[PB PM]

Even if unintentional, manslaughter charges are possible. Sucks either way.

[Dr. Bobsky]

Poor everyone involved... I guess it wouldn't hurt to require technical folks to wear some amount of body armour when working around prop guns...

[turtle]

Manslaughter is exactly what happened by legal definition in every realm I've seen, accidental death at your hands. Of course there are other factors and will it ever be pursued?

Personally I'm not one to ever trust a firearm without verifying it is safe myself. Don't ever hand me a gun that doesn't have its chamber opened and magazine removed. If it is on a table and I have to pick it up then I'm going to clear it before using it.

When I had my wife help me with this shot on the original post in Color Photography thread it was grueling. We didn't want to be a statistic and we both are adamant about firearm safety. Every single take and retake she had to clear the weapon even though bullets weren't in the same room with us.

[psmith2.0]

Might not be a bad idea.

You’d think they’d just use simple, safe cap gun type of stuff since they’re going to dub in the big “movie gun” sound we all know anyway. It’s strange they use things that, if not properly rigged up - or if someone forgets to do this or that to them before the take - they could do the damage of a real gun!

It doesn’t happen often, no…but at least three people would still be alive today had they not been killed by a “prop” gun that acted like a real one.

Where’s the “prop” in all this? When I think of that word, “non-functioning” is what comes to mind. Dub in the sound and CGI any smoke or muzzle flash if necessary.

If I were an actor and doing a scene where I was going to be shot - or I had to “shoot” another cast member - I’d be a nervous wreck, constantly demanding the gun be checked between takes, etc. i wouldn’t have to rely on any acting skills to convey fear in that scenario. You see those gangster/mafia type movies with people getting shot in the head at close range (Goodfellas, The Departed, etc.). I don’t know if I’d be able to do one of those scenes, I’d be so worried and spun up.

[drewprops]

Having worked props for more than a decade and having several friends who still practice I can tell you that gun safety on set (for longtime pro crew) is a religion. They would be happy if every show used replicas and effects were added later. Without details the Baldwin case could be any number of failures. Being an indie film doesn't necessarily mean that they were using inexperienced crew, but the gut reaction is that they might have. Armorers don't rent out their weapons to just anyone. So many questions.


...

[psmith2.0]

Yeah, I’ve got many. Chiefly, how two behind-the-camera people were the ones who got shot, vs. the expected on-screen cast member like you’d assume (filming a shootout or duel or whatever).

The DP and director…how were they in the line of fire, of all people?

Were they filming a stylish shot where Baldwin is shooting into the camera, like you see in some movies (Pesci at the very end of Goodfellas)? And they were behind it as he fired multiple, quick shots and he didn’t know things went wrong immediately (couldn’t see them, etc.).

Or, between takes, was he horsing around and points/pulls the trigger as a joke? Which would certainly buy him more trouble, I’d think.

But two people shot? Did he pull the trigger twice before he realized something went wrong/people were hurt?

Yeah, two behind-the-camera people shot is way more perplexing and “huh?!” than had it been another actor while filming a scene where their character is supposed to get shot and is, therefore, in the prop gun’s line of fire (like what happened with Brandon Lee).

Strange.

[turtle]

I could totally see a shot where the camera's perspective is looking at him shooting. However, if I were in the line of fire where the gun were pointed I still wouldn't stand there, I'd relocate myself.

[PB PM]

It does seem odd, don’t most movies use blanks rather than live ammo?

[psmith2.0]

Of course, but if you read the Brandon Lee (and Jon-Erik Hexum) details, even prop movie guns using blanks can still discharge material and, in Lee’s case, somehow some sort of projectile was unknowingly lodged in the gun and came out.

I don’t know if these things add to the realism (smoke, flash, etc.) and maybe that’s why they’re used?

It’s not an epidemic, of course. But still…nobody needs to get shot and die filming a movie.

[chucker]

My vague understanding is that you cannot have realistic gun behavior without the projectile being somewhat dangerous.

[PB PM]

Originally Posted by psmith2.0 Of course, but if you read the Brandon Lee (and Jon-Erik Hexum) details, even prop movie guns using blanks can still discharge material and, in Lee’s case, somehow some sort of projectile was unknowingly lodged in the gun and came out. I don’t know if these things add to the realism (smoke, flash, etc.) and maybe that’s why they’re used? It’s not an epidemic, of course. But still…nobody needs to get shot and die filming a movie.

I’m not familiar with that case, but it does make sense. I recall a historian talking about the movie Gettysburg, and that even though they only ever fired blanks a good number of the extras were still injured, simply due to how close they were to the weapon. I suppose just the velocity of anything being fired can do harm.

[psmith2.0]

I think some wadding may come out. The closer to it, the greater the risk. Especially in a vulnerable area (head/neck, chest).

Yeah, movie prop guns, shooting blanks, have killed people somehow. As I said above, I’d be so scared to film such a scene.

“Is this the day the prop/gun guy is nursing a hangover or isn’t on his game 100%, and I get killed filming a silly movie?”

I don’t know how Clint, Pacino and all those guys do it!

