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

[katydid23]

Halls got the gun from HRG, stood in for Alec during rehearsing before Alec showed up, then gave the gun to him. That's a new detail (that Halls stood up for Alec in rehearsing) that just got published.

But that breaks safety protocol. Hall is not supposed to hand the gun to anyone else to use on set. ESPECIALLY one he has not even checked himself.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

The latest info is that after Halls got the gun from HGR, he "stood in" for Alec Baldwin and rehearsed the scene before Alec showed up.

So you're talking about this.

No stand-in performers were on site, so the first assistant director ran through Baldwin’s blocking himself, pulling the gun three times.

I thought you were talking about a close up of the gun so I was confused. Sorry.

The day Alec Baldwin shot Halyna Hutchins and Joel Souza

 

[Mo Thuairim]

Okay - well, we can agree to disagree. Blanks have killed people and in film school, people are taught to call ANY loaded gun "hot." Paper? Loaded. Bird seed? Loaded. Cap gun? Loaded.

On-set deaths from prop guns are rare — but not unheard of

I guess I am lucky to have only been on sets that were very safe. The college where I teach leases itself out as a set to many productions, have watched many and my students are often behind-the-camera people. Lots of friends in the industry. Lived near a fake western town as a kid, town itself was a set for many a movie (still is).

So some of you believe a gun loaded with blanks is safe enough to use in any movie scene and is therefore "cold." Fortunately, I am betting that Mr. Hall did not in fact think there were blanks (or anything) in that gun he handed to Mr. Baldwin (hence "COLD GUN" so that people could remain in places where possible gasses and shrapnel from blanks would not harm them).

So - if there are BB's inside (as with some blanks), that's still a "Cold Gun"....SMH here. Keep in mind that several armourers have said that BB's are often inside "blanks." (Which is why they are called "hot" and why they must be treated precisely as any other gun should be treated.

I suppose next we can question whether the Sheriff (who said there were "500 rounds of ammunition" on set) knows the difference - he says it will take the FBI lab to ascertain that. In the meantime, I'll just leave this here:

"The AD shouted “cold gun,” a signal understood to those on set to mean the gun did not contain ammunition."

This particular gun contained two types of ammunition...

Note that the Sheriff included anything that could be put into a gun as "ammunition" (which is the only common sense thing to do). He says they have to figure out which was live, which might have been blanks, and which were dummies. Until that's done, it's ammunition to me. And the signal "Cold Gun" is commonly held to mean exactly what that sentence above says - regardless of how the clickbait headlines state it.

Moments Before ‘Rust’ Shooting, Alec Baldwin Was Told His Gun Did Not Contain Live Rounds, Police Say

And here's an article on wound morphology...from blanks:

Wound morphology in contact shots from blank cartridge handguns: a study on composite models - PubMed.

So I guess if there are blanks inside and the AD says "cold gun" but the scene calls for a close up shooting, then everything is supposed to fine. Starter pistols have killed people - albeit always close up (but take a look at the pictures of "Rust" where they were rehearsing - they were close up - and even if it had been a blank, Halyna could have lost an eye or needed plastic surgery...

Thanks for that but I was only talking about dummies, not blanks. Of course blanks can hurt people and certainly a gun loaded with blanks would be called 'hot'. The article I linked just said that a gun containing dummies on a set would be considered 'cold' in their terminology. I am not sure of the wisdom of that either.

 

[GRT]

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.

They would not know who they were endangering because they could not foresee who might be unintentionally shot.

But, I'm guessing LE will be taking a hard look at them because one amongst them just might have wanted to prove the point that the set was dangerous.

JMOO

 

[GatorFL]

"We were a very, very well-oiled crew shooting a film together and then this horrible event happened.”

Is this ^^^an attempt by AB to spin the situation and make it appear like everything was great on the set and then inexplicably something happened out of the blue?

a very, very well-oiled crew? <<<< that seems a bit over the top.
'

Yes.

