Baldwin kills cinematographer.

[mw360]

Don't know if it's true, but I've read there were supposed to be dummies in the gun. Dummies are used in filming so that it looks like the gun is loaded.....and blanks would look the same too. So just looking at the gun without opening it isn't going to tell you whether it's safe or not.

The armorer.... and I wouldn't want to be in her situation right now....obviously was hired so that an experienced gun pro would be in control of and responsible for loading the gun with whatever should be in there. She and the AD have said she showed him the gun after she'd loaded it, and he's said she opened it so he could see how it was loaded....I wouldn't want to be in his situation either......and yet neither of them spotted the live bullet.

Even if Baldwin had looked inside the gun, I'm not so sure he would have spotted what both the gun pro and the AD missed.

One thing's for sure, there will be lawsuits!

Yep. Dummies. All the statements so far suggest the gun was loaded with dummies. Using dummies in revolvers is important because otherwise certain demographics would point and laugh, 'doesn't that Hollywood ******* know his gun isn't even loaded!'

Of course now they're pointing and laughing with, 'didn't that Hollywood ******* know his gun was loaded?'. But that's fine. People love it when a nice simplistic outlook validates their worldview.

 

[Evangelion]

baldwin was the executive producer , crew had walked off set because of safety concerns so yes AB is responsible here and should be tried for manslaughter

Baldwin was one of the six producers of the movie. And besides the six producers, there were four executive producers, none of which was Baldwin.

It should be noted that when the crew threatened to strike the production due to safety concerns, Alec Baldwin publicly voiced his support for the crew.

 

[jkcerda]

Baldwin was one of the six producers of the movie. And besides the six producers, there were four executive producers, none of which was Baldwin.

It should be noted that when the crew threatened to strike the production due to safety concerns, Alec Baldwin publicly voiced his support for the crew.

I am fine with ALL of them facing charges.

Yep. Dummies. All the statements so far suggest the gun was loaded with dummies. Using dummies in revolvers is important because otherwise certain demographics would point and laugh, 'doesn't that Hollywood ******* know his gun isn't even loaded!'

Of course now they're pointing and laughing with, 'didn't that Hollywood ******* know his gun was loaded?'. But that's fine. People love it when a nice simplistic outlook validates their worldview.

you need a serious camera close up to see rounds inside a revolver.

 

[mw360]

you need a serious camera close up to see rounds inside a revolver.

Yeah, you'd have to have to be pretty close and the gun would have to be almost aimed directly at the... ohhh....

 

[Madhatter32]

you don't even have to open it, you can see through the side if it has any bullets on it.
see the shiny things on the cylinder? that is how you know it's loaded.
AB has been in plenty of movies handling firearms. his negligence got someone killed.

It's an objective reasonable person test. Would a reasonable actor look to see if there were bullets loaded -- even in the chamber? Maybe. Not sure how a reasonable actor would know if the rounds were dummies or not -- especially if they were told that the gun was "cold" by a person who should is responsible for such things. I think Baldwin's ultimate liability will hinge on his role as a producer and his possible contributions in creating an unsafe work environment.

 

[deeddawg]

It's an objective reasonable person test. Would a reasonable actor look to see if there were bullets loaded -- even in the chamber? Maybe. Not sure how a reasonable actor would know if the rounds were dummies or not -- especially if they were told that the gun was "cold" by a person who should is responsible for such things. I think Baldwin's ultimate liability will hinge on his role as a producer and his possible contributions in creating an unsafe work environment.

See photos posted previously in the thread.

• Dummy rounds have no primer, and thus there's a big open hole in the bottom*
• Live rounds - including blanks - have a primer, and thus there's a primer instead of a hole.
• Blanks have no bullet - the brass is pinched at the business end and looks drastically different.

The above is easily taught with a couple minutes of a safety or other briefing by the armorer. Which might just be a good idea when you're going to be pointing fully functional firearms at other people on the set.

As for where the reasonable person part comes into play -- concerns were raised over safety and other matters shortly prior to the incident, with crew walking out and being replaced by non-union crew. We also had the firearms being used for recreational shooting between scenes, which would've been readily audible to anyone in the vicinity. Yet Baldwin accepted a loaded firearm from someone other than the Armorer and also accepted the word of someone not the Armorer that the firearm wasn't loaded.

I don't know about you, but given that there'd been safety concerns and the use of live ammunition, maybe a reasonable person might not take the word of an assistant director?

Whether the chain of events leads to criminal or civil consequences is another matter, but there remains the fact that a woman died as a result of Baldwin pulling the trigger on a loaded functional firearm.

If the on-set processes were so loosey-goosey as to have actors accepting firearms from anyone than the Armorer, then there's possibly negligence on the producers for allowing poor processes. If the on-set processes were specific - such as actors accept firearms only from the Armorer - then there's potential negligence in terms of Baldwin breaking/abandoning that process and accepting a firearm from an assistant director instead of the Armorer.

* there are some types of dummy round such as snap-caps which do have something where the primer goes, but they're completely different looking from live ammo and typically plastic or nylon rather than brass & lead.

 

[Madhatter32]

See photo posted previously in the thread.

Dummy rounds have no primer, and thus there's a big hole in the bottom.
Live rounds - including blanks - have a primer, and thus the hole is filled with the primer.
Blanks have no bullet - the brass is pinched at the business end and looks drastically different.

The above is easily taught within a couple minutes of a safety or other briefing by the armorer. Which might just be a good idea when you're going to have fully functional firearms on the set.

As for where the reasonable person part comes into play -- concerns were raised over safety and other matters shortly prior to the incident, with crew walking out and being replaced by non-union crew. Baldwin accepted a loaded firearm from someone other than the Armorer and also accepted the word of someone not the Armorer that the firearm wasn't loaded.

I don't know about you, but given that there'd been safety concerns I'd say a reasonable person might not take the word of an assistant director?

Whether the chain of events leads to criminal or civil repercussions is another matter, but there remains the fact that a woman died as a result of Baldwin pulling the trigger on a loaded functional firearm. If the on-set processes were so loosey-goosey as to have actors accepting firearms from anyone then there's likely negligence on the producers for allowing poor processes. If the on-set processes were specific - such as actors accept firearms only from the Armorer - then there's potential negligence in terms of Baldwin breaking/abandoning that process and accepting a firearm from an assistant director instead of the Armorer.

If actors are typically trained in such matters, I definitely agree with you. I really do not know. I assume most actors are not trained in gun safety. Is it something that is taught at Julliard? Maybe we need Clint Eastwood as an expert witness.

 

[deeddawg]

If actors are typically trained in such matters, I definitely agree with you. I really do not know. I assume most actors are not trained in gun safety. Is it something that is taught at Julliard? Maybe we need Clint Eastwood as an expert witness.

IMHO if they aren't given such safety briefings when working on a set using functional firearms, then they ought to be doing so. How many hours do actors typically spend in makeup and costuming? Can the Armorer not swing by the make up tent for five minutes?

While not a great analogy, consider airline travel. Every flight has a safety briefing showing where the emergency exits are and how to use the oxygen & seatbelts. Some sort of a "here's how you double check the firearms you'll be handling today" briefing would be no more complicated and take just as long or even less. It's not rocket science. Kids learn this stuff in hunter safety classes. Surely a grown adult can manage what myriads of kids can learn easily?

If for some reason that doesn't happen, then you have a strict process in which the on-set firearms expert - the Armorer - is the sole individual handing firearms to the actors immediately before needed and collecting them immediately after. That didn't happen either - the firearm was given to Baldwin by an assist director.

 

[jkcerda]

If actors are typically trained in such matters, I definitely agree with you. I really do not know. I assume most actors are not trained in gun safety. Is it something that is taught at Julliard? Maybe we need Clint Eastwood as an expert witness.

5 minutes to teach.

they had shot live ammo there and he still could not be bothered to have the actual armorer check the gun.

 

[jkcerda]

Yeah, you'd have to have to be pretty close and the gun would have to be almost aimed directly at the... ohhh....

EXACTLY, if you are going to aim a gun straight at the lens and knowing they had recently shot live ammo with the guns would you not be negligent if you did not verify with the armorer the gun was safe instead of taking the word from a person that just handed it to you?

 

[bunnspecial]

There's a lot strange that happened here.

Reports I've read are that the gun involved was a single action Colt(or possibly a clone like an Uberti) in 45 Colt. I have a lot of experience with these, both Colts and their identically-operating counterparts like the Ubertis. I have an Uberti single action in 45 Colt that I've shot thousands of rounds out of.

First of all, I don't agree with the assertion that the actor should not check the gun. It is a basic tennet of firearm safety that you personally check and clear a gun handed to you EVEN IF you've just watched someone else clear it. I practice this rule myself.

Most revolvers, and ones of this type, are pretty obvious if they're loaded. You can see the cartridges through the gap in the back of the cylinder and the frame, and you can also hear them "rattling" when handled.

This style single action revolver is not the easiest to clear as the hammer is pulled to half cock(two click), the loading gate open, and the cylinder rotated one by one to view each individual chamber. Still, though, it takes 30 seconds of training to teach someone to do this, and another 30 seconds to actually do it.

I've seen a couple of people mention "misfire". These guns can fire if they are dropped or the hammer hit with it resting over a live round, but that brings up another point of knowing the gun(which presumably the armorer should) and safe handling. On a single action Colt-type gun, that means that the gun is NEVER fully loaded-it's loaded with 5 rounds and handled, until ready to shoot, with the hammer resting on an empty chamber.

Aside from that, the gun WILL NOT fire unless the hammer is pulled back. Pulling the trigger does not, by itself, cause the gun to fire. It CAN NOT fire from pulling the trigger unless the hammer has been pulled back all the way(4 clicks).

