Alec Baldwin fired prop gun, killing 1 on movie set, Oct 2021 #5

[RANCH]

If he hadn’t been properly trained to use the equipment, he shouldn’t have been allowed to use the equipment. If I’m not trained to drive the forklift at work, my employer won’t let me drive it and I’m certainly not going to hop on and wing it with risk of being fired.

If there was training and he didn’t attend then he shouldn’t have been allowed to handle the equipment. If there was training and he did attend (usually kept track of by sign-ins) then did he willfully ignore the training or was the training required inadequate? If there was no training then the employer is ultimately responsible.

Instead of “gun” insert any other piece of equipment that requires training to use; fork lift, fall protection system, chemical reactor. Either he was trained and didn’t follow the correct protocols and procedures, the protocols and procedures were flawed or there were no protocols and procedures in place.

Similarly, Baldwin believed, based on prior gun safety training he received on movie sets, that actors should not unilaterally check guns for live ammunition.

It's not surprising that AB received gun safety training over the course of his long movie career.

It will be interesting to see if during this training AB was taught to never point a real live firing gun at a person but instead use a rubber non-firing gun during rehearsals and when practical. JMO.

Alec Baldwin says cinematographer told him to cock gun before fatal 'Rust' shooting: Legal filing

"Alec Baldwin once again is trying to avoid liability and accountability for his reckless actions," attorneys for Halyna Hutchins' family said in a statement.

abc7chicago.com

 

[Marantz4250b]

AB is so used to guns being safe on set he took it for granted. He probably has always fired guns in his movies just by assuming they are safe when handed to him. I like what George Clooney says:

George Clooney speaks out about importance of gun safety on film sets after 'Rust' tragedy

George Clooney recently opened up about the unfortunate incident involving Alec Baldwin and Halyna Hutchins and spoke about gun safety on the sets of films.

www.republicworld.com

George Clooney emphasised the importance of gun safety on set and mentioned that every time he is handed a gun on set, he opens and checks it. He also mentioned that he shows it to the person he will be pointing it at on-screen and to the crew too.

He revealed that he follows the protocol because of what happened to Brandon Lee and it is something everyone on set should follow. He mentioned that he hopes Baldwin did so as well, but also said that 'dummies are tricky' because they look like real rounds.

He mentioned that every time he is handed a 'six-gun' or a gun with six cartridges on set, he points it to the ground and must 'squeeze it six times' before his scene. He mentioned it would be 'insane not to' do so.

I've read Mr Clooney's comments before and I agree with them 100%. He seems to be a genuinely decent, responsible guy.

In my opinion, if a movie set is using firearms then the industry standard operating procedures need to change. From what I can gather, currently, the armourer is the person in charge of the firearms (possibly other weapons) and calls the shots as regards them; he/she looks after them; instructs the actors; maintains safe operating precedures and suchlike.

The problem I see, seems to be that the armourer is not the person in overall control when firearms are being used. I am a qualified Range Conducting Officer for civilian use of MoD ranges in the UK. The RCO is the person in charge of everyone, every thing and every activity on his range from the moment he signs for it until to moment he signs off. Regardless of his rank or privilege he and he alone makes these decisions, regardless of whomever else is present. No one can outrank him, no one can tell what or what not to do and he can require anyone to do anything he likes as long as it's not unlawful.

This, in my opinion, is how a film set should be run. The set should be considered to be a live-firing range when firearms are being used with one single person in overall control. That person should not be the director, the producer or the studio or property owner - it should be the armourer and no use of firearms should take place without the armourer being physically present!

HG-R was apparently not physically present at the time of the shooting. The industry/union rules simply should not have allowed that to be the case and neither should be people carrying the insurance risk, quite frankly. If I, as RCO, am not present when an incident takes place on the range the insurers likely will deny liability.

When you do the training to be qualified as RCO it is made clear to you (and the military who's ranges we use make it very clear) that from the second you sign for it it is YOUR range! That should be the case with a movie set where firearms are in use. No excuses!

 

[10ofRods]

If he hadn’t been properly trained to use the equipment, he shouldn’t have been allowed to use the equipment. If I’m not trained to drive the forklift at work, my employer won’t let me drive it and I’m certainly not going to hop on and wing it with risk of being fired.

If there was training and he didn’t attend then he shouldn’t have been allowed to handle the equipment. If there was training and he did attend (usually kept track of by sign-ins) then did he willfully ignore the training or was the training required inadequate? If there was no training then the employer is ultimately responsible.

Instead of “gun” insert any other piece of equipment that requires training to use; fork lift, fall protection system, chemical reactor. Either he was trained and didn’t follow the correct protocols and procedures, the protocols and procedures were flawed or there were no protocols and procedures in place.

Oddly, it's not clear who the Boss of the set really was. It sounds to me, from all the interviews I've seen and what I've read that Alec was as close to the Boss as he could be - but maybe there was no one in charge. Which is why the Special Prosecutor says the entire production was done in a negligent manner.

All evidence given so far (by Reed, btw) says Alec attended none of the trainings/daily safety meetings. He simply refused. He's refused to show up early in the past (notorious for it on 30Rock so they finally just changed his hours and reduced his number of days while still paying him full wages).

My view is that there was no one at the wheel of this production. That's one of the reasons some crew walked off. That's a reason why those concerned about safety emailed various people, not knowing exactly who was in charge.

Since Reed was banished from the shooting location on set (and she was the person who should have stopped the action when she saw that an actor had been handed a gun not checked in his presence), there was no person to officially call a halt to the use of guns (around which there were so many other safety errors, it's crazy).

Up until that very day, there was one member of the camera crew who used a streaming/capture app to film the filming (for various purposes, but the main one was so that Reed and others who might need to be at the filming site could see what was going on and show up if it was in their purview). That person walked out, and everyone knew that they were now winging it without them all (wardrobe, props, stunt persons, armorer) being able to watch for their cues to step in.

Rust Producers rejected an application from a seasoned armorer, who said that he would need full time pay plus two assistants for such a gun heavy production. Instead, they hired someone with little (and checkered) armorer experience and then relegated her to a mere 8 days of work and mostly she did what she had done on films before (hair and wardrobe).

Her interview on the Voices of the American West podcast is very interesting in light of all this. She admits she had no training and was "figuring things out for herself," and the example she gives is so basic that I could not believe she would be so proud of it and state it out loud in public media. Her dad never "mentored her" according to her.

 

[minazoe]

The armorer..... I would say, after what all she has done, she cannot be trusted. She reportedly has a history of poor gun safety issues.

Who is Hannah Gutierrez-Reed? The 'Rust' armorer who will be charged with involuntary manslaughter alongside Alec Baldwin

Gutierrez-Reed and Baldwin no longer face a firearm enhancement charge as of February 2023, which decreases their potential sentences by five years.

www.insider.com

yes and further more cross draw training has nothing to do with a live round in the chamber of her gun. mOO

 

[10ofRods]

I've read Mr Clooney's comments before and I agree with them 100%. He seems to be a genuinely decent, responsible guy.

In my opinion, if a movie set is using firearms then the industry standard operating procedures need to change. From what I can gather, currently, the armourer is the person in charge of the firearms (possibly other weapons) and calls the shots as regards them; he/she looks after them; instructs the actors; maintains safe operating precedures and suchlike.

The problem I see, seems to be that the armourer is not the person in overall control when firearms are being used. I am a qualified Range Conducting Officer for civilian use of MoD ranges in the UK. The RCO is the person in charge of everyone, every thing and every activity on his range from the moment he signs for it until to moment he signs off. Regardless of his rank or privilege he and he alone makes these decisions, regardless of whomever else is present. No one can outrank him, no one can tell what or what not to do and he can require anyone to do anything he likes as long as it's not unlawful.

This, in my opinion, is how a film set should be run. The set should be considered to be a live-firing range when firearms are being used with one single person in overall control. That person should not be the director, the producer or the studio or property owner - it should be the armourer and no use of firearms should take place without the armourer being physically present!

HG-R was apparently not physically present at the time of the shooting. The industry/union rules simply should not have allowed that to be the case and neither should be people carrying the insurance risk, quite frankly. If I, as RCO, am not present when an incident takes place on the range the insurers likely will deny liability.

When you do the training to be qualified as RCO it is made clear to you (and the military who's ranges we use make it very clear) that from the second you sign for it it is YOUR range! That should be the case with a movie set where firearms are in use. No excuses!

IMO, the rules of ALL the unions involved specifically prohibited guns (rubber or not) being used without the armourer present.

 

[Tbone144]

It's not surprising that AB received gun safety training over the course of his long movie career.

It will be interesting to see if during this training AB was taught to never point a real live firing gun at a person but instead use a rubber non-firing gun during rehearsals and when practical. JMO.

Alec Baldwin says cinematographer told him to cock gun before fatal 'Rust' shooting: Legal filing

"Alec Baldwin once again is trying to avoid liability and accountability for his reckless actions," attorneys for Halyna Hutchins' family said in a statement.

abc7chicago.com

In my industry previous training doesn’t count and training must be conducted by the current employer. Because I have had PPE training drilled into my head for the last 20 years, I still get to have PPE training when I take a new job or fork lift, or laboratory safety.

Furthermore if he’s going to open it up to previous training, it seems if anytime along the way he was taught something contrary to the way he conducted himself he’s opening himself up to willfully ignoring the training.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Wow I cannot believe that the reason a dummy has to be in the gun is because "viewers would be able to tell if the chambers were empty." They can't fix this with special effects? A different camera angle? IMO it is not worth even a slight amount risk just to make a piece of entertainment.

There is an easy around it - just fit it with a cylinder which has fixed inserts to mimic the look of live rounds but which is "blind" (blocked off) at the the end so it's physically impossible to insert anything like a blank.

 

[happyday]

My feeling is that if an actor doesn't want to take the time and effort to learn gun safety, he/she should not take the role. If you have a gun -- whether you are on actor or not -- you need to act with due care. If people are pointing guns at other people, they should know that they could be held criminally liable. Just because everyone does it, doesn't make it acceptable. Maybe this tragedy will teach the industry something they should have understood a long time ago. JMO.

I agree with all this. Hopefully something will change. It’s just unnecessary risk IMO.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I think there is an interview where AB claims that the victim told him to point the gun at her or the camera. Was it in the Stephanopolous interview? If I recall correctly, people were all over him for this explanation --i.e., how convenient that he blames the person who died. JMO.

That was an absolutely despicable and heatless thing to say, imo. It doesn't matter what someone told you to do - you do not point guns at people!!!

 

[Marantz4250b]

Alec Baldwin Will Be Charged With Involuntary Manslaughter in ‘Rust’ Killing

Mr. Baldwin has maintained that he is not responsible for the shooting, saying that Ms. Hutchins had been directing him where to point the gun and that he did not pull the trigger before the gun discharged. He told investigators he had pulled the hammer back and let it go in an action that might have set it off.

“I know 1,000 percent I’m not responsible for what happened to her,” Mr. Baldwin told an investigator, Detective Alexandria Hancock, in a phone call following the shooting.

Ms. Carmack-Altwies.. said an F.B.I. analysis of the gun showed “conclusively” that the trigger had been pulled.

I have to say that in all of this HG-R has conducted herself in much more respectable fashion than AB. It may be the case that they are equally criminally culpable - we will have to wait and see - but at least she hasn't mounted a huge publicity campaign to save her arse! The way AB has behaved is awful, quite honestly.

 

[minazoe]

That was an absolutely despicable and heatless thing to say, imo. It doesn't matter what someone told you to do - you do not point guns at people!!!

what are you implying ? it is my understanding they were blocking the shot so the camera was directing the position of the firearm . I'm just curious because the whole point of the exercise is to have the correct camera movement at the perfect time to get the effect ...mOO

 

[Marantz4250b]

My feeling is that if an actor doesn't want to take the time and effort to learn gun safety, he/she should not take the role. If you have a gun -- whether you are on actor or not -- you need to act with due care. If people are pointing guns at other people, they should know that they could be held criminally liable. Just because everyone does it, doesn't make it acceptable. Maybe this tragedy will teach the industry something they should have understood a long time ago. JMO.

Absolutely agreed. An employer would never expect someone to do a driving job, even on private land over a short distance, if that person could not drive. The employee taking it would be totally criminally liable if they took such a job knowing they didn't know how to do it.

Similarly, if I give one of my staff a van to make a delivery and I tell him that it's perfectly safe do drive yet the tyres are worn to the cords and the brake pads are down to the metal then it's still his criminal liability if those defects cause him to take out a group of kids waiting at a bus stop. He should have checked it and him not knowing how to does not absolve him of that.

Why is an employment situation involving firearms any different?

 

[Marantz4250b]

He would not pull that trigger...I seriously doubt he did. I don't care about the FBI..these old antique guns are tricky biz.

mOO

This was NOT an "old antique gun". It was a brand new, modern rendition made by Pietta in Italy. Made from modern materials on state-of-art CNC machines.

I've used these things for years and, as the FBI says, they simply do not discharge on their own. They like us to say things like "IMO" on here but this is not opinion - it is fact. If they were prone to going off on their own then the ATF would never let them in.

These guns simply cannot discharge unless the trigger is depressed. I'm not saying that AB actually lied about it but he WAS pressing the trigger when that shot was fired. That gun would have had to have been absolutely wrecked internally for it to fire with no trigger pressure. I think even the FBI said they could not get it to fire unintentionally and actually had to treat it so badly they smashed the internal lock-work making it do so.

 

[mickey2942]

This was NOT an "old antique gun". It was a brand new, modern rendition made by Pietta in Italy. Made from modern materials on state-of-art CNC machines.

I've used these things for years and, as the FBI says, they simply do not discharge on their own. They like us to say things like "IMO" on here but this is not opinion - it is fact. If they were prone to going off on their own then the ATF would never let them in.