 

[Antimony]

In is probable that the dummy rounds were manufactured by the company supplying the guns. Dummy rounds are not made from live rounds or parts of former live rounds. Casings (the brass cylinder) are available in bulk to people who reload cartridges to shoot. The bulk casings do not contain a primer (the thing the firing pin hits and starts the detonation process) nor do they contain a bullet (projectile). The manufacture process would be to buy a box of casings and a box of bullets. Use a widely available manual press to insert bullet into casing. A press fit. During this process B-B's could be inserted into the casing before the bullet. A hole (smaller than a B-B 0.17 inch) could also be drilled. No powder or primers would be used at all.
The resulting product would approximate the same weight and appearance of a real live round.

 

[Antimony]

A reason to use dummies in rehearsal is that the weight of the 6 rounds, while seemingly small, is noticeable when handling the weapon. During an actual draw or movement of the gun, where the actor wants to demonstrate competence with the prop, that extra weight will make a difference.

 

[Dotta]

Halyna Hutchins' last words revealed after being shot by Alec Baldwin

 

[DI_Isokawa]

It would be useful if someone familiar with these side-loading weapons duplicated the loading sequence that may have occurred in this case. My "paper" exercise (which may be wrong, and which I am not posting because there's enough confusion already) suggests that in order for the single live round to end up as "first to fire" it would have to have been the first round loaded into an empty cylinder. The exercise also suggested that would be unlikely for a round that was "next to fire" in a plinking session would end up as "first to fire" after four or five spent cartridges were removed and four dummy rounds were inserted. But it would be nice to have that verified or disproven, as the case may be.

 

[happyday]

Who benefits from this scenario?

This was not done in a dark, deserted alleyway in the dead of night. People are going to lose their careers, their licenses, their freedom if found criminally liable, or a fortune if they're sued.

Unless you are saying there was a psychopath on set, IMO again this was a terrible confluence of events caused by haste, inexperience and irresponsibility.

I agree that this is most likely a case of negligence, inexperience, incompetence, haste etc.., and up until now I’ve thought intentional sabotage was extremely unlikely. But I’m starting to feel like it’s at least possible someone put live ammo in the gun intentionally.

There are cases of disgruntled employees coming into an office and randomly killing people. Sometimes a person is targeted, but there are times that a person is angry at the world, maybe a sociopath—who knows, and just wants to create fear and chaos. Wreak havoc. I can see a case here where somebody on that set had some twisted reason for putting a live bullet where it would probably be overlooked by an incompetent crew and just do damage.

Somebody put that real bullet in a gun that was about to be used in a scene. We just don’t know yet who did it or why. That’s the whole key here IMO. We know that set was a mess. We know people walked off because they were angry with safety. This could be a total accident, a perfect storm of mistakes. OR this could be somebody making a point or something more sinister. There are crazy people in workplaces that do occasionally “go postal.” I don’t know what happened here, but because it’s so weird that a real bullet got into that gun (even with the lax safety going on), it’s at least possible that someone intentionally put it in there. Something is just not right. I think HGR is incompetent and too inexperienced for the job she was given, but I kinda believe her that she really doesn’t know how the ammo got into the gun. It doesn’t exonerate her, but it does beg the question—How did it get in there?

 

[happyday]

They would not know who they were endangering because they could not foresee who might be unintentionally shot.

But, I'm guessing LE will be taking a hard look at them because one amongst them just might have wanted to prove the point that the set was dangerous.

JMOO

Yes. I’ve been considering someone could have intentionally put the bullet in there to get someone fired, but not ever actually thinking in their wildest dreams that it would completely be overlooked through the multiple safety checks before it was put in the hands of the actor? It could have been done to prove point but not to actually kill anyone. It’s possible.

 

[happyday]

Was it ever confirmed if the target practice actually happened? I’ve been busy with company and am not completely caught up on the thread.

 

[Betty P]

I agree that this is most likely a case of negligence, inexperience, incompetence, haste etc.., and up until now I’ve thought intentional sabotage was extremely unlikely. But I’m starting to feel like it’s at least possible someone put live ammo in the gun intentionally.

There are cases of disgruntled employees coming into an office and randomly killing people. Sometimes a person is targeted, but there are times that a person is angry at the world, maybe a sociopath—who knows, and just wants to create fear and chaos. Wreak havoc. I can see a case here where somebody on that set had some twisted reason for putting a live bullet where it would probably be overlooked by an incompetent crew and just do damage.

Somebody put that real bullet in a gun that was about to be used in a scene. We just don’t know yet who did it or why. That’s the whole key here IMO. We know that set was a mess. We know people walked off because they were angry with safety. This could be a total accident, a perfect storm of mistakes. OR this could be somebody making a point or something more sinister. There are crazy people in workplaces that do occasionally “go postal.” I don’t know what happened here, but because it’s so weird that a real bullet got into that gun (even with the lax safety going on), it’s at least possible that someone intentionally put it in there. Something is just not right. I think HGR is incompetent and too inexperienced for the job she was given, but I kinda believe her that she really doesn’t know how the ammo got into the gun. It doesn’t exonerate her, but it does beg the question—How did it get in there?

JMO, sabotage is very unlikely because there had already been some accidents on this set involving live rounds. It's one of the reasons the union workers left.

Whomever was responsible for the mistakes before the strike is probably the same person who was responsible for the fatal mistake after the striking workers left.

JMO

 

[branmuffin]

Why does this guy call some of his products dummy bullets and others he calls dummy ammunition? Strange.

He say's that 90% of his products use new brass cases so I guess he drills a hole in the side of the case instead of using BB's because there's no primer in the base of the case. JMO.

Thanks for the link.

hot glue primer

He states you have to ask for casings with no holes otherwise the holes are the default product. Don't know while he interchanges the terminology. Maybe because, based on reading so many articles about this tragedy, lots of other people do as well.

 

[steeltowngirl]

IMO: There is an overall huge problem here: there seem to be varying guidelines in the movie industry and among the states. There are varying interpretations of guidelines and terminology. I am surprised these tragedies don’t happen more often, given the lack of standards and oversight.

Among the topics we’ve been discussing.

• Industry-Wide Labor-Management Safety Committee (CSATF) vs Actors Equity Assn. guidelines
• Hot gun vs cold gun (blanks, dummies, live round)
• Ok to point a gun at a camera under some conditions, or not?
• Actor to open and check a gun, or not?
• Overall firearms safety on armorer or propmaster?

…
Despite some industry reforms following previous tragedies, the federal workplace safety agency in the U.S. is silent on the issue of on-set gun safety. And some of the preferred states for film and TV productions take a largely hands-off approach.
…
We don’t have anything to do with firearms. We only regulate the special effects explosion-type stuff,” said Capt. Nick Manale, a state police spokesperson in Louisiana, where the film industry was credited with creating more than 9.600 jobs last year and generating nearly $800 million for local businesses. “I’m not sure who does that, or if anybody does.”
…
New Mexico, where court records show an assistant director handed Baldwin a loaded weapon and told him it was “cold,” or safe to use, during the Thursday filming of “Rust,” has no specific safety laws for the film industry. Much of the legislative debate over the industry, as in other states, has focused on tax credits and incentives to lure the lucrative entertainment business, not what happens on sets.

https://www.usnews.com/news/busines...defer-to-union-guidance-for-on-set-gun-safety

 

[Arkay]

Yes. I’ve been considering someone could have intentionally put the bullet in there to get someone fired, but not ever actually thinking in their wildest dreams that it would completely be overlooked through the multiple safety checks before it was put in the hands of the actor? It could have been done to prove point but not to actually kill anyone. It’s possible.

I respect your point of view, but IMO this is self-contradictory. If someone did intentionally insert a live round, with a view to exposing the danger on set, then why would they simultaneously expect that the "multiple safety checks" would discover the live bullet before it got into the actor's hands?

The point you and some others are making is that there WERE no multiple safety checks, so therefore to prove the set was dysfunctional, someone inserted a live bullet with the hope it would bring this problem to the forefront. But then that person would expect the "multiple safety checks" to prevent anyone from actually getting hurt, which contradicts the whole point.

Of course I agree that the whole set was messed up and the safety procedures were clearly not adhered to. I just don't agree that it was done purposefully, whether to murder someone, or to prove the point that safety checks were lacking. IMO.

 

[steeltowngirl]

Yes, AD failed to do those steps which were HIS responsibility, to do. But many of the articles we have already linked here and pasted here, say that it is also the actor's responsibility, to follow the safety protocols. And certainly the producer's responsibility as well.

AB has 30+ years of experience. He should have noticed that AD was not following the correct procedure. ALSO, AB KNEW THAT THERE WAS AN EARLIER INCIDENT ON THIS SET ,where a hot gun was handed to an actor, and they were falsely told it was cold.

That^^^ is where the problem comes in for AB, in my opinion. Why would he blindly accept that it was a safe gun, when several rules were being broken as it was being handed to him. [real guns were not supposed to be used during rehearsals, the AD was supposed to check the weapon/ammo and then the armorer was supposed to hand it to the actor ---]

He was ignoring all of these red flags and blindly accepting that it was a safe gun, even though he knew there was a previous mishap by these same people days earlier.

The issue I have with AB is two-fold.
1. His possible role in production and hiring.
2. His experience as an actor.

I don’t know if he was following guidelines as to where to point the gun, who should he have accepted the hand-off from, should he have checked it himself, etc., since there seem to be varying guidelines, and the investigation is in progress. But he should have been aware there were major issues on the set in terms of safety.

The tragedy was set into motion before they ever entered the movie set church rehearsal. The set should have been shut down. The triggering of the live round was the climax of a chain of missteps that could have been prevented - IF people were doing their jobs and paying attention.

jmo

 

[10ofRods]

I agree. A cold gun can be a completely empty gun, or one than holds dummy rounds. Dummy rounds have the same potential danger as if someone stuck a crayon the gun and pulled the trigger. None.

A hot gun is a gun that has the potential to harm someone by way of a blank or an actual bullet. Something with the ability to be projected.


This gun was (suppose to be) loaded with dummy rounds (and unfortunately a live round found it's way in) so it was considered a cold gun.

What makes you think it was supposed to be loaded with dummy rounds, when it was loaded with two blanks and one live? Sounds to me as if someone thought it was supposed to contain blanks. It's even more bizarre if the armourer and AD couldn't distinguish between a dummy and a blank or a live round. I can see someone check from behind quickly and not realizing there were two kinds of rounds - but not noticing dummies would be beyond just regular negligence, IMO. So I think whoever loaded the blanks from the set's store of blanks thought the gun was supposed to have blanks and did not check the entire cylinder.

Since it was a real, operational revolver, leaving it off the cart altogether was an option (for a rehearsal).

Since it was on the cart, it was supposed to be shown by the armourer to the AD or Propmaster that it was unloaded (this wasn't done). Then, when handed to the actor, whoever handed it was supposed to check it in the presence of the actor (per both Propmaster and Actors Unions protocols). That wasn't done.

Then, if it had contained dummies (which it obviously didn't), everyone would know about it. Then it would have been a cold gun. Something went seriously wrong here. It's very odd, even if there was plinking on set that day, that the armourer didn't check the gun when it was loaded with 2 blanks (and the live round was behind the hammer...she didn't even check to see what was behind the hammer). It's not uncommon for that chamber to be empty and for the actor to be told that on the first shot, nothing will happen - especially during a rehearsal.

Whenever guns are used on set, there's supposed to be a brief safety meeting among all parties (including the director) to explain exactly what is in the gun, how things are expected to go and whether that day will be just rehearsal or there will be a switch to blanks (in which case the entire protocol of examining the gun is supposed to take place again, in the presence of the AD and the actor).