I see a bunch of failures here

1. Live rounds should not have been anywhere near the gun

2. The armorer should have checked and verified that the gun was not loaded prior to handing it off

3. As I understand protocol, Baldwin should not have accepted the gun from anyone other than the armorer

4. Baldwin violated all four of the basic rules of gun safety: He assumed the gun was unloaded, had his finger on the trigger when not intending to fire, pointed the gun at something he didn't intend to shoot, and was not aware of his target or what was behind it.

I see a lot of blame to go around, and yes to me Baldwin does bear some of the blame...

 

[Madhatter32]

IMHO if they aren't given such safety briefings when working on a set using functional firearms, then they ought to be doing so. How many hours do actors typically spend in makeup and costuming? Can the Armorer not swing by the make up tent for five minutes?

While not a great analogy, consider airline travel. Every flight has a safety briefing showing where the emergency exits are and how to use the oxygen & seatbelts. Some sort of a "here's how you double check the firearms you'll be handling today" briefing would be no more complicated and take just as long or even less. It's not rocket science. Kids learn this stuff in hunter safety classes. Surely a grown adult can manage what myriads of kids can learn easily?

If for some reason that doesn't happen, then you have a strict process in which the on-set firearms expert - the Armorer - is the sole individual handing firearms to the actors immediately before needed and collecting them immediately after. That didn't happen either - the firearm was given to Baldwin by an assist director.

What you say is reasonable regarding the safety briefings. If that is the industry practice then I think that making sure such briefings take place is the ultimate responsibility of the producer -- not the actor.

Now, if Baldwin did receive the safety briefings, and still shot the woman in the face then that would be a better case for his liability and perhaps criminal recklessness. Given the facts as I know them, though, it is unclear to me that he even realized the gun was a real one let alone loaded.

 

[deeddawg]

What you say is reasonable regarding the safety briefings. If that is the industry practice then I think that making sure such briefings take place is the ultimate responsibility of the producer -- not the actor.

Now, if Baldwin did receive the safety briefings, and still shot the woman in the face then that would be a better case for his liability and perhaps criminal recklessness. Given the facts as I know them, though, it is unclear to me that he even realized the gun was a real one let alone loaded.

Reportedly Baldwin served both as an actor and as a producer, so he's in a bit of interesting situation...

My comments are meant somewhat generally in terms of "should be" rather than specifically focused on "what is" or this specific incident. For example, IMHO the person whose finger is on the trigger bears responsibility for what happens when it is pulled. IMHO if someone is unfamiliar with the basic tenets of firearms safety and checking a firearm's status, then that person has a responsibility to refuse to handle the firearm until they've learned how to safely handle it. My view may not be standard practice in the film industry, but if it had been then perhaps this tragic death might've not occurred?

 

[CartesianProduct2014]

The armorer’s lawyers are floating a possible defense theory.

Not too convincing of a theory either.

'Rust' armorer's attorneys speculate sabotage occurred on set in deadly Alec Baldwin shooting incident

The armorer on the set of “Rust” offered a chilling theory through her attorneys about what led to the accidental shooting death of Halyna Hutchins.

www.foxnews.com

 

[jkcerda]

The armorer’s lawyers are floating a possible defense theory.

Not too convincing of a theory either.

'Rust' armorer's attorneys speculate sabotage occurred on set in deadly Alec Baldwin shooting incident

The armorer on the set of “Rust” offered a chilling theory through her attorneys about what led to the accidental shooting death of Halyna Hutchins.

www.foxnews.com

well, the way the bullets are loaded into the revolver might leave finger prints , not sure if the heat produced by firing it would evaporate the print. EVERYONE is going to try an figure out a way to wiggle their way out of things, the DA will not bring charges if it looks like a lost case and if there is enough doubt out there everyone will walk w/o even facing charges.

 

[deeddawg]

The armorer’s lawyers are floating a possible defense theory.

Not too convincing of a theory either.

'Rust' armorer's attorneys speculate sabotage occurred on set in deadly Alec Baldwin shooting incident

The armorer on the set of “Rust” offered a chilling theory through her attorneys about what led to the accidental shooting death of Halyna Hutchins.

www.foxnews.com

Interesting theory - though it raises additional questions about the Armorer's potential negligence.

In an environment where live ammunition was present, why were dummy rounds allowed which were not easily distinguished from live rounds? e.g. no primer (leaving a 4-5mm dia. hole) or different color (red, blue, etc)

If there were some reason why the dummy rounds *must* be visually indistinguishable from live rounds, why were the dummy rounds not kept under strict control at all times so as to avoid any chance of intermingling?

 

[CartesianProduct2014]

I agree.

Rounds (live or dummy) should be handled with the same care as firearms.
They should never be left unattended and out of the custodial control of the handler. Like evidence there should be a chain of care/custody to prevent safety contamination.