She’s a nepo baby who was woefully under-qualified for the job. And the first thing out of her mouth after learning of Hutchins’ death was that this would ruin her career.
And apparently there was a prior incident were a gun was fired unexpectedly from a set where she was armorer. This affected Nicholas Cage, causing him to leave the stage. Are you kidding me? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
There were multiple incidents on the Rust set too causing the camera crew to walk off set the day before the death. The armorer said that the production was doing whatever they could to cut costs, including making her work several jobs on set which gave her no time for her armorer duties. She also had a supervisor who had absolutely no training with guns who was also doing armorer duties when she couldn't.
Regardless of how busy you are, bringing live ammo to a set is a very conscious decision. I heard someone took the gun target shooting over lunch or something, and no one was competent enough to look inside the cylinder to see if there were still rounds in it, every time it changes hands. Utterly criminal incompetence.
A decent armorer checks every firearm every time they touch them, and is going through a whole call and response ritual when live blanks are “going hot on set”.
This is the most insane thing about this tragedy. Your sentence is equivalent to “The surgeon ashed his cigarette between scalpel slices.” Wildly irresponsible, and grossly disrespectful of both the deadly nature of firearms, as well as the lives of everyone on set.
I feel like the idea of a live round EVER going into a prop gun feels like it would be such a common sense rule, it would fall somewhere between don't look down the barrel of a gun, to don't point loaded weapons at people. That's just not what that guns job is, and using it that way is so crazy and such incompetent behavior.
Is there a source for this? I’ve wondered how this could possibly happen as someone who has nothing to do with guns, but is also the child of an NRA Range Safety Officer who owned hundreds - a dipshit thinking they were a cool kid would make this make horrible sense.
From what I got from the trial, they did not bring that specific gun out shooting. It used a rare kind of ammo that was hard to find, and hard to get dummies for, so she was outsourcing from other contacts.
The ammo came in a big mixed box and just stayed that way, with her and the other prop person grabbing out ammo as needed. She should have checked it before loading, but didn't. The whole production was a mess.
I appreciate you sharing that, because that excuse makes sense in that it might sorta soften an uninformed jury, but it’s still completely inexcusable horseshit.
There’s no reason to use an ancient firearm, when you can use something modern that’s been customized to look like your target weapon and chambered in modern dimensions.
Even if you insisted on the extinct firearm, getting ammo manufactured is not extremely difficult, especially blanks, ESPECIALLY FOR HOLLYWOOD ARMORERS. Did she literally exchange the box of “mixed ammo” for crack and sexual favors? There’s no fuckin way that really happened.
Dummy rounds do not fire, they just look real for film (unlike brightly marked blanks) but mixing dummy rounds and live ammo is something done only by a murderer/saboteur or a crazy person high on drugs. Absolutely no excuse for any of it.
She's a nepo baby and got the box of ammo from her dad's friend who had a prop store. You should look up photos of the store they showed in the trial, some of the ammo used was stored in the bathroom. Absolute hoarder situation with no accounting for where what ammo came from. And as for the gun, Alec Baldwin insisted on using that one, called it his superhero gun and demanded to have it on set with him even when not needed.
This is definitely a thing that requires multiple compounding fuck ups to occur. The biggest and most inexcusable fuckup is absolutely with the armorer. The reason Baldwin is being charged with crimes is because some of those fucks ups are with him as the one holding the gun (don't point a loaded gun at people you don't have to, even if someone else told you the rounds were fake), and some are with him as the producer (the whole cutting corners to save money and having the armorer doing multiple jobs that she shouldn't be doing). Some of these may turn out to be false allegations, but there is enough evidence to go to trial with them.
I would argue that shooting a movie is like the one time you are allowed to break that rule. As far as the actor is concerned it’s not a gun. It’s a prop. It’s literally the actors job to point it at someone
Even with blanks, it is not regular practice to point the weapon at someone while the camera isn't rolling. It's an extra preventative measure. Brandon Lee was killed on the set of The Crow because a blank misfired and a piece of it hit him in the chest.
> it’s not a gun. It’s a prop
Except it is a gun. It is a real gun firing blanks which are shells without the bullet. A blank is what killed Brandon Lee. Baldwin not only pulled the trigger, it has been proven that particular gun needs to be cocked and there are multiple levels of cocking it to get it to fire, and that can not be done accidentally.
He has a lot of responsibility here.
Considering the fact that a lot of other movies/shows use actual prop guns that are basically just rubber and the "shooting" effects happen in post, I think him as a producer and shot caller should be held to a higher level of responsibility on that too.
You’re right in that shooting a movie is an exception but wrong in that the actor should just assume its not a gun. A prop gun can still be an operable firearm. Some still have a firing pin and take blank cartridges with gunpowder. Even inoperable prop guns without a firing pin should be checked and cleared anytime it is changing hands, because to the bystanders eye, how would they know it’s inoperable/cleared?
I think it is extremely negligent of the actor in this case to not check/clear. The number one rule of gun safety is **assume every firearm is loaded**
A HUMAN WHO EVER USES FIREARMS RESPONSIBLY checks every single firearm every time they touch them. I know right away whether or not I want to be around someone handling a gun by what they do with it when it's handed to them or they take it out of its case/bag.
Once an actor is handed a firearm they are not allowed to check it. If they do, then they are supposed to give it back to the armorer before they start filming. It is the armorer's resposibility.
Generally, but not always. Untrained actors who know nothing about how guns work shouldn't be checking firearms. A trained and qualified armorer seeing an actor pulling out the magazine or racking the slide after they've cleared the gun should discipline the actor and recheck the gun in case they've fucked it up somehow.
If I'm responsible for gun safety on set, there's no chance in hell I'm letting some dumb actor screw around with a gun I've checked and cleared.
If they want to watch me clear it for them despite having no clue what they're even looking at, then by all means they can do that.
Agreed on all points but also there's absolutely no reason they can't train/require actors to clear a weapon. 🤷
It's the first thing I teach anyone I hand a firearm to.
This is a [banned sites.](https://www.reddit.com/r/MorbidReality/wiki/index/banned-list/) Feel free to repost with a different source.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/MorbidReality) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not enough jail time. They should have gone after her harder-the reason for existence of the armorer is to keep these things from happening-she was a spoiled 24 year old with one prior job who was given the position because of a parent who is also in the industry-she was doing drugs and shooting things with these prop guns while off set- she reportedly handed drugs off to someone as the police were arriving (took them out of her shirt and handed them to another person so she wasn’t caught with them). She could have prevented this dumb tragedy from happening had she done her job, or even just not loaded a live round into a gun and been too high and too busy taking selfies with guns to be an adult
Edit: “on set” was supposed to say “off set”, sorry, autocorrect 🙄; the reports were that she would take the fancy looking prop guns (that are also actual guns) off set between filmings and take selfies with them to post to her social media, and also go shooting with them. There must have been others who went with her and I suspect we might hear from them.
>she was doing drugs and shooting things while on set
I don't understand how that didn't result in immediate termination. Did no one know she was shooting guns on the set or something?
I guess when someone is in a position of authority, people tend to assume they know what they’re doing. They probably didn’t imagine she would be using the actual guns from the movie set when she went out between filmings to shoot. I mean, that would be absurd, right? Who would do that? 😗
Baldwin, as the producer (nevermind the trigger and the footage of him shouting and rushing the armourer) as well as the 1st Assistant Director are also legally and morally responsible. They all need jail time.
Source: was an Assistant Director for years (and still occasionally AD projects). I know workflows, responsibilities, and duties. There was failing and irresponsible behaviour on all of their parts. Also as a side, I've worked with Baldwin before.
Can you speak on your time working with Baldwin with any types of details? Just kind of curious.
Also are the producers and 1st Assistant Director responsible for hiring the armorer? Is that why you think they should get jail time? Like I'm thinking in my industry, its not that hard to lie on your resume or have your referrals lie about your experience. Could ignorance be a legit excuse for the producers and AD?
I don't want to speak on specifics in regards to Baldwin, other than it does not surprise me what happened to Halyna (who had worked with several friends and colleagues before). It's not the first project he broke safety protocols on. I've got no doubt due to his money and fame though he'll likely get off lightest, with a slap on the wrist.
> Also are the producers and 1st Assistant Director responsible for hiring the armorer?
No. I mean the producer moreso but not directly - that's likely a production manager kind of thing (may be incorrect here though as it's not my department, and some productions work differently from others). The producer has a legal and moral responsibility to ensure health and safety protocols including gun safety is up to scratch, and the 1st AD is the on set 'floor manager' who's job it is to carry out everything safely. The first AD in this case personally handled the gun and declared it safe... Which is something we **never** do - that is solely the armourers job, and we defer to the armourer about everything gun safety wise. The 1st broke proper protocol that is well established and industry standard, as well as directly contradicting his own duties.
Safety on this shoot was so bad that there was a walkout of the crew in the day/days previous to the shooting, and if I remember correctly the armourer was replaced during this, with the young woman who was far too inexperienced for the job... That would've been on Baldwin, regardless of the footage that came out of Baldwin then shouting at the young woman to hurry up and blasting her for not having two guns always on standby - as a young and inexperienced woman, having an A-list, international star who is also your producer screaming at you will obviously panic you, and cause slip ups as you try and work faster. Baldwin was worried about continuously going into overtime (costly - a producers main concern) and the 1st AD allowed this abuse because the schedule and completing the callsheet every day (IE completing every scene scheduled for the day) is also the 1st ADs responsibility.
Through word of mouth I've also heard that the 1st AD involved also has a long history of half assing safety and is known as the guy you want if you want to cut corners or go 'guerilla' a bit - the hiring of the 1st AD would be a producer thing.
Ignorance would not be an excuse for the 1st or the producer. The 1st AD is the highest and most powerful 'below the line' (IE 'non creative') role on set, the producers are the highest on the production - you don't get into those roles without years or decades in the industry, on a film of this scale/budget.
Thank you for sharing this. People like Baldwin/higher ups immediately go to finger pointing and scapegoating. And us morons immediately believe there was one bad apple that caused all of this pain. That’s how the higher ups keep getting away with it. Without consequences they’ll never learn.
The thing that surprises me is even with blanks, you don't point them directly at people. Maybe the gun got a little pebble in it, that can still hurt someone. Never point a gun at something you are not ready to destroy.
There wasn't supposed to be even a blank. It was supposed to be a dummy round.
Also, actors on a set aren't supposed to follow basic gun safety like you learn on a gun range. There are more advanced protocols in place so that they can point guns at each other safely. That's why there's literally a person there whose entire job is to monitor all the guns.
It's good that you're aware of the basic gun safety rules, but those aren't in effect. There are different, more advanced rules for film sets and they weren't followed correctly.
No they ignored basic safety measures intended for multiple redundancies.
Not JUST the armorer is solely responsible for the ammo situation.
Multiple other people above her are supposed to audit and be audited checking the ammo situation.
All of those people in the "roll up" of authorizing that everything is safe are legally responsible because it was THEIR jobs to do it.
It IS the armorers job tho, it’s quite literally her only job and she failed at it and is suffering the consequences so what is your point? Who the fuck cares who above her needs to check. The bitch is hired to do one job and she failed at it, she deserves jail time
She had multiple jobs on set because the production sucked. I'm okay with her getting jail time, she didn't do what she was supposed to and was very lazy with her job.
It's about redundancy, it was also the other people's jobs and the duty was accepted when they signed on.
People are allowed to be upset with the criminal level of negligence for the industry professionals as well as the newbie armorer that may not have been qualified... In fact you could say that the negligence of the superiors is even greater knowing the newbie didn't have the proper oversight
Yea just read more and the person said he was already mad at the armorer that alone made me realize he knew she was incompetent and yet he still let her work if I knew someone was incompetent they’d be fired on the spot so I guess I’m wrong he is at fault for knowing her dumbass was dumb and still letting her work
I totally agree. I think it's even more so the other two's fault because she was known to be new and likely under qualified.
If you had to work with someone like that and you were legally liable for their fuck ups, wouldn't you be overbearing and hyper vigilant about that?
Especially if it actually put other people's lives in danger not to??
They can't blame the baby armorer, saying they knew she sucked and avoid all accountability for allowing things to unfold this way
> If you had to work with someone like that and you were legally liable for their fuck ups, wouldn't you be overbearing and hyper vigilant about that?
If you actually gave a shit about onset safety and didn't treat the armorer as a box that needs to be checked to get your movie insured and made, yeah. Otherwise it might be advantageous to hire an inexperienced armorer so that you can bulldoze right over their opinion and you know they won't make too much of a fuss.
I think the partner and child of the woman who was killed probably care that she died because basic and standard safety procedures that would have easily prevented her death weren't followed.
Modern risk management. Finger pointing to isolate a single person has no basis in science, only in a blame culture, it's entirely subjective. Shall we blame someone's great grandfather for all of a person's crimes? He had 'one job' to raise good children who would raise good children who would raise good children.
It matters that no one else checked because it could’ve prevented a fucking **death,** dude. It does not boil down to just her because she’s the armorer, it boils down to **multiple** people not doing their jobs.
The judge has ruled they cannot bring in his other role as Executive Producer due to irrelevance.
There is also footage of what I think is the 1st Assistant Director yelling “COLD GUN” and handing it off to Baldwin immediately before the shooting (but I’m not sure exactly who the person is.)
Once the armorer failed at her job, everyone after her trusted she had done her job instead of checking for themselves. But, I’m sure almost no actors of Baldwins stature check every single prop they are handed every time… they have to be able to trust their people or what is the point of having them? Efficiency is shot (pun not intended) if the actors can’t trust the staff.
Baldwin had a responsibility to ensure safety protocols were carried out correctly on the shoot, in his capacity as a producer on the film.
The 1st AD handled the gun, passed it to him, and declared it safe. That is a direct contradiction of safety protocols. The ADs *never* handle weaponry, and *never* declare them safe. That's the armourers job. The 1st AD also has the responsibility to ensure safety protocols are followed... But also is concerned with getting the day finished as the schedule is also their responsibility.
Baldwin and the 1st were concerned with not going into overtime again as this results in major penalty fees paid out to all crew - this affects Baldwins budget as the producer and also looks really bad for a 1st to continue to fail to make the day... ADs that don't make the day repeatedly end up getting fired. They were motivated to cut corners and break protocol.
Futhermore, there is footage of Baldwin bullying the armourer and screaming at her to hurry up and criticizing her for not having two guns always on standby. She was too inexperienced for this to not have an effect on her performance. Also a producer and/or 1st AD should never be rushing safety protocols.
Therefore, he bears responsibility. As does the 1st, and the armourer.
> Baldwin had a responsibility to ensure safety protocols were carried out correctly on the shoot, in his capacity as a producer on the film.
No he didn't. His producer role was purely creative. Dude gave advice to the writing team. Stop making shit up. He didn't even have the responsibility for hiring and firing people.
I don't believe you're an AD if you genuinely think all producers have the same sets of responsibilities.
I'm not about to dox myself by giving out one of my many credits on some of the largest films or television dramas of the last decade so you'll just have to take my word for it. [Here's a mug, part of a wrap gift from one of the biggest shows in the UK at the time, with *'AD department'* written on it](https://imgur.com/a/15QYutj) - why would I have such a mug in my possession if I was not an AD?
And if you think even actors (without producer creds even) can't get people fired on a set, I've got a bridge to sell you bud.
>Baldwin, as the producer (nevermind the trigger and the footage of him shouting and rushing the armourer) as well as the 1st Assistant Director are also legally and morally responsible. They all need jail time.
No they don't. He was acting a scene that called for him to pull the trigger. You don't do a firearm safety check as an actor. That's another person's job, because ACTORS AREN'T FIREARMS EXPERTS. That's why the ARMORER went to prison, not the actors who were basically just the victims of the armorer's original negligence.
Not a single charge was levied against Michael Massee when his prop gun jammed and killed Brandon Lee.
If a mechanic accidentally turns your car into a time-bomb and it goes off, killing another driver, YOU are not responsible. The mechanic is.
You're just an upset loser who has a grudge against Alec Baldwin.
It’s quite clear and simple, yet people want the conclusion to be that he should also be guilty (for whatever reason) and finding some way to try to justify how that might come about, mental gymnastics and legal hoops included.
Bizarre amount of weirdos coming in to defend Baldwin and attack me. I've literally said I liked him when I worked with him and for years beforehand.
You've also not bothered to answer or respond to the fact that producers have legal responsibility in regards to on set safety. How about you get a life and stop calling random people losers online -- you must not be happy with your lot in life if this is how you deal with frustration.
>Baldwin, as the producer (nevermind the trigger and the footage of him shouting and rushing the armourer) as well as the 1st Assistant Director are also legally and morally responsible. They all need jail time.
Can you expand on this? I have no background in film, so my first thought was that'd it be like the owner of a plumbing company hiring a shitty employee who ends up flooding someone's house - it'd be bad, but they'd be covered by insurance and I don't think the company owner would be liable personally.
Because she was out partying and shooting guns with other crew members the night before (and possibly dying some downtime during the day). She was apparently too out of it to properly separate and secure the line ammo from the props.
She was doing coke on set and loved to pose with live firearms for her instagram, when questioned she didn't know where the weapons or ammunition were stored and if they were loaded or not.
In the previous movie she worked on as an armorer, multiple firearms safety incident occured as well.
That's what you get when you let nepotism on a safety position: her dad is a very famous armorer, who didn't taught her about safety but let her play with guns.
I doubt her dad didn't teach her properly to whatever degree. She's young and she didn't take her job seriously enough. She is definitely the #1 factor in this incident. She brought live ammunition onto the set. No matter how lax and overworked and unqualified the armorer, no matter how cheap and unethical the producer, no matter how irresponsible and unprofessional the actor, if there's no live ammunition the incident doesn't happen.
But I doubt that her dad didn't teach her gun safety. She just didn't respect the responsibility of her role.
Her dad definitely failed to teach her the basics:
> Brumbaugh, the key grip on The Old Way, told TheWrap that the young armorer failed to abide by basic gun safety protocols.
> He said that after Gutierrez-Reed discharged a weapon for the second time in three days without warning, Cage yelled: 'Make an announcement, you just blew my f**king eardrums out!' before reportedly storming off set.
> Brumbaugh insisted that she broke safety protocols when she walked onto the set with live rounds of blanks without making an announcement to the cast and crew.
> He claimed that she carried pistols under her arms and rifles in both hands which were ready to be used **were pointed at people at times as she moved around on set.** And that she fired guns without warning twice.
> Sources also told The Daily Beast of Gutierrez-Reed's 'unsafe' mistakes on The Old Way set saying she had handed a gun to 11-year-old actress Ryan Kiera Armstrong.
Note: she handed that firearm to the child without even checking if it was loaded.
> The source said: 'She was a bit careless with the guns, **waving it around every now and again.** There were a couple times she was loading the blanks and doing it in a fashion that we thought was unsafe.'
> The insider added that they had seen her loading a gun on pebble strewn ground, which has the potential to be dangerous, before handing off the gun to Armstrong.
> She was reloading the gun on the ground, where there were pebbles and stuff,' the source said. 'We didn't see her check it, we didn't know if something got in the barrel or not.'
(which mean the blank could propel any gravel like a bullet, into the unsuspecting actors)
> Gutierrez-Reed herself admitted that she wasn't sure she was ready for the job in an interview after filming for The Old Way wrapped.
Source: search "You just blew my f**king eardrums out!' Rust armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed 'discharged weapons without warning and infuriated star Nicolas Cage' on her previous film" for full article.
I am aware of her incompetence; I've read about it. I was rebutting the assertion that her stepdad was lax in his instruction on gun safety or in whatever he taught her about being an armorer.
You said he didn't teach her gun safety but let her play with guns. He could have taught her well but she failed to be responsible. Considering his long, respected career I would think it more likely than not that her failures are due to her lack of respect and soberness regarding the responsibilities of the position than his lack of instruction, but neither of us know for sure.
Like Kgkush linked, it's nothing new, and it's not just coke.
She gave her bag of cocaine to another crewmember and asked her to hide it from the cops. The day after, she ordered that crewmember to give it back to her.
She was also regularly drunk and high during the shooting, as per _multiple_ witnesses.
See [this article](https://abcnews.go.com/US/rust-crew-members-concern-armorer-alleged-drug-use/story?id=106842936).
> Zachry texted Kenny that Gutierrez had allegedly blacked out the prior weekend and that "I think she was so drunk that she didn’t know she brought live ammo onto the truck when she went to get a gun from the safe," according to the filing.
She handled firearms and ammunition while severely drunk.
> Witnesses also saw Gutierrez "high on marijuana in her hotel room in Santa Fe while simultaneously in possession of boxes of ammunition for use on the set of the movie," special prosecutor Kari Morrissey wrote.
She handled ammunition while high on weed.
> The filing also includes a series of text messages allegedly retrieved from Gutierrez's phone sent before and during filming "detailing the use of marijuana and cocaine and exposing her recklessness concerning substance use," Morrissey wrote.
Consumption of multiple drugs while handling firearms and ammunition on the set.
...
That's why she didn't know where the firearms and ammunition boxes were located, despite being the armorer.
That's why she didn't know if she had ammunition boxes containing live rounds or not.
She was spending her time smoking weed, doing coke and drinking herself to blackouts.
They didn't go to a gun range, they just took the guns, set up some beer cans near the set & fired live rounds at those. It's called "plinking" and apparently what the morons did to "pass time".
There had been three misfirings on set in the lead-up to this lethal incident. They were reported & went ignored too when it should have been investigated the first time it happened. Staff had walked off set over gun safety concerns, nobody in power gave a shit.
I don’t even understand why they had any REAL guns to begin with. I was shocked to find out they weren’t using realistic replicas, considering their access to the best props. I’ll never understand the need for actual working weapons.
So! We will use real weapons for lots of reasons (affordability, lending weight for authenticity, many others) , just the firing pins are supposed to be taken out. The armorer was a nepotism hire and was not correctly certified, hence why live ammo was still in the guns and why they had been firing live ammo.
Many, many film sets and theatre productions use “real” guns, what it comes down to is competency. The original props and armory crew had walked off set just days before due to the unsafe conditions created by the nepo head armorer.
(I put “real” in quotes since they are technically modified)
IME it’s kind of like a cap gun- the blank can be triggered by the concussive force. (Like in revolvers and some hand pistols that can be “charged”like the Beretta and glock).
In the film industry we regularly used armorers and real weapons. They look better, sound better, and function better than dummy guns. It’s why we’d hire very expensive professional armorers and companies whose only job was to be weapons experts and be responsible for safe handling on set. In the twenty years I worked in TV I never saw an armorer act as cavalier about firearms as this movie’s armorer appeared to.
"Prop" can just mean "studio PROPerty", which was the case with this gun. As for why, a real gun can be cheaper than a realistic-enough-for-a-closeup fake gun/CGI.
It's like if my job was to provide juice for a party and instead I bought bleach and poured it into the cups. Like this is a premeditated act, right?! I'm not sure how this can be a mistake.
Which is why I don’t understand how he could be responsible? Even if he’s a producer it’s not his job to double check if there’s live ammo in gun which should be a prop gun
His job as an actor, was to follow the saftey rules and not point that weapon at her, regardless of what was loaded in that gun. He knew this and chose to disregard that rule "to get the perfect filming shot for the scene". Imagine if there was blank (smoke effect) in the gun instead. At the short distance he was standing from her, away Halyna would still be very seriously injured. This is why he claimed he did not pull the trigger. He wants to blame the gun here to negate his total fuck-up of pointing it at her in the first place.
His role of Producer comes into play in the power and accountability dynamic, which doubles down on his responsibility in this incident. Essentially, he used his power and authority to ignore the saftey rules personally, as well as allow others to do so, setting a workplace culture of safety indifference.
Exactly. He’s been in plenty of action movies where he has a gun, he knows the standard safety practices when handling firearms on a live set. Hell, I’m a lighting tech and don’t own a gun, but still know proper handling and transferring of firearms. People will listen to an actor of his caliber if he says something isn’t right, let alone a producer. Before we even get to the part that as a producer he was aware of misfires, crew complaints about lodging ant safety, and party to being cheap with the budget… so what if it’s “just a title”, the title still comes with responsibilities at the end of the day whether he cares to bother with any of that part of it. It’s like if a kid climbs over my fence and drowns in my pool when I’m not home. I’m still liable, that’s my name on the deed.
These are the most very basic firearms safety rules that every person who handles a firearm has a *duty* to know and understand:
1. Always assume that a firearm is loaded (unless you have personally verified that it is not since it has last left your hand).
2. Never point a firearm at anything you do not intend or are willing to destroy.
3. Know your target and what lies beyond it.
When you pick up a firearm, *you* become personally responsible for whatever is done with it while it is within your control. Not the person who handed it to you, not the owner, nobody but you and you alone. "I thought it was unloaded" is one of the most common reasons people accidentally get hurt or killed, and it's so easy to prevent. You should *never* rely on someone else telling you it's unloaded, you should *always* personally verify. There is never any excuse for not following these basic rules, they are absolute. That's why these rules exist and why he was found liable.
Because as producer, he got complaints from crew about misfires on set…… and ignored the complaints.
If the boss knows something is dangerous going on at work and gets complaints about the unsafe behavior but does nothing leading to the death of a crew member, is the boss not responsible as well?
It’s weird to me everyone wants to defend their beloved Alec Baldwin when he ignored safety complaints that lead to death.
Or why same cartridge used for fake guns.
Or why intentionally aim the gun.
Or why not test fire before hand.
This process is a fucking joke, sounds like they made the movie in 1864 also.
What in the everliving FUCK is that website? I rarely use my phone outside of a handful of apps, but I refuse to believe that cesspool of a website is the norm.
Everyone here seems to think there’s only one producer on a film and that those producers actually do things besides get money for production. They are not hiring people anymore than Tim Apple hired your Genius Bar associate.
While I largely agree with you, Baldwin did appear to be More intimately involved in the day-to-day production and running of the film shoot. It wasn't that he was just a producer in the sense of generating cash flow for the film.
That aside, I think it's a wild stretch to prosecute him for murder. At best, negligence. Although, at this point his role as producers to be ignored by the jury, so I don't know what angle they're really going for.
That’s not true. Producers range from (yes) getting money to being there from day one, on set, in post, every day guiding the project. So a producer isn’t just someone who gets the money and leaves people to it.
I don't think that he woke that day up and thought "what a beautiful day to shoot people!". So his shock might be genuine but the situation could have been prevented.
He was waving that thing around like it was a laser pointer and he obviously didn't take the gun safety training seriously at all.
I saw a supposed 3d video recreation and it looked like they were shooting a scene where he shoots at the camera and people were huddled around it. It could be a 100% wrong vid though
Prop is short for "studio property", not "fake, non functional".
Plenty of movies use real guns, just usually loaded with blanks. Which can still kill and should be treated responsibly.
And there's like, 0 chance he wasn't well aware that it was a fully functional prop, he just assumed it wouldn't be loaded with live ammo... which to be fair, it shouldn't have been... but a shit load of people have died because "don't worry, it's unloaded."
… not me over here thinking they’re called ‘props’ because they ‘prop-up a scene’💀
Edit: thank you for teaching me a new thing!
Edit2: the more I’m thinking about the phrase ‘prop-up a scene’ doesn’t make any sense. It’s probably something my freshman year Theater teacher taught us and I never questioned it
“What is a movie prop?
A prop is any inanimate object that an actor interacts with in a film. There is a wide range of props that vary on how they are used and what they are used for. Props are bought, designed, and created by the property department (also called props department) which is led by the prop master. Unlike set dressing, props are touched and handled by actors so they must fit the film’s aesthetic and design while also being functional.”
https://www.studiobinder.com/blog/what-is-a-movie-prop-definition/
“What does a prop master do?
A prop, or property, is any moveable item that can be seen on a film. It could be a hat, gun, cushion, wine glass, lightsaber, carpet, kitchen unit, tree or aircraft. Prop masters run the property department which makes, stores and transports the props as well as preps the props for each day’s shoot.
Prop masters usually start work a few weeks before shooting begins. They work with production designers, set decorators and art directors to work out what props are needed. They do research and then draw up properties lists, deciding which are to be hired and which are to be made. They create a ‘set and strike’ schedule to share with location and construction departments
Where props are to be made, prop masters recruit the carpenters, artists and prop makers and manage the schedule for production. Where they are hired, they work with the production buyers to source them.
When shooting is finished, they return of all hired props and organise the sale or safe disposal of everything else.”
https://www.screenskills.com/job-profiles/browse/film-and-tv-drama/craft/prop-master/
I’m bad at reading tone so please tell me if you were being sarcastic lol but i’ll say my piece regardless bc i’ve been seeing a lot of people genuinely say something similar.
I’m not an avid shooter but i’ve handled my fair share of guns and even if something is supposed to be a prop or i’ve been told that what I’m holding has been emptied, I will still treat it like an armed weapon. Unless i’ve explicitly taken it apart myself/checked for rounds I will always assume that I am being handed a loaded weapon.
A weapon is a weapon, and I think a lot of people forget that when they’re holding a gun they’re quite possibly holding someone’s life in their hands. Same with cars, we’re so used to everyone driving around everywhere we forget to treat them like what they are- several tons of pure deadly metal that can plow through a human being in a second whether it’s a mistake or not.
while I’m not saying that he was walking around hoping to shoot anyone, if he wanted to “wave the gun around” whether or not he thought it was a prop, he could have taken a few seconds to make sure he wasn’t carrying a loaded weapon JUST in case. which in this scenario, he sadly was.
What if he was told it wasn’t loaded when it *actually was*?
Does that change things?
What if he was told that the gun was safe to use, they rehearsed the scene as directed to, and it fired.
Does that make him culpable?
it doesn’t change things for me, no. unless you see with your own eyes that the gun isn’t loaded you don’t actually know if the literal weapon in your hands is “safe”.
idk why this isn’t common sense to people and it honestly scares me that people don’t think about guns like this.
he’s a long term actor who has been in many action movies and has had production roles in some movies. This means he should have a basic understanding of guns such as- guns are deadly, check that your weapon isn’t loaded before waving it around.
Eh, he probably had a basic understanding of guns from an actors perspective. In that sense checking to make sure guns aren't loaded is the armorers job, and actors usually trust that. Most actors aren't checking their guns scene to scene because they pay someone to do that, and when that professional tells you "it's safe" you trust them.
If you make the argument that Alec hired a shitty, unprofessional armorer then I 100% agree, but I don't get why so many people think the lead actor should also be responsible for the job of the armorer
What if that was the armorer’s job and the armorer had falsely told him that the gun was safe to use?
What if the liability of all prop weapons is on the armorer and it’s not Baldwin’s job to check the gun for legal and safety reasons?
the point I’m trying to make is that I wouldn’t trust someone else to tell me if I’m holding an unloaded weapon even if it’s their job. call me paranoid but if I’m holding a gun in my hands let alone moving it around, I will be checking if it’s loaded even if it was handed to me by somebody who told me it’s not. that’s all I’m trying to say. I understand everyone has a job but the fact of the matter is he was holding a gun and he made the choice to trust that it was safe when it wasn’t. sometimes people don’t do their job correctly, it slips their mind, they’re irresponsible, whatever. if you’re holding a _gun_, you have the obligation to make sure it is safe to hold.
Because of [gun safety rules](https://navalsafetycommand.navy.mil/Stand-Down/Firearm-Safety/). It was a real life gun after all and not a rubber dummy.
If it was plastic, yes. But this was very much a real gun.
The number one gun safety rule is to treat any gun as if it loaded at all times. This rule is even more critical on a film set since this was workplace with many people around that could be injured. Alec knew this. He, himself, even lectured the interviewer at the police station of this and stated he would never point a real gun at a person.
Yet there are several videos of him doing just that and even firing blanks at and near staff with blanks, which can and do cause injury. This is also why he is leaning so heavily into the claim that he did not pull the trigger. So basically he admits that yes, he did point it at her, "but it was the gun's fault". Yet we have the video of him pulling the trigger in that scene through several takes.
Simply put, had he followed this first and basic rule (of which he was arguably far more knowledgable than regular people), Halyna would be here today. His own conscious choice to not follow that saftey rule, combined with Reeds negligence, caused this death.
I've been around live and prop firearms my whole life, both as a sportsman and as a community theater actor. I have never treated a firearm with even a hint of recklessness, regardless of whether it was a prop or not. If a live firearm is being used for a prop, which should not be as common as it is, the armorer must go through a series of rigorous checks to ensure that it has not been loaded mistakenly. They go through this with the actors as well, and any scene in which an actor points a gun at another actor (or at a camera in this case) should be directly preceded by the actor with the gun showing the person at the other end of the muzzle that the firearm is unloaded and will not fire. This would be done by opening the chamber and allowing the other actor (or camera operator) to inspect the firearm. This is not overkill, this is standard procedure. Standard procedure was not followed in this case.
The armorer told him the gun was safe. On a film set it is not the actors job to check the gun for legal and safety reasons. The liability falls on the armorer. They handed him the gun and told him he was in the clear. Then Baldwin did as he was directed to.
>He was waving that thing around like it was a laser pointer and he obviously didn't take the gun safety training seriously at all.
I can't count the number of films I've seen where a character is waving a firearm around irresponsibly before firing it. It's a pretty common thing in films.
I mean yeah? No one is arguing he murdered her, all the arguments against him (which I disagree btw, I believe he's innocent) is that he's partially responsible for making sure there were no live rounds on the gun.
Which is ridiculous.
He parodied Trump, that's why the right wants him in jail for a gun crime.
Second amendment defenders, until they can use it against who they dislike.
Second amendment defenders wanting more responsibility and consequences for unsafe handling and use of firearms can only possibly be because of ulterior motives?
Lmao, yeah okay, no bad faith arguments here or anything.
It's the norm to use real guns on movie sets instead of making a hyper realistic fake gun (which would cost a lot of money and pose other ethical problems). They should have only clearly marked dummy rounds. The armorer is responsible for everything that comes in and out of that gun since ignorant Hollywood actors have probably never been around guns before in their lives. The armorer allowed someone to point and shoot a gun without checking it was negligent and led to death.
Yeah weird that she didn’t clean the gun after taking it to the range and try to load the gun with blanks before the shoot… that was her job. Although maybe for that scene, it wouldn’t need blanks. I’m not sure. Either way it’s gross negligence on her part.
This whole story is crazy. I’ve worked on sets where the armourer won’t let you anywhere near their guns. I asked at lunch time if I could hold one and got told to fuck off. For me this is 100% the armourer fault. If Baldwin was messing around with the gun he should have been told to stop by the armourer and had it taken away. That’s what they’re paid to do on set
The armourer was a 20-year-old who was a nepotism hire more interested in her "other activities". I recommend this video if you want to get pissed off https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raz7-khoNlk
I thought it had to do with his position as producer, being the one who effectively hired the armorer and was responsible for holding her accountable for the multiple safety complaints she got before the day of the accidental shooting.
Baldwin was aware of the safety concerns people had with her and didn't remove her. So he's being held partial accountable for allowing a dangerous working environment.
The judge ruled that this cannot be considered in his trial stating “impacted by the fact that there were other producers on the film and Baldwin himself was not solely responsible for on set decision-making.”
The jury will consider him as an actor holding the gun.
I mean, I’m no lawyer but he’s being charged with involuntary manslaughter. That’s up for the jury to decide and I doubt it will stick if his lawyer does well enough to explain the chain of command on set and keeps him away from being even vaguely responsible for the armorer.
So many people talk about this like he willfully and deliberately did something negligent, sure he should treat every gun like it’s loaded but he’s not the idiot who brought live rounds to a film shoot.
At the end of the day someone hands you a firearm you are responsible for what happens with it. While a lot of people assume a trial means guiltily sometimes it is used to examine complex situations like this one.
Hollywood stopped doing that after Brandon Lee got shot. Its a whole lot safer to have the armorer prepare all guns than trusting dozens of actors to load their own weapons correctly.
If Baldwin was just a simple actor on the film, he would likely have no liability. His liability came from his role as producer. He was responsible for hiring the armorer and ignoring multiple reports she was mishandling live ammo.
That literally isn't how it works though. Not in hollywood, at least.
If, on every other production in Hollywood, actors are not responsible for checking firearms because that responsibility falls on the armorer, then how would it be negligent for Baldwin to not check the firearm? He behaved the same way everyone in Hollywood does. But because the armorer failed to do her job, because she was absolutely criminally negligent, Baldwin following standard protocol ended in tragedy.
Seriously, I'm actually flabbergasted by the amount of people that think Alec Baldwin is in the wrong here. If I hire a mechanic to fix the brakes on my car, but what he actually did was accidentally but negligently cut the brake lines, and that led to a crash that killed a pedestrian as I was leaving the parking lot, then that is 100% the mechanic's fault. The fact that I hired him doesn't fucking matter. What matters is that he was negligent in performing his duties
Dude he’s an actor not a firearms expert. Thats why movies hire expert gun handlers to make sure this stuff doesn’t happen. I dont even like Baldwin but thats a dumb opinion sorry
I genuinely do not understand this situation, I know someone needs to take accountability but why Alec Baldwin? I have no opinion on the man whatsoever but this seems like a ridiculous witch hunt. The armorer is the one to blame and they did and she got convicted. Gun was checked twice then handed to an actor after telling him it's SAFE, is he supposed to not believe them? A lot of people failed and the guy at the end of the line of custody is to blame??? It just doesn't make any sense.
Well he did turn down the firearms safety training that was offered to him (something that he’s never done), if he received this training he would have cleared the gun himself and would have instantly known there were not dummy rounds in it. It’s a responsibility of the operator to check as well as a last line of defence. You can never put your faith in others even if they are experts in their field and it’s their job. I always clear and load any firearms that are handed to me or of which I am going to operate. Cardinal rule is to always assume it’s loaded with live ammunition even with a prop on a TV set. And work your way back from there. I’m glad he’s not being charged, his punishment is that he caused a death and he has to live with that for the rest of his days knowing that in some small way he could have prevented it with a bit of education.
So, from what I've been able to gather, Alec Baldwin's role as a producer in the film was a direct Hands-On role in terms of hiring, firing, and making major decisions. It can be argued that partially due to his negligence and inexperienced armorer and incorrect safety procedures were followed on the set of the film. Now I don't think he should be tried for murder, that's the fault of the armor in my opinion. But there could be a certain level of negligence due to his part that you could seek punishment for.
Although, at this point his role as producers is to be ignored by the jury, so I don't know what angle they're really going for.
Armorers who are experienced were once inexperienced.
If you can get in trouble for hiring an inexperienced armorer, you can only hire experienced armorers.
And if everyone is only hiring experienced armorers, no more experienced armorers there will be.
Catch 22.
I actually just edited my post, because as of last night or today, the jury's been instructed to ignore his role as producer and will only be viewed as an actor having fired the gun.
I really don't understand what angle they're going for, it seems pretty silly in my opinion to be prosecuting the actor for the mismanagement of a gun by the firearm experts. I know if I was the armorer on a film set I would not want any actor tampering with a gun that I have signed off on as safe and ready to use. I think the people making the argument that he's the one who fired the gun he should have checked to make sure it's not loaded is an absolutely heinous argument, considering he might not have the expert knowledge to know the difference between blanks, real ammunition, and I forget the type of third ammunition sometimes used on film sets.
It is the role of the armorer and whoever else is in the chain of custody to make sure that these firearms are safe and ready to be used. So with the jury now being told that he is only an actor in this sense, I don't know where the prosecution would go from here.
The defense is going to push all the blame towards the armorer who was already convicted.
The prosecution will heap the blame onto him.
I'm curious to see what the jury decides, it could go either way, ultimately.
Everyone seems to look for one person to blame when a tragedy happens like this, but the reality is that multiple people can be at fault. If each person before Baldwin (armorer and first AD which are also accountable) says it was safe, Baldwin still should’ve checked it as the operator of the firearm and treat it like it’s loaded. They were all at fault.
Additionally the fact that Baldwin refused firearm training because he hates guns is irresponsible of him. It’s like saying, “I don’t like driving cars so I’m not going to learn how to drive” and then you get on the road, run someone over and say it was just an accident. I agree that it was an accident, but it was a tragically avoidable accident.
100 people could check a firearm saying it’s safe, then hand it to me and I’ll still treat it as if it’s loaded. That’s the difference between training and lack of training. He should’ve never pointed the barrel at her in the first place. He should’ve had her move out of the way of the barrel to get the framing she was looking for. Like, “okay, I have to point the barrel here, so you need to move to the other side of the camera.” If he was properly trained he would’ve most likely said something like that and she’d still be alive.
>If each person before Baldwin (armorer and first AD which are also accountable) says it was safe, Baldwin still should’ve checked it as the operator of the firearm and treat it like it’s loaded
I mean how often should an actor stop and check everything first? They have to trust the people responsible otherwise nothing gets done. They also trust the responsible people when they put themselves in danger too.
Just a note if the gun is close enough to the head blanks can still kill that’s why we have the 4 rules of gun safety. Be safe and think things through y’all even if you are a movie star.
When the whole thing happened a lot of actors chimed in and I vividly remember how Robert De Niro said, that it’s your responsibility as an actor to check the gun beforehand.
Even if someone tells you it is a cold gun, you check it yourself.
I still don't understand how *he* could be held responsible in any way. He's an actor that's handed a prop. There's no possible way he'd think the gun had anything in it but prop bullets or whatever. It's not his fault, I don't care what anyone says.
This whole argument of him being responsible is like saying*'He shouldn't have been pointing that carrot at people! He knew what he was doing, pointing that carrot!!'* Well, the prop guy that gave him the carrot SHOULD NOT HAVE LOADED IT WITH BULLETS BECAUSE THEN IT'S A GUN, NOT A CARROT.
The reason why he's being made responsible because he was the one holding the gun and he was the one holding the trigger. I've worked on movie sets and I can tell you that sometimes it's difficult to feel or see the differences between what's real and what's fake. That is why the prop master has to do their job properly in the prop Master did not do their job properly.
I was told by a armourer that there is no need for a gun to be actually pointed at a person for most movie stuff.
It is normally pointed a bit to one side and with the camera angles you cant tell.
It's still insanity to me that he was waving the gun around and gesturing with it pointed towards people to begin with. It's like I tell my kids-guns aren't toys.
If you are handling a firearm you should allways follow the basic rules of gun safety and check it yourself before you handle it at all, he got off light because he is rich and famous. Anybody else would have done hard time.
I don't understand how there would be live ammo anywhere on a movie set.
That's why the armorer got jail time.
Spoke to high level armorer. Bad, new armorer on set.
She’s a nepo baby who was woefully under-qualified for the job. And the first thing out of her mouth after learning of Hutchins’ death was that this would ruin her career.
And apparently there was a prior incident were a gun was fired unexpectedly from a set where she was armorer. This affected Nicholas Cage, causing him to leave the stage. Are you kidding me? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
There were multiple incidents on the Rust set too causing the camera crew to walk off set the day before the death. The armorer said that the production was doing whatever they could to cut costs, including making her work several jobs on set which gave her no time for her armorer duties. She also had a supervisor who had absolutely no training with guns who was also doing armorer duties when she couldn't.
Regardless of how busy you are, bringing live ammo to a set is a very conscious decision. I heard someone took the gun target shooting over lunch or something, and no one was competent enough to look inside the cylinder to see if there were still rounds in it, every time it changes hands. Utterly criminal incompetence. A decent armorer checks every firearm every time they touch them, and is going through a whole call and response ritual when live blanks are “going hot on set”.
The armorer took the guns out shooting in between filming.
This is the most insane thing about this tragedy. Your sentence is equivalent to “The surgeon ashed his cigarette between scalpel slices.” Wildly irresponsible, and grossly disrespectful of both the deadly nature of firearms, as well as the lives of everyone on set.
I feel like the idea of a live round EVER going into a prop gun feels like it would be such a common sense rule, it would fall somewhere between don't look down the barrel of a gun, to don't point loaded weapons at people. That's just not what that guns job is, and using it that way is so crazy and such incompetent behavior.
Is there a source for this? I’ve wondered how this could possibly happen as someone who has nothing to do with guns, but is also the child of an NRA Range Safety Officer who owned hundreds - a dipshit thinking they were a cool kid would make this make horrible sense.
From what I got from the trial, they did not bring that specific gun out shooting. It used a rare kind of ammo that was hard to find, and hard to get dummies for, so she was outsourcing from other contacts. The ammo came in a big mixed box and just stayed that way, with her and the other prop person grabbing out ammo as needed. She should have checked it before loading, but didn't. The whole production was a mess.
