Accident on the set of Rust.

Status
Not open for further replies.
robstyle said:
The "live" ammunition is why I'm following the case so closely. There have been third party claims an actual bullet was involved. At the same time news media being what they are have been knowingly using the term "live ammunition" out of context with little to no clarity.

Was it confirmed the prior leisure shooting took place on set?
Click to expand...
Blank ammunition can't shoot a wad through one person and injure someone behind them. Only a bullet can do that.
 
I didn't stop posting in this thread because some troll "won".
I've said my piece, and I stand by it.
If I hand someone a loaded gun, I'm responsible for the consequences.
Any gun safety "expert" who would put a loaded gun in someone's hand, tell them it isn't loaded, then blame that person when something tragic happens, is no "expert" in gun safety, and is frankly dangerous. I wouldn't let that person even LOOK at my guns, much less touch them.

The fact is the Rust gun got past 2 people who had a responsibility to insure the safety of everyone on set before it was handed to AB. AB trusted them, and they failed him. Should he have checked and cleared the gun himself? In hind sight, yes. But as a producer he was paying people to do that for him. They didn't do their jobs, and somebody died.
 
Axlotl said:
I didn't stop posting in this thread because some troll "won".
I've said my piece, and I stand by it.
If I hand someone a loaded gun, I'm responsible for the consequences.
Any gun safety "expert" who would put a loaded gun in someone's hand, tell them it isn't loaded, then blame that person when something tragic happens, is no "expert" in gun safety, and is frankly dangerous. I wouldn't let that person even LOOK at my guns, much less touch them.

The fact is the Rust gun got past 2 people who had a responsibility to insure the safety of everyone on set before it was handed to AB. AB trusted them, and they failed him. Should he have checked and cleared the gun himself? In hind sight, yes. But as a producer he was paying people to do that for him. They didn't do their jobs, and somebody died.
Click to expand...
Amen! Those people share the responsibility for this tragedy.
 
So maybe we all just settle this after school in the playground by the jungle gym? No bringing parents or older brothers.
 
Axlotl said:
I didn't stop posting in this thread because some troll "won".
I've said my piece, and I stand by it.
If I hand someone a loaded gun, I'm responsible for the consequences.
Any gun safety "expert" who would put a loaded gun in someone's hand, tell them it isn't loaded, then blame that person when something tragic happens, is no "expert" in gun safety, and is frankly dangerous. I wouldn't let that person even LOOK at my guns, much less touch them.

The fact is the Rust gun got past 2 people who had a responsibility to insure the safety of everyone on set before it was handed to AB. AB trusted them, and they failed him. Should he have checked and cleared the gun himself? In hind sight, yes. But as a producer he was paying people to do that for him. They didn't do their jobs, and somebody died.
Click to expand...
At the same time, gun safety protocol dictates that you assume all guns are always loaded, even when it's unloaded. It's called trust but verify, so when you get handed a gun by someone, it's up to you to check to make sure that it's unloaded, even if someone says that it is.

When I was in the Marines, whenever we drew our rifles from the armory, the armorer on duty would open the action of the rifle and check to make sure there was no live round in the chamber before handing it to us. Once we got the rifle, we then checked the chamber ourselves to make doubly sure that we weren't handed a weapon with a round in the chamber. This is what Alec Baldwin should have done when handed the gun, but no, he just assumed that what he was told was correct and went from there. He can't even use the excuse that they were actually filming at that moment and the scene called for him to aim at the camera. He was practicing drawing the gun from the holster, which didn't require him to be pointing the weapon at the cameras and crew, another violation of basic firearms safety; never point a gun at anything you do not intend to destroy.
 
Axlotl said:
I didn't stop posting in this thread because some troll "won".
I've said my piece, and I stand by it.
If I hand someone a loaded gun, I'm responsible for the consequences.
Any gun safety "expert" who would put a loaded gun in someone's hand, tell them it isn't loaded, then blame that person when something tragic happens, is no "expert" in gun safety, and is frankly dangerous. I wouldn't let that person even LOOK at my guns, much less touch them.

