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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
jjenny said:
How do you expect Baldwin to figure out the bullet was live when the supposed professional didn't figure it out? She described loading the bullet without the hole, it wouldn't go in, yet she persisted and finally got it loaded. So its not like she didn't get a good look at it.
Click to expand...

Agree 100%. The fact that the last round would not go in should have been her first screaming clue.

Films hire professional armorers for a damn reason. HGR was green and careless, e.g. previous film with Nick Cage. Inexperienced, with a hyper-short resume, she no doubt came cheap, which made Rust's bean counters happy. But like they say ... you get what you pay for.

IMHO, She had no business in this business as head armorer, without more extensive training / experience as an assistant. Just because one's dad is a legendary, crackerjack armorer doesn't mean his skills / credentials are automatically passed down through DNA.
 
jjenny said:
She found the box of supposed dummy bullets that morning and didn't know where it came from.

"Gutierrez’s lawsuit appears to cast doubt on where the ammunition came from. Her attorneys wrote that she found a full box of prop bullets on the morning of the shooting, although she had “not seen a full box of dummy rounds in weeks.”"

Armorer sues ammunition supplier after fatal shooting on Alec Baldwin film set - The Washington Post
Click to expand...

Wow, so she suddenly found a strange box of ammo, didn't know where or from whom it came but used it anyway? From all I understand of this head armorer business, aren't THEY responsible for sourcing / keeping inventory of all their guns, ammo and all related paraphernalia, i.e. a tight chain of custody? This alone should have given her every reason to even more carefully scrutinize every round.
 
Gardenista said:
I don't understand why they needed more dummy rounds and were so excited to see a whole box "appear" on the set. Seems like dummies would be able to be reused.
Click to expand...

Puzzles me also. The principal use of dummy rounds seemed to be to populate the gunbelts and bandoliers of actors. Were they getting pilfered? I just can't image them as being consumables.
 
I hate conspiracy theories but that lawsuit kind of got me thinking, which I guess was the whole point. Of course, you'd have to be psycho to put live rounds in that box on purpose, but Lord knows we see plenty of that around here. However, I'm going to need more facts before I allow myself to think any further in that direction.
 
clear.png clear.png TOP 10 WESTERN MOVIE SHOOTOUTS
^ Self-explanatory title^ of 18 min vid. of quick draws from 10 movies.
I don't claim any special knowledge about shootings on film --- old Westerns or otherwise, but scrolling around on youtube, this caught my attn. The one min clip of Buster Scruggs vs Surly Joe, starting at 10:08 is a :Dslapstick :Dshooting.:D A bit of comic relief from crime.

Under the poster's avatar on youtube click on "Show More" for a list of movies shown.
(Moderator, I meant to just insert the url to the youtube, not the clip.)
 
Last edited:
Arkay said:
I find this so maddening.

There has to be blame somewhere, real blame. It is indisputable that Alec's gun held a live round, which discharged and killed Halyna.

Yet, everyone involved declares their innocence and casts blame on someone else. That's human nature, I know. Self-preservation.

Hannah's suit blames Alec for not going to training, and the bosses for not having told her Alec would be pulling the gun, and for not telling her to be in the church. Also she blames the ammo guy; says he must have given her live rounds.

Then in the texts to Hannah, ammo guy blames the A.D for bullying Hannah. Even though Hannah's attitude in the texts was defensive and nasty, "Excuse you?"

Alec blames the A.D for saying "cold gun" and Hannah for not checking the gun, IIRC.

Production blames the camera crew for quitting and therefore leaving them short-handed and in a rush. Camera crew blames production for not providing proper housing and for unsafe conditions.

I'm leaving out some that I can't recall right now, but Alec was also blamed by some for aiming at the camera. And many blame Hannah for leaving ammo on the cart. And the armorer-mentor for failing in her duties. And Hannah having to work two jobs.

The crew is being blamed for target-shooting on break and perhaps having left live rounds somewhere.

Next I expect someone to blame poor Halyna for standing in the wrong spot.

Somewhere in this world of contradiction and “Who, ME?, the truth will prevail.

IMO the blame is primarily on Hannah. Her job was to follow the guns, wherever they may be, with whomever they go, at all times. And in her OWN lawsuit she explains how she had to shove a recalcitrant bullet into the chamber. IMO at that point she should have withdrawn and re-examined the bullet. Also her statement contradicts itself as to whether or not there were ever live bullets on the set. Especially, the cart with the guns should never ever ever have been unattended.
Click to expand...
BBM

"... IMO the blame is primarily on Hannah. ..."

I agree 100%. HGR is the linchpin in the entire chain of events that lead to this tragedy. SHE should have caught the live round before that gun ever went into any other hands. Indeed, it was her professional job and duty to do so. "But-for" her specific actions / inactions, Halyna would be alive today. True, HGR did not point the gun, she did not fire the gun, she reportedly was not even inside the chapel. But she was the "proximate cause" of the death of HH.
JMO

Proximate cause - Wikipedia

(Perhaps one of our resident attorneys could jump in to help elaborate on this legal concept?)
 
