Prop Gun Kills Cinematographer

Status
Not open for further replies.
High1ander said:
True I think it is a bit eschewed to "filter" this thru a film accident with its laws and regulations, when it might not be under the "film jurisdiction", and it would be nice with some information from some of the ones working in the business in the US to tell exactly what the difference is when working in California, IATSE and "Hollywood standard", and what it is like when doing low budget outside of California and no Union-rules (because I guess there isn't union rules when the crew responsible or partly responsible weren't union).

What I'm trying to get at is how and when, does the whole thing become a "film issue" or falls into rules for filmmaking. I mean, do a youtuber making gun reviews have to have an armorer on his filming? I'm just wondering how it works in the US when something becomes "you legally must have an armorer and do this and that" and when it is just "whatever".

Also, here is a great link to Alister Chapmans take on safety on set, which really is what I've been trying to get to as well: Safety isn't just one persons job. -And yes, there are obstacles in the way that make it hard sometimes to advocate for safety (and this is true in all workplaces), but really, I take being fired every day over being mutilated, humiliated, killed or watching my colleagues get the same treatment. You are either part of the problem or part of the solution. Either you enable a behavior or you don't.
https://www.cined.com/safety-and-res...ister-chapman/
Click to expand...

In short, there is no such thing. On a union set as part of the union contractual agreement all parties agree to abide by the practices and protocols of union rules. That's where these systems come into play. But the law is the law and no film set gets to supersede the law, only care out a space within it. And let me state that while I am not a lawyer and do not pretend to be, there is a concept of Common Law and general societal practices that can be used as basis for legal findings both criminal and civil. So while something may not be expressly written out in a statute as a legal limitation if it is a common law understanding than it still applies. As I understand it (and I am not a lawyer), this exists because we all live in a society that must functionally interact and move forward, and to write out every possible scenario would spread to the infinite. I believe a lot of liability law falls under such doctrine, especially the civil kind.
 
"The gun [...] was used by crew members that morning for live-ammunition target practice [...] A number of crew members had taken prop guns [...] to go plinking, a hobby in which people shoot at beer cans with live ammunition to pass the time [...] The shooting happened just a few hours later [...] after first assistant director David Halls confirmed that it was a 'cold gun', meaning that the gun did not have any live ammunition in it." --- https://www.thewrap.com/halyna-hutch...rget-practice/

What a debacle! This set sounds worse than a high-school project. So many mistakes in a row:
  • Why hire David Halls at all, considering his recent history of a gun accident on set in his last movie?
  • Why let the crew play with the film props, and load them with real bullets?
  • Why didn't the armorer check the gun when it was returned?
  • Why didn't the AD check the gun before handing it to Alec?
  • Why did the AD say "cold gun" if he had not checked it?
  • Why did the AD handle the gun at all?
  • Why did the production not get shut down after 3 misfires before that?
  • Why did the production continue after people walked off set, for safety concerns?
  • Why did a Hollywood production have a budget too small for safety?
  • What kind of production company says, after all that, that there had been no official complaints?
 
Last edited:
Mitch Gross said:
In short, there is no such thing. On a union set as part of the union contractual agreement all parties agree to abide by the practices and protocols of union rules. That's where these systems come into play. But the law is the law and no film set gets to supersede the law, only care out a space within it. And let me state that while I am not a lawyer and do not pretend to be, there is a concept of Common Law and general societal practices that can be used as basis for legal findings both criminal and civil. So while something may not be expressly written out in a statute as a legal limitation if it is a common law understanding than it still applies. As I understand it (and I am not a lawyer), this exists because we all live in a society that must functionally interact and move forward, and to write out every possible scenario would spread to the infinite. I believe a lot of liability law falls under such doctrine, especially the civil kind.
Click to expand...

Thank you Mitch!

So in the US the national laws, federal laws, local statues, etc. supersedes union rules (in Sweden union rules are often lawfully binding, i.e. if there are protocols and they are not followed regarding safety, there can be criminal and civil charges levied. If a union safety officer shuts down production you can't just dismiss them and resume). I guess it makes it trickier in the US because maybe you are on set and under false pretense that you are protected under union rules/practices, but in reality it doesn't apply at all. Also, are production companies allowed to call it a "union set", and if so it can be false advertising/misleading if they don't follow union practices or too few of the crew are union, etc... I'm not speaking specifically about this production, but in general.

I'm thinking hypothetically if for example in this case if Baldwin is charged can he claim that he followed union practices and then the prosecutor can say something like "well, why would you think it was union practices when the armorer wasn't union"?

Any words on what is happening now, are OSHA getting involved at all or are film productions of that size not under their purview?
 
Mitch Gross said:
There's a lot of armchair quarterbacking in this thread, some from people that appear not to know film set protocols for the handling of firearms, some from people who don't sound like they're ever been on a large production set at all and some from people who appear to have little understanding of the various laws and liability at play. What pretty much all of the posters have is a limited window of knowledge as to what actually occurred on set on Thursday. There's a lot of talkin' outta butts here.

Like Charles I've heard directly from some of the people present. I'm not going to publish information that has not already been done so through proper channels. I suggest people look at police report info from reliable publications, but even that is incomplete as of now. I believe I know what occurred and where blame likely lies, but I don't have all the info and I am neither a lawyer or a judge. And neither are you.
Click to expand...

Nicely put.

I am anxiously reading all bits of info coming out daily as this is a sad situation. Without knowing anything it is harsh to jump into a conclusion and blame someone.
 
combatentropy said:
"The gun [...] was used by crew members that morning for live-ammunition target practice [...] A number of crew members had taken prop guns [...] to go plinking, a hobby in which people shoot at beer cans with live ammunition to pass the time [..
Click to expand...

But it's still not known if this was a live round or if the bullet itself had been removed. Gases that are released through a barrel of the gun do qualify as "projectiles". Because that's what they are.

As to law - as one of my lawyer friends (from the Boston/Providence area) once told me, "once you go to court, it's anyone's guess". And I am not even talking about an obvious judicial or prosecutorial misconduct.
 
In that article, "prop gun" was used in what appears to be a quote from the producers, when the term appeared again it was in quotes.

Most armourers who have been interviewed regarding this have pointed out the weapon "versions" used while making a film. These vary from rubber replicas to real guns and the procedures that should to be used when using the real thing. I don't think that actors are unaware that they're using real weapons, it's when on set safety procedures are poor that things can go wrong,
.
The question regarding the need to fire blanks instead of using CGI is another matter. I can some argument for using blanks in period pieces, when they didn't use smokeless ammunition, with more modern settings CGI would seem the way to go from the safety point of view.
 
paulears said:
The BBC reported this morning that the weapon was not a prop but a real gun. Clearly even they are confused by the word prop. The general public clearly think weapons used on stage, movies and TV are either toys, fakes or somehow ‘safe’. Maybe the actors do too?
this is the kind of news report we are getting. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-59055138
Click to expand...

Depends on the production and shot. Sometimes real guns are used so they look realistic. Especially if there is a closeup of the gun where one could tell if it’s fake. Sometimes they are fake. It asl depends if the gun needs to fire. It’s hard to make a fake gun recoil, and have a muzzle flash without being an actual functioning gun with powder that ignites. That’s why blanks are used. It fires like a real gun but without the projectile part of the bullet that tends to leave the gun at a fast speed and kill someone.

VFX can be used to add the muzzle flashes and expelling cartridges but some productions don’t think that’s good enough.
 
combatentropy said:
"The gun [...] was used by crew members that morning for live-ammunition target practice [...] A number of crew members had taken prop guns [...] to go plinking, a hobby in which people shoot at beer cans with live ammunition to pass the time [...] The shooting happened just a few hours later [...] after first assistant director David Halls confirmed that it was a 'cold gun', meaning that the gun did not have any live ammunition in it." --- https://www.thewrap.com/halyna-hutch...rget-practice/

What a debacle! This set sounds worse than a high-school project. So many mistakes in a row:
  • Why hire David Halls at all, considering his recent history of a gun accident on set in his last movie?
  • Why let the crew play with the film props, and load them with real bullets?
  • Why didn't the armorer check the gun when it was returned?
  • Why didn't the AD check the gun before handing it to Alec?
  • Why did the AD say "cold gun" if he had not checked it?
  • Why did the AD handle the gun at all?
  • Why did the production not get shut down after 3 misfires before that?
  • Why did the production continue after people walked off set, for safety concerns?
  • Why did a Hollywood production have a budget too small for safety?
  • What kind of production company says, after all that, that there had been no official complaints?
Click to expand...

This right here is what is disturbing and what we should be talking about. Why on earth was this allowed to happen? I realize 99% of the time a gun can fire a live round and safely transition to blanks but why take a risk? Just seems stupid and careless. I hope rules change after this incident. It’s senseless and pointless and should never happen.

regulation and rules annoy everyone but the alternative when it does eventually happen is much worse.

I grew up in WI and I did attend a hunters safety course as a kid. Was never into the hunting culture however but even in a gun friendly hunting culture there were a lot of safety rules and responsibility to owning and using a gun. I’m disgusted at how carefree and careless the crew was with the guns. I’m not saying the entire crew but whoever was involved in having fun with the guns. Guns are not toys. If some immature crew members wanted to treat guns as toys they could have used some other guns for that task. Not guns used on set.
 
Thomas Smet said:
I grew up in WI and I did attend a hunters safety course as a kid. Was never into the hunting culture however but even in a gun friendly hunting culture there were a lot of safety rules and responsibility to owning and using a gun.
Click to expand...

So if you went through a hunters safety course as a kid, you learned to check for barrel obstructions. You learned to treat every gun as if it was loaded and ready to fire. You learned to never aim the muzzle at something you did not intend to shoot. You trained, you learned. So why is it that on movie sets where real guns are present, there is no mention of safety training for the actor, he is a robot simply handed a real gun by the armorer and told it is a cold gun? As the handler of a deadly weapon can the actor not check for himself and practice some modicum of potential life saving safety like inspecting for loaded rounds? Or no, he is not allowed to touch anything, he just goes about his best performance of the Quick-draw McGraw? I don't understand how that sort of a protocol could ever replace even basic rules of firearm safety without the potential for something going horribly wrong, as happened.
 
Tom Roper said:
So if you went through a hunters safety course as a kid, you learned to check for barrel obstructions. You learned to treat every gun as if it was loaded and ready to fire. You learned to never aim the muzzle at something you did not intend to shoot. You trained, you learned. So why is it that on movie sets where real guns are present, there is no mention of safety training for the actor, he is a robot simply handed a real gun by the armorer and told it is a cold gun? As the handler of a deadly weapon can the actor not check for himself and practice some modicum of potential life saving safety like inspecting for loaded rounds? Or no, he is not allowed to touch anything, he just goes about his best performance of the Quick-draw McGraw? I don't understand how that sort of a protocol could ever replace even basic rules of firearm safety without the potential for something going horribly wrong, as happened.
Click to expand...

No much like they don't inspect a car that it is functional or a door on the Millennium Falcon. Actors do not do the grunt work. Thats what the crew is for.

I know in your mind you think of this as gun safety 101 and yes that should happen but we are talking about members of the production that can barely wipe their own butts or get their own coffee without somehow helping them in the process. It is the job of certain crew members to do all of that for him and he trusts that it is done. The actors #1 focus is being in character and standing on his mark and delivering his lines and actions. He trusts and listens to the director, DP and crew that what he is about to do is safe. He doesn't second guess a stunt, a prop or that something will fall on him like Harrison Ford on the Force Awakens. The actors do their job and expect others to do their job.

Look I get it. Guns are dangerous and need to be treated with respect. An individual gun owner and user should without a doubt do everything you mentioned. But when you have members of the crew telling you the gun has been checked and its 100% safe you as an actor believe them.

Even if an actor did check and had some training to check properly they are still not qualified enough to make judgement calls and they shouldn't be. It becomes a liability on them if they have responsibility in making such calls. what if an actor did some kind of a check and this happens again. Then that actor is legally liable for what happened. It takes a lot of training and experience to make the proper judgement calls if a firearm is safe on a production.

I'm also not entirely sure you get the use of firearms in action movies. Making a claim that you should never point it at someone is clearly not understanding that yes that is exactly what will happen on set. Thats why blanks are used. How can you have a series like Squid Game without at some point pointing a gun at another actor or having some crew somewhere in the line of fire? Yes its dangerous which is why there are supposed to be highly trained crew members that know how t keep those sets safe. I'm sure a lot of productions happen every year with guns with blanks pointed at other humans and they are perfectly safe.

Blanks can still be dangerous but only when playing around like a fool. I read of one instance where a crew member put a prop gun against his head and pulled the trigger out of boredom. A projectile didn't fire into his head but enough force left the end of the gun to fracture his skull and send fragments into his brain killing him a few days later. Under 99.9% of film set situations however blanks used when pointing at other characters are perfectly safe. The key is to have proper union crew with the training and experience to not have any funny business with the guns used as props.

Hundreds of actors used real prop guns with blanks on sets all the time and practice shots and perform takes without personally checking the guns for safety. They do not do that and they should not do that.
 
Tom Roper said:
So if you went through a hunters safety course as a kid, you learned to check for barrel obstructions. You learned to treat every gun as if it was loaded and ready to fire. You learned to never aim the muzzle at something you did not intend to shoot. You trained, you learned. So why is it that on movie sets where real guns are present, there is no mention of safety training for the actor, he is a robot simply handed a real gun by the armorer and told it is a cold gun? As the handler of a deadly weapon can the actor not check for himself and practice some modicum of potential life saving safety like inspecting for loaded rounds? Or no, he is not allowed to touch anything, he just goes about his best performance of the Quick-draw McGraw? I don't understand how that sort of a protocol could ever replace even basic rules of firearm safety without the potential for something going horribly wrong, as happened.
Click to expand...

Gun safety can be seen as complicated, and it can be if you do not follow some basic rules. The first and most important rule is twofold. Always assume a gun is loaded until you personally verify that it is not (no shells in the chamber and none in the cylinder or mag) and part B - NEVER point a gun (LOADED OR UNLOADED) at a person or other living being. If it is a handgun, it should be holstered at all times and if a rifle (or a longer weapon) it needs to be pointed at the ground when not explicitly in use. There are only two exceptions to this behavior - when at a range you may use your weapon to practice shooting at targets and (two) - if you have a legal carry permit and/or are in your home and under threat - you may use your weapon to defend yourself if your life or the life of someone in your immediate area is in mortal danger (this is extremely rare in reality and almost never happens).

I have not used a live weapon (with only two exceptions - testing my nephews AK and Colt .44 magnum - what a rush!!) in over forty years but was taught these basic rules when I was seven, You never forget the training.
 
High1ander said:
Thank you Mitch!

So in the US the national laws, federal laws, local statues, etc. supersedes union rules (in Sweden union rules are often lawfully binding, i.e. if there are protocols and they are not followed regarding safety, there can be criminal and civil charges levied. If a union safety officer shuts down production you can't just dismiss them and resume). I guess it makes it trickier in the US because maybe you are on set and under false pretense that you are protected under union rules/practices, but in reality it doesn't apply at all. Also, are production companies allowed to call it a "union set", and if so it can be false advertising/misleading if they don't follow union practices or too few of the crew are union, etc... I'm not speaking specifically about this production, but in general.

I'm thinking hypothetically if for example in this case if Baldwin is charged can he claim that he followed union practices and then the prosecutor can say something like "well, why would you think it was union practices when the armorer wasn't union"?

Any words on what is happening now, are OSHA getting involved at all or are film productions of that size not under their purview?
Click to expand...

Even on a union show, not all positions are filled by union crew. There are several variations of this and part of it is based on the budget scale of the production, where if it is in a certain Tier than the union agrees to certain departments being filled by nonunion crew. Note that the union camera department was fired off the job on this shoot and replaced by a nonunion one.

Certainly there can be extenuating circumstances where qualified professionals are expected to be present based on union membership, but that does not necessarilly provide legal protection. Still I would imagine that it is a consideration law officials might take into consideration, but then again I'm not a lawyer. And I worked for 20 years on nonunion productions where for the most part we followed union rules and practices. In your hypothetical that could certainly come into play.

OSHA regulations are SHA regulations, but for the most part it is local authorities that govern day-to-day activities. I know that the other productions that were also filming on the same ranch in New Mexico were also shut down while police investigated but I don't know if they've been allowed to resume. I do know that many productions and IA Locals throughout the US have sent out bulletins and information reminding people about safety protocols, tip hotlines, therapy support, etc. Several productions have also banned all active firearms from set, shifting gun scenes to the use of Airsoft or other non-explosive devices with muzzle flashes to be inserted in post.
 
Thomas Smet said:
No much like they don't inspect a car that it is functional or a door on the Millennium Falcon. Actors do not do the grunt work. Thats what the crew is for.

I know in your mind you think of this as gun safety 101 and yes that should happen but we are talking about members of the production that can barely wipe their own butts or get their own coffee without somehow helping them in the process. It is the job of certain crew members to do all of that for him and he trusts that it is done. The actors #1 focus is being in character and standing on his mark and delivering his lines and actions. He trusts and listens to the director, DP and crew that what he is about to do is safe. He doesn't second guess a stunt, a prop or that something will fall on him like Harrison Ford on the Force Awakens. The actors do their job and expect others to do their job.

Look I get it. Guns are dangerous and need to be treated with respect. An individual gun owner and user should without a doubt do everything you mentioned. But when you have members of the crew telling you the gun has been checked and its 100% safe you as an actor believe them.

Even if an actor did check and had some training to check properly they are still not qualified enough to make judgement calls and they shouldn't be. It becomes a liability on them if they have responsibility in making such calls. what if an actor did some kind of a check and this happens again. Then that actor is legally liable for what happened. It takes a lot of training and experience to make the proper judgement calls if a firearm is safe on a production.

I'm also not entirely sure you get the use of firearms in action movies. Making a claim that you should never point it at someone is clearly not understanding that yes that is exactly what will happen on set. Thats why blanks are used. How can you have a series like Squid Game without at some point pointing a gun at another actor or having some crew somewhere in the line of fire? Yes its dangerous which is why there are supposed to be highly trained crew members that know how t keep those sets safe. I'm sure a lot of productions happen every year with guns with blanks pointed at other humans and they are perfectly safe.

Blanks can still be dangerous but only when playing around like a fool. I read of one instance where a crew member put a prop gun against his head and pulled the trigger out of boredom. A projectile didn't fire into his head but enough force left the end of the gun to fracture his skull and send fragments into his brain killing him a few days later. Under 99.9% of film set situations however blanks used when pointing at other characters are perfectly safe. The key is to have proper union crew with the training and experience to not have any funny business with the guns used as props.

Hundreds of actors used real prop guns with blanks on sets all the time and practice shots and perform takes without personally checking the guns for safety. They do not do that and they should not do that.
Click to expand...

Well said.

This story is horrific on so many levels.

I'm sad for Halyna Hutchins, her family and friends.

I'm sad because our industry has been robbed of a rising star.

I'm sad because creative and technical professionals in our industry aren't respected and amateurs take their jobs.

And I'm sad that people try to make political capital out of a tragedy because it fits their myopic political view. Grow the **** up.
 
Mitch Gross said:
Note that the union camera department was fired off the job on this shoot and replaced by a nonunion one.
Click to expand...

The individuals you are referring weren't fired, they quit the show voluntarily. The production had a hard time finding replacements (NM is not the biggest film community and the word was being passed around about conditions on this show) so the only crew they were able to hire happened to be non-union. The DP and B operator who remained on the show were both union.
 
I read today that the armorer, was young, lacked confidence and experience and had made mistakes in the past. All the information that has been released paints the picture of very loose and dangerous environment where something bad was likely to happen. Safety was not a priority from the top down.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top