Alec Baldwin Involved in Fatal Shooting On Set of Rust

[crimson5pheonix]

And it can have its firing pin or striker removed, or its trigger assembly disabled.

That's not what you said though, is it? You said no guns capable of chambering rounds. And if it can chamber a round, it can chamber a live round, and even with other disables, could be dangerous still and would have to be treated the same as they are now.

Not hypothetical, but go on.


They're not dummy guns. Well, some are, but we're not really discussing those. These are real guns, that have conversion kits applied to them to simulate live fire.


That's the intent; they're LEO and military training tools, it would scarcely make sense for them to not replicate live fire as accurately as possible.

Well no, that's not their intent. It's meant to have some sort of flash visible in I presume daylight. Simulating that does not necessarily make what is to be expected to be a muzzle flash in all conditions, lighting and haze can change things greatly. Like I said, I'd have to see one in action and in scenes.

I daresay the equivalent to an up-powered airsoft pistol that wouldn't even be firing pellets, has a considerably lower risk profile than blanks or pyrotechnics.

Then you'd be incorrect, a CO2 canister is under a lot of pressure and a sudden burst, like a ruptured canister or a fault in the regulation of pressure release, can kill someone just as dead as any blank or pyrotechnic accident.

 

[Eacaraxe]

That's not what you said though, is it? You said no guns capable of chambering rounds. And if it can chamber a round, it can chamber a live round, and even with other disables, could be dangerous still and would have to be treated the same as they are now.

Chambering or firing live rounds.

Well no, that's not their intent. It's meant to have some sort of flash visible in I presume daylight. Simulating that does not necessarily make what is to be expected to be a muzzle flash in all conditions, lighting and haze can change things greatly. Like I said, I'd have to see one in action and in scenes.

Actually that is the intent. Daylight is the opposite of the design goal with simulated muzzle flash and report; the design goal is to simulate live fire under low-light and low-vis conditions, and in confined spaces, to acclimate users to the potentially disorienting effects of firearm use under those conditions.

Then you'd be incorrect, a CO2 canister is under a lot of pressure and a sudden burst, like a ruptured canister or a fault in the regulation of pressure release, can kill someone just as dead as any blank or pyrotechnic accident.

You're still comparing apples to oranges.

Let's parse your repeated use of pyrotechnics as examples. Yes, the film industry uses pyrotechnics to replicate real explosive munitions, incendiaries, and the like. If we are to compare like to like, and accept your premise that risk factor is dichotomous, and that due to the inability to eliminate risk film creators may as well use the genuine article, why doesn't the film industry use real munitions on sets or on location? Certainly on a closed set with an EOD-trained special effects crew, the risk factor should fall well within your standards, right?

Pyrotechnics look nothing like "real" bombs in most cases, and these fake-looking explosions in movies are just as disbelief- and immersion-breaking, right? Right?

That said, one is a tool the design intent of which is to act as a weapon, the others are effects tools. Yes, effects tools can be dangerous is mishandled, but the risk profile is fundamentally different given they are not weapons, nor are their design intent and intended use to be weapons. An apples-to-apples comparison would be prop blades. Like firearms those are weapons, like firearms they also have special procedures for their presence and use on set.

That doesn't mean actors are running around carrying and brandishing sharpened, conflict-ready swords and knives, does it?

...which only speaks in favor of the industry's practices.

I somehow doubt "hiring scab labor" would rate highly among your list of industry practices.

You haven't given any good reason for why guns should be banned from movies...

Because that wasn't and was never my claim. Something you would have noticed, had you paid attention, didn't just jump straight to right-wing talking points putting words in my mouth, and knew what on Earth I was talking about to begin with. What part of "conversion kit", a term I have used repeatedly, do you fail to understand after I explained precisely what I meant...what, three times now?

...and I still find it hypocritical of you to not hold the same principles (banning) for private gun ownership.

Good for you.

If you believe that I only blame Alec Baldwin, you are wrong.

Is that why you kept saying no one else was to blame except for Alec Baldwin because he was "in the chain of responsibility" or whatever, until you found out he was one of the film's producers -- after I said I blamed the film's producers?

The drama I was referring to was your obvious lack of respect...

Comport yourself as someone worthy of it if you don't like it.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Chambering or firing live rounds.

That doesn't change anything I said.

Actually that is the intent. Daylight is the opposite of the design goal with simulated muzzle flash and report; the design goal is to simulate live fire under low-light and low-vis conditions, and in confined spaces, to acclimate users to the potentially disorienting effects of firearm use under those conditions.

Fair, but that still doesn't change my argument.

You're still comparing apples to oranges.

Let's parse your repeated use of pyrotechnics as examples. Yes, the film industry uses pyrotechnics to replicate real explosive munitions, incendiaries, and the like. If we are to compare like to like, and accept your premise that risk factor is dichotomous, and that due to the inability to mitigate risk film creators may as well use the genuine article, why doesn't the film industry use real munitions on sets or on location? Certainly on a closed set with an EOD-trained special effects crew, the risk factor should fall well within your standards, right?

Pyrotechnics look nothing like "real" bombs in most cases, and these fake-looking explosions in movies are just as disbelief- and immersion-breaking, right? Right?

That said, one is a tool the design intent of which is to act as a weapon, the others are effects tools. Yes, effects tools can be dangerous is mishandled, but the risk profile is fundamentally different given they are not weapons, nor are their design intent and intended use to be weapons. An apples-to-apples comparison would be prop blades. Like firearms those are weapons, like firearms they also have special procedures for their presence and use on set.

That doesn't mean actors are running around carrying and brandishing sharpened, conflict-ready swords and knives, does it?

Well actually you're the one who brought up pyrotechnics and blanks on this very specific example, as you can see in my quote of you. Accepting that live rounds on set have a limited but accepted use in extremely highly controlled scenarios, blanks and pyrotechnics are substituted for most other things. Further substituting them with CO2 canisters is not a significant improvement in safety.

 

[Ezekiel]

What part of "conversion kit", a term I have used repeatedly, do you fail to understand after I explained precisely what I meant...what, three times now?

Which, again, aren't necessary either, considering how safe the sets already are with all the protocols in place, and which you haven't proven would be cheaper in the long run, after I asked for citations and math (since your argument rests on it being cheaper because of insurance), and after you contradicted yourself by starting with this:

"One can only hope this spurs action in the film industry to stop using real firearms on set loaded with "non-lethal" blanks.

"They do it to save money*, so it'll never happen of course, but it would be nice to happen.

"[* Real firearms being cheaper than law enforcement/military training conversion kits, or purpose-built training weapons with simulated recoil and pyrotechnic charges to simulate muzzle blast.]"

I somehow doubt "hiring scab labor" would rate highly among your list of industry practices.

Something else Baldwin should be held accountable for.

Is that why you kept saying no one else was to blame except for Alec Baldwin because he was "in the chain of responsibility" or whatever, until you found out he was one of the film's producers -- after I said I blamed the film's producers?

Actually, I still hold him accountable as an actor. Even as just an actor, he shouldn't have just taken the director's word for the gun being cold on set or pointed the gun towards her. In those screenshots I posted on page 1, Carrie-Anne Moss only fired her gun after she was shown the bullet in the chamber. Actors do receive some training on the use of firearms, from what I've read. Yes, being the producer makes it even worse. But show me when I said all the fault was his. Part of the reason I have been going after him so much is because people on multiple forums I've been to have been so quick to defend him and attack anyone who blames him and because with all his connections and money he will probably get off.

Saying "right-wing talking points" isn't helping you. I honestly don't even know what you mean.

 

[Eacaraxe]

Which, again, aren't necessary either, considering how safe the sets already are with all the protocols in place...

"Existing procedure is good enough" is not the same statement as "this is best practice".

...and after you contradicted yourself by starting with this:

No, actually I didn't contradict myself. Hint: insurance is tax-deductible. Tax credits for filming are capped and based on percentage of outlays.

It's more fiscally beneficial for a film studio to pay higher, deductible, insurance costs, than it is to run up the budget of a single film by a one-time purchase of firearm safety equipment only a percentage of which are deductible, when film studios are publicly-traded corporations dependent on good publicized profit margins and quarterly statements to make investors happy.

What you didn't quote was when I said, emphasis mine, "...and the kicker is it would likely cost studios less in the long run to switch, thanks to lower insurance premiums for not having firearms capable of firing live rounds on sets".

Yes, publicly-traded businesses act against long-term fiscal interest for the sake of good quarterlies.

Actually, I still hold him accountable as an actor...

...But show me when I said all the fault was his.

Yeah, we're done here.

That doesn't change anything I said.

No, it just means your criticism was off-base, predicated on a misinterpretation of what I said. I corrected that misinterpretation.

Fair, but that still doesn't change my argument.

Yes, your argument was "would it still look good on camera?". And, I'd point you back to what I said about toxic makeup, flammable costumes, and radioactive fallout. Something looking good on camera isn't exculpatory for failing to follow best practice. And best safety practices and hierarchies of control were explained to you back on page 2, whereupon you drew upon the false dilemma I called out.

Accepting that live rounds on set have a limited but accepted use...

And I don't, and I explained this to you on page three. Live rounds have no place on a set.

Further substituting them with CO2 canisters is not a significant improvement in safety.

There's that false dilemma again.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

No, it just means your criticism was off-base, predicated on a misinterpretation of what I said. I corrected that misinterpretation.

Well no, because you will still have to have guns that chamber rounds, which can theoretically include live rounds and would have to be treated as such, even if you remove the firing pin or trigger group.

Yes, your argument was "would it still look good on camera?". And, I'd point you back to what I said about toxic makeup, flammable costumes, and radioactive fallout. Something looking good on camera isn't exculpatory for failing to follow best practice. And best safety practices and hierarchies of control were explained to you back on page 2, whereupon you drew upon the false dilemma I called out.

They weren't for that, but it is for guns. In the same way we also still drop people off of roofs or fling them with wires.

And I don't, and I explained this to you on page three. Live rounds have no place on a set.

I can think of a few. Unique foley, accurate bullet holes, product demonstrations...

There's that false dilemma again.

Well it's a rather practical dilemma.

"We need to be more safe!"
"But this won't do it."

 

[Eacaraxe]

Well no, because you will still have to have guns that chamber rounds, which can theoretically include live rounds and would have to be treated as such, even if you remove the firing pin or trigger group.

Oh, good lord. There is no purpose for live rounds to be on a set, ever. A filming crew needs a shot that includes ammunition, use dummy rounds. End of story.

I can think of a few. Unique foley, accurate bullet holes, product demonstrations...

And as I said, when you do those, you take that shit to a range which is an inherently controlled, and controllable, location. If necessary, you dress the range. Especially when it comes to foley and props, when extraneous factors need to be controlled out. You don't just start blasting on a set.

Well it's a rather practical dilemma.

"We need to be more safe!"
"But this won't do it."

More like, "how do we identify and assess the risk profile of each potential option", "which option has the smallest risk profile in scope and scale, and is best-mitigated", and "what measures need to be taken to mitigate each risk in that profile". If one option has a profile of fewer, smaller scale, and less potentially harmful, risks that are more easily mitigated, that option is preferable. This isn't a dichotomy.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Oh, good lord. There is no purpose for live rounds to be on a set, ever. A filming crew needs a shot that includes ammunition, use dummy rounds. End of story.

Incorrect.

And as I said, when you do those, you take that shit to a range which is an inherently controlled, and controllable, location. If necessary, you dress the range. Especially when it comes to foley and props, when extraneous factors need to be controlled out. You don't just start blasting on a set.

It really depends, and sometimes you really do have to shoot on set. Especially if a gun range is the set.

More like, "how do we identify and assess the risk profile of each potential option", "which option has the smallest risk profile in scope and scale, and is best-mitigated", and "what measures need to be taken to mitigate each risk in that profile". If one option has a profile of fewer, smaller scale, and less potentially harmful, risks that are more easily mitigated, that option is preferable. This isn't a dichotomy.

It's not, but it's also not worth replacing blanks and pyrotechnics.

 

[Ezekiel]

"Existing procedure is good enough" is not the same statement as "this is best practice".

What are you even talking about? Whose statement? I thought I said existing procedures are good enough. I can't even find any information about the conversion kits you've been talking about. When I've looked, I've found kits designed to convert parts of guns to different purposes but which still allow the guns to function as guns. If the conversion kits you are talking about disable the mechanisms and effects of the gun that the filmmakers wish to film, then they still can't replace guns that can shoot.

No, actually I didn't contradict myself. Hint: insurance is tax-deductible. Tax credits for filming are capped and based on percentage of outlays.

It's more fiscally beneficial for a film studio to pay higher, deductible, insurance costs, than it is to run up the budget of a single film by a one-time purchase of firearm safety equipment only a percentage of which are deductible, when film studios are publicly-traded corporations dependent on good publicized profit margins and quarterly statements to make investors happy.

But you don't know what those numbers are. You are unable to prove that those tax deductions make converting the guns cheaper. Perhaps most of the big studios would have done that already if that were true.

Yeah, we're done here.

