Prop Gun Kills Cinematographer

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thomas Smet said:
What a cash grab. The vultures are circling looking for blood (money). The script supervisor is being represented by renowned ambulance chaser.
Click to expand...
If I watched someone get killed right in front of my face I would be super bummed as well. That’s got to be Top 3 “Poopiest Life Moments”. The scripty could demand an apology or demand money, the former is worthless today.
 
More details have emerged about the Oct. 21 shooting on the set of Rust.

According to the affidavit reviewed by Yahoo Entertainment, Hannah (Gutierrez Reed - DLD) informed officers that ammunition for the Western indie film was purchased from "various sources," including Seth Kenney, owner of PDQ Arm & Prop. Kenney apparently contacted investigators on Oct. 29 saying he might know where the live ammunition came from. Kenney thought it could have been "handmade reloaded rounds" that he got from a friend "years" prior.
Click to expand...

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/...003310037.html
 
Wow i wonder who is at fault in that case. The producers who hired the green armorer, the armorer who purchased back-alley ammo, or the guy who sold her random stuff whose contents he was unsure of. I guess probably the armorer and, to a lesser extent, the salesman. But not the producers, I'm guessing
 
ahalpert said:
Wow i wonder who is at fault in that case. The producers who hired the green armorer, the armorer who purchased back-alley ammo, or the guy who sold her random stuff whose contents he was unsure of. I guess probably the armorer and, to a lesser extent, the salesman. But not the producers, I'm guessing
Click to expand...

I suspect everyone and I suspect no one.

But, seriously, the ammo dealer was asked for ammo and delivered ammo. A licensed dealer will probably be in the clear unless he misrepresented his merchandise. That can probably be deciphered from the labels on the packages.

Producers would have to explain why they wanted live ammo, if that's indeed what they ordered. They also can be charged with negligence for failing to control the chain of ammo possession, if that is revealed.

The armorer is a middle man - woman - and can only be held responsible for failing to execute her job properly. Which can still land her in a heap of trouble, if proven.

And then you get into a game of "that's not how I remember it" and, since there's likely very little documentation about the daily minutia on the set, it's going to be decided off the verbal testimonies, with some witnesses deemed more credible than others.
 
Yes but I would assume that the buck stops with the person whose job is to manage and certify the safety of the weaponry--the armorer. And the producers are probably not liable for any failures in her work unless they hired an unlicensed armorer when you're supposed to hire a licensed armorer or something like that. If she's purchasing ammo on the secondary market, I would imagine that there are protocols for testing the product to make sure you don't get someone killed. What else is the point of hiring an armorer if they can't make your production safe? I don't know any of this for a fact and I'm just going off the report you published, but that's my interpretation. The producers probably shouldn't have hired a green armorer, but as long as they performed due diligence with the hire, then I imagine that she assumed a lot of legal liability by taking the job.
 
From BBC

"Alec Baldwin says he "didn't pull the trigger" of the gun that fatally wounded cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the set of his film, Rust.

The star made the claim came in his first sit-down interview since the incident in October. "I would never point a gun at anyone and pull a trigger at them. Never," he told George Stephanopoulos of ABC News. The interview was recorded on Tuesday, and is due to be broadcast in the US on Thursday evening."
 
Paul F said:
From BBC

"Alec Baldwin says he "didn't pull the trigger" of the gun that fatally wounded cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the set of his film, Rust.

The star made the claim came in his first sit-down interview since the incident in October. "I would never point a gun at anyone and pull a trigger at them. Never," he told George Stephanopoulos of ABC News. The interview was recorded on Tuesday, and is due to be broadcast in the US on Thursday evening."
Click to expand...

THIS is something I've been wondering. Is there a real possibility of a 100% "misfire"?
 
A Colt .45 can fire on its own. Early versions had five hammer positions. The first being on the bullet's primer cap. The second position was the safety position as it pulled the firing pin off the bullet. A jolt could cause the hammer to slip and fire. Some owners left one chamber empty to prevent this from happening.

Firing the gun is not simple. It does not fire by pulling the trigger. It must first have the hammer fully cocked to the fifth position by hand (thumb) for each shot.
 
