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

[RANCH]

I'm going by this article: Alec Baldwin 'Rust' Movie Shooting Updates: "Super Unsafe" Accidental Gun Discharges Reported (decider.com)

The source refers to it as "3 accidental discharges," and the article describes it as "prop gun misfires." I'm not sure if either is the correct language, but neither of those phrases sound like what you would use if someone had deliberately pulled a trigger.

ETA that this is referring to the three earlier incidents, not this one. But it raises the possibility that there was something off about the guns.

If they had guns going off without pulling the trigger and they didn't halt production to fix the problem then I would expect criminal charges. JMO.

 

[jjenny]

If they had guns going off without pulling the trigger and they didn't halt production to fix the problem then I would expect criminal charges. JMO.

I don't think the gun went off without pulling the trigger. They seemed to have a similar problem previously, when supposedly empty gun was loaded when Alec's stunt man used it (with blanks that time).

 

[10ofRods]

She was talking about the previous movie, not this one. Apparently because the previous one went "really smoothly" as far as she was concerned, she wasn't any longer nervous about her level of experience.

Has she said that? Because the facts seem to show extreme incompetence.

 

[Loveallmyhorsesdogsandcats]

I'm going by this article: Alec Baldwin 'Rust' Movie Shooting Updates: "Super Unsafe" Accidental Gun Discharges Reported (decider.com)

The source refers to it as "3 accidental discharges," and the article describes it as "prop gun misfires." I'm not sure if either is the correct language, but neither of those phrases sound like what you would use if someone had deliberately pulled a trigger.

ETA that this is referring to the three earlier incidents, not this one. But it raises the possibility that there was something off about the guns.

Which makes those running the set, which includes AB, even more liable if there were known unsafe conditions and they did nothing about it, criminal charges are very possible. I think he accidentally pulled the trigger.

 

[PrairieWind]

What is an accidental discharge? What could cause a Colt .45 to accidentally discharge? Is there really such a thing?

Negligence is the only way a gun gets fired when it ought not to. But if you can find some examples somewhere, I would absolutely read them.

At any rate, despite all the crew talking about this incident, no one has said that the vintage Colt had a faulty trigger. But it did have a LIVE ROUND inside of it, which is human error.

"Accidental discharge" or "misfire" are pretty vague terms that can mean a lot of things. But you are mostly correct. Guns rarely mechanically malfunction. There are some exceptions, the Remington model 700, for one. But almost always it is a human error of negligence. It now seems clear that they were using real guns and for some reason live ammo was around. I am just having a hard time wrapping my head around the number of things that had to go wrong for this to happen.

 

[RANCH]

I don't think the gun went off without pulling the trigger. They seemed to have a similar problem previously, when supposedly empty gun was loaded when Alec's stunt man used it (with blanks that time).

I doubt the gun that Alec Baldwin was using fired without him pulling the trigger. I'm not sure if it's impossible but I've never heard of such a thing. Him pointing the gun at the victims is a given because they where struck when he fired the gun. JMO.

 

[jjenny]

Has she said that? Because the facts seem to show extreme incompetence.

She was talking about the previous (first) movie, Rust was her second movie.
""It was a really badass way to start off a really long and cool career, I'm hoping," Gutierrez-Reed said. "I was really nervous about it at first, and I almost didn't take the job because I wasn't sure if I was ready, but doing it — it went really smoothly.""
Rust's Armorer Second-Guessed Her Ability to Handle Previous Job | PEOPLE.com

 

[RANCH]

"Accidental discharge" or "misfire" are pretty vague terms that can mean a lot of things. But you are mostly correct. Guns rarely mechanically malfunction. There are some exceptions, the Remington model 700, for one. But almost always it is a human error of negligence. It now seems clear that they were using real guns and for some reason live ammo was around. I am just having a hard time wrapping my head around the number of things that had to go wrong for this to happen.

Yes. There were multiple opportunities to prevent this deadly shooting by multiple people. JMO.

 

[Dotta]

Wife of Alec talking

https://www-dailymail-co-uk.cdn.amp...ria-Baldwin-says-heart-Alec-set-shooting.html

 

[jjenny]

So the lunch was not on the set and they were shuttled to the location. Were the guns left outside on the cart during that time?

 

[PrairieWind]

What is an accidental discharge? What could cause a Colt .45 to accidentally discharge? Is there really such a thing?

Negligence is the only way a gun gets fired when it ought not to. But if you can find some examples somewhere, I would absolutely read them.

At any rate, despite all the crew talking about this incident, no one has said that the vintage Colt had a faulty trigger. But it did have a LIVE ROUND inside of it, which is human error.

"Accidental discharge" or "misfire" are pretty vague terms that can mean a lot of things. But you are mostly correct. Guns rarely mechanically malfunction. There are some exceptions, the Remington model 700, for one. But almost always it is a human error of negligence. It now seems clear that they were using real guns and for some reason live ammo was around. I am just having a hard time wrapping my head around the number of things that had to go wrong for this to happen.

 

[PrairieWind]

I don't think the gun went off without pulling the trigger. They seemed to have a similar problem previously, when supposedly empty gun was loaded when Alec's stunt man used it (with blanks that time).

I'd like to know about these previous "misfires" that they had. Its hard to tell from what we have heard. The film industry uses terms I am learning that may differ from what those terms mean in the shooting world.

 

[jjenny]

I'd like to know about these previous "misfires" that they had. Its hard to tell from what we have heard. The film industry uses terms I am learning that may differ from what those terms mean in the shooting world.

Yep, that only adds to the confusion. What movie industry calls a "live round" could mean "blank" while in the shooting word it means a "real bullet."

 

[RANCH]

I'd like to know about these previous "misfires" that they had. Its hard to tell from what we have heard. The film industry uses terms I am learning that may differ from what those terms mean in the shooting world.

IMO what I would call an unintentional firing/discharge of a gun they seem to call a misfire. To me a misfire is when you pull the trigger of a gun and does not fire. JMO.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

My husband works for the film industry. This situation is talk all around and people are very, very angry. They are not as angry at the crew or the actors, they are angry at the owners. They are angry at production! He is a medic for film and has been in the industry for 25 years. He knows his stuff and is highly thought of in the industry. The medic union is currently ready to go on strike because their contract ended in July and they are not being offered fair compensation.

Before marrying my husband, I had NO idea what Hollywood is like behind the scenes. Let me tell you, I know WAY too much now! Everyone thinks Hollywood is all glamour. Let me assure you, it is NOT. Yes, he is not an actor, and actors ARE treated differently, but Hollywood stinks! They work their crews 18-24+ hours a day. I kid you not! The reason the union is possibly going on strike is because they are making them work through their lunch (no breaks - and no penalties for not providing the break), they are not given long enough turn arounds (this means from end of shooting one day to beginning of shooting the following day)(again no penalties for no turn around), they have also reduced the compensation for working 7 days a week back-to-back-to-back. These crews can be run in to the ground by production who do not care about the workers. On certain sets, they are absolutely treated differently. If they had to pay the penalties (double time), the cost may be just prohibitive enough for the owners to change their unrealistic deadlines.

The fact that the crew walked off tells me a lot! The fact that non-union was brought in tells me a lot! People who do not regularly work in Hollywood and on film sets do NOT understand the pressure, the rules, the way that things should be done. Production often pushes and pushes and expects unrealistic deadlines. I do not blame AB even though I personally do not like him. I do think this situation highlighted exactly why the union my husband belongs to is going to strike if a better deal isn't made. Divorce is only one side effect of the terrible hours and conditions these people work in. Suicide, drug abuse, domestic violence... There are epidemics in the business that exist because they work under horrible stress and deadlines. Yes, they do get paid a good wage, but there is no work-life balance!

Excellent, eye-opening info. Our Hollywood entertainment sits atop oceans of blood, sweat and tears. THANK YOU so much for posting, Cocomod!

 

[Kiranerys]

So, you think that if a hospital hires a doctor who is actually incompetent (and not even licensed), the hospital has no liability?

I think whoever hired this young woman, who said publicly that she didn't think she knew how to do the job, is at fault way more than the young woman. She said she was "nervous" about being able to do the job:

Head armorer on Alec Baldwin movie 'Rust' was "nervous" about experience level before taking job

Now, I don't know about you, but I think the person who hires someone who isn't certain they can do such a dangerous job is at fault more than the person hired. And I think a jury. might well agree with me - which is why this will be a huge settlement and probably out of court. And it'll be interesting to see if the insurance is anywhere near adequate to the task of providing compensation to the victim's family in this case.

Again,this quote is pertaining to her previous job on the set of a Nicholas Cage film NOT Rust, please stop using it as a reference to this production. She completed the job to which she was referring and then talked about how well it went.

 

[10ofRods]

The "head armourer" expressed doubts about her abilities just one month before she took the job (when the others walked out):

//The head armorer for the movie Rust expressed doubt over her job experience level one month before Alec Baldwin shot and killed a cinematographer on set with a loaded prop gun.//

I am just shaking my head that anyone would think they could go from "not an armorer" at all to "head armorer" on a film set using real guns...in one month.

That's from the Newsweek article I posted above.

 

[jjenny]

Newsweek article is poorly written. She was talking about being nervous before her previous job, not Rust.

 

[Datchery]

To me, the most potentially damning thing is that there were earlier issues involving guns going off.

My questions, in determining level of culpability, would be:

1. What happened in the earlier "misfires"? Were they parallel to the AB case--someone thought the gun wasn't loaded, and it was--or something different?

2. What measures, if any, were the people involved taking to safeguard against this? Who knew about these measures?

3. What was the on-set policy regarding handling weapons? Was AB in violation of it? Had the other actors been in the practice of checking their guns before firing?

The following situation would involve maximal liability on AB's part: The earlier discharges involved a similar scenario; no one took any particular safety measures in response; there were explicit policies stating that the scene should be cleared and precautions taken before any rehearsal or filming involving weapons, hot or cold, and that actors were responsible to for checking the weapons themselves.

The following situation would involve the most minimal liability on AB's part: The earlier discharges did not occur in similar circumstances; there were measures taken to prevent it, and it involved the AD checking and having to declare "cold gun" or "hot gun" out loud before handing it off to the actor; there were no policies precluding rehearsing with a cold gun with other people around; and actors were not expected, or even not supposed, to check the guns themselves.

But in either case, I don't see AB as MORE responsible than other parties, even though he was the one holding the gun. Being an actor may not absolve AB of responsibility, but it does shift the burden of "most responsible party" from the person who fired to the professional hired to ensure gun safety.

 

[10ofRods]

My husband works for the film industry. This situation is talk all around and people are very, very angry. They are not as angry at the crew or the actors, they are angry at the owners. They are angry at production! He is a medic for film and has been in the industry for 25 years. He knows his stuff and is highly thought of in the industry. The medic union is currently ready to go on strike because their contract ended in July and they are not being offered fair compensation.

Before marrying my husband, I had NO idea what Hollywood is like behind the scenes. Let me tell you, I know WAY too much now! Everyone thinks Hollywood is all glamour. Let me assure you, it is NOT. Yes, he is not an actor, and actors ARE treated differently, but Hollywood stinks! They work their crews 18-24+ hours a day. I kid you not! The reason the union is possibly going on strike is because they are making them work through their lunch (no breaks - and no penalties for not providing the break), they are not given long enough turn arounds (this means from end of shooting one day to beginning of shooting the following day)(again no penalties for no turn around), they have also reduced the compensation for working 7 days a week back-to-back-to-back. These crews can be run in to the ground by production who do not care about the workers. On certain sets, they are absolutely treated differently. If they had to pay the penalties (double time), the cost may be just prohibitive enough for the owners to change their unrealistic deadlines.

The fact that the crew walked off tells me a lot! The fact that non-union was brought in tells me a lot! People who do not regularly work in Hollywood and on film sets do NOT understand the pressure, the rules, the way that things should be done. Production often pushes and pushes and expects unrealistic deadlines. I do not blame AB even though I personally do not like him. I do think this situation highlighted exactly why the union my husband belongs to is going to strike if a better deal isn't made. Divorce is only one side effect of the terrible hours and conditions these people work in. Suicide, drug abuse, domestic violence... There are epidemics in the business that exist because they work under horrible stress and deadlines. Yes, they do get paid a good wage, but there is no work-life balance!

Excellent post. I also read that some of the crew were unable to cash their paychecks and that there were cashflow problems. I don't work in film, but I teach at a college with a huge film program, and I took a graduate degree in film (thinking maybe I'd make documentaries). I was not good enough (to start with, say, editing or sound editing, which were the parts of the program where I got good enough grades). One person in our program went on to become a globally known and internationally working cinematographer. He is the most focused, chill person and absolutely reverential about safety. He went on to become a director, but one of his key. skills is that he knows cameras and camera safety (no one shoots blanks directly at a camera...not without a clear barrier). Live rounds of course should not be on the set. Obviously, the armorer in this case didn't realize what the various boxes contained? How could it be otherwise?

My first reaction was that since some of the crew were sleeping in their cars on set, they were probably also drinking after hours, and firing real guns is just so tempting and fun - out in the sage brush where they were...as it turns out, yep, crew members say that some were loading that classic Colt with live rounds and "target practicing." Human nature. Primates are curious, they just can't help themselves.

I do blame AB because he was supposed to have a class in gun safety per union rules and then follow the rules. He should never have aimed at an actual person and everyone knows that if a shot is supposed to be fired toward the camera, the crew must stand away and the camera is operated remotely. He knows that. The gossip around what really happened will probably be exposed eventually. I expect that more than one crew member will sell their stories and that the stories will concur and AB will not come out of it looking good (not entirely his fault, but the blame can be apportioned broadly, IMO). All producers, whoever was doing hiring, armorer, propmaster, AD....and the actor who pointed the gun at a person...all to blame.

Even in a rehearsal, the director is supposed to say "Action" when he's certain the scene is set and everything is good. Shooting AT the director and the camera person is never safe...