Alec Baldwin accidentally kills crew member with prop gun

Tools    





So we're blaming diversity now for this woman's death? *logs out*
Cool....wait you're not going to log out are you...

Btw, is anyone under the impression that this particular production was concerned about eligibility for Oscars?
Yes....Baldwin is not Bruce Willis the guy has a pretty long history of supporting and helping to establish indie films and filmmakers.

A 13 year-old boy, left to fend for himself and his younger brother following the death of their parents in 1880's Kansas, goes on the run with his long estranged grandfather after he's sentenced to hang for the accidental killing of a local rancher.
This is also the first batch of films that have to submit demographic information to the Academy. Baldwin a liberal who produces a number of works wouldn't want to be outed that doesn't support this terrible dangerous policy.

Again, this was not a "Hollywood" movie. This is a bucket cheap production. Both films that Reed worked on were from these companies who have been specializing in the kinds of films we keep finding Bruce Willis in that no one has ever heard of before they scroll past it on Yify. Why was Reed hired? I guessing because she's cheap, and you get what you pay for.
.
Yep....unfortnately you hit the nail on the head this was a bucket cheap production which meant they couldn't have high standards when it came to adhering to the new regulations.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1100107...?ref_=tt_cl_sm

10 - women
17 - men



Registered User
From what I've read, he grabbed a gun from the prop dept while the prop guys weren't looking, and just handed it to Baldwin and told him the gun was safe.
Good God, this is like reading about a summer camp run by a bunch of teenagers. Were they filming at Camp Lake Crystal?



Also... why on Earth were live rounds on a movie set?
https://meaww.com/armorer-hannah-gut...thout-checking

The prop gun used by Alec Baldwin, that killed cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on a New Mexico movie set, had reportedly been used by crew members offsite for 'fun'. The gun, which misfired while Baldwin held it on the set of the movie "Rust", may have even been loaded with live rounds when it was supposed to be used for target practice. Various sources claimed that the gun was even fired at off-the-clock gatherings.
If true I guess this casts doubt on whether the term 'prop' is appropriate in this instance.



The trick is not minding
But we're now spinning this as "they probably hired people based on demographics instead of qualifications", letting the implication sit there that diversity requirements are the reason for this tragedy.
What’s this “we” stuff?
As far as I can tell, it was mostly one guy, maybe another.
Pretty sure I argued against it, in fact.



Yep....unfortnately you hit the nail on the head this was a bucket cheap production which meant they couldn't have high standards when it came to adhering to the new regulations.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1100107...?ref_=tt_cl_sm

10 - women
17 - men
Are you saying they were trying to follow the new regulations but just couldn't get good quality women/minority crew?

You know that those regulations only apply to Best Picture and that they don't go into effect until 2024, right? And that there are multiple ways to meet those standards. And that they already met their "quota" for crew composition (if they were aiming for Best Picture contention, LOL) and therefore there was no need to hire an armorer for any demographic reasons.



Registered User
Sounds more like they were just trying to things on the cheap, hiring low-quality people because of $$$, which is still a failure to select by merit/need. Cheap often turns out to be expensive.



A while back I made the suggestion that they just use real-looking fake guns for movies (and fill their actions in with special effects). But I've never really given it much thought until now...
Because I was actually under the impression that that's how they handled guns in movies these days (especially after tragedies like Brandon Lee's death). I didn't know they still used real guns or modified real guns anymore.



A while back I made the suggestion that they just use real-looking fake guns for movies (and fill their actions in with special effects). But I've never really given it much thought until now...
Because I was actually under the impression that that's how they handled guns in movies these days (especially after tragedies like Brandon Lee's death). I didn't know they still used real guns or modified real guns anymore.
I also find it shocking. Especially with the quality of things like 3D printing and CGI. Even for a more specialized, historical weapon, you'd think someone could make a high-quality facsimile.

The fact that there were real guns being used is surprising to me. The fact that they were able to be taken off set for crew to play with using live rounds is appalling. This was such a cumulative failure.



