Alec Baldwin shoots and kills cinematographer.

Daleandee said:
There might be a bus coming his way ... :popcorn:
Click to expand...

And he relied on the armorer to ensure that the gun was indeed 'cold'.
There appears to be a problem with accountability if someone was able to remove a prop gun for activities not related to the filming of the movie and return it and if there was no process in place tho check the chamber on any gun handed to an actor.
 
weilke said:
And he relied on the armorer to ensure that the gun was indeed 'cold'.
There appears to be a problem with accountability if someone was able to remove a prop gun for activities not related to the filming of the movie and return it and if there was no process in place tho check the chamber on any gun handed to an actor.
Click to expand...

The push to make schedule at all costs combined with lax safety standards and the union camera crew walking off the set that morning created a perfect storm for something like this to happen.
 
In my mind, there's a question as to why there were live rounds on a set anyway? I don't think there's a need for live rounds on a set. But even if there were, and if I were the armorer, there is NO WAY I would leave a weapon loaded with live rounds and unguarded on a table. I'm not casting blame, but I do question the safety protocols/standards, and having experienced safety and camera crew walking off the set and pushing forward with potentially dangerous tools/props is a huge issue. If it weren't a firearm, and it was explosives, a knife, an axe, or an arrow, the issue and search for accountability would still be the same.
 
rtk11 said:
In my mind, there's a question as to why there were live rounds on a set anyway? I don't think there's a need for live rounds on a set. But even if there were, and if I were the armorer, there is NO WAY I would leave a weapon loaded with live rounds and unguarded on a table. I'm not casting blame, but I do question the safety protocols/standards, and having experienced safety and camera crew walking off the set and pushing forward with potentially dangerous tools/props is a huge issue. If it weren't a firearm, and it was explosives, a knife, an axe, or an arrow, the issue and search for accountability would still be the same.
Click to expand...

If it is true what that NY Post story said that folks were doing target practice with the weapon between shoots, then there are so many things wrong with this situation.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
If it is true what that NY Post story said that folks were doing target practice with the weapon between shoots, then there are so many things wrong with this situation.
Click to expand...
I hope that isn't true, but if so, then many people knew that was a real functional firearm, in which case it cannot ever be pointed at a human, "cold" or not.
 
Fearless Tower said:
The push to make schedule at all costs combined with lax safety standards and the union camera crew walking off the set that morning created a perfect storm for something like this to happen.
Click to expand...

Neither the armorer nor the assistant director were part of the labor strife.
 
Fearless Tower said:
I’m a gun owner, and not a fan of gun control, but let’s be real here.

Firearms were not invented for the purpose of target shooting. Recreational and practice shooting came later.
Click to expand...

The claim was "Guns are designed to cause harm." present tense.

What guns were "invented" for isn't relevant.

Almost all of my guns are designed for target shooting. The loads I use are designed for target shooting. Even the load I shoot from a Savage Model 99.

So, sure, let's be real. Let's be truthful.
 
RyanShort1 said:
True, BUT - one could argue that they are designed to prevent harm also. If I lived many years ago and carried a sword to defend against tigers, lions, and bears, it does not mean that I intend harm on all bears, lions, and tigers - but that I want to preserve my own life. The attribution of intent to harm the innocent is what is offensive about saying that I own a gun because I want to kill someone.
Click to expand...
RyanShort1 said:
True, BUT - one could argue that they are designed to prevent harm also. If I lived many years ago and carried a sword to defend against tigers, lions, and bears, it does not mean that I intend harm on all bears, lions, and tigers - but that I want to preserve my own life. The attribution of intent to harm the innocent is what is offensive about saying that I own a gun because I want to kill someone.
Click to expand...

True

The Obama gun study showed that armed victims are less harmed compared to unarmed victims, and guns are used defensively more than in the commissions of crimes.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
I hope that isn't true, but if so, then many people knew that was a real functional firearm, in which case it cannot ever be pointed at a human, "cold" or not.
Click to expand...
Not even a real bad guy? Your statement is overly blanket, and thus false.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Alec is a victim in this because he trusted and relied on other people to ensure safe possession an use of the firearm.

He is also responsible for the events because ultimately the firearm was in his hands. He assumed a portion of the responsibility by making the choice to posses the weapon. That’s all I’m saying. There are lots of mitigating factors in this situation that should in fairness be considered but he should still be held accountable.
Click to expand...
I basically agree with all of this.
 
Palmpilot said:
Alec Baldwin assistant director had history of unsafe practices, prop maker says

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...ory-unsafe-practices-prop-maker-says-n1282226

LOS ANGELES — The assistant director on the set of "Rust" where Alec Baldwin fired a prop gun that killed cinematographer Halyna Hutchins had previously allowed an unsafe working environment on productions, according to a prop maker who worked with him.

Dave Halls "at first he seemed like an older, affable first [assistant director] with the usual run of idiosyncrasies, but that facade soon disappeared," according to prop maker Maggie Goll, who said she was called to work on Hulu's "Into the Dark" anthology series in February 2019.

"He did not maintain a safe working environment," Goll said in a detailed statement to NBC News. "Sets were almost always allowed to become increasingly claustrophobic, no established fire lanes, exits blocked ... safety meetings were nonexistent."

According to court records, Halls handed the prop gun to Baldwin before the fatal shooting at the Bonanza Ranch in New Mexico, indicating incorrectly that the weapon didn't carry live rounds by yelling "cold gun."...​
Click to expand...
Court records?? Has someone been arrested, indicted, grand jury convened?
 
weilke said:
Neither the armorer nor the assistant director were part of the labor strife.
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t the Assistant Director be management? Giving orders, telling employees what and what not to do? And they thought he was doing his being a boss job wrong. Wouldn’t that make him a part of the ‘strife.’
 
luvflyin said:
Wouldn’t the Assistant Director be management? Giving orders, telling employees what and what not to do? And they thought he was doing his being a boss job wrong. Wouldn’t that make him a part of the ‘strife.’
Click to expand...

In the upside down world of movie production, assistant directors (ADs) and even directors are considered hired help and represented by the directors guild.

The strife was about unpaid hotel bills. Oh, and after someone got shot, everyone involved remembers that the strife was about safety too.
 
And t no ones surprise, there is apparently a change dot org petiotion to ban all guns from movie sets.
 
wsuffa said:
And t no ones surprise, there is apparently a change dot org petiotion to ban all guns from movie sets.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I see no reason why they need to use real guns as props. Given the budgets, making some very realistic dummy guns which give realistic muzzle flashes and kickbacks should be very doable. Those dummy guns would be designed NOT to accept common rounds/calibers.
 
As a former union member, why is he able to hire a non-union crew and still work in the system? A probably judgemental saying I've heard is never trust a skinny Italian or a fat socialist.
 
kyleb said:
Honestly, I see no reason why they need to use real guns as props. Given the budgets, making some very realistic dummy guns which give realistic muzzle flashes and kickbacks should be very doable. Those dummy guns would be designed NOT to accept common rounds/calibers.
Click to expand...
Such guns are used frequently. But this is a "low-budget indie film." What's going to come from this is ammunition (pun intended) for the unions and big studios to trash such productions.
 
Big studio and union makes sense as one way to make movies. So does low budget/independent. But this reads like a d*(k, coming from the big studio world and trying to take advantage of the rules and people working independent. Maybe just my slant because I read him as a hypocrite.
 
kyleb said:
Honestly, I see no reason why they need to use real guns as props. Given the budgets, making some very realistic dummy guns which give realistic muzzle flashes and kickbacks should be very doable. Those dummy guns would be designed NOT to accept common rounds/calibers.
Click to expand...

Some people say they see no reason why a magazine on any gun needs to hold more than 6 rounds, or open carry, or concealed carry, et cetera. Where does the “I don’t agree with this, so it should be different for YOU” part of the discussion on guns begin and end?
 