[kscherer]

Years ago, there was an actor on a show who thought it would be funny to point a prop gun at his head and pull the trigger.

On set.

The gun fired blanks, and the wadding penetrated his skull and killed him.

There were a few episodes filmed after that with a replacement actor, but then it got canceled. I forget the show and can't be bothered to look it up (it was in the '80's).

Point is, blanks have a cap holding back the powder, and those caps (or wadding) are propelled at high enough velocity that they can be dangerous. That this happened in the past — and then happened again — tells me that human attention span is short-lived. Actually, I'm surprised Hollywood hadn't fixed this problem since the last time it happened. I suspect they're gonna fix it, now, because there is going to be a gigantic lawsuit that will force the issue.

[drewprops]

There IS a fix.

They won a technical Oscar for it.

It's called a "non-gun".

There's a chemical charge that goes off.

Non-lethal.

...

[kscherer]

Must be too expensive for a rich guy like Alec Baldwin to use?

[709]

Originally Posted by kscherer Years ago, there was an actor on a show who thought it would be funny to point a prop gun at his head and pull the trigger. On set. The gun fired blanks, and the wadding penetrated his skull and killed him. There were a few episodes filmed after that with a replacement actor, but then it got canceled. I forget the show and can't be bothered to look it up (it was in the '80's).

That was the guy Mr. Smith mentions a few posts above: Jon-Erik Hexum. He was an organ donor, so not all was lost.

[kscherer]

Originally Posted by 709 That was the guy Mr. Smith mentions a few posts above: Jon-Erik Hexum. He was an organ donor, so not all was lost.

Yes, thank you for that.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by kscherer Actually, I'm surprised Hollywood hadn't fixed this problem since the last time it happened. I suspect they're gonna fix it, now, because there is going to be a gigantic lawsuit that will force the issue.

My guess: the problem went away for a while as CGI was used a lot in the 1990s. Then the countermovement of “sometimes, practical effects feel more right” started, and so this problem reappeared.

[kscherer]

I'm sure Drew could chime in on this.

Right, drew?

Drew?

[psmith2.0]

He has, above. A couple of times. He's the only one here, that I know of, with first-hand insight/experience in that field.

Originally Posted by drewprops Having worked props for more than a decade and having several friends who still practice I can tell you that gun safety on set (for longtime pro crew) is a religion. They would be happy if every show used replicas and effects were added later. Without details the Baldwin case could be any number of failures. Being an indie film doesn't necessarily mean that they were using inexperienced crew, but the gut reaction is that they might have. Armorers don't rent out their weapons to just anyone. So many questions. ...

Originally Posted by drewprops There IS a fix. They won a technical Oscar for it. It's called a "non-gun". There's a chemical charge that goes off. Non-lethal. ...

There are folks on set whose sole job/responsibility it is to make sure these firearms props are safe and working as they should. These people, as it turns out, are also human, so...

[kscherer]

Yeah, there's a lot of unanswered questions that an investigation is going to answer, and somewhere a head is going to roll.

This doesn't seem like something that is "just an accident". Someone fell down, conspired, or just plain did a stupid!

[psmith2.0]

I agree.

I'd love to know how two behind-the-camera people got shot. There are only a handful of plausible scenarios. One is a genuine, tragic accident involving a botched, careless rigging. The other makes Baldwin look like an irresponsible, oblivious horse's ass. I sure hope it's the former, for his sake.

[drewprops]

I have a few more details that I've learned about the propmaster but they're not necessarily relevant to the actions that took place, other than experience level.

Non-guns are generally used in situations where you can't safely use blanks.

I don't have any details about the conditions surrounding the shooting and there are just too many unknowns with the case right now.

There WAS apparently a walk out by some of the crew over conditions on the show. Was production cutting corners? Too early to say.


...

[psmith2.0]

Oh no.

Yeah, there may be some head-rolling and legal action coming if that sort of stuff turns out to be so. A troubled production, maybe.

Poor young woman is dead who shouldn't be.

[Ryan]

The LA Times reports that there were three previous misfires on this set.

What in the hell was going on down there?

[psmith2.0]

An article with some more info/details.

An eyewitness on set tells this column that the bullet went straight through the body of DP Halyna Hutchins and into the clavicle of the film’s director Joel Souza.

So one firing/one bullet, not multiples, that struck two people.

On the ground, Baldwin was in shock but composed. He kept asking why he was handed a “hot gun.” Our eyewitness said Baldwin kept saying “In all my years, I’ve never been handed a hot gun.” “A hot gun” means a gun with real ammunition.

Uh, yeah...why was he handed a "hot gun"?! On a movie set. With others around, not looking/planning to be shot?



What may wind up playing a factor over all else:

Rust is a Tier 1 one movie, meaning it was being produced for under $6 million. Our source says: “They had safety meetings every day but it was a Tier I movie, so they probably didn’t have more than 1 prop person.” According to the imdb, there was one key medic on the staff and two stunt people.

