Alec Baldwin shooting: Lawyer suggests potential sabotage on ‘Rust’ set.

[Blumlein 88]

The armorer is the main culprit. No live rounds should have been on the set, but they were. The armorer should have definitively determined everything was safe before any scene. That someone was shot means definitively she didn't. Pretty much end of the story on that. It is simply too easy to do in seconds prior to any practicing or filming and definitively it was not done. She is the primary culprit and there is no getting around that.

 

[jkasch]

‘Rust’ armorer has ‘no idea’ where live rounds came from and blames deadly accident on cost-cutting bosses

Lawyers for Hannah Gutierrez-Reed told NBC late Thursday that she “is devastated and completely beside herself over the events that have transpired.”

nypost.com

 

[blueone]

‘Rust’ armorer has ‘no idea’ where live rounds came from and blames deadly accident on cost-cutting bosses

Lawyers for Hannah Gutierrez-Reed told NBC late Thursday that she “is devastated and completely beside herself over the events that have transpired.”

nypost.com

I've seen this. It implies a conspiracy. Very difficult to believe without evidence.

 

[blueone]

This conversation reminds me of a discussion I had with a Star Trek fan years ago. I'm not a Trekie at all, but I have seen some episodes of a couple series. I know someone who is a Trekie, an enthusiastic fan, and he had a replica phaser handgun. I was taken aback that an adult, an engineer too, could feel that way about a science fiction show, to the point of owning a toy prop. Out of courtesy when he showed me the phaser I examined it, and noticed the switch controlling the "stun" setting. Imagine a weapon, even in the hands of police officers, where the difference between the equivalent of tasing someone or vaporizing them is a simple switch setting. In the US, I can only imagine the law suits.

 

[Gorgonzola]

I could see the charges against the armory but not Baldwin.....

The armorer is guilty of criminal negligence; Baldwin of involuntary manslaughter.

The armorer loaded the gun or was personally responsible for doing so. There was apparently use of live ammunition around the site; perhaps she negligently only checked to see that rounds were in the chambers of the revolver rather than actually inserting blank cartridges -- this would explain how live rounds were in the chambers but does not excuse the armorer in the least degree.

For his part, Baldwin pointed the gun in an unsafe direction, put his finger on the trigger and pulled it -- all are totally contrary to the long-accepted rules of gun handling. Baldwin (at one point) insisted he didn't pull the trigger: nonsense. The type of gun, (as virtually all guns made in recent decades), will only fire if the trigger is pulled. (From rare personal experience) it is possible to pull the trigger before intending to account of prematurely applying just a little too much pressure -- but one's finger must be on the trigger for this to happen.

 

[jkasch]

My guess is that he inadvertently pulled the trigger while unholstering the gun and it was still pulled when he cocked the hammer. Pure speculation on my part.

 

[Ricardus]

Prop guns are still real guns. There's no visual difference,

And as someone who is not an armorer or an expert on hollywood film making, this is baffling. PROP guns should be what my brain thinks of when it hears PROP GUNS. Unable to be fired. PERIOD. End of story. There is no reason to be using real firearms on set in 2023.

 

[blueone]

And as someone who is not an armorer or an expert on hollywood film making, this is baffling. PROP guns should be what my brain thinks of when it hears PROP GUNS. Unable to be fired. PERIOD. End of story. There is no reason to be using real firearms on set in 2023.

I've read that some prop guns are like that. Plastic replicas. Others are real guns modified so that they can't fire. But apparently real guns loaded with blanks are used too. I'm as baffled as you are.

 

[Gorgonzola]

My guess is that he inadvertently pulled the trigger while unholstering the gun and it was still pulled when he cocked the hammer. Pure speculation on my part.

It's fair to speculate but this isn't likely the reason. Revolvers in general will not fire while cocking even if the trigger is being pulled. Cocking causes a very distinctive sensation on one's finger, and as separate action, pull, is required to fire the gun.

He pointed the gun at someone regardless of whether he specifically intended to. He had his finger on the trigger. He pulled the trigger, (necessarily, regardless of his protests to the contrary), even if it was the result of a little too much pressure releasing hammer . These three separate failings amount to very significant negligence.

