And lest we forget, this was a set which experienced a union walk-out because safety rules were being ignored.
I haven’t read this whole thread. I understand that it’s still a mystery how live rounds found their way on to the set. Upthread, it seems that armorer allowed the guns to be used for plinking, which blows my mind.
Sorry if it’s been established, but I understand that real guns can fire live ammunition, while so-called prop-guns are not physically capable of firing real bullets: they can only fire blanks. Questions:
-
Were the actors aware that they were not using prop-guns?
-
My above link claims that, “Real guns are rarely used in movies.” Why were they used at all on the Rust set? I mean if they were used for plinking, there had to be some awareness among the staff that real guns were on the set. Aren’t historically authentic prop-guns available? Or are real guns actually used a lot in Hollywood under strict supervision?
-
Is this a case of a faulty prop-gun that somehow was damaged sufficiently that it accepted a live round? Seems improbable, but this is an investigation of the improbable.
I’m not a gun guy: apologies if I’m asking for already posted info.
Presumably because he has been conditioned (perhaps even by standard practices in the film industry) to never to point a gun that is supposed to be loaded with blanks at someone (and that is doubtless thanks in part to rules written in blood after film set fatalities caused by blanks), but he hasn’t been conditioned to treat a gun that’s supposed to be unloaded as if it is actually loaded (because I guess that’s still cool as long as it’s for a movie?).
The crux of the issue is… should he? Should he treat a real gun that he has been told is loaded with blanks different from a real gun he has been told is unloaded? Anywhere but a film set, the answer would be “Of course not.” But for some reason, when you tell people it’s for a movie, the answer suddenly becomes “Well, if that’s what is considered normal in the industry, I guess it’s okay…”
If you ask me, putting things that look like real bullets (albeit supposedly duds that look like real bullets) into a real gun should further dissuade you from pointing that real gun at someone (because it’s a lot easier to mistake a real bullet for a dud, than it is a real bullet for empty space, right?). But, again, somehow “standard practices” in the film industry turn that common sense approach to not accidentally gunning people down on its head–at least according to some of the replies here.
No one says it makes it lawful. But it has to be taken under consideration. “Did you follow industry standard safety Procedures” is an important question, because if you didnt, that’s bad.
Clearly the armorer didnt. Baldwin did.
Well, no, but that is different. You can check to see if a gun is unloaded quickly and safely. Checking to see if a round is a dummy or live is not something a film star needs to do or can do. That is why they have experts.
The film industry isn’t going to ask you. Nor for the use of prop swords, fake rocks, fake glass windows people are thrown out of , fake glass bottles to be broken over heads, and so forth, etc etc,.
Indicted again.
Two special prosecutors, Kari Morrissey and Jason Lewis, sent the gun for further forensic testing last summer. Their experts, Lucien and Michael Haag, reconstructed the gun — which had been broken during FBI testing — and concluded that it could only have been fired by a pull of the trigger.
“This fatal incident was the consequence of the hammer being manually retracted to its fully rearward and cocked position followed, at some point, by the pull or rearward depression of the trigger,” the report concluded. “Although Alec Baldwin repeatedly denies pulling the trigger, given the tests, findings and observations reported here, the trigger had to be pulled or depressed sufficiently to release the fully cocked or retracted hammer of the evidence revolver.”
How many millions have these clowns spent on the bleeding obvious? It’s no wonder New Mexico led the nation in untested rape kits.
What part of this is obvious (other than Baldwin pointed a loaded gun at a woman, who ended up being shot dead)?
I imagine the idea that Baldwin pulled the trigger is the bleeding obvious part. Yes, he pulled the trigger.
The idea that he didn’t pull the trigger and the gun magically went off at just the moment he would have pointed and pulled the trigger, that just buggers the imagination. Did he perhaps not perceive or remember pulling the trigger? That’s 100x as possible as the trigger malfunctioning at this exact moment, and at no other moment.
Still doesn’t change the fact that he was supposed to be handed a gun that was harmless so that he can do things like wave it around and pull the trigger without hurting anyone.
It’s not obvious to me, not being expert in what is, as I understand it, a very real (model or actual) old firearm that may behave in ways that a firearm of more modern design might not.
Because of this, I predict acquittal, or a favorable plea deal.
As an aside, something I learned from the Variety article above, they are no longer charging Baldwin under the “bad management” theory of liability. This is just about his role as shooter:
The initial prosecutors, Mary Carmack-Altwies and Andrea Reeb, held Baldwin responsible not only for pulling the trigger, but also for a series of management lapses that led to relaxed safety standards on set. However, the New Mexico division of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration concluded that Baldwin — though he was a producer on the film — was not in a position of management authority, and was not culpable for the lack of oversight.
Also under the bleeding obvious umbrella: Baldwin’s lawyers will no doubt produce an expert, should this farce go to trial, who ‘concludes’ the gun could have indeed misfired.
That I agree with.
At no point are actors supposed to ‘wave around and pull the trigger’ on prop guns. Actors are given the same training as gun owners in that they are told to treat the gun as always loaded, don’t point it at anyone, etc. Even when filming gunfights and such the actors are supposed to aim off target.
Occasionally you need to point a gun right at the camera for a POV shot, but such things are done only when necessary.
Prop guns with blanks in them are deadly weapons. Ask Jon-Erik Hexum. Or Brandon Lee. So any gun on set is supposed to be treated like any other firearm, within the limits of the need for certain shots. They should not be treated as toys by the actors.
They were setting up exactly this kind of camera angle.
Baldwin was fanning the revolver for the scene, hence the contention that it went off from that action rather than a deliberate trigger pull. I would expect the defense to attack the “reconstruction” of the gun and the fact that he was told is was unloaded but in fact had fucking live ammo.
Yeah, I know. I have been taking Baldwin’s side, mostly, in this. I just want to dispel the idea that movie guns can just be waved around and played with once it’s been declared ‘safe’. In reality, guns are supposed to be treated as guns on set, which means never putting your finger on the trigger until ready to ‘shoot’, never pointing it at another person, etc. In short, they are treated as guns, not props. Or supposed to be, anyway.
When they said they were charging him because their forensics determined that he pulled the trigger, this was pretty obvious.
No, it really wasn’t, because charging him with one thing for one reason doesn’t preclude charging him for another thing for another reason (or even the same thing, but under a different theory of liability).
Then they would still not have needed to rely on the finding of pulling the trigger to charge him for his responsibility as a boss/producer. You’re kind of making my point.
Unless you’re talking about badly managing a firearm in your hand.
I am not sure what this may mean but I am curious. I was talking to some people over dinner about this and one suggestion was that, when handed a gun, it is up to the person receiving the gun to verify whether it is loaded and ready to fire no matter what the person who handed the gun over told that person.
That would make Baldwin negligent on some level if he did not do that (which it seems he did not).
But, we were all guessing. If anyone knows, I am curious how that will work out.
ETA: Would an actor checking the gun be able to discern a live round from a blank round when checking the gun? (I really do not know)