loaded for different purposes?
Were they marked for the scene in question?
Were the guns identical? (Type, make, visually, id markings 1..2..3.)?
Was there ammo on the cart (dummy, inert, blank, spent)?
Was Armorer present when the gun was picked from the cart?
Were the guns on the cart covered to protect from blowing dust etc?
If it was important to lock up the guns and have the entrusted to an Armorer, then why were they left unattended and unsupervised on the cart for an extended period of time?

In the world of props, 3 is the magic number. They typically get 3 of everything (sort of like the military). 1 is none, 2 is one and 3 is two.

The idea is that it's cheaper to do that than to stop filming due to a lost cowboy hat (they probably have more of those) or a malfunctioning prop of any kind.

Anyway, it's traditional

Edited: It seems the three guns were not identical, at least not in terms of function. One appears to be a plastic (airsoft) reproduction, one was a single action non-working Colt and the third was the fatal gun (an Italian reproduction of a Colt .45)

The ammo was not on the cart as far as we know. And the ammo was not secured on the props truck, according to all reports (only the guns). The ammo was supposed to be dummies and blanks, as on all film sets. Somehow, live rounds got onto the set (confirmed again in the past couple of days by the D.A.)

No, the armorer wasn't present when DH picked the gun off the cart (we don't know exactly where the cart was, but I"m assuming it was outside the church, as that means one less thing to film around).

I do not think the guns were covered and I doubt there was much blowing dust - but the armorer typically cleans and oils guns a couple of times a day. That's when there is a full time armorer.

The guns should never have left the custody (physical or visual) of the armorer according to most people weighing in on this in Hollywood. Typically the armorer is also an expert on how to get straight-on shots at the camera without destroying the camera, and how to appear to shoot at someone without shooting at them (armorers are supposed to know camera angles such that gun safety rules are always observed, although in shoot-out scenes, this is very complicated).

 

[10ofRods]

From reading here and elsewhere, it is my understanding that live ammunition is visibly different from blanks and dummies?? So if HGR is the armorer, why would she not have noticed the difference when loading the gun(s)?

This is the main question here. Blanks look a lot like live ammo if you only look at the side facing the gun user in a revolver - both have primer. Blanks are supposed to have the lead removed and then either crimped (typical) with a BB inside so that rattling the blank will reveal that it is a blank, or a small wad of cloth or soft material put in where the lead went (so it doesn't look real from the front of a revolver). Dummies can look real or not real from the front. When we see bullets on gun belts or from the front in a revolver close up, they are usually well-crafted dummies, with some careful attention to making them shiny and gold/coppery at the tip, so the camera can pick them up and we are all impressed in the audience.

This is supposed to be show business, no real ammo should ever be on a set. Yet, somehow, real ammo made its way onto the set of Rust.

HGR should have noticed the difference. What's strange is that apparently there were 3 bullets in that gun. I believe DH told investigators that the next round was also live (but of course he hasn't spoken out since). He took the gun and opened it to look immediately after the shooting, it was reported. The third round was either a blank or a dummy. It should not have been a blank if Alec was going to fire in such close proximity to so many people, so will be interesting to see if it was blank or dummy. HGR has said in an interview that she gave just prior to starting the shooting of this film, that some people (actors? directors?) prefer empty guns and some prefer dummies. She prefers dummies. I am guessing she means the kind that she is shown wearing in her gun belts (very nice looking ones). That way, the gun looks real to the camera and is always harmless. An empty revolver would not be filmed. An empty semi-automatic gun would be fine, so I bet that's the difference.

Since the DA has announced she knows who loaded that bullet, I am assuming they have fingerprints and/or DNA from the two live rounds.

What if HGR did load the live ammo? Either she could not tell blanks from real bullets, or she was inattentive/disorganized/confused or...malicious. I find it hard to believe she was malicious, although there could be some incredible back story we don't know.

If it is someone else...who is it? Only 4 people had access to the gun safe and HGR says she locked up the guns in the safe at lunchtime. She probably didn't recheck them after lunch, so presumably the two live rounds were already in the operable Colt. If she is lying/misremembering, then someone surely could have used the gun for plinking during lunch time when the major cast and crew members were off the set.

