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

[SuziQ]

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

I know many would be happy to see AB take the fall here. I don't like him much either, and he doesn't seem like a nice person. But IMO, it was not his job to check the gun. How about holding the person who had one job to do and could not do it properly? The Amorer, who didn't even know how to handle blanks.

Are we going to start sending people to jail because they are not...nice?

Moo.

 

[LaborDayRN]

I can't wrap my head around why actual ammunition, ie bullets would even be ON a movie set to accidently be loaded into a "prop" weapon.

SANTA FE, N.M. -- As a film crew and actors in Western garb prepared to rehearse a scene inside a wooden, chapel-like building on a desert movie ranch outside Santa Fe, assistant director Dave Halls stepped outside and grabbed a prop gun off a cart.

He walked back in and handed it to the film's star, Alec Baldwin, assuring him it was safe to use because it didn't have live ammo.

"Cold gun," Halls yelled. It wasn't, according to court records made public Friday. Instead, when Baldwin pulled the trigger Thursday, he killed cinematographer Halyna Hutchins and wounded director Joel Souza, who was standing behind her.
'Rust' assistant director told Alec Baldwin gun was safe before movie set shooting: Documents

 

[SuziQ]

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

Because they do not like him.

 

[SuziQ]

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

This type of situation has been a long standing problem. You have Directors who have a vision of what a scene (sometimes outrageous and crazy) should look like in their head. And they don't like to take no for an answer.

Because they do not like him.

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

 

[Dotta]

According to union rules and standard practice in the industry, the actor who shoots the prop gun is supposed to be shown the gun by the armourer, who shows him/her what is inside the gun. Obviously, there should be no live rounds.

When the gun is handed to the actor, the actor is supposed to recheck the gun (as all gun users in the world are supposed to do) in front of the armourer and verify that what the armourer said is true. Either no rounds at all (typical for a rehearsal - which this was), or blanks (and there are different kinds, which both the armourer AND the actor are supposed to verify).

So yes, Alec is responsible, along with the armourer, and along with the producers and along with the production company (which Alec Baldwin owns).

The rules have been posted somewhere on this thread and are available all over the place, due to this incident. The fact that this production was low budget, that some of the workers say there were problems cashing their checks, and that they were using a non-union armourer are all the fault of the production company, which Alec owns.

The rules also say that even a prop gun should never be pointed directly at a human. Keep in mind that they weren't even filming at the time Alec fired the weapon (either once or twice).

Which is what SFCSO got a warrant and confiscated all the cameras, weapons, and whatever else they confiscated. Being on a movie set does not absolve anyone from the ordinary laws of using firearms. If, as first reported, Alec shot directly at the director and the cinematographer, he is indeed responsible.

Further, it was a real gun and therefore, all the laws of handling real guns apply. It was a Colt 45 revolver, one of the easiest guns in the world to check to see if it has rounds in it. For this rehearsal, it ought to have had zero rounds. Who put the rounds in? Why? Were people in the crew having fun with target practice out in rural Santa Fe County? Colt revolvers take a good amount of force on the trigger (not a hair trigger, IOW). Someone pulled the trigger without checking to see if there were rounds in the gun. It is at the very least negligent discharge of a firearm, which is a crime most places.

Actors ARE responsible when they hold real guns in their hands, just like every other citizen. There are no exemptions for ACTORS in any state law that I've ever heard. That's why the rules used by the Propmasters Union should be obeyed as if they are law - because otherwise, many, many people are exposed to liability and could all be charged as part of a crime when a gun kills someone.

It is true that juries have been lenient with film accidents - particularly when it's obvious that it's a car or helicopter accident - but look up the Vic Morrow case. Charges were filed against the director (because a scene was being directed and filmed, unlike in this case) and three others.

Since the director was also shot in this incident, it will be very interesting to hear what he has to say if this goes to trial.

Bravo!!!!

But you forgot to add that actors and other staff were forced to sleep in cars!!!!!! because the producer/s didnt organise a hotel for them in a nearby town.
Well, Wild West treatment - for the sake of realism???

 

[Trebor5591]

I do not know all the details but I know one thing. AB is an actor; he depends on every single professional around him to do their jobs in a thoroughly competent manner, as he does his. He is absolutely NOT responsible. If he was responsible he would be the armorer / prop master. JMO

He is more than an actor--he is a producer on the project. A producer has much higher level of responsibility.