Registered User
A while back I made the suggestion that they just use real-looking fake guns for movies (and fill their actions in with special effects). But I've never really given it much thought until now...
Because I was actually under the impression that that's how they handled guns in movies these days (especially after tragedies like Brandon Lee's death). I didn't know they still used real guns or modified real guns anymore.
A hard part is selling the recoil, I think. It looks fake when people just jerk their arms. Then again, we accept movie physics where a pistol knocks someone back 10 feet when they are shot, so I guess who cares?

Another other thing is to convince the eye. Real guns look like real guns.

And consideration is price. A real gun already looks convincingly like a real gun. And doesn't have to be fabricated. And there are already people in the business who can supply you with what you need.

There is the cult of realism. Dirty Harry carefully explains his 44 magnum. Riggs talks about the virtues of his Beretta '92. All of this says, "This is really real. These are real guns. B E L I E V E ! ! !"

There are probably kick-backs too. Gun manufacturers undoubtedly are paying to get their products featured as "hero" guns. People want to buy guns that they see in video games and movies. Seriously. Thousands of people went out and bought a Model 29 after they saw Dirty Harry. And then they fired one cylinder of full-house 44 Mag out of it and immediately sold it as fast as they could (even tough guy Harry Callahan discloses that he is only shooting 44 Special out his gun in Magnum Force).



Yep....unfortnately you hit the nail on the head this was a bucket cheap production which meant they couldn't have high standards when it came to adhering to the new regulations.


https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1100107...?ref_=tt_cl_sm

10 - women
17 - men
The assumption here being that the women here were lower standard than the men. Despite that one of the principal responsible culprits was a white man who handed Baldwin the live gun (and despite his having a documented history of such safety lapses).


This is not a case of chromosomes or demographics. This was human beings who were carelessly negligent and a production staff who ignored safety warnings. This isn't about diversity standards, it's about professional standards, and by all accounts this was a reckless and highly unprofessional production.


I am glad that Reed and Halls are finally getting the focus of the blame that they rightly deserve.



Sounds more like they were just trying to things on the cheap, hiring low-quality people because of $$$, which is still a failure to select by merit/need. Cheap often turns out to be expensive.
I couldn't have said it better myself. Oh wait!



Registered User
I couldn't have said it better myself. Oh wait!
Baldwin was still the most proximate cause. When someone hands you a gun, the buck stops with you. You have to check. The general vibe of "Screwed up situation all-around" smacks a little too much of "Aww shucks, not really anyone's fault." Baldwin deserves his share of the blame. He shot and killed Halyna Hutchins. That is an indisputable fact.

There is swirling cocktail of what appears to be criminal stupid on the set. That stated, if recent allegations about Dave Halls are accurate, it appears that he is the next most proximate link in the chain. He and Baldwin have some accounting and soul-searching to do. The people most directly responsible deserve the most direct blame and have the most direct duty to make what amends can be made (be they restorative or rehabilitative or repentive).

As for the rest, it seems that the more important question is not whether to ban all guns on all sets (why not ban all high explosives too?), but rather how to hold an evolving industry (the Netflixification of cinema) to high enough standards so as to offer minimal safety and security to cast and crew. It may not be a gun next time, but if standards are dipping this low, there will be more serious injuries and death as investors pinch pennies.



Given the impression I have on Baldwin when I first saw caption for this I literally thought he’d snapped and shot someone in a fit of rage... but alas oh it was an accident, ooooooooookay there are simply not enough O,s

How the **** do you accidentally take a live round, load the live round into a live gun and point it at a live person and pull the trigger, this is really baffling.

The hell are people talking about “health and safety blah blah blah” this not something that was missing, it was something added. This is malignant ffs



Baldwin was still the most proximate cause. When someone hands you a gun, the buck stops with you. You have to check. The general vibe of "Screwed up situation all-around" smacks a little too much of "Aww shucks, not really anyone's fault." Baldwin deserves his share of the blame. He shot and killed Halyna Hutchins. That is an indisputable fact
As mentioned I am no fan of Baldwin, think the guy is a low quality human being on his best days but I think that is harsh and there is no accountability on his part, yes he shot Halyna Hutchins but the person who loaded a live bullet into the round killed her. I think we should demand to know who this is?