 

[Inner Space]

And as someone who is not an armorer or an expert on hollywood film making, this is baffling. PROP guns should be what my brain thinks of when it hears PROP GUNS. Unable to be fired. PERIOD. End of story. There is no reason to be using real firearms on set in 2023.

I've read that some prop guns are like that. Plastic replicas. Others are real guns modified so that they can't fire. But apparently real guns loaded with blanks are used too. I'm as baffled as you are.

Mainly they're waiting for CGI to catch up. At the moment it's exceptionally difficult to place a muzzle flash linear with a barrel that could be aligned anywhere within a 360-degree sphere. Plus they want the subliminal reaction from the actor caused by the blank noise.

That said, the two big companies I have most contact with have decided to go all-CGI for gunshots going forward. (Also they're replacing live animals with CGI wherever possible.) After Rust, I doubt if we'll see a firearms mistake again. Next time, it will be cars or something.

 

[Ricardus]

Mainly they're waiting for CGI to catch up. At the moment it's exceptionally difficult to place a muzzle flash linear with a barrel that could be aligned anywhere within a 360-degree sphere. Plus they want the subliminal reaction from the actor caused by the blank noise.

That said, the two big companies I have most contact with have decided to go all-CGI for gunshots going forward. (Also they're replacing live animals with CGI wherever possible.) After Rust, I doubt if we'll see a firearms mistake again. Next time, it will be cars or something.

I know there is a cop show out there with real "prop" guns and CGI muzzle flashes. I think the titanic woman is on the show. The LED on the front of the barrel lets the CGI people know when to add the flash.

And it would be trivial to add a loud noise on set to startle the actors when the gun gets "fired."

 

[Bob from Florida]

I know there is a cop show out there with real "prop" guns and CGI muzzle flashes. I think the titanic woman is on the show. The LED on the front of the barrel lets the CGI people know when to add the flash.

And it would be trivial to add a loud noise on set to startle the actors when the gun gets "fired."

The Gander Mountain store we had in Lake Mary, Florida - before Gander went bankrupt - had 2 terrific shooting ranges. One if them was a live fire range while the other was a simulator range. On the simulator range you had your choice of Beretta 92 nine mm or a Glock nine mm. Both guns had the magazine replaced by a CO2 cartridge and a laser in the barrel. Pulling the trigger resulted in 2 things simultaneously. The CO2 would operate the action and the laser fired a burst that would be detected by the range sensors. They were real guns converted for simulator and the weight and kick from the action were fairly authentic. For a movie, CGI would add the flash. Expensive compared to blanks but completely safe.

 

[Alice of Old Vincennes]

The State's attorney is unprofessional. Just keep your mouth shut. Baldwin's criminal liability will be very difficult to prove. Case will go to trial. I expect not guilty verdict.

 

[amirm]

I guess my issue with Baldwin's case is that he did hire an armorer. That must have cost $200K+ seeing how she had to be on site and such. All she had to do was make sure the gun was safe. Surely, no matter how inexperienced, from a hiring person's point of view, he did what he needed to safeguard against a live bullet being in the gun. No? I mean even an ordinary citizen with some gun knowledge would be able to assure said gun was safe to hand the Baldwin.

On top of that, didn't someone else shout that the gun was cold? If so, then Baldwin had more than one reason to think the gun was safe.

Clearly he had no intention of shooting or killing anyone. So the question is only one of negligence.

The other angle on this is all the money that is going to be wasted representing and prosecuting him. Surely that money could be put to much better use than a trial on a marginal case like this. I would think he will eat through $1M to $2M without trying hard. Let's use that money for some other cause that will do some good.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I guess my issue with Baldwin's case is that he did hire an armorer. That must have cost $200K+ seeing how she had to be on site and such. All she had to do was make sure the gun was safe. Surely, no matter how inexperienced, from a hiring person's point of view, he did what he needed to safeguard against a live bullet being in the gun. No? I mean even an ordinary citizen with some gun knowledge would be able to assure said gun was safe to hand the Baldwin.

On top of that, didn't someone else shout that the gun was cold? If so, then Baldwin had more than one reason to think the gun was safe.

Clearly he had no intention of shooting or killing anyone. So the question is only one of negligence.

The other angle on this is all the money that is going to be wasted representing and prosecuting him. Surely that money could be put to much better use than a trial on a marginal case like this. I would think he will eat through $1M to $2M without trying hard. Let's use that money for some other cause that will do some good.

