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

[Dotta]

I would think they only use blanks in prop guns? I don't know of any reason loaded guns would EVER be brought on any movie set?? And if they are, that should STOP right NOW. A serious no brainer. I just don't understand this world anymore. It makes NO sense. And if it's because they want to make it as realistic as possible, they can do that without REAL bullets.

And imagine they used a real nuke bomb for the film to be more realistic!

 

[Deleted member 158085]

I suspect when all is said and done that many people will be found culpable to varying degrees. But for me, common sense tells me that those whose job descriptions were literally to handle the safety of the guns and props bear the most significant amount of responsibility. If your job title is armourer or includes prop management in the title, it would seem that every other employee on the set is relying on you to manage and ensure the safety of the prop guns.

Someone or some persons literally failed at what was their entire job and purpose on the set. Those whose duty it was to double or triple check those people, as maybe 2% of their entire job duties, bear some responsibility, of course. But come on - if your ONE job is this - your entire purpose for being on the set is this, it seems to me the greatest failure was there.

 

[JudgeJoe]

Well this is a doozy of a situation for AB. He knows damn well blanks are dangerous. He’s been in a zillion movies with guns & related instruction & training. This danger is even taught in basic gen-ed college acting classes! I could maybe understand if he had pointed & fired at another actor, per a script, during a run-through or a take. But at the cinematographer and director? Unbelievably reckless- truly! Hoping AB faces charges here. Imo.

“Therein lies some potential responsibility for Baldwin. If, for example, an actor knows they are handling blanks in a firearm, and if the actor knows that blanks could be dangerous by themselves, and then pulls the trigger too close to others, that could potentially be negligent.”

Opinion | The unusual legal circumstances surrounding Alec Baldwin's firing of a prop gun

 

[Dotta]

I suspect when all is said and done that many people will be found culpable to varying degrees. But for me, common sense tells me that those whose job descriptions were literally to handle the safety of the guns and props bear the most significant amount of responsibility. If your job title is armourer or includes prop management in the title, it would seem that every other employee on the set is relying on you to manage and ensure the safety of the prop guns.

Someone or some persons literally failed at what was their entire job and purpose on the set. Those whose duty it was to double or triple check those people, as maybe 2% of their entire job duties, bear some responsibility, of course. But come on - if your ONE job is this - your entire purpose for being on the set is this, it seems to me the greatest failure was there.

There is a saying:
If you can count, count on yourself.

 

[shotgun09]

Trust, but verify.
CYA.

Two huge things I was taught, and stand by, just saying

 

[mickey2942]

I would be very interested if AB had any negative interactions with the victims.

AB has a long, documented history of escalated interactions.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

I admit up front I'm no expert on how stuff in Hollywood works. Why did the assistant director hand the gun to AB? Seems like only the armorer / prop master would be tasked with such a crucial action. The more people involved in the chain of possession of a prop gun, the more chances for something to go wrong. JMO

 

[mickey2942]

Trust, but verify.
CYA.

Two huge things I was taught, and stand by, just saying

I wonder if this situation will change how guns are used in films, going forward. Especially if there are any charges. Seems to be a huge liability issue. As one director pointed out, since the props can be added digitally, why bother with the liability?

 

[tara83]

I think anyone making insinuations that this was done on purpose are being totally unfair.Nothing to suggest that. JMO

 

[steeltowngirl]

And imagine they used a real nuke bomb for the film to be more realistic!

They actually used Red October as an example in this article. Opinion | The unusual legal circumstances surrounding Alec Baldwin's firing of a prop gun

Clipped from article:
If you swap out the idea of guns on a set for something else, though, the relative responsibility between the actor and the crew becomes clearer. Consider one of Baldwin’s other films, “The Hunt for Red October,” a thriller about nuclear submarines. Imagine the script called for an actor on the set of the submarine’s bridge to push a red button. But instead of prop missiles on the submarine, a crew member thought it would be more realistic to use actual Soviet-era SS-20 ballistic missiles connected to that red button. When the actor pushes the button, he’s shocked when it actually launches the missiles, causing catastrophic harm.

