Accident on the set of Rust.

[TazMan2000]

dascoyne
I heard the crew walked out because they were moved from a 4 star hotel to a budget hotel. Whether that was the straw that broke the camel's back, or the unsafe conditions, will probably come out in the investigation.

I see a lot of careers being over.

TazMan2000

 

[JPH]

Regardless of the budget, in my opinion, the real underlying pathology was a hazardous working environment created by a blasé regard for safety throughout the production. A low budget production doesn't have to sacrifice discipline and safety unless it chooses to do so. In this case it seems they chose to explicitly ignore even basic universal standards of safety at multiple levels.

The "casual" atmosphere regarding safety is evident throughout this case.

A veteran propmaster, Neal Zoromski had turned down the job because he felt the production was unsafe from the start. He noted that "producers of the film had combined the roles of assistant prop master and armorer, who manages firearms on set, into one position,... 'I impressed upon them that there were great concerns about that, and they didn’t really respond to my concerns about that..'" So he turned the job down.

This makes the notion of hiring of someone so inexperienced as Hannah Gutierrez Reed to cover that position even more problematic. I'm guessing she came cheap. In her last job on "The Old Way" she fired a gun without warning twice in three days. Even your average recreational shooter isn't that irresponsible. Nick Cage yelled “Make an announcement, you just blew my f—ing eardrums out!” She was a constant concern on the set due to poor muzzle discipline e.g. she would walk around with pistols tucked under her armpits. In another instance she was reprimanded for handing an unchecked rifle to an 11-year old actress. Now, all of a sudden, this same person gets hired to work solo in "Rust" for budgetary reasons. Remember, a veteran propmaster didn't think those conditions were appropriate for even himself.

The very fact that there was live ammunition brought to the set in the first place is a major red flag. I wonder if the rookie armorer was simply too green to appreciate the gravity of her job or was too timid to exert any authority. Maybe she simply became just as casual as everyone else about safety. The director, the AD as well as the veteran actor/producer also know that live ammo shouldn't be anywhere near the set. It looks like everyone just let that slide.

The fact that crew were using the pistol for "target practice" and casual plinking in the desert during lunch breaks is even more alarming still since that means the firearms were not secured, that crew had open access to them and that nobody seemed to mind that this was going on.

During the filming of "Rust" there were already at least two accidental/negligent discharges on set days before the event. In one incident Baldwin's stunt double accidentally fired off two rounds after being told the gun was "cold." (This story sounds strange, actually. I would like to know if those were actual bullets or blanks. I also wonder why he would recock and shoot a second time if there was an accidental first shot. Was he "fanning" the gun?)

Walkout of the crew for working conditions. Some reports say due to wages and safety concerns. I'm getting the feeling it was mostly about wages and working conditions (e.g. having to drive 50 miles back to accommodations combined with long work hours on a short schedule) than about safety. Still, that means the replacement non-union crew didn't even have time to become integrated or familiar with the workflow which amplifies the potential for negligence.

During their press conference the Santa Fe Sherrif's department said there were reports of drinking the night before. (This may or may not even be relevant to the incident. It's odd they brought it up unless the reports were about excessive drinking.)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the actor only supposed to receive the gun directly from the armorer, not the AD? And the armorer would open the action and demonstrate the condition of the gun to the actor. If that is the case, then a safety-conscious person ought to be concerned if the AD was trying to hand them a gun, no?

When he received the gun, Baldwin violated every one of the basic four basic rules of safe gun handling. (explained multiple times in previous posts).

If they were actually shooting a scene where the actor is pointing the gun at the camera lens, I heard the standard practice would be to set up the camera so that the gun doesn't cover a person when filming, even if it is pointing at the lens. I suppose I could see a brief exception where the cinematographer could be standing there if they were "rehearsing" to get the lighting/composition. But, if they were just rehearsing, and Baldwin had to sweep the cinematographer with the muzzle of the gun, why would he put his finger on the trigger unless he was absent-mindedly violating basic rules of gun handling?

While one person didn't create all this risk, there are a couple of people who were there every day and had the authority and responsibility to assess and address safety at all points but chose not to do so. One of them was Alec Baldwin.

I understand it is easy to cherry-pick facts and anecdotes to support a narrative. But, if all or most of this is true, it's hard not to think the entire production was an incubator for disaster.

Here's my completely speculative version of events. I believe the entire production had a "casual" attitude toward safety to the point of completely ignoring many universal industry protocols. I believe guns were unsecured and accessible to crew who were able to use them for casual plinking at off hours. I believe, on the day of the shooting the director and cinematographer were setting up shots. I don't believe Baldwin was rehearsing at the moment, but he was bored and asked the AD to get him the gun for the upcoming shot (or to play with). The AD grabbed the revolver off the table and handed it to Baldwin telling him it was a "cold gun." Maybe the AD checked it alone or with the armorer or maybe he didn't check it at all. I believe that Baldwin didn't check the gun himself and relied on the AD's word. Then, in boredom, just started goofing off and practiced a quickdraw on the cinematographer then accidentally shot her.

Whaaat?!??! No conspiracy theory angle?

1al Union workers opened the safe and put a round in the gun during lunch because Baldwin was using cheaper labor? ... when it goes off, that'll show him!

1b) Cast members tired of the unsafe conditions, knowingly loaded Baldwin's gun to end the production without getting labeled as hard to work with.

2) Baldwin had an argument with his target earlier. A very heated argument... with mistress!

Where will Occam's Razor engage?

I am not saying I buy any of these reasons, but I *have* seen mention of them.

 

[dascoyne]

Whaaat?!??! No conspiracy theory angle?

1al Union workers opened the safe and put a round in the gun during lunch because Baldwin was using cheaper labor? ... when it goes off, that'll show him!

1b) Cast members tired of the unsafe conditions, knowingly loaded Baldwin's gun to end the production without getting labeled as hard to work with.

2) Baldwin had an argument with his target earlier. A very heated argument... with mistress!

Where will Occam's Razor engage?

I am not saying I buy any of these reasons, but I *have* seen mention of them.

But my scenario doesn't preclude any of those conspiracies, either.

I suspect there might have also been a second shooter behind some grassy knoll. If so, nobody is talking.

 

[ghostryder]

Yeesh:

‘Rust’ EPs Disavow Responsibility For Troubled Alec Baldwin Movie: “No Involvement With The Physical And Day-To-Day Production”

Two of the Alec Baldwin film's executive producers are seemingly wiping their hands of the situation in the wake of Halyna Hutchins' death.

deadline.com

 

[gregory]

Regardless of the budget, in my opinion, the real underlying pathology was a hazardous working environment created by a blasé regard for safety throughout the production. A low budget production doesn't have to sacrifice discipline and safety unless it chooses to do so. In this case it seems they chose to explicitly ignore even basic universal standards of safety at multiple levels.

The "casual" atmosphere regarding safety is evident throughout this case.

A veteran propmaster, Neal Zoromski had turned down the job because he felt the production was unsafe from the start. He noted that "producers of the film had combined the roles of assistant prop master and armorer, who manages firearms on set, into one position,... 'I impressed upon them that there were great concerns about that, and they didn’t really respond to my concerns about that..'" So he turned the job down.

This makes the notion of hiring of someone so inexperienced as Hannah Gutierrez Reed to cover that position even more problematic. I'm guessing she came cheap. In her last job on "The Old Way" she fired a gun without warning twice in three days. Even your average recreational shooter isn't that irresponsible. Nick Cage yelled “Make an announcement, you just blew my f—ing eardrums out!” She was a constant concern on the set due to poor muzzle discipline e.g. she would walk around with pistols tucked under her armpits. In another instance she was reprimanded for handing an unchecked rifle to an 11-year old actress. Now, all of a sudden, this same person gets hired to work solo in "Rust" for budgetary reasons. Remember, a veteran propmaster didn't think those conditions were appropriate for even himself.

The very fact that there was live ammunition brought to the set in the first place is a major red flag. I wonder if the rookie armorer was simply too green to appreciate the gravity of her job or was too timid to exert any authority. Maybe she simply became just as casual as everyone else about safety. The director, the AD as well as the veteran actor/producer also know that live ammo shouldn't be anywhere near the set. It looks like everyone just let that slide.

The fact that crew were using the pistol for "target practice" and casual plinking in the desert during lunch breaks is even more alarming still since that means the firearms were not secured, that crew had open access to them and that nobody seemed to mind that this was going on.

