Rust

[CharlesPapert]

That looks like a slap on the wrists. 6 months unsupervised probation.
If he gets that, then Alec Baldwin the Actor should get similar.
Though Alec Baldwin, the Producer, may deserve something different. That said, weren't other producers responsible for running the set?

I've said it before in this thread: there were producers who made the specific (terrible) hiring choices, who were pushing the armorer to do more assisting of props thus taking her attention away from her primary role, who patently ignored the safety concerns brought to them by crew members including gun safety issues (all documented in texts and emails), who were pushing the AD to cut corners and move faster, all in the name of making this film as cheaply as possible so they could maximize their personal profits. As is usually the case with name actors who take a producing credit, Baldwin had nothing to do with any of those choices and was probably oblivious to the day-to-day. How these other producers evaded criminal liability is beyond me.

 

[JAMedia]

As is usually the case with name actors who take a producing credit, Baldwin had nothing to do with any of those choices and was probably oblivious to the day-to-day. How these other producers evaded criminal liability is beyond me.

An interesting observation.
My own thought was that as Baldwin was a principal Actor, most (all?) of the time when he was on set, he could not be running the set. So the other producer(s) were. Though before they were shoo..... err... filming what role did Baldwin have in hiring and setting up the procedures, training etc? Even if he was party to it Shirley, the other producers were also involved?

EDIT. Just remembered
Last week, I was watching a video by Massad Ayoob on the practical use of pistols for self-defence. One of his comments about gun handling in demonstrating to camera was that you don't have rounds in a gun because it is too easy to knock the trigger by accident or subconsciously put a finger on the trigger even when you think you haven't. Coincidentally, this was demonstrating a cross draw from a shoulder holster. Similar to the set-up in Rust. Hence, when demonstrating something to camera, he used a dummy gun and made the point of proving it was a dummy to the camera before he started. This was despite having several "empty" firearms on the desk, he used a rubber dummy.

 

[CharlesPapert]

An interesting observation.
My own thought was that as Baldwin was a principal Actor, most (all?) of the time when he was on set, he could not be running the set. So the other producer(s) were. Though before they were shoo..... err... filming what role did Baldwin have in hiring and setting up the procedures, training etc? Even if he was party to it Shirley, the other producers were also involved?

Producers don't run the set, in the literal sense of the word. The 1st AD is in charge of that, and reports to the line producer. Generally the line producer only comes down to set when something specific needs to be attended to, or at the end of the day to put pressure on to get things sped up to wrap on time. The other producers may be sitting at video village, but they are usually focused on performance, not so much managerial concerns.

In prep, the line producer will be the primary person doing the hiring, with the critical positions (DP, Production Designer, Costumer Designer etc) being considered by the producers as well. Same thing with co-ordinating training.

Some actor/producers are more involved in the day-to-day decisions and "dirty work", but many will be collecting that title purely from a contractual and financial standpoint without doing the work. Usually if anything they get involved with casting, especially with actors they know personally who may be more inclined to participate in a project because of their connection.

 

[Paul F]

I've said it before in this thread: there were producers who made the specific (terrible) hiring choices, who were pushing the armorer to do more assisting of props thus taking her attention away from her primary role, who patently ignored the safety concerns brought to them by crew members including gun safety issues (all documented in texts and emails), ....

Those conversations are available on Reddit.

 

[Tom Roper]

CharlesPapert, that's all dandy but it doesn't change the essence, that it was Baldwin himself who irresponsibly, by accident pointed a loaded gun at Halyna Hutchins, fired it and killed her. All the talk about other responsible parties on the set, producers, AD, line manager, armorer, whomever..are part of the obscuring layers that people who don't own responsibility for their actions like Baldwin take. Blame goes to the car manufacturer, the car rental company, the tire manuracturer, the traffic engineer, the bartender, everyone that can obscure responsibility that ultimately started with the drunk driver behind wheel. Every party had contributing roles to both safety and negligence, but it does not absolve the shooter. A jury may. As a celebrity I doubt Baldwin will be convicted of anything. Others will be found guilty or already have. It's too bad that we can't just say, "I'm sorry," and forgive. Baldwin would never do that, it's not in his DNA and accordingly I don't care what happens to him, but I suspect it will be nothing.

 

[ahalpert]

CharlesPapert, that's all dandy but it doesn't change the essence, that it was Baldwin himself who irresponsibly, by accident pointed a loaded gun at Halyna Hutchins, fired it and killed her. .

If you know that your employees are doing illegal, unsafe things -- especially if you're the one asking them to do it -- then you share legal and ethical responsibility for the outcome.

In this particular case, the producers were the ones who benefited financially from engineering an accident-prone situation. They profited from Hutchins' death. Nobody else had anything to gain from running the shoot that way.

 

[CharlesPapert]

If you know that your employees are doing illegal, unsafe things -- especially if you're the one asking them to do it -- then you share legal and ethical responsibility for the outcome.

In this particular case, the producers were the ones who benefited financially from engineering an accident-prone situation. They profited from Hutchins' death. Nobody else had anything to gain from running the shoot that way.

Essentially correct. It does make them out to be more sinister in their intentions, obviously no-one wanted accidents to happen, but they turned the other way to safety concerns in the name of maximizing their profits (sadly, a repeated theme in the business world) and the paper trail of that should have been enough to indict them along with the other individuals.

Tom Roper, nothing is "dandy" about this tragedy, poor choice of words there. Your analogy is not one I agree with. But not interested in debating it.

 

[Tom Roper]

There’s blame to go around but the spin is argued to insulate Baldwin from his part in the tragedy, build a privacy fence where the rules don’t apply. In the chain of circumstances leading up, he was the final link, the most important link with the last clear chance to avoid it. I feel that way and the D.A. feels that way. If that wasn’t obvious to him he deserves to lose some rights as would anyone who doesn’t understand their responsibility to not be the danger to the lives of others.

 

[ahalpert]

There’s blame to go around but the spin is argued to insulate Baldwin from his part in the tragedy, build a privacy fence where the rules don’t apply. In the chain of circumstances leading up, he was the final link, the most important link with the last clear chance to avoid it. I feel that way and the D.A. feels that way. If that wasn’t obvious to him he deserves to lose some rights as would anyone who doesn’t understand their responsibility to not be the danger to the lives of others.

Nobody here is trying to insulate Baldwin. It's not an either/or situation. Numerous people share responsibility for what happened, and the punishment that falls on each one should reflect their degree of culpability.

The producers knew they were running an unsafe set. They chose to continue doing so in order to pad their profit margin. What galls me is that they are not also being criminally charged since I believe that they were the primary culprits.

The Rust production company was required to pay $100k as an OSHA fine for a "serious" violation of safety rules. The production company was initially charged with a "willful" violation, but they settled and got it reduced to "serious." There are numerous benefits to them in avoiding the "willful" citation. But based on what we know about the case, it was definitely a "willful" violation.

[QUOTE[A “willful” violation requires that the employer “knowingly” and “purposely” disregarded safety standards. A “serious” violation requires only that a hazard existed that was likely to cause serious injury or death, but does not require “knowing” or “purposeful” misconduct.[/QUOTE]
https://variety.com/2023/film/news/r...in-1235521477/

My understanding is that they're not even paying out of pocket. The production company behind the movie is paying.

This is kind of the equivalent of prosecuting the street-level dealer but letting the drug lord escape or just pay a fine.

PS Nobody likes Baldwin. My understanding is that he's a huge asshole.

 

[DLD]

Alec Baldwin to resume 'Rust' production this week | CNN

 

[DLD]

"We are pleased with the decision to dismiss the case against Alec Baldwin and we encourage a proper investigation into the facts and circumstances of this tragic accident," Luke Nikas and Alex Spiro, the attorneys for Baldwin, said in a statement.

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/charges-dropped-against-alec-baldwin-192122199.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

 

[Doug Bee]

Not out of the woods...

https://deadline.com/2023/04/alec-baldwin-charges-dropped-rust-shooting-halyna-hutchins-1235329568/

 

[ahalpert]

Not out of the woods...

https://deadline.com/2023/04/alec-baldwin-charges-dropped-rust-shooting-halyna-hutchins-1235329568/

Sounds like something they say to placate people who think he should be charged. My feeling is that he is out of the woods. And it's a bad outcome for set safety that the producers and the actor get to walk. Encourages more gambling with safety

 

[JAMedia]

My feeling is that he is out of the woods. And it's a bad outcome for set safety that the producers and the actor get to walk. Encourages more gambling with safety

I would agree that the Producers and armourer should be held responsible. The former set up the processes and running of the production, and the latter is specifically responsible for the weapons. Though, you can't blame the actor. (the blur here is the actor is also a producer) There should not have been live ammunition on the location (let alone the set) There is no way the actor could have determined if the round was live or dummy without completely unloading the gun and checking every round. Also in that set I am not sure if there was enough distinction in appearance between the live and dummy rounds. So you can't expect an actor to be responsible. This is not a shooting range.

Where ever I have worked with both live and dummy rounds, the dummies are very clearly different. Though in that case we were training people, not doing a film.
EDIT In this video, Massad Ayoob looks at shoulder holsters and talks about the cross draw holster (not dissimilar to the one Baldwin was using) and mentions that it is easy to connect with the trigger even if consciously you think you haven't. So Baldwin might actually believe he didn't have a finger on the trigger, or it might have been the gun. The interesting note was that the firearm had been modified and could have accidentally discharged. This is down to the armourer.

 

[Doug Bee]

There is no way the actor could have determined if the round was live or dummy without completely unloading the gun and checking every round.

That is exactly what should happen every time a weapon is handed to an actor. This is the established protocol when working with dummy rounds.

The rounds are all taken out and shaken. A dummy round has some little balls inside that rattle when you shake them. Thus you know the round is a dummy round. Every armour I've worked with goes through this ritual of shaking each round for the actor, inviting the actor to verify for themselves.

I know a lot of actors that would dry fire the weapon to make sure the weapon doesn't fire rounds either, usually into the ground, which isn't the safest if their is a round or blank that is live, but better than killing someone.

They should do this whenever they hand the weapon to the actor. Once the take is over they take the weapon back and this would reset the check to be done the next time the weapon is handed to the actor.

The actor's responsibility is to double check this before they just accept a weapon being handed to them that they are told is safe. That's not good enough. The first red flag is that the AD is handing him a weapon. He should have stopped right there. The onus was on him to not proceed with the rehearsal. Of course the AD shouldn't have handed him the weapon and the armour shouldn't have left them out of their sight.

Also, no matter what the actor should never ever point a weapon at any person. That's just 101. It's never required in a movie. Don't point guns at any person. period. Basic guns safe practice on and off set.

On this rehearsal, there shouldn't have even been dummy rounds in the weapon either. Another red flag that was missed by AD and actor.

Three lackadsical people got her killed and it should never have happened and was entirely preventable, especially when the victims own department walked that very morning because of continued unsafe gunplay and the guy pointing the gun at her would have known they left because of concern for unsafe working conditions and general gun safety.

 

[JAMedia]

The rounds are all taken out and shaken. A dummy round has some little balls inside that rattle when you shake them. Thus you know the round is a dummy round.

That is incorrect. Not all dummy rounds have balls in them. I had lots that don't.
Also, from what I have read, the dummy rounds on the set were differentiated by the colour of the primer.... Which is ludicrous, as I have had live rounds with both the "silver" and "gold" primers.

That said, and I repeat (ad nusium) there should not have been ANY live rounds at that location. (unless there was a completely separate armed security)

I know a lot of actors that would dry fire the weapon to make sure the weapon doesn't fire rounds either, usually into the ground, which isn't the safest if there is a round or blank that is live, but better than killing someone.

Agreed on both points. Though not practical on firearms with a magazine. Do they fire all 5.6.7.8 rounds in the revolver?

They should do this whenever they hand the weapon to the actor. Once the take is over they take the weapon back and this would reset the check to be done the next time the weapon is handed to the actor.

I would agree on a range, or any place where live ammunition is used. But there should be no live ammunition on the location. However, the armourer should always check the weapons and ammunition every time, It is their responsibility not the actor. Though I have spent most of my time with real firearms and live ammunition from .22 to 30 mm.

The actor's responsibility is to double check this before they just accept a weapon being handed to them that they are told is safe. That's not good enough. The first red flag is that the AD is handing him a weapon. He should have stopped right there. The onus was on him to not proceed with the rehearsal. Of course the AD shouldn't have handed him the weapon and the armour shouldn't have left them out of their sight.

This is where we disagree. The actor has been handed a prop. This is not a gun range, there is NO LIVE AMMUNITION ON SET. How does the actor check the phasor or laser gun? (there are real lazer weapons) On a gun range with guns and ammunition, *every person* who handles the firearm is responsible for the firearm. On a film set where there is no live ammunition, when the actor is handed a prop they can not be expected to check it. What if the actor is an 8-year-old child?

Also, no matter what the actor should never ever point a weapon at any person. That's just 101. It's never required in a movie. Don't point guns at any person. period. Basic guns safe practice on and off set..

Correct. If it was a range or anywhere else with live firearms. In this case it was not a weapon, it was a prop on a location where there was no live ammunition. There are times when a prop is pointed at someone. I can think of many films where this has happened. Deer Hunter?

You are confusing range safety for real guns and live ammunition with a film set with props and no live ammunition at the location.
As a military Range Officer, I was very strict. Also, when training less confident civilians on handguns, you really have to take a lot of care.

On this rehearsal, there shouldn't have even been dummy rounds in the weapon, either. Another red flag that was missed by AD and actor..

Agreed that the Armourer and AD should have picked this up. Though, I note that (I am sure I read) the gun belt Baldwin was wearing also had a mix of live and dummy rounds on plain view and no one picked that up either. I don't think you can blame Baldwin the actor. Though Baldwin the producer is another matter.

Three lackadsical people got her killed and it should never have happened and was entirely preventable, especially when the victims own department walked that very morning because of continued unsafe gunplay and the guy pointing the gun at her would have known they left because of concern for unsafe working conditions and general gun safety.

I don;t think you can say three people.

1 The producers should have had the procedures and running of the locations sorted. (all or some producers, I don't know enough to apportion blame)
2 The Armourer There were live rounds mixed in with dummies in several places. There should have been no live ammunition on location. The armourer is culpable.
3 Who put any rounds in the prop for this rehearsal?
4 Who set up the rehearsal with the camera? You don't stand in front of someone and say point it at me! There are, as discussed in this thread, multiple ways of doing this.
This last point sounds a bit like blaming the victim, but they talked him through the rehearsal whilst standing in front of him.

This is not "gun safety" but "props safety" as there should have been no live ammunition on that location.
If this was on a range, You would tear into the idiots standing in front of the firing point as much as the idiot not checking the firearm. It isn't a gun range.

Why were there any live rounds on that location at all?

 

[Doug Bee]

You keep saying there shouldn’t be live rounds.

That’s not the point! Blanks kill people too. Who cares.

if the proper established film armour procedures were followed it wouldn’t have mattered that their were live rounds, which is obviously a problem as well.

I’ve been on many film sets with guns. Dummy rounds are always identifiable by shaking. Sometimes I’ve seen 3D printed ones that are clearly plastic when you handle them.

You only ever need dummy rounds in those six shooter style weapons where you can see unfired bullets on camera in the chambers.

Also, I t’s not a prop. It’s a functional weapon that through careful and strict adherence to protocols, isn’t loaded on set with real bullets. Everyone handling that weapon has a duty to make sure they are handling the weapon safely including and ending with the actor.

I keep hearing it’s a prop gun. It’s a 100% functional weapon. And it must always be treated as such. Saying it’s a prop doesn’t absolve anyone.

It’s absolutely a requirement for the actor to check the gun. If I see an actor not checking the gun then I ask for it to happen.

it was a line up not a rehearsal actually. They were figuring out where he should be pointing the weapon and he was pointing it at her for the best position for camera as she was standing next to the operator.

No gun really required. Fingers would have worked. No dummies required because it’s a line up. No gun required to be used or pointed at a person.

Where was the adherence to standard operating practices?

 

[JAMedia]

You keep saying there shouldnÃÂâÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂt be live rounds.
ThatÃÂâÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂs not the point! Blanks kill people too. Who cares.

Blanks and live rounds should be treated exactly the same. (except on military exercises)
There should only have been dummy rounds at that location (other than any armed security)
You say that ". Dummy rounds are always identifiable by shaking." this is NOT CORRECT!
Also, I know some plastic rounds that are very much live.

I agree, you only need dummy rounds only when filming absolutely requires it. Otherwise, you can use an empty gun.
I think the gun was needed for this rehearsal, though it could have been done with an empty gun.

There were live rounds mixed in with the dummies in multiple places, the gun, the gun belt, the armourer's storage area etc.
That was the problem.

It all comes back to the armourer.

The armourer should have asked, do you need anything in the gun for this rehearsal?
That alone, even with the other screw-ups by the armourer, would have stopped this death.

BTW I have handled live weapons and ammunition (more off than on ranges) far more than I have dummy guns, dummy ammunition and blanks and on film sets. However, a lot of you seem to be mixing range safety and a dislike for Baldwin to colour this.

 

[Peter C.]

High profile cases like are often co opted by factions to make their own point.

