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

[Pea-n-Me]

I’ve thought a lot about my own practice at work in regards to this story.

In a hospital, which obviously is very different from a movie set, many policies are put into place to assure patient safety. Some of the errors that occur every day happen when these procedures aren’t followed.

I wonder if movie sets, as a result of this tragic event, might require something like hospitals have, in the form of a “safety pause”, ie before anything else happens, all team members have to verify that everything is as it should be.

http://www.ihi.org/resources/Pages/ImprovementStories/PausingforSafety.aspx

 

[Dead2009]

https://news.yahoo.com/24-old-head-armorer-alec-122916840.html

 

[Karin1984]

I’ve thought a lot about my own practice at work in regards to this story.

In a hospital, which obviously is very different from a movie set, many policies are put into place to assure patient safety. Some of the errors that occur every day happen when these procedures aren’t followed.

I wonder if movie sets, as a result of this tragic event, might require something like hospitals have, in the form of a “safety pause”, ie before anything else happens, all team members have to verify that everything is as it should be.

http://www.ihi.org/resources/Pages/ImprovementStories/PausingforSafety.aspx

Maybe for that reason it was good that this happened to a high profile actor like Alec Baldwin. If it had happened to some unknown actor, nothing would have changed for sure.
Now there are several tv shows who say they will only use CGI for gun shots. And hopefully there will be changes to procedures.

 

[dvcgirl67]

There is a lot of info in this article that address some of the questions being asked. As with the Gabby Petito information, some of it may change later on, so take it with a grain of salt, but this is what’s being reported now.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...led-Halyna-Hutchins-used-target-practice.html

”The gun that killed the cinematographer on the set of Alec Baldwin's Rust had been used for target practice by crew members, sources linked to the western film's production said.

Multiple sources connected to the set of Rust told TMZ that the same Colt pistol that went off in Alec Baldwin's hands, killing Halyna Hutchins and injuring director Joel Souza, had been used recreationally by crew members.

The sources claim that some crew members would go off for target practice using real bullets, and some believe a live round from those practice sessions found its way onto the set.

Another source told TMZ that live ammo and blanks were being stored in the same area on set, offering another possible explanation as to how a bullet was fired from Baldwin's Colt.

A search warrant released Friday said that Rust armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, 24, had laid out three prop guns on a cart outside the filming location, and first assistant director Dave Halls grabbed the Colt from the cart and brought it inside to Baldwin, unaware that it was loaded with live rounds.

'Cold gun!' shouted Halls before handing the gun to Baldwin, using the phrase to signal to cast and crew that the gun was safe to fire for the scene, the warrant said.

Seconds later, filming a scene inside an Old West-style church, Baldwin apparently aimed towards the camera and pulled the trigger, accidentally killing Hutchins as she filmed him, and injuring Souza, who stood behind her.

Two production sources who previously worked with Gutierrez-Reed said this was not the first time she was involved in an incident on a movie set.

The gun that fired the fatal shot was a vintage-style Colt revolver, DailyMail.com has exclusively learned.

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.

Baldwin also changed out of the Western costume he was wearing, which was stained with blood, and turned it over to police.

The warrant does not reveal the model or caliber of the prop gun that fired the fatal bullet, but the film is set in the Old West of the 1880s and DailyMail.com has learned it was a Colt.”

The warrant was obtained Friday so that investigators could document the scene at the ranch where the shooting took place.

Unionized workers had walked off the set hours before the fatal shooting, after they complained about long hours, shoddy conditions and another safety incident days earlier involving 'two misfires' of a prop weapon.

I do know one thing....that Alec Baldwin posted a photo of himself that morning in costume. He was standing outside his trailer, and had a large patch of fake blood on his shirt, and there was some blood on the leather jacket that he had draped over one arm. So clearly he was to be shot in the scene he was about to film. He posted it on instagram, and it was taken down later in the day on Friday after the accident. Pretty eerie.

 

[pahoben]

Well, there are a lot of obvious weak points and failures -- and there is plenty of blame to share, and plenty of opportunity for deflections. For example -- in order of importance, IMHO:

1. Baldwin pulled the trigger without checking the gun. There are dozens of things we can say about what happened before he got the gun, but the gun didn't fire by itself.
2. Real bullets on a make-believe set. WHY? What could there possibly be on any movie set that could be shot safely with real bullets? To me, especially considering that they had previous gunfire accidents, no live rounds on the set would be a no brainer -- and if that had been followed, the poor young woman would be alive and well.
3. "Cold Gun." The assistant director apparently never even looked at the gun before announcing it was "cold," whatever that means in their world.
4. The "armorer." Why did she have live rounds, especially after the previous mishaps? Why did she not personally inspect the gun before handing it to the assistant director? The only proper way to hand a revolver to another person is with the cylinder open so they can see the gun is empty. As a professional "armorer," she knew that.
5. Time pressure. Speed kills. Everybody should have been a LOT smarter than they were.

