Baldwin kills cinematographer.

[Fomalhaut]

Doesn’t matter if the script called for him to pull the trigger or not. There shouldn't have been live rounds on set, much less loaded into a gun, much less handed to an actor expecting a inert prop gun without telling him and sent out into a scene. Every gun on a set is to be handled by an assigned tech, repeatedly cleared, & checked in & out, to eliminate any possibility of it being anything other than a prop, not a loaded lethal weapon. It is a professional production set, not a backyard barbecue hootenanny. There is no skeet shooting with the prop guns between takes. There needs to be a suspension of the basic rules of gun operation on set, because a gun is on set for one reason, and that is to aim at other people and pretend to shoot them. That’s literally what Chekov’s Gun is referring to. Every production needs the actors to be able to reasonably expect that their props are harmless in order to do their job. There’s a whole set of protocols and dedicated people responsible for enforcing it.

I would have thought that bringing live ammunition onto a film set involving the use of prop guns would be absolutely forbidden (with the possible exception of security staff who might be armed in some locations for crew safety).

What possessed any armorer to load a prop gun with live ammo whilst on set? The blank or dummy ammo that I've used in the past looks very different to live rounds (crimped ends, plastic/wood/wax projectiles, different colors etc.) and I can't see this being confused unless the person had zero experience with firearms.

Did someone just bring along their personal firearm and leave it loaded on a table? Or plan on doing some target practice later with a prop gun? Or was it a disgruntled employee (and there were some) who wanted to cause some damage to the production?

 

[Ruggy]

It's impossible to know what's the truth because the info is sketchy and coming in dribbs and drabbs but it's been reported he was aiming at the camera and she was standing next to the camera but Souza was also injured and it isn't clear how.
It seems some of the crew had been doing target practice with real ammo and that's how the guns got mixed up.
This from the Guardian which at least tries to be accurate.

Alec Baldwin was pointing gun at camera when it went off, director says

Joel Souza says actor was practising a scene at time of accidental shooting of Halyna Hutchins

www.theguardian.com

 

[Abstract]

It’s actually a fair and relevant question. Gun handling and safety will be pivotal in determining if criminal charges will come, civil liability, and insurance payouts.

I’m not sure I understand you.

Gun handling and safety by who? The actors who thought the guns were props? If it’s a prop gun, I should be able to pull the trigger as many times as he wants. ??‍♂️

If anything, the fault lies with the person in charge of the props. Can’t be Baldwin’s fault. There should never have been actual ammo on set.

 

[Fomalhaut]

It's impossible to know what's the truth because the info is sketchy and coming in dribbs and drabbs but it's been reported he was aiming at the camera and she was standing next to the camera but Souza was also injured and it isn't clear how.
It seems some of the crew had been doing target practice with real ammo and that's how the guns got mixed up.
This from the Guardian which at least tries to be accurate.

Alec Baldwin was pointing gun at camera when it went off, director says

Joel Souza says actor was practising a scene at time of accidental shooting of Halyna Hutchins

www.theguardian.com

The Guardian article makes no reference to target practice by the crew, but it is certainly a possibility and would indicate a general lack of safety protocols and firearms control on the set. The article did mention that the AD who had "checked the firearm before handing it to Baldwin" had a negligent discharge on another film that wounded a crew member, and had been noted as having a poor safety record with firearms.

It takes a couple of seconds to check a firearm (or ammunition), and that must be the final stage in the handover procedure. if this did not happen, I would the responsibility lies mostly with the chief armourer for not enforcing the rules, but partially with the final handler (who by all account was NOT an armourer), particularly if they didn't follow the procedure for a final check.

 

[Fomalhaut]

Another option is that the blank cartridge was somehow faulty and contained a lethal projectile. I know that blanks will fire wadding, filler, and even small case fragments some distance. It is conceivable (although unlikely) that a foreign object got loaded into the case. The autopsy and ballistics investigation would quickly determine if this was the case.

 

[juanm]

Doesn’t matter if the script called for him to pull the trigger or not. There shouldn't have been live rounds on set, much less loaded into a gun, much less handed to an actor expecting a inert prop gun without telling him and sent out into a scene. Every gun on a set is to be handled by an assigned tech, repeatedly cleared, & checked in & out, to eliminate any possibility of it being anything other than a prop, not a loaded lethal weapon. It is a professional production set, not a backyard barbecue hootenanny. There is no skeet shooting with the prop guns between takes. There needs to be a suspension of the basic rules of gun operation on set, because a gun is on set for one reason, and that is to aim at other people and pretend to shoot them. That’s literally what Chekov’s Gun is referring to. Every production needs the actors to be able to reasonably expect that their props are harmless in order to do their job. There’s a whole set of protocols and dedicated people responsible for enforcing it.

This. If Baldwin (as an actor) was told the gun was safe, he's not to blame. You very often see the character firing at the camera (ie at the person holding the camera) or in the direction of another character. What he was doing (eg. rehearsal, practicing his draw) is irrelevant: if there were live rounds in the gun and he didn't know it, the accident was bound to happen.
I worked in the film industry for years (not directly with guns, but I've seen pros work with them) and there's a very clear custodial chain. In some countries most –if not all– guns to be used on screen have slightly different calibers so that they can only fire blanks. You couldn't shoot a live bullet if you tried.

I have seen with my own eyes a situation where poor communication and a flawed protocol led to the loss of a camera worth half a million, so I have an idea of what might have happened.

 

[Fomalhaut]

This. If Baldwin (as an actor) was told the gun was safe, he's not to blame. You very often see the character firing at the camera (ie at the person holding the camera) or in the direction of another character. What he was doing is irrelevant: if there were live rounds in the gun and he didn't know it, the accident was bound to happen.
I worked in the film industry for years (not directly with guns, but I've seen pros work with them) and there's a very clear custodial chain. In some countries most –if not all– guns to be used on screen have slightly different calibers so that they can only fire blanks. You couldn't shoot a live bullet if you tried.

I have seen with my own eyes a situation where poor communication and a flawed protocol led to the loss of a camera worth half a million, so I have an idea of what might have happened.

I've read that many prop guns are either:
(a) replicas that have effects like muzzle flash, smoke, and ejecting cases added with post-production effects
(b) modified to fire "soundless blanks" that just emit some flash from burning gas

the idea is that these are less alarming for use in urban areas (police shootout scenes etc.) and don't cause panic and wasted calls to police services.

It seems to be unnecessarily dangerous to use real firearms as props, but I imagine in the USA real guns are easier and cheaper to source than specialized theatrical props!

BTW, what was the story with the loss of the $500,000 camera? How did it happen? Just curious!

 

[juanm]

BTW, what was the story with the loss of the $500,000 camera? How did it happen? Just curious!

Now, you have to understand that across the film industry every crew member has a very specific list of tasks, that guarantees the process works very well, to the point that you could take say, a Japanese-speaking focus puller, place him in a Swedish-speaking crew and they would be able to work pretty much without a hitch from the beginning, even though they wouldn't be able to communicate at all.

 

[CartesianProduct2014]

I’m not sure I understand you.

Gun handling and safety by who? The actors who thought the guns were props? If it’s a prop gun, I should be able to pull the trigger as many times as he wants. ??‍♂️

If anything, the fault lies with the person in charge of the props. Can’t be Baldwin’s fault. There should never have been actual ammo on set.

A few points need made.

1. Gun handling and safety by those directly entrusted to do so. That includes armorers, actors, and the film management who oversees the filming operation.

2. The term “prop” is vague and ambiguous. A prop gun can be a functioning weapon.

3. What I read today if true is alarming. What’s being reported is members of the set were leisure shooting including with the firearm that killed Hutchins on the morning of her death.

4. The safety culture of the crew on that set needs fully examined. Did management know things like this were happening and if so what affirmative steps did they take to address this and the other safety concerns that precipitated crew members walking off. There seems to be systemic safety issues in play on that set.

5. I don’t know if Baldwin bares responsibility but to say Baldwin is blameless is obviously premature.

 

[yaxomoxay]

3. What I read today if true is alarming. What’s being reported is members of the set were leisure shooting including with the firearm that killed Hutchins on the morning of her death.

If confirmed, this is insane.

 

[yaxomoxay]

Doesn’t matter if the script called for him to pull the trigger or not.

It does. Ultimately, the person that has the gun is responsible at least to a point. If the script or the rehearsal didn't call for a shot to be fired, then he bears some responsibility. If - let's say - he was goofing around, he put the two individuals in danger as they did not expect a shot (real or not) to be fired, which possibly changed their behavior (director wouldn't likely be in the position he was at the time of the shooting, and possibly not even the cinematographer but a camera operator). Now, this doesn't change the fact that it was an accident, but if he wasn't supposed or expected to pull the trigger might be a determinant factor on his culpability.

 

[velocityg4]

It does. Ultimately, the person that has the gun is responsible at least to a point. If the script or the rehearsal didn't call for a shot to be fired, then he bears some responsibility. If - let's say - he was goofing around, he put the two individuals in danger as they did not expect a shot (real or not) to be fired, which possibly changed their behavior (director wouldn't likely be in the position he was at the time of the shooting, and possibly not even the cinematographer but a camera operator). Now, this doesn't change the fact that it was an accident, but if he wasn't supposed or expected to pull the trigger might be a determinant factor on his culpability.

