Prop Gun Kills Cinematographer

[High1ander]

Not sure thats even close to the same kind of a situation. Discovering a potential safety problem and using that information to repair buildings in Florida is different than people pointing blame during a criminal investigation. This case/situation impacts none of us in our daily lives. We speculate almost entirely for entertainment purposes or to make some sort of social point.

My point is that all of us speculating about this is not really helping anybody right now. Its shock and entertainment for the masses. People love to form opinions that are hard to shake once the truth does come out.

The only helpful lesson that needs to be taken out of this unfortunate event by society is that guns are not toys and sources of entertainment. Of the now three gun related deaths I know of on set in Hollywood all three were due to bored crew members. Its ridiculous to speculate on who is to blame here because its a criminal investigation. It also doesn't matter what our personal views are in regards to the actor is the one pulling the trigger or the armorer is solely to blame. Only the police, lawyers and courts can make that decision now. Its completely out of our hands as it should be. We are not a society based on judging criminal situations just based on personal views or speculation. Innocent until proven guilty is there for a reason. Our mass hysteria society seems to forget that all too often.

I can agree partially with what you say, however there is a difference and impact, because this is being shoehorned publicly with petitions to change this or that. Those petitions are signed without actually knowing what went wrong except the fatal outcome. As I pointed out before there are vastly more serious injuries and deaths in showbiz with cars, stunts, etc. that doesn't get the same response and probably should. - Now saying that I don't know which way to go with prop-guns on set yet (or cars for that matter). The fatal accidents has been due to negligence and bored crew, rather than once every millionth time it is guaranteed to explode.

Baldwin also states in his impromptu speech that the production was "well oiled", well, he can have his opinions but it just seems very weird that he thinks it was well oiled when there were seemingly so many problems prior (like, what is a "non-oiled set" according to him). It feels more like he is lying and covering his ass as a producer, by implicating there were no problems leading up to the accident (but, he might very well be telling the truth, he could have been shielded from all the on-set drama prior to the accident). He claims this accident is one in millions, trillions, and that just seems very unfair with statistics. It is one in millions combined with other productions that follows safety protocols, it is a guaranteed accident if it is a production that don't use safety protocols and use the guns for live shooting... I mean, he compares "legit" productions with his "sloppy" production. An analogy would be letting a 5 year old kid fly a 747 by themselves, and when it crashes stating that: "well, airplanes are still safer than driving cars, we must have had really bad luck for this accident to have happened".

Also, waiting for everything to settle legally is basically saying that it will be status-quo for a couple of years and that whatever verdict that will come out will be "the right one". We all know that isn't always the case. It is especially hard with cases like this that "seemingly" have so many moving parts and chain of events that are so dependent on each other to mess up. I.e. I think this will mostly be like a car insurance claim, in that on party will owe 30% responsibility, another 50%, one 20%, etc... Probably more so now if the armorer can prove she was overworked on two positions in the crew and if she had claimed it was too much for her to safely carry out all her duties...

 

[Paul F]

“We were a very, very well-oiled crew shooting a film together, and then this horrible event happened.” Alec Baldwin, October 31, 2021.

Read the first half of that sentence and then read the second half of that sentence and let me know if your head doesn't explode.

 

[NorBro]

“We were a very, very well-oiled crew shooting a film together, and then this horrible event happened.” Alec Baldwin, October 31, 2021.

Read the first half of that sentence and then read the second half of that sentence and let me know if your head doesn't explode.

What's wrong with that statement? Well-oiled crews can have horrible accidents.

I mean...weren't you the guy who said you thought it was "disgusting" how forum members criticized people's video work?

Put yourself in his shoes. Like you got any clue what this guy is going through right now? Like his head? How it's holding up?

No one wanted this to happen. There needs to be more sympathy along with all of the speculation.

 

[Peter C.]

I don't see why we have to tip toe around. Based on the information that has been released we already have a good understanding of what happened and who should be responsible. The culprits have lawyer-ed up and of course their account is going to be crafted to protect themselves. At this point I don't know if there is going to be much evidence or information released of any value. Maybe we will find out the person who brought the live ammo on set.

Let's take the rough description of event leading up to the shooting. The AD grabs a gun off a cart with multiple weapons on it. Declares it safe and hands it to Baldwin. In this simple exchange who's at fault? The AD for doing the Armorer's job? Was the Armorer there? If so should she be at fault for allowing the AD to hand the gun to the actor? Or is it the director's fault for allowing the AD to handle the weapon or to allow the scene to be filmed without the Armorer being present? My take on it is that when the AD grab the weapon off the cart, he became the defacto Armorer and by failing to check the weapon he is at fault.

I can see this being very difficult to litigate because every movie set is run differently. There isn't one definitive rule book that everyone follows.

 

[Thomas Smet]

First of all, the guilty and potentially guilty parties will hire lawyers and clam up and the individual testimony will often counter the physical evidence.,

Second of all, they will blame each other and, most of all, the diseased. Because she can't reply.

