Rust
- Thread starter Peter C.
- Start date
CharlesPapert
Director of Photography
I have to thank you because I think you may be literally the first recreational gun user I have seen that understands that that the construct of a film set is a singular and special environment when it comes to gun protocol. It has to be thus because as you said, actors should and can not be expected to take responsibility for the safety of the weapons used as props--it's actually a terrible idea. They have many things to focus on before any given take and it is not logical to make full weapon checks part of that process, versus a trained and licensed specialist who has a very stringent protocol to follow (which obviously was not the case with this particular armorer) and that is their sole focus at that time.
Something that people may not be aware of is that if a gun is to be live fired (with blanks of course), the armorer will go through the process of showing and describing the contents to various parties including the actor as the AD calls "hot gun on set". When the take is concluded, the armorer takes the gun back from the actor. We do twenty takes, the gun is handed off twenty times.
Normally to line up a shot, a non-firing replica would be used, generally rubber. I'm not even sure they had replicas on this particular set, but in this instance the shot required the light to glint off the barrel just so, which very unfortunately happened to result in it being aimed in the direction of the DP and director as they guided it into position. There was never meant to be even a blank fired in this scene--if there were, a variety of safety procedures would have resulted including ear and facemask protection being distributed, optical flat and possible furny pad on the camera, clearing any unnecessary and unprotected crew members from range where they could be hit by the ejected shell or wadding from the blank. But that would have been if picture was up, and it wasn't. Rehearsal only. AD presented the weapon and announced "cold gun". It's still unbelievable to me what it took for all of these circumstances to line up as they did.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Every legal analysis in every newspaper I looked at agrees that the DA has a weak case against Baldwin. Here's a link to the analysis on Fox: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/rus...-criminal-case-shooting-death-halyna-hutchins
ahalpert
Major Contributor
They worked with Polanski (OK, I exaggerated a little about Harvey Weinstein ,,, but not about Sam) ...
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Different era. Woody Allen has been shuffled out of the business now, for example. I'm curious to see if he can stage a comeback. The worst things he's accused of were never proven. (Personally, I think that what we do know for a fact about him is pretty creepy in and of itself. But I don't believe that people should be punished forever even if they committed the worst of crimes.)
JAMedia
Well-known member
I used firearems professionally in the real world in both controlled and uncotrolled environments. Also on the range which was quite different to non-range "real world" use.
The film set is trying to portray the "real world" where the character would be responsible for the firearm. However it is not the "real world" and the actor is not the character any more than William Shatner is a Captain of a space ship and has a working phasor. Though through force of habit I would handle a phasor the same as a pistol. No idea hwo you would turnit on or off or check if it was "loaded" or "set to stun"
If handed the bandoleir, gun belt and pistol onthe set of Rush and was assued by the Amourer and AD that all the rounds were dummy who the hell can I check that or say different?
I have used blanks and they did look different. (crimped ends and no bullet inthe case.
Dummy rounds used in films and live rounds look identical because they are supposed to look like "real" (live) rounds for the film
The dummy rounds I used for training were very clealry marked.... indents inthe case, no primers and paint. They look like dummy rounds and would not be any use for film use.
JAMedia
Well-known member
I agree. It is going to be a facinating case that will become a standard case fo r all Law courses and I think may change the rules for using forearms on a film set.
We will be discussing the arguments used in court for decades.
BTW this has NOTHING to do with the gun laws /gun control in the USA. the use of a film set is a special case not related to anything else.
What is going to be facinating is the documentary on how they made the feature film about the making of Rust...
At the end of all this away from the academic and legal arguments we should remember a person, a mother of young children, died.
Last edited:
ahalpert
Major Contributor
I'm not sure there are many specific laws governing the use of guns in New Mexico. You're not required to obtain a license before purchasing a gun there. Clearly, there are widely accepted guidelines for the safe use of firearms (such as not pointing them at people). But film sets have their own widely accepted guidelines so they can safely point them at people.
New Mexico statute on involuntary manslaughter reads
So, did Baldwin exercise due caution and circumspection in handling the weapon? Well, it was prepared by a professional armorer whose work was double-checked by the 1st AD. It's not like Baldwin found a gun, picked it up, and pointed it at someone. As others have stated, an actor will be less capable of evaluating a prop gun than an armorer anyway.
Alec Baldwin exclusive: 'The trigger wasn't pulled. I didn't pull the trigger'
https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainmen...trigger-pulled-pull-trigger/story?id=81491305
ahalpert
Major Contributor
I'm not convinced that the DA can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he pulled the trigger. I read about how they tested the gun to prove that. But "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a high bar to clear.
And even if he pulled it, the fact remains that the gun was supposed to be safe to trigger, and he had reason to believe that it was.