I have held the belief from the beginning that who ever hired the armorer and was in charge of the production and allowed the unsafe conditions to exist is mostly to blame. Followed by the armorer who failed to do her job. Lastly Baldwin as a veteran actor and producer should have spoke up when safety protocols were not followed. What makes it tricky is there were like 7 listed producers. We really don’t know is whether Baldwin was only given the title as a perk.

What I would like to see is the movie industry take steps to prevent this from happening again. One of the issues is there is no certification or standards to be met to become an armorer. A low budget film production can hire anyone without any experience or qualifications. Someone who is in that position is more likely to do whatever the production wants because they either don’t know better or want to keep their job.

 

[Doug Bee]

Blanks and live rounds should be treated exactly the same. (except on military exercises)

No. Weapons should be handled like they're loaded with live rounds even when they are used as props on film sets.

There should only have been dummy rounds at that location (other than any armed security)
You say that ". Dummy rounds are always identifiable by shaking." this is NOT CORRECT!
Also, I know some plastic rounds that are very much live.

Three decades of on actual set experience working with many armorers. They all shake the dummy rounds or show you in some way that the rounds can't fire.

I agree, you only need dummy rounds only when filming absolutely requires it. Otherwise, you can use an empty gun.
I think the gun was needed for this rehearsal, though it could have been done with an empty gun.

It wasn't a rehearsal. It was a line up for camera. This is different to a rehearsal.

There were live rounds mixed in with the dummies in multiple places, the gun, the gun belt, the armourer's storage area etc.
That was the problem.

Yes. There should not be live rounds anywhere near a film set.

It all comes back to the armourer.

And the producers that hired her, and the AD that took HER property without her knowledge and the actor for accepting the gun from someone other than the armorer and the actor for not checking the weapon was safe to use and for then pointing it at a person. She was told that she wasn't allowed to exclusively be an armourer any more half way through the show, she now had to help out the props department and was elsewhere doing her "other" job. The producers shouldn't have hired someone so inexperienced as to accept that change to her job and she shouldn't have left the weapons out of her control. She has responsibility sure, but she's a very young person doing her second job and then being told to only do it half the time. Producers shouldn't get to blame her for putting her in that position either.

The armourer should have asked, do you need anything in the gun for this rehearsal?
That alone, even with the other screw-ups by the armourer, would have stopped this death.

Any of the three people responsible could have stopped her death. The Armourer should have had control of the weapons. The AD shouldn't have picked it up. The Actor shouldn't have accepted it when handed to him. If any of those three were doing their job the way they're supposed to then any one of them could have prevented this. It's not just the armourer.

BTW I have handled live weapons and ammunition (more off than on ranges) far more than I have dummy guns, dummy ammunition and blanks and on film sets. However, a lot of you seem to be mixing range safety and a dislike for Baldwin to colour this.

I care very much about safety on set. I'm disappointed you're reading that as a persecution of an actor. We in the camera department are the most likely to be killed or injured. More than stunts.

It's up to us ALL to take individual responsibility for our own safety. If I see unsafe or unconventional use of firearms on set I say something instantly, loudly. The actors aren't absolved of being safe.

Range knowledge isn't as relevant as the safety conventions that are followed by all. The film set isn't special. It's a workplace. It has very well established protocols and norms for the safe use of firearms. Three people didn't follow those conventions and protocols.

I have zero experience using weapons on a range. I detest firearms. I do have 30 years of experience working with them on set though and have been present for two firearms accidents on set, one of them was with myself.

The first was a weapon discharging blanks, The actor firing was meant to be shooting another actor. The angle was tricked for camera so the weapon would look like it was firing at the actor but was safely pointing elsewhere. This was adjusted in the LINE UP. In the take the actor forgot and was "acting" and shot the blank right at the actor. Luckily he was far away and all that happened was he got some wadding in his eye and a trip to hospital for washing it out.

The second time I was in a take when the actor decided to discharge his weapon at a different time than rehearsed. He had 1/4 load blanks and discharged the weapon right near my face. I had the ejected shell in my eye and was lucky to not had something worse. That reasonably well known network actor was fired instantly by the way.

This was a tragic chain of three people not doing their jobs properly, operating safely and working against all norms and conventions. That includes the actor who was also a producer that was a part of creating the working culture on set that allowed this to happen. Actors shouldn't get a free pass because they're "acting". He was the last final safety check after a string of failures in protocol.

He's not more responsible than other two. They all are equally responsible. And maybe he is a little more because he's also a producer, though it was likely a vanity credit and he wasn't meaningfully a producer.