I agree it's not the actor's job to be a firearms or weapons expert, however safe operation is still the legal responsibility for anyone handling a deadly weapon. They can say what they want but you're not absolved of legal responsibility. Baldwin knew his prop was a functional firearm. We'll just have to wait until a jury decides.
Rust
- Thread starter Peter C.
- Start date
JAMedia
Well-known member
Baldwin knew it was a functional firearm containing dummy ammunition. He had been assured that by the person handing it to him. Actors handle all sorts of props. Phasors, Laser blasters, Tazers, rubber firearms, replica firearms, Small thermo-nuclear devices, TNT etc. they are props. They have to rely on the Prop Master and Armourer to make sure the device is what it says it is.
It is clear the actor was handed a prop with live ammunition in it. That was the bandoleer, which apparently contained a mix of live and dummy ammunition/. Likewise, the prop pistol.
Should the actor have checked every round on him in the bandoleer, gun belt and pistol? There is no way to tell these live and dummy rounds apart. Unless the dummies were missing the primer or had a large hole in the side of the case.
So much for the Actor. The Producer's job is another matter.
There were several Producers, Baldwin may be culpable for his role as producer, though on the day he was not on set as a producer. Its going to get messy and he-said/she-said with lots of emails and texts in court.
Obviously we shall have to ensure that as Peter C.started this thread he and this thread, especially the comments in it, get brought up in court as I hear Peter is angling for Harrison Ford to play him in the movie of the case "Lead it Be!"
.The "I didn't think it was loaded" excuse has many precedents. It's been used in so many cases it's seldom a defense. And if checking every round in the bandoleer, gun belt and pistol would have saved the life of Halyna Hutchins, then no, it would not have been too much to ask. The reason for using real firearms and not checking the ammunition on set was purely because people were too cheap and in too much of a hurry to respect life.
JAMedia
Well-known member
The actor has no way of checking the rounds. Also, it is not their job to do so.
I already said that. So did SAG-AFTRA. Now a jury will decide if that is a cloak against the individual responsibility obliged by everyone else handling a dangerous weapon, or if an 'actor' is granted special protections from legal liability normally afforded only to people such as law enforcement.
CharlesPapert
Director of Photography
Why did you put actor in quotes?
I'd say it is pretty easy. Just aim it at the DP and cycle though the chambers.
Correction - The prosecution has a decent chance of convincing a jury. The text I read was outdated and often quoted on several sites. Here is the correct text:
"Involuntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to felony, or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection."
18 month sentence is prescribed.
Let the dvxser jury pool discussion continue.
Last edited:
JAMedia
Well-known member
The actor was not handling a dangerous weapon. He was handling a prop.
JA, is it possible that the gun was a weapon and a prop or are they exclusive?
It was a dangerous weapon and not just a prop.
It was a fully functional weapon. Many times on set they also have non-functional weapons. A weapon that has been permanently modified to never function again. Or a dummy weapon, typically rubber. Or a replica weapon, often an airsoft that can still fire a projectile, just not bullets and not loaded.
They are all PROPS handled by a PROPMASTER that each have different protocols for how they are handled on set.
He was not expecting a non functional weapon and would have known it was a real weapon, just not expecting it to be loaded.
In this case it 100% was a functional weapon and it 100% was not handled correctly by the actor / producer, the AD and the propmaster.
I have seen actors check rounds, and they should.
Dummy rounds usually have bearings loaded so they rattle when you shake them. The rear cap is often marked as well. This is usually demonstrated any time the weapon is handed to the actor. Ive also seen actors then dry fire the weapon into the ground. Not exactly good practice, but a lot less likely to kill someone.
Again, protocols were not followed by the actor, the AD and the prop master, any of which would have prevented this. Saying I did not think it was loaded does not cut it when you have not been handed the weapon in the USUAL way you would expect to be handed the weapon which involves demonstrating it is safe before handing it over, not just saying its safe.
Last edited:
JAMedia
Well-known member
Which rounds? You are assuming all actors are familiar with all weapons.
This is a silly idea.
Usually and often.... Yet no dummy round I have used has conformed to those criteria.
Interesting you given the identifiers you have because in other parts of this thread others have given different ways of identifying dummy rounds. One depended on the colour of the primer that was completley, and would be fatally, wrong.
Another usually.... I agree it is good practice on a gun range but the problem is how do you demonstrate a phasor or a tazor is unloaded and safe? Films use props.
This is good practice with self loaders (and SA revolvers) as it shows the chamber is empty (until it is cocked). It is pointless with DA revolvers because if you operate the trigger it goes to the next chamber. In this case the evidence says the SA revolver was being cocked so a dry fire would have fired the first chamber, then when he went though the actions fired the next chamber.
In this specific case it would have fired the live round into the ground BUT as you are talking about changing things that were random anyway you are still just as likley to have had a dummy round on the dry fire and a live in the next chamber
I would say the AD, Prop master and Armourer. Also the producers re the overall running of the location and selection of the armourer. This should have been looked at carefully on a western with a lot of gun play in it.
Err the prop WAS supposed to be loaded.... with dummy rounds. There should have been no live rounds on set. or indeed the location. (other than any armed security who would be completely seperate. ) This is a film set with props. Not a gun range.
I know when doing military exercises with blank rounds the whole point is that there are no live rounds involved anywhere on the exercise. Especially as you can be operating at night, in smoke etc. under stress and at speed.
For me the problem was the Armourer and the processes on set. The hiring of the armourer and the processes come back to the Producers.
Wow. You have no idea then.
The ARMOURER who is sometimes the propmaster as well DEMONSTRATES the weapon is safe everytime the weapon is handed to the actor. They do this by showing the weapon is non-functional or if dummy rounds are used they will demonstrate that the rounds are dummy rounds (shaking them) and showing nothing else is in the chamber. This happens before every take or whenever the actor takes possession of the weapon. The AD is also present and supervising seeing as the AD is also the responsible corporate entity representing the producers on set.
This is the normal protocol. If you think this does not happen on almost all sets then you have never been on a US union set.
The propmaster / armour may have their own way of demonstrating the rounds are dummies. But it will be consistent for THAT production ad the process is the same. No one is depending on the color of a primer. You are making a leap. I also said MARKED. I did not say it was a different color primer.
No they do not. They are often real functional weapons. Stop making false statements. By your earlier statement you have not spent time on real sets.You are not talking from a true position of inside knowledge. At best you have firearm knowledge which is not the same. You have no idea of conventional on set drama firearm safety protocols.
And really? You are being pedantic about language. I could say ALWAYS but clearly as happened with RUST it is not the case. Happy now?
By the way the propsmaster that you have clearly never ever been around would still DEMONSTRATE the weapon is a non functional weapon each time it is handed to the actor. Once agin shows you hav no idea of film set protocol.
Dry fire beyond the capacity of the weapon is normal to demonstrate all rounds are dummy. I use this as an anecdote to demonstate that actors sometimes do this although it is not required protocol and is done AFTER they have had the weapon show to them to be clear and safe to operate. Many actors take their weapon handling seriously. Live rounds are NEVER EVER EVER used on a film set, but blanks are, and dry firing a blank like this would probably be safe if one happened to be in the spout or in ANY of the chambers. But go ahead and try to defend the guy
I did say actor / producer. The AD is the producers representative on set in a legal sense of the word.
And there are extensive protocols to ensure no one is killed by a routinely used FUNCTIONAL NON PROP weapon fitted with dummy rounds. None of these protocols were followed by the actor / producer who accepted a weapon that was not DEMONSTATED to be safe, by an AD that should not have handed him a weapon at all, from a propmaster who left the weapon unattended.
Who cares. This is not the military so maybe stop using that logic on a film set.
I agree. The actor is the last part of that process and is not absolved of responsibility as is the AD as a producers representative. On top of that he is also one of the producers.
Last edited:
When the process is followed and everything goes according to plan, we will never hear about it nor need to. It's when it doesn't that the legal implications arise. SAG-AFTRA weighing in that an actor’s job is not to be a firearms or weapons expert deserves some examination as well considering the portrayals of superheroes winning the day through bravery and prowess and yet, it's not their job to know anything about what they are portraying? For Rust, the actor couldn't be expected to check the ammunition, but what was the necessity of having anything at all in the gun, they weren't even filming? Why would you create a chain of safety protocols that didn't include the most important link, the one with the last clear chance to avoid (or cause) mishap?
I'm honestly sick of the stupid, exploitive depictions of gun play, violence and all the sick, depraved ways we can dream of portraying death and cruelty. In 1965 the CBS series, The Wild Wild West had very little actual gun play yet ran afoul of the CBS censors because of the excessive depiction of martial arts. By the last year of its 4-year run, the character James West portrayed by Robert Conrad no longer wore a sidearm. The show won its time slot each year of its run but was eventually cancelled by CBS due to the violence. Contrast that mild violence to the tv shows of today, SWAT, FBI (3), Magnum PI, Hawaii FiveO, NCIS (2), CSI (3), Seal Team, at least 12 shows and that's just one network. Every show exactly the same, a bunch of tactical superheroes breaking down doors, hunting down and shooting bad guys en masse. Is it any wonder?
Last edited:
Sorry but I believe actors do have an obligation to generally behave in a workplace in a safe manner complying with the regular safety protocols that cover most worksites.
I can not stress enough how irregular it is for an actor to just take a weapon handed to them by an AD and not have it be shown to be safe by a props person or armourer. It just is not done that way. That is a giant red flag.
The AD should not have done it. The actor should not have accepted it. By accepting it, they must accept responsibility. Being told it was safe by someone that they should not ever have listened to makes it their fault as much as the AD and propsmaster
By the way they were doing what is known as a line up, checking the shot so they could look at the frame. Halynya was checking the frame over the Steadicam operators shoulder while the actor producer pointed the gun.
It did not need to be loaded.
It did not need to be a gun really. It could have been a replica or a rubber, often used for this exact purpose.
If it makes you feel any better after this happened all the audios moved to remove blank firing weapons as stunts. This is not what happened here obviously but till now most of the deaths had been from blanks. I am on a Warner Brothers project and they are adamant about no blanks.
Thats a big difference to when I started. I have seen several firearm accidents from weapons including injuries. In one incident on a major studio series the actor was fired from the show because they discharged their weapon with a blank deliberately early to prove a logic point about when they would fire. They injured an operator who was not in the correct position.
Last edited: