Alec Baldwin fired prop gun, killing 1 on movie set, Oct 2021 #3

[Luna20]

This is definitely a problematic piece for AB. A lot of details here. There seems to be conflicting reports about leisure shooting activity.

Alec and Hilaria Baldwin talk to photographers after going into hiding in Vermont | Daily Mail Online

“Baldwin ignored the golden rule of gun safety by pointing the prop at someone but the gun never should have been loaded with live ammunition to begin with, experts say.

Zak Knight, a pyrotechnic and special effects engineer who is a member of Local 44, told DailyMail.com on October 22: 'There should have never been live rounds on a movie set, that's number one. Number two is every single person on a movie set has a right to inspect a weapon before it's fired. And number three is, there is no reason to ever put a person in front of a weapon that's firing.

'Anytime you see a movie where the barrel is pointed down the camera lens, there should not be an operator behind it. It's obvious that the considerations of this resulted in that gun being pointed directly at two people.

The crew on Baldwin's movie set were already concerned about gun safety before he accidentally shot and killed Hutchins.

Unionized workers had walked off the set hours before the fatal shooting, after they complained about long hours, shoddy conditions and another safety incident days earlier involving 'two misfires' of a prop weapon.

The warrant indicated that a single bullet struck Hutchins in the chest, and then struck director Joel Souza in the shoulder as he was standing behind her, injuring him, suggesting the bullet traveled all the way through Hutchins' body”

 

[Lilibet]

Will the film resume? The more "normal" Alec appears, he probably thinks it's possible they'll start production again

In the roadside interview AB said the film would not resume.

 

[katydid23]

The director who was shot was also probably in a pretty good position to talk to people about concerns and changes. Does that mean he's not still a victim of the shooting if he didn't try to change anything? What if he directed Alec to shoot in that direction? Still a victim? (My answer is yes, of course.)

No one is even calling Alec a victim. They are just being honest about him having PTSD. I think people would find fault as well if he didn't have some sort of psychological damage from this.

He lost a friend. He pulled the trigger. It's pretty clear that he's suffering.

Yes, the Director, although accidentally shot, also shoulders some blame, because they didn't react responsibly to the previous misfires on set. They had the chance to do so and figure out how guns were being proclaimed 'cold' and given to actors, and then the guns are dangerously misfiring.

I wonder if that director was on set that day of the previous misfires?

Again, I don't doubt that AB has some psychological damage from this death. I am just saying that as producer on the project, he shoulders some major responsibility for the dangerous errors going on there. And many crew members spoke out and tried to make some changes, several walking off their jobs.

So I can't feel the same sympathy for him as I would have for a random actor who had the great misfortune to be handed a loaded gun by mistake. Because in AB's case, he already knew there were big problems, and it was up to him to try and correct them.

And he was also acting irresponsibly during that rehearsal and he has 30+ years of experience and should have known better.

 

[katydid23]

The director who was shot was also probably in a pretty good position to talk to people about concerns and changes. Does that mean he's not still a victim of the shooting if he didn't try to change anything? What if he directed Alec to shoot in that direction? Still a victim? (My answer is yes, of course.)

No one is even calling Alec a victim. They are just being honest about him having PTSD. I think people would find fault as well if he didn't have some sort of psychological damage from this.

He lost a friend. He pulled the trigger. It's pretty clear that he's suffering.

Also, AB wasn't just in position to 'talk to people about concerns and changes.' He was in the position to MAKE THOSE CHANGES.

If he wanted to have a safety meeting after the misfire on set, he could have called one himself and made it happen. They would have each crew member involved right there at the table to find out how a gun was falsely labelled as cold when it was dangerously hot.

 

[Deleted member 158085]

Yes, the Director, although accidentally shot, also shoulders some blame, because they didn't react responsibly to the previous misfires on set. They had the chance to do so and figure out how guns were being proclaimed 'cold' and given to actors, and then the guns are dangerously misfiring.

I wonder if that director was on set that day of the previous misfires?

Again, I don't doubt that AB has some psychological damage from this death. I am just saying that as producer on the project, he shoulders some major responsibility for the dangerous errors going on there. And many crew members spoke out and tried to make some changes, several walking off their jobs.

So I can't feel the same sympathy for him as I would have for a random actor who had the great misfortune to be handed a loaded gun by mistake. Because in AB's case, he already knew there were big problems, and it was up to him to try and correct them.

And he was also acting irresponsibly during that rehearsal and he has 30+ years of experience and should have known better.

I guess I don't need to reserve my empathy for only one person in this. Yes, the greatest part of the tragedy was suffered by Halyna and her family. I can acknowledge that while still feeling for others. We do not know what AB or JS said or did or attempted to do regarding the previous complaints on the set. That's why I'd rather not go hard on people who are obviously hurting until we have all of the facts of the investigation.

Edited to remove duplicate post

 

[Deleted member 158085]

Also, AB wasn't just in position to 'talk to people about concerns and changes.' He was in the position to MAKE THOSE CHANGES.

If he wanted to have a safety meeting after the misfire on set, he could have called one himself and made it happen. They would have each crew member involved right there at the table to find out how a gun was falsely labelled as cold when it was dangerously hot.

His production company was one of many. We don't know that he didn't raise concerns. But I'm pretty sure that being just one of 6 production companies did not give him the ability to simply make any changes he wanted without agreement from the others.

AB is being assigned a lot more power than he had by a lot of people who as of yet have no idea exactly where his production company actually stood in the grand scheme of things. That all seems pretty unfair.

 

[Deleted member 158085]

So what do you think about the fact that there was the exact same incident with a gun being called cold, and given to an actor, that then misfired, days earlier?

Should AB, as a producer, be held responsible for dealing with that issue? It seemed to me that he ignored it and days later it happened again, and he did everything wrong as it unfolded, imo.



'Rust' crew describes on-set gun safety issues and misfires days before fatal shooting
Three crew members who were present at the Bonanza Creek Ranch set on Saturday said they were particularly concerned about two accidental prop gun discharges.

“There should have been an investigation into what happened,” a crew member said. “There were no safety meetings. There was no assurance that it wouldn’t happen again. All they wanted to do was rush, rush, rush.”

We don't know that he ignored it. I can't get on board with these assumptions without any background whatsoever on what he may or may not have done. His company was 1 of 6 production companies (possibly 7 - can't remember for sure). He did not have total control over this production and we actually have zero knowledge about what he knew, when he knew it, and if any attempts were made to meet with the other production companies.

Glad we don't hang people without any background or evidence.

 

[Lilibet]

I guess I don't need to reserve my empathy for only one person in this. Yes, the greatest part of the tragedy was suffered by Halyna and her family. I can acknowledge that while still feeling for others. We do not know what AB or JS said or did or attempted to do regarding the previous complaints on the set. That's why I'd rather not go hard on people who are obviously hurting until we have all of the facts of the investigation.

Edited to remove duplicate post

I stand with you @JaneEyre.

 

[al66pine]

Attorneys Being "Present." Unusual?

....the law firm representing the production company will have attorneys present for all questioning of crew. Can they do that? Sounds like intimidation and coercion to me. Like crew members will "voluntarily" sign a waiver for their presence...or more than likely never work in Hollywood again.

@mickey2942 sbm bbm This ^ may sound unorthodox to some ppl, but reading the link more closely, I'd anticipate then producer's attys will be present during some types of interviews w crew, but not "all questioning of crew."