 

[Jurisprudence]

Confusing right??! Is she implying that someone else reloaded the gun after HG did? Not sure…

I got the feeling this is what HG's atty is floating. JMO

 

[Jurisprudence]

But in the press conference he said he had not actually witnessed anyone plinking. Instead, he said he did witness guns being unattended and even laying around in the dirt.

Yes. I now see what you're saying and agree. I just read through his complaint and this is confirmed so my whole perspective of this has now change.

 

[Jurisprudence]

I read through the complaint (here https://deadline.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/rust-lawsuit.pdf), something many of you may have done days ago so some of this might have been mentioned already. A few things jumped out at me.

These are only allegations by Svetnoy, of course. All of the below is MOO, JMO, and Speculation:

Paragraph 31 - JS wrote the screenplay and directed (he is the one who had creative control). Helps AB IMO.

Paragraph 25 - Unclear if he's alleging that the Jane and John Does are production/industry people or replacement crew (as I thought), or a mix of both.

Paragraph 42 - he alleges SZ was hired as prop master, while HG was hired as armourer and props assistant

Paragraph 50 - he alleges HG loaded the gun and thereafter either a) failed to inspect it or b) loaded it with a live round and that she then released it to DH (I'm waiting to see if HG attys tip their hand and state all rounds initially loaded into the gun were in fact blanks and that a live bullet was substituted after or, if she will acknowledge that she is unsure and that it is "possible" she included a live round from a box of blanks (which would not be good for her IMO))

Still Paragraph 50 -"cold gun" according to an expert interviewed on CNN means completely empty, not merely that it isn't loaded with live rounds (he would have been better off alleging this IMO). Link here Alec Baldwin fired prop gun, killing 1 on movie set, Oct 2021 #4

Paragraph 51 - mentions the gun was left unattended for a period of time (somewhat in alignment with HG's claim through her counsel)

Paragraph 57 - he alleges HG didn't even have the basic knowledge to distinguish between a blank and live round (not likely IMO, not to say she wasn't negligent but I don't think this is the reason "why" this happened MOO)

Paragraphs 58 and 59 - alleges SZ as prop master was responsible for custody and faults her for allowing real bullets to mixed with dummies and blanks

Paragraphs 62 and 63 - alleges AB pointed it at "someone". He pointed in direction of the camera. People were there, of course, but he wasn't aiming at them. That statement is disingenuous IMO

Paragraph 66 - SK, armourer mentor. This is going to require explanation.

Paragraph 68 (Repeated again in Paragraph 72) - other cast "or crew" members accidentally discharged a weapon twice prior. What are the facts surrounding this? What crew? Who besides SZ, HG, DH, and AB had their hands on these weapons? This allegation is made without any supporting facts and details.

Still Paragraph 68 - "Reports indicate" that the guns were used for recreational shooting - so he has no proof. The guy was there on the set every day. And, while he may have been bussed away from the location during lunch when this occurred I find it a stretch that he would not have been aware of this prior or at least have gotten wind of it. But, he was not aware and did not get wind of this - and IMO we know this because he uses that language "Reports indicate"

This changes my whole perspective on the crew plinking. Where's the proof this ever happened? If cans were set up as some MSM initially reported why would Svetnoy leave these facts out of his "sworn" complaint? Was there confirmation from LE that multiple live rounds were found "stored" on set? Not the fatal one, I mean other ones, and a lot of them. We know there were 500 rounds recovered. But did LE ever confirm the suspected live rounds were in fact live rounds, and if so, how many? The less there were the better for HG's case IMO.

Paragraph 72 - here he alleges they "stored" live bullets on set but did they really? It seems IMOO that this is one of the points Gutierrez is making. Again, he states AB pointed gun "at" crew. Disingenuous. AB certainly pointed it in their direction because they were at the camera. But, aim "at" and for them? No. Still, the foreseeability element is certainly laid out in Paragraph 72 though.

So, now the thing we should all be on the lookout for is the Answer of any one of these defendants.

Their answer must be filed within 30 days (which can be extended to 45 days). California Rules of Court: Title Three Rules
California Rules of Court: Title Three Rules

We will learn even more from their answers. And I am betting the DA is hoping the defendants speak after this during civil depos because I think she really needs the info to make the case she may want.

All of this is MOO, JMO and speculation.

His attorneys did a lot of the leg work for not only the DA but for other potential plaintiffs. IMO his lawsuit will be (literally) reproduced with minor fact-specific edits by other plaintiffs for their respective civil claims.

Recreational shooting NBC makes it sound like a statement of fact ‘Rust’ crew member sues Alec Baldwin, others in fatal on-set shooting and we now know from a reading of the complaint that it is not.

 

[RANCH]

Assembling bullets requires a reloading press, if HG was doing that it would be really easy to figure out.

Here's a link to a gun expert recreating the deadly shooting on "The Crow" set. He simply taps the bullets back into the case with a hammer. Timestamp 8:47.

 

[borndem]

I think legally he has no choice but to sue all the producers, they are the ones who are liable.

You can feel badly for someone and still sue them. Family members sue each other all the time, if there's a legal cause of action and the court allows it. There's not going to be any trouble keeping this case in the California courts.

I was pretty amazed by how "all over the map" the defendants are. Many are incorporated in, or living in Los Angeles, and I'm guessing the documents for this production were inked there. I think the plaintiff gets a choice, then, on where to sue. Defendants come additionally from New York, Georgia and Arizona. There may be one from New Mexico too, need to reread.

More than once I've been told and read what many attorneys advise in a situation with a number of players: "Sue 'em all." That's what I've seen in MSM locally and many other states... just sue all of them and go from there... Things get clearer and clearer as depositions and one-on-one conversations go, and we have not seen it all. And the ones involved and LE, I assume, know more than we do, but more should come creeping out as time goes by.
JMO.

 

[borndem]

She would have. Which leads to more questions. Unless she is that incompetent.

Hmmmm, There's a thought...

 

[Luna20]

I got the feeling this is what HG's atty is floating. JMO

Yes I guess he will try to see what sticks. That would have had to happen after she gave the gun to AD. He gave it to AB once he got it from her so the chances of that happening is really not debatable. If this were hours apart it could be argued but from what we know the chain of command pass off happened quickly. Still it would come down to the gun being out of her sight.

 

[10ofRods]

More than once I've been told and read what many attorneys advise in a situation with a number of players: "Sue 'em all." That's what I've seen in MSM locally and many other states... just sue all of them and go from there... Things get clearer and clearer as depositions and one-on-one conversations go, and we have not seen it all. And the ones involved and LE, I assume, know more than we do, but more should come creeping out as time goes by.
JMO.

I worked my way through school as a paralegal. Mostly, I just wrote complaints (and the instructions were always to find as many defendants as legally defensible, including any the attorney had missed) and then lots of Does, which were occasionally quite handy and therefore necessary. Same with causes of action, which were fun to research.

 

[borndem]

"Santa Fe County District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altwies has rejected suggestions that the fatal shooting on the set of Rust may have been the result of "sabotage," as floated by attorneys for the movie's armorer."

https://theweek.com/news/1006993/sa...racy-theories-that-the-rust-set-was-sabotaged

The problem for Ms. Carmack-Altwies IMOO is "You. Have. No. Proof. " to counter this defense. Not that I have seen anyway. MOO She has a problem because, again, LE did not secure and process that scene. They went back Friday. That hurt their evidence collection. It even calls into question the veracity of subsequent interviews IMOO.

What a flippin' mess. Who will this "mess" hurt the most?

Certainly there was panic -- not unusual, and certainly expected -- and then there was the fatality that became known. Call 911, call LE, and no one can leave the area. Was all of that done? Could've, should've... They're all human beings here -- but they're also adults suddenly caught in an awful and horrible situation. Most certainly not a planned murder situation, but an unusual and unplanned horror, nevertheless. A "Nobody leave until LE says we may leave," kind of situation if there ever was one. IMO and SMH.

 

[Jurisprudence]

What a flippin' mess. Who will this "mess" hurt the most?

Certainly there was panic -- not unusual, and certainly expected -- and then there was the fatality that became known. Call 911, call LE, and no one can leave the area. Was all of that done? Could've, should've... They're all human beings here -- but they're also adults suddenly caught in an awful and horrible situation. Most certainly not a planned murder situation, but an unusual and unplanned horror, nevertheless. A "Nobody leave until LE says we may leave," kind of situation if there ever was one. IMO and SMH.

I'm very interested to see what the named defendants will say in their answer to the complaint. We may get more info once the allegations of the complaint are addressed unless it's a blanket form answer. MOO.

