Alec Baldwin fatally shoots woman with prop gun on movie set

[GreatAuk]

Baldie has had his say - was the armourer and assistant director's fault according to him, they didn't do what they should have done.

Alec Baldwin blames assistant director and props manager for Rust shooting

Actor gives rare interview in which he insists he isn’t to blame for Halyna Hutchins’ death, despite holding gun that fired fatal shot

www.theguardian.com

Their lawyer says he's attempting to deflect blame though.

Alec continues to claim he didn't pull the trigger too, although some testing has concluded the gun couldn't have gone off of he didn't pull it.

Hannah says that the assistant director was supposed to call her in to check the gun before handing it over, but he didn't. She is also sueing the company which supplied the ammo.

Police decided not to take fingerprints from live r rounds found on set.


None of them are coming out of this looking good. Especially now the dirty laundry has begun to be aired.

 

[Quartz]

Baldie has had his say - was the armourer and assistant director's fault according to him, they didn't do what they should have done.

Surely it was the armourer's job to be responsible for the guns? If she failed in that responsibility, then that's on her.

 

[Chris Wilson]

Is it any wonder American, and most successful western, lawyers live in big houses and promote litigation? God how I now wish that I hadn't rebelled against family advice and hope for me to go into law Talk about taking candy off of babies...

I'm here nursing aching joints after battling a recalcitrant Mercedes 4x4. Profitable enough, but sitting behind a clean dask prompting the arrogant pride of the human race to attempt legal triumphs over one another seems damned appealing!

 

[adam cool dude]

Baldie has had his say - was the armourer and assistant director's fault according to him, they didn't do what they should have done.

Alec Baldwin blames assistant director and props manager for Rust shooting

Actor gives rare interview in which he insists he isn’t to blame for Halyna Hutchins’ death, despite holding gun that fired fatal shot

www.theguardian.com

Their lawyer says he's attempting to deflect blame though.

Alec continues to claim he didn't pull the trigger too, although some testing has concluded the gun couldn't have gone off of he didn't pull it.

Hannah says that the assistant director was supposed to call her in to check the gun before handing it over, but he didn't. She is also sueing the company which supplied the ammo.

Police decided not to take fingerprints from live r rounds found on set.


None of them are coming out of this looking good. Especially now the dirty laundry has begun to be aired.

If I take my truck out faulty and kill someone it is my responsibility for accepting the defect and driving with it. Even though it is the companies responsibility and mechanics responsibility to make sure the truck is safe and compliant. I have the final say when I do my checks in the morning.

He is equally at fault for not checking regardless of what came before him pulling that trigger.

 

[Angilion]

If I take my truck out faulty and kill someone it is my responsibility for accepting the defect and driving with it. Even though it is the companies responsibility and mechanics responsibility to make sure the truck is safe and compliant. I have the final say when I do my checks in the morning.

He is equally at fault for not checking regardless of what came before him pulling that trigger.

It's unlikely that he would be able to check in the circumstances. He was handed a gun that should have been loaded only with dummies but instead had at least one real round in it. There would be no way to tell that with the gun loaded. The whole point of dummies is to look the same as real rounds. To check, he would have had to have unloaded the gun, checked each round individually and reloaded it. Assuming he was trained to differentiate between a real round and a dummy (they look the same) and the dummy was manufactured correctly (to make it possible to tell the difference). If it wasn't manufactured correctly, the only way to tell would be to disassemble the round and look inside the casing. Also assuming he was cleared to handle ammunition on set. If an actor unloads and reloads a gun on set, the armourer probably should then re-unload and re-reload the gun because it's the armourer who is required to be able to do so safely.

If a mechanic replaced a key part in your truck with one that was visually identical but which would fail in a dangerous way when used during driving, would that failure be solely your responsibility? Even though you couldn't tell even if you did examine that part during your checks?

In the case of this death, I think more than one person is to blame but Baldwin less than the others in his capacity as an actor. He's more to blame in his capacity as producer and generally in charge because in that capacity he should have ensured appropriate safety precautions were taken and he didn't.

 

[Werewolf]

It's unlikely that he would be able to check in the circumstances. He was handed a gun that should have been loaded only with dummies but instead had at least one real round in it. There would be no way to tell that with the gun loaded. The whole point of dummies is to look the same as real rounds. To check, he would have had to have unloaded the gun, checked each round individually and reloaded it. Assuming he was trained to differentiate between a real round and a dummy (they look the same) and the dummy was manufactured correctly (to make it possible to tell the difference). If it wasn't manufactured correctly, the only way to tell would be to disassemble the round and look inside the casing. Also assuming he was cleared to handle ammunition on set. If an actor unloads and reloads a gun on set, the armourer probably should then re-unload and re-reload the gun because it's the armourer who is required to be able to do so safely.

If a mechanic replaced a key part in your truck with one that was visually identical but which would fail in a dangerous way when used during driving, would that failure be solely your responsibility? Even though you couldn't tell even if you did examine that part during your checks?

In the case of this death, I think more than one person is to blame but Baldwin less than the others in his capacity as an actor. He's more to blame in his capacity as producer and generally in charge because in that capacity he should have ensured appropriate safety precautions were taken and he didn't.

My father still tells the story of how when coming down a steep hill, he spotted a wheel go rolling past him...
I think it took him something like 20 years to trust any garage where he didn't know someone who worked there to change his tyres after that (he'd had it changed a few hours earlier because the tyre developed a puncture whilst out).

As you say there is a liability on the driver of a vehicle to make sure it's safe, and there are limits on how far that goes, for example you get your brake pads changed, it's not unreasonable to assume that the professional you've had do the job has done it correctly, so if the breaks fail and kill someone the police may look at how you might have handled the situation better (and if you'd had anything to drink, where on your phone etc) but there would also be an investigation into who fitted the brakes, their conditions, and make.
It's one of the reasons garages have training, and insurance, and the larger chains tend to be rather careful to document all of that so that mistakes are less likely and liability is clearer.

I think one of the issues with this case is going to be that (unless something has come out that I've not read), the armourer wasn't on set all the time, so there is a potential chain of custody issue with the guns in addition to everything else.

 

[visibleman]

Police decided not to take fingerprints from live r rounds found on set.

Surely that's policing 101 and right up there at the top of what to do at a crime scene involving guns?

 

[Semple]

I don't really get how he can claim he didn't fire the gun. That was part of the scene was for his character to shoot that gun. That would have been in front of dozens of people.

I get he's trying to say that he wouldn't have fired a gun with live ammunition, but that statement is inherently flawed and any lawyer would just rip it apart.

Ultimately I don't believe a single person on their own was solely responsible for this. There were failings from several parties and they each share a proportion of the blame.

I imagine it'll come down to an accidental death, and it'll be down to the family to sue the parties for the death of their loved one.

 

[Hades]

I don't really get how he can claim he didn't fire the gun. That was part of the scene was for his character to shoot that gun. That would have been in front of dozens of people.

I get he's trying to say that he wouldn't have fired a gun with live ammunition, but that statement is inherently flawed and any lawyer would just rip it apart.

Ultimately I don't believe a single person on their own was solely responsible for this. There were failings from several parties and they each share a proportion of the blame.

I imagine it'll come down to an accidental death, and it'll be down to the family to sue the parties for the death of their loved one.

The way I interpreted it was that he didn't pull the trigger, insinuating that the gun was faulty and discharged itself.

 

[adam cool dude]

It's unlikely that he would be able to check in the circumstances. He was handed a gun that should have been loaded only with dummies but instead had at least one real round in it. There would be no way to tell that with the gun loaded. The whole point of dummies is to look the same as real rounds. To check, he would have had to have unloaded the gun, checked each round individually and reloaded it. Assuming he was trained to differentiate between a real round and a dummy (they look the same) and the dummy was manufactured correctly (to make it possible to tell the difference). If it wasn't manufactured correctly, the only way to tell would be to disassemble the round and look inside the casing. Also assuming he was cleared to handle ammunition on set. If an actor unloads and reloads a gun on set, the armourer probably should then re-unload and re-reload the gun because it's the armourer who is required to be able to do so safely.

If a mechanic replaced a key part in your truck with one that was visually identical but which would fail in a dangerous way when used during driving, would that failure be solely your responsibility? Even though you couldn't tell even if you did examine that part during your checks?

In the case of this death, I think more than one person is to blame but Baldwin less than the others in his capacity as an actor. He's more to blame in his capacity as producer and generally in charge because in that capacity he should have ensured appropriate safety precautions were taken and he didn't.

I think it is more the case that I checked to the best of my knowledge that the truck was safe then I would be okay through my visual inspection and paperwork to back it up. This is where the detail needs to be found. Did he ask or confirm that the gun was safe or did he simply pick it up and fire it?

I am sure there must be a standard operating procedure for something like this and through investigation something must have been missed. Although it is America so most likely an S.O.P doesn't even exist.

 

[Terminal_Boy]

Baldwin’s defence appears to include “I didn’t pull the trigger”. Now, the only way the hammer on a Colt SSA pattern revolver can fall IF the trigger/hammer engagement isn’t damaged or has been modified is for the trigger to be pulled or held to the rear of travel.

FBI inspection report of said gun states “Working normally”, so there wasn’t an Accidental Discharge due to a mechanical failure of the gun.

There was a Negligent Discharge of a live round by Baldwin because he was handed a loaded firearm and didn’t he didn’t perform any checks himself before pointing it a human being and pulling the trigger.

Armourer was a diversity hire with zero experience - she needs to go to prison for not being in direct control of what gun was loaded with which ammunition at all times.

Whoever brought live rounds onto the set needs to go to prison.

Whoever handed Baldwin a gun filled with live rounds needs to go to prison, doubly so if they indeed did inform Baldwin it was a “cold gun”.

Baldwin needs to go to prison for pointing a fully functioning firearm at another human being and pulling the trigger without having checked himself to see if the gun was loaded and what it was loaded with.

 

[BananaDunka]

It could be argued that that is what those chains of responsibility are for, the armourer should be the primary checker in this, Baldwin could have done well to check yes but is he familiar with guns enough to know that what he just checked is carrying a live round? I've never handled a revolver I wouldn't ever know if a round was blank or live etc so would rely on those resposible for that to hand me what /should/ be correctly loaded and checked.

Above all else, those higher up the chain that hired the inexperienced armourer should be held accountable. They put lives at risk and caused one death because all they were worried about was ticking a box on the "Are we being politically correct" crib sheet.

 

[bigmike20vt]

If I take my truck out faulty and kill someone it is my responsibility for accepting the defect and driving with it. Even though it is the companies responsibility and mechanics responsibility to make sure the truck is safe and compliant. I have the final say when I do my checks in the morning.

He is equally at fault for not checking regardless of what came before him pulling that trigger.

its such a sad story but I am not so sure it is cut and dry. Really would you be deemed at fault if during a service a part was incorrectly installed which lead to failure and you killing someone? IF that happened i would have massive sympathy for you, almost (but not quite) as much as for "your" victim.

I hate american gun culture, and for me this is a rare edge case where i really do feel sorry for the person who in this case pulled the trigger. 99 x out of 100 normally i would be blaming the person who did pull the trigger but for me this may be that 1 time in 100 ................

 

[adam cool dude]

It could be argued that that is what those chains of responsibility are for, the armourer should be the primary checker in this, Baldwin could have done well to check yes but is he familiar with guns enough to know that what he just checked is carrying a live round? I've never handled a revolver I wouldn't ever know if a round was blank or live etc so would rely on those resposible for that to hand me what /should/ be correctly loaded and checked.

Above all else, those higher up the chain that hired the inexperienced armourer should be held accountable. They put lives at risk and caused one death because all they were worried about was ticking a box on the "Are we being politically correct" crib sheet.

It is not about if or what.

I have no idea how the movie industry works but in a normal workplace you should have a standard operating procedure that has also been risked assessed by H&S and the people who utilise that operating procedure should be fully trained in its procedures. Baldwin should have been fully trained in this procedure and what to do correctly to prevent a fatal shooting.

Evidently this wasn't the case as the accident wouldn't have happened otherwise.

It would be the same as giving some random work colleague the keys to a forklift and asking them to move some pallets only to end up running over someone due to lack of training.

its such a sad story but I am not so sure it is cut and dry. Really would you be deemed at fault if during a service a part was incorrectly installed which lead to failure and you killing someone? IF that happened i would have massive sympathy for you, almost (but not quite) as much as for "your" victim.

My point is I have been trained in what to expect and what to check of my potentially dangerous weapon to prevent such a thing from occurring. Of course nothing is cut and dry and things can happen but the whole point of risk assessing a procedure is to reduce the likelihood of something fatal happening.

Baldwin should have never been anywhere near the gun if wasn't trained how to check and use it correctly. Hence why he is going for the gun accidently went off route I think.

 

[R.P.L]

As I mentioned during a previous iteration of this debate, anyone handling guns (and even more so if they're going to be pointing it at someone else) should definitely be trained to check if it's safe themselves. Someone definitely ****** up here before the gun got to Baldwin, but safety procedures around handling lethal weapons should be as failsafe as practicably possible, and that obviously doesn't mean that if one person ***** up then people get shot.

 

[Angilion]

I don't really get how he can claim he didn't fire the gun. That was part of the scene was for his character to shoot that gun. That would have been in front of dozens of people.

From what I've read, the shooting occured during a discussion and practice for a scene, not during a scene. Actors, directors, etc, might well try parts of a scene several times (or even dozens of times) before the scene is actually filmed. More a case of an actor saying "so I'll stand like this, look like this and do this, draw the gun in this way, how does that look?" than a character doing something in a scene. It was not part of that discussion for him to fire the gun. Also, it should have been impossible for anyone to fire that gun at that time because it shouldn't have contained any live rounds. Only dummies, which are inert and cannot be fired in any circumstances.

I get he's trying to say that he wouldn't have fired a gun with live ammunition, but that statement is inherently flawed and any lawyer would just rip it apart.

That's not what he's saying or trying to say. He said, clearly, that he didn't pull the trigger. Which doesn't seem to be true unless the FBI is lying or incompetent to examine a gun. I think Alec Baldwin is mistaken and that he didn't intend to pull the trigger but did so unintentionally while drawing the gun with his finger on the trigger. Which shouldn't have mattered because the gun should have contained only dummies.

Ultimately I don't believe a single person on their own was solely responsible for this. There were failings from several parties and they each share a proportion of the blame.

I imagine it'll come down to an accidental death, and it'll be down to the family to sue the parties for the death of their loved one.

I agree with both of thise statements.

Baldwin’s defence appears to include “I didn’t pull the trigger”. Now, the only way the hammer on a Colt SSA pattern revolver can fall IF the trigger/hammer engagement isn’t damaged or has been modified is for the trigger to be pulled or held to the rear of travel.

FBI inspection report of said gun states “Working normally”, so there wasn’t an Accidental Discharge due to a mechanical failure of the gun.

There was a Negligent Discharge of a live round by Baldwin because he was handed a loaded firearm and didn’t he didn’t perform any checks himself before pointing it a human being and pulling the trigger.

Armourer was a diversity hire with zero experience - she needs to go to prison for not being in direct control of what gun was loaded with which ammunition at all times.

Whoever brought live rounds onto the set needs to go to prison.

Whoever handed Baldwin a gun filled with live rounds needs to go to prison, doubly so if they indeed did inform Baldwin it was a “cold gun”.

Baldwin needs to go to prison for pointing a fully functioning firearm at another human being and pulling the trigger without having checked himself to see if the gun was loaded and what it was loaded with.

The armourer did have training, which should have been enough to avoid this happening as it's a very basic thing to control what type of rounds are loaded into a gun used for filming. That shouldn't require any training or experience, really. Any legally competent adult who's had one minute to learn the differences between a real round, a blank and a dummy should have enough knowledge to be competent enough to understand why it's crucial to have constant control over which are loaded into a gun used for filming. Which should never be real rounds. Which should never be on a set.

I think the issue runs deeper. The whole thing was being done wrong. Basic safety precautions were not in place. I'd hold Alec Baldwin responsible more in his management capacity than in his acting capacity.

 

[mcast123]

He clearly didn't do it on purpose, but in murica let's see how much money we can get, instead of learning, changing and moving on.

 

[dowie]

It's unlikely that he would be able to check in the circumstances. He was handed a gun that should have been loaded only with dummies but instead had at least one real round in it. There would be no way to tell that with the gun loaded. The whole point of dummies is to look the same as real rounds. To check, he would have had to have unloaded the gun, checked each round individually and reloaded it.

IIRC, according to the AD's claim at least, he wouldn't have needed to do that as the dummies were specifically marked as such and so could have been recognised as such via a visual inspection, the issue on his part (according to his statements a while back) is that he remembered looking at three of them and couldn't recall if the armourer spun the drum (thereby showing the other rounds present).

Alec Baldwin fatally shoots woman with prop gun on movie set

It's funny how the people who are most "anti-gun" also seem to be the one's defending the seemingly lax attitude taken towards firearms on set, it's almost as if they have no clue about firearms in general and form opinions out of ignorance and lack of education. Almost seems the case doesn't...

forums.overclockers.co.uk

The armourer, AD and Baldwin all probably share some blame here. The armourer is surely ultimately responsible for the weapons being secured and safe and so has a lot of blame but there are allegations that the AD was reckless and the set wasn't safe (plus reports of crew using firearms to shoot live rounds during breaks). It seems safety was bad enough that there were disputes with unionised staff etc. and ultimately Baldwin didn't just apparently pull the trigger after failing to check anything but was also the producer and owned the production company so had some responsibility for the conduct of others on set, who was hired and how the whole thing was ultimately managed.

 

[Troezar]

Sounds like a mess from top to bottom. I've been on ranges handling firearms my whole life, not one person shot, not even close to it. You know why? There are rules and everyone follows them to the letter. Just having a prop gun that can fire live rounds seems like a big risk to me. Allowing live rounds anywhere near the set or even in the armourers business is a big error. Having rounds that look alike, live and dummy, is very dangerous. Not having the required checks before a scene is negligent. It seems less about who is guilty but more like who isn't guilty.

 

[Angilion]

Sounds like a mess from top to bottom. I've been on ranges handling firearms my whole life, not one person shot, not even close to it. You know why? There are rules and everyone follows them to the letter. Just having a prop gun that can fire live rounds seems like a big risk to me. Allowing live rounds anywhere near the set or even in the armourers business is a big error. Having rounds that look alike, live and dummy, is very dangerous. Not having the required checks before a scene is negligent. It seems less about who is guilty but more like who isn't guilty.

Firing ranges and film/TV sets are different contexts, though.

There is an argument that absolutely everything regarding guns on screen should be faked by the actors and with shopping the footage in post-production and that ammunition should never be seen onscreen. That's what you're advocating, since you're ruling out the use of blanks and dummies (and obviously the use of real rounds). There's also a counter-argument that doing so doesn't work well and shouldn't be necessary if suitable safety measures are taken. And a counter-counter argument that suitable safety measures won't always be taken (as happened here).

IIRC, according to the AD's claim at least, he wouldn't have needed to do that as the dummies were specifically marked as such and so could have been recognised as such via a visual inspection, the issue on his part (according to his statements a while back) is that he remembered looking at three of them and couldn't recall if the armourer spun the drum (thereby showing the other rounds present).

Marked how and where? Given that when loaded into a revolver not much of each round would be visible and the parts that were visible would have to look like a real round because they'd be visible on camera.