Alec Baldwin: on-set 'Rust' shooting - NEW UPDATE

[Andy54Hawken]

Baldwin shot someone.....he is to blame.
However.....
The film's armorer is the person in charge of the firearms used on the set....
If...better command and control of the firearms and ammo were done , then this might not have happened.
So the film's armorer is to blame as well.
Please note the words "if" and "might".
With all that said....
I wasn't there...so my thoughts on this topic really don't matter.

And with that said...
I have worked on T.V. documentaries dealing with muzzle loading firearms...and a few stage productions with them as well.
I made damn sure firearm safety was followed...and no round ball or shot was mixed in with the paper or fiber wads used as "blanks".
Andy

 

[orygun]

As far as Reed is concerned, I'll bet she had a hard time dealing with Baldwin. I'm sure he was quite the SOB to work for.

 

[64MercurysRule]

As far as Reed is concerned, I'll bet she had a hard time dealing with Baldwin. I'm sure he was quite the SOB to work for.

From the reports there was many actions that led to a perfect storm . Alec had a low budget film and with that brought cut corners and hastily actions . Hast makes waste , in this case it produced injury / death .

 

[USAF Medic]

The Armorer found guilty y of manslaughter.
Faces 18 million nths in prison. Not sire how they s will affect the Baldwin case.

 

[Mikej]

A very good example of all of this is the movie, "Quigley Down Under". Five rifles were built by Shiloh Sharps for the movie. Only two were operational. One had an aluminum barrel (for Selleck's gymnastics with it). Selleck was schooled at the Sharps factory to shoot the rifles, and live ammunition was used in much of the production.

I'm really glad I slowed down scrolling though redundant posts in this thread to read the above! I didn't know that, and learned something today. I love that movie. I also learned what "Cathartic? means, with a perfect example.

 

[Spitpatch]

I'm really glad I slowed down scrolling though redundant posts in this thread to read the above! I didn't know that, and learned something today. I love that movie. I also learned what "Cathartic? means, with a perfect example.

There's another (HUGE batch of 'em!) movie gun that is ubiquitous in Westerns even to this day. It's a real gun, dummified to become a gun that never existed.

Ever.

This whole huge batch of Winchester '92's had their forearms removed, and most had dummy barrels (rifle length even if the '92 was originally a carbine). Originally constructed for a story about "gun-running", they are trying to mimic an "Iron Frame Henry" rifle. (An extreme rarity in the real West, with a receiver nearly twice the size of a '92). When this was done, Model '92's (and most old Winchesters) were cheap and easy to find.

...and they keep showing up in movies, and even a few in Gun Shows for sale. Watch for 'em.

 

[IndyPrepper]

The facts as I understand them, is that Baldwin was doing a dry-run rehearsal on cocking the gun. I wasn't familiar with the colt 45 single action army, so had to do some research. From what I gather, the firing pin rests on the primer of the round if the chamber below it is loaded..not good. Hickock did a good video explaing how back in the day, most people would load only 5 rounds.

The gun has a half cock, which allows the cylinder to turn, and a full cock which allows the trigger to be fully pulled hence firing the round.

Baldwin says he didn't "pull". the trigger. I tend to believe him. But I believe he did have his finger applying pressure to it, which allowed the sear to disengage..prior to pulling the hammer back. Here's a demo of how the gun could have fired. Fast forward to 13:16.

I agree that's what happened. Unbeknownst to Baldwin, a live round was in that chamber. In my mind the responsibility lies in the armorer who failed to check that weapon before handing it to Baldwin.

Responsibility also goes to whomever allowed live ammunition anywhere near that set. It got there somehow. I'm still waiting for the facts to come out on that.

As far as Baldwins legal responsibility as a producer, I frankly don't know. My guess would be a civil liability..but not criminal.

The criminal is the one who put live rounds in that gun, and/or, failed to check it one last time before handing it to Baldwin.

As many have said before, a perfect storm happened that day.

Edit. I still think Baldwin's a d-bag..but d-bags still have legal rights..and least for now.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

In regards to Single Action Army copies....
Some work like original Colt revolvers...others have some sort of dumbazz "transfer safety bar".

In any event...
Any video "explaining" how the incident happened...needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
Since....
None of the videos use the actual revolver that was on the set / involved with the incident.
( As in how "modified" was this revolver...was anything faulty with it...etc...)
Therefore...the videos are using a revolver similar to what was used...but not the same one.
So...the results may very.
Andy

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

View attachment 1840240

Yeah, I'm pretty sure, based on this

He shot two people with a loaded gun. Make all the excuses you want.

 

[IndyPrepper]

In regards to Single Action Army copies....
Some work like original Colt revolvers...others have some sort of dumbazz "transfer safety bar".

In any event...
Any video "explaining" how the incident happened...needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
Since....
None of the videos use the actual revolver that was on the set.
Therefore...the videos are using a revolver similar to what was used...but not the same one.
So...the results may very.
Andy

If you watch the video, he explained how "in his opinion"..it could have happened. It's "my opinion" that I agree.

There's more than one grain of salt to spread around this thread.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

If you watch the video, he explained how "in his opinion"..it could have happened. It's "my opinion" that I agree.

There's more than one grain of salt to spread around this thread.