You gave it a heckuva good effort to explain this and so props. After 150 years we still have this accident that points out exactly why absolutely basic prudence requires that anyone at any time must check a gun they are handed to determine if loaded. It takes only seconds to check and the downside in not checking can be catastrophic (as in fact it was in this case). He should be distraught because if he acted with even a modicum of human common sense this wouldn't have happened.

I guarantee you that if he was handed a gun, told unloaded, and the scene required him to put it to his head and pull the trigger (for say an unsuccessful suicide attempt) then he would have checked the gun. The reason you always always check is to prevent exactly what happened In this case.

The Actors Guild guidelines provide that the actor and the armorer jointly conduct a visual examination of the gun to determine JOINTLY visually that it is unloaded. To skip that and then point the gun towards crew members and pull the trigger is unimaginably negligent behavior.

 

[fly girl]

I’ve thought a lot about my own practice at work in regards to this story.

In a hospital, which obviously is very different from a movie set, many policies are put into place to assure patient safety. Some of the errors that occur every day happen when these procedures aren’t followed.

I wonder if movie sets, as a result of this tragic event, might require something like hospitals have, in the form of a “safety pause”, ie before anything else happens, all team members have to verify that everything is as it should be.

http://www.ihi.org/resources/Pages/ImprovementStories/PausingforSafety.aspx

That’s exactly how I tried to put it in context. Many jobs require high safety protocols to protect workers and their clients.

Complacency can happen. Distractions can happen. That’s why you need to have systems in place so errors can be easily corrected before a situation can go horrifically wrong.

Honestly, if they only have one specialist check the guns on a movie set is a failure of safety. Guns are made to kill. It should be mandatory to have at least one more set of eyes checking. Like I said — complacency and distractions easily occur. Especially when you discover those guns were used for target practice using live ammo. (That blows my mind they would use the same guns, but I know zip about movie sets.) That’s why I think if you’re going to hold a gun on a movie shoot, you should have basic knowledge of that weapon. JMHO.

 

[TippyThomas]

Guns scare me.

 

[TLSnell1981]

Reading through different articles one thing stood out. The scenes where we see a gun pointed straight at the camera...NOBODY is supposed to be behind it. Not anywhere near it for safety reasons.

I also am curious as to what type of medical aid and/or personnel was available on the set. I'd think this would be required for any potential dangerous situations..

 

[dvcgirl67]

Reading through different articles one thing stood out. The scenes where we see a gun pointed straight at the camera...NOBODY is supposed to be behind it. Not anywhere near it for safety reasons.

I also am curious as to what type of medical aid and/or personnel was available on the set. I'd think this would be required for any potential dangerous situations..

They had a medic on the set. A woman who was a script revisor made one of the 911 calls and said that a medic was with the wounded. A man who also worked on the set took over that call at one point and said that the two people who were shot were both alert. But I'm not sure what type of equipment they had on site to care for someone with a gun shot wound.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Reading through different articles one thing stood out. The scenes where we see a gun pointed straight at the camera...NOBODY is supposed to be behind it. Not anywhere near it for safety reasons.

Yes. Nor is it supposed to be pointed at anyone, either….

Mike Tristan, 60, who has provided guns for movie sets for over 30 years, said the injuries sustained by Hutchins should not have been possible.

'They then make sure that the actor stands on a mark and never points the gun at the crew or cast, you give them an aim to point at and the editing makes it seem like they were pointing at their co-actor.

…which is contrary to the claim of “that’s what happens on film sets”.

 

[leeniewdw]

There is a lot of info in this article that address some of the questions being asked. As with the Gabby Petito information, some of it may change later on, so take it with a grain of salt, but this is what’s being reported now.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...led-Halyna-Hutchins-used-target-practice.html

”The gun that killed the cinematographer on the set of Alec Baldwin's Rust had been used for target practice by crew members, sources linked to the western film's production said.

Multiple sources connected to the set of Rust told TMZ that the same Colt pistol that went off in Alec Baldwin's hands, killing Halyna Hutchins and injuring director Joel Souza, had been used recreationally by crew members.

Not in the movie industry, not a gun expert, not a lawyer, not an insurance company, but how on earth is this even possible!?

How can there not be a wall between a gun that's being used on set and one that people are using and firing with real ammo. Perhaps I'm naive, but does crew get to use any kind of props (cars, motorcycles, wardrobe, etc) for "fun" when they aren't being used to film?

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Not in the movie industry, not a gun expert, not a lawyer, not an insurance company, but how on earth is this even possible!?

How can there not be a wall between a gun that's being used on set and one that people are using and firing with real ammo. Perhaps I'm naive, but does crew get to use any kind of props (cars, motorcycles, wardrobe, etc) for "fun" when they aren't being used to film?

It sounds like it was a cluster there.

 

[JimMIA]

Guns scare me.

There is nothing scary about a gun...except the person holding it. Guns are like many other tools we use in life every day -- a completely neutral tool.

Guns are used by people for good, or for evil. They can kill, or they can save lives. And like most tools, if they are used in a negligent or reckless manner, bad things can happen. Those bad things are never the fault of the gun, because the gun can't do anything on its own.

 

[TippyThomas]

There is nothing scary about a gun...except the person holding it. Guns are like many other tools we use in life every day -- a completely neutral tool.

Guns are used by people for good, or for evil. They can kill, or they can save lives. And like most tools, if they are used in a negligent or reckless manner, bad things can happen. Those bad things are never the fault of the gun, because the gun can't do anything on its own.

None of that changes the fact that they scare me.

 

[bcla]

Not in the movie industry, not a gun expert, not a lawyer, not an insurance company, but how on earth is this even possible!?

How can there not be a wall between a gun that's being used on set and one that people are using and firing with real ammo. Perhaps I'm naive, but does crew get to use any kind of props (cars, motorcycles, wardrobe, etc) for "fun" when they aren't being used to film?

It's standard practice to have the actors learn how to shoot the same firearms they'll use on set. There's really nothing that should prevent the same firearms used on a film set from being used for target practice. They just have to be checked when they're used on set. They should always be unloaded before they get transported, although it's my understanding that in New Mexico that it's legal to transport a loaded firearm.

 

[leeniewdw]

In a perfect world with people following all the rules, sure. But from a common sense approach with emphasis on safety, it seems like once a gun enters the role of a prop for a movie, it shouldn't be used for anything else until the movie is concluded. It just seems like the more people that touch/use it, the more chance for something to be misused/maintained.

Of course, I'm still unclear that even if no one else touched the gun (other than the armorer and which ever actor was supposed to use it for filming) that it would never have live rounds in it. I kind of got lost with all the discussions about various modified ammo and how filming a real gun discharge is cheaper than post processing etc.

In my armchair producer and propmaster role, I wouldn't think live ammo would be anywhere near guns needed for filming.

 

[bcla]

In a perfect world with people following all the rules, sure. But from a common sense approach with emphasis on safety, it seems like once a gun enters the role of a prop for a movie, it shouldn't be used for anything else until the movie is concluded. It just seems like the more people that touch/use it, the more chance for something to be misused/maintained.

Of course, I'm still unclear that even if no one else touched the gun (other than the armorer and which ever actor was supposed to use it for filming) that it would never have live rounds in it. I kind of got lost with all the discussions about various modified ammo and how filming a real gun discharge is cheaper than post processing etc.

In my armchair producer and propmaster role, I wouldn't think live ammo would be anywhere near guns needed for filming.

Guns cost money. I understand in the quest for "authenticity" that using the same ones for the filming and training is common.

But that it happened that was wasn't the cause of this fatality. It was a massive breakdown that live ammunition (and not just blanks) got anywhere near the film set, and especially in the firearm.

 

[TLSnell1981]

None of that changes the fact that they scare me.

One usual fears the unknown. Educating yourself on gun safety can help relieve some of the anxiety. Also if your only exposure to guns is news, internet or television you are likely to have a very negative view of firearms.

 

[Karin1984]

Also if your only exposure to guns is news, internet or television you are likely to have a very negative view of firearms.

Which is most likely the case for 95% of Europe ;-) I don't think I have ever seen a real gun, besides from military men in France near famous landmarks.
Can't remember seeing a gun in real life in my own country.

 

[TLSnell1981]

Which is most likely the case for 95% of Europe ;-) I don't think I have ever seen a real gun, besides from military men in France near famous landmarks.
Can't remember seeing a gun in real life in my own country.

The French military has some serious guns...no handcuffs. They aren't playing around.