Alec Baldwin [accidentally] Kills Crew Member with Prop Gun {2021-10-21}

Here is a quote from a New York Times article (sorry, not a gift link because I am not a subscriber anymore) that shows the prosecution is NOT allowing itself to be limited by industry (or in this case, union) safety practices:

Mr. Baldwin’s lawyers have said that the actor properly followed safety bulletins issued by SAG-AFTRA, the union representing actors. The union has taken issue with assertions by New Mexico prosecutors that actors are responsible for checking guns that they are handed on set, saying that “an actor’s job is not to be a firearms or weapons expert.”

The prosecutors in New Mexico have countered that the union rules are not a valid defense.

“Mr. Baldwin’s failure to exercise his option to simply observe the armorer load the dummy rounds into the gun and visually and/or audibly demonstrate to the actor that the rounds are safe, inert dummy rounds was not a violation of the SAG safety bulletins,” the prosecutors wrote in Friday’s filing, “but it was a violation of New Mexico law.”

Bolding mine. The link, for anyone who might have free articles left or, better yet, be a subscriber who could gift link it:

Thanks for the answers to my questions! Here’s a gift link to the NYT article above:

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the entertainment industry, where people are 'shot" fairly often, and even up to man many in an action film. This does nto apply to stage, screen, TV or even shows. :roll_eyes:

I will point out- it against the law and very unsafe to drive much over the speed limit of 70MPH in the state of Indiana. All Highway safety experts agree that speeds in excess of 100MPh are unsafe and illegal. However, they do not give out speeding tickets at the Indy 500, where speeds of 240 MPH are commonly reached. :roll_eyes:

Also, it is against the law and against all safety regulations to strike someone repeatedly with your fists- but not in boxing.

Jumping out of an airplane is just about always fatal - unless you are parachuting.

We have debunked here many many times that gun safety guidelines do not have anything to do with stage , scree, etc. They have their own set of safety rules. Which, in the case of the armorer- were not followed. Baldwin himself did not go outside movie set gun safety rules.

So, all that is totally irrelevant. Just like giving an Indy 500 driver a speeding ticket.

NAnd yes, in the case of Brandon Lee- they didnt follow movie set safety regs.

That would put an end to all action films, any chase or car crashes, swordfights, fist fights, stunts, car races, boxing, fencing, and many other sports and entertainment. Making the entertainment industry follow all mundane laws and regs is ridiculous.

Relevant questions:

  1. Was the presence of live rounds on the set expected and relayed to those involved?
  2. Was Baldwin informed that the gun he was given contained live rounds or at least blank charges?
  3. If no, did he have good reason to trust the one who vouched for the status of the gun?

I swear, I hope SAG-AFTRA decides to stop all weapons based work in New Mexico since the government there seems to think their members are responsible for weapons safety.

You say that as if it would be a bad thing?

It would be an over reaction. Hollywood has a 100 year safety record with weapons. AFAIK there had never been an incident with live ammo before Rust. That’s several thousand films and tv episodes with only one careless gun accident with live ammo that should have never occurred.

There has been accidents with the blank rounds but the majority of those were sound related. The crew wears hearing protection when blanks are fired. An unexpected discharge can harm hearing.

I know of two fatal incidents. One of those involved placing the gun to their temple and pulling the trigger. You can’t fix stupidity. That accident resulted in much more stringent safety standards. The guns are taken friom the actors immediately after filming a scene.

No, no and maybe.

So, at the Cocopah Speedway, one car, going well in excess of 200MPH, loses control, there is an accident, the drive that loses control is injured, the other dies. Thereby said prosecutors are gonna go after the surviving driver as he was violating Arizona’s speed limits?

Right- over 120 years of Western films here in the USA. First time there was a mistake with live ammon.

So, let me make this clear- it doesn’t matter if Baldin was aiming his gun at the camera- they do that in films. It doesn’t matter if he was pulling the trigger- that is also common in films. Baldwin could have done that a million times with no injuries (except maybe a blister on his trigger finger) and no fatalities.