Ridiculous hypothetical, but the point is: No one would expect the actor to be familiar with Russian submarine missile systems. That would be the armorer’s job, or the stunt coordinator, or anyone else’s job but the actor’s. And of course, using live missiles on the set would be an unthinkably negligent act. But so is allowing live rounds on set.

 

[Dotta]

They actually used Red October as an example in this article. Opinion | The unusual legal circumstances surrounding Alec Baldwin's firing of a prop gun

Clipped from article:
If you swap out the idea of guns on a set for something else, though, the relative responsibility between the actor and the crew becomes clearer. Consider one of Baldwin’s other films, “The Hunt for Red October,” a thriller about nuclear submarines. Imagine the script called for an actor on the set of the submarine’s bridge to push a red button. But instead of prop missiles on the submarine, a crew member thought it would be more realistic to use actual Soviet-era SS-20 ballistic missiles connected to that red button. When the actor pushes the button, he’s shocked when it actually launches the missiles, causing catastrophic harm.

Ridiculous hypothetical, but the point is: No one would expect the actor to be familiar with Russian submarine missile systems. That would be the armorer’s job, or the stunt coordinator, or anyone else’s job but the actor’s. And of course, using live missiles on the set would be an unthinkably negligent act. But so is allowing live rounds on set.

Oh The Hunt for the Red October!
How handsome Alec was
Alec and Sean - what a duo

 

[steeltowngirl]

Yikes, this was one month ago

Hannah had previously apprenticed alongside her dad who helped train her up, and revealed she had worried about working with blanks until she ‘figured out on her own’ how to make them ‘go when you want it to’.

She continued: ‘He took me from being completely green and taught me everything I know so far and by all means, I am still learning.

‘Dad has taught me everything but a lot of things I just kind of caught on by myself through observation, watching him do things or just knowing how the firearms work.

‘I think loading blanks was the scariest thing to me because I was like “oh I don’t know anything about it.”

Rust armorer was ‘new to job’ and worried she ‘wasn’t ready’ on past project

Good find. I suspect this information will be eventually be utilized in a civil suit.

 

[Gardenista]

Good article

Movie Weapons Expert on 'Rust' Tragedy: On-Set Safety Must Be 'Flawless'

I would say something did come out of the gun, if that gun was pointed at another person, that should not have happened. I am a theatrical firearms instructor, we never point the gun, even if it’s a dummy gun that’s painted blue and can’t do anything. We just train people never to place the muzzle of the gun pointed in the direction where it can shoot someone. That way when you do have a situation where something happens and something comes out of it, it won’t kill someone. A lot of times we forget that it not only means crew and bystanders, audience members for sure, there should be no direct line to that. It sounds like that might have been one safety that might have been overlooked.

 

[steeltowngirl]

In 2014, a 27-year-old camera assistant named Sarah Jones was working on the set of Midnight Rider. The crew was using a prop medical bed on train tracks but unexpectedly, a train appeared down the line on the tracks.

The panicked crew abandoned the prop that the train subsequently struck. Jones was struck by debris from the impact and tragically lost her life. Six other crew members suffered injuries of varying degree in the incident.

What Duty is Owed to Actors and Stuntmen and Women on Set?
The injuries and fatality resulting from the accident on the set of Midnight Rider resulted in a criminal investigation and trial, but what are the civil liabilities? The family of Sarah Jones understandably sued the producers of the film and then eventually, the parties reached a confidential settlement. The lawsuit alleged that negligence on the part of the production actually and proximately caused Jones’s death.

People working in the film industry have made great strides in remediating onset injury by unionizing and advocating for better working conditions. Nonetheless, accidents still happen and the negligence standards on the set of a film are the same as in any other setting. Negligence occurs when a person or entity breaches a duty, resulting in the actual harm of another person.

Oftentimes, the question of whether or not a duty is owed comes down whether someone failed to act as a “reasonably prudent person” would. In the case of Midnight Rider, the producers knew to expect two trains on the tracks but the train that caused the accident was an unexpected third. Arguably, the producers should have taken additional measures, given the amount of harm a moving train could cause, to ensure the safety of their cast and crew. Other questions raised in the Midnight Rider action involve whether the railroad company was negligent in any way. After all, by some accounts, there were supposed to be only two trains, not three.

Safety on Set: Actors Are Not Immune from Serious Injury While Filming | Citywide Law Group

 

[Betty P]

I admit up front I'm no expert on how stuff in Hollywood works. Why did the assistant director hand the gun to AB? Seems like only the armorer / prop master would be tasked with such a crucial action. The more people involved in the chain of possession of a prop gun, the more chances for something to go wrong. JMO

True, this is a problem. Listening to an expert armourer on CNN last night, he said armourers should never allow the guns to leave their sight. He said his practice is to check and double check everything, leave the gun unloaded, then load the gun with the appropriate blank while the actor is watching him just before handing it to the actor.

The actor shouldn't have to check the gun themselves, they're not trained to do that with every type of weapon. He emphasized that he never allows live ammunition on site and never allows anyone else to handle the weapons or blanks.

Can't recall his name, but he mentioned among other movies, tv shows, etc. he handles the weapons for the tv show Ozark.

 

[Dotta]

I wonder if this situation will change how guns are used in films, going forward. Especially if there are any charges. Seems to be a huge liability issue. As one director pointed out, since the props can be added digitally, why bother with the liability?

I once read that safety measures in Air travel were written in blood of the victims.

It might be that the new regulations in Film industry will also be written in blood - of Halyna and others who lost their lives while working hard to provide entertainment for the world

 

[Betty P]

Good article

Movie Weapons Expert on 'Rust' Tragedy: On-Set Safety Must Be 'Flawless'

I would say something did come out of the gun, if that gun was pointed at another person, that should not have happened. I am a theatrical firearms instructor, we never point the gun, even if it’s a dummy gun that’s painted blue and can’t do anything. We just train people never to place the muzzle of the gun pointed in the direction where it can shoot someone. That way when you do have a situation where something happens and something comes out of it, it won’t kill someone. A lot of times we forget that it not only means crew and bystanders, audience members for sure, there should be no direct line to that. It sounds like that might have been one safety that might have been overlooked.

In the interviews I heard last night, the armourers said its sometimes necessary to use the guns when "blocking" camera shots. They have to set up a shot with special angles for actor and camera to make it seem as though the actor is pointing the gun at another actor, but isn't. The armourer is supposed to recheck the empty gun in front of the actor before giving it to them, then place a wooden rod inside the barrel so they can determine proper angles.

There are many people accountable for safety on a movie set, it seems. But when it comes to the use of weapons, primary responsibility seems to be with the all important role of an expert armourer.

JMO

 

[CoverMeCagney]

I wonder if this situation will change how guns are used in films, going forward. Especially if there are any charges. Seems to be a huge liability issue. As one director pointed out, since the props can be added digitally, why bother with the liability?

With any luck it’ll lead to fewer films glorifying gun violence. It’s not big and it’s not clever.

 

[IceIce9]

I don’t see why many people are holding Baldwin responsible. It seems to me the armourer is the one who made the mistake. She had one job………

Alec Baldwin 'Rust' Head Gun Handler Had Doubts About Experience Level

 

[weepingangel]

Tv not films but saw this last night.
ABC’s ‘The Rookie’ Bans “Live” Guns on Set

I wonder if this situation will change how guns are used in films, going forward. Especially if there are any charges. Seems to be a huge liability issue. As one director pointed out, since the props can be added digitally, why bother with the liability?