 

[borndem]

In the world of props, 3 is the magic number. They typically get 3 of everything (sort of like the military). 1 is none, 2 is one and 3 is two.

The idea is that it's cheaper to do that than to stop filming due to a lost cowboy hat (they probably have more of those) or a malfunctioning prop of any kind.

Anyway, it's traditional

Edited: It seems the three guns were not identical, at least not in terms of function. One appears to be a plastic (airsoft) reproduction, one was a single action non-working Colt and the third was the fatal gun (an Italian reproduction of a Colt .45)

The ammo was not on the cart as far as we know. And the ammo was not secured on the props truck, according to all reports (only the guns). The ammo was supposed to be dummies and blanks, as on all film sets. Somehow, live rounds got onto the set (confirmed again in the past couple of days by the D.A.)

No, the armorer wasn't present when DH picked the gun off the cart (we don't know exactly where the cart was, but I"m assuming it was outside the church, as that means one less thing to film around).

I do not think the guns were covered and I doubt there was much blowing dust - but the armorer typically cleans and oils guns a couple of times a day. That's when there is a full time armorer.

The guns should never have left the custody (physical or visual) of the armorer according to most people weighing in on this in Hollywood. Typically the armorer is also an expert on how to get straight-on shots at the camera without destroying the camera, and how to appear to shoot at someone without shooting at them (armorers are supposed to know camera angles such that gun safety rules are always observed, although in shoot-out scenes, this is very complicated).

bbm
Indeed. The armorer should know that is his/her azz that gets in trouble when armor has problems. It's like someone carrying a lot of money in a bag, etc., and he/she puts the bag of money down and leaves the room, for instance. The money "disappears" and the one in charge of the bag of money gets the blame. Period. There can be extenuating circumstances, but it starts with the one who has the paid responsibility to do the job.
It starts with the armorer, and then may follow to the one who hired her -- her resume, training, years experience, "would you hire her again," questions. And it could boil down to, "You get what you pay for."
This job is not like washing dishes, although no one wants the dish-washer to break the dishes, or serve food on dirty ones.
The arrow of blame starts with one person, and may point to others, but it is clear as to where Step One should start.

 

[Jurisprudence]

(Snipped by me for focus)

What if HGR did load the live ammo? Either she could not tell blanks from real bullets, or she was inattentive/disorganized/confused or...malicious. I find it hard to believe she was malicious, although there could be some incredible back story we don't know.

This is what SS alleges in paragraph 57 of the complaint.

If it is someone else...who is it? Only 4 people had access to the gun safe and HGR says she locked up the guns in the safe at lunchtime. She probably didn't recheck them after lunch, so presumably the two live rounds were already in the operable Colt. If she is lying/misremembering, then someone surely could have used the gun for plinking during lunch time when the major cast and crew members were off the set.

Only 4 people should have had access but in paragraph 68 SS alleges other crew and cast had access and a part in 2 prior accidental discharges.

He provides no facts in the allegation. And, I was initially looking forward to their answers to the complaint so we could get some new info but the more I think about it the more I think it'll probably be nothing but a blanket denial of the allegations. MOO

 

[Jurisprudence]

More than once I've been told and read what many attorneys advise in a situation with a number of players: "Sue 'em all." That's what I've seen in MSM locally and many other states... just sue all of them and go from there... Things get clearer and clearer as depositions and one-on-one conversations go, and we have not seen it all. And the ones involved and LE, I assume, know more than we do, but more should come creeping out as time goes by.
JMO.

Yes, because someone like HG or SZ may be judgment proof anyway (have no $ to pay the judgment) and the studios and investors are the "deep pockets." JMO

 

[Jurisprudence]

I worked my way through school as a paralegal. Mostly, I just wrote complaints (and the instructions were always to find as many defendants as legally defensible, including any the attorney had missed) and then lots of Does, which were occasionally quite handy and therefore necessary. Same with causes of action, which were fun to research.

Who do you think the Does are? I wrongfully assumed (without first reading the complaint) that they were the substitute crew. Upon reading the complaint it looks like they mostly encompass industry professionals and *maybe* some of that crew. But, more likely, no - and I think this because he admits that he does not have knowledge that there was plinking going on. He does allege it, but he alleges based on "reports." This to me is whacky. this guy was there. I find it hard to believe he doesn't know one way or the other. It was a pretty small production from what I understand from previous MSM reports. MOO JMO