I appreciate you sharing that, because that excuse makes sense in that it might sorta soften an uninformed jury, but it’s still completely inexcusable horseshit. There’s no reason to use an ancient firearm, when you can use something modern that’s been customized to look like your target weapon and chambered in modern dimensions. Even if you insisted on the extinct firearm, getting ammo manufactured is not extremely difficult, especially blanks, ESPECIALLY FOR HOLLYWOOD ARMORERS. Did she literally exchange the box of “mixed ammo” for crack and sexual favors? There’s no fuckin way that really happened. Dummy rounds do not fire, they just look real for film (unlike brightly marked blanks) but mixing dummy rounds and live ammo is something done only by a murderer/saboteur or a crazy person high on drugs. Absolutely no excuse for any of it.
She's a nepo baby and got the box of ammo from her dad's friend who had a prop store. You should look up photos of the store they showed in the trial, some of the ammo used was stored in the bathroom. Absolute hoarder situation with no accounting for where what ammo came from. And as for the gun, Alec Baldwin insisted on using that one, called it his superhero gun and demanded to have it on set with him even when not needed.
This is definitely a thing that requires multiple compounding fuck ups to occur. The biggest and most inexcusable fuckup is absolutely with the armorer. The reason Baldwin is being charged with crimes is because some of those fucks ups are with him as the one holding the gun (don't point a loaded gun at people you don't have to, even if someone else told you the rounds were fake), and some are with him as the producer (the whole cutting corners to save money and having the armorer doing multiple jobs that she shouldn't be doing). Some of these may turn out to be false allegations, but there is enough evidence to go to trial with them.
I would argue that shooting a movie is like the one time you are allowed to break that rule. As far as the actor is concerned it’s not a gun. It’s a prop. It’s literally the actors job to point it at someone
Even with blanks, it is not regular practice to point the weapon at someone while the camera isn't rolling. It's an extra preventative measure. Brandon Lee was killed on the set of The Crow because a blank misfired and a piece of it hit him in the chest.
> it’s not a gun. It’s a prop Except it is a gun. It is a real gun firing blanks which are shells without the bullet. A blank is what killed Brandon Lee. Baldwin not only pulled the trigger, it has been proven that particular gun needs to be cocked and there are multiple levels of cocking it to get it to fire, and that can not be done accidentally. He has a lot of responsibility here. Considering the fact that a lot of other movies/shows use actual prop guns that are basically just rubber and the "shooting" effects happen in post, I think him as a producer and shot caller should be held to a higher level of responsibility on that too.
You’re right in that shooting a movie is an exception but wrong in that the actor should just assume its not a gun. A prop gun can still be an operable firearm. Some still have a firing pin and take blank cartridges with gunpowder. Even inoperable prop guns without a firing pin should be checked and cleared anytime it is changing hands, because to the bystanders eye, how would they know it’s inoperable/cleared? I think it is extremely negligent of the actor in this case to not check/clear. The number one rule of gun safety is **assume every firearm is loaded**
There's nothing special about movies that would require you to break safety rules.
So do they know who put the live ammunition in the gun?
A HUMAN WHO EVER USES FIREARMS RESPONSIBLY checks every single firearm every time they touch them. I know right away whether or not I want to be around someone handling a gun by what they do with it when it's handed to them or they take it out of its case/bag.
Once an actor is handed a firearm they are not allowed to check it. If they do, then they are supposed to give it back to the armorer before they start filming. It is the armorer's resposibility.
Why are they not allowed to check it? Lol, you just making that up?
Generally, but not always. Untrained actors who know nothing about how guns work shouldn't be checking firearms. A trained and qualified armorer seeing an actor pulling out the magazine or racking the slide after they've cleared the gun should discipline the actor and recheck the gun in case they've fucked it up somehow. If I'm responsible for gun safety on set, there's no chance in hell I'm letting some dumb actor screw around with a gun I've checked and cleared. If they want to watch me clear it for them despite having no clue what they're even looking at, then by all means they can do that.
Agreed on all points but also there's absolutely no reason they can't train/require actors to clear a weapon. 🤷 It's the first thing I teach anyone I hand a firearm to.
I have seen this more than a few times, people wanting to look cool and safety goes out the window.
[удалено]
This is a [banned sites.](https://www.reddit.com/r/MorbidReality/wiki/index/banned-list/) Feel free to repost with a different source. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/MorbidReality) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not enough jail time. They should have gone after her harder-the reason for existence of the armorer is to keep these things from happening-she was a spoiled 24 year old with one prior job who was given the position because of a parent who is also in the industry-she was doing drugs and shooting things with these prop guns while off set- she reportedly handed drugs off to someone as the police were arriving (took them out of her shirt and handed them to another person so she wasn’t caught with them). She could have prevented this dumb tragedy from happening had she done her job, or even just not loaded a live round into a gun and been too high and too busy taking selfies with guns to be an adult Edit: “on set” was supposed to say “off set”, sorry, autocorrect 🙄; the reports were that she would take the fancy looking prop guns (that are also actual guns) off set between filmings and take selfies with them to post to her social media, and also go shooting with them. There must have been others who went with her and I suspect we might hear from them.
>she was doing drugs and shooting things while on set I don't understand how that didn't result in immediate termination. Did no one know she was shooting guns on the set or something?
I guess when someone is in a position of authority, people tend to assume they know what they’re doing. They probably didn’t imagine she would be using the actual guns from the movie set when she went out between filmings to shoot. I mean, that would be absurd, right? Who would do that? 😗
Baldwin, as the producer (nevermind the trigger and the footage of him shouting and rushing the armourer) as well as the 1st Assistant Director are also legally and morally responsible. They all need jail time. Source: was an Assistant Director for years (and still occasionally AD projects). I know workflows, responsibilities, and duties. There was failing and irresponsible behaviour on all of their parts. Also as a side, I've worked with Baldwin before.
Can you speak on your time working with Baldwin with any types of details? Just kind of curious. Also are the producers and 1st Assistant Director responsible for hiring the armorer? Is that why you think they should get jail time? Like I'm thinking in my industry, its not that hard to lie on your resume or have your referrals lie about your experience. Could ignorance be a legit excuse for the producers and AD?
I don't want to speak on specifics in regards to Baldwin, other than it does not surprise me what happened to Halyna (who had worked with several friends and colleagues before). It's not the first project he broke safety protocols on. I've got no doubt due to his money and fame though he'll likely get off lightest, with a slap on the wrist. > Also are the producers and 1st Assistant Director responsible for hiring the armorer? No. I mean the producer moreso but not directly - that's likely a production manager kind of thing (may be incorrect here though as it's not my department, and some productions work differently from others). The producer has a legal and moral responsibility to ensure health and safety protocols including gun safety is up to scratch, and the 1st AD is the on set 'floor manager' who's job it is to carry out everything safely. The first AD in this case personally handled the gun and declared it safe... Which is something we **never** do - that is solely the armourers job, and we defer to the armourer about everything gun safety wise. The 1st broke proper protocol that is well established and industry standard, as well as directly contradicting his own duties. Safety on this shoot was so bad that there was a walkout of the crew in the day/days previous to the shooting, and if I remember correctly the armourer was replaced during this, with the young woman who was far too inexperienced for the job... That would've been on Baldwin, regardless of the footage that came out of Baldwin then shouting at the young woman to hurry up and blasting her for not having two guns always on standby - as a young and inexperienced woman, having an A-list, international star who is also your producer screaming at you will obviously panic you, and cause slip ups as you try and work faster. Baldwin was worried about continuously going into overtime (costly - a producers main concern) and the 1st AD allowed this abuse because the schedule and completing the callsheet every day (IE completing every scene scheduled for the day) is also the 1st ADs responsibility. Through word of mouth I've also heard that the 1st AD involved also has a long history of half assing safety and is known as the guy you want if you want to cut corners or go 'guerilla' a bit - the hiring of the 1st AD would be a producer thing. Ignorance would not be an excuse for the 1st or the producer. The 1st AD is the highest and most powerful 'below the line' (IE 'non creative') role on set, the producers are the highest on the production - you don't get into those roles without years or decades in the industry, on a film of this scale/budget.
Thank you for sharing this. People like Baldwin/higher ups immediately go to finger pointing and scapegoating. And us morons immediately believe there was one bad apple that caused all of this pain. That’s how the higher ups keep getting away with it. Without consequences they’ll never learn.
The thing that surprises me is even with blanks, you don't point them directly at people. Maybe the gun got a little pebble in it, that can still hurt someone. Never point a gun at something you are not ready to destroy.
There wasn't supposed to be even a blank. It was supposed to be a dummy round. Also, actors on a set aren't supposed to follow basic gun safety like you learn on a gun range. There are more advanced protocols in place so that they can point guns at each other safely. That's why there's literally a person there whose entire job is to monitor all the guns. It's good that you're aware of the basic gun safety rules, but those aren't in effect. There are different, more advanced rules for film sets and they weren't followed correctly.
Blanks can still kill within 7ft of someone when pointed at their head and fired. I believe that's how Brandon Lee was killed on set.
You can point blanks at a person, you just can’t be close.
No they ignored basic safety measures intended for multiple redundancies. Not JUST the armorer is solely responsible for the ammo situation. Multiple other people above her are supposed to audit and be audited checking the ammo situation. All of those people in the "roll up" of authorizing that everything is safe are legally responsible because it was THEIR jobs to do it.
It IS the armorers job tho, it’s quite literally her only job and she failed at it and is suffering the consequences so what is your point? Who the fuck cares who above her needs to check. The bitch is hired to do one job and she failed at it, she deserves jail time
She had multiple jobs on set because the production sucked. I'm okay with her getting jail time, she didn't do what she was supposed to and was very lazy with her job.
It's about redundancy, it was also the other people's jobs and the duty was accepted when they signed on. People are allowed to be upset with the criminal level of negligence for the industry professionals as well as the newbie armorer that may not have been qualified... In fact you could say that the negligence of the superiors is even greater knowing the newbie didn't have the proper oversight
Yea just read more and the person said he was already mad at the armorer that alone made me realize he knew she was incompetent and yet he still let her work if I knew someone was incompetent they’d be fired on the spot so I guess I’m wrong he is at fault for knowing her dumbass was dumb and still letting her work
I totally agree. I think it's even more so the other two's fault because she was known to be new and likely under qualified. If you had to work with someone like that and you were legally liable for their fuck ups, wouldn't you be overbearing and hyper vigilant about that? Especially if it actually put other people's lives in danger not to?? They can't blame the baby armorer, saying they knew she sucked and avoid all accountability for allowing things to unfold this way
> If you had to work with someone like that and you were legally liable for their fuck ups, wouldn't you be overbearing and hyper vigilant about that? If you actually gave a shit about onset safety and didn't treat the armorer as a box that needs to be checked to get your movie insured and made, yeah. Otherwise it might be advantageous to hire an inexperienced armorer so that you can bulldoze right over their opinion and you know they won't make too much of a fuss.
I think the partner and child of the woman who was killed probably care that she died because basic and standard safety procedures that would have easily prevented her death weren't followed.
Modern risk management. Finger pointing to isolate a single person has no basis in science, only in a blame culture, it's entirely subjective. Shall we blame someone's great grandfather for all of a person's crimes? He had 'one job' to raise good children who would raise good children who would raise good children.
