Alec Baldwin Accidentally Kills Cinematographer And Injures Director With Prop Gun On Movie Set “RUST” (1 Viewer)

[Johnny Angell]

I find myself thinking how important it is to get through our youth and into our mature 30’s without screwing up our lives.

 

[SamT]

They have confirmed that the same gun discharged 3 times before. And no one did anything about it.

 

[GeorgeHolland]

The old Colt single action SA revolver operates differently than the double action revolvers I'm familiar with. This article theorizes that the discharge on Baldwin's set was a case of inadvertent fanning.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/10/stephen-hunter-the-shooting.php

The father of the armorer on the set, Thell Reed, really is famous in Hollywood and gets his own set of pages on the IMDB. https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0715715/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm

Interesting well written article. Baldwin fanning the revolver is possible but sounds even more reckless if this is what happened. I doubt he would have hit anywhere near his reported target if this was the case. As in the article it would likely have fired early and into the floor at 45 degrees.

I posted some of this before I learned the type of revolver.

The revolver reportedly used by Baldwin was a F.lli Pietta 45 Long Colt Revolver. Pietta started manufacturing this model replica around 1966 of a Colt 45 Single Action Army designed in 1873. The gun Baldwin used may be a relatively new replica of an older but solid and reliable design. F.lli Pietta still manufactures them today.

Here is a Ruger Super Blackhawk .44, 3-screw, manufactured in 1969 and also based on the Colt 45 Single Action Army design although chambered in .44, not .45.

The Colt design is a single action revolver meaning the hammer must be fully cocked and then the trigger pulled to release the hammer in order to strike a center fire round. The hammer needs to be pulled back for each subsequent round as well, not like semi-automatic pistols more commonly used today.

It is possible to pull the trigger and hold it all the way down and fan the hammer multiple times. A .45 will have a decent kick. You feel it when you fire it.

Unlike a Single Action/Double Action Revolver the cylinder does not swivel out in order to load the gun or view all cylinder chambers at once. There is a gate that is opened that allows you to view each cylinder chamber by cocking the hammer two clicks which frees the cylinder and allows it to spin. This would easily take less than 10 seconds. Add a few more seconds if blanks or live rounds need to be removed. (A fully cocked hammer is 4 clicks.)

An Armorer would also want to completely remove the cylinder in order to safely look down the barrel to make sure there is nothing lodged in the barrel a blank might push out. This would also allow easy identification of the type of round if not clear; live, blank, dummy, etc. This would take 10 to 15 seconds. While simple and easy to learn, I would not expect an actor to remove the cylinder but I would hope they would observe it done. Simply viewing each chamber confirms the gun is clear. Dry firing 6 times in a safe direction after confirming all chambers are clear is quick and simple as well.

Later designs of the Colt 45 Single Action added a transfer bar. Early models had instances where if all 6 chambers had bullets, a strong downward force on the closed hammer could potentially cause a discharge. Adding or initially including a transfer bar eliminated this possibility. A common procedure before design changes was to only load 5 bullets leaving an empty chamber under the hammer until intentionally cocked. I believe the replica Colt had a transfer bar.

 

[Cineman]

In a previous career life I worked as a very small fry actor on dozens of movies and tv shows. We're talking as small as an extra (background actor) or stand-in. Sometimes I was lucky enough to be thrown a line or two to deliver and I'd get paid more for that.

I was handed a gun a few times for a scene here and there. I am saying gun without quotation marks because I assure you I would have no idea if the gun handed to me was real, fake, fully loaded with real bullets, blanks, stone cold empty or made entirely of hard rubber. None of us on the set knew or were expected to know.

One time, out of the blue, I was given a handgun by an assistant director (it might have been the armorer, I don't recall) and told to point it directly at the star of the movie for a scene. This was on the set of a very well-known big budget movie, directed and produced by one the most successful directors of all time and produced by some of the most successful producers of all time. I was to point it at one of the highest paid and most successful actors of all time. Yes, no expense was spared on this production.

As in every other case involving a gun handed to me on a set, when that gun was handed to me not one word was mentioned or asked of me about gun safety. Nobody asked if I knew anything about how to handle a gun, had I ever heard the phrase, "Never point a gun at anyone unless you intend to shoot him" or "Always assume a gun is loaded." Nor was I asked, "You do know you're supposed to check it yourself before pulling that little trigger, right?" Nothing. As far as that assistant director, armorer or just about anyone else on the set knew, I was just released the previous day from a 20 year stint in prison for murdering another actor with a gun. lol.