Registered User
As mentioned I am no fan of Baldwin, think the guy is a low quality human being on his best days but I think that is harsh and there is no accountability on his part, yes he shot Halyna Hutchins but the person who loaded a live bullet into the round killed her. I think we should demand to know who this is?
What Baldwin did on his most unlucky day on a set is no worse than what I have done on my luckiest day of driving. Remove the moral luck and I am in the same boat as he is but to be clear, if I had killed someone while fiddling with a radio, I would still (properly) be held to account. If the event were publicized to you
"Corax runs over child
in the street
while fumbling
to light a cigarette"
I think you would agree that I am to going have to apologize, repent, restore as much as I can, and rehabilitate my neglectful behavior. I don't think you would be apologizing for me, and yet this is a comparable (and charitable) example of dereliction of safety.

The person who shoots the gun needs must share in in the responsibility. You can't convincingly say, "Sure, it was technically statutory rape, but my buddy said all the girls at the party were of age! She was placed in my lap and someone said 'old enough' so I trusted them." Baldwin assumed responsibility for a firearm in taking it into his hands. Guns don't shoot themselves. It is a fact of the case that Baldwin shot and killed Halyna Hutchins. He didn't do so intentionally, but he did it negligently. If he demonstrated minimally safe-handling of that weapon she would be alive. That is fact.

The reason that you always assume a gun is loaded is because you don't know what comedy of errors led to it falling into your hands. The buck stops with your trigger finger.



タイムコップ Timecop
I don't like the idea of cgi + fake guns for movies. But since Hollywood is the home of bad decisions, I believe this will be the future. Heat with fake guns and cgi would lost all of his shootout magic.
__________________
変身 ~ Henshin



You ready? You look ready
Seems like the basis of the argument is that Hollywood should know how to handle firearms. Pardon me if I'm at a loss but we are talking about the same Hollywood that gets most things about guns wrong? And vehemently paints them as WMDs. Yet never ceases to put them in movies.

This is the same Hollywood we're talking about, right? It is a wonder this thing doesn't happen more often.
__________________
"This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." -Baruch Spinoza



What Baldwin did on his most unlucky day on a set is no worse than what I have done on my luckiest day of driving. Remove the moral luck and I am in the same boat as he is but to be clear, if I had killed someone while fiddling with a radio, I would still (properly) be held to account. If the event were publicized to you
"Corax runs over child
in the street
while fumbling
to light a cigarette"
I think you would agree that I am to going have to apologize, repent, restore as much as I can, and rehabilitate my neglectful behavior. I don't think you would be apologizing for me, and yet this is a comparable (and charitable) example of dereliction of safety.

The person who shoots the gun needs must share in in the responsibility. You can't convincingly say, "Sure, it was technically statutory rape, but my buddy said all the girls at the party were of age! She was placed in my lap and someone said 'old enough' so I trusted them." Baldwin assumed responsibility for a firearm in taking it into his hands. Guns don't shoot themselves. It is a fact of the case that Baldwin shot and killed Halyna Hutchins. He didn't do so intentionally, but he did it negligently. If he demonstrated minimally safe-handling of that weapon she would be alive. That is fact.

The reason that you always assume a gun is loaded is because you don't know what comedy of errors led to it falling into your hands. The buck stops with your trigger finger.
Sorry I hear what you are saying and still disagree and do not think that is a fair and just comparison.*

Take into account how many people are accidentally killed by gunfire on a movie set to how many car crash fatalities there are each year. 1 vs 38,000 that’s just the U.S this year.

This doesn’t make a point entirely and obviously what you are saying is true and should be just common sense for so many professions and everyone in general but we are talking about people pretending.. pretending to be someone they’re not, pretending to shoot a pretend gun.

At least that’s what I thought until today.



Registered User
Sorry I hear what you are saying and still disagree and do not think that is a fair and just comparison.*
Our discussion has proven to be a clash of intuitions. If nothing else, it is interesting to note this much. This has proven to be a juicy controversy.