Guns should be locked up on set when not in use, as well. Then, there's no one putting live rounds into it except the person with a combo to the safe (the armourer).

 

[10ofRods]

The issue I have with AB is two-fold.
1. His possible role in production and hiring.
2. His experience as an actor.

I don’t know if he was following guidelines as to where to point the gun, who should he have accepted the hand-off from, should he have checked it himself, etc., since there seem to be varying guidelines, and the investigation is in progress. But he should have been aware there were major issues on the set in terms of safety.

The tragedy was set into motion before they ever entered the movie set church rehearsal. The set should have been shut down. The triggering of the live round was the climax of a chain of missteps that could have been prevented - IF people were doing their jobs and paying attention.

jmo

I so agree. And when several crew members walk off the set due to safety concerns, that's pretty much a good sign that the safety issues were pervasive. Just having unrested crew, who are sleeping in their cars, is not optimal. But it has been reported that something went amiss a week or two earlier and a "cold gun" fired (not known whether blanks or not). Further, just one month before production started, the armourer gave an interview regarding her one and only other production (where Nick Cage has said a cold gun fired and he was *furious*)...she said she wasn't sure her skills were up to the task.

Inexperienced 'Rust' Armorer Drew Numerous Complaints for Last Film

And before that film she told press she was "nervous" about being head armourer for the prior film.

At any rate, someone brought live rounds onto the set. HGR has said the guns were locked up in a safe each night and only "a few people" had the combo to it - but that the ammo was stored unsecured on the same truck that the safe was on. She told Voice of the West that she was "very nervous" about her first time as armourer on the Cage film but that things went really well (despite Cage and several others being furious that a cold gun contained either a blank or a live round that Cage said went off right next to him and may have damaged his hearing).

The Film's Gunsmith, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, Told The Detective That She Checked To See If The Bullets Were Hot.

Inexperienced 'Rust' Armorer Drew Numerous Complaints for Last Film

I don't think they where rehearsing a closeup of the gun. They didn't need Alec Baldwin on set to do that. JMO.

I agree - and early tweets, now deleted, say that you're right. They were either filming (possibly on the third or fourth take) or getting ready to film. IMO. Wasting Alec's time to have him stand in while they established camera angles (and it's not like it was a complicated shot).

 

[10ofRods]

I respect your point of view, but IMO this is self-contradictory. If someone did intentionally insert a live round, with a view to exposing the danger on set, then why would they simultaneously expect that the "multiple safety checks" would discover the live bullet before it got into the actor's hands?

The point you and some others are making is that there WERE no multiple safety checks, so therefore to prove the set was dysfunctional, someone inserted a live bullet with the hope it would bring this problem to the forefront. But then that person would expect the "multiple safety checks" to prevent anyone from actually getting hurt, which contradicts the whole point.

Of course I agree that the whole set was messed up and the safety procedures were clearly not adhered to. I just don't agree that it was done purposefully, whether to murder someone, or to prove the point that safety checks were lacking. IMO.

This is what some people I know who are in "the business" are saying (rather loudly) on their FB pages or elsewhere. That someone wanted a bad accident or worse - and knew that none of the guns were being checked. If it's true that there was plinking every night (or worse - let's say true horseplay), then someone might have wanted to make a point. I myself also doubt that this was deliberate in any way - although how in heck the live ammo got onto the prop truck in the first place, so that HGR (who says she loaded blanks) could put live ammo in the gun is quite mysterious.

Also, a gun loaded with blanks is not a "cold gun," it's a "hot gun" and still makes a fairly loud noise and can easily cause eye damage (I've posted a few medical links, I could post way more). Blanks are not a toy. I wonder where they purchased them. Some really low budget films have been known to modify nail gun loads.

Blanks are quieter than bullets, of course, but can still cause hearing loss.

Blanks | Weapons of Choice