During the filming of "Rust" there were already at least two accidental/negligent discharges on set days before the event. In one incident Baldwin's stunt double accidentally fired off two rounds after being told the gun was "cold." (This story sounds strange, actually. I would like to know if those were actual bullets or blanks. I also wonder why he would recock and shoot a second time if there was an accidental first shot. Was he "fanning" the gun?)

Walkout of the crew for working conditions. Some reports say due to wages and safety concerns. I'm getting the feeling it was mostly about wages and working conditions (e.g. having to drive 50 miles back to accommodations combined with long work hours on a short schedule) than about safety. Still, that means the replacement non-union crew didn't even have time to become integrated or familiar with the workflow which amplifies the potential for negligence.

During their press conference the Santa Fe Sherrif's department said there were reports of drinking the night before. (This may or may not even be relevant to the incident. It's odd they brought it up unless the reports were about excessive drinking.)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the actor only supposed to receive the gun directly from the armorer, not the AD? And the armorer would open the action and demonstrate the condition of the gun to the actor. If that is the case, then a safety-conscious person ought to be concerned if the AD was trying to hand them a gun, no?

When he received the gun, Baldwin violated every one of the basic four basic rules of safe gun handling. (explained multiple times in previous posts).

If they were actually shooting a scene where the actor is pointing the gun at the camera lens, I heard the standard practice would be to set up the camera so that the gun doesn't cover a person when filming, even if it is pointing at the lens. I suppose I could see a brief exception where the cinematographer could be standing there if they were "rehearsing" to get the lighting/composition. But, if they were just rehearsing, and Baldwin had to sweep the cinematographer with the muzzle of the gun, why would he put his finger on the trigger unless he was absent-mindedly violating basic rules of gun handling?

While one person didn't create all this risk, there are a couple of people who were there every day and had the authority and responsibility to assess and address safety at all points but chose not to do so. One of them was Alec Baldwin.

I understand it is easy to cherry-pick facts and anecdotes to support a narrative. But, if all or most of this is true, it's hard not to think the entire production was an incubator for disaster.

Here's my completely speculative version of events. I believe the entire production had a "casual" attitude toward safety to the point of completely ignoring many universal industry protocols. I believe guns were unsecured and accessible to crew who were able to use them for casual plinking at off hours. I believe, on the day of the shooting the director and cinematographer were setting up shots. I don't believe Baldwin was rehearsing at the moment, but he was bored and asked the AD to get him the gun for the upcoming shot (or to play with). The AD grabbed the revolver off the table and handed it to Baldwin telling him it was a "cold gun." Maybe the AD checked it alone or with the armorer or maybe he didn't check it at all. I believe that Baldwin didn't check the gun himself and relied on the AD's word. Then, in boredom, just started goofing off and practiced a quickdraw on the cinematographer then accidentally shot her.

I understand that a small production couldn’t pay for a 5 person team as requested by the first armorer. If you were limited to one armorer they should have used Hannah’s father Thell or another expert armorer.

Another thing that I wonder about is would something like this have happened in Europe where the regulations are universally more strict. Many European countries stipulate a partial or full barrel plug. Im willing to bet that people such as Alec Baldwin would double and triple check a firearm if they thought it could blow up in their hand mangling their own flesh or possibly losing one of their own eyes.

If the court really wants to discourage events like this from happening in the future I believe some substantial jail term needs to be applied. Some people do not take all the damage firearms can do to other people seriously. However I believe those people would be deterred by a lengthy sentence or the possibility of personal injury.

 

[JPH]

But my scenario doesn't preclude any of those conspiracies, either.

I suspect there might have also been a second shooter behind some grassy knoll. If so, nobody is talking.

No Magic Bullet? Over a second passed between the "round" striking the director and then the cinematographer.

...not really.

I am *hoping* Baldwin was legitimately practicing his draw, and became so absorbed that he forgot about his surroundings. To me, that is the most "human" conclusion -- still inexcusable, tho.

Sad that the equipment which is replaceable, was shielded, but the irreplaceable humans weren't

 

[blewis17]

Again, can someone with film experience explain to me that, in this scenario, why would there be any "live" ammo (not just "blanks" without a projectile) on the set at all, at any time? For what reason? Is there a point in a period piece western film where the would NEED to fire live ammo on the set?

 

[blewis17]

To be sure, lots of unanswered questions. There was a discharge of a bullet, but precisely how is still unanswered. What were Baldwin’s movements in regard to operating the firearm? Did the firearm function correctly in response to those movements?

...there's a chance if this was an on-set rehersal, that there may be film footage/video footage of the shooting.

 

[blewis17]

As a physician, I've seen "stuff." If the investigators in the case feel that a crime occurred, then they will press charges. And, for argument's sake, let's say that the following happens:
1) Baldwin (as either a producer on the film/actor that pulled the trigger/ or both) is found guilty of involuntary manslaughter, then I am assuming he would appeal the decision, if possible.
2) But if ultimately guilty in a criminal court, the punishment would most likely require some jail time (and possible monetary award to the families injured).
3) All political opinions of AB aside please, but it appears that AB is devastated by what happened. Certainly will suffer mentally for quite some time. What "good" does it do to incarcerate him in the prison system? I know there is state law that would govern and direct this, but does incarcerating him do anything to help the situation? Yes... serve as an example, pay the price the law demands, exact a pound of flesh, etc...

...but there was no malice involved, he is NEVER going to touch a firearm again, he could become a crusader for gun safety and use his talent and Hollywood connections to help raise additional monies/foundations/scholarships in the victim(s) names, set up a college fund for her children, etc.

Isn't there a better way to honor her memory and pay his debt to society than to rot in a jail cell and think about what he's done?

 

[JoeG]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the actor only supposed to receive the gun directly from the armorer, not the AD? And the armorer would open the action and demonstrate the condition of the gun to the actor. If that is the case, then a safety-conscious person ought to be concerned if the AD was trying to hand them a gun, no?

It would seem no. The protocol does involve the AD. Here is Kevin Smith describing the on set protocol. Say what you will about Smith, but he is a filmmaker with years of experience on set, though he admits not a huge amount with firearms.

EDIT - looks like embedding the video is disabled. You'll have to click to watch it on YouTube.

 

[JPH]

As a physician, I've seen "stuff." If the investigators in the case feel that a crime occurred, then they will press charges. And, for argument's sake, let's say that the following happens:
1) Baldwin (as either a producer on the film/actor that pulled the trigger/ or both) is found guilty of involuntary manslaughter, then I am assuming he would appeal the decision, if possible.
2) But if ultimately guilty in a criminal court, the punishment would most likely require some jail time (and possible monetary award to the families injured).
3) All political opinions of AB aside please, but it appears that AB is devastated by what happened. Certainly will suffer mentally for quite some time. What "good" does it do to incarcerate him in the prison system? I know there is state law that would govern and direct this, but does incarcerating him do anything to help the situation? Yes... serve as an example, pay the price the law demands, exact a pound of flesh, etc...

...but there was no malice involved, he is NEVER going to touch a firearm again, he could become a crusader for gun safety and use his talent and Hollywood connections to help raise additional monies/foundations/scholarships in the victim(s) names, set up a college fund for her children, etc.

Isn't there a better way to honor her memory and pay his debt to society than to rot in a jail cell and think about what he's done?

You will not improve results by lowering standards. This event is the poster child for what *Not* to do. Anything other than a real consequence is spitting in the face of everyone who obeys the rules, and an outrage to anyone who received worse consequence for a lesser offense.

I am sure prisons are filled with remorseful people, but Baldwin went out of his way to save money, hire a noob, ignored basic gun safety....

You are a physician. If a doc kills a patient through gross negligence, to the point where every doc that looks at the case says, "he IGNORED every protocol, every standard" and his board let's him (or her) go, because he's remorseful. "Dont worry, he'll do a PSA, and just dont ever do that procedure again." *wink*

I think every doc that ever lost their license or was sanctioned for a lesser offense would have just been crapped upon. The victim's family, totally crapped upon.

It should be irrelevant that he is a celebrity or, actually he should have initially gone by a much higher standard than a lower standard.

is this an appeal for two sets of rules? Peons vs celebrities. People who pretend for a living are now granted granted immunity from killing?

*if* (and that's a big if) he goes to prison, you would never get total compliance from any industry, but you would get a LOT more compliance if no one wanted to end up in jail.

If he walks, then it is all a joke. The Baldwin Defense.

How many med-mal cases involve the doc doing everything right, but sued for an uncontrolable outcome.? The ratio is staggering.

Meanwhile, Baldwin knowingly screws up on multiple levels and people entertain the idea of him walking.

He killed someone.

He didnt sprain someone's ankle, didnt run over someone's bike, he ignored protocols and KILLED someone.

He is not better or more important than YOU or anyone you care about.

EDIT

Letting Baldwin walk would be the ULTIMATE political move.

 

[robstyle]

Live projectile rounds / live fire bullets are never allowed on set when weapons are involved. As prior mentioned rules and regulations vary from state to state to county to county. That's why the industry standards exist. There are instances of using real rounds to film effects scenes over the years but that's generally been done away with even on no budget productions.
Again live rounds on a film set has a different meaning than the rest of the world. Live will mean anything that is active, blanks for the most part. Even a non gun that fires off an electric charge are considered live.

I feel the need to add that non union and union does not mean inexperienced VS experienced. I've seen union people with less experience than someone whom has never done the job in question and non union people capable of running an entire department alone. The entertainment industry is an environment all its own. Jobs tend to go to the lowest bid and then that budget is cut when the wheel starts turning. Combine that with time restraints and it's amazing terrible things are not common place.

Combining the job titles isn't uncommon. In this instance an armorer is handling props. Was it a way to offset the wages on paper combining two job titles and two separate pay checks? Was the armorer more interested in a career in props than weapons? If so that job title of assistant prop master would be a step towards that.

With rehearsal seems it was a camera rehearsal. The scene to be be filmed is being set up to roll camera. Actors, props, fx, lighting... All will be ready to film the scene during that set up and rehearsal. The on set photo a crew member released shows a stedi cam being used. This makes me believe blanks were not even intended to be used in the scene. The weapon would be loaded with inert dummy rounds. I can't see the lens on the camera to judge if the scene was an extreme close up or if a punch in / zoom was to be done.

 

[scarf man]

robstyle, thanks for your perspective, insight, and maturity on this situation.

 

[dascoyne]

As a physician, I've seen "stuff." If the investigators in the case feel that a crime occurred, then they will press charges. And, for argument's sake, let's say that the following happens:
1) Baldwin (as either a producer on the film/actor that pulled the trigger/ or both) is found guilty of involuntary manslaughter, then I am assuming he would appeal the decision, if possible.
2) But if ultimately guilty in a criminal court, the punishment would most likely require some jail time (and possible monetary award to the families injured).
3) All political opinions of AB aside please, but it appears that AB is devastated by what happened. Certainly will suffer mentally for quite some time. What "good" does it do to incarcerate him in the prison system? I know there is state law that would govern and direct this, but does incarcerating him do anything to help the situation? Yes... serve as an example, pay the price the law demands, exact a pound of flesh, etc...

...but there was no malice involved, he is NEVER going to touch a firearm again, he could become a crusader for gun safety and use his talent and Hollywood connections to help raise additional monies/foundations/scholarships in the victim(s) names, set up a college fund for her children, etc.

Isn't there a better way to honor her memory and pay his debt to society than to rot in a jail cell and think about what he's done?

You're not wrong but would you use the same argument to absolve every drunk driver that ever drove over a child? Or every builder who cut corners on construction resulting in a building that collapsed and killed people?



I do believe in redemption, but redemption begins with accepting responsibility.

Have you seen Alec Baldwin's Tweets? Lately he's been posting articles that implicate the AD.
In fact, right after the incident he Tweeted:

Do you see anything strange about this tweet?

Nowhere in that Tweet does he actually apologize. Nowhere does he suggest any responsibility for the tragedy whatsoever. He might as well be talking about someone lost to a natural disaster.

How can you forgive someone who is still claiming he did nothing wrong and is doing everything possible to implicate others?

Even the AD admits he didn't properly check the gun. Baldwin doesn't even acknowledge that he should or could have done anything differently, nor does he accept any responsibility for the laxed safety standards of the production. Outside of tweeting how bad he feels what has he done other than seek to protect his career? Everybody else involved is keeping silent but Alec Baldwin is in full damage control with his Tweets.

How can you forgive someone who is still claiming he did nothing wrong and is doing everything possible to implicate others?

 

[batguy]

I'm just now revisiting this topic after a few days of ignoring it.


If AB's aim had not been directly pointed at the victims . . . then somebody still might have been hurt by a ricochet from a live round that shouldn't have been present.

If AB's dumb arse had not been on the set at all . . . there were at least two other unplanned discharges in other hands.

This was a seriously unsafe set. That's the biggest glaring problem. I imagine that's what the criminal & civil cases will focus on. AB and probably some other producers are in deep trouble for that angle of it.


As for the long-term consequences moving forward? Maybe actors getting more strict about checking the weapons they are being handed. Nothing wrong with that.

There may be more film industry policy changes but I'm not convinced there need to be. The overall average safety record of Hollywood with guns is quite good considering how much they use them. This accident didn't happen because the rules were inadequate, it happened because the rules weren't being followed.

 

[batguy]

Do you see anything strange about this tweet?

Nowhere in that Tweet does he actually apologize or suggest any responsibility for the tragedy. He might as well be talking about someone lost to a natural disaster.

How can you forgive someone who is still claiming he did nothing wrong and is doing everything possible to implicate others?

Even the AD admits he didn't properly check the gun. Baldwin doesn't even acknowledge that he should or could have done anything differently, nor does he accept any responsibility for the laxed safety standards of the production. Outside of tweeting how bad he feels what has he done other than seek to protect his career? Everybody else involved is keeping silent but Alec Baldwin is in full damage control with his Tweets.

How can you forgive someone who is still claiming he did nothing wrong and is doing everything possible to implicate others?

Aww, come on. Do you really expect AB to start making explicit public admissions of guilt in these circumstances? Any lawyer on earth would advise against it. So would any public defender or wise friend/family.

AB would get that advice from literally anyone who had the slightest legal knowlege + wasn't itching to see him get in trouble.


A person can feel bad and still not want to give themselves extra legal punishment over it. AB has his own family & kids & employees to think about. His statements could taint a jury. Or if the incident got twisted into a battle between larger forces (not very likely in this case, but it's possible) then his guilt/liability could be subject to other forces that way. Etc.


As for AB pointing the blame at others (if he is doing that)? That's a different issue and a step farther.

 

[dascoyne]

Aww, come on. Do you really expect AB to start making explicit public admissions of guilt in these circumstances? Any lawyer on earth would advise against it. So would any public defender.

You can feel bad and still not want to give yourself extra legal punishment over it. AB has his own family & kids & employees to think about. His statements could taint a jury. Or if the incident got twisted into a battle between larger forces (not very likely in this case, but it's possible) then his guilt/liability could be subject to other forces that way. Etc.


As for AB pointing the blame at others (if he is doing that)? That's a different issue and a step farther.

Of course, it makes practical sense legally not to admit guilt publicly. But I was responding to a guy who suggests absolving Baldwin on the basis of his probable internal remorse on the possibility that he would inevitably turn this into a positive. That's like, "I'm sorry, ... so as long as I don't have to be punished or lose my career for it."

A normal person would and should just clam up. Baldwin is actively trying to throw others under the bus to save his neck. Don't they have families and relations, too?

 

[batguy]

I haven't seen him pushing blame at others. Is he doing that? It would be a real d**k move.

Again, this is my first time paying attention to the story in several days.

 

[Moviefreak]

I haven't seen him pushing blame at others. Is he doing that? It would be a real d**k move.

Again, this is my first time paying attention to the story in several days.

Let us not forget, many celebrities don’t actually handle their own social media accounts. Some statements could be coming from publicists or assistants. Often they spring into damage control and post stuff without thinking of the long term ramifications. Again, just thinking out loud. Like every other speculation about the whole event in this thread, we can never know for sure about anything.

 

[JoeG]

I haven't seen him pushing blame at others. Is he doing that? It would be a real d**k move.

Again, this is my first time paying attention to the story in several days.

His twitter account posted a link to an article about the incident on Oct 22, then retweeted a NYT article that talks about the Assistant Director on the 27th.