Alec Baldwin shoots/kills cinematographer and injured director after firing a "prop gun".

[Keli]

They did have a set armorer whose job it was to make sure the firearms they used during filming were safe. She had placed this gun along with several others on a cart. An assistant director is the one who took the weapon off the cart and handed it over to Baldwin. Not entirely sure why the armorer herself didn't do that, or why she wasn't there to point out which guns could be used for which scenes, or why she wasn't watching the firearms, all of which is her job. Allowing the crew to use the set firearms recreationally should absolutely not happen. There were a lot of problems on this set.

I read that due to covid restrictions the armorer wasn't allowed to stay with the cart and go in where the scenes were being shot, that she had to load the cart at one site and then hand it off to an assistant inside where the shoot was happening so she was losing visual contact with the cart due to the new covid precautions. Then the assistant was supposed to hand the weapon to the actor. And that all 3 of them were supposed to check the weapon to make sure it wasn't loaded with live ammo. The only difference in the process was the armorer wasn't allowed in where the shoot was taking place so she was losing visual contact of the cart, otherwise the procedure was the same. The assistant was always supposed to take it from her and inspect it and then give it to the actor who was supposed to inspect it and then use it. But in the pre-covid process the armorer was also there and could watch the assistant as they inspected the weapon and watch the actor as they inspected the weapon (and make sure that was done) before use.

 

[mrodgers]

Your fictional "badass" scenario is not remotely what happened though.

He obviously placed too much trust and faith in the armorer and the assistant director, to the point it didn't seem to occur to him that the gun was loaded.

As far as no one in New Mexico should ever get charged with involuntary manslaughter - it would be hard to find a comparable situation to weigh it against, unless you can find a case where the accused who accidentally shot someone, actually had a hired crew with them at the time to ensure gun safety. I would think that would at least be a mitigating factor in their defence.

I don't care what kind of policies or procedures any environment has, the responsibility of safety with a firearm lies completely with the person whom holds a firearm in their hand period.

 

[MakiraMarlena]

they were so worried about covid that they added extra steps to the process for using firearms, such as having an AD go between the armorer, the firearms, and the performer? It should have been arranged for the armorer to have visual contact with the arms being used. not sure how she can do her job efficiently otherwise. and apparently neither the AD or Baldwin checked the gun. No reason why they can't distance her and have her do that. It was a small area they were shooting in, but still.

 

[BroadwayHermione5]

You spent the weekend ignoring the news and social media? You're the smartest person here.

Not totally ignoring-just had to do a lot of stuff. Mainly was Instagram scrolling and live tweeting Fear the Walking Dead and Walking Dead World Beyond if I was on social haha.

Speaking of which, I wish more people said Halyna’s name other than “crew member” when discussing this on social. She was a successful human being with a family, she deserves to have her name known. Rest peacefully Halyna.

 

[Keli]

they were so worried about covid that they added extra steps to the process for using firearms, such as having an AD go between the armorer, the firearms, and the performer? It should have been arranged for the armorer to have visual contact with the arms being used. not sure how she can do her job efficiently otherwise. and apparently neither the AD or Baldwin checked the gun. No reason why they can't distance her and have her do that. It was a small area they were shooting in, but still.

No, not exactly. The assistant was always supposed to be between the armorer and the actor, it was always a step to make sure 3 different eyes looked at the weapon and made sure it wasn't loaded with live ammo. The difference was they were limiting the staff that was inside in the area where the shooting of the scene was taking place and a decision was made to keep the armorer on the outside. The end result of that particular change was the armorer would lose sight of the weapon where in the past the armorer was watching while the assistance picked up the weapon and inspected it and was watching when they handed it to the actor, and watched while the actor inspected it before use.

 

[bcla]

it doesn't matter. The firearm was real... not a toy and loaded with live ammo. Raises the bar considerably. It doesn't remove liability especially considering the circumstances. Conditions were a mess and obviously unsafe.

Again, the circumstances are that it was set up by someone else and he had a reasonable expectation that what he was told about the gun in his hand was true. I've done stuff that had inherent dangers. Like riding a go kart. There are other things that have some inherent dangers, but where people believe that safety protocols are in place. Like riding a roller coaster, where people have in fact died when there was a mistake made with the safety equipment. Or going down a zip line.

There is clearly civil liability here on the production, and even if they're low budget they're going to be insured. There may even be criminal liability against the production, although nobody goes to jail when a fictional corporation is found guilty of a crime.