I'd never heard of that, a "tier" system as it relates to budgets. I just always thought "low budget was low budget". Didn't know there were degrees, etc. I didn't know a movie with name, known talent could be made for less than $6M. Frances Fisher and Jensen Ackles (you'd recognize their faces from other movies/TV shows...she was in Unforgiven and Titanic and he was in that Supernatural TV show) were in the cast as well.

And...

Sources say the production has been halted but as with the movie about Gregg Allman’s life, in which a crew member was killed because of negligence, lawsuits will now override any chance to that movie being finished.

Even if no legal/criminal actions come, the civil/lawsuit stuff will probably be huge.

The lady who died - cinematographer Halyna Hutchins -hnhn had a husband and one child. Can't imagine what they must be going through.

If it becomes known that safety protocols were lax/lacking, regulations being flouted, corners cut, issues/concerns raised (and ignored), etc...yikes! It'll be a head-rolling bloodbath and some people/companies are going to lose their ass.

But maybe they need to if turns out it was a known dangerous, unsafe set.

[psmith2.0]

Wow, a whole six years?! She probably would've gotten more than that from not wearing a mask in Arby's, ffs.

- A woman used a false wall to conceal 26 kids at her daycare in Colorado, police said. - An affidavit said some of he kids were found with soiled or wet diapers and were thirsty. - The owner, Carla Faith, was sentenced to six years in prison on Thursday.

I sure hope the judge didn't overexert himself or anything. He may have to take some vacation time after imposing such a draconian sentence.

Once again I find myself wondering "WTF does someone have to do to face true, serious consequences for their horrible, evil actions?"

She didn't "accidentally" put those kids there, after all.

Police said Faith refused to cooperate [I support the Andy Sipowicz "Beat It Out of Them" Protocol™ in warranted, deserving cases - Paul] but they eventually found a false wall that led to a furnished basement where they found 26 children and two adults. The affidavit said the kids were all under three and that police noticed "many of the children had soiled or wet diapers, were sweating, and were very thirsty upon contact."

No kidding, I imagine they were!

How long were they there? Do they not have parents wondering where they were, or why they were in such condition?

PS - Looking like a wicked witch in your mugshot doesn't help your case one bit, lady.

[Ryan]

Colorado Springs is a strange fucking place.

[psmith2.0]

With kid-hiding witches, no less.

Crazy woman taking the approaching holiday a bit too seriously, it seems.

I can only imagine the unhinged horseshit her court-appointed defense is going to come up with...

[psmith2.0]

Bouncing back to the Baldwin thing for a minute, a couple of interesting things I noticed, just from prowling IMDb this morning:

1) Something I've yet to see pointed out in any article/story, but Alec Baldwin is actually one of the producers (12 total, producers and executive producers) of Rust, which may put him more in the hot-seat in terms of liability or responsibility. In other words, he wasn't just hired, on-screen talent...he's got a higher-up leadership/overseeing type of role and stake in things as well, which could mean he's got some things to answer for re: on-set safety, any lapses or violations, etc. That might be the kind of thing worth noting in an article, if only in passing. "In addition to his starring role, Baldwin is also serving as one the producers on the troubled project..." or whatever.

2) The armorer, Hannah Gutierrez, has only three credits listed. One was costume assistant on a movie from 2020 (Millennium Bugs), then armorer on Rust, but it's showing that she was "head armorer" on a movie slated for 2022 release (another western, The Old Way, with Nicolas Cage no less) and it's currently in post-production, meaning she'd already wrapped up work on it, making Rust her second movie as a set armorer/firearms coordinator. Seems like someone with her lack of experience is better suited for an "assistant armorer" type of role, while she learns the trade under someone far more experienced. But if the low budget didn't allow for either a more experienced armorer or a two-person crew (an experienced head and she being their assistant/apprentice), then they just went with whoever they could get for the money, even if the solid, earned experience wasn't there yet? If this all legitimately comes back to her - lapses, wrongly-prepared props, irresponsible/sloppy working style, the introduction of live ammo into what should've been a non-firing, "cold" prop gun, etc. - she's fucked.

3) Looking at the IMDb credits for Rust, it seems the number of producers/executive producers (12 total) matches, if not outnumbers, the actual working crew. The director/writer are the same person, a cinematographer (now deceased), an assistant director, two people in the hair/makeup crew, a script/continuity supervisor, one sound person, someone whose job is "digital utility", one stunt coordinator, one armorer (Ms. Gutierrez), a livestock coordinator and one medic. Shakes out to about 12 people. I realize maybe not everyone on an in-production, low-budget movie may be currently listed, but I'm betting it's not too far off. It's a sub-$6M movie, after all, and they're not going to have 84,000 crew members like an Avengers or Star Wars movie (100+ visual effects artists, dozens of stunt performers, a huge hair/makeup/wardrobe department, numerous prop/modelmakers, second unit director/crew, catering and security, personal assistants to the bigger names, composer, music clearing, etc.).

Quite top-heavy, all those listed producers (who'll probably soon wish they weren't) vs. crew/artists doing the actual work. Reminds me of some of my past jobs with all the overlapping managers and "too many cooks in the kitchen" culture. Makes everything a lot tougher/complicated, in my experience.