1. The movie's producers hired a law firm to conduct an investigation of the shooting.* So of course attorneys from that firm will interview crew (imo). Contract terms may require employee/crew to cooperate w internal investigations like this one, tho I can't comment about any terms or conditions subject to union control.
In hiring a law firm to conduct an investigation, are the producers doing something nefarious or illegal? No, imo just from info at link. Are their actions self-serving? Yes. Imo conclusions from the law firm's investigation/report may be deemed work product, so may be protected under attorney-client privilege, so would not be subject to subpoena in civil or crim. proceedings.

2. OSHA** interviews? Afaik, it's not uncommon for attys from an employer's law firm to observe OSHA interviews w employees. After all, if OSHA assesses fines*** for violating agency's workplace health and safety regulations, they are imposed against the employer, not employee.

3. Law Enforcement & criminal prosecution?
The article also says production team is cooperating w "authorities investigating the shooting." bbm The quoted excerpt ("we encourage you to share your perspective") from producer's letter to crew seems (on its face) to encourage crew to cooperate.
Are producers trying to force its employees/crew to allow the team's attys to be present during LE's interviews of crew? If so I doubt that the producers can (lawfully) do that.
my2cts.
____________________________________
* Law firm investigation. "Oct 27 (Reuters) - Actor Alec Baldwin and other producers of the film "Rust" have hired the law firm Jenner & Block to investigate Baldwin's accidental fatal shooting last week of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins."
** OSHA. " The law firm will observe interviews between crew members and the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the federal agency responsible for workplace safety, the letter said. The letter noted that it is standard practice for the agency to investigate workplace deaths."
^ Producers of Alec Baldwin film hire law firm for shooting probe
^ Producers of Alec Baldwin film hire law firm for shooting probe
*** OSHA Authority, Fines Occupational Safety and Health Administration - Wikipedia

 

[Only4Justice]

YES, I have been seeing the same thing repeated by safety experts.

There was no reason for a real gun to be used in the rehearsal scene. And no reason for a real gun to be pointed at anyone.

Also, the Assistant Director should not have been the one to hand AB the weapon. It should always be the armorer that hands the weapons to the actor. AD should have checked the weapon first, as a safety protocol, then HG would hand it to the actor and say Cold gun.

But it wasn't a cold gun, it was not checked by either of the two, and it wasn't necessary in a rehearsal and AB should never have aimed it at anyone. So lots of blame to go around.

I hope we hear soon where HG was when she should have been there as AB took possession of the firearm. JMO

 

[katydid23]

His production company was one of many. We don't know that he didn't raise concerns. But I'm pretty sure that being just one of 6 production companies did not give him the ability to simply make any changes he wanted without agreement from the others.

AB is being assigned a lot more power than he had by a lot of people who as of yet have no idea exactly where his production company actually stood in the grand scheme of things. That all seems pretty unfair.

He pointed a real gun at someone and it fired. That is a huge misstep on a film set.
He was not supposed to use a real weapon during rehearsal, was not supposed to accept the gun from anyone but the armorer, and not supposed to point it at anyone.

He did not need to get agreement from any other producers to know that was not proper safety protocol. He is a very experienced actor and understands the rules concerning firearms.

If there is a dangerous situation happening on a film set, a producer does not need to ask permission to call a safety meeting to correct the possibly fatal errors. It is not a matter of 'seeking agreement to make changes.' It is an urgent matter to see why a weapon with supposed blanks was actually a hot gun.

It does not matter if there are 6 production companies. Everyone of them wants to prevent a death during production. No one would have disagreed with trying to correct the problem.

 

[katydid23]

We don't know that he ignored it. I can't get on board with these assumptions without any background whatsoever on what he may or may not have done. His company was 1 of 6 production companies (possibly 7 - can't remember for sure). He did not have total control over this production and we actually have zero knowledge about what he knew, when he knew it, and if any attempts were made to meet with the other production companies.

Glad we don't hang people without any background or evidence.

Here is why I think he ignored the problem. It was said by several crew members that the stuntman stand in for AB was given a weapon and he was told it was cold. But then it misfired and was actually a h0t gun.

