So has this only happenned twice ever? Pretty good all things considered.
Alec Baldwin fatally shoots woman with prop gun on movie set
- Thread starter Fridge chutney
- Start date
Its a fair point. Maybe any actor required to use firearms, cold or otherwise, should have to take a short training exercise before filming. Spend an hour or two explaining or reminding people on how to handle the weapons. It seems simple enough safety check now that you've explained it but i wouldn't have the first clue otherwise. Expecting people to be familiar with historical weapons isn't a great plan. The potential damage of a mistake is just so high.
I strongly disagree. I have fired thousands of rounds, I was a range conducting officer and instructed on various firearms like the SA80 in the RAF, and I couldn't be more clear in my mind on this.
If you are holding a gun, you have a personal responsibility to know how to use it, clear it and make it safe (and know what good muzzle and trigger discipline is). You don't, ever, take anyone else word for it. It doesn't matter if you are an actor or not. For an actor you could literally teach them what they needed to know in 15 mins or less, we aren't talking of hours in the classroom.
The wider picture emerging is one of Baldwins company playing fast and loose with gun safety. Overall it's a terrible incident with a catastrophic outcome. He isn't some punter who appeared at the TA open day. He is a vastly experienced actor who has used firearms on many occasions on sets. You can't absolve him of all responsibility in this incident even though it was a chain of failures from the (his) production company. How can you move responsibility to a specialist when they hired an inexperienced armorer in the first place who then let the Assistant Director hand the gun to Baldwin.
The Caf can create a multi page argument out of literally anything 
Is it easy or not?
More than one person should be checking a real firearm used on set you would think, not just all falling on the prop guy or armorer.
Including the actors as well, they're paid enough to not be mindless drones, even if intellectually they mostly are, and check the chamber and barrel themselves, it's not rocket science.
Including the actors as well, they're paid enough to not be mindless drones, even if intellectually they mostly are, and check the chamber and barrel themselves, it's not rocket science.
You're not being objective though, you're judging it from the perspective of someone who is first hand familiar with firearms and firearms safety procedures.
If a vehicle expert told you to get in a car and drive it at 100mph at a brick wall, that the breaks were fine and would stop you slamming into that wall, would you be at fault if the breaks failed?
Absolute nonsense, I've worked at gun ranges for 20 years, I can't tell you the number of times where I've had inexperienced shooters do the most inexplicably dangerous shit 5 minutes after a safety briefing.
30 mins instruction to a soldier or a hunter is entirely different to 30 mins instruction to a stag party / actor.
Wouldn't be surprised if that's true
There's a difference in being a competent armorer on a movie set and being able to clear a firearm.
It makes sense as it reduces their liability in case of something like this and leaves it in the hands of professionals
If I could act, I wouldn't know the first thing about guns so i'd trust the expert.
Last edited:
I know.
How did you quote my deleted post?
I literally deleted it almost immediately because I just couldn't be bothered to get involved in this thread battle.
Anyhow, an actor has a right to question and check a gun status on set, however, it isn't their responsibility re loading props etc in the outset..
Obviously some actors will have done a form of gun training or firearm practice depending on the role etc, but ultimately, if they literally gave just one scene where a gun may be used, they may not need to go that far re learning to deeply etc.
Anyhow, just wanted to clarify, but I did remove post immediately, so weird you were able to somehow quote it after the fact.
Ding ding ding.
In Spain this can't happen as the props gun have a smaller chamber than the real bullets, so it would not work with them. Shouldn't that difficult
"Load or not, a weapon even if on stage it is never aimed at another human being". Set gun expert Bryan Carpenter tells the New York Post, pointing out how Alec Baldwin violated rule number one on set gun safety.
Because he's been handed something he ought to know how to use it. The very basic safety measure at least.
Look at any situation where you are handed a piece of kit that can do damage in the workplace. You'd expect a rational user to request training on how to use it without causing harm.
If someone handed me a gun I'd be nervous of it.
Anyway I'm not saying he's totally to blame. There seems to have been a completely breakdown in safety procedures and him being handed a loaded gun is just a part of it.
The real issue is why there is a need for real bullets?
Instead of further speculating blindly, or quoting and commenting on other people blindly speculating, maybe we should try to take notice of the what we can actually know about what happened.
For that, I'll quote from a piece in the LA Times
https://www.latimes.com/entertainme.../alec-baldwin-rust-camera-crew-walked-off-set
So from that:
- Baldwin was told the gun was "cold" i.e. not loaded.
- he wasn't pointing it at the DP and director for a scene and wouldn't have had to point it either once shooting began, as they'd have monitored from a distance.
Answers a few things we were speculating about.
Yep.
Been reading around a bit more and it's interesting how culpable Baldwin is and whether that could lead to any kind of punishment. I generally agree that putting the blame on him is incredibly harsh and from the information we have, it seems like a very unfortunate accident from his perspective. But he was also the producer on the film and one lawyer was saying this could actually make him way more culpable and he may bear more responsibility, depending on if he is just an investor or had a more active role in the making of the film.
Based on what's been said by experts, actors do get instructions on how to use the guns, they are informed of the safety rules, and they are supposed to be supervised any time they're handling a functional firearm, regardless of whether it's hot or cold. So Baldwin should have been aware that he wasn't supposed to be using that gun without the armorer present, and should have known that pointing it another person is something you never, under any circumstance, do.
At this point, the only way he's free from blame is if he genuinely thought it was an inert prop.
I dont see any situation where he's totally free from blame.
He has to live with it now
I'd forgotten about the reports of several misfires/negligent discharges in the days leading up to the accident as well.
Mind-boggling amounts of stupidity from him, the AD and the armorer.
How is an actor to know what is safe or not safe unless they have personal gun experience? They may not even be able to tell the difference between a prop gun and a real gun with blanks or similar. If Baldwin is liable it will be due to his role as a producer and not because he held the gun, unless there is something incriminating that we haven't heard yet.
Not taking sides, this could happen to anyone in the industry, even Clint Eastwood.
For that matter anyone firing a gun or it's realistic alternative with still somewhat gunpowder like, pirotechnic material in it, pulling a trigger, chaining a sudden chemical & physical reaction that creates smaller type explosion and in case of faulty round, it's micro parts being released through a barrel which is pointed in proximity to real people... sounds to me like automatically taking some serious responsibilities.
Whole thing is so complicated so glad at least there's complex investigation in place, weapon failure could also backifired on Alec Baldwin to the point of making him same harm. It's not looking good from every possible perspective.
The thing that pisses me off with guns, gunpowder & pirotechnics is that was all invented long before movie industry and it had one purpose only, kill a raging bear with least amount of shots or stopping bandits from taking everything from you in the middle of nowhere. So even if you bring a toy gun on the movie set and still loading it with gunpowder, it stops being just a toy.
Movie making techniques getting advanced in every aspect, but for western like productions perhaps producers are opting more traditional / obscure way of shooting it ? Wondering who was the prop's producer on this, if this is a factory defect then we're having a bigger case than just Alec Baldwin being handed quasi-weapon on set.
For that matter anyone firing a gun or it's realistic alternative with still somewhat gunpowder like, pirotechnic material in it, pulling a trigger, chaining a sudden chemical & physical reaction that creates smaller type explosion and in case of faulty round, it's micro parts being released through a barrel which is pointed in proximity to real people... sounds to me like automatically taking some serious responsibilities.
Whole thing is so complicated so glad at least there's complex investigation in place, weapon failure could also backifired on Alec Baldwin to the point of making him same harm. It's not looking good from every possible perspective.
The thing that pisses me off with guns, gunpowder & pirotechnics is that was all invented long before movie industry and it had one purpose only, kill a raging bear with least amount of shots or stopping bandits from taking everything from you in the middle of nowhere. So even if you bring a toy gun on the movie set and still loading it with gunpowder, it stops being just a toy.
Movie making techniques getting advanced in every aspect, but for western like productions perhaps producers are opting more traditional / obscure way of shooting it ? Wondering who was the prop's producer on this, if this is a factory defect then we're having a bigger case than just Alec Baldwin being handed quasi-weapon on set.
Last edited:
How the hell does something like this even happen. Like seriously, how?
This also happened to Bruce Lee's son Brandon which killed him on set.
How on earth do you load guns with real bullets on a movie set?
It all sounds like a sick joke to me. I seriously can't understand it.
This also happened to Bruce Lee's son Brandon which killed him on set.
How on earth do you load guns with real bullets on a movie set?
It all sounds like a sick joke to me. I seriously can't understand it.
This is a very informative thread on how gun safety is handled on movie sets, written by a movie armorer. I've seen these same views echoed by numerous others.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Baldwin's been waving guns around on screen for 30 years, so he's definitely familiar with how seriously gun safety is normally taken on sets. If reports are accurate; he accepted a gun from someone who wasn't the armorer, without the armorer present, without having seen the gun be cleared, then proceeded to play around with it. On a set where there had been repeated misfires/negligent discharges.
Even if his interest in gun is nonexistent, he's not some complete novice. He's held real firearms on numerous occasions, he's been taught how to use them, what to do and what not to do. He's aware of the amount of work that goes into planning and choreographing shootout scenes to ensure everything is safe. He obviously had no way of knowing, and no reason to suspect there'd ever be real ammo in the gun. However, he would have been aware that even blanks can cause serious injury or death, so there really is no excuse for him going along with flaunting standard safety procedures.
Still, I feel sorry for him. On any other set, the likely outcome of doing what he did would likely be no more than ringing ears for those present.
Cameraman Reid Russell told a detective the camera was not rolling when the gun went off, striking and killing cinematographer Ms Hutchins.
He added that Baldwin was very careful when handling firearms on set, and recalled an instance when the actor made sure a child actor was not near him when a gun was being discharged.
Baldwin, 63, was rehearsing a scene on Thursday in which he was set to draw his gun while sitting in a church pew and point it at the camera, according to court documents released on Sunday.
He drew the revolver across his body when the weapon fired and struck the cinematographer, Mr Souza told a detective.
Mr Souza also stated that because of his job he was focusing on the monitors of the cameras and screens when the incident took place.
He added that Baldwin was very careful when handling firearms on set, and recalled an instance when the actor made sure a child actor was not near him when a gun was being discharged.
Baldwin, 63, was rehearsing a scene on Thursday in which he was set to draw his gun while sitting in a church pew and point it at the camera, according to court documents released on Sunday.
He drew the revolver across his body when the weapon fired and struck the cinematographer, Mr Souza told a detective.
Mr Souza also stated that because of his job he was focusing on the monitors of the cameras and screens when the incident took place.
You need to post the source if you're going to quote articles.
Sky News*
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-59055138
The assistant director of Rust, Dave Halls, had been sacked from a previous production over gun safety violations.
The assistant director of Rust, Dave Halls, had been sacked from a previous production over gun safety violations.
It'd be one thing to hand him a 'cold' gun that had blanks in it in error, its entirely another level of inprobability to hand him one with a live round in it. Has to be intentional surely?
If the reports are right, it's a set discipline issue. Allegedly the AD picked the gun up from the armorer's trolley - whereas normally the armorer or propmaster would be on set to give it to the AD. It also sounds like the AD didn't check the gun before passing it on to the actor.
Was the gun untouched between the armorer preparing it and the AD picking it up? Maybe not. At any rate, it's supposed to be the case that multiple checks occur so a single error can't become a tragedy. It sounds like that chain of checks failed horribly.
I read in The Telegraph (paywalled) that there was a lot of live ammunition on the set and that some of the staff had just been messing about shooting tin cans, whch wasn't an unusual thing for them to do. The gun that Baldwin shot was one of the guns they'd been using to shoot cans.
Too many rules broken and unfortunately a completely dangerous lack of care on someone's part - but not Baldwin's fault, in my opinion.
Too many rules broken and unfortunately a completely dangerous lack of care on someone's part - but not Baldwin's fault, in my opinion.
As a producer sure he has some blame on it
Same in the US because that wasn’t a prop gun but a replica of a 1800’s gun, in other words that was a real gun and the guy who survived had a real bullet in his shoulder, now the big question: they say they should be using a prop gun in a rehearsal, they told the actor the gun was cold he shoots the gun makes a big bang then he shoots again…wait they told you the gun was cold shouldn’t you stop immediately and request an explanation why the gun wasn’t cold?
Edit: just read was only one shot
Last edited:
It was probably an accidental discharge while he was practicing removing it from the holster, which is pretty common.