The fact is the Rust gun got past 2 people who had a responsibility to insure the safety of everyone on set before it was handed to AB. AB trusted them, and they failed him. Should he have checked and cleared the gun himself? In hind sight, yes. But as a producer he was paying people to do that for him. They didn't do their jobs, and somebody died.
Click to expand...
I agree with all this, but if it's found out that AB (as an executive producer) was responsible for cutting corners to save money given the tiny budget, and that involved hiring an armorer with little to no experience to oversee all the firearms, plus all the seemingly red flags that other members were raising who even walked off set earlier - then that further complicates the matters IMO.

Regardless, AB still should've checked the weapon despite it being declared 'cold'.
 
dascoyne said:
Blank ammunition can't shoot a wad through one person and injure someone behind them. Only a bullet can do that.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. It's still not been verified, to my knowledge, what the projectile was nor how it came into play. Was it an actual live bullet loaded into the weapon, was it a barrel obstruction, if a barrel obstruction was it an errant prop slug, was it something accidentally loaded into the blank round itself, was it something that lodged itself into the blank round prior to being loaded into the weapon... Lots of things to consider. The last part comes into question as it's been released live and spent rounds were kept together.

As many have stated its gross negligence various people handed over a weapon that's hot/live after stating its cold. Protocol was not followed.

Everyone going on and on and on about gun safety. Based on what we know, a film was being made setting up a scene where a gun is being fired and aimed down camera. All actions in that scene were being acted out during on set camera rehearsal. This is not a case of someone randomly aiming at people with a weapon for funsies and selfies. At the moment it's all unraveling like an episode of a detective series. All that's missing is a love triangle.
 
robstyle said:
Not necessarily. It's still not been verified, to my knowledge, what the projectile was nor how it came into play. Was it an actual live bullet loaded into the weapon, was it a barrel obstruction, if a barrel obstruction was it an errant prop slug, was it something accidentally loaded into the blank round itself, was it something that lodged itself into the blank round prior to being loaded into the weapon... Lots of things to consider. The last part comes into question as it's been released live and spent rounds were kept together.

As many have stated its gross negligence various people handed over a weapon that's hot/live after stating its cold. Protocol was not followed.

Everyone going on and on and on about gun safety. Based on what we know, a film was being made setting up a scene where a gun is being fired and aimed down camera. All actions in that scene were being acted out during on set camera rehearsal. This is not a case of someone randomly aiming at people with a weapon for funsies and selfies. At the moment it's all unraveling like an episode of a detective series. All that's missing is a love triangle.
Click to expand...
Blank ammunition can't shoot a wad through one person and injure someone behind them. Only a bullet can do that.

What's a live bullet?
 
robstyle said:
Not necessarily. It's still not been verified, to my knowledge, what the projectile was nor how it came into play. Was it an actual live bullet loaded into the weapon, was it a barrel obstruction, if a barrel obstruction was it an errant prop slug, was it something accidentally loaded into the blank round itself, was it something that lodged itself into the blank round prior to being loaded into the weapon... Lots of things to consider. The last part comes into question as it's been released live and spent rounds were kept together.

As many have stated its gross negligence various people handed over a weapon that's hot/live after stating its cold. Protocol was not followed.

Everyone going on and on and on about gun safety. Based on what we know, a film was being made setting up a scene where a gun is being fired and aimed down camera. All actions in that scene were being acted out during on set camera rehearsal. This is not a case of someone randomly aiming at people with a weapon for funsies and selfies. At the moment it's all unraveling like an episode of a detective series. All that's missing is a love triangle.
Click to expand...
According to the Sheriff's office, live rounds; the kind with the bullet in the case (non blank) were mixed in with the blanks. It was a 1880's Era specific revolver.
 
gobler said:
According to the Sheriff's office, live rounds; the kind with the bullet in the case (non blank) were mixed in with the blanks. It was a 1880's Era specific revolver.
Click to expand...

Can you post a link to that article? All I can locate from the sheriff's office is official information will be released on weds. I've found nothing directly stating a live bullet/projectile was confirmed. Live round at this moment is still a live blank round.

dascoyne said:
Blank ammunition can't shoot a wad through one person and injure someone behind them. Only a bullet can do that.

What's a live bullet?
Click to expand...

You'll have to go back an read prior postings about blanks and possible projectiles. Until a live bullet is still only speculation until confirmed by authorities. We will likely find out by this time tomorrow. That's the most interesting part. What the projectile is an how it got there.
 
robstyle said:
You'll have to go back an read prior postings about blanks and possible projectiles. Until a live bullet is still only speculation until confirmed by authorities. We will likely find out by this time tomorrow. That's the most interesting part. What the projectile is an how it got there.
Click to expand...
Blank ammunition can't shoot a wad through one person and injure someone behind them. Only a bullet can do that.

Why were you talking about a barrel obstruction? Do you know what actually happens when you fire off a round with an obstructed barrel?

Why were you talking about "something accidentally loaded into the blank round?" I didn't read about anybody handloading ammo on the set.

What's a live bullet?
 
dascoyne said:
Blank ammunition can't shoot a wad through one person and injure someone behind them. Only a bullet can do that.

Why were you talking about a barrel obstruction? Do you know what actually happens when you fire off a round with an obstructed barrel?

Why were you talking about "something accidentally loaded into the blank round?" I didn't read about anybody handloading ammo on the set.

What's a live bullet?
Click to expand...

See how Jon Erik Hexum was killed by a blank round. A wad can kill as can a barrel obstruction dislodged by a blank round, see Brandon Lee.

Again with blank rounds if the blanks in question were made by an independent individual and not sourced by a reputable vendor a number of things are open to speculation. Including the possibility a foreign object had worked its way into that blank round.

Layman's terms. Live bullet. A bullet. An actual bullet. Bang bang. Feel free to add a technical term.


I just read the loose and spent shell casings as well as the fanny pack containing spent and live rounds were on a prior used set location. The question there is was it a hot set. Meaning it's been established on camera and filming will resume. Nothing is to be moved or altered. Walk away. With understaffing going on I would assume this could be a case of face value. Departments that could walk away as is did as this was on a secured film set property. Again speculation.
 
robstyle said:
See how Jon Erik Hexum was killed by a blank round. A wad can kill as can a barrel obstruction dislodged by a blank round, see Brandon Lee.

Again with blank rounds if the blanks in question were made by an independent individual and not sourced by a reputable vendor a number of things are open to speculation. Including the possibility a foreign object had worked its way into that blank round.

Layman's terms. Live bullet. A bullet. An actual bullet. Bang bang. Feel free to add a technical term.


I just read the loose and spent shell casings as well as the fanny pack containing spent and live rounds were on a prior used set location. The question there is was it a hot set. Meaning it's been established on camera and filming will resume. Nothing is to be moved or altered. Walk away. With understaffing going on I would assume this could be a case of face value. Departments that could walk away as is did as this was on a secured film set property. Again speculation.
Click to expand...

A round and a bullet are not the same thing. A bullet is the projectile without the charge or casing. If you ordered 1000 bullets for home defense and you don't have a press in your workshop you might be a little disappointed. A bullet is either spent or unspent. There's no such thing as a live bullet.

John Eric Hexum was killed by a blank charge because he was dumb enough to jokingly press the barrel right up to his temple and fire the wad right into his brain.

Blank ammunition can't shoot a wad through one person and injure someone behind them. Only a bullet can do that.
 
Riceball said:
At the same time, gun safety protocol dictates that you assume all guns are always loaded, even when it's unloaded. It's called trust but verify, so when you get handed a gun by someone, it's up to you to check to make sure that it's unloaded, even if someone says that it is.

When I was in the Marines, whenever we drew our rifles from the armory, the armorer on duty would open the action of the rifle and check to make sure there was no live round in the chamber before handing it to us. Once we got the rifle, we then checked the chamber ourselves to make doubly sure that we weren't handed a weapon with a round in the chamber. This is what Alec Baldwin should have done when handed the gun, but no, he just assumed that what he was told was correct and went from there. He can't even use the excuse that they were actually filming at that moment and the scene called for him to aim at the camera. He was practicing drawing the gun from the holster, which didn't require him to be pointing the weapon at the cameras and crew, another violation of basic firearms safety; never point a gun at anything you do not intend to destroy.
Click to expand...

Wow. That ignore feature works well. I guess I've "won" because I don't have to listen to narcissistic rants. :D

Any weapon given to us in the military has but one purpose. To kill. We were never given blanks. It was always a live round. So there was no other way but to follow procedure. On a movie set, where there isn't supposed to be live rounds (actual bullets) AB will argue that very point. You're right, he should have checked, but because the weapon went through several hands, his lawyer will argue that it is not only his fault and several people are to blame.

If, of course, there are specific rules on set that anyone handling any type of firearm, must ensure the weapon is cleared, then he definitely has a problem there.

I've never fired a blank, but I know that the charge in one may have to be the same or similar to a real cartridge, at least in an semi-automatic or automatic weapon for the components to work properly. Could the force from the blank, when fired close to the camera, be so great as to dislodge pieces of the camera and have them effectively become bullets? I'm thinking yes.

It will be interesting to hear what the medical examiner's findings will be.

TazMan2000
 
robstyle said:
Everyone going on and on and on about gun safety. Based on what we know, a film was being made setting up a scene where a gun is being fired and aimed down camera. All actions in that scene were being acted out during on set camera rehearsal. This is not a case of someone randomly aiming at people with a weapon for funsies and selfies. At the moment it's all unraveling like an episode of a detective series. All that's missing is a love triangle.
Click to expand...
Based on various articles posted here and elsewhere, it didn't sound like a rehearsal to me. The descriptions describe the director and the cinematographer lining up the cameras for the next shot(s) and in the meanwhile, Alec Baldwin took the time to practice drawing the gun from its holster for the upcoming scene. If that's indeed the case, then he could have and should have been doing it while not pointing the gun at the camera(s) and crew. That's after he first checked to see that this cold gun was indeed cold. That's one of the basic tenants of gun safety, you treat every gun as if it's loaded, it doesn't matter if someone hands you it and says that it's not loaded. Unless it's a revolver with a cylinder that swings out to load rounds into or a semi-automatic with the slide locked back and no magazine in the grip and handed to you butt first, you double check to make sure that it really is unloaded. Even if it's handed to you in a way that you can see that it's unloaded, it's not unreasonable to look closer to make sure you're seeing what you think you're seeing.
 
TazMan2000 said:
I've never fired a blank, but I know that the charge in one may have to be the same or similar to a real cartridge, at least in an semi-automatic or automatic weapon for the components to work properly. Could the force from the blank, when fired close to the camera, be so great as to dislodge pieces of the camera and have them effectively become bullets? I'm thinking yes.

It will be interesting to hear what the medical examiner's findings will be.

TazMan2000
Click to expand...
When I went through MCT (Marine Combat Training) after boot camp we did have an exercise where we used blanks. And I don't remember if it happened to my platoon or if it was a story I heard, but one of our instructors actually shot a small rattler that was curled up in a fighting hole with one of our M16s equipped with blanks. At any rate, I remember that particular exercise well because I had what was effectively a bolt action M16 because the stupid blanks didn't have enough power to cycle the bolt after it was shot. So, yes, blanks do get issued in the military. that's why they have blank firing devices for everything larger than a pistol up to the M2.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Prop Collector
The ark of the covenant has been found!
2 3
Replies
46
Views
2,545
JediMichael
JediMichael
Captain Dunsel
Pirates of the Caribbean 6?
2 3 4
Replies
65
Views
2,788
NakedMoleRat
NakedMoleRat
DarthStarkiller
Star Wars prequels based on the old drafts of George Lucas and the old Expanded Universe - Outline
Replies
0
Views
432
DarthStarkiller
DarthStarkiller
gusw666
Looking for the exacto location of the the secret life of Walter Mitty Life Magazine cover
Replies
10
Views
685
drusselmeyer
drusselmeyer
bwayne64
The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare
Replies
8
Views
581
Sundowner
Sundowner
Back
Top