Two things concern me about this case:

1) There were reports of labor unrest on this movie production. Halyna Hutchins, who was shot and killed by Alex Baldwin, the lead actor and producer on the Movie Rust, was openly supporting a group of workers who had just been replaced by Baldwin that same day. Halyna Hutchins supported a Hollywood union protesting dangerous working conditions days before she was shot on the 'Rust' set

2) Halyna Hutchins was the Director of Photography on the set of Rust. She was not an actress. There was nothing in the script of Rust calling on Baldwin's character to shoot the prop gun at the Director of Photography. Why did Baldwin point the gun at her and pull the trigger? This was grossly unsafe and seems to me to be negligent at the very least.

I believe this is going to have a major impact on Baldwin. I would not be surprised at criminal charges being filed against him.

 

[LaborDayRN]

According to union rules and standard practice in the industry, the actor who shoots the prop gun is supposed to be shown the gun by the armourer, who shows him/her what is inside the gun. Obviously, there should be no live rounds.

When the gun is handed to the actor, the actor is supposed to recheck the gun (as all gun users in the world are supposed to do) in front of the armourer and verify that what the armourer said is true. Either no rounds at all (typical for a rehearsal - which this was), or blanks (and there are different kinds, which both the armourer AND the actor are supposed to verify).

So yes, Alec is responsible, along with the armourer, and along with the producers and along with the production company (which Alec Baldwin owns).

The rules have been posted somewhere on this thread and are available all over the place, due to this incident. The fact that this production was low budget, that some of the workers say there were problems cashing their checks, and that they were using a non-union armourer are all the fault of the production company, which Alec owns.

The rules also say that even a prop gun should never be pointed directly at a human. Keep in mind that they weren't even filming at the time Alec fired the weapon (either once or twice).

Which is what SFCSO got a warrant and confiscated all the cameras, weapons, and whatever else they confiscated. Being on a movie set does not absolve anyone from the ordinary laws of using firearms. If, as first reported, Alec shot directly at the director and the cinematographer, he is indeed responsible.

Further, it was a real gun and therefore, all the laws of handling real guns apply. It was a Colt 45 revolver, one of the easiest guns in the world to check to see if it has rounds in it. For this rehearsal, it ought to have had zero rounds. Who put the rounds in? Why? Were people in the crew having fun with target practice out in rural Santa Fe County? Colt revolvers take a good amount of force on the trigger (not a hair trigger, IOW). Someone pulled the trigger without checking to see if there were rounds in the gun. It is at the very least negligent discharge of a firearm, which is a crime most places.

Actors ARE responsible when they hold real guns in their hands, just like every other citizen. There are no exemptions for ACTORS in any state law that I've ever heard. That's why the rules used by the Propmasters Union should be obeyed as if they are law - because otherwise, many, many people are exposed to liability and could all be charged as part of a crime when a gun kills someone.

It is true that juries have been lenient with film accidents - particularly when it's obvious that it's a car or helicopter accident - but look up the Vic Morrow case. Charges were filed against the director (because a scene was being directed and filmed, unlike in this case) and three others.

Since the director was also shot in this incident, it will be very interesting to hear what he has to say if this goes to trial.

@10ofRods Thank you for this. You've explained what I've been thinking but have been unable to put into words.

 

[LaborDayRN]

Good God, she didn't know anything about blanks? She was green and should never have been doing that job.

Moo.

And yet she was hired to do it. Most likely to save money.

 

[DWebster]

OMG, thank you. This. And absolutely THIS. Mistakes were made by several people, it sounds like, but ultimately.... Why was that gun pointed at anyone and the hammer cocked and the trigger pulled?

Everyone knows you don't point a weapon, loaded or not, at another human and the hammer and pull the trigger ... EVEN IF you have checked the weapon and believe it is empty. Even if you are just playing, or being aggressive, or just lacking completely in muzzle awareness. Even if someone tells you the gun is cold.

I don't believe he thought the gun was loaded, but it is 3 pretty deliberate acts to: 1. the gun, 2. point it at someone, and 3. pull the trigger -- even if you believe it is cold.

IMO and all that jazz.

According to union rules and standard practice in the industry, the actor who shoots the prop gun is supposed to be shown the gun by the armourer, who shows him/her what is inside the gun. Obviously, there should be no live rounds.

When the gun is handed to the actor, the actor is supposed to recheck the gun (as all gun users in the world are supposed to do) in front of the armourer and verify that what the armourer said is true. Either no rounds at all (typical for a rehearsal - which this was), or blanks (and there are different kinds, which both the armourer AND the actor are supposed to verify).

