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

[happyday]

"Rust" assistant director was fired from previous movie after gun incident injured crew member

From the article:

Dave Halls was serving as assistant director on the film “Freedom’s Path” in 2019, when a gun “unexpectedly discharged” on set, causing a sound crew member to recoil from the blast, halting production, the production company Rocket Soul Studios said Monday.

“Upon wrapping production for the day, Dave Halls was officially terminated and given the specific reasons for his termination,” The company continued. “Dave was very remorseful for the events, and understood the reasons he was being terminated. A new assistant director as well as a new armorer were hired for the duration of principal photography. Production of the film finished successfully.”


This guy should not have been hired and definitely should not have been in charge of checking and passing out guns IMO. Wow.

 

[10ofRods]

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.

A lot of people knew - that's why a whole bunch walked off the set that day. Not only that, but the woman who died had also been vocal about safety, according to other crew members who have spoken out.

There are union rules about guns - and this was supposed to be a union production. That very day, it became a scab production - and it will be interesting to see what the other producers (whoever is liable for the entire production, jointly) and the insurer will say.

OTOH, I do believe that a great effort will be made to provide enough cash to the cinematographers family, so that this goes away. But the insurance company and whoever else pays out (the standard insurance may. not be enough to satisfy) aren't going to insure more productions from this group. I've heard it was Netflix-based. If true, they're probably very very unhappy right now (deep pockets).

I wonder why LE will say - they took a lot of evidence off set and are still interviewing people...

 

[Dotta]

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

Hmmm....
Do you mean a movie where she gave an unchecked rifle to the 11 year old girl???
Phew!

 

[Deleted member 39678]

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

Things sure didn't go smoothy on the set of "Rust." JMO.

 

[GatorFL]

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...

BBM: Blanks and live rounds look very different. Nobody checked this gun before it was given to Baldwin. The armorer, the assistant director, or the actor. JMO

 

[Deleted member 158085]

This is part of the confusion I am hearing the last few days. I am hearing armorers and prop people saying different things. Some have said actors are not allowed to do anything with the gun. One I heard said they do not seek to "train" actors. This is something that may have to change. Perhaps actors that handle firearms should be required to obtained separate training with firearms and then when handed a firearm on the set, they must themselves double check for safety. I see resistance from the armorers in that regard.

This is why we have to be careful apportioning blame at this point in the investigation. There really doesn't seem to be a consistent protocol. Instead, multiple people "in the know" are telling us completely different things. And the 50 feet distance? I read 20 feet elsewhere from multiple sources. We don't really know that there is a standard of anything at this point - at least not one that all the experts agree on.

 

[WillieMac]

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.

I have to give a slight pass on this point. As far as I understand it, I do think this may have been something she stated not long before starting to shoot Rust, but she was talking about how she felt prior to stepping into the Armorer role for a previous movie. I think she felt that production for that prior movie went well and likely gained a lot of confidence from the experience. Unfortunately, the production of Rust did not seem to have nearly as good of safety protocol standards in place (or were just terrible at following them) and seemed to skimp at every possible turn. At some point she should have realized that this set was an accident waiting to happen and that those in charge would not have acknowledged her even if she did try to stand her ground and tell someone that their way if doing things was unsafe. I feel like those that hired her actually very likely targeted and preyed on her as someone they could hire cheaply & who wouldn't have the nerve to stand up to them when they started cutting corners. MOO of course.

 

[10ofRods]

"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.

I follow Alec Baldwin and his PR mechanisms pretty closely (various reasons - for one, I wanted to continue to like him, because I love some of his movies very much and have been willing to forgive a lot - while other people have decided he needed to be cancelled). I have written things on reddit supporting him, etc. But, he spends money every month on articles that are favorable to him in The Daily Mail - which promptly stepped out in front of this story to help him. That's how it is. But he's not as cash-rich as one might think, at this point in time.

The early reports about this event, particularly on radio in New Mexico, were that there was horseplay involved. Clearly, Alec would not have pulled the trigger if he thought the gun was actually loaded with live ammo. How the live ammo got on the set is bizarre - someone there committed a highly antisocial act. SFCSO said that boxes of live ammo were stored in the same place and right next to the blanks. Clearly, the armorer had never encountered such a situation and might not have known how to tell the difference. I know how to tell the difference, but you know what? I would never, ever load a gun for someone else who was going to be shooting it around living humans (even though I own and know what a blank is, I still absolutely follow all the rules when I "target practice" with blanks). IOW, I practice loading my magazine, inserting it (my gun is semi-automatic) and taking it off safety. If I do not practice this occasionally, I get stale. I'm the same age as Alec (btw, he tells everyone he's 63, but LE recorded his actual age as 67). I have to practice those little motor skills with my own gun (it has jammed twice - with live ammo - and now I'm a bit afraid to go use it at the gun range, but I do want to be able to use it if all hell breaks lose - I live in Los Angeles). I know how to clear it, and the manufacturer said that some part inside of it needed replacing (it was a known problem). They sent that part and my DH replaced it and he went and fired it at the range with no problems - but I will pull the trigger only if someone is inside my. house, trying to rob or kill me. Hopefully, it will be my DH who has to handle that - while I dial 911, which is my specialty.