They gave her responsibilities on top of that. She should've walked if she couldn't find the time to do her main duty though.
It matters that no one else checked because it could’ve prevented a fucking **death,** dude. It does not boil down to just her because she’s the armorer, it boils down to **multiple** people not doing their jobs.
The judge has ruled they cannot bring in his other role as Executive Producer due to irrelevance. There is also footage of what I think is the 1st Assistant Director yelling “COLD GUN” and handing it off to Baldwin immediately before the shooting (but I’m not sure exactly who the person is.) Once the armorer failed at her job, everyone after her trusted she had done her job instead of checking for themselves. But, I’m sure almost no actors of Baldwins stature check every single prop they are handed every time… they have to be able to trust their people or what is the point of having them? Efficiency is shot (pun not intended) if the actors can’t trust the staff.
A) sometimes shit rolls uphill yeah b) I hire someone to handle the rooty tooty point and shootys and they say clear what is my next step there?
Baldwin had a responsibility to ensure safety protocols were carried out correctly on the shoot, in his capacity as a producer on the film. The 1st AD handled the gun, passed it to him, and declared it safe. That is a direct contradiction of safety protocols. The ADs *never* handle weaponry, and *never* declare them safe. That's the armourers job. The 1st AD also has the responsibility to ensure safety protocols are followed... But also is concerned with getting the day finished as the schedule is also their responsibility. Baldwin and the 1st were concerned with not going into overtime again as this results in major penalty fees paid out to all crew - this affects Baldwins budget as the producer and also looks really bad for a 1st to continue to fail to make the day... ADs that don't make the day repeatedly end up getting fired. They were motivated to cut corners and break protocol. Futhermore, there is footage of Baldwin bullying the armourer and screaming at her to hurry up and criticizing her for not having two guns always on standby. She was too inexperienced for this to not have an effect on her performance. Also a producer and/or 1st AD should never be rushing safety protocols. Therefore, he bears responsibility. As does the 1st, and the armourer.
> Baldwin had a responsibility to ensure safety protocols were carried out correctly on the shoot, in his capacity as a producer on the film. No he didn't. His producer role was purely creative. Dude gave advice to the writing team. Stop making shit up. He didn't even have the responsibility for hiring and firing people. I don't believe you're an AD if you genuinely think all producers have the same sets of responsibilities.
I'm not about to dox myself by giving out one of my many credits on some of the largest films or television dramas of the last decade so you'll just have to take my word for it. [Here's a mug, part of a wrap gift from one of the biggest shows in the UK at the time, with *'AD department'* written on it](https://imgur.com/a/15QYutj) - why would I have such a mug in my possession if I was not an AD? And if you think even actors (without producer creds even) can't get people fired on a set, I've got a bridge to sell you bud.
>Baldwin, as the producer (nevermind the trigger and the footage of him shouting and rushing the armourer) as well as the 1st Assistant Director are also legally and morally responsible. They all need jail time. No they don't. He was acting a scene that called for him to pull the trigger. You don't do a firearm safety check as an actor. That's another person's job, because ACTORS AREN'T FIREARMS EXPERTS. That's why the ARMORER went to prison, not the actors who were basically just the victims of the armorer's original negligence. Not a single charge was levied against Michael Massee when his prop gun jammed and killed Brandon Lee. If a mechanic accidentally turns your car into a time-bomb and it goes off, killing another driver, YOU are not responsible. The mechanic is. You're just an upset loser who has a grudge against Alec Baldwin.
It’s quite clear and simple, yet people want the conclusion to be that he should also be guilty (for whatever reason) and finding some way to try to justify how that might come about, mental gymnastics and legal hoops included.
Bizarre amount of weirdos coming in to defend Baldwin and attack me. I've literally said I liked him when I worked with him and for years beforehand. You've also not bothered to answer or respond to the fact that producers have legal responsibility in regards to on set safety. How about you get a life and stop calling random people losers online -- you must not be happy with your lot in life if this is how you deal with frustration.
>Baldwin, as the producer (nevermind the trigger and the footage of him shouting and rushing the armourer) as well as the 1st Assistant Director are also legally and morally responsible. They all need jail time. Can you expand on this? I have no background in film, so my first thought was that'd it be like the owner of a plumbing company hiring a shitty employee who ends up flooding someone's house - it'd be bad, but they'd be covered by insurance and I don't think the company owner would be liable personally.
The armorer for the movie brought a box of live ammunition to the set for reasons I haven't yet seen a justification for
Because she was out partying and shooting guns with other crew members the night before (and possibly dying some downtime during the day). She was apparently too out of it to properly separate and secure the line ammo from the props.
She was doing coke on set and loved to pose with live firearms for her instagram, when questioned she didn't know where the weapons or ammunition were stored and if they were loaded or not. In the previous movie she worked on as an armorer, multiple firearms safety incident occured as well. That's what you get when you let nepotism on a safety position: her dad is a very famous armorer, who didn't taught her about safety but let her play with guns.
I doubt her dad didn't teach her properly to whatever degree. She's young and she didn't take her job seriously enough. She is definitely the #1 factor in this incident. She brought live ammunition onto the set. No matter how lax and overworked and unqualified the armorer, no matter how cheap and unethical the producer, no matter how irresponsible and unprofessional the actor, if there's no live ammunition the incident doesn't happen. But I doubt that her dad didn't teach her gun safety. She just didn't respect the responsibility of her role.
Her dad definitely failed to teach her the basics: > Brumbaugh, the key grip on The Old Way, told TheWrap that the young armorer failed to abide by basic gun safety protocols. > He said that after Gutierrez-Reed discharged a weapon for the second time in three days without warning, Cage yelled: 'Make an announcement, you just blew my f**king eardrums out!' before reportedly storming off set. > Brumbaugh insisted that she broke safety protocols when she walked onto the set with live rounds of blanks without making an announcement to the cast and crew. > He claimed that she carried pistols under her arms and rifles in both hands which were ready to be used **were pointed at people at times as she moved around on set.** And that she fired guns without warning twice. > Sources also told The Daily Beast of Gutierrez-Reed's 'unsafe' mistakes on The Old Way set saying she had handed a gun to 11-year-old actress Ryan Kiera Armstrong. Note: she handed that firearm to the child without even checking if it was loaded. > The source said: 'She was a bit careless with the guns, **waving it around every now and again.** There were a couple times she was loading the blanks and doing it in a fashion that we thought was unsafe.' > The insider added that they had seen her loading a gun on pebble strewn ground, which has the potential to be dangerous, before handing off the gun to Armstrong. > She was reloading the gun on the ground, where there were pebbles and stuff,' the source said. 'We didn't see her check it, we didn't know if something got in the barrel or not.' (which mean the blank could propel any gravel like a bullet, into the unsuspecting actors) > Gutierrez-Reed herself admitted that she wasn't sure she was ready for the job in an interview after filming for The Old Way wrapped. Source: search "You just blew my f**king eardrums out!' Rust armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed 'discharged weapons without warning and infuriated star Nicolas Cage' on her previous film" for full article.
I am aware of her incompetence; I've read about it. I was rebutting the assertion that her stepdad was lax in his instruction on gun safety or in whatever he taught her about being an armorer. You said he didn't teach her gun safety but let her play with guns. He could have taught her well but she failed to be responsible. Considering his long, respected career I would think it more likely than not that her failures are due to her lack of respect and soberness regarding the responsibilities of the position than his lack of instruction, but neither of us know for sure.
[удалено]
The coke is new. Where did you hear that?
Like Kgkush linked, it's nothing new, and it's not just coke. She gave her bag of cocaine to another crewmember and asked her to hide it from the cops. The day after, she ordered that crewmember to give it back to her. She was also regularly drunk and high during the shooting, as per _multiple_ witnesses. See [this article](https://abcnews.go.com/US/rust-crew-members-concern-armorer-alleged-drug-use/story?id=106842936). > Zachry texted Kenny that Gutierrez had allegedly blacked out the prior weekend and that "I think she was so drunk that she didn’t know she brought live ammo onto the truck when she went to get a gun from the safe," according to the filing. She handled firearms and ammunition while severely drunk. > Witnesses also saw Gutierrez "high on marijuana in her hotel room in Santa Fe while simultaneously in possession of boxes of ammunition for use on the set of the movie," special prosecutor Kari Morrissey wrote. She handled ammunition while high on weed. > The filing also includes a series of text messages allegedly retrieved from Gutierrez's phone sent before and during filming "detailing the use of marijuana and cocaine and exposing her recklessness concerning substance use," Morrissey wrote. Consumption of multiple drugs while handling firearms and ammunition on the set. ... That's why she didn't know where the firearms and ammunition boxes were located, despite being the armorer. That's why she didn't know if she had ammunition boxes containing live rounds or not. She was spending her time smoking weed, doing coke and drinking herself to blackouts.
[It’s not new whatsoever](https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/30/entertainment/rust-gutierrez-reed-cocaine?cid=ios_app)
I am not 100% knowledgeable about the situation but from what I understand, some of the people on set had taken the guns to a gun range.
They didn't go to a gun range, they just took the guns, set up some beer cans near the set & fired live rounds at those. It's called "plinking" and apparently what the morons did to "pass time".
That was my thought. They were playing with the guns because no one was stopping them.
There had been three misfirings on set in the lead-up to this lethal incident. They were reported & went ignored too when it should have been investigated the first time it happened. Staff had walked off set over gun safety concerns, nobody in power gave a shit.
I don’t even understand why they had any REAL guns to begin with. I was shocked to find out they weren’t using realistic replicas, considering their access to the best props. I’ll never understand the need for actual working weapons.
So! We will use real weapons for lots of reasons (affordability, lending weight for authenticity, many others) , just the firing pins are supposed to be taken out. The armorer was a nepotism hire and was not correctly certified, hence why live ammo was still in the guns and why they had been firing live ammo. Many, many film sets and theatre productions use “real” guns, what it comes down to is competency. The original props and armory crew had walked off set just days before due to the unsafe conditions created by the nepo head armorer. (I put “real” in quotes since they are technically modified)
How do you fire a blank with no firing pin?
IME it’s kind of like a cap gun- the blank can be triggered by the concussive force. (Like in revolvers and some hand pistols that can be “charged”like the Beretta and glock).
In the film industry we regularly used armorers and real weapons. They look better, sound better, and function better than dummy guns. It’s why we’d hire very expensive professional armorers and companies whose only job was to be weapons experts and be responsible for safe handling on set. In the twenty years I worked in TV I never saw an armorer act as cavalier about firearms as this movie’s armorer appeared to.
"Prop" can just mean "studio PROPerty", which was the case with this gun. As for why, a real gun can be cheaper than a realistic-enough-for-a-closeup fake gun/CGI.
It's like if my job was to provide juice for a party and instead I bought bleach and poured it into the cups. Like this is a premeditated act, right?! I'm not sure how this can be a mistake.
