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

Cafe Society
485

I’ve heard vague allusions in a few reports that the gun discharged when Baldwin drew it, but nothing firm in any reputable sources yet. If that’s what happened, it could be because it’s a Western and they’re using single action revolvers.

I know a lot of gun threads devolve into minutiae that is arcane and uninteresting to non-gun people, but broadly speaking there are (ignoring some variants we don’t need to talk about) two types of revolvers: single action and double action.

Single Action - Every single bullet fired from the gun requires the shooter to manually cock the “hammer”, then pull the trigger (in proper working order / theoretically.)

Double Action - You can use most of them in single action mode, manually cocking the hammer, then pulling the trigger. But a double action revolver if you start from a non-cocked hammer and pull the trigger, the trigger itself cocks the hammer and when you complete the trigger pull, also triggers its release–the hammer slams into the bullet, gun fires. AKA - You can fire a double action revolver by just continually pulling the trigger, you never need to manually touch the hammer.

Non-gun people may be surprised to find that the single action, generally speaking is far more dangerous. Why? Because to work the full double action it’s generally stiff trigger pull, pulling all the way through the double action cocking the hammer and then firing. A single action, once the hammer is cocked is generally a very light trigger pull to fire–often what is considered a "hair trigger."

Police departments back in the 30s and 40s started largely moved from using single action revolvers to double action revolvers for precisely this reason (and single actions were rare in police after 1960), standard procedure was if a cop was going into a potentially hostile situation, they’d cock their single action–then if much anything happens, there is a chance of that gun being fired, sometimes unintentionally. Extensive testing by the FBI and etc lead to departments across the country standardizing double action revolvers as police side arms (then in the 1980s the move away from police using revolvers at all started, and was largely complete by the mid-90s, with most departments only allowing police to carry revolvers as their primary weapon if they had been “grandfathered” in.)

All this is to say, I don’t know what Alec was doing. But if he drew the gun once and intentionally (or unintentionally) cocked the hammer, then put it back in his holster cocked, then drew it again–it would be insanely easy during that motion to accidentally discharge the weapon.

On top of that there’s another layer of danger, a lot of historical single action revolvers, due to how they designed, were very susceptible to accidentally discharge if the hammer (at rest) was impacted hard enough–the hammer rested on the primer, and if anything hit the hammer hard enough–and simply dropping a gun, or in theory even some freak accidents from drawing the gun, could be enough to cause a discharge. Modern single action revolvers are not made this way, and are largely safe even if dropped, and I have no idea what they were using on set, but if they were using a historical or reproduction of a historical revolver, maybe this could be a factor as well.

486

Throw enough darts at a dartboard and eventually you’ll get a bullseye one day.

More likely if you imagine him firing to the side, as he’s supposed to do, but it’s the left side, and he jerks the trigger pulling it back on target.

487

I may have missed it in the reporting or in this thread, but does anyone if it would be standard procedure for the cops to test those involved for drugs or alcohol?

488

In all honesty, the procedures they currently have seem to work very, very well. It’s appalling that someone was killed, but considering how many productions use guns, accidents seem remarkably rate. And in this case, it looks like multiple rules were flagrantly broken. The rules work, and are apparently generally followed.

489

Well I think Kobe’s a poor example, since nearly all of the press coverage noted that his daughter was killed with him in the helicopter crash. I can only speak for myself, but I find the personal tragedy of a child losing a parent and a person losing their partner to be much more gut wrenching than an industry losing a promising up-and-comer. I don’t deny that there’s a sexist bent to how this is often reported in the media.

490

Moderating:

I think the question of “how likely is a novice to hit someone with a gun” isn’t going to be resolved in this thread, and and further discussion is off topic. No warnings, and the post i quoted is only the last, and there’s nothing more wrong with it than with the last several in the topic. But please let this rest, or create a new thread elsewhere if you want to continue.

491

Kobe was a superstar, we know who he was, and his daughter actually died with him. So it’s already baked into the lede, no need to color it.

I doubt most people in this thread knew who Hutchins was before the accident. Personally I couldn’t even name the #1 best living cinematographer, male or female. I’m unlikely to read below the fold about someone who died in a workplace accident, but I pay more attention if it’s a wife and mother (or husband and father).

Sexism exists, but I don’t think this is it. This just sounds like viral Twitter ire.

492

I often watch as many of the movies that are nominated for various Academy Awards each year (I do this because I like film in general, and it’s lead to me watching many movies, that on genre / plot summary I would never watch on my own, that I’ve really liked), and I couldn’t guess who the best cinematographer in the world is. There’s a few whose names I recognize only because they are frequently nominated so I see their names repeated over time: Roger Deakins, Robert Richardson, Emmanuel Lubezcki etc, there’s a few others whose names seem to come up for nomination very regularly; I assume that indicates these are the cream of the crop.

493

Goll, an experienced special effects technician and pyrotechnician, said that in one instance on set, Halls attempted to keep filming even after the lead pyrotechnician had suffered a medical emergency and the set had become unsafe.

“There is absolutely no reason that gun safety should be ignored on set, even when it is a non-firing prop firearm,” Goll said.

On the set of “Into the Dark,” Halls “did not feel the same” and neglected to hold safety meetings or make announcements prior to the appearance of a firearm on set, Goll added.

“The only reason the crew was made aware of a weapon’s presence was because the assistant prop master demanded Dave acknowledge and announce the situation each day,” she said.

“The anthology series was a ‘side letter’ agreement … that allowed for lesser working conditions, no true jurisdiction over covered union work, aka non-preferential hiring and what amounts to poverty wages for the crew,” she added.

494

Quick question: when an armorer or AD gives a gun (containing blanks) to an actor, is it standard procedure for the actor to perform a final check to make user the gun contains blanks? Or is the actor supposed to trust the armorer or AD and not check the weapon?

495

In this thread it seems people have asserted both ways, I’d be interested in the definitive answer. Some people are saying the actor is never to inspect the gun because the armorer doesn’t want the actors messing with the gun, and might even take the gun from the actor and recheck it if the actor checked it. Others have said it is actually standard for the actor to verify the state of the gun. Not sure where the disconnect is.

496

From a well informed Doper’s post above, typically it’s a third option: the armorer does the check, but in front of the actor. In other words, the actor carefully watches the armorer do the check (the poster mentioned shining a flashlight down the barrel).

497

It’s not like the Kobe example is the only time these sorts of things are reported on, though. And I can’t recall a situation whereone ey did it like this, putting the one aspect relevant why she died as third.

It’s hard to come up with a reason why they would do this. Why would anyone need to be reminded she’s a daughter? All women are daughters. And why would she need to have a kid to matter?

498

Yeah if any of the procedures had been followed this wouldn’t have happened. The big WTF, people are going to prison, things are not having any real ammunition on set ever, and never using prop guns to fire real bullets. But also all the other small “ceremonial” things, like physically showing the actor the prop gun does not have a bullet in every scene, keeping the guns under the control of the armorer whenever they aren’t being used in a shot, etc. If any of those had been done this would not have happened.

I think (again not an expert in any of these fields) that the armorer is meant to show the actor the gun is safe and get verbal confirmation that it is. The actor isn’t messing with the mechanism to find out if there is there is a bullet in it. The armorer does the steps needed for the actor to the see the chamber (and barrel) is empty, the actor confirms (as in they’ve no idea what the armorer just did, but they can’t see a bullet), then the armorer then closes it up and gives it to the actor for the scene.

Needless to say that didn’t happen here, if it had this wouldn’t have happened.

499

It’s a weak argument to say “OK you disproved this one example, but I’m sure there are many others.” Are there really?

And the complaint wasn’t about mentioning why she died, it was about the news story prioritizing her family over her job title. I’m sure if they reported it the other way around, someone would find a way to get mad about that as well.

Did someone actually describe her as a daughter? Do you have a source for that? This again seems like people wanting to get spun up about something without even seeing the thing being talked about.

When I read a news story, I get emotionally engaged about the death of someone’s mom, dad, wife, husband, whatever. I care about the loss of a person, and the pain it causes their loved ones. Not so much if it’s just the death of a cinematographer I never heard of, delaying a movie I probably don’t care about, by an actor that I’m mostly indifferent to.

Just so we’re all on the same page, I believe this is the quote that people are getting heated up about. No mention that she’s “somebody’s daughter.”

what a jerk, right?

500

It’s ridiculous how even professionals mishandle firearms. I’ve owned guns for 50 years.

I was a sitting member of a jury once when the police officer on the stand painted the room with a rifle. Now, the SKS bolt was blocked open (with a broken off pencil) but still, YOU DO NOT DO THAT.

Then in the jury room, a bailiff brought the SKS in as evidence, laid it on our table pointing it right at another jurors chest. No, no, no. I don’t care if the bolt was blocked open. I gently picked it up and stood it in a corner where it it wasn’t pointing at anyone.

There was zero need for any of us to examine this rifle.

This event with Alec Baldwin is just more proof that there is no such thing as an unloaded weapon. I stand by that and will always treat every gun as loaded.

And regardless of how good of a shoot Alec may or may not be, if it was a live gun, the likelyhood that someone near or behind the camera would be hit is pretty high IMHO. There must be a lot of people milling around.

501

If Baldwin had that kind of star power, he wouldn’t be making this kind of movie. If he insisted on the studio spending more money on the production, they would have shut down production. And started a new production with Dennis Quaid or Jon Voight.

502

You’re saying that if Baldwin insisted that the production absorb the relatively minor costs of actually adhering to established safety protocols, the studio would rather incur the enormous expense of throwing away all of the filming that had already been done and recasting the lead role?

503

I hear Dennis’s brother Randy is available.

504

No. I was trying to avoid breaking the rule about not quoting too much of an article, but as you can see, it’s very close to what the article said. Here’s an excerpt from the LA TImes article I referenced and Sam_Stone linked:

The actor was preparing to film a scene in which he pulls a gun out of a holster, according to a source close to the production. Crew members had already shouted “cold gun” on the set. The filmmaking team was lining up its camera angles and had yet to retreat to the video village, an on-set area where the crew gathers to watch filming from a distance via a monitor.

Instead, the B-camera operator was on a dolly with a monitor, checking out the potential shots. Hutchins was also looking at the monitor from over the operator’s shoulder, as was the movie’s director, Joel Souza, who was crouching just behind her.

Baldwin removed the gun from its holster once without incident, but the second time he did so, ammunition flew toward the trio around the monitor. The projectile whizzed by the camera operator but penetrated Hutchins near her shoulder, then continued through to Souza. Hutchins immediately fell to the ground as crew members applied pressure to her wound in an attempt to stop the bleeding.

I don’t know if that clears things up. I agree some of the wording is a bit vague and ambiguous.