These guns simply cannot discharge unless the trigger is depressed. I'm not saying that AB actually lied about it but he WAS pressing the trigger when that shot was fired. That gun would have had to have been absolutely wrecked internally for it to fire with no trigger pressure. I think even the FBI said they could not get it to fire unintentionally and actually had to treat it so badly they smashed the internal lock-work making it do so.

I wonder if the gun being destroyed now, after rigorous testing, will be problematic for the prosecution.

 

[Marantz4250b]

Oddly, it's not clear who the Boss of the set really was. It sounds to me, from all the interviews I've seen and what I've read that Alec was as close to the Boss as he could be - but maybe there was no one in charge. Which is why the Special Prosecutor says the entire production was done in a negligent manner.

All evidence given so far (by Reed, btw) says Alec attended none of the trainings/daily safety meetings. He simply refused. He's refused to show up early in the past (notorious for it on 30Rock so they finally just changed his hours and reduced his number of days while still paying him full wages).

My view is that there was no one at the wheel of this production. That's one of the reasons some crew walked off. That's a reason why those concerned about safety emailed various people, not knowing exactly who was in charge.

Since Reed was banished from the shooting location on set (and she was the person who should have stopped the action when she saw that an actor had been handed a gun not checked in his presence), there was no person to officially call a halt to the use of guns (around which there were so many other safety errors, it's crazy).

Up until that very day, there was one member of the camera crew who used a streaming/capture app to film the filming (for various purposes, but the main one was so that Reed and others who might need to be at the filming site could see what was going on and show up if it was in their purview). That person walked out, and everyone knew that they were now winging it without them all (wardrobe, props, stunt persons, armorer) being able to watch for their cues to step in.

Rust Producers rejected an application from a seasoned armorer, who said that he would need full time pay plus two assistants for such a gun heavy production. Instead, they hired someone with little (and checkered) armorer experience and then relegated her to a mere 8 days of work and mostly she did what she had done on films before (hair and wardrobe).

Her interview on the Voices of the American West podcast is very interesting in light of all this. She admits she had no training and was "figuring things out for herself," and the example she gives is so basic that I could not believe she would be so proud of it and state it out loud in public media. Her dad never "mentored her" according to her.

I have to say that I do feel sorry for her. She clearly had a very intense, safety critical job to do and wasn't capable. Part of the reason she wasn't capable, I think, is that she had no support or assistants to help her in the role. She was waaaay out of her depth!

There is no way she should have been in sole charge of a firearms-heavy production with her level of experience. In that sense the producers (employers) are to blame because they are hiring unsuitable people and providing inadequate resources for her to do her job.

This is probably an extremely uncool and un-pc thing to say in this day and age but - she was a 24 year old woman working amongst massive male celebrity egos with zero support and probably with little confidence shown in her ability. Yes, she should have had more control and should have been with those guns everywhere they went but that's very easy to say from our detached position. Is it any wonder that this whole sorry situation played out as it did?

 

[Marantz4250b]

yes and further more cross draw training has nothing to do with a live round in the chamber of her gun. mOO

Possibly a valid point but if he didn't do the training then he's burned a potential avenue of defence. It makes him look reckless and foolhardy.

Also, it's quite possible that the crossdraw training might have helped reduce the likelihood of an accident if it's happened in the manner that people who know seem to be suggesting.

 

[PrairieWind]

That was an absolutely despicable and heatless thing to say, imo. It doesn't matter what someone told you to do - you do not point guns at people!!!

But what if she did in fact say that? I"ll probably get admonished for victim blaming here, but if she did ask him to point the gun, is he not allowed to say so? I think legally it is actually irrelevant whether she did or not. But he says she said that, he should be allowed to make that claim.

 

[Marantz4250b]

IMO, the rules of ALL the unions involved specifically prohibited guns (rubber or not) being used without the armourer present.

It needs to go further than that though. It's not just about the armourer being present it's about the armourer being in control of every one and every thing in the vicinity where firearms are being used or handled.

The set should be considered to be a live range and the Range Officer is in control above everyone else. To the extent that the director doesn't call "action" until the armourer says he can.

 

[Marantz4250b]

I wonder if the gun being destroyed now, after rigorous testing, will be problematic for the prosecution.

I'd need to try to find the actual report I read - maybe they tested an identical one?

I don't see how it would cause a problem though. Evidence is destroyed all the time in testing (like DNA samples) and as long as it's been properly documented and the correct chain of custody has been maintained it surely can't be an issue.

 

[RANCH]

I wonder if the gun being destroyed now, after rigorous testing, will be problematic for the prosecution.

That's a good point. The defense would want to do their own testing on the gun but it's broken now.

Would the defense ask that the FBI test results be excluded from the trial because of that? JMO.