Thank fuck for that, because I can't remember the last time I argued with someone who so stubbornly evaded the big hole in their own argument. If there was a record of deaths higher than one in the tens of thousands of gunshots filmed, 28 years of American filmmaking, you would have had a point. "The best practice," as you quoted, is probably a combination of safety, aesthetics and cost. That it required the armorer, director (who said the gun was cold on set) and actor/producer to ignore standard policies before someone was shot... Well, I've said it probably already three times.

 

[Ezekiel]

In addition to all those shots of bullets being chambered, there are so many other things you need to be able to film at times. Sometimes it really helps to see the recoil, smoke, muzzle flash (if the filmmakers choose that aesthetic) and the ejection of the casing. Most filmmakes just aren't gonna be able to make it all look that nice in post-production. I can see lighting the surroundings according to the muzzle flash being difficult too.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

In addition to all those shots of bullets being chambered, there are so many other things you need to be able to film at times. Sometimes it really helps to see the recoil, smoke, muzzle flash (if the filmmakers choose that aesthetic) and the ejection of the casing. Most filmmakes just aren't gonna be able to make it all look that nice in post-production. I can see lighting the surroundings according to the muzzle flash being difficult too.

It's an art, though I'm more familiar with the sound side of things. I have heard enough lighting guys ***** about things though.

 

[Thaluikhain]

No, actually I didn't contradict myself. Hint: insurance is tax-deductible. Tax credits for filming are capped and based on percentage of outlays.

It's more fiscally beneficial for a film studio to pay higher, deductible, insurance costs, than it is to run up the budget of a single film by a one-time purchase of firearm safety equipment only a percentage of which are deductible, when film studios are publicly-traded corporations dependent on good publicized profit margins and quarterly statements to make investors happy.

What you didn't quote was when I said, emphasis mine, "...and the kicker is it would likely cost studios less in the long run to switch, thanks to lower insurance premiums for not having firearms capable of firing live rounds on sets".

Yes, publicly-traded businesses act against long-term fiscal interest for the sake of good quarterlies.

A couple of questions, wouldn't it often be cheaper to get the simulated weapon? For weapons that are either obscure or hard to get, or automatic weapons which are heavily restricted.

Secondly, do movie companies own their own guns? I thought they'd (mostly) get in touch with a dedicated gun renting company for that.

 

[Agema]

On the other hand, Baldwin is also the executive producer of the film, and in that role he is responsible for conditions on the set. If the armorer was incapable of safely loading and maintaining the weapons, that fault rests on him for having employed her; if that incapability came from being overwhelmed because of a busy schedule, then the fault rests on him for not allowing enough time for safety.

Not necessarily that much responsibility.

"Executive producer" can be a very hands-on role. However, at the other end it is also well known to potentially mean almost nothing at all, given to someone who takes no meaningful organisation role: a vanity credit, or someone who lent their name/money to help get the project off the ground, or is important to throw their weight around if they feel like it, etc.

 

[Ezekiel]

I always assumed Edward Furlong handled guns in Terminator 2. But I guess not. It cuts from his head to aged man/woman hands.




This is probably not even a shotgun:

 

[gorfias]

Not necessarily that much responsibility.

"Executive producer" can be a very hands-on role. However, at the other end it is also well known to potentially mean almost nothing at all, given to someone who takes no meaningful organisation role: a vanity credit, or someone who lent their name/money to help get the project off the ground, or is important to throw their weight around if they feel like it, etc.

"... according to Joseph Costa, an attorney with Costa Law in Los Angeles.


“As an executive producer, you are in a position of control and you can get prosecuted criminally,” he said. “It’s the equivalent of drinking and driving, meaning someone may not have intended to cause great harm but they do.”"

Legal experts weigh in on Alec Baldwin’s possible liability in tragic on-set shooting of Halyna Hutchins

Alec Baldwin, who fired a prop gun Thursday that accidentally killed the film’s director of photography Halyna Hutchins, could face legal repercussions for the shooting, legal experts told Th…

nypost.com

I'd think questions that arise will include the chain of custody of the gun:" Souza said three people were handling the gun for the scene: armorer Hannah Gutierrez Reed, then assistant director Dave Halls, who handed the gun to Baldwin, the affidavit said. " https://news.yahoo.com/search-warrant-reveals-grim-details-052133183.html

Unlike the Brandon Lee shooting, this one has something alleged to be caused by a real bullet. What was it doing in that gun? That many workers walked off the set in protest, could sabotage have been involved?

Baldwin was rehearsing. Did he need to even pull the trigger of the prop? What are standard practices and protocols? If he did not follow them, that could be criminal negligence, resulting in criminal charges associated with same.