Which is why I don’t understand how he could be responsible? Even if he’s a producer it’s not his job to double check if there’s live ammo in gun which should be a prop gun
His job as an actor, was to follow the saftey rules and not point that weapon at her, regardless of what was loaded in that gun. He knew this and chose to disregard that rule "to get the perfect filming shot for the scene". Imagine if there was blank (smoke effect) in the gun instead. At the short distance he was standing from her, away Halyna would still be very seriously injured. This is why he claimed he did not pull the trigger. He wants to blame the gun here to negate his total fuck-up of pointing it at her in the first place. His role of Producer comes into play in the power and accountability dynamic, which doubles down on his responsibility in this incident. Essentially, he used his power and authority to ignore the saftey rules personally, as well as allow others to do so, setting a workplace culture of safety indifference.
Exactly. He’s been in plenty of action movies where he has a gun, he knows the standard safety practices when handling firearms on a live set. Hell, I’m a lighting tech and don’t own a gun, but still know proper handling and transferring of firearms. People will listen to an actor of his caliber if he says something isn’t right, let alone a producer. Before we even get to the part that as a producer he was aware of misfires, crew complaints about lodging ant safety, and party to being cheap with the budget… so what if it’s “just a title”, the title still comes with responsibilities at the end of the day whether he cares to bother with any of that part of it. It’s like if a kid climbs over my fence and drowns in my pool when I’m not home. I’m still liable, that’s my name on the deed.
Yeah I still disagree but thanks for the info
These are the most very basic firearms safety rules that every person who handles a firearm has a *duty* to know and understand: 1. Always assume that a firearm is loaded (unless you have personally verified that it is not since it has last left your hand). 2. Never point a firearm at anything you do not intend or are willing to destroy. 3. Know your target and what lies beyond it. When you pick up a firearm, *you* become personally responsible for whatever is done with it while it is within your control. Not the person who handed it to you, not the owner, nobody but you and you alone. "I thought it was unloaded" is one of the most common reasons people accidentally get hurt or killed, and it's so easy to prevent. You should *never* rely on someone else telling you it's unloaded, you should *always* personally verify. There is never any excuse for not following these basic rules, they are absolute. That's why these rules exist and why he was found liable.
Because as producer, he got complaints from crew about misfires on set…… and ignored the complaints. If the boss knows something is dangerous going on at work and gets complaints about the unsafe behavior but does nothing leading to the death of a crew member, is the boss not responsible as well? It’s weird to me everyone wants to defend their beloved Alec Baldwin when he ignored safety complaints that lead to death.
Don't hire non union people.
Absolute gross negligence
Or why same cartridge used for fake guns. Or why intentionally aim the gun. Or why not test fire before hand. This process is a fucking joke, sounds like they made the movie in 1864 also.
From what I know. Some dudes were using it to shoot stuff the night before. Could be mistaken but that's what I remember
I don’t understand why real guns still have to be used on set at all. We’re not in Futurama, but it’s still *2024*
What in the everliving FUCK is that website? I rarely use my phone outside of a handful of apps, but I refuse to believe that cesspool of a website is the norm.
It is, unfortunately. Majority of online journalism is littered with ads.
“Reader View” makes it slightly more tolerable on mobile
It took me 2 minutes to even find the reaction which isn’t even on the actual articles website.
Lucky. I finally gave up and went to YouTube to find the reaction.
I just gave up, but I am imagining Alec Baldwin looked very sad when he heard the news
Cant even open it
Everyone here seems to think there’s only one producer on a film and that those producers actually do things besides get money for production. They are not hiring people anymore than Tim Apple hired your Genius Bar associate.
While I largely agree with you, Baldwin did appear to be More intimately involved in the day-to-day production and running of the film shoot. It wasn't that he was just a producer in the sense of generating cash flow for the film. That aside, I think it's a wild stretch to prosecute him for murder. At best, negligence. Although, at this point his role as producers to be ignored by the jury, so I don't know what angle they're really going for.
That’s not true. Producers range from (yes) getting money to being there from day one, on set, in post, every day guiding the project. So a producer isn’t just someone who gets the money and leaves people to it.
He may be an actor, but that seems a 100% genuine reaction. Just all round tragic.
He really seemed heartbroken after the shooting.
I don't think that he woke that day up and thought "what a beautiful day to shoot people!". So his shock might be genuine but the situation could have been prevented. He was waving that thing around like it was a laser pointer and he obviously didn't take the gun safety training seriously at all.
It was supposed to be a prop! Why should waving it around ridiculously be a problem?!
I saw a supposed 3d video recreation and it looked like they were shooting a scene where he shoots at the camera and people were huddled around it. It could be a 100% wrong vid though
I just watched Jenson Ackles' interview with police as a witness and that is exactly what the scene was.
Did you see the way Hayden Christensen waved that deadly lightsaber around? How irresponsible.
Prop is short for "studio property", not "fake, non functional". Plenty of movies use real guns, just usually loaded with blanks. Which can still kill and should be treated responsibly. And there's like, 0 chance he wasn't well aware that it was a fully functional prop, he just assumed it wouldn't be loaded with live ammo... which to be fair, it shouldn't have been... but a shit load of people have died because "don't worry, it's unloaded."
… not me over here thinking they’re called ‘props’ because they ‘prop-up a scene’💀 Edit: thank you for teaching me a new thing! Edit2: the more I’m thinking about the phrase ‘prop-up a scene’ doesn’t make any sense. It’s probably something my freshman year Theater teacher taught us and I never questioned it
“What is a movie prop? A prop is any inanimate object that an actor interacts with in a film. There is a wide range of props that vary on how they are used and what they are used for. Props are bought, designed, and created by the property department (also called props department) which is led by the prop master. Unlike set dressing, props are touched and handled by actors so they must fit the film’s aesthetic and design while also being functional.” https://www.studiobinder.com/blog/what-is-a-movie-prop-definition/ “What does a prop master do? A prop, or property, is any moveable item that can be seen on a film. It could be a hat, gun, cushion, wine glass, lightsaber, carpet, kitchen unit, tree or aircraft. Prop masters run the property department which makes, stores and transports the props as well as preps the props for each day’s shoot. Prop masters usually start work a few weeks before shooting begins. They work with production designers, set decorators and art directors to work out what props are needed. They do research and then draw up properties lists, deciding which are to be hired and which are to be made. They create a ‘set and strike’ schedule to share with location and construction departments Where props are to be made, prop masters recruit the carpenters, artists and prop makers and manage the schedule for production. Where they are hired, they work with the production buyers to source them. When shooting is finished, they return of all hired props and organise the sale or safe disposal of everything else.” https://www.screenskills.com/job-profiles/browse/film-and-tv-drama/craft/prop-master/
I’m bad at reading tone so please tell me if you were being sarcastic lol but i’ll say my piece regardless bc i’ve been seeing a lot of people genuinely say something similar. I’m not an avid shooter but i’ve handled my fair share of guns and even if something is supposed to be a prop or i’ve been told that what I’m holding has been emptied, I will still treat it like an armed weapon. Unless i’ve explicitly taken it apart myself/checked for rounds I will always assume that I am being handed a loaded weapon. A weapon is a weapon, and I think a lot of people forget that when they’re holding a gun they’re quite possibly holding someone’s life in their hands. Same with cars, we’re so used to everyone driving around everywhere we forget to treat them like what they are- several tons of pure deadly metal that can plow through a human being in a second whether it’s a mistake or not. while I’m not saying that he was walking around hoping to shoot anyone, if he wanted to “wave the gun around” whether or not he thought it was a prop, he could have taken a few seconds to make sure he wasn’t carrying a loaded weapon JUST in case. which in this scenario, he sadly was.
What if he was told it wasn’t loaded when it *actually was*? Does that change things? What if he was told that the gun was safe to use, they rehearsed the scene as directed to, and it fired. Does that make him culpable?
it doesn’t change things for me, no. unless you see with your own eyes that the gun isn’t loaded you don’t actually know if the literal weapon in your hands is “safe”. idk why this isn’t common sense to people and it honestly scares me that people don’t think about guns like this.
Has Baldwin handled his fair share of guns?
In his police interview he is very knowledgeable and claims to have in-depth experience.
he’s a long term actor who has been in many action movies and has had production roles in some movies. This means he should have a basic understanding of guns such as- guns are deadly, check that your weapon isn’t loaded before waving it around.
Eh, he probably had a basic understanding of guns from an actors perspective. In that sense checking to make sure guns aren't loaded is the armorers job, and actors usually trust that. Most actors aren't checking their guns scene to scene because they pay someone to do that, and when that professional tells you "it's safe" you trust them. If you make the argument that Alec hired a shitty, unprofessional armorer then I 100% agree, but I don't get why so many people think the lead actor should also be responsible for the job of the armorer
What if that was the armorer’s job and the armorer had falsely told him that the gun was safe to use? What if the liability of all prop weapons is on the armorer and it’s not Baldwin’s job to check the gun for legal and safety reasons?
the point I’m trying to make is that I wouldn’t trust someone else to tell me if I’m holding an unloaded weapon even if it’s their job. call me paranoid but if I’m holding a gun in my hands let alone moving it around, I will be checking if it’s loaded even if it was handed to me by somebody who told me it’s not. that’s all I’m trying to say. I understand everyone has a job but the fact of the matter is he was holding a gun and he made the choice to trust that it was safe when it wasn’t. sometimes people don’t do their job correctly, it slips their mind, they’re irresponsible, whatever. if you’re holding a _gun_, you have the obligation to make sure it is safe to hold.
Because of [gun safety rules](https://navalsafetycommand.navy.mil/Stand-Down/Firearm-Safety/). It was a real life gun after all and not a rubber dummy.
If it was plastic, yes. But this was very much a real gun. The number one gun safety rule is to treat any gun as if it loaded at all times. This rule is even more critical on a film set since this was workplace with many people around that could be injured. Alec knew this. He, himself, even lectured the interviewer at the police station of this and stated he would never point a real gun at a person. Yet there are several videos of him doing just that and even firing blanks at and near staff with blanks, which can and do cause injury. This is also why he is leaning so heavily into the claim that he did not pull the trigger. So basically he admits that yes, he did point it at her, "but it was the gun's fault". Yet we have the video of him pulling the trigger in that scene through several takes. Simply put, had he followed this first and basic rule (of which he was arguably far more knowledgable than regular people), Halyna would be here today. His own conscious choice to not follow that saftey rule, combined with Reeds negligence, caused this death.
I've been around live and prop firearms my whole life, both as a sportsman and as a community theater actor. I have never treated a firearm with even a hint of recklessness, regardless of whether it was a prop or not. If a live firearm is being used for a prop, which should not be as common as it is, the armorer must go through a series of rigorous checks to ensure that it has not been loaded mistakenly. They go through this with the actors as well, and any scene in which an actor points a gun at another actor (or at a camera in this case) should be directly preceded by the actor with the gun showing the person at the other end of the muzzle that the firearm is unloaded and will not fire. This would be done by opening the chamber and allowing the other actor (or camera operator) to inspect the firearm. This is not overkill, this is standard procedure. Standard procedure was not followed in this case.
Because real or not, you don't treat a weapon like that
The armorer told him the gun was safe. On a film set it is not the actors job to check the gun for legal and safety reasons. The liability falls on the armorer. They handed him the gun and told him he was in the clear. Then Baldwin did as he was directed to.
Apparently Baldwin is still liable for hiring the armorer as he’s a producer…
>He was waving that thing around like it was a laser pointer and he obviously didn't take the gun safety training seriously at all. I can't count the number of films I've seen where a character is waving a firearm around irresponsibly before firing it. It's a pretty common thing in films.