But we teach our grandkids to treat all guns as real, and to follow gun safety rules. After hearing the rules, both said they weren't willing to touch the toy gun just yet (I was shooting airsoft guns at age 8, and my dad's .22 rifle at 11 - and you can be sure that my dad would have walloped me good if I didn't follow safety rules - at the gun range, people barrel sweep other people all the time - so we're looking for a new place to practice).

I see people barrel sweep other people on youtube every. day of the week (in wedding videos, inside cars, etc)

 

[whitelilac]

Law enforcement waiting for coroner’s report to help determine what killed Halyna Hutchins

From CNN’s Josh Campbell

Santa Fe County Sheriff’s department investigators are still waiting on the forensic report from the coroner’s office which they hope will identify the type of projectile that killed Halyna Hutchins, according to a law enforcement source close the investigation.
Live updates: 'Rust' movie shooting and Alec Baldwin

Since it went through her body to hit Souza in the clavicle, it would be a bullet likely, correct?

 

[10ofRods]

I have to give a slight pass on this point. As far as I understand it, I do think this may have been something she stated not long before starting to shoot Rust, but she was talking about how she felt prior to stepping into the Armorer role for a previous movie. I think she felt that production for that prior movie went well and likely gained a lot of confidence from the experience. Unfortunately, the production of Rust did not seem to have nearly as good of safety protocol standards in place (or were just terrible at following them) and seemed to skimp at every possible turn. At some point she should have realized that this set was an accident waiting to happen and that those in charge would not have acknowledged her even if she did try to stand her ground and tell someone that their way if doing things was unsafe. I feel like those that hired her actually very likely targeted and preyed on her as someone they could hire cheaply & who wouldn't have the nerve to stand up to them when they started cutting corners. MOO of course.

Well - she was the one who was ultimately responsible for what ammo was in the gun.

What do you think about her skills, really? How can you think one job experience was enough, given what happened?

She WAS the safety standard - the head armorer! She was supposed to train others (and actors are supposed to be shown the ammo inside the gun and watch it being loaded). She's supposed to stand there and prevent any kind of misuse (such as shooting at a camera without the rest of the crew 50 or more feet away - and she's supposed to insure that the camera is controlled remotely if the shot is toward the camera). I doubt she had even read the script, actually. So I consider her to still be highly inexperienced and whatever nerves she had earlier, she ought to have had that day - when she stepped into some other person's shoes after THAT person (who was way more experienced) said the set was unsafe.

 

[happyday]

I have to give a slight pass on this point. As far as I understand it, I do think this may have been something she stated not long before starting to shoot Rust, but she was talking about how she felt prior to stepping into the Armorer role for a previous movie. I think she felt that production for that prior movie went well and likely gained a lot of confidence from the experience. Unfortunately, the production of Rust did not seem to have nearly as good of safety protocol standards in place (or were just terrible at following them) and seemed to skimp at every possible turn. At some point she should have realized that this set was an accident waiting to happen and that those in charge would not have acknowledged her even if she did try to stand her ground and tell someone that their way if doing things was unsafe. I feel like those that hired her actually very likely targeted and preyed on her as someone they could hire cheaply & who wouldn't have the nerve to stand up to them when they started cutting corners. MOO of course.

I bet you’re right about that. And they also hired her for two different jobs. So there’s no way she could really do her job as armorer correctly. I bet most seasoned armorers would not have accepted that since it is an obvious breech of safety.

 

[MsMarple]

Law enforcement waiting for coroner’s report to help determine what killed Halyna Hutchins

From CNN’s Josh Campbell

Santa Fe County Sheriff’s department investigators are still waiting on the forensic report from the coroner’s office which they hope will identify the type of projectile that killed Halyna Hutchins, according to a law enforcement source close the investigation.
Live updates: 'Rust' movie shooting and Alec Baldwin

Since it went through her body to hit Souza in the clavicle, it would be a bullet likely, correct?

Yeah I can’t see the wadding from a blank going through one body and injuring a second person. But I guess LE needs to perform tests to verify exactly what the projectile was.

Has anyone explained why actual bullets would be present in the first place? Where did they come from - someone had to bring them to the set.

 

[IceIce9]

I have to give a slight pass on this point. As far as I understand it, I do think this may have been something she stated not long before starting to shoot Rust, but she was talking about how she felt prior to stepping into the Armorer role for a previous movie. I think she felt that production for that prior movie went well and likely gained a lot of confidence from the experience. Unfortunately, the production of Rust did not seem to have nearly as good of safety protocol standards in place (or were just terrible at following them) and seemed to skimp at every possible turn. At some point she should have realized that this set was an accident waiting to happen and that those in charge would not have acknowledged her even if she did try to stand her ground and tell someone that their way if doing things was unsafe. I feel like those that hired her actually very likely targeted and preyed on her as someone they could hire cheaply & who wouldn't have the nerve to stand up to them when they started cutting corners. MOO of course.