So yes, Alec is responsible, along with the armourer, and along with the producers and along with the production company (which Alec Baldwin owns).

The rules have been posted somewhere on this thread and are available all over the place, due to this incident. The fact that this production was low budget, that some of the workers say there were problems cashing their checks, and that they were using a non-union armourer are all the fault of the production company, which Alec owns.

The rules also say that even a prop gun should never be pointed directly at a human. Keep in mind that they weren't even filming at the time Alec fired the weapon (either once or twice).

Which is what SFCSO got a warrant and confiscated all the cameras, weapons, and whatever else they confiscated. Being on a movie set does not absolve anyone from the ordinary laws of using firearms. If, as first reported, Alec shot directly at the director and the cinematographer, he is indeed responsible.

Further, it was a real gun and therefore, all the laws of handling real guns apply. It was a Colt 45 revolver, one of the easiest guns in the world to check to see if it has rounds in it. For this rehearsal, it ought to have had zero rounds. Who put the rounds in? Why? Were people in the crew having fun with target practice out in rural Santa Fe County? Colt revolvers take a good amount of force on the trigger (not a hair trigger, IOW). Someone pulled the trigger without checking to see if there were rounds in the gun. It is at the very least negligent discharge of a firearm, which is a crime most places.

Actors ARE responsible when they hold real guns in their hands, just like every other citizen. There are no exemptions for ACTORS in any state law that I've ever heard. That's why the rules used by the Propmasters Union should be obeyed as if they are law - because otherwise, many, many people are exposed to liability and could all be charged as part of a crime when a gun kills someone.

It is true that juries have been lenient with film accidents - particularly when it's obvious that it's a car or helicopter accident - but look up the Vic Morrow case. Charges were filed against the director (because a scene was being directed and filmed, unlike in this case) and three others.

Since the director was also shot in this incident, it will be very interesting to hear what he has to say if this goes to trial.

 

[DWebster]

I know many would be happy to see AB take the fall here. I don't like him much either, and he doesn't seem like a nice person. But IMO, it was not his job to check the gun. How about holding the person who had one job to do and could not do it properly? The Amorer, who didn't even know how to handle blanks.

Are we going to start sending people to jail because they are not...nice?

Moo.

They all have responsibility.

I don't want to see anyone "take the fall", but there were several people there, including AB, that could have followed protocol and this young lady would still be alive.

And why was that gun pointing at anyone?

IMO and all that jazz.

 

[Dotta]

Alec Baldwin ignored the golden rule of gun safety and it should never have been loaded | Daily Mail Online

Well, well, well

 

[Kiranerys]

Yes but he was a producer of the movie. Arguably he had some say in the hiring of an inexperienced armourer. Definitely not holding him solely responsible but there were a lot of problems and lax safety protocols on set according to crew and he was in a senior position. I imagine blame lies with multiple people though.

She was inexperienced but she had also just come from a successful shoot where she was the Head armourer, and I would presume that she had experience as some kind of assistant armourer before that. Everyone has to start somewhere and no one is experienced until they are given the chance to gain that experience by someone taking a chance on them.
Budget was undoubtedly a factor here,but this is the daughter of a leading Hollywood armourer with years of experience and a great reputation so I don't know if it's fair to condemn the producers for hiring her but then this senseless tragedy happened on her watch so I can see,with hindsight,how people feel this was a bad decision.

 

[steeltowngirl]

Why would the gun have been pointing at the cinematographer?
We don't know what happened on the set of Rust, but it is fairly common to have a gun pointed at the camera, and by extension the cinematographer, to get a certain angle.

"We've all seen the very famous shots in films where you get that dramatic effect of a gun being pointed at you, the audience, and of course, it's being pointed toward the camera," explained Steven Hall, a veteran second unit director and cinematographer who has worked on films like Fury and Thor: The Dark World.

"To minimize that, one would put a remote camera in that place, or at least, if someone does have to operate the camera, I'm normally protected by safety goggles, a safety visor and often a PERSPEX screen that withstands pretty much anything. Obviously, it wouldn't withstand a real shot from a gun, but it would certainly withstand a blank."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/prop-guns-movie-sets-1.6221637

 

[CoverMeCagney]

Now, if it’s was the Asst Director who handed it to Alec calling “cold gun”, where was armoury lady at that point?

 

[Betty P]

Good God, she didn't know anything about blanks? She was green and should never have been doing that job.

Moo.

What did she mean by "loading blanks"? Was she making the blanks herself? If so, that's dangerous and completely unnecessary. The pros I've seen interviewed say that there are companies in CA that make blanks, dummy bullets and other products specifically for the movie, tv, entertainment industry. They're the experts, you buy the products from them. They follow industry standards for making and marking these products so people on the set can tell quickly which is a real item.

This person sounds totally unqualified. While I shouldn't judge from appearances, the many photos of her posing with guns also seems unprofessional. She seems more of a gun nut who likes to play around with and shoot weapons for fun.

 

[Lexiintoronto]

Safety Tips for Use of Firearms · Actors' Equity Association (actorsequity.org)
<snip>

• Treat all guns as if they are loaded and deadly.
• Never point a firearm at anyone including yourself. Always cheat the shot by aiming to the right or left of the target character
• Check the firearm every time you take possession of it. Before each use, make sure the gun has been test-fired off stage and then ask to test fire it yourself. Watch the prop master check the cylinders and barrel to be sure no foreign object or dummy bullet has become lodged inside.

These are just a few, but ultimately the responsibility lies with the person who cocked the hammer and pulled the trigger while the firearm was pointed at someone.

I don't care if a weapon is handed to me a hundred different times a day, it is MY responsibility to check the weapon before I pull the trigger.

This makes sense to me. There seems to be a public debate between people working in film production about the procedures.

Some say film production is like a factory line with experts working on different parts. For the actor to verify that the gun is loaded correctly is not their job and would slow down production.

Others repeat what you have pointed out: anyone involved in touching the weapon should have training. Correct procedures should be followed, including chain of custody.

Empty real gun?…verified by everyone including the actor that shoots it, & should never be aimed at anyone.

Live bullets on a movie set? Should not be allowed.

 

[whitelilac]

She was inexperienced but she had also just come from a successful shoot where she was the Head armourer, and I would presume that she had experience as some kind of assistant armourer before that. Everyone has to start somewhere and no one is experienced until they are given the chance to gain that experience by someone taking a chance on them.
Budget was undoubtedly a factor here,but this is the daughter of a leading Hollywood armourer with years of experience and a great reputation so I don't know if it's fair to condemn the producers for hiring her but then this senseless tragedy happened on her watch so I can see,with hindsight,how people feel this was a bad decision.

That's all very well, but when you have three previous gun incidents on the same set, all presumably controlled by the same rookie armorer, you'd think that the team would investigate why this happened and do something about it. THREE times. There were complaints about gun safety on that set, yet it happened again, this time causing a loss of life. No time, budget constraints, etc are not excuses.

 

[LaborDayRN]

Because they do not like him.

I'd give WSer's more credit than that. I think most people on WS are able to form opinions based on facts and not feelings alone.

 

[Dotta]

She was inexperienced but she had also just come from a successful shoot where she was the Head armourer, and I would presume that she had experience as some kind of assistant armourer before that. Everyone has to start somewhere and no one is experienced until they are given the chance to gain that experience by someone taking a chance on them.
Budget was undoubtedly a factor here,but this is the daughter of a leading Hollywood armourer with years of experience and a great reputation so I don't know if it's fair to condemn the producers for hiring her but then this senseless tragedy happened on her watch so I can see,with hindsight,how people feel this was a bad decision.

Did she have any kind of licence?
I ask b/c being a daughter of some famous armourer is not enough credit I think.
Im asking b/c Im really curious.

 

[Mo Thuairim]

She was inexperienced but she had also just come from a successful shoot where she was the Head armourer, and I would presume that she had experience as some kind of assistant armourer before that. Everyone has to start somewhere and no one is experienced until they are given the chance to gain that experience by someone taking a chance on them.
Budget was undoubtedly a factor here,but this is the daughter of a leading Hollywood armourer with years of experience and a great reputation so I don't know if it's fair to condemn the producers for hiring her but then this senseless tragedy happened on her watch so I can see,with hindsight,how people feel this was a bad decision.

I understand what you're saying but if it is true that other armourers turned down the job because of their concerns about the remit, then that is a red flag and surely producers should have sought out a very experienced armourer for the role. All the more reason to ensure she was up to this particular job.

Even before Rust went into production, a number of armorers turned down the gig citing concerns about the budget of the film and the sheer amount of firearms to be utilized, we hear.

‘Rust’ Production Company To Launch Internal Review After Fatal Accident, Possible Prior Incidents & Camera Crew Walkout – Deadline