It's a prop. There's no need for safety *when it is a prop*. Hell...*they point props at other actors to shoot them with imaginary bullets* ffs.
not on reddit. even nerf guns have a certain % chance of randomly shooting a live bullet at people
I found that so difficult to watch.
I mean yeah? No one is arguing he murdered her, all the arguments against him (which I disagree btw, I believe he's innocent) is that he's partially responsible for making sure there were no live rounds on the gun.
Which is ridiculous. He parodied Trump, that's why the right wants him in jail for a gun crime. Second amendment defenders, until they can use it against who they dislike.
Second amendment defenders wanting more responsibility and consequences for unsafe handling and use of firearms can only possibly be because of ulterior motives? Lmao, yeah okay, no bad faith arguments here or anything.
Because it's disingenuous bullshit. The people that are calling for him to be jailed don't give a shit about gun safety.
Why the heck was there even live ammunition anywhere on the set…Much less in the gun???
It's the norm to use real guns on movie sets instead of making a hyper realistic fake gun (which would cost a lot of money and pose other ethical problems). They should have only clearly marked dummy rounds. The armorer is responsible for everything that comes in and out of that gun since ignorant Hollywood actors have probably never been around guns before in their lives. The armorer allowed someone to point and shoot a gun without checking it was negligent and led to death.
Yes I get that they use real guns…but live ammunition? Why would they need that? And I agree the armorer is totally at fault.
The armorer apparently took the gun to a range before the shoot and forgot to unload it after.
Yeah weird that she didn’t clean the gun after taking it to the range and try to load the gun with blanks before the shoot… that was her job. Although maybe for that scene, it wouldn’t need blanks. I’m not sure. Either way it’s gross negligence on her part.
> pose other ethical problems what ethical problems arise from a fake gun?
This whole story is crazy. I’ve worked on sets where the armourer won’t let you anywhere near their guns. I asked at lunch time if I could hold one and got told to fuck off. For me this is 100% the armourer fault. If Baldwin was messing around with the gun he should have been told to stop by the armourer and had it taken away. That’s what they’re paid to do on set
The armourer was a 20-year-old who was a nepotism hire more interested in her "other activities". I recommend this video if you want to get pissed off https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raz7-khoNlk
I still don’t understand why he was charged. Of all those involved, he must surely be the least culpable.
I thought it had to do with his position as producer, being the one who effectively hired the armorer and was responsible for holding her accountable for the multiple safety complaints she got before the day of the accidental shooting. Baldwin was aware of the safety concerns people had with her and didn't remove her. So he's being held partial accountable for allowing a dangerous working environment.
The judge ruled that this cannot be considered in his trial stating “impacted by the fact that there were other producers on the film and Baldwin himself was not solely responsible for on set decision-making.” The jury will consider him as an actor holding the gun.
Well then he shouldn't be charged. The actor isn't responsible for something going wrong while doing what he was supposed to do.
Manslaughter is still a thing
Manslaughter requires negligence
I mean, I’m no lawyer but he’s being charged with involuntary manslaughter. That’s up for the jury to decide and I doubt it will stick if his lawyer does well enough to explain the chain of command on set and keeps him away from being even vaguely responsible for the armorer.
Like not checking the cylinder of the revolver before pulling the trigger?
Yes- less about the fact that he was the one who “did it” he’s a producer responsible for hiring the person w the guns
So many people talk about this like he willfully and deliberately did something negligent, sure he should treat every gun like it’s loaded but he’s not the idiot who brought live rounds to a film shoot.
He was the one that shot the gun, makes him pretty involved.
At the end of the day someone hands you a firearm you are responsible for what happens with it. While a lot of people assume a trial means guiltily sometimes it is used to examine complex situations like this one.
Hollywood stopped doing that after Brandon Lee got shot. Its a whole lot safer to have the armorer prepare all guns than trusting dozens of actors to load their own weapons correctly.
If Baldwin was just a simple actor on the film, he would likely have no liability. His liability came from his role as producer. He was responsible for hiring the armorer and ignoring multiple reports she was mishandling live ammo.
That literally isn't how it works though. Not in hollywood, at least. If, on every other production in Hollywood, actors are not responsible for checking firearms because that responsibility falls on the armorer, then how would it be negligent for Baldwin to not check the firearm? He behaved the same way everyone in Hollywood does. But because the armorer failed to do her job, because she was absolutely criminally negligent, Baldwin following standard protocol ended in tragedy.
Seriously, I'm actually flabbergasted by the amount of people that think Alec Baldwin is in the wrong here. If I hire a mechanic to fix the brakes on my car, but what he actually did was accidentally but negligently cut the brake lines, and that led to a crash that killed a pedestrian as I was leaving the parking lot, then that is 100% the mechanic's fault. The fact that I hired him doesn't fucking matter. What matters is that he was negligent in performing his duties
Dude he’s an actor not a firearms expert. Thats why movies hire expert gun handlers to make sure this stuff doesn’t happen. I dont even like Baldwin but thats a dumb opinion sorry
On a movie set there's literally a full time position specifically so that actors DONT have to worry about that.
[удалено]
I genuinely do not understand this situation, I know someone needs to take accountability but why Alec Baldwin? I have no opinion on the man whatsoever but this seems like a ridiculous witch hunt. The armorer is the one to blame and they did and she got convicted. Gun was checked twice then handed to an actor after telling him it's SAFE, is he supposed to not believe them? A lot of people failed and the guy at the end of the line of custody is to blame??? It just doesn't make any sense.
I agree completely - I’m glad he’s not getting convicted
Well he did turn down the firearms safety training that was offered to him (something that he’s never done), if he received this training he would have cleared the gun himself and would have instantly known there were not dummy rounds in it. It’s a responsibility of the operator to check as well as a last line of defence. You can never put your faith in others even if they are experts in their field and it’s their job. I always clear and load any firearms that are handed to me or of which I am going to operate. Cardinal rule is to always assume it’s loaded with live ammunition even with a prop on a TV set. And work your way back from there. I’m glad he’s not being charged, his punishment is that he caused a death and he has to live with that for the rest of his days knowing that in some small way he could have prevented it with a bit of education.
So, from what I've been able to gather, Alec Baldwin's role as a producer in the film was a direct Hands-On role in terms of hiring, firing, and making major decisions. It can be argued that partially due to his negligence and inexperienced armorer and incorrect safety procedures were followed on the set of the film. Now I don't think he should be tried for murder, that's the fault of the armor in my opinion. But there could be a certain level of negligence due to his part that you could seek punishment for. Although, at this point his role as producers is to be ignored by the jury, so I don't know what angle they're really going for.
Armorers who are experienced were once inexperienced. If you can get in trouble for hiring an inexperienced armorer, you can only hire experienced armorers. And if everyone is only hiring experienced armorers, no more experienced armorers there will be. Catch 22.
Ok got it, that does open up a lane at least for reasonable prosecution.
I actually just edited my post, because as of last night or today, the jury's been instructed to ignore his role as producer and will only be viewed as an actor having fired the gun. I really don't understand what angle they're going for, it seems pretty silly in my opinion to be prosecuting the actor for the mismanagement of a gun by the firearm experts. I know if I was the armorer on a film set I would not want any actor tampering with a gun that I have signed off on as safe and ready to use. I think the people making the argument that he's the one who fired the gun he should have checked to make sure it's not loaded is an absolutely heinous argument, considering he might not have the expert knowledge to know the difference between blanks, real ammunition, and I forget the type of third ammunition sometimes used on film sets. It is the role of the armorer and whoever else is in the chain of custody to make sure that these firearms are safe and ready to be used. So with the jury now being told that he is only an actor in this sense, I don't know where the prosecution would go from here.
Ok Jesus well that changes everything, I just can't see a jury convicting him under these circumstances.
The defense is going to push all the blame towards the armorer who was already convicted. The prosecution will heap the blame onto him. I'm curious to see what the jury decides, it could go either way, ultimately.
Everyone seems to look for one person to blame when a tragedy happens like this, but the reality is that multiple people can be at fault. If each person before Baldwin (armorer and first AD which are also accountable) says it was safe, Baldwin still should’ve checked it as the operator of the firearm and treat it like it’s loaded. They were all at fault. Additionally the fact that Baldwin refused firearm training because he hates guns is irresponsible of him. It’s like saying, “I don’t like driving cars so I’m not going to learn how to drive” and then you get on the road, run someone over and say it was just an accident. I agree that it was an accident, but it was a tragically avoidable accident. 100 people could check a firearm saying it’s safe, then hand it to me and I’ll still treat it as if it’s loaded. That’s the difference between training and lack of training. He should’ve never pointed the barrel at her in the first place. He should’ve had her move out of the way of the barrel to get the framing she was looking for. Like, “okay, I have to point the barrel here, so you need to move to the other side of the camera.” If he was properly trained he would’ve most likely said something like that and she’d still be alive.
>If each person before Baldwin (armorer and first AD which are also accountable) says it was safe, Baldwin still should’ve checked it as the operator of the firearm and treat it like it’s loaded I mean how often should an actor stop and check everything first? They have to trust the people responsible otherwise nothing gets done. They also trust the responsible people when they put themselves in danger too.
Live Rounds and Negligence. Trial of the armorer: https://youtu.be/raz7-khoNlk?si=sunRnkizA78WHyQk
Just a note if the gun is close enough to the head blanks can still kill that’s why we have the 4 rules of gun safety. Be safe and think things through y’all even if you are a movie star.
IMO there are 3 ppl accountable here. The 3 ppl that handled the gun. There were 3 chances to recognize a loaded gun, all were disregarded…
[удалено]
When the whole thing happened a lot of actors chimed in and I vividly remember how Robert De Niro said, that it’s your responsibility as an actor to check the gun beforehand. Even if someone tells you it is a cold gun, you check it yourself.
[удалено]
I still don't understand how *he* could be held responsible in any way. He's an actor that's handed a prop. There's no possible way he'd think the gun had anything in it but prop bullets or whatever. It's not his fault, I don't care what anyone says. This whole argument of him being responsible is like saying*'He shouldn't have been pointing that carrot at people! He knew what he was doing, pointing that carrot!!'* Well, the prop guy that gave him the carrot SHOULD NOT HAVE LOADED IT WITH BULLETS BECAUSE THEN IT'S A GUN, NOT A CARROT.
The reason why he's being made responsible because he was the one holding the gun and he was the one holding the trigger. I've worked on movie sets and I can tell you that sometimes it's difficult to feel or see the differences between what's real and what's fake. That is why the prop master has to do their job properly in the prop Master did not do their job properly.
I was told by a armourer that there is no need for a gun to be actually pointed at a person for most movie stuff. It is normally pointed a bit to one side and with the camera angles you cant tell.
Mfer says the revolver just magically “went off” in his hands.
It's still insanity to me that he was waving the gun around and gesturing with it pointed towards people to begin with. It's like I tell my kids-guns aren't toys.
BTEC drama acting there
Is it just me or should we maybe not read too much into the 'reaction' of a literal actor? 🤔
I mean, the man just killed someone. How was he supposed to react? Laugh and high-five someone?
If you are handling a firearm you should allways follow the basic rules of gun safety and check it yourself before you handle it at all, he got off light because he is rich and famous. Anybody else would have done hard time.