What matters, and what caused the death was one thing and one thing only- the armorer allowing live ammo on set. The armorer caused the death. Now if someone else snuck the ammo on site, she would not be solely responsible, but she would still be responsible…

Maybe I’m naive, but it would seem to me that it should always be possible to make sure a fun doesn’t point at anyone. There are so many ways to cheat camera angles, and there’s no reason the camera operstor needs to be directly behind the lens since monitors exist. There should be cameras with controls and those stick things for control that are off to the side.

I remember a prop guy on YouTube talking about how he trained Mila Kunis to know how to look like she was aiming at her costar without actually doing so.

I have seen many movies where a bad guy has his arm around a hostage with his other arm holding a gun to their head, often touching the head with the barrel, while yelling at the heroes to drop their guns.

That’s probably a prop gun. A fake that can’t fire.

I wouldn’t want to risk an unloaded gun in that situation. No matter how many times I checked it.

Almost certainly true. If someone wanted to make the argument that all guns should be prop guns that can’t fire, and that all gunfire should be done with CGI, I would just nod my head and say “sounds reasonable.”

Assuming you’re not being sarcastic, then what you have basically said is “now that we have CGI and the ability to manufacture realistic-looking prop guns, using a real gun in a movie sounds negligent.”

And it sounds like you’re immediately jumping to “so the actor is guilty!” My opinion is that the actor is the only person who is absolutely 100% not guilty.

A number of commentaries have pointed out that one contributing factor is that Rust tried to do this on the cheap. Not only did they hire Gutierrez, an inexperienced armorer, they did it half-assed. They paid her armorer-level wages only for days when blanks were being fired, and then assistant prop master on other days, even if firearms were being handled.

On the face of it, these choices seem bad. I don’t know if this will mentioned in Baldwin’s trial.

Another interesting twist is that Baldwin has retained an expensive New York law firm for his defense. One lawyer commentary on YouTube pointed out various disadvantages of this, as those types of lawyers typically do not specialise in criminal defense. Several of the points raised in their pending motion to dismiss are mistakes according to the YouTube lawyer. (And I have no idea the expertise of that particular YouTuber so this is simply reporting what he said.)

IIRC, according to the expert witness, those seem to be the most common. I’m not sure if there are other uses.

I seem to recall the same thing.

In court, the testimory of the dolly grip, Ross Addiego, contradicts this. He said that it was only drawing the gun out of the holster and then they were going to cut and show from behind Baldwin.

The relevent part of the video is here. It was an extreme closeup, with the camera only a foot or so away.

Video

As I posted earlier, Baldwin now claims that Hutchins told him to draw and cock the gun. She won’t be testifying.

Yikes. Those choices seem terrible.

But Baldwin was not a producer in terms of hiring crew. His producer role was limited to casting and script changes.

Hiring the armor was almost certainly David Halls, among others. Halls was in charge of set safety. Of course we remember that there were accidental gun discharges under his watch on previous sets. Plus the DA gave him a plea deal almost immediately after the shooting: 6 months unsupervised probation. So they can’t go after him anymore. If they wanted to seek justice by sending a message, they missed their chance.

It almost certainly was not.

Hiring of crew is typically done by the Line Producer, who is assisted in this by the Production Manager. On Rust these were respectively Gabrielle Pickle and Row Walters.

I don’t really think it matters who hired who anyway. When your movie’s budget is $8 million, you will not get the best people. And everyone has to get their experience somewhere.

Most manage to not completely fuck-up their first job. That’s something you just can’t predict.

New rule: only only prop guns and starter pistols aka blank guns are allowed on set. Starter pistols are handguns that only shoot blanks. This would only add another layer of protection, since fired blanks can also kill. But it would be safer and presumably deliver the recoil necessary for a realistic film. (Right??)

It would also be more expensive, as guns would have to be modified to shoot only blanks. Also, I don’t know what I’m talking about: critiques welcome. I do stress that this proposal is about adding another layer to the defense strategy: a competent armorer and a culture of safety are far more important IMHO. As I proposed upthread, I think California should consider licensing requirements for armorers.

I think the need for or expectation of realism in Hollywood gunfights is greatly overstated. My vote would be for plastic prop guns only. Simple.

Or combine these ideas and require licensing and strict standards for productions with fully functional weapons.