Even if no shot was called for. A draw. Especially the typical cinematic quick draw. Is going to require drawing with the finger on the trigger or rapidly going to the trigger. Which can result in an accidental trigger pull. Especially without a lot of experience and practice at the quick draw.

 

[theluggage]

What’s being reported is members of the set were leisure shooting including with the firearm that killed Hutchins on the morning of her death.

What has also been reported is that Baldwin was handed the gun by the assistant director and specifically told it was unloaded ("cold gun"). See https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-59035483

I'm loath to speculate - but it does sound like the problem is that they should have had a specifically trained armourer who's only job was firearm safety and who would always assume that some idiot had left a live round in the gun until they'd personally checked - not a multi-tasking assistant director.

If you look at the debate, the underlying problem is "bargain basement" movie making and corner-cutting, so all the debate about guns on movie sets are missing the underlying point: this could just as easily have been a stunt fall that went wrong, or a lighting rig that fell on someone because the crew were overworked or under-qualified.

If - let's say - he was goofing around, he put the two individuals in danger as they did not expect a shot (real or not) to be fired

The reports say he was rehearsing a draw - which would include pulling the trigger at the end of the action to "fire" towards the camera - because in Western land cowboys don't do a quick-draw and then think for a second before shooting. In other circumstances, sure, the buck stops with the person holding the gun and "never point a gun at anything you don't want to shoot" should apply, but this was a legitimate exception, and was specifically told it was a "cold gun" by someone who's job it was (or should have been) to be sure.

 

[theluggage]

Even if no shot was called for. A draw. Especially the typical cinematic quick draw. Is going to require drawing with the finger on the trigger or rapidly going to the trigger. Which can result in an accidental trigger pull. Especially without a lot of experience and practice at the quick draw.

...and that's the important point. There's no earthly reason why an actor should need-to-know anything more about firearms than you can learn (mostly wrongly) by watching John Wayne movies. It was another professional's job to check that the gun was safe.

 

[deeddawg]

...and that's the important point. There's no earthly reason why an actor should need-to-know anything more about firearms than you can learn (mostly wrongly) by watching John Wayne movies. It was another professional's job to check that the gun was safe.

Yep and someone's now dead because Baldwin trusted what he was told and didn't verify the weapon's status himself.

 

[yaxomoxay]

The reports say he was rehearsing a draw - which would include pulling the trigger at the end of the action to "fire" towards the camera - because in Western land cowboys don't do a quick-draw and then think for a second before shooting. In other circumstances, sure, the buck stops with the person holding the gun and "never point a gun at anything you don't want to shoot" should apply, but this was a legitimate exception, and was specifically told it was a "cold gun" by someone who's job it was (or should have been) to be sure.

I don't disagree with any of that, my point is simply that we don't know enough because "rehearsing" is a very generic term.

 

[JT2002TJ]

Yep and someone's now dead because Baldwin trusted what he was told and didn't verify the weapon's status himself.

A gun is just like any other prop. If the Actor gets into a car, the brakes fail, and it takes out a crew member, would you say it is the Actor's fault for the brake failure?

An Actor is not a gun specialist, and even if they are, the industry (studio, weapons department,...) should treat them like they aren't. It is the industry's responsibility to ensure protocols are followed, and that the experts are in place. The Actor is the expect in acting, not weapons, props, or anything else other than acting.

There was a system failure that allowed for an Actor to touch a live weapon. That is the issue... An actor should never touch a live weapon, since they are assumed to be gun "illiterate."

 

[yaxomoxay]

A gun is just like any other prop. If the Actor gets into a car, the brakes fail, and it takes out a crew member, would you say it is the Actor's fault for the brake failure?

An Actor is not a gun specialist, and even if they are, the industry (studio, weapons department,...) should treat them like they aren't. It is the industry's responsibility to ensure protocols are followed, and that the experts are in place. The Actor is the expect in acting, not weapons, props, or anything else other than acting.

Conceptually you're right, but a gun is meant to kill so the car parallel doesn't really work. Now, again, it's clearly a tragic accident and likely Baldwin's culpability is minimal (as actor. As producer is another game)

 

[JT2002TJ]

Conceptually you're right, but a gun is meant to kill so the car parallel doesn't really work. Now, again, it's clearly a tragic accident and likely Baldwin's culpability is minimal (as actor. As producer is another game)

This is where I disagree... A prop gun is NOT meant to kill. It is meant to be a prop like anything else. If the prop has a failure, it is the failure of the system that allowed it to get beyond the prop department. If the industry insists on using actual guns instead of specifically designed guns (for whatever reason), that once again is not the Actors fault. As far as the actors are concerned, it is another prop like a car, an umbrella, a pool cue, whatever else handed to the actor.

 

[deeddawg]

This is where I disagree... A prop gun is NOT meant to kill. It is meant to be a prop like anything else. If the prop has a failure, it is the failure of the system that allowed it to get beyond the prop department. If the industry insists on using actual guns instead of specifically designed guns (for whatever reason), that once again is not the Actors fault. As far as the actors are concerned, it is another prop like a car, an umbrella, a pool cue, whatever else handed to the actor.

Define "prop gun"?

If crew members were using that weapon for recreational shooting during breaks, as reported, then it seems it was a fully functioning firearm. Which then did exactly what loaded firearms do when the trigger is pulled.

What I wrote above remains true: Had Baldwin verified the status of the firearm himself, it's quite probable that Hutchins' husband wouldn't be a widow and her son wouldn't be without his mother.

One of the tenets of firearms safety is assuming any firearm is loaded until you've personally verified it is not. This applies no matter how much you trust the person who is handing you the firearm and telling you it's not loaded. You still verify it yourself. It's really very simple to do, especially with a revolver, and learning to do so takes little time.

 

[theluggage]

Yep and someone's now dead because Baldwin trusted what he was told and didn't verify the weapon's status himself.

No. Someone is dead because some idiot left a live round in a gun that was being used as a movie prop, and the person who's job it was to check it pronounced it unloaded. Sure, you can save a small portion of the responsibility for Baldwin for not double-checking (and he's bound to be haunted by that for the rest of his life) - but the real problem, and where the real blame lies, is that a live round should never have got anywhere near the actor who was supposed to point a gun at someone and pull the trigger. Blaming Baldwin is making him a scapegoat.

I mean, maybe he should have checked that the lighting rig was correctly wired up, that the heavy camera was properly secured on it's tripod, that the sound guy didn't have their headphones turned up too loud and the guy with the boom mic wasn't putting themselves at risk of back problems.

It's not up to an actor to actually be competent at whatever they're pretending to do on screen.

 

[CartesianProduct2014]

This is where I disagree... A prop gun is NOT meant to kill. It is meant to be a prop like anything else. If the prop has a failure, it is the failure of the system that allowed it to get beyond the prop department. If the industry insists on using actual guns instead of specifically designed guns (for whatever reason), that once again is not the Actors fault. As far as the actors are concerned, it is another prop like a car, an umbrella, a pool cue, whatever else handed to the actor.

In your opinion - does your rationale apply to management not baring any responsibility either?

 

[CartesianProduct2014]

No. Someone is dead because some idiot left a live round in a gun that was being used as a movie prop, and the person who's job it was to check it pronounced it unloaded. Sure, you can save a small portion of the responsibility for Baldwin for not double-checking (and he's bound to be haunted by that for the rest of his life) - but the real problem, and where the real blame lies, is that a live round should never have got anywhere near the actor who was supposed to point a gun at someone and pull the trigger. Blaming Baldwin is making him a scapegoat.

I mean, maybe he should have checked that the lighting rig was correctly wired up, that the heavy camera was properly secured on it's tripod, that the sound guy didn't have their headphones turned up too loud and the guy with the boom mic wasn't putting themselves at risk of back problems.

It's not up to an actor to actually be competent at whatever they're pretending to do on screen.

Reasonable care is a fair standard.

 

[deeddawg]

No. Someone is dead because some idiot left a live round in a gun that was being used as a movie prop, and the person who's job it was to check it pronounced it unloaded. Sure, you can save a small portion of the responsibility for Baldwin for not double-checking (and he's bound to be haunted by that for the rest of his life) - but the real problem, and where the real blame lies, is that a live round should never have got anywhere near the actor who was supposed to point a gun at someone and pull the trigger. Blaming Baldwin is making him a scapegoat.

I mean, maybe he should have checked that the lighting rig was correctly wired up, that the heavy camera was properly secured on it's tripod, that the sound guy didn't have their headphones turned up too loud and the guy with the boom mic wasn't putting themselves at risk of back problems.

It's not up to an actor to actually be competent at whatever they're pretending to do on screen.

Sure, there were many process/procedure failures leading up to Hutchins death. Lots of blame to go around.

Nevertheless, the person holding a functioning firearm has an inherent responsibility in its handling and the results thereof.

I find it odd how fervently some seem to wish to absolve Baldwin of any culpability at all.

 

[theluggage]

Define "prop gun"?

Any gun on a film set where people are going to pretend to fire it at people.

If crew members were using that weapon for recreational shooting during breaks, as reported,

...then they, and/or whoever allowed that to happen, bear a large part of the responsibility for the consequences - not the person who was handed a loaded gun and told it was unloaded.

Of course, that's an "only in the USA" situation - in many other countries, even if a filmmaker had dispensation to use real guns as props there would be no cause for them to have live ammunition.

One of the tenets of firearms safety is assuming any firearm is loaded until you've personally verified it is not.

Another one is (or should be) never hand a loaded firearm to someone who isn't qualified to use one.