Bob Noel said:
The claim was "Guns are designed to cause harm." present tense.

What guns were "invented" for isn't relevant.

Almost all of my guns are designed for target shooting. The loads I use are designed for target shooting. Even the load I shoot from a Savage Model 99.

So, sure, let's be real. Let's be truthful.
Click to expand...
It is still lethal and if someone at the target range dies or is injured from a direct result of your negligence with your “target” pistol you should be held accountable. Let’s be real.

Edit: it’s no different than your car. Drive in a negligent manner and it’s your ass. Use your car to run someone over it’s the same a shooting them with a firearm. No one is blaming the gun. It’s the people on that set that are to blame.
 
Last edited:
Bob Noel said:
The claim was "Guns are designed to cause harm." present tense.

What guns were "invented" for isn't relevant.

Almost all of my guns are designed for target shooting. The loads I use are designed for target shooting. Even the load I shoot from a Savage Model 99.

So, sure, let's be real. Let's be truthful.
Click to expand...
Yes. Let’s be truthful. You’ve taken a weapon and repurposed it, which is your right.

The problem I have with your logic is that you end up marginalizing the fact that your target gun is a deadly weapon. We have a right to own and carry deadly weapons in this country, but we need to respect that they are deadly weapons.

That respect was clearly missing on this movie set.
 
Lachlan said:
Some people say they see no reason why a magazine on any gun needs to hold more than 6 rounds, or open carry, or concealed carry, et cetera. Where does the “I don’t agree with this, so it should be different for YOU” part of the discussion on guns begin and end?
Click to expand...

I'm not really sure how/why you interjected that in the conversation. It has very little, if any, to do with the topic at hand which is the accident on the movie set, morphing into how one might prevent such things...
 
Tragic loss of the life of a young wife and mother.

Seems I remember a case a few years ago where a police safety officer shot and killed a woman taking part in a self-defense class with a weapon he thought contained blanks, which he himself had loaded. I don't believe charges were preferred in that case. If that officer lacking intent wasn't held criminally responsible, I don't see the logic that can hold Baldwin criminally responsible.

I'm sure there will be a substantial voluntary financial settlement both from Baldwin and the insurance underwriter.
 
weilke said:
The strife was about unpaid hotel bills. Oh, and after someone got shot, everyone involved remembers that the strife was about safety too.
Click to expand...

You mean to tell me the complaint made about the two negligent discharges a few days before this lady got shot wasn’t safety related?
 
DavidWhite said:
You mean to tell me the complaint made about the two negligent discharges a few days before this lady got shot wasn’t safety related?
Click to expand...

Did they file a grievance at the time ? Did their union rep demand a safety meeting ? Or was the occasional ND par for the course on the set of a indie western production ?
 
weilke said:
Did they file a grievance at the time ? Did their union rep demand a safety meeting ? Or was the occasional ND par for the course on the set of a indie western production ?
Click to expand...
I will bet they farm they didn’t, and what you said above, “…The strife was about unpaid hotel bills. Oh, and after someone got shot, everyone involved remembers that the strife was about safety too...” is true. What is ND?
 
luvflyin said:
Court records?? Has someone been arrested, indicted, grand jury convened?
Click to expand...
The article may have been referring to an affidavit that was filed and the search warrant that was issued:

The first official account of the killing, which has rocked the entertainment industry and raised questions about workplace safety issues in film productions, was released late Friday in an affidavit filed by the Santa Fe County sheriff’s department seeking to search the rustic wooden building where the shooting happened.

A state magistrate judge granted the request, which includes an examination of the gun for biological evidence as well as a review of cameras, film, memory cards or other video recorders that may provide information in the case.
​
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/1...e-gave-alec-baldwin-a-cold-gun-that-was-empty
 
Hmm. It’s kinda lookin like maybe the Assistant Director aka one of the victims, might be held responsible. So, let’s say it turns out to be true. Can he sue the Producer for hiring him? Like it’s the Producers fault. He shoulda known better than to hire me in the first place. He needs to pay my medical bills, loss of income and oh yeah, that pain and suffering stuff to.
 