That was days earlier. So now we have AB given a weapon and he was told it was cold. AND AB ACCEPTED THAT AND AIMED IT TOWARDS PEOPLE AND IT MISFIRED.

A few basic rules were broken within that few minutes. First, real weapons are not supposed to be used during rehearsals. Second, the AD is supposed to check the weapon immediately before the actor takes it for use. Third, only the armorer is supposed to hand the actor the weapon. Third, the actor is not supposed to aim it towards any crew members, ever.

So all of these rules were broken, and that was right after they knew there was a previous problem with a weapon not being properly checked.

So he didn't have to have 'total control' over this production, to have sufficient control over those few moments he was wielding that weapon. He should have noticed that the armorer wasn't present, the AD didn't double check the weapon, it was a real gun thus not allowed during rehearsal, and he shouldn't point it towards anyone.

Those^^^ are ALL his mistakes under his control at that time.

I don't agree that we have zero knowledge about what he knew. If his stunt double misfired a weapon on set, AB absolutely knew about it.

SEVEN crew members walked off the film that very morning , citing GUN SAFETY as one of their issues. I guarantee that he knew about that.

He did not need to meet with any other production companies in order to decide if he needs to follow basic safety protocol in his scenes during the film.


For verification of my statements about his lack of safety protocol, see below link:

Alec and Hilaria Baldwin talk to photographers after going into hiding in Vermont | Daily Mail Online
“Baldwin ignored the golden rule of gun safety by pointing the prop at someone but the gun never should have been loaded with live ammunition to begin with, experts say.

Zak Knight, a pyrotechnic and special effects engineer who is a member of Local 44, told DailyMail.com on October 22: 'There should have never been live rounds on a movie set, that's number one. Number two is every single person on a movie set has a right to inspect a weapon before it's fired. And number three is, there is no reason to ever put a person in front of a weapon that's firing.

'Anytime you see a movie where the barrel is pointed down the camera lens, there should not be an operator behind it. It's obvious that the considerations of this resulted in that gun being pointed directly at two people.

The crew on Baldwin's movie set were already concerned about gun safety before he accidentally shot and killed Hutchins.

Unionized workers had walked off the set hours before the fatal shooting, after they complained about long hours, shoddy conditions and another safety incident days earlier involving 'two misfires' of a prop weapon.

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

When a person is handing over a gun to you, even if that person is five feet from you, and you saw him check to make sure that there are no rounds in the chamber and hands it to you, you still check to make sure it's unloaded. That is number one in gun safety classes , and if you fail to check for yourself and you fire it, you bear the burden of killing another human being.

It wasn't a prop gun it was a gun used as prop. And it wasn't a "misfire". It was a deliberate act on AB part.

 

[Mo Thuairim]

A good summary of what we know so far in this article:

What we know about the shooting on Alec Baldwin's 'Rust': Your questions, answered

(...)

The film reportedly has a $7-million budget, putting it in “Tier One” of the IATSE’s low-budget film agreement. Experienced crew often will not work on these small, lower-paying projects, especially when the industry is as busy as it is post-pandemic. When union crew cannot be hired, the contract allows for the use of non-union crew members — often cheaper and some with less experience — who can then join the union after 30 days of low-budget work. “Rust” reportedly had a 21-day shooting schedule, which started Oct. 6 and ended abruptly when production was halted after the fatality.

(...)

“Somebody has to have been negligent,” USC Gould School of Law professor Gregory Keating told The Times. “This doesn’t happen without negligence. There are safety protocols that are supposed to be followed. It’s really just a matter of who’s negligent and how the responsibility gets parceled out.”

(Lots more at link)

 

[jjenny]

Also, AB wasn't just in position to 'talk to people about concerns and changes.' He was in the position to MAKE THOSE CHANGES.

If he wanted to have a safety meeting after the misfire on set, he could have called one himself and made it happen. They would have each crew member involved right there at the table to find out how a gun was falsely labelled as cold when it was dangerously hot.

AB, being an actor, is not in charge of safety on the set. The one in charge of safety meetings would be AD.

 

[GRT]

Maybe they thought it was just another day at work, but SEVEN crew members walked off the film that morning. And one of the issues was SAFETY protocol.

"Disputes in the production of the Western film “Rust” began almost from the start in early October and culminated with seven crew members walking off several hours before 42-year-old cinematographer Halyna Hutchins was killed.

The crew members had expressed their discontent with matters that ranged from safety procedures to their housing accommodations, according to one of those who left. He requested anonymity for fear that speaking up would hurt his prospects for future jobs. Rust Movie Productions did not answer emails Friday and Saturday seeking comment."

Film crew voiced complaints before fatal on-set shooting

Film crew voiced complaints before fatal on-set shooting

JMOO, I would look closely at the people who walked off the set earlier. Someone loaded that gun with a couple of live rounds and it seems to me that if someone intentionally did that--they would want to get away before anything happened.

Bad feelings on the set?

When someone is mad/frustrated enough to walk-off, problems have been brewing for a while.

JMOO

 

[Kiranerys]

I never said the crew that walked off this film were prima donnas. I was talking about sets in general. Crew, actors, directors, gaffers, grips, make up, props, etc, etc. That's a lot of drama packed in. People walking off sets over disputes happens. I have seen it. Until this tragedy happened, they may have thought it was another day at work. And we don't even know if the crew walking off contributed to the shooting or not. Maybe so. We don't know yet.

Moo.

True,and also it was 6 camera crew not most of the production. I think that the only way these crew walking couldve been a contributing factor is the loss of filming time making things more rushed.
People talk about an inexperienced crew but I don't think that's across the board, the armourer yes, but the other person with the responsibility for safety was the assistant director,that's in his job description and he has admitted he didn't check properly. He isn't green,he is a seasoned AD with around 80 productions under his belt and a reputation for unsafe sets and corner cutting.
Until we know more about AB's day to day involvement in actual producing I don't think we can possibly place the buck firmly at his feet like some people want to do.

 

[jjenny]

Someone who loaded the gun was probably the armorer. She was in charge of loading and unloading guns. She claims to be unaware there were live rounds on the set. Yet police say they found live rounds on the set. Dummy rounds look similar to live arounds (although not identical). But if she is really unware of live rounds (does she even know how to tell live round from a dummy round?), how much attention is she paying when she is loading the gun? She was very green, and having an experienced armorer for a father seemed to have been her main qualification for the job.

 

[Mo Thuairim]

JMOO, I would look closely at the people who walked off the set earlier. Someone loaded that gun with a couple of live rounds and it seems to me that if someone intentionally did that--they would want to get away before anything happened.

Bad feelings on the set?

When someone is mad/frustrated enough to walk-off, problems have been brewing for a while.

JMOO

The people who walked off set were part of Halyna's camera crew and she supported them walking off. Very unlikely they would do anything to put her in danger. They had no bad blood with her.

 

[everybodhi]

AB, being an actor, is not in charge of safety on the set. The one in charge of safety meetings would be AD.

I don't understand this train of thought that he is just an actor, like any other actor on set.
He has much more power in this production than any other actor participating, he's even credited as writer of the script (along with the director), it's his baby, his creation.
In his most recent statement he said the production will not continue, what other actor on this film could make that decision?
I wonder if it was the armorer or AD who made the decision that AB would use a real gun with blanks or dummies during a rehearsal, point it and fire it directly at a woman a few feet away who had no protection?
Because that's very dangerous with blanks/dummies too. (The Crow)
I agree that the workers were negligent, I just don't understand the theory that the top of the chain has no culpability, the ones with the power to make changes when guns are misfiring and people are leaving because they feel unsafe, the ones who stood to gain by paying low wages to less qualified
people.
Jmo