Alec Baldwin update

[Skans]

SOMEONE placed genuine ammo in the gun - the name of that person and his story needs to come out.

Also, why was Baldwin goofing around with that gun - it wasn't a part of the scene apparently. This information needs to be explored to expose the truth as well. Baldwin probably will not speak, so it will have to come out through others.

 

[HiBC]

First, its 2021 (at the time) 100% faithful non firing prop guns have been around for a LONG time. Even real guns modified so they won't accept live ammo have been around for a LONG time. Why did they "need" to use real, functional firearms, at all??
Using actual guns and NOT strictly following ALL the guild and common sense rules was flat out WRONG.

Swirling in the chaos of reported (not necessarily factual) post shooting information
Allegedly, there were three "guns" laying on the bench unsupervised.

One inert composite dummy, one modified to accept only blanks,and the fully functional SAA clone that Baldwin fired. Why was that?

One other far fetched possibility, and it IS a possibility.......

There was a lot of tension on the set. In part,it was about lack of gun safety. Apparently there had been a few "misfires"

I probably have this timeline wrong, but that day Halya was killed,
the story goes:

There was an informal,live ammo target shooting session.

The guns were unsupervised on a bench

A majority of the crew walked off the set due to grievances. Gun safety among them.

Now....Most of us have heard of some evil psycho going to a gun show and slipping a live round into a gun on a table and walking away.

No,I don't know that a crew member with a grievance loaded the gun.

I'd say its unlikely. But its still a way to explain what has not been explained.

How did a live round get put in the cylinder?

 

[reddog81]

SOMEONE placed genuine ammo in the gun - the name of that person and his story needs to come out.

That's what I want to know. Whoever loaded it with live ammo knowing the gun would be fired on the movie set made the biggest mistake. Maybe the cameraman or someone else would have died/been hit instead of Halnya but either way that gun was going to go off next time it was used.

 

[Paul B.]

"Now....Most of us have heard of some evil psycho going to a gun show and slipping a live round into a gun on a table and walking away.

No,I don't know that a crew member with a grievance loaded the gun.

I'd say its unlikely. But its still a way to explain what has not been explained."

You just may have a point there. All the attention is focused on Baldwin. What about the rest of the crew? If such was the case, it would have to be someone who had some experience with a single action revolver or just loaded all six chamber with the live rounds.
The point is someone loaded that gun with the live ammo. The question is who?
I wonder? Just how deeply is law enforcement looking into the rest of the crew? Looks to me there's a lot of worms in that can.
Paul B.

 

[44 AMP]

I would love to see this matter actually go to trial, not so much for the verdict, but for the investigation and sworn testimony (hopefully) answering these questions and pinning facts down.

I doubt I would watch it if it were televised, and reading the media's "interpretations" of each day's court theater is simply a waste of my time, but being able to eventually read the facts and testimony in evidence to see which of our questions get answered, and which do not is something I would be interested in knowing.

There are many possible scenarios about how the gun got loaded, left and ended up in Baldwin's hands, ranging from simple ignorance, carelessness and misfeasance of obligation all the way to deliberate, intentional malfeasance with the intent to cause harm.

The chain of evidence is solid and clear, from the time the Sherrif's deputies took possession of the gun, but before that, its spotty and hazy and THAT matters a lot.

Some of what we currently "know" is probably incorrect. Certainly some of what has already been reported is incorrect. The only certainty so far is that the gun didn't load, aim, cock, and fire itself.

A trial may not reveal the entire truth, but what it does reveal will be the "official" truth, and I'm curious what that will turn out to be.

 

[JohnKSa]

What do you think would happen if this occurred in military range qualifications, and
the armorer handed out weapons at that range saying "...it's unloaded..." (?)

Something ENTIRELY different given that the situation was ENTIRELY different.

In the situation you describe, they are not to point guns at others unless they mean to kill them. On a set, that is absolutely not the case.

...the movie industry rules when real guns are involved.

That's what should be the focus. Pretending that this should be judged exactly the same as if it happened elsewhere is like charging a surgeon with assault for cutting someone in the operating room or charging a racecar driver for negligence for driving fast on the track. The context is absolutely critical. Trying to take it out of the proper context results in nonsensical conclusions.

 

[mehavey]

We will agree to disagree.
Every practical rule was broken -- from start to finish.
Baldwin's role was in violation of those rules at every step, including the last one.

 

[dahermit]

Every practical rule was broken -- from start to finish.

He broke this one also: "Never point a gun at anything you do not want to destroy." However, that rule is broken frequently on movie sets and it is likely that any movie with a gun in it could not be made if that rule was not violated. My point is that movie sets have different norms than life in general.

 

[Rob228]

"Never point a gun at anything you do not want to destroy." However, that rule is broken frequently on movie sets and it is likely that any movie with a gun in it could not be made if that rule was not violated.

This is where the "Swiss cheese" method of safety comes into play: there are supposed to be a sufficient amount of differing safety protocols so that if any one is violated there are others to catch it; if you have five slices of Swiss cheese stacked up odds are there won't be any set of five holes aligned.

Personal feelings set aside, I would certainly like to know the chain of events that led up to this happening.

 

[44 AMP]

I wonder if it doesn't just come down to a matter of money. Is it cheaper for a movie production to simply rent actual functional firearms than it is for them to rent or otherwise obtain non-functional replicas???

Even if it is, I can't help but wonder about the cost savings balancing the needed cost for safety when real firearms are used on the set.

With movies having budgets running to millions of dollars these days, where does what can only be a small amount of saving really matter, when the possible alternative can be human death?

They've been using reasonably realistic looking rubber prop guns when actors have to do stunts for a long time. Those guns look ok at a distance and are generally not shown close up, and go a long way to helping prevent injury when an actor or stuntman has to jump, fall or do something active while holding a gun.

(though sometimes goofs do get through, there's one in Dirty Harry where you can clearly see the barrel of Harry's "S&W" flex when he jumps onto a ladder...) Anyway rubber prop guns have been in use for generations.

Likewise metal & wood/plastic "replica" guns which look identical to actual firearms but cannot chamber or fire actual ammunition have also been around for as long. I've even owned some.

And then, there are actual firearms that have been modified to only take special blank ammo, and cannot fire live ammo, which have also been around for a long, long time.

And the final group are actual, functional firearms, being used to only fire blank ammo, which have been in use about as long as we've been making movies. The industry has developed an elaborate series of procedures and protocols to protect everyone on the set when actual functional guns are in use, and they do a good job, but, of course they have to be FOLLOWED, not ignored or they don't work.

Obviously. this was not done on the set of "Rust" or we wouldn't have had the accidental death and injury. Many are saying the rules weren't followed and corners were cut to "save money", but I have to wonder, wouldn't actual non firing props have done the same job for the camera and been cheaper??

(and I mean cheaper if they had not had the accident at all?)

I'm not calling for a law or guild rule absolutely prohibiting actual firearms in films, but with todays tech, shouldn't it be an industry "best practice" recommendation?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I wonder if it doesn't just come down to a matter of money. Is it cheaper for a movie production to simply rent actual functional firearms than it is for them to rent or otherwise obtain non-functional replicas???

Even if it is, I can't help but wonder about the cost savings balancing the needed cost for safety when real firearms are used on the set.

With movies having budgets running to millions of dollars these days, where does what can only be a small amount of saving really matter, when the possible alternative can be human death?

Several years ago one of the Italian clone makers (I think it was Uberti, but it might have been Pietta) made a big deal about introducing a fully functional but non-firing dummy SAA intended specifically for cowboy action and quick draw competitors to use for safe practice. IIRC, the dummy guns were made on the same production line as the standard revolvers, but the cylinders weren't bored out completely -- and the cylinders were pinned in place, so they couldn't be removed and replaced with functional cylinders.

I remember this showing up in many of the "gun" magazines when it was introduced, and then it seemed to disappear. I have no idea if it's still being offered. Does anyone know? I would think something like this would be a natural for use on movie sets.

 

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by Aguila Blanca
Several years ago one of the Italian clone makers (I think it was Uberti, but it might have been Pietta) made a big deal about introducing a fully functional but non-firing dummy SAA intended specifically for cowboy action and quick draw competitors to use for safe practice. IIRC, the dummy guns were made on the same production line as the standard revolvers, but the cylinders weren't bored out completely -- and the cylinders were pinned in place, so they couldn't be removed and replaced with functional cylinders.

I remember this showing up in many of the "gun" magazines when it was introduced, and then it seemed to disappear. I have no idea if it's still being offered. Does anyone know? I would think something like this would be a natural for use on movie sets.

I remember this too, as I recall it was called the "Dry Fire" or something to that effect (I think Pietta made it, but I can't remember for sure). I seem to remember it being touted as perfect for people who make a show out of twirling revolvers for wild west shows and the like.

Of course it isn't all that hard to modify and existing SAA or Clone to be non-firing. I've caught glimpses of SAA-type revolvers with their firing pins ground down so that they can't ignite a primer in a few different movies and TV shows over the years. Also, it shouldn't be all that difficult to simply fill the chambers with some sort of plug or epoxy to keep cartridges from being inserted.

 

[HiBC]

I do not know if Baldin participated in the recreational live fire session.

I read that one thing Baldwin and Halya were working on at the time of the accident was the details of the gun handling and how it appeared on screen.
Baldwin was working with how the hammer was thumbed,etc. (As I understand it. I can't document it . I could be wrong. I'm trying to understand)

It might make sense to me that if Baldwin was looking for the "Nuance" of his gun handling, he might choose the particular "real gun" he had been getting familar with.

I am very curious 1) If Baldwin participated in the live ammo practice shooting.

2) If Baldwin was live ammo practicing to develop a familiarity and "bond" with that particular handgun

3) If Baldwin live fired that gun ,that day, then selected that gun to use in the experimental scene they were shooting.