Palmpilot said:
The article may have been referring to an affidavit that was filed and the search warrant that was issued:

The first official account of the killing, which has rocked the entertainment industry and raised questions about workplace safety issues in film productions, was released late Friday in an affidavit filed by the Santa Fe County sheriff’s department seeking to search the rustic wooden building where the shooting happened.

A state magistrate judge granted the request, which includes an examination of the gun for biological evidence as well as a review of cameras, film, memory cards or other video recorders that may provide information in the case.
​
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/1...e-gave-alec-baldwin-a-cold-gun-that-was-empty
Click to expand...
Ah, of course, a court has to authorize the search warrant.
 
luvflyin said:
Hmm. It’s kinda lookin like maybe the Assistant Director aka one of the victims, might be held responsible. So, let’s say it turns out to be true. Can he sue the Producer for hiring him? Like it’s the Producers fault. He shoulda known better than to hire me in the first place. He needs to pay my medical bills, loss of income and oh yeah, that pain and suffering stuff to.
Click to expand...

Standard issue Hollywood, fault shall be assigned by your SAG status, they’ll blame the lady who got shot to death more than the shooter lol
 
GaryM said:
Oh, I think the financial settlement will be substantial. I do not think it is going to be voluntary.
Click to expand...

Disagree. The production underwriter claims department is probably writing the check for the policy limit as we speak, as would Baldwin's umbrella liability underwriter. They may subrogate if there's a target, but they'll pay. As for Baldwin, if it were me and I shot and killed a wife and mother of a young child, it would be take it all. I can't imagine anyone with a conscience feeling any different.
 
luvflyin said:
Can he sue the Producer for hiring him?
Click to expand...
FYI: as mentioned earlier, if this is classified as a workplace accident then workmans comp laws com into play and can limit who can pursue other actions.
 
Albany Tom said:
As a former union member, why is he able to hire a non-union crew and still work in the system? A probably judgemental saying I've heard is never trust a skinny Italian or a fat socialist.
Click to expand...
I thought the crew - or at least some of the crew - was IATSI
 
kyleb said:
Honestly, I see no reason why they need to use real guns as props. Given the budgets, making some very realistic dummy guns which give realistic muzzle flashes and kickbacks should be very doable. Those dummy guns would be designed NOT to accept common rounds/calibers.
Click to expand...

My brother was an extra in a cowboy movie years ago. No firearm on the location could fire a real bullet. There were inserts in the chambers of every one of them that could only accept the 3 in 1 universal movie blank, which the inserts were shaped to take. Regardless of the original caliber of the rifle or revolver, they could only be loaded with those special cartridges, and only that single blank cartridge was present.

That is one reason you will never see an empty cartridge on the ground at a shootout, nor a clear image of a man reloading. Those blanks are clearly different from any cartridge you have ever bought or seen away from Hollywood. Gunmen never reload from their belt, because those are all "Wooden bullets" a nickname for completely fake artifacts that look right, but are not even as heavy as normal ammunition.

Cartridges that do appear on screen are placed there by the prop guys, from their collection of the correct sizes for the guns being used. If you watch carefully, most of the time that a "Winchester" lever action is fired, and lever operated, no empty blank is ejected, better you see nothing, than you see something that is clearly not a large rifle round.

In a previous post, I described being at a simulated gunfight, and saw those blanks first hand, up close. There is no possibility of confusing them with any real cartridge with a projectile in it.

Holding a blank and a real cartridge in your two hands, the weight is radically different, the blank is less than half the weight of the lightest load for a .38 caliber cartridge, and one quarter of a .45. The podcast where the armorer reported having to call her dad to learn how to tell the difference is flat amazing.

From the target practice and fun shooting by cast and crew, the revolvers were not fitted with blank adapters, and safety blanks were not being used.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top