She was the head armourer. It was her job. She had one job. I can’t give her a pass. If she had performed her job properly the accident would not have happened and Hutchins would not be dead.

Moo

 

[whitelilac]

Yeah I can’t see the wadding from a blank going through one body and injuring a second person. But I guess LE needs to perform tests to verify exactly what the projectile was.

Has anyone explained why actual bullets would be present in the first place? Where did they come from - someone had to bring them to the set.

They were doing target practice out there ! It was stated that the live ammo was stored in the same place as the blanks! smh

 

[shotgun09]

They were doing target practice out there ! It was stated that the live ammo was stored in the same place as the blanks! smh

I would like to know who the 'they' was.

 

[LaborDayRN]

We still don't know that Baldwin pointed the gun at anyone, or that he pulled the trigger. It may have been an accidental discharge.

Doesn't mean he was acting completely according to protocol, but makes a difference, IMO.

I think it's logical that if the gun wasn't pointed at anyone, no one would have been shot and killed. I don't think this was intentional at all but I do feel there were several people that were negligent concerning the preparation and handling of the weapon (from what we've read so far).

 

[MsMarple]

They were doing target practice out there ! It was stated that the live ammo was stored in the same place as the blanks! smh

Thanks! So in other words nothing to do with the movie just people fooling around and carelessly storing live ammunition in a place designated for blanks.

 

[book-thinker]

They were doing target practice out there ! It was stated that the live ammo was stored in the same place as the blanks! smh

What heck were they doing target practice with live ammo near this site. Unbelievable blanks were stored near live ammo.

 

[branmuffin]

There's been a lot of deaths in the film industry from the earliest movies in the 1910s to the tragedy on the set of Rust. Most of the deaths involve helicopter and plane crashes during filming of certain scenes. Then you get, in no particular order, electrocutions, crushing incidents, drownings, and falls. When they happen the general public don't seem to get involved with the blame game. Probably because they recognize that accidents do happen and presume that the experts on scene are the ones ultimately responsible for loss of life if protocols were overlooked. As far as I can see only three deaths have occurred on movie sets involving weapons. But when it comes to weapons here on this thread the overarching theme is the actor holding the weapon is ultimately responsible.

I worked with a police force and did at times handle weapons but most of the people I know, unless they are hunters, have never even held a weapon, let alone shoot one.

If I go to the doctor to get a flu shot I don't ask to see what was written on the vial that the doctor used; my expectation is that protocols have been followed and what I'm getting is a flu shot not a yellow fever or polio shot. If I have a reaction to a shot, it's not my responsibility to check what was injected, it's the experts who are obligated to do that.

While many Americans are very familiar with weapons that is not the norm for the rest of the world. And some Americans I know who do own weapons have them locked away 'somewhere' and give indications that they've never taken a lesson in their lives to learn basic gun safety.

 

[WillieMac]

Well - she was the one who was ultimately responsible for what ammo was in the gun.

What do you think about her skills, really? How can you think one job experience was enough, given what happened?

She WAS the safety standard - the head armorer! She was supposed to train others (and actors are supposed to be shown the ammo inside the gun and watch it being loaded). She's supposed to stand there and prevent any kind of misuse (such as shooting at a camera without the rest of the crew 50 or more feet away - and she's supposed to insure that the camera is controlled remotely if the shot is toward the camera). I doubt she had even read the script, actually. So I consider her to still be highly inexperienced and whatever nerves she had earlier, she ought to have had that day - when she stepped into some other person's shoes after THAT person (who was way more experienced) said the set was unsafe.

I really don't disagree at all on most all of this. I haven't been on a set - or more specifically and importantly this particular set - so I have no first hand knowledge of her competency or experience, but from everything I've read, you're spot on. She's very 'wet behind the ears' so to speak at this. It sounds like she has a history of being around sets and around using guns but that does not necessarily imply that she has the experience, knowledge, or the ability to be someone who can not only handle the loading, unloading, and maintenance of all weapons on site, but also coordinating who needs to have which weapon at what time in what location and still be able to monitor and secure any weapons on set that are not im her immediate area and to also be strong-willed enough to stand up to a director, prop master, producer, or just self-absorbed star of the film in a way that she could ensure that of she didn't like the way something was happening, that production would stop until she was satisfied. ...I mean forgive me if I'm misinterpreting what the role of an armeror is on a set but it seems to me that it should be something like what I'm describing there. However, I still feel like she was quite likely hired because those behind production of this movie also knew very well just what I have stated here in this post. And I think they exploited her and counted on those shortcomings in order to cut the corners they intended to cut from the very beginning of planning for this production. So yes, I do feel that she's at least as - if not possibly more so - as culpable as everyone else here. ...but I feelnlike if we were privy to email, text, & voice communications between some of the money people funding this film & those that made staffing decisions and whoever did the hiring & firing, we may actually see that she was somewhat of an unknowing victim that someome intentionally because they thought they could do what they wanted without her being able or willing to stop them - or maybe she just wouldn't even realize what her responsibilities really were.