JAMedia
Well-known member
I do not know the firearm used but it is possible that it went off with out the trigger being pulled. Baldwin "cocked the gun" people saw that.As least they think they did. No one really knows the position of the sears inside the gun. I have seen people apper to cock a weapon,it hasn't quite engaged and then slipped. That the gun looked like a colt XYZ model 2 neans little. You don't know the condition of the gun or any modifications etc. I had the sears on one of mine pollised to a certain pull wieght for street use. The armour commented that it was a "safe" weight for that. Whereas target shooters use a far lower pull wieght. The amourer said to me if I had it at that weight it would "go off on its own" in street use. There were also other internal midifications to the gun an observer could not see.
So whilst we can all generalise I know from poersonal experience without very carefull examination of all the detailed evidewnce we are just guessing. Even with the mechanical evidence and eye witnesses, who will honestly say what they perceived happened, it could be difficult to work out what actually happened.
People may beleive they saw something that didn't happen. Ask anyone who has taken whitness statemewnts.
Baldwin may beleive he did not touch the trigger even if there is video of him pulling it.
Others may remember Baldwin puilling the trigger even if the video shows he didn't.
( I assume there is not a video or we would have heard of it by noiw)
(Without getting political in the USA millions of people watched TV on 6th Jan 2021 and have two completley different set of facts as to what happened on screen. They are all certain of mutually exclusive facts )
This is going to make a facinatring case when the dust settles.
Who is making the documentary of it?
Last edited:
JAMedia
Well-known member
Searching on "a .45 Colt (.45 Long Colt) caliber F.lli Pietta single-action revolver," drops me in to a lot of gun forums discussing the same incident! They are getting "forensic" on the gun in question, all the internals etc and the what-if's (and a hell of a lot of firearms background) and...... they can't agree
The problem is the actual gun broke during FBI testing. So they are never going to get a conclusive answer.
So next
Who shot President Kennedy?
Was Marylyn Monroe Murdered?
Is Elvis still alive?
The problem is the actual gun broke during FBI testing. So they are never going to get a conclusive answer.
So next
Who shot President Kennedy?
Was Marylyn Monroe Murdered?
Is Elvis still alive?
Last edited:
First of all, the existing tests, while not 100% proof, are indeed "beyond a reasonable doubt".
Second, Baldwin will probably take the Fifth (and not of Beethoven), so the DA won't have to prove it at all.
Third, it is a hard case to prove ... if you believe that everything on the set was immaculately done throughout the shoot and everyone on that set was a top professional. I will speculate that the AD who already pleaded guilty to a lesser charge will testify that it wasn't so.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Bro. The FBI themselves expressed a reasonable doubt about their conclusions. They "noted the limitations of the forensics testing, saying "it may not be possible to recreate or duplicate all of the circumstances which led to the discharge of a firearm without a pull of the trigger.”'
OJ Simpson got off on a reasonable doubt. Beyond a reasonable doubt is a high bar. And, like i said, i don't think it matters that much if he pulled the trigger or not.
You're making a strong case against the armorer and possibly the persons responsible for hiring her. I have little doubt she will be convicted, possibly of the more serious charge which carries a 5-year mandatory prison sentence.
What are you saying about set conditions with respect to the actor? That the actor, noticing the poor safety record of the production, should have therefore assumed responsibilities that aren't normally his?
JAMedia
Well-known member
Agreed. There should never have been a live round on that set, let alone in the gun.
From the [limited] information I have seen about this (the FBI report and pictures back up this thread) there is no way the actor could have determined if one/any of the many rounds in the bandolier, belt or gun was a live round.
So in my humble opinion, on the information I have, the actor is not at fault.
Now if the producers are guilty of not running stricter or correct procedures etc and letting the situation occur so this accident could happen, that is another matter.
I'm wondering why you think the trigger pull will be hard to prove. From what I've seen in demonstrations of that model gun's use, it is not possible for the gun to fire accidentally. The hammer must be pulled back to the 4th? position and only then will the trigger operate. The trigger only operates when the hammer is in the 4th position. Neither the trigger nor the hammer can slip and fire on it's own. That can be demonstrated in court and in fact, the gun could be passed around to the jury so they can try it for themselves.
As to your second point, and what we are going in circles about, I think many here are of the mind 'it wasn't his fault' as an actor or even not as an actor. That is a reasonable opinion. But from what I'm reading, a manslaughter charge doesn't care. The way I read it, someone died. You killed them. Accident or not, you're guilty of manslaughter. There doesn't have to be any culpability for a charge of manslaughter.
But let's also realize that the sentence for the type of manslaughter I believe Alec Baldwin is being charge with is quite low. It's in the range of 6 months -1 year and $5000.
Last edited: