• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.
  • 2021 Internet Infidels Fundraising Drive
    Greetings! Time for the annual fundraiser.Sorry for the late update, we normally start this early in October. Funds are needed to keep II and IIDB online. I was not able to get an IIDB based donations addon implemented for this year, I will make sure to have that done for next year. You can help support II in several ways, please visit the Support Us page for more info. Or just click:

    I will try to track all donations from IIDB. Many thanks to those that have already donated. The current total is $923. If everyone dontated just $5, we would easily hit our goal.

Alec Baldwin Fatally Shoots Crew Member With Prop Firearm, Authorities Say

thebeave

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2001
Messages
3,134
Location
Silicon Valley, CA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
There is no reason for having live ammo on a movie site.

Whether this is true or not, if you are handed a gun, even if it is a prop, you should still check if it's loaded. If you assume "well, no live ammo is allowed on set then I'm good, I don't need to check this lethal weapon for ammo" you are making a potentially fatal error as Baldwin did. Even if someone you trust hands you a gun saying it's not loaded, you check it anyway.

That's true, but actors are not necessarily trained in gun safety, their role involves pointing guns at other actors and pulling the trigger, which is why they hire an armorer to ensure gun safety. On this occasion there was failure on multiple fronts. The armorer should have insisted that actors check firearms as a final step.

I suppose but I personally would never assume that a gun was unloaded unless I checked it myself no matter who handed it to me. It just seems so obvious to me and I'm not a gun owner and have rarely touched guns. But I guess people get complacent and ignorance plays a role too. The whole set up was very shoddy by the sounds of it.
That might seem like a sensible protective measure to take and isn't really that large an inconvenience to protect yourself and those around you, but given the extremely low probability that someone actually dies of a gunshot on a movie set can't you see why someone would forego such activity?
No, not really. I guess it’s just me but if someone hands me a gun, I’m checking it.
So, you do feel that taking small measures to protect yourself and especially those around you is a smart thing to do even when the probability of harm is vanishingly small?

download.jpg
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
27,341
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
Alec Baldwin Fatal Shooting Film’s First AD Was “Fired” From 2019 Movie Over Gun Going Off, ‘Freedom’s Path’ Producer Confirms

“I can confirm that Dave Halls was fired from the set of Freedom’s Path in 2019 after a crew member incurred a minor and temporary injury when a gun was unexpectedly discharged,” he added. “Halls was removed from set immediately after the prop gun discharged. Production did not resume filming until Dave was off-site. An incident report was taken and filed at that time.”
 

TSwizzle

Let's go Brandon!
Joined
Jan 8, 2015
Messages
5,850
Location
West Hollywood
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
What scum Donald Trump Jnr is, selling t-shirts with "guns don't kill people, Alec Baldwin kills people." on his website.
 

Politesse

Sapere aude
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
7,220
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
any
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
err. who checks it after baldwin?
Anyone receiving the weapon should be checking it and know how to check it. No one should be receiving the weapon who does not need to. Ideally the chain of custody would be armorer, Baldwin, armorer period
COVID rules apparently added a step in this case, given what the reporting has said. I generally agree, though.
 

none

Banned
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
3,331
Location
outside
Basic Beliefs
atheist/ignostic
err. who checks it after baldwin?
Anyone receiving the weapon should be checking it and know how to check it. No one should be receiving the weapon who does not need to. Ideally the chain of custody would be armorer, Baldwin, armorer period
COVID rules apparently added a step in this case, given what the reporting has said. I generally agree, though.
then the actors run the show not the directors.....
 

TV and credit cards

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2013
Messages
4,019
Location
muh-dahy-nuh
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
err. who checks it after baldwin?
Anyone receiving the weapon should be checking it and know how to check it. No one should be receiving the weapon who does not need to. Ideally the chain of custody would be armorer, Baldwin, armorer period
COVID rules apparently added a step in this case, given what the reporting has said. I generally agree, though.
then the actors run the show not the directors.....
The director should have no part in this transaction. The armorer should have "positional authority". That is, the director can tell the armorer that the actor needs the weapon for the gun scene but as far as the safe handling of the weapon is concerned, that is between the armorer and actor and no one interjects.
At one of my commands, my division was in charge of holding gun qualifications for the ship's crew. One of my guys was Range Master qualified. I was his chief but he was in charge of gun quals. I could say go hold gun quals but that was it. He was in charge of the range - positional authority.
Same would go for an instructor/student relationship. Some of the students may outrank the instructor but in the classroom, the instructor has the authority.
 

none

Banned
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
3,331
Location
outside
Basic Beliefs
atheist/ignostic
so the directors begin production with training... sure sure sure
 

hurtinbuckaroo

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2003
Messages
4,112
Location
Maryland, USA
Basic Beliefs
laissez le bon temps rouler
There is no reason for having live ammo on a movie site.

Whether this is true or not, if you are handed a gun, even if it is a prop, you should still check if it's loaded. If you assume "well, no live ammo is allowed on set then I'm good, I don't need to check this lethal weapon for ammo" you are making a potentially fatal error as Baldwin did. Even if someone you trust hands you a gun saying it's not loaded, you check it anyway.

That's true, but actors are not necessarily trained in gun safety, their role involves pointing guns at other actors and pulling the trigger, which is why they hire an armorer to ensure gun safety. On this occasion there was failure on multiple fronts. The armorer should have insisted that actors check firearms as a final step.

I suppose but I personally would never assume that a gun was unloaded unless I checked it myself no matter who handed it to me. It just seems so obvious to me and I'm not a gun owner and have rarely touched guns. But I guess people get complacent and ignorance plays a role too. The whole set up was very shoddy by the sounds of it.
That might seem like a sensible protective measure to take and isn't really that large an inconvenience to protect yourself and those around you, but given the extremely low probability that someone actually dies of a gunshot on a movie set can't you see why someone would forego such activity?
Had it been a more safety oriented set, I would agree with this. But given that there were 2 or 3 accidental discharges during the week (I know...WTF??) , both the AD and AB should have at least done a dry fire into the ground. Which brings up another point...why did AB not raise hell about the earlier accidental discharges? That's outrageous to keep going on like nothing happened.
I’m just catching up with this thread. Does anyone have a link to info about these earlier accidental discharges? The only ones I’ve read about were on a different movie set, which resulted in the assistant director being fired.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
27,341
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
Two crew members tell CNN that Hannah Gutierrez, 24, who was the lead armorer on the set of "Rust," mishandled weapons on a previous film project.

Stu Brumbaugh, the key grip on "The Old Way," told CNN that Gutierrez handled guns on the set of that project in a reckless manner and that he urged the film's assistant director to fire her.

“There’s a universal way to handle weapons on set and immediately red flags went up when I worked with Hannah,” Brumbaugh said. “This is why I asked for her dismissal.”
“This is why people get injured because of rookie mistakes,” he said.

CNN has reached out to the film's production company and the assistant director on the film for comment. CNN has also reached out to Gutierrez.

Brumbaugh cited an incident in which Gutierrez fired a gun near the film's star Nicolas Cage without warning.

"Make an announcement! You just blew my f***ing eardrums out!" Cage screamed in response and then walked off set angrily, according to Brumbaugh.

“She was talking to the stunt coordinator, and she just fired off a round, it sounded [like she fired] at the ground, and that’s when Nick really laid into her. That’s when I said she needs to be let go, she’s the most inexperienced armorer I had ever worked with. I have no idea why she wasn’t let go.”
https://www.cnn.com/entertainment/live-news/rust-shooting-investigation-10-27-21/index.html
 

jab

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
1,253
Location
GTA Ontario
Basic Beliefs
non-militant atheist
If it was a live round, that makes more sense than what I pictured at first. Isn't this the way Brandon Lee died? You'd think this just couldn't happen again. There needs to be some good, inclusive rethinking of safety protocols.
There needs to be serious punishment for the person(s) who violated the present protocols.
 

jab

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
1,253
Location
GTA Ontario
Basic Beliefs
non-militant atheist
Shaping the narrative is underway. Some good info in this AP article. Looks like they are setting up Assistant Director Dave Halls to be the fall guy on this. Negative comments about him. Positive ones about Baldwin.
The article does make one think about all the dangerous stuff performed for the sake of making movies.
Here’s another that speaks to that:
Fatal and serious injuries.
Baldwin, I believe, was co-producer of the film--a more responsible position, one would think, than a mere actor in the film. I would say that he is if not criminally responsible, open to liability for damages.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
12,988
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Alec Baldwin shot and killed the cinematographer on his film set. He took a loaded gun in his hand, aimed it, and pulled the trigger. But he didn't have premeditation to kill the cinematographer, he was just incompetent.

Nitpick: I don't think he aimed. I think he was practicing the move he was going to make, not pointing it at any given location. The physical equivalent of an actor saying his lines even though there's nobody there to say them to.

