Alec Baldwin accidentally shoots cinematographer Halyna Hutchins dead on set.

[essentialsaltes]

Latest news is that crew members took the guns out for 'plinking' at beer cans (obviously with live rounds) a few hours before the accident.

From the same article, it notes there had been similar accidents on the set a few days before.

Prior incidents reported on set
There were at least two accidental prop gun discharges on the "Rust" set in the days before the fatal shooting, according to multiple news reports.
The discharges occurred on October 16, when crew members accidentally fired two rounds after being told the gun was "cold," the Los Angeles Times reported, citing two crew members who reportedly witnessed the incident.

And the AD who handed Baldwin the gun (saying it was 'cold' (i.e. empty of anything)) was fired from a set in 2019 for a similar mistake.

The assistant director who handed Alec Baldwinthe gun that killed cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on a movie set last week had been fired from a film in 2019 after a gun unexpectedly discharged on the set, injuring a crew member, a producer for that film said Monday.

I think the direct blame falls on the armorer and AD (or whoever else was supposed to check the gun as a backup to the armorer). But given the previous accidents, complaints by other crew, and some of the crew walking off set, the production knew something was wrong and didn't seem to take much action to correct it.

 

[RDKirk]

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.

This was an actual bullet, not a blank.

It has been suggested (no actual statements on record) that some crew members were using the guns for off-production target practice. If that's the case, that was most definitely a grievous fault of the armorer, who should have sequestered production property from any off-production uses...for a number of reasons. Would they, for instance, take a production property car out on a joy ride? I'd hope not.

 

[RDKirk]

Yes, a live bullet is an actual bullet, which should have never been confused with a blank... You can see the difference, where one has a lead piece at the end that shoots out, while the other has folded over ends where the projectile would be.

I'd point out, though, that the guns being used were replicas of western-style Colt single action revolvers. Several companies (including Colt) make such guns. One of the important factors, though, is that a shooter would check whether the gun is loaded by opening the "gate" to get a view of a single chamber of the cylinder. The shooter would see only the base of the cartridge and would not be able to tell if it were the expected blank or an actual bulleted round.

Only the person who loaded the gun would know...unless the shooter pointed the gun at himself so that he could see the bullets from the front of the chambers, which is also a definite no-no that no shooter would do.

 

[RDKirk]

Yeah, I haven't read too much on the case. If this is due to some negligence on his part I wouldn't mind if he got some prison time. Nothing severe, but maybe a few years. Especially if he careless was shooting the gun around. Even a prop gun you shouldn't play around like that.. considering this has happened in the movie business before. He is a veteran in Hollywood after all.

Let me point out that "prop" merely means it's the "property" of the production company. It does not mean "fake."

 

[RDKirk]

At the moment it is looking like he was handed a prop gun assured that it was a 'cold gun' and he was working rather than goofing around. If true his liability is solely as that of a producer.

Although it does appear that his liability as producer can include criminal liability. That's why John Landis was brought up on criminal charges after the on-set death of actor Vic Morrow while shooting the Twilight Zone movie. Landis was acquitted in court...but the criminal charges were genuine.

 

[spiritfilledjm]

So, ultimately, Hollywood needs to be practicing the same safety standards when handling a firearm that normal people are supposed to. Meaning that, at the very least, the person on set responsible for the firearm needs to show the actor that the firearm is not loaded. Saying cold or hot is not good enough. Also, if the actor is going to be practicing his or her quick-draw (as recent reports have stated Baldwin was doing) or anything else with the firearm, they need to be facing away from people, loaded or not. That alone would have prevented this tragedy from occurring.

That's just the bottom line ultimately. There needs to be a complete overhaul of the safety standards on set when it comes to firearms. Without that, and practicing the same basic firearm safety that firearm owners are supposed to follow, this will continue to happen.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Let me point out that "prop" merely means it's the "property" of the production company. It does not mean "fake."

Thanks, I was unaware of that.

 

[RDKirk]

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."

Remember that all kinds of actors (including child actors) handle all kinds of guns (including child actors and automatic weapons with rather complex "manuals of arms"). The actors are concentrating on remembering their lines and doing the proper emoting. That's why movie sets have union-wage "armorers" in addition to property masters whose sole job is to make sure the weapons are safe. There was actually a person on the set who had only one job: To make sure the gun was safe.

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.)

They often, however, do get behind the camera for whatever reasons they want to. And of course, in movies guns are always pointed at things nobody really wants destroyed. Let's face it: Basic firearm rules are not practicable on a movie set. That's why they have an armorer making a union salary whose one job is to make sure the guns are safe.

 

[RDKirk]

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

The wad from a blank would not pass completely through one person and strike another.

 

[RDKirk]

Latest news is that crew members took the guns out for 'plinking' at beer cans (obviously with live rounds) a few hours before the accident.

From the same article, it notes there had been similar accidents on the set a few days before.

Prior incidents reported on set
There were at least two accidental prop gun discharges on the "Rust" set in the days before the fatal shooting, according to multiple news reports.
The discharges occurred on October 16, when crew members accidentally fired two rounds after being told the gun was "cold," the Los Angeles Times reported, citing two crew members who reportedly witnessed the incident.

And the AD who handed Baldwin the gun (saying it was 'cold' (i.e. empty of anything)) was fired from a set in 2019 for a similar mistake.

The assistant director who handed Alec Baldwinthe gun that killed cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on a movie set last week had been fired from a film in 2019 after a gun unexpectedly discharged on the set, injuring a crew member, a producer for that film said Monday.

I think the direct blame falls on the armorer and AD (or whoever else was supposed to check the gun as a backup to the armorer). But given the previous accidents, complaints by other crew, and some of the crew walking off set, the production knew something was wrong and didn't seem to take much action to correct it.

If this is true (and I'm inclined to believe it, because how otherwise would .44 Long Colt ammunition have been anywhere in the area? No modern-style gun accepts it), the armorer should never, ever, have let studio property guns be used for off-production "fun." Certainly, the armorer should have been fired and replaced on October 16. If Baldwin could have made that decision as producer (and I'm sure he could have), he's going to share some liability.

 

[spiritfilledjm]

The wad from a blank would not pass completely through one person and strike another.

In Lee's death it wasn't a wad or anything like that, but a fragment of a bullet that was in the barrel from a previous scene.

 

[RDKirk]

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.

A number of production these days do use CGI to simulate gunfire. I don't know why they all don't...but I suspect this incident will make that a universal practice.

 

[RDKirk]

In Lee's death it wasn't a wad or anything like that, but a fragment of a bullet that was in the chamber from a previous scene.

My reading is that it was a wad from a blank that had been lodged in the gun barrel from a previous scene. That situation can easily happen, and a wad from a blank can kill at close range. I've been shooting for nearly fifty years, and I can't image a circumstance of a "fragment of a bullet in the chamber."

 

[spiritfilledjm]

My reading is that it was a wad from a blank that had been lodged in the gun barrel from a previous scene. That situation can easily happen, and a wad from a blank can kill at close range. I've been shooting for nearly fifty years, and I can't image a circumstance of a "fragment of a bullet in the chamber."

On-set deaths from prop guns are rare — but not unheard of

Ok, it looks like I'm wrong. I know I read one article the other day that stated it was a fragment of a bullet in the chamber but now all the articles I'm finding are saying that it was an actual bullet.

 

[essentialsaltes]

One of the important factors, though, is that a shooter would check whether the gun is loaded by opening the "gate" to get a view of a single chamber of the cylinder. The shooter would see only the base of the cartridge and would not be able to tell if it were the expected blank or an actual bulleted round.

As I understand it, Baldwin was told the gun was 'cold' meaning it should not have had anything in it at all, not even blanks.

Baldwin was apparently practicing a cross-draw. So there was no filming (I almost said shooting) going on. So there was no need for blanks, even.

Your other points about armorers being the professionals with the ultimate responsibility for weapons safety are of course correct. No one should expect 'the talent' to do that.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I'm not even trying to follow this story, but when you're in LA... it's inescapable.

 

[Tinker Grey]

A number of production these days do use CGI to simulate gunfire. I don't know why they all don't...but I suspect this incident will make that a universal practice.

I suspect it is in the name of verisimilitude. You want the actors to respond to the recoil in a believable way. I suppose you could train actors to act as if they felt the recoil, but...

But never mind me, I'm neither actor nor producer.

 

[Goonie]

As I understand it, Baldwin was told the gun was 'cold' meaning it should not have had anything in it at all, not even blanks.

Baldwin was apparently practicing a cross-draw. So there was no filming (I almost said shooting) going on. So there was no need for blanks, even.

Your other points about armorers being the professionals with the ultimate responsibility for weapons safety are of course correct. No one should expect 'the talent' to do that.

Actually if guns of any description are on set the actors who would be handling them should know and practice gun safety. Maybe the actors guild should launch a gun safety qualified course/accreditation. If you want to point a prop gun at someone you should be aware of gun safety.

 

[Desk trauma]

I suspect it is in the name of verisimilitude. You want the actors to respond to the recoil in a believable way. I suppose you could train actors to act as if they felt the recoil, but...

But never mind me, I'm neither actor nor producer.

Off the top of my also non-industry involved head I don't think it would be so hard to make a prop non-projectile firing gun with internal workings that cause enough kick back to provide believable visuals or at least ques that an actor could work with. Hopefully that notion isn't unique to me and should it exists it will become more widely used or some prop maker is currently sweating and swearing one into existence in their shop.

An overly dramatic phrase from the industry I am involved in comes to mind: the safety rules are written in blood.

 

[RDKirk]

I suspect it is in the name of verisimilitude. You want the actors to respond to the recoil in a believable way. I suppose you could train actors to act as if they felt the recoil, but...

The first time my daughter fired a pistol, she looked over at me and exclaimed, "Movies lie!"

I'll need to look more closely, but I don't think I've ever seen recoil in a movie displayed as it should naturally be shown.