Alec Baldwin accidentally shoots cinematographer Halyna Hutchins dead on set.

Desk trauma

Front row at the dumpster fire of the republic
Supporter
Dec 1, 2011
20,193
16,172
✟1,173,411.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
I think this whole thing is a senseless, preventable tragedy. If Hollywood spent more time learning about gun safety instead of protesting the right to bear arms
They have. Those responsible for handling firearms in movie productions have set onerusly high standards with very detailed precautions that are almost idiot proof. In this case it unfortunately looks like they managed to hire a higher class of idiots to handle their props.

But don't let me derail a perfectly good opportunity to deride big name hollywood actors, as if they are the ones implementing safety protocols among those doing the less glamorous work that makes their industry function.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,342
26,786
Pacific Northwest
✟728,226.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
It is unforgivable. By live bullet, do they mean actual bullet, not blank? The production appears to have hired an inexperienced prop head, alongside issues with safety, and Baldwin is a producer.

From what little I've gathered, it appears that the entire strict and normally tightly enforced process was broken, the armorer/prop head wasn't watching the weapons, the gun was never properly inspected by the armorer/prop head, and a gun was just given to Alec Baldwin and told it was a cold gun.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

GreekOrthodox

Psalti Chrysostom
Oct 25, 2010
4,121
4,187
Yorktown VA
✟176,292.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I think this whole thing is a senseless, preventable tragedy. If Hollywood spent more time learning about gun safety instead of protesting the right to bear arms...even though they use real guns on set, we wouldn't have this issue. Here is a list of ways that this would have been prevented 100% of the time.

1. The gun should have been given to him completely unloaded, the revolver should have been open and the ammo should have been given to him separately or the gun should have been loaded in front of him as he watched. (Perfect demonstration for the rule that "The gun is always loaded."
2. The director of cinematography and the director should have never been behind the camera that he was aiming at to begin with. Blank or not. There was no reason to be behind it as they have separate monitors that they could have been watching the feed from the camera on. (Perfect demonstration of the rule do not point your firearm at anything you do not intend to destroy.)

In my opinion, any actor who's going to be handling a firearm needs to go through basic firearms safety course. It's been over 25 years since Brandon Lee's death and they're still not learning from past mistakes.

One phrase that gets me is "prop gun" which to me originally sounded like a prop that could only fire blanks. Initially, I thought it was something where the prop had malfunctioned.

NO... This is a "GUN used as a prop", in which case, yes, Baldwin should have been the one to load the gun with the proper rounds, not a prop master. As a former Boy Scout range officer, if there was a firearm I was unfamiliar with, I made sure someone showed me how to make sure that it was unloaded.
 
Upvote 0

trunks2k

Contributor
Jan 26, 2004
11,369
3,520
41
✟270,241.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
NO... This is a "GUN used as a prop", in which case, yes, Baldwin should have been the one to load the gun with the proper rounds, not a prop master.
My understanding is that is generally not how it works on movie sets. An armorer is 100% in charge of the weapons. They don't want the actors messing something up that could cause dangerous problems down the road, so the armorer is supposed to be the professional that ensures everything is set up properly; they are supposed to keep an eye on the weapon 100% between set up and it being handed to the actor as well as making sure the actor is follow their directions. In a well run set, the armorer should be the one handing the gun off.

Some actors want to personally ensure the weapon is safe too. IIRC Steve Buschemi refuses to work with weapons that hasn't been shown to be unloaded to him directly.

In this shoot it looks like the armorer left the weapons unattended among other major problems.
 
Upvote 0

GreekOrthodox

Psalti Chrysostom
Oct 25, 2010
4,121
4,187
Yorktown VA
✟176,292.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
My understanding is that is generally not how it works on movie sets. An armorer is 100% in charge of the weapons. They don't want the actors messing something up that could cause dangerous problems down the road, so the armorer is supposed to be the professional that ensures everything is set up properly; they are supposed to keep an eye on the weapon 100% between set up and it being handed to the actor as well as making sure the actor is follow their directions. In a well run set, the armorer should be the one handing the gun off.

Some actors want to personally ensure the weapon is safe too. IIRC Steve Buschemi refuses to work with weapons that hasn't been shown to be unloaded to him directly.

In this shoot it looks like the armorer left the weapons unattended among other major problems.

I think I can see that in a professional setting. I guess working with Boy Scouts, I come from a paranoid perspective. I was told during my training that you become a range officer the day a loaded firearm is pointed in your direction. That happened to me my second week on the job. Thank heavens the safety on this old .22 still worked when this kid came up behind me as I was working with another kid.
 