And how many of us, if we were handed a gun by a designated professional would not trust them if they told us that something that they handed us was perfectly safe? The rules of gun safety cut against the grain of such common sense acceptance of expertise and responsibility. They instill a sort of procedural paranoia (check anyway and check again in a few minutes to be sure) which initially seems to be unfair and even irrational.

Take into account how many people are accidentally killed by gunfire on a movie set to how many car crash fatalities there are each year. 1 vs 38,000 that’s just the U.S this year.
You're being unfair here in comparing a very narrow category to a broad category.
EX: Narrow = The number of people killed by "African Elephants" on movie sets (and only on movie sets!) does not really reflect the general threat posed by African Elephants.It does not really inform us why people are instructed to be careful around these animals.
African Elephants kill about 500 people a year, which coincidentally is about the number of people in the United States who are killed by negligent discharges. We're already at a number 500 times greater than the one you have suggested by being more fair in our comparison.

And if you object to this ("I am only talking movie sets!"), then we must, in fairness, ONLY consider car accidents in a similarly narrow context (e.g., "I am only discussing deadly collisions that occurred as a result of a person fumbling to light a cigarette").



As you know, guns don't stop being guns just because they're on a movie set. The threat posed by guns is quite general. Thus your narrowing is not quite appropriate, is it?

And about as many people die from firearms (for any reason in any context) in the United States as die by cars (for any reason in any context). If you want to strip away the suicides, fine. That still leaves us with about 10,000 homicides a year. And how many of these include mass shootings where a parent negligently failed to lock up their guns, allowing their teenage kid to go on a killing spree?

You are (there is no other way to put this, so apologies if this creates offense) incorrect in implying that guns are not dangerous or that (more specifically) they're not dangerous in the context of a movie set. On the contrary, they're very very dangerous (that's the point - they're supposed to be dangerous - they're designed to injure and kill).

This doesn’t make a point entirely and obviously what you are saying is true and should be just common sense for so many professions and everyone in general but we are talking about people pretending.. pretending to be someone they’re not, pretending to shoot a pretend gun.

At least that’s what I thought until today.
If it is a pretend gun, it is no big deal. Unfortunately, this world of illusions mixes rubber guns and blank guns and even real guns. It mixes actors (who pretend to be someone else) with stunt doubles (who pretend to be someone pretending to be someone else) with CGI pixel people (who are pretending to be people!). There are so many layers of artifice in film production that any gun on a set is a rather dubious object, especially if there is a lot of hubbub going on from shot to shot. It's kind of amazing that their safety record has been this good.

I think I am OK with real guns in movies (e.g., for close up shots, for promotional materials, as a wall-hanger in a scene), but not with real guns pointed at real people--certainly not loaded with live ammo or even blanks. A deactivated "real gun" which cannot be made to fire by any casual monkey on the set is OK in my book. There are lots of deactivated real guns which "look the part."

I suppose that shooting a real gun loaded with blanks at a CGI alien is OK (i.e., no people cast or crew downrange) is fine, but that that must come with real gun training for the actors and safe handling by everyone. And even if that real gun is there to look convincing when it is shoved in to someone's face, it is necessary for anyone handling it to clear it, just in case. And this reveals a weak link in the "Safety Tzar" model of gun handling (it is only as good as the person who claims the gun is safe).



I was surprised by this quote in The NY Times today:

Larry Zanoff, an expert in the use of firearms on film sets who worked on the set of “Django Unchained” as an armorer, said that under industry standards, the first assistant director is the lead safety person on set, and commonly inspects a gun to ensure it is unloaded and safe to use.


Interesting. I would have thought the armorer had complete jurisdiction over the armory & that he/she was at the top of the totem pole in this regard.

(Looks like Dave Halls, the first AD, is being heavily criticized for his work standards or lack thereof on this production & many others.)
Interesting letter to The NY Times yesterday from an attorney/actor. He said the armorer is the only person on set who gives a gun to the actor. Not the first assistant director, nobody but the armorer.
__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.