If I had flinched when that guy handed me the gun, I would have been told to go sit down at craft services or fired and another actor would have been called over immediately to take my place. All they cared about was could I look and act like I knew what I was doing with that gun, could I hold it steady to keep it properly framed in the shot.

The actors on a set, big stars or small fry, are there to "pretend" they are doing things with the items they are handed. I understand in certain cases an actor will be told there are blanks in a gun they wanted to be fired for real and, therefore, they would probably get some instructions on how to deal with them safely. But the items we are handed on a set are essentially presumed to be "pretend" items that can't really hurt anyone in the line of fire.

I had no more reason to suspect the gun I was handed would actually fire a projectile and kill or wound someone if my finger squeezed the trigger just a tiny bit more than if they handed me a prop hand grenade in a war movie scene that could actually blow me to smithereens or that the liquid I was drinking out of a glass in a bar scene was in fact poison. The hired actors might not be expert at anything other than taking a great head shot photo and reading a line of dialogue convincingly.

I presume all laws on what constitutes murder or liability with regard to what is handed an actor to "pretend" to do stuff with on a set are based on the premise that it is someone else's job to make sure it is safe, that no actor who wants to keep his job is going to stop everything in the intense moment between being handed the thing and "Action!" to peer down barrels, check chambers, fire into the air or anything else of the kind when we are handed a gun with which to "pretend."

The distraction and change of subject would be too great. It is in that moment the actor who is really doing his job, the thing he or she was hired to do, is whipping his mind into the emotional state he needs it to be in in order to perform the piece of business or deliver the lines like the character really means it. And that is probably why no one and no on-set laws expects him to instead be checking the props to make sure he won't kill anyone with them, all of which is someone else's job and probably should be their only job.

If anything, an actor who, like me, knew practically nothing about guns when one was handed to him could just as likely accidentally shoot someone checking a mistakenly loaded one handed to him for safety as accidentally shoot someone after the call for "Action!"

 

[Edwin-S]

^^^^^^^^^
You have just described everything that is wrong with firearm safety on a movie set. If the conditions you describe are that lax and the concern for safety is that lacking then it is nothing but luck that there have not been more fatal shooting accidents on movie sets than has happened.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

^^^^^^^^^
You have just described everything that is wrong with firearm safety on a movie set. If the conditions you describe are that lax and the concern for safety is that lacking then it is nothing but luck that there have not been more fatal shooting accidents on movie sets than has happened.

It is not luck as with all the shots fired in movies there have been very few accidents and even fewer deaths.

The key is not giving an actor anything they could hurt someone with. Honestly, this is not hard to do and why what happened to Baldwin hardly ever happens.

What went wrong on the Rust set is live rounds appear to have been brought onto the set and someone had access to the weapons that should not have had access to them. If they can answer how these things happened we will know primarily why this accident occurred.

I would guess this is what investigators are working toward. You have a limited amount of people involved so in all honesty, they should be able to figure out who brought the live ammo and who handled the guns that should not have.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I would say too that whomever is responsible for these things would have better served themselves by coming forward to authorities immediately rather than hiding. That will look far worse for them that they had to track them down. Chances are they will track them down if they have not already.

 

[Keith Cobby]

I know nothing about guns but Baldwin is no ingénue and has handled firearms many times before. Clearly there were a bunch of amateurs running around with the guns, a low budget and corners being cut.

 

[SamT]

^^^^^^^^^
You have just described everything that is wrong with firearm safety on a movie set. If the conditions you describe are that lax and the concern for safety is that lacking then it is nothing but luck that there have not been more fatal shooting accidents on movie sets than has happened.

That doesn't mean much. As was described a background actor was supposed to hold a gun to the main actor, I think it is safe to suppose that they were sure nothing could go wrong. Most probably it was a real prop and not a working gun that could shoot anything. That's why they didn't have to show him anything.

 

[Edwin-S]

That doesn't mean much. As was described a background actor was supposed to hold a gun to the main actor, I think it is safe to suppose that they were sure nothing could go wrong. Most probably it was a real prop and not a working gun that could shoot anything. That's why they didn't have to show him anything.

Yes. Just Like I'm sure Alec Baldwin thought it was safe right up until the firearm went off and blew a hole through his friend.

 

[SamT]

Yes. Just Like I'm sure Alec Baldwin thought it was safe right up until the firearm went off and blew a hole through his friend.

This is like saying 2 + 2 = 4 therefore oranges are more delicious than apples! Your sentence makes no sense at all. What that has to do with Alec Baldwin shooting?