Third, I don't have the highest regard for either the "authorities" nor the media. There was enough badly staged theater across the US over the last few years. (I don't have anything specific against the New Mexican police per se but I had a friend who once lived in the high desert there and his experience was very bizarre, to say the least)

Fourth, I have even less regard for Hollywood, which has very low standards for both decency and honesty. Alec Baldwin already blasted those who blasted Alec Baldwin and this will go back and forth for a while.

Fifth, even assuming this will go to a trial somewhere down the road, it's highly possible that an independent observer will arrive at a different conclusion than the jury. And it's not because I watch Court TV.

Sixth, as Bill Barr said a couple of years ago, “history is written by the winners". He was right but you should reserve a right not to believe them.

I'm not entirely sure why any of that really matters. I really don't care how long it drags out and neither should you. It has zero impact on your life. This was my entire point. We obsess over things that really don't matter or apply to us. Yes we all feel bad for what happened but I personally do not need daily updates on it for the next three years. I will likely just wait for the Netflix series that covers all the details once they are all known. In the meantime my life and other lives go on. Some sets will get more strict with gun use, some will ban guns with blanks all together. Others will not change a thing and we will likely not see another incident for another decade or so. Eventually someone will take the fall but again thats great for justice but how does that change your life?

 

[DLD]

... Eventually someone will take the fall but again thats great for justice but how does that change your life?

Most of the camera discussions on this forum don't effect my life either. But I am interested in the subject and I follow the entertainment industry (albeit not as closely as I once had). And I watch YouTube. And I figure a well reasoned debate on a worthy topic aids my Weltanschauung. Just like a discussion of the Keynesian economics and the whole of WWII.

 

[Peter C.]

For those interested in the legal ramifications. I follow this channel and he does a good job.

 

[Paul F]

I'm not entirely sure why any of that really matters. I really don't care how long it drags out and neither should you. It has zero impact on your life. This was my entire point. We obsess over things that really don't matter or apply to us. Yes we all feel bad for what happened but I personally do not need daily updates on it for the next three years. I will likely just wait for the Netflix series that covers all the details once they are all known. In the meantime my life and other lives go on. Some sets will get more strict with gun use, some will ban guns with blanks all together. Others will not change a thing and we will likely not see another incident for another decade or so. Eventually someone will take the fall but again thats great for justice but how does that change your life?

Correct. And yet we all keep reading and writing on this thread. So regardless of how it affects us, here we are.

 

[Liam Hall]

Sixth, as Bill Barr said a couple of years ago, “history is written by the winners".

He lost, right?

To the victor the spoils...

 

[High1ander]

For those interested in the legal ramifications. I follow this channel and he does a good job.

Nice to see his take on it and I didn't think he would make a video on it so soon. His TLDR is that probably Baldwin is safe from criminal court, but the AD and Armorer will likely land somewhere around negligent or reckless homicide.

 

[Peter C.]

Nice to see his take on it and I didn't think he would make a video on it so soon. His TLDR is that probably Baldwin is safe from criminal court, but the AD and Armorer will likely land somewhere around negligent or reckless homicide.

Yes, and the producers will likely get sued for negligence for hiring the AD and armorer with past problems, ignoring prior safety incidents on set and not following proper safety protocols.

I was impressed with how in depth the video was. He covered all the issues we discussed here.

I had forgotten how green the Armorer was. Only her 2nd movie and to be put in charge of such a important role with production staff that wanted speed over safety. I could see someone like that not having the confidence to push back or walk off. When you first get into any new position you need the money and experience and are unlikely to stand up against something you feel isn't right.

 

[High1ander]

Yes, and the producers will likely get sued for negligence for hiring the AD and armorer with past problems, ignoring prior safety incidents on set and not following proper safety protocols.

I was impressed with how in depth the video was. He covered all the issues we discussed here.

I had forgotten how green the Armorer was. Only her 2nd movie and to be put in charge of such a important role with production staff that wanted speed over safety. I could see someone like that not having the confidence to push back or leave a production. When you first get into any new position you need the money and experience and are unlikely to stand up against something you feel isn't right.

Yeah, but the civil lawsuits is a given.

One thing that he didn't bring up, which I guess is because it came out today: lawyers starting to throw out some "reasonable doubt" in that maybe the bullet was planted there as sabotage. https://www.slashfilm.com/651166/rust-armorers-lawyers-suggest-live-round-could-have-been-sabotage/

It was very in-depth which is why I was surprised, because he doesn't just throw together crap (at least the stuff I've seen) so I guessed it would take longer or he would talk about it once all the investigations were finished.

 

[paulears]

One of the biggest things with responsibility is realising that when you carry the can, you are really in charge. It takes courage to say no to the people paying you, but very often you are the person who at that time make the decision. It's no good being a person in charge who cannot make decisions and accept responsibility.

The best boss I ever had put me in charge, gave me the responsibility to do the job and told me that whatever decision I made, he would go along with and fully support me. Sure - I'm very aware that if I make some mistakes it will cost serious money and if I get it badly wrong people could die, or have life changing consequences. So when somebody comes to me and shows me something and says is it safe? (At 10pm on a Sunday night) I have to use my skills, experience and knowledge to make an instant decision. If saying no, it is not safe will cost money, time or even generate bad press, so be it. Saying yes it is safe is a big deal, but that is the job. A couple of times my crew have had daily, bi-weekly and weekly safety check lists - but some things they should check are impossible for them to do. The layout of the equipment making checking XYZ totally impossible. I told them this one I would sign off myself each week. The reality was that I could get close but not physically touch the device that was critical, so the best I could do was take a shot with my camera from 6m away, and compare the photo from the last one. That is not ideal, but the best I can do. It's not something I'd ask one of the crew to carry responsibility for - but I am prepared to do it.

We all know that when you first get a responsible job, you simply are not safe ...... yet.

 

[combatentropy]

Several people were sloppy, we can all agree: the armorer, the assistant director, the actor. It's too bad that if just one of them had caught the mistake, then the accident would not have happened.

I don't know which ones the court will rule guilty, and I don't know what the punishment will be. I think with so much sloppiness spread around, that points to the producers also as somehow responsible, since they are in charge of the production overall.

But I do want to say that what sticks out to me the most is the use of the guns for target practice with real bullets. If that turns out to be true, then I would think that the people who knew about that, and who let it happen, would receive perhaps the greatest punishment. That was just totally unnecessary and highly risky.

 

[CharlesPapert]

One thing that he didn't bring up, which I guess is because it came out today: lawyers starting to throw out some "reasonable doubt" in that maybe the bullet was planted there as sabotage. https://www.slashfilm.com/651166/rust-armorers-lawyers-suggest-live-round-could-have-been-sabotage/

Indeed they did:
"“We have people who had left the set who had walked out because they were disgruntled. We have a timeframe between 11 and 1 [p.m.], approximately, that day in which the firearms, at times, were unattended. So there was opportunity to tamper with the scene. And yes, we’re looking at that possibility.”

As many have pointed out here, they don't have a direct connection to this incident. I do. One of the crew that walked out that morning was a friend and colleague. Another was on set hours later when the shot was fired. As much as I am familiar with the MO of lawyers, which is to use whatever is in their disposal to exonerate their client, I am furious at this allegation--which doesn't even make sense within its own argument. It is documented and so far undisputed that the camera team that left was off the set by 8 a.m., so the (unfathomable) idea of them sabotaging that box of rounds when they were left unattended between 11 and 1 was not possible. The very wording of this statement is cleverly avoiding making an actual allegation that connects these two incidents other than placing them in adjacent sentences and it is nothing short of disgusting.

 

[Noel Evans]

The very wording of this statement is cleverly avoiding making an actual allegation that connects these two incidents other than placing them in adjacent sentences and it is nothing short of disgusting.

That's a real shame. I feel for them.

 

[stoneinapond]

It's the new normal. Don't accuse just plant the idea.

 

[Peter C.]

I'm not buying sabotage. What's most likely happened she checked the gun before lunch and it was empty, she went off to do something and in the mean time, people used the gun for target practice, and someone left a live round in the gun by mistake. When she got back from lunch she assumed it was in the same state that she left it. But anyone who owns and/or is experienced with guns knows every time you pick up a gun you need to check it, no matter how sure you are it's empty.

 

[High1ander]

Indeed they did:
"“We have people who had left the set who had walked out because they were disgruntled. We have a timeframe between 11 and 1 [p.m.], approximately, that day in which the firearms, at times, were unattended. So there was opportunity to tamper with the scene. And yes, we’re looking at that possibility.”

As many have pointed out here, they don't have a direct connection to this incident. I do. One of the crew that walked out that morning was a friend and colleague. Another was on set hours later when the shot was fired. As much as I am familiar with the MO of lawyers, which is to use whatever is in their disposal to exonerate their client, I am furious at this allegation--which doesn't even make sense within its own argument. It is documented and so far undisputed that the camera team that left was off the set by 8 a.m., so the (unfathomable) idea of them sabotaging that box of rounds when they were left unattended between 11 and 1 was not possible. The very wording of this statement is cleverly avoiding making an actual allegation that connects these two incidents other than placing them in adjacent sentences and it is nothing short of disgusting.

Well, I obviously don't buy the sabotage from the people that left the set (or anyone that stayed on the set). But it probably sets the stage for what's to come in terms of shifting the blame back and forth so that "nobody" is responsible. They will frame it as an accident that couldn't be avoided, instead of one that should have been averted in so many ways.

 

[combatentropy]

[Lawyer:] "We have people who had left the set who had walked out because they were disgruntled. We have a timeframe between 11 and 1 [p.m.], approximately, that day in which the firearms, at times, were unattended. So there was opportunity to tamper with the scene."

That would be one psychopathic crew member

the camera team that left was off the set by 8 a.m.

also a ninja