Upvote 0

spiritfilledjm

Well-known Member
Supporter
Apr 15, 2007
1,844
1,642
37
Indianapolis, Indiana
✟225,404.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
My understanding is that is generally not how it works on movie sets. An armorer is 100% in charge of the weapons. They don't want the actors messing something up that could cause dangerous problems down the road, so the armorer is supposed to be the professional that ensures everything is set up properly; they are supposed to keep an eye on the weapon 100% between set up and it being handed to the actor as well as making sure the actor is follow their directions. In a well run set, the armorer should be the one handing the gun off.

Some actors want to personally ensure the weapon is safe too. IIRC Steve Buschemi refuses to work with weapons that hasn't been shown to be unloaded to him directly.

In this shoot it looks like the armorer left the weapons unattended among other major problems.

Which is why the actor should be present and have their undivided attention focused on the weapon if it is being loaded by somebody else. It also should not be loaded until they are about to shoot the scene and the actor is ready to take immediate possession of it for the purpose of shooting the scene in which the firearm is about to be shot. If production or the actor doesn't want to do that than they can use a fake gun and CGI can handle the rest, which, in this day and age, should be exactly what happens. If Hollywood isn't willing to be as safe as possible with firearms than they shouldn't be using real ones.
 
Upvote 0

spiritfilledjm

Well-known Member
Supporter
Apr 15, 2007
1,844
1,642
37
Indianapolis, Indiana
✟225,404.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
They have. Those responsible for handling firearms in movie productions have set onerusly high standards with very detailed precautions that are almost idiot proof. In this case it unfortunately looks like they managed to hire a higher class of idiots to handle their props.

But don't let me derail a perfectly good opportunity to deride big name hollywood actors, as if they are the ones implementing safety protocols among those doing the less glamorous work that makes their industry function.

As the rest of my post stated, there are simple idiot-proof rules that anyone who is handling a firearm is supposed to follow. As soon as the firearm is given to another, the one who takes the firearm is responsible for it, including ensuring that it is loaded correctly, with the correct rounds, and in good working order. Hollywood may hire people that are supposed to do this themselves, but the one ultimately responsible for the weapon at the point discharge occurs is the one holding the firearm. The fact that Baldwin even discharged the firearm directly at a camera with people behind it is a gross negligence of gun safety. The biggest change that needs to happen is that a gun, loaded with a blank or not, should not be discharged if another person is in the way. This includes if somebody else is supposed to be shot in the scene. It is 2021, we have the capability of editing things into film and pictures making it look exactly like the real thing with the naked eye. I mean, the PS5 even has a motorcycle racing game that looks so real one can't even tell that it is a videogame or real.

The legal blame lies on the whole production overall due to the gun safety standards on a set, but in all reality, the blame truly does lie on Baldwin. He was holding the weapon, didn't check it himself, and fired it at a camera with people behind it. I don't say this to deride Baldwin or anything, it's just simple gun safety facts and if this was anything other than a Hollywood set, there would be charges filed against Baldwin.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

mala

fluffy lion
Dec 5, 2002
3,379
2,520
✟260,424.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Single
I've never seen a gun accidentally fire itself. While lamestream media may call it a misfire, it is not. With a misfire the primer fails to ignite and it doesn't fire.
okay well that was a meaningless bit of info used to bash the media for no reason. did you earn your chicken tendies?
 
Upvote 0

GreekOrthodox

Psalti Chrysostom
Oct 25, 2010
4,121
4,187
Yorktown VA
✟176,292.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
The legal blame lies on the whole production overall due to the gun safety standards on a set, but in all reality, the blame truly does lie on Baldwin. He was holding the weapon, didn't check it himself, and fired it at a camera with people behind it. I don't say this to deride Baldwin or anything, it's just simple gun safety facts and if this was anything other than a Hollywood set, there would be charges filed against Baldwin.

While I agree with you on the logic, I am thinking that the prop master would held legally liable as they are to ensure the safety on the set. If this was some explosive where the actor presses a "blow-up button", and someone is harmed, I can't see where the actor would be held liable.

upload_2021-10-25_17-20-34.jpeg
 
Upvote 0

stevil

Godless and without morals
Feb 5, 2011
6,969
5,733
✟247,488.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
The legal blame lies on the whole production overall due to the gun safety standards on a set, but in all reality, the blame truly does lie on Baldwin. He was holding the weapon, didn't check it himself, and fired it at a camera with people behind it. I don't say this to deride Baldwin or anything, it's just simple gun safety facts and if this was anything other than a Hollywood set, there would be charges filed against Baldwin.
In my unqualified opinion, I wouldn't default to blaming the actor.
I don't know if the actor is expected to be qualified in handing firearms, or needs to have a firearms licence (I don't know USA gun laws).

In NZ I can not own a gun without a firearms license, but I can use one, under the supervision of the person who is responsible for the gun. That person would have a firearms license, would have undergone training and would ensure I have the knowledge I need to have and that I practice safety first. They would be there with me, watching, observing and giving instruction if need be. They would ensure the gun is in a safe condition and that the correct ammunition is in the gun. That I am in the correct place before I am handling the gun and that I am pointing it in the right direction and that safety is adhered to.
As long as I am not being an idiot, as long as I am following instructions then I would assume most culpability would be on the person in charge of the gun, not me.

In a business, like a movie making business there would also probably be culpability on the company to have policies in place, to hire the right people and to take action to ensure a safe workplace.

I don't know where the failings were in this specific case, and I am following, and will find out when these are disclosed.
It is very unfortunate for all, for the immediate victim, for their family and loved ones, for the actor who squeezed the trigger, for the director, for the props person, for the person in charge of the gun, for the producers of the movie, for everyone involved. This appears to be an unintended incident. Sad situation all around.
 
Upvote 0

Palmfever

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 5, 2019
647
349
Hawaii
✟146,121.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
And to add to the post before my last one, that may be what happened here. There may have been some sort of failure and it was not necessarily an actual bullet that caused the death. From a source that knows more than I do on the topic:


"I know a lot of people have asked 'how could this happen?' Well, there are a number of things that could have happened.

"It's possible that the firearm that he was using was loaded with an improper blank, there was something perhaps lodged in the barrel which became a projectile, or the weapon suffered a catastrophic failure and actually blew apart."


Prop Expert Explains How Tragic Alec Baldwin Accident Could Have Happened

Overworking may be part of the problem that led to this tragedy.
Blanks don't have a projectile. They have wadding, paper or cloth to hold the gas in. The cloth can travel, depending on the load 20-30 ft. from what I've seen in starter guns. Not enough to go through someone and penetrate another standing behind. A weapon that blows apart injures the shooter since it "blows apart" in his hand. metal fragments can travel in various directions though not with the force of an actual bullet. Bullets travel with force because the explosion is contained and focused behind the bullet, then propelled through the barrel usually rifled for spin and efficiency. Your friends slightly potential scenario would be something in the barrel in front of the blank. It would travel with less force and accuracy however and is unlikely.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: anna ~ grace
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

renniks

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2008
10,682
3,445
✟149,430.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
They have. Those responsible for handling firearms in movie productions have set onerusly high standards with very detailed precautions that are almost idiot proof. In this case it unfortunately looks like they managed to hire a higher class of idiots to handle their props.

But don't let me derail a perfectly good opportunity to deride big name hollywood actors, as if they are the ones implementing safety protocols among those doing the less glamorous work that makes their industry function.
The buck stops with the producer doesn't it? That is Baldwin.
 
Upvote 0

Desk trauma

Front row at the dumpster fire of the republic
Supporter
Dec 1, 2011
20,193
16,172
✟1,173,411.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
The buck stops with the producer doesn't it? That is Baldwin.
Checking IMDB that is:

Alec Baldwin...producer
Kc Brandenstein...co-producer
Allen Cheney...executive producer
Matt DelPiano...producer
Tyler Gould...executive producer
Matthew Helderman...executive producer
Nathan Klingher...producer
Anjul Nigam...producer
Emily Hunter Salveson...executive producer
Ryan Donnell Smith...producer
Luke Taylor...executive producer
Ryan Winterstern...producer
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Goonie
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Tanj

Redefined comfortable middle class
Mar 31, 2017
7,682
8,316
59
Australia
✟277,286.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Blanks don't have a projectile. They have wadding, paper or cloth to hold the gas in. The cloth can travel, depending on the load 20-30 ft. from what I've seen in starter guns. Not enough to go through someone and penetrate another standing behind. A weapon that blows apart injures the shooter since it "blows apart" in his hand. metal fragments can travel in various directions though not with the force of an actual bullet. Bullets travel with force because the explosion is contained and focused behind the bullet, then propelled through the barrel usually rifled for spin and efficiency. Your friends slightly potential scenario would be something in the barrel in front of the blank. It would travel with less force and accuracy however and is unlikely.

But not impossible, since that's effectively what killed Brandon Lee.
 
Upvote 0