As was said

I am saying gun without quotation marks because I assure you I would have no idea if the gun handed to me was real, fake, fully loaded with real bullets, blanks, stone cold empty or made entirely of hard rubber.

So this person says he doesn't know the difference between rubber guns and real guns. So it is safe to assume that they gave him a non functioning prop.

 

[SamT]

‘Rust’ Assistant Director Hopes Fatal Shooting Prompts Film Industry to “Reevaluate Its Values and Practices”

David Halls broke his silence following the Oct. 21 fatal shooting of Halyna Hutchins during production of the Western 'Rust': "I’m shocked and saddened by her death."

www.hollywoodreporter.com

The assistant director who handed Alec Baldwin the gun that killed a cinematographer says he hopes the tragedy prompts the film industry to “reevaluate its values and practices” to ensure no one is harmed again.

Unbelievable.

 

[Alan_H]

The assistant director who handed Alec Baldwin the gun that killed a cinematographer says he hopes the tragedy prompts the film industry to “reevaluate its values and practices” to ensure no one is harmed again.

Unbelievable.

Yup, that guy must have a pair of gonads the size of cantaloupes...

... and a brain the size of a grape.

 

[Edwin-S]

This is like saying 2 + 2 = 4 therefore oranges are more delicious than apples! Your sentence makes no sense at all. What that has to do with Alec Baldwin shooting?

As was said


So this person says he doesn't know the difference between rubber guns and real guns. So it is safe to assume that they gave him a non functioning prop.

If you think it is safe to assume anything when it comes to firearms then I feel sorry for you, especially when someone claims that they can't tell a rubber gun from the real thing.

As for how it applies to Baldwin. He assumed what was being handed to him was safe because he was told it was safe, exactly the same way the poster you refer to assumed what he was being handed was safe because someone handed it to him and told him it was safe.

In his case it may have been true, but you know what assumptions do? In Baldwin's case assuming did something even worse. It got someone killed and another person wounded.

 

[Cineman]

...
As was said

So this person says he doesn't know the difference between rubber guns and real guns. So it is safe to assume that they gave him a non functioning prop.

I should mention for anyone who has not held one of those movie prop guns made of hard rubber that they can look and feel very much like the real thing, appear to be made of shiny metal, machine tooled with sharp edges, realistic enough to pass muster in extreme close up with state of the art digital formats including IMAX and even sound like metal if you tap one against a hard surface. Many if not most of the guns we have seen in the movies were those kind of guns.

The term "rubber gun" might conjure up an image of something you squeeze to pop a tennis ball across the room. But these do not look and feel anything like a kid's toy.

They can be handguns, rifles, automatic firearms, machine guns, you name it.

Absolutely, the lighter weight of them is the giveaway. But only to someone who has picked up the real thing before. And they usually do not have moving parts re hammers, triggers, etc.

I certainly had heard it announced on a movie set that this or that prop gun is rubber or "Cold!", just as it was announced before Alec Baldwin was handed that gun. But it wouldn't necessarily be announced for every gun handed out to every actor or before every take after the props had been out of our hands for a break or whatever.

 

[Edwin-S]

The only thing lower than some of the people involved in that debacle are the lawyers they have hired.

 

[Cineman]

The only thing lower than some of the people involved in that debacle are the lawyers they have hired.

Speaking of lawyers, I think if I had been required by law or studio/union rules to open a gun handed to me on a movie set (or try to in the case of a fake gun) and make sure it is unloaded, clear of debris, all square and safe to point in any direction, I would have done it. Reluctantly.

But since I was not required to do so as a part of my job, no way would I have fiddled with it after it was handed to me beyond what my character was described doing with it in the script.

Here's why:

There is "proper gun safety" and then there is legal and civil liability. They are not the same thing. In fact, the former could immeasurably alter the outcome of the latter.

In the example I gave earlier I was a hired day-player making a few hundred bucks per a long day surrounded by genuine billionaires behind and before the camera.

If, god forbid, something fired from the barrel of a gun in my hands and wounded or killed someone due to a malfunction, a clumsy chain of custody issue from the armorer or the prop department, anything including my own inexperience and lack of training, there is no doubt in my mind the first question all the studio heads, crew and surviving family members' lawyers would be asking is, "Who The F*** was the last person to open that gun, check it for safety or fiddle with it before it went off?"