4) Did Baldwin adopt that handgun as " Gunslinger Baldwin's(the Boss's) Gun" for the movie. Or was it just an "Every Actor rack prop"

IMO, if Baldwin identified it as "His Gun" for the movie, he is more likely to be the one responsible for the live round just from fiddling with it.

 

[zeke]

Something ENTIRELY different given that the situation was ENTIRELY different.

In the situation you describe, they are not to point guns at others unless they mean to kill them. On a set, that is absolutely not the case.That's what should be the focus. Pretending that this should be judged exactly the same as if it happened elsewhere is like charging a surgeon with assault for cutting someone in the operating room or charging a racecar driver for negligence for driving fast on the track. The context is absolutely critical. Trying to take it out of the proper context results in nonsensical conclusions.

Am politely disagreeing. What would happen if a surgeon cut out the wrong organ and the person died? Aside from the civil suits? Imo, movie "guidelines/codes/whatever" do not take the place of criminal, or civil law.

So who actually enforces, and what are the penalties for the movie "guidelines"? Imo, that's all they are, is just guidelines.

 

[JohnKSa]

Every practical rule was broken -- from start to finish.

Context is critical. An actor on a movie set lives by a different set of rules. The armorer who was responsible for ensuring safety in the context of a set failed to do her job properly.

My point is that movie sets have different norms than life in general.

Exactly correct.

What would happen if a surgeon cut out the wrong organ and the person died?

As I said, the fact that a surgeon can cut someone in context of the operating room without being charged with assault does not absolve him of all responsibility. If he cuts the wrong person, that's negligence and he is liable for damages and could be charged for criminal negligence as well. But he won't be charged with assault for cutting someone, he will be charged with negligence for cutting the WRONG person.

So who actually enforces, and what are the penalties for the movie "guidelines"? Imo, that's all they are, is just guidelines.

No one is going to be charged with "violating movie guidelines", if the circumstances warrant charges, they could be something like negligent homicide which is certainly a criminal charge. And, of course there will also be civil liability.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Context is critical. An actor on a movie set lives by a different set of rules. The armorer who was responsible for ensuring safety in the context of a set failed to do her job properly.

This is true but -- in context -- also untrue. The truth is that she failed to do her job at all on the day in question -- for the simple reason that she wasn't acting as armorer at the time, she was carrying out unrelated, assistant prop master duties. Beyond this, the standard protocol for film sets clearly calls for any "prop" firearm to be loaded by the armorer in the presence of the assistant director, the actor who will be handling the firearm, and any other actors or production staff who will be involved in that scene who care to observe the process. The armorer is supposed to physically shake each dummy round before loading it into the gun, so that everyone can hear the BBs rattle in the case.

In this instance, the armorer wasn't even on the set. She was on the site, but she wasn't on the set. She was off doing other duties. The guns were left on a cart on the set -- so far, nobody appears to have pinned down who loaded them, who put them on the cart, or who put the cart on the set. The assistant director picked up the gun from the cart, announced that it was a "cold gun," and handed it to Baldwin without checking it. Baldwin should have stopped things right there, both in his capacity as a producer AND in his capacity as an actor. As an actor, he must be familiar enough with the rules to know that he should not have accepted a gun from the assistant director without having personally witnessed it being checked and loaded by the missing armorer.

No one is going to be charged with "violating movie guidelines", if the circumstances warrant charges, they could be something like negligent homicide which is certainly a criminal charge. And, of course there will also be civil liability.

But the fact of violating movie guidelines could certainly be an important factor in establishing criminally negligent homicide. After all, those guidelines were established for the express purpose of preventing an incident such as this.

 

[ligonierbill]

And the potential for a criminal charge is why we may never know exactly what happened. Baldwin can point to the assistant director who gave him the gun, the assistant director can point to "whomever" put the gun on the table, the armorer wasn't there. So, no individual to pin it on. But all culpable in some way, and not talking except to minimize their own involvement. Baldwin, though he comes off as a total weinie, may well be following his attorney's advice (although I imagine most legal professionals would promote "The First Rule of Holes"). He has not been in the news much lately, so my guess is he'll pay up and shut up at some point. After enough time has passed, someone will write a book.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

But he has been in the news recently -- about this incident.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/19/entertainment/alec-baldwin-interview-rust-shooting/index.html

He still says it was anybody's fault other than his fault.

 

[ligonierbill]

Yeah, he's dumber than I thought he was. Quit diggin' Alec!

 

[44 AMP]

It doesn't matter what industry you're in, when management sends the safety people to a different part of the jobsite to do something there, where they do not know and cannot monitor what happens at a different part of the jobsite, it is hardly fair, or honest to fault them for not doing "their job" at the accident site.

The fact that management did that, and then went ahead with "work" on the jobsite (in this case the movie set) when they KNEW the safety people were working else where and the work on the set WAS something that SHOULD have involved the safety people, and they went ahead with it, anyway, THAT puts the blame squarely on management.

And, who was management in this case?

Appears to have been the same guy who was holding the gun and pointing it at a person when it went off....and killed them. do keep that in mind when that person suggests who, other than themself is to blame...