It still does violate basic gun safety, though.
No, he was practicing and the film shot was to capture him firing, from the end of the barrel. His responsibility was not to check the weapon—it was to trust the prop master and all those whose jobs it was to ensure there were zero live rounds on set—and to deliver his line. He was supposed to ‘fire’ into the camera, but there was not supposed to be any ammo on set, much less inthe gun. I
 

TSwizzle

Let's go Brandon!
Joined
Jan 8, 2015
Messages
5,850
Location
West Hollywood
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
No, he was practicing and the film shot was to capture him firing, from the end of the barrel. His responsibility was not to check the weapon—it was to trust the prop master and all those whose jobs it was to ensure there were zero live rounds on set—and to deliver his line. He was supposed to ‘fire’ into the camera, but there was not supposed to be any ammo on set, much less inthe gun.

I wonder if the scene required Baldwin to hold the gun to his head and pull the trigger if he would have been as trusting of the prop master.
 

Shadowy Man

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2002
Messages
3,250
Location
West Coast
Basic Beliefs
Rational Pragmatism
No, he was practicing and the film shot was to capture him firing, from the end of the barrel. His responsibility was not to check the weapon—it was to trust the prop master and all those whose jobs it was to ensure there were zero live rounds on set—and to deliver his line. He was supposed to ‘fire’ into the camera, but there was not supposed to be any ammo on set, much less inthe gun.

I wonder if the scene required Baldwin to hold the gun to his head and pull the trigger if he would have been as trusting of the prop master.
He probably would have, unfortunately. From what I have read it may take some expertise to look into a weapon of the type he was given and discern by eye the difference between a fake round and a live round. So he may not have been qualified to check.

What is most amazing is that these weapons would have had live rounds in them at any point. Was it just the yahoos who wanted to have fun target practicing with old style guns? Why were real bullets evem on the set at all?
 

Metaphor

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
8,469
Location
Canberra, Australia
Basic Beliefs
Secular humanism
No, he was practicing and the film shot was to capture him firing, from the end of the barrel. His responsibility was not to check the weapon—it was to trust the prop master and all those whose jobs it was to ensure there were zero live rounds on set—and to deliver his line. He was supposed to ‘fire’ into the camera, but there was not supposed to be any ammo on set, much less inthe gun.

I wonder if the scene required Baldwin to hold the gun to his head and pull the trigger if he would have been as trusting of the prop master.
He probably would have, unfortunately. From what I have read it may take some expertise to look into a weapon of the type he was given and discern by eye the difference between a fake round and a live round. So he may not have been qualified to check.

What is most amazing is that these weapons would have had live rounds in them at any point. Was it just the yahoos who wanted to have fun target practicing with old style guns? Why were real bullets evem on the set at all?
I think these are questions for the film armourer.
 

Shadowy Man

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2002
Messages
3,250
Location
West Coast
Basic Beliefs
Rational Pragmatism
No, he was practicing and the film shot was to capture him firing, from the end of the barrel. His responsibility was not to check the weapon—it was to trust the prop master and all those whose jobs it was to ensure there were zero live rounds on set—and to deliver his line. He was supposed to ‘fire’ into the camera, but there was not supposed to be any ammo on set, much less inthe gun.

I wonder if the scene required Baldwin to hold the gun to his head and pull the trigger if he would have been as trusting of the prop master.
He probably would have, unfortunately. From what I have read it may take some expertise to look into a weapon of the type he was given and discern by eye the difference between a fake round and a live round. So he may not have been qualified to check.

What is most amazing is that these weapons would have had live rounds in them at any point. Was it just the yahoos who wanted to have fun target practicing with old style guns? Why were real bullets evem on the set at all?
I think these are questions for the film armourer.
Indeed. It sounds like from what little I have heard that the production was a mess. If Baldwin has any culpability it is more likely as a producer than as the shooter.
 

Metaphor

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
8,469
Location
Canberra, Australia
Basic Beliefs
Secular humanism
No, he was practicing and the film shot was to capture him firing, from the end of the barrel. His responsibility was not to check the weapon—it was to trust the prop master and all those whose jobs it was to ensure there were zero live rounds on set—and to deliver his line. He was supposed to ‘fire’ into the camera, but there was not supposed to be any ammo on set, much less inthe gun.

I wonder if the scene required Baldwin to hold the gun to his head and pull the trigger if he would have been as trusting of the prop master.
He probably would have, unfortunately. From what I have read it may take some expertise to look into a weapon of the type he was given and discern by eye the difference between a fake round and a live round. So he may not have been qualified to check.

What is most amazing is that these weapons would have had live rounds in them at any point. Was it just the yahoos who wanted to have fun target practicing with old style guns? Why were real bullets evem on the set at all?
I think these are questions for the film armourer.
Indeed. It sounds like from what little I have heard that the production was a mess. If Baldwin has any culpability it is more likely as a producer than as the shooter.
It looks like the head armourer was 24 and has gone into digital hiding;

 
Top Bottom