 

[dominiondad]

Again, the circumstances are that it was set up by someone else and he had a reasonable expectation that what he was told about the gun in his hand was true. I've done stuff that had inherent dangers. Like riding a go kart. There are other things that have some inherent dangers, but where people believe that safety protocols are in place. Like riding a roller coaster, where people have in fact died when there was a mistake made with the safety equipment. Or going down a zip line.

There is clearly civil liability here on the production, and even if they're low budget they're going to be insured. There may even be criminal liability against the production, although nobody goes to jail when a fictional corporation is found guilty of a crime.

Except that in this instance, as a producer, the "circumstances" were of his making. He set up a flawed system and then relied on it. Pointing a real gun at somebody and pulling the trigger is not the same as riding in a go kart or roller coaster. In your examples, those activities are, when functioning correctly, designed to create enjoyment. Pointing a real gun at somebody and pulling the trigger if designed to destroy.

 

[pahoben]

Again, the circumstances are that it was set up by someone else and he had a reasonable expectation that what he was told about the gun in his hand was true. I've done stuff that had inherent dangers. Like riding a go kart. There are other things that have some inherent dangers, but where people believe that safety protocols are in place. Like riding a roller coaster, where people have in fact died when there was a mistake made with the safety equipment. Or going down a zip line.

There is clearly civil liability here on the production, and even if they're low budget they're going to be insured. There may even be criminal liability against the production, although nobody goes to jail when a fictional corporation is found guilty of a crime.

That is the entire point of film industry practice-there can be no reasonable expectation that a gun is unloaded unless the actor confirms it himself by inspection.

 

[TLSnell1981]

A

Again, the circumstances are that it was set up by someone else and he had a reasonable expectation that what he was told about the gun in his hand was true. I've done stuff that had inherent dangers. Like riding a go kart. There are other things that have some inherent dangers, but where people believe that safety protocols are in place. Like riding a roller coaster, where people have in fact died when there was a mistake made with the safety equipment. Or going down a zip line.

There is clearly civil liability here on the production, and even if they're low budget they're going to be insured. There may even be criminal liability against the production, although nobody goes to jail when a fictional corporation is found guilty of a crime.

A woman is DEAD! It was a preventable death. No amount of insurance money or blame shifting will change the facts.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

An update of the article I posted this morning is saying that the 24 yr old armorer is the one who loaded the bullet into the gun. I don’t think that’s been clear before.

The rookie armorer was named as the person who loaded Alec Baldwin's prop gun that killed cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the set of Rust.

Hannah Gutierrez-Reed was named on Friday as the person who loaded Baldwin's vintage Colt pistol which was being used in a gunfight scene set in a church at the Bonanza Ranch in Santa Fe.

A call sheet obtained by DailyMail.com names the 24-year-old as the film's assistant prop master and armorer, overseen by prop master Sarah Zachry.

After the shooting, the armorer took possession of the gun and a spent casing, which were turned over to police, along with other prop guns and ammunition used on the set.

There is also a picture taken before the tragedy from inside the building, taken by the electrician, who later was the one to hold Halyna in his arms as she died.

 

[bcla]

Except that in this instance, as a producer, the "circumstances" were of his making. He set up a flawed system and then relied on it. Pointing a real gun at somebody and pulling the trigger is not the same as riding in a go kart or roller coaster. In your examples, those activities are, when functioning correctly, designed to create enjoyment. Pointing a real gun at somebody and pulling the trigger if designed to destroy.

All we can do is to use generally flawed analogies. However, if something fails on a vehicle because of a failure to place back a part by a mechanic and it injures someone, the fault is almost always on the mechanic. The armorer had a responsibility to make sure that the firearms on the set had absolutely no live ammunition (even blanks) for this particular scene. Maybe the actor takes the extra step or is insistent, but I personally have never asked a mechanic to let me look under my car to double check the work.

Again - this was not a personal firearm. The big picture is that it was a team effort and somehow that team effort broke down big time.

 

[MakiraMarlena]

why would Hannah load a set firearm with live ammunition preceding a scene? did she choose the wrong ammunition, or was that gun supposed to be used for something else? The serious problems on this set make a lawsuit almost inevitable.