Lux et Veritas said:
BBM

"... IMO the blame is primarily on Hannah. ..."

I agree 100%. HGR is the linchpin in the entire chain of events that lead to this tragedy. SHE should have caught the live round before that gun ever went into any other hands. Indeed, it was her professional job and duty to do so. "But-for" her specific actions / inactions, Halyna would be alive today. True, HGR did not point the gun, she did not fire the gun, she reportedly was not even inside the chapel. But she was the "proximate cause" of the death of HH.
JMO

Proximate cause - Wikipedia

(Perhaps one of our resident attorneys could jump in to help elaborate on this legal concept?)
Click to expand...
It says a few circumstances exist where the "but for" test is complicated or ineffective.

Concurrent causes- where two separate acts of negligence combine to cause injury to a third person, each actor is liable.

I think in this case it was the combined negligence of multiple people that caused this tragedy.

If nobody had brought live ammo onto the set this probably wouldn't have happened. If HGR had done her job correctly this could have been avoided. If the director had checked the gun, if AB had checked, or if the director insisted that the armorer be present during the scene, maybe it could have been avoided.

If actors had not engaged in target shooting (if true) maybe this wouldn't have happened.

It also seems to me like there was a lack of communication on the set.

I'm sure I'm missing some other act of negligence, and there is a lot we don't know yet, but there do seem to be a lot of "but fors."

This doesn't sound like a 'very well oiled machine' at all. Imo
 
MsBetsy said:
It says a few circumstances exist where the "but for" test is complicated or ineffective.

Concurrent causes- where two separate acts of negligence combine to cause injury to a third person, each actor is liable.

I think in this case it was the combined negligence of multiple people that caused this tragedy.

If nobody had brought live ammo onto the set this probably wouldn't have happened. If HGR had done her job correctly this could have been avoided. If the director had checked the gun, if AB had checked, or if the director insisted that the armorer be present during the scene, maybe it could have been avoided.

If actors had not engaged in target shooting (if true) maybe this wouldn't have happened.

It also seems to me like there was a lack of communication on the set.

I'm sure I'm missing some other act of negligence, and there is a lot we don't know yet, but there do seem to be a lot of "but fors."

This doesn't sound like a 'very well oiled machine' at all. Imo
Click to expand...

Agree “There but for …”
I like the example of would anyone on that set put that gun to their own head &pull hammer back without checking it first?

MOO
 
IMO,


Whether or not someone would test it against their head is irrelevant as the scene being rehearsed didn’t involve putting it against anyone's head.


On a movie set, imo, a fake fire arm would be used in that example because of the weight of handling it through the scene and danger of putting it up against a head even with blanks.


But yes,

I believe that actors when immersed in production on an out of town set would trust the gun was safe when told so.

The Method actors are engrossed in their character. That’s what armorers are for.

AB trusted the gun was cold as stated.

He could have accidentally shot himself dead as well flinging it around.

So, yeah, obviously he thought the gun was safe for him too, imo.


Shooting accidents happen a lot this one is just high profile because of AB who seems to fascinate people.


Unintentional Shootings | Gun Violence Archive


All imo
 
Alec Baldwin Turns Over His Phone in ‘Rust’ Investigation, Lawyer Says

According to the terms of the search agreement, officials in Suffolk County will review the phone’s communications — including texts, emails, call records, voice mail messages, digital images and internet browser history — between June 1 and Dec. 5 last year, and will exclude any communications with his lawyers or his wife, Hilaria, which are protected by privilege.
 
Jade said:
IMO,


Whether or not someone would test it against their head is irrelevant as the scene being rehearsed didn’t involve putting it against anyone's head.


On a movie set, imo, a fake fire arm would be used in that example because of the weight of handling it through the scene and danger of putting it up against a head even with blanks.


But yes,

I believe that actors when immersed in production on an out of town set would trust the gun was safe when told so.

The Method actors are engrossed in their character. That’s what armorers are for.

AB trusted the gun was cold as stated.

He could have accidentally shot himself dead as well flinging it around.

So, yeah, obviously he thought the gun was safe for him too, imo.


Shooting accidents happen a lot this one is just high profile because of AB who seems to fascinate people.


Unintentional Shootings | Gun Violence Archive


All imo
Click to expand...
Guns are deadly weapons and should be handled with that fact in mind. You don't point it at someone you don't intend to shoot and certainly don't *advertiser censored* the hammer back while doing that.

This case shows us that just because someone tells an actor the gun is "safe" that doesn't mean it's true. JMO.
 
Lux et Veritas said:
Wow, so she suddenly found a strange box of ammo, didn't know where or from whom it came but used it anyway? From all I understand of this head armorer business, aren't THEY responsible for sourcing / keeping inventory of all their guns, ammo and all related paraphernalia, i.e. a tight chain of custody? This alone should have given her every reason to even more carefully scrutinize every round.
Click to expand...
Yep, she found a box, doesn't know where it came from, yet assumes all the bullets are dummies. How does she even know the armorer mentor is the source of the box?
 
RANCH said:
Guns are deadly weapons and should be handled with that fact in mind. You don't point it at someone you don't intend to shoot and certainly don't *advertiser censored* the hammer back while doing that.

This case shows us that just because someone tells an actor the gun is "safe" that doesn't mean it's true. JMO.
Click to expand...

Might help if the actor in question attended training for that specific gun, instead of using Westerns, themselves, as a source of information for how to handle a 1963 Colt .45 replica.

Meanwhile, this set was out of control and it will be interesting to see who, of the producers, are held responsible. Normally, a director would be held responsible for a lot of this - but apparently, most crew members are saying that Joel took a back seat to Alec Baldwin, who according to Hannah and the gaffer, intimidated everyone and "ran the show."
 
Jade said:
IMO,


Whether or not someone would test it against their head is irrelevant as the scene being rehearsed didn’t involve putting it against anyone's head.


On a movie set, imo, a fake fire arm would be used in that example because of the weight of handling it through the scene and danger of putting it up against a head even with blanks.


But yes,

I believe that actors when immersed in production on an out of town set would trust the gun was safe when told so.

The Method actors are engrossed in their character. That’s what armorers are for.

AB trusted the gun was cold as stated.

He could have accidentally shot himself dead as well flinging it around.

So, yeah, obviously he thought the gun was safe for him too, imo.


Shooting accidents happen a lot this one is just high profile because of AB who seems to fascinate people.


Unintentional Shootings | Gun Violence Archive


All imo
Click to expand...

Union rules call for actors to check weapons themselves, in one manner or another. Method acting notwithstanding.

Kirstie Alley and others have said that the armorer typically shoots one round into safe ground (away from humans) to show that blanks or dummies are on board. For dummies, the armorer shoots the gun (in the presence of the actor) 6-10 times, to make the dramatic point that the gun is unloaded. Hannah wouldn't have known this, because she was a faux armorer, but Alec should have known it. And the director and producers should have known it too. Some method should have been devised for checking.

Especially on this chaotic set.
 
Failure to Follow Protocol?
shotgun09 said:
Halyna's death was so avoidable, if only the protocols for gun safety were followed.....by many individuals. Many will be blamed, IMO. Will many face charges?
Click to expand...
@shotgun09 Thx for your post. Agreeing w you, avoidable, and also multiple ppl failed to follow movie-set protocols, whether imposed by labor unions, producers, directors, or insurers.

But imo one person's failure caused death & injuries: AB violated the number one, common, ordinary, everyday firearms handling protocol: Treat Every Gun as If It is Loaded (until you know that it is not).
Any actor receiving a gun not directly from the armorer could comply w this standard in one of two ways:
1. If knowledgeable enough w the particular firearm, actor could personally check ammo status, or
2. If not sufficiently familiar, actor could ask armorer to check ammo status.

Tho literally the last person w an opportunity to detect the inappropriate ammo loaded in gun, AB did neither of the above. Among the other people on-set in the church, AB had the Last Clear Chance before firing, to avert the death & injuries. my2ct.
_________________________________
I'm using LCC term in a way other than a typical LCC situation involving motor vehicles, where the dead or injured contributed to the collision. I do not suggest that HH contributed to injuries or death. I'm using the term to say: among the multiple ppl present inside the church, AB had the LCC to prevent the death & injuries.

From Cornell Law School's LII website: "The last clear chance doctrine is used in tort law for cases involving negligence and is applied when both the plaintiff and defendant are responsible for an accident that resulted in harm.... The doctrine considers which party had the last opportunity to avoid the accident that caused the harm.
Therefore, a negligent plaintiff may recover damages if they can show that the defendant had the last clear chance to avoid the accident. A defendant may also use the doctrine as a defense by showing that the plaintiff had the last clear chance to avoid the accident."
^ last clear chance.
 
In the mean time, I am thankful that AB has finally turned his phone in to the authorities. And I am ever so thankful that they reached the agreement that they did, so that not one member of LE has to read IM's etc about nonsense that doesn't matter or doesn't pertain to the case. Could you imagine if they (we) had to read about the " Horror" of getting a hole in your yoga pants, cuz one of the kids' toys snagged them? AAAaaahhhhhh!!!
 
10ofRods said:
Might help if the actor in question attended training for that specific gun, instead of using Westerns, themselves, as a source of information for how to handle a 1963 Colt .45 replica....
Click to expand...
@10ofRods bbm sbm Yes, often it would help if armorer's experience & knowledge is deep enough. For this particular movie set, well, I'm not so sure. my2ct
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 186 more.
Total: 1,784 (members: 187, guests: 1,597)

Online statistics

Members online
187
Guests online
1,597
Total visitors
1,784
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
600,500
Messages
18,109,615
Members
230,991
Latest member
Clue Keeper
Back
Top