An interesting new story I hope the media follows up upon.

 

[Thaluikhain]

An interesting new story I hope the media follows up upon.

Seem unlikely, I'd expect a long and involved police investigation before any definite findings.

 

[Eacaraxe]

A couple of questions, wouldn't it often be cheaper to get the simulated weapon? For weapons that are either obscure or hard to get, or automatic weapons which are heavily restricted.

For a lot of cases...probably yeah, actually.

One thing I haven't mentioned yet as it gets in the weeds as to which firearms do what, is semi-automatic and automatic firearms actually need to be modified to fire blanks anyways. Blanks won't cycle a bolt. There's either not enough recoil to overcome the resistance of the recoil spring due to insufficient charge, or no bullet to provide resistance against gas expansion, in the case of recoil operation, or in the case of gas operation expanding gas simply escapes out of the muzzle rather than being redirected into the gas port to operate the piston.

That's actually a problem in some live fire scenarios anyways, depending on what firearm's being used. For example, a friend's Browning Auto-5 won't cycle when firing -- if I remember right, it's been almost a decade since he got rid of the damned gun and over a decade since I shot it -- shells shorter than 2 3/4", or shot smaller than #6. The shell just isn't powerful enough, to provide sufficient recoil to cycle the bolt.

The fix is to overcharge the blank, replace the recoil spring with a lighter spring, and/or restrict the bore to compress escaping gases and boost recoil.

Which is also why I've been quietly laughing to myself about this "visual fidelity matters" crap. A blank's muzzle flash doesn't look the same as a live round's muzzle flash, and never will simply because there's no round being expelled from the barrel. It's actually pretty laughable if you're experienced with firearms, most Hollywood muzzle flashes look like guns still use black powder charges. There's a reason I compared it to "Hollywood explosions".

Secondly, do movie companies own their own guns? I thought they'd (mostly) get in touch with a dedicated gun renting company for that.

It's mostly contract work, but I believe some companies do have stake in armories through LLC's or stock buys.

 

[gorfias]

I'm hearing that the armorer had been out shooting cans with Baldwin before the accident. That might explain why live ammo was on the set and that someone may have simply left a live round in the "prop" gun.


So someone had to pick the gun up from her (the armorer) and hand it to Baldwin. Even if she left a live round in the gun, what are the duties of the go-between?

 

[crimson5pheonix]

I'm hearing that the armorer had been out shooting cans with Baldwin before the accident. That might explain why live ammo was on the set and that someone may have simply left a live round in the "prop" gun.


So someone had to pick the gun up from her (the armorer) and hand it to Baldwin. Even if she left a live round in the gun, what are the duties of the go-between?

I'm not inclined to believe a video with a thumbnail like that, but if true then wow, talk about seriously fucking up your early work on every conceivable level.

 

[Gordon_4]

For a lot of cases...probably yeah, actually.

One thing I haven't mentioned yet as it gets in the weeds as to which firearms do what, is semi-automatic and automatic firearms actually need to be modified to fire blanks anyways. Blanks won't cycle a bolt. There's either not enough recoil to overcome the resistance of the recoil spring due to insufficient charge, or no bullet to provide resistance against gas expansion, in the case of recoil operation, or in the case of gas operation expanding gas simply escapes out of the muzzle rather than being redirected into the gas port to operate the piston.

That's actually a problem in some live fire scenarios anyways, depending on what firearm's being used. For example, a friend's Browning Auto-5 won't cycle when firing -- if I remember right, it's been almost a decade since he got rid of the damned gun and over a decade since I shot it -- shells shorter than 2 3/4", or shot smaller than #6. The shell just isn't powerful enough, to provide sufficient recoil to cycle the bolt.

The fix is to overcharge the blank, replace the recoil spring with a lighter spring, and/or restrict the bore to compress escaping gases and boost recoil.

Which is also why I've been quietly laughing to myself about this "visual fidelity matters" crap. A blank's muzzle flash doesn't look the same as a live round's muzzle flash, and never will simply because there's no round being expelled from the barrel. It's actually pretty laughable if you're experienced with firearms, most Hollywood muzzle flashes look like guns still use black powder charges. There's a reason I compared it to "Hollywood explosions".


It's mostly contract work, but I believe some companies do have stake in armories through LLC's or stock buys.

And in Lord of War's case, at one point went direct to an arms dealer for the stuff they needed. Apparently the arms dealer was cheaper.