 

[dominiondad]

All we can do is to use generally flawed analogies. However, if something fails on a vehicle because of a failure to place back a part by a mechanic and it injures someone, the fault is almost always on the mechanic. The armorer had a responsibility to make sure that the firearms on the set had absolutely no live ammunition (even blanks) for this particular scene. Maybe the actor takes the extra step or is insistent, but I personally have never asked a mechanic to let me look under my car to double check the work.

Again - this was not a personal firearm. The big picture is that it was a team effort and somehow that team effort broke down big time.

I get the impression you haven't spent a lot of time around guns. The analogies are flawed because guns are designed to destroy and kill. Therefore, whenever and however they are used, there is an extreme level of care required. There are exactly zero exceptions for this. Any reasonable person who is around guns knows that whatever is said or done before the gun gets in their hands is irrelevant. The person holding the gun is 100% responsible for whatever happens.

 

[TLSnell1981]

An update of the article I posted this morning is saying that the 24 yr old armorer is the one who loaded the bullet into the gun. I don’t think that’s been clear before.

The rookie armorer was named as the person who loaded Alec Baldwin's prop gun that killed cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the set of Rust.

Hannah Gutierrez-Reed was named on Friday as the person who loaded Baldwin's vintage Colt pistol which was being used in a gunfight scene set in a church at the Bonanza Ranch in Santa Fe.

A call sheet obtained by DailyMail.com names the 24-year-old as the film's assistant prop master and armorer, overseen by prop master Sarah Zachry.

After the shooting, the armorer took possession of the gun and a spent casing, which were turned over to police, along with other prop guns and ammunition used on the set.

There is also a picture taken before the tragedy from inside the building, taken by the electrician, who later was the one to hold Halyna in his arms as she died.

View attachment 616598

Hannah Gutierrez-Reed loaded the pistol and the AD handed it of as a cold gun. Honestly it doesn't change the facts. The armorer wasnt qualified. IMO She handed an 11 year old a loaded firearm in her only other position as armorer. The AD was fired from his last film due to safety issues specifically with firearms. The "Rust" crew walked off for the same problems. Production was responsible for hiring these people. So....who is responsible?

 

[jdb in AZ]

why would Hannah load a set firearm with live ammunition preceding a scene? did she choose the wrong ammunition, or was that gun supposed to be used for something else? The serious problems on this set make a lawsuit almost inevitable.

Supposedly the crew had been using the gun for target practice with live ammo earlier in the day.

 

[pahoben]

All we can do is to use generally flawed analogies. However, if something fails on a vehicle because of a failure to place back a part by a mechanic and it injures someone, the fault is almost always on the mechanic. The armorer had a responsibility to make sure that the firearms on the set had absolutely no live ammunition (even blanks) for this particular scene. Maybe the actor takes the extra step or is insistent, but I personally have never asked a mechanic to let me look under my car to double check the work.

Again - this was not a personal firearm. The big picture is that it was a team effort and somehow that team effort broke down big time.

Deleted-surprising but not relevant.

 

[bcla]

Supposedly the crew had been using the gun for target practice with live ammo earlier in the day.

While I suppose the rest of the film crew should have said something about it, that the armorer wouldn't have checked and double checked that (after stopping anyone from bringing or using live ammo on the set) would seem to be a real problem.

 

[DLgal]

I supposed it's possible for an armorer to make a "hand load" (where one prepares the powder) and be worried about the quality of the assembly. But for someone who has allegedly handled guns for over a decade (since she went shooting with her dad) a professionally loaded blank shouldn't be any different than regular ammo. Perhaps she was just nervous that she might make a mistake or that someone might be injured by it.

Someone who is nervous AT ALL around guns, explosives, or anything else has no business doing so in a professional capacity. This was clearly not the job for her. She should have found another line of work. Can you imagine having a surgeon who is always nervous they are going to mess up? Or an airline pilot?

 

[pahoben]

While I suppose the rest of the film crew should have said something about it, that the armorer wouldn't have checked and double checked that (after stopping anyone from bringing or using live ammo on the set) would seem to be a real problem.

If Baldwin followed the safety procedures Halyna would still be alive. The procedure, that he ignored, is to guard against cases exactly like this.

 

[lifesavacation]

Someone who is nervous AT ALL around guns, explosives, or anything else has no business doing so in a professional capacity. This was clearly not the job for her. She should have found another line of work. Can you imagine having a surgeon who is always nervous they are going to mess up? Or an airline pilot?

I totally agree with you and really can't make sense of the quote. Seems like she was hired because of who her dad was and not because she was qualified for the job.