No doubt...
However...since none of us was there...and the actual revolver was not used in the video....
Salt is needed.
Andy

 

[IndyPrepper]

No doubt...
However...since none of us was there...and the actual revolver was not used in the video....
Salt is needed.
Andy

Agreed

 

[lucusloc]

You cant modify the FCG to be nnonfunctional Guns go bang and make smoke in movies. Thats the whole point of them being in the movie. They use blanks.. Thats why you have an armorer whose job it is to make sure the guns are loaded with blanks. The armorer loads the gun and hands it to the actor . It might be the actors only role they ever get and he might be there for 5 minutes for his scene. He knows not a damned thing about guns. The armorer is the party responsible for the gun. It is his/her job to ensure gun safety on the set not a constantly changing cast of actors.

Yep, there are some scenes where it would be impractical. There are other scenes where it would not be, and making the firearm as safe as possible for the needs of the scene it is in should be part of the priority. It could be as simple as swapping in a firing pin or removing a hammer spring when it is not needed. And when it is needed there need to be other protocols that take up the slack.

Movies sets are a production, and the safety protocols on those sets should be robust and capable of dealing with the changing needs of that production. Every scene should be evaluated for the needs of that particular scene, and the Armorer (whose sole and dedicated job it is to ensure safety and provide props that fit that need) should be able to fill those needs as the schedule dictates (and, you know, provide all the other requirements of a highly skilled professional, like input on that schedule so they do not have a bunch of conflicting requirements from scene to scene on the same day). They could also provide input and recommendations, like if the director calls for a bunch of blanks to be fired off, maybe the Armorer has a better way to generated the needed chaos for that scene that does not involve the somewhat higher risk usage of blanks. If that other methodology is safer and still accommodates the needs of the scene then, you know, do that instead.

But whatever you do, maybe don't run your safety program like they did on Rust. Whatever they were doing over there does not seem to work very well.

 

[64MercurysRule]

Didn't FBI get the hammer to fall after it was beaten and broke..... so said gun's trigger had to have been held back before cocking or after ....either way he pulled trigger...... right . The 4 rules of safety were still not addhered to ?

 

[lucusloc]

Didn't FBI get the hammer to fall after it was beaten and broke..... so said gun's trigger had to have been held back before cocking or after ....either way he pulled trigger...... right . The 4 rules of safety were still not addhered to ?

Been beaten to death; the 4 rules do not apply on a film set. This is a special place where gun like objects are pointed at others and triggers are pulled because that is what is needed to capture a fantasy scene for film. It is up to the production team (not the actors!) to ensure that this can be done with 100% confidence and safety, and that is why an armorer is employed. They are the person/team dedicated to making sure that every firearm (or firearm like prop) is configure in such a way that it cannot hurt anyone during the scene for which it was configured. In a properly run set, and for the props they are responsible for, their word is law.

 

[IndyPrepper]

Trigger held back, trigger pulled, pressure applied...there's a range of possibilities there. Like the video above, I agree his finger probably had pressure/was resting on the trigger as the hammer was pulled back. The FBI I'm sure defines that as "pulling the trigger".

As far as the 4 rules of safety. I've seen that come up quite a bit here: I just don't believe it applies to Baldwin here.

Guys, we're not talking about a situation where a person knew, or should have known, that he had a functioning weapon with live rounds. We just aren't. He was passed a weapon that, as was said before, was given him by an assistant director and armorer who's responsibility was to check the safety of the weapon. Baldwin, as an actor, was not expected to be held to the 4 rules of gun safety. I know we'll never agree on that. But I respect your opinion.

 

[64MercurysRule]

Trigger held back, trigger pulled, pressure applied...there's a range of possibilities there. Like the video above, I agree his finger probably had pressure/was resting on the trigger as the hammer was pulled back. The FBI I'm sure defines that as "pulling the trigger".

As far as the 4 rules of safety. I've seen that come up quite a bit here: I just don't believe it applies to Baldwin here.

Guys, we're not talking about a situation where a person knew, or should have known, that he had a functioning weapon with live rounds. We just aren't. He was passed a weapon that, as was said before, was given him by an assistant director and armorer who's responsibility was to check the safety of the weapon. Baldwin, as an actor, was not expected to be held to the 4 rules of gun safety. I know we'll never agree on that. But I respect your opinion.

Maybe there will be updated SOPs once the liabilities are dished out in the end . Definition of insanity example ?

 

[Spitpatch]

Let us not forget at least one relatively recent occurrence where an actor put a blank-firing prop gun to his own head, clowning around.

It sent that little disc of cranium bone right to his off switch.

 

[wired]

What was the gun ?

 

[lucusloc]

Maybe there will be updated SOPs once the liabilities are dished out in the end . Definition of insanity example ?

I think the only update the the standing SOP will be "please do follow the SOP". The production team of Rust was a cluster*, they basically had no safety protocol and just winged everything. That is why so many people walked off/resigned in protest. They were calling out the blatant safety violations and were being blown off and ignored. Even the prior close calls were not enough to change the behavior of the production team (Baldwin included) and there is evidence that prior to the fatal shooting they covered up and suppressed issues that would have gotten any other production set shut down.

Baldwin is guilty as hell (criminally), but not for the reasons a lot of people seem to think. I don't care who pulled the trigger, I care that the guy at the top ran a set so poorly that someone died (and despite many prior warnings and issues at that).