Some prosecutors look at that expense to Baldwin as a way of punishing him even though they probably won't get a conviction. Plus gets them publicity for trying to get one.

I agree he seems to have hired the right people, and apparently from descriptions of those in the business the actor doesn't check the gun, a producer or assistant and the armorer will and tell the actor it is cold. But I'm no attorney. Alice of Old Vincennes is.

 

[raif71]

I guess my issue with Baldwin's case is that he did hire an armorer. That must have cost $200K+ seeing how she had to be on site and such. All she had to do was make sure the gun was safe. Surely, no matter how inexperienced, from a hiring person's point of view, he did what he needed to safeguard against a live bullet being in the gun. No? I mean even an ordinary citizen with some gun knowledge would be able to assure said gun was safe to hand the Baldwin.

On top of that, didn't someone else shout that the gun was cold? If so, then Baldwin had more than one reason to think the gun was safe.

Clearly he had no intention of shooting or killing anyone. So the question is only one of negligence.

The other angle on this is all the money that is going to be wasted representing and prosecuting him. Surely that money could be put to much better use than a trial on a marginal case like this. I would think he will eat through $1M to $2M without trying hard. Let's use that money for some other cause that will do some good.

Money could be put into audio gears galore

 

[blueone]

Clearly he had no intention of shooting or killing anyone. So the question is only one of negligence.

Unfortunately for your perspective, New Mexico criminal statutes have specific crime definitions for cases like this. That's why the prosecutor is giving the jury the choice between two different counts of involuntary manslaughter.

Alec Baldwin, armorer will be charged with involuntary manslaughter in Rust shooting

The Santa Fe District Attorney’s Office said it is Baldwin and an armorer with involuntary manslaughter in the shooting on a movie set in 2021 that left cinematographer Halyna Hutchins

www.abqjournal.com

Anyway, being repetitive, I'm a strong believer that you never, ever, ever, trust a gun. In my mind it doesn't matter if your expert spouse or your combat veteran father hands it to you and tells you it's safe. You check it for proper loading, operation, and the safety setting for semi-automatics. In my thinking there's no such thing as trust when it comes to guns. They're too dangerous, and mistakes can be tragic and irreversible.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Anyway, being repetitive, I'm a strong believer that you never, ever, ever, trust a gun. In my mind it doesn't matter if your expert spouse or your combat veteran father hands it to you and tells you it's safe. You check it for proper loading, operation, and the safety setting for semi-automatics. In my thinking there's no such thing as trust when it comes to guns. They're too dangerous, and mistakes can be tragic and irreversible.

I agree with you on firearm safety. However, it apparently is normal practice in movies for assistant directors and armorers to declare a gun cold or not and hand it to actors who do not check it.

In my opinion, in addition to what they do now, the movie industry should institute a certification program. An actor or actress cannot do scenes involving firearms until they have had a training class and been certified to know safe handling practices and the basic firearms safety rules. Those should be recertified on some schedule like every 2 or 3 years. Then when handed a firearm they should do the proper check themselves as well.

Still dummy rounds have a BB inside and rattle around to let you know it is empty. The armorer simply did not check for that. Otherwise this could not have happened.

 

[blueone]

I agree with you on firearm safety. However, it apparently is normal practice in movies for assistant directors and armorers to declare a gun cold or not and hand it to actors who do not check it.

I bet that practice will decline now that Baldwin has been charged.

In my opinion, in addition to what they do now, the movie industry should institute a certification program. An actor or actress cannot do scenes involving firearms until they have had a training class and been certified to know safe handling practices and the basic firearms safety rules. Those should be recertified on some schedule like every 2 or 3 years. Then when handed a firearm they should do the proper check themselves as well.

Good idea.

Still dummy rounds have a BB inside and rattle around to let you know it is empty. The armorer simply did not check for that. Otherwise this could not have happened.

I didn't know that.

 

[Gorgonzola]

...
Still dummy rounds have a BB inside and rattle around to let you know it is empty. The armorer simply did not check for that. Otherwise this could not have happened.

I don't know this to be necessarily true for all dummy cartridges. I pretty sure it is not true for blanks (-- the difference between dummies and blanks has already been mentioned).