I hate to put it on Life vs Financial Liability terms. But considering one of the possible dead or wounded in my hypothetical scenario could also very well be me, as a potential victim in the group I submit it is unreasonable to expect actors to be the ones to take on so much responsibility regarding the props they are handed by supposed professionals charged with taking care of all that stuff before they wind up in my or some other actor's hand to start play acting and pretending with it.

I wouldn't want to think my life and limb depended on some other actor on the set knowing what he or she was doing checking a gun either, whether it was an extra, day-player or the highest paid star of the movie.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I know nothing about guns but Baldwin is no ingénue and has handled firearms many times before. Clearly there were a bunch of amateurs running around with the guns, a low budget and corners being cut.

Reports say Baldwin was always very cautious when dealing with firearms on set. He says he is no expert on guns. I have heard it said he is an anti gun activist but I do not know if that is true or to what extent. On a film set you should be able to trust the people you are working with and the idea that nobody would load live ammunition into a weapon being used as a prop never mind carry a loaded weapon onto a set and hand it to an actor, that obviously is under the impression the weapon is not loaded nor dangerous in any way, should be implicit.

I wouldn't want to think my life and limb depended on some other actor on the set knowing what he or she was doing checking a gun either, whether it was an extra, day-player or the highest paid star of the movie.

Nobody on a film set should ever, and I mean never, be relying on an actor to check the safety of a prop gun. If things get down to the actor being the last line of defense in checking a firearm, we have an extreme failure of safety protocol. The truth is the reason so few people are shot, injured, or killed by a firearm on a film set is because actors ARE NOT expected to be the one checking the prop handed to them. This goes for any type of prop for any type of action or stunt. The actor is NEVER expected to be the one checking if the situation is safe.

The actor should be one of the people assured of their safety on the set not a person attempting to maintain the safety of the set. You hire people to maintain the safety of the set. The armorer and the AD are both people responsible for set safety.

The problem in this case is quite clear and has nothing to do with Alec Baldwin. He should have been able to rely on his own safety on the set and that people were keeping him and others safe on the set. This somehow did not happen and resulted in a death.

The safety protocol had been destroyed prior to the weapon ever arriving in Baldwin's hand. Everyone working on the set should have never been placed in that position. Anyone could have been killed or injured including Baldwin.

Make note that Baldwin, the armorer, and the AD have not pointed fingers at anyone else at this stage. It at least appears for the moment that none of them know who loaded that weapon with live rounds. This in itself is frightening and why this is an open investigation with potential charges coming.

We don't know what sort of fault anybody will have yet but the three people mentioned so far in the chain of who would have handled the weapon - armorer, AD, Baldwin - may all have fallen victim to person or persons that unauthorized took the weapon and used and loaded it with live ammo.

What is suspected here is that someone else was in that chain that we do not yet know about and we do not yet know how they managed to get in that chain.

 

[ScottHM]

On a film set you should be able to trust the people you are working with and the idea that nobody would load live ammunition into a weapon being used as a prop never mind carry a loaded weapon onto a set and hand it to an actor, that obviously is under the impression the weapon is not loaded nor dangerous in any way, should be implicit.

You're correct. That's the way things should work, but as we've seen they don't always work that way, which is why end-to-end checking should be required.

Nobody on a film set should ever, and I mean never, be relying on an actor to check the safety of a prop gun. If things get down to the actor being the last line of defense in checking a firearm, we have an extreme failure of safety protocol.

I agree with this too, but the firearm should still be checked by the last person to hold it. In the case of the actor, the armorer and the actor should examine the gun together to verify whether it's a "rubber gun", an empty gun, or a gun loaded with blanks. That should be SOP.
---------------

 

[JimmyO]

Today on CNN I saw that Baldwin actually pulled his car over (with family inside) and addressed the media that had been following him. He didn't like the idea that he was being tailed by the media, and rightly so.

Anyways, he talked for about four minutes answering questions. He was adamant that he was not allowed in any way to comment on the investigation, period. And he stuck to that. He was asked a number of questions (his wife kept jumping in to answer them and he more or less asked her to step aside and let him answer.

When asked the question of whether he felt production of this film would resume, his answer was a flat 'No, I doubt it'. Here's the clip if you'd like to see for yourself. The video is embedded in this story:

Checking Alec Baldwin's gun was not the assistant director's responsibility, attorney says | CNN

An attorney representing David Halls, an assistant director on the set of the film "Rust," said it was not Halls' responsibility to confirm whether the gun handed to Alec Baldwin was loaded, despite Halls previously acknowledging to investigators that he should have checked all the rounds before...

www.cnn.com