Last edited:
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/...202159907.html

There's likely more on ABC's site.

https://abc7.com/alec-baldwin-interview-rust-movie-george-stephanopoulos-shooting/11288778/

BTW, off Quora -

Can a gun go off by itself? I have an antique revolver. It’s 102 years old. It is just (barely) new enough that it is safe to fire modern ammunition. This gun has none of the modern safety features. The recommended method of carry for this pistol was hammer down on an empty chamber, because the firing pin is built into the hammer. If the hammer is on a live round, and you drop the gun, it will very likely go off. Here’s the catch…. the cylinder doesn’t lock. It’s not even designed to. In normal carry, it is quite possible for the cylinder to rotate a round into battery. By today’s standards it would be hard find a gun less safe. Why do I keep it around? Because knowing all of this, I also know that unless it is loaded, and someone drops it, or actually pulls the trigger, it will just lay there till it turns into a pile of rust, and never go off. Believing otherwise is like believing your car will start itself and drive off without you.
Click to expand...

https://www.quora.com/Can-a-gun-go-o...ng-the-trigger

My comment is that Baldwin is digging a hole for himself. By defending his show-biz popularity in front of a friendly "journalist", he is shedding any remnant of credibility that he might have had prior.
 
DLD said:
My comment is that Baldwin is digging a hole for himself. By defending his show-biz popularity in front of a friendly "journalist", he is shedding any remnant of credibility that he might have had prior.
Click to expand...

That may be so, but I would bet that whatever Baldwin said was screened by some very expensive lawyers first. Wasn't there a lawsuit someone mentioned about how the script never called for a gun to be fired? Seems like a way to get out of that one. If it's even remotely possible that the gun could misfire, and if no one can prove how it was fired, then it's he said she said as long as he doesn't confess to pulling the trigger
 
ahalpert said:
That may be so, but I would bet that whatever Baldwin said was screened by some very expensive lawyers first. Wasn't there a lawsuit someone mentioned about how the script never called for a gun to be fired? Seems like a way to get out of that one. If it's even remotely possible that the gun could misfire, and if no one can prove how it was fired, then it's he said she said as long as he doesn't confess to pulling the trigger
Click to expand...

Remember the Miranda disclaimer -- "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law"?

He should be shutting up, even if he was vetted.

BTW, the problem with the lawyers at this juncture is that they don't know all the testimony and physical evidence that will be collected prior to the case being filed (or not filed). So, when he says X and a dozen other people say Y, his line of the defense will be severely compromised.

Paul F said:
This guy shows two ways a Colt Single Action (Colt 45) misfires. He also shows the cocking action required to shoot it. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldHPNnsp-cs&t=316s
Click to expand...

Of course, there are plenty of the Colt 45 replicas out there. With a modern action/trigger mechanism.
 
Paul F said:
This guy shows two ways a Colt Single Action (Colt 45) misfires. He also shows the cocking action required to shoot it. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldHPNnsp-cs&t=316s
Click to expand...

"Hickok45 here..." I like his videos.

I'm skeptical it fired on its own. When people have a stressful experience their memories of the event are not reliable. Especially when you do something involuntary like pulling a trigger. Legally I don't think whether he pulled the trigger has any significance based on the account of what happened. He must feel guilty and should just not say anything.
 
ahalpert said:
Omg a person of interest in a wrongful death suit was coached on what to say? What an unthinkable scandal
Click to expand...

Coached poorly. Obviously, he went to some expensive criminal defense attorneys and they used their experience to pick out a "reasonable" version, something they had used in cases prior. And now Baldwin is screaming, "I didn't fire the gun, I just huffed and puffed and yelled out, "Bang-bang, you're dead" a few times". The problem is that the gun in question can and will be tested by both the defense and the prosecution and the defense will have to present a reasonable doubt that the gun could only fire with the trigger pull. But if tests show otherwise, he'll have a lot of 'splaining to do. And not to George Stephanopoulos either.

Which is why I wrote earlier that he should be shutting up, i.e., taking the 5th, and only talking through his lawyers via the very generic prepared statements. But he listened to his PR representatives and the agents that will cost him in court.
 
Baldwin's explanation for how he fired the fatal shot isn't holding water with weapons expert Steve Wolf, who says the "no trigger" theory IS possible -- but there were several other mistakes made on the set. Steve's been working with munitions and props for TV and film for decades, so he was particularly interested in Baldwin's claim that the replica antique revolver he was holding fired without him pulling the trigger.

Steve was on Friday's "TMZ Live" when he held up a similar handgun and demonstrated exactly what Baldwin described. He pulled back the hammer on the weapon, but unlike Alec claimed ... Steve says it's just not possible for the hammer to strike and fire a bullet without the trigger getting engaged. Not normally, anyway. He admitted there are 2 possible exceptions -- first, there could have been a mechanical flaw ... and the other possibility has to do with how the weapon was manufactured.
Click to expand...

https://www.tmz.com/2021/12/03/alec...g-interview-da-responds-mary-carmack-altwies/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top