SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    One crew member dies, another hospitalized after Alec Baldwin shoots two people on set of his film
Page 1 ... 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 ... 63
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
One crew member dies, another hospitalized after Alec Baldwin shoots two people on set of his film Login/Join 
Peace through
superior firepower
Picture of parabellum
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by wrightd:
quote:
Originally posted by RogueJSK:
The two married women with kids part? The kids could be adopted, or been conceived during a prior relationship with a man, or been artificially inseminated.
None of the above. Look at her picture, you can tell by her inhuman eyes she is a bona fide zombie. Regarding the children, I can't say, but I feel sorry for them whether they're zombies or not.
That's enough of that.
 
Posts: 98944 | Registered: January 20, 2000Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Coin Sniper
Picture of Rightwire
posted Hide Post
Based on what I've read here so far...

An actual bullet was removed from victim #2

The only logical conclusion from this piece of evidence is
A) The firearm used was not a 'prop' gun and was in fact capable of firing live rounds.
B) A live round was loaded into the firearm

The firearm was handed to the actor and used in the scene. A real firearm, loaded with live ammunition, was aimed at the victims and fired.

A few things immediately come to mind related to this incident
- How did a fully functional firearm end up on a movie set in lieu of a prop gun?
- How did live ammunition end up on the set?
- Who authorized the use/presence of both of the above?
- If not authorized, who had knowledge of these facts and failed to report a safety issue?
- Who established the safety procedures for the set regarding use of firearms?
- Who failed to enforce said rules?
- What individuals had responsibility to check the firearm to assure it was safe?
- Who was responsible for setting up the camera shot, angle, and placement of people to assure safety when the firearm was discharged?
- Who was responsible for assuring personnel were safely positioned as planned?

Baldwin held the firearm and pulled the trigger resulting in a death and injury. There is no doubt he bears an initial level of responsibility for the act itself.

Based on what has been presented in this thread, and not having access to the actual evidence, to me it appears that this incident was a series of multiple failures. Multiple individuals will likely bear some responsibility for this death. This is likely an incredibly complicated investigation with a mess of a knot to unravel.

IMHO, those ultimately responsible for the entire set and movie shoot should be held accountable and charged. Given his various roles it appears that Baldwin should be tagged multiple times at various levels of involvement as he was at the top and bottom of this chain of events. Sadly, the Cinematographer and Director who where shot likely had responsibility themselves and contributed in some way to their own death/injury.

It sounds like this entire set/shoot was a bucket full of stupid. I have zero sympathy for anyone involved.




343 - Never Forget

Its better to be Pavlov's dog than Schrodinger's cat

There are three types of mistakes; Those you learn from, those you suffer from, and those you don't survive.
 
Posts: 36381 | Location: Above the snow line in Michigan | Registered: May 21, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of SigSentry
posted Hide Post
Richard Collins of MAG:

"Ultimately, the armorer is responsible for safety when firearms are used, which on the “Rust” set was the responsibility of 24-year-old Hannah Gutierrez Reed."

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/522394-2/

Unfortunately, she may take the major fall for this, but Halls and Baldwin should "hang" with her.

 
Posts: 2907 | Registered: May 30, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of bigdeal
posted Hide Post
I watched a couple YouTube videos and read two articles of other seasoned Hollywood armorers/firearms experts discussing on-set procedures for firearms. The one trend across all this info was 'custody'. All these guys laid out a very strict process where the guns they were responsible for never left their custody. No AD's or anyone else were permitted to handle the guns at any time. Guns were stored under lock and key at all times when not in the direct possession of the armorer. And finally, all the armorers noted that live ammo was strictly forbidden on their movie sets. It appears this RUST set and its crew, including the armorer, adhered to virtually none of these rules.


-----------------------------
Guns are awesome because they shoot solid lead freedom. Every man should have several guns. And several dogs, because a man with a cat is a woman. Kurt Schlichter
 
Posts: 33836 | Location: Orlando, FL | Registered: April 30, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Lead slingin'
Parrot Head
Picture of Modern Day Savage
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by SigSentry:
Richard Collins of MAG:


There is a Forgotten Weapons video interview with Charlie Taylor of MAG, posted earlier in this thread that is worth watching.

SNIP...

quote:


Excellent TTAG article, thanks for posting!
 
Posts: 6940 | Location: the Centennial state | Registered: August 21, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Rightwire:
Based on what I've read here so far...

An actual bullet was removed from victim #2

The only logical conclusion from this piece of evidence is
A) The firearm used was not a 'prop' gun and was in fact capable of firing live rounds..


You are confusing terms. Easily done

“Prop” just means Property. Doesn’t mean it’s an un-fireable fake look alike

They can be as real as anything

Often they are real weapons that have been resprung to cycle the slide, action, BCG using underpowered blanks

Same as one would put different springs in for a suppressor


Why live ammo? On the set? That’s a very important question


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live today as if it may be your last and learn today as if you will live forever
 
Posts: 5825 | Location: New Orleans...outside the levees, fishing in the Rigolets | Registered: October 11, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Non-Miscreant
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Rightwire:

It sounds like this enire set/shoot was a bucket full of stupid.


Best comment so far, and I agree 100%


Unhappy ammo seeker
 
Posts: 18155 | Location: Kentucky, USA | Registered: February 25, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Oh stewardess,
I speak jive.
Picture of 46and2
posted Hide Post
TMZ has photos of the killer, Alec Baldwin, out and about with his family in some small town in New England. Bit of a sourpuss, eh. What's got you down?

 
Posts: 25613 | Registered: March 12, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Coin Sniper
Picture of Rightwire
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by snwghst:
quote:
Originally posted by Rightwire:
Based on what I've read here so far...

An actual bullet was removed from victim #2

The only logical conclusion from this piece of evidence is
A) The firearm used was not a 'prop' gun and was in fact capable of firing live rounds..


You are confusing terms. Easily done

“Prop” just means Property. Doesn’t mean it’s an un-fireable fake look alike

They can be as real as anything

Often they are real weapons that have been resprung to cycle the slide, action, BCG using underpowered blanks

Same as one would put different springs in for a suppressor


Why live ammo? On the set? That’s a very important question


I understand the legal/movie industry meaning of 'prop'. However the general understanding of a 'prop' something is that it is not real and for the movies.

A prop gun doesn't fire real bullets
A prop knife won't cut you
A prop chair isn't made of solid wood and breaks away when it hits you in the back
Prop glass is rock candy or polymer not real glass to not cut actors/stunt people
etc.

They key point was it was not a blank firing gun incapable of firing a live round.

Real fire arm + live round + pointed at person + trigger squeeze = dead/injured person

Should N E V E R even be remotely possible on a movie set.




343 - Never Forget

Its better to be Pavlov's dog than Schrodinger's cat

There are three types of mistakes; Those you learn from, those you suffer from, and those you don't survive.
 
Posts: 36381 | Location: Above the snow line in Michigan | Registered: May 21, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Rightwire:
quote:
Originally posted by snwghst:
quote:
Originally posted by Rightwire:
Based on what I've read here so far...

An actual bullet was removed from victim #2

The only logical conclusion from this piece of evidence is
A) The firearm used was not a 'prop' gun and was in fact capable of firing live rounds..


You are confusing terms. Easily done

“Prop” just means Property. Doesn’t mean it’s an un-fireable fake look alike

They can be as real as anything

Often they are real weapons that have been resprung to cycle the slide, action, BCG using underpowered blanks

Same as one would put different springs in for a suppressor


Why live ammo? On the set? That’s a very important question


I understand the legal/movie industry meaning of 'prop'. However the general understanding of a 'prop' something is that it is not real and for the movies.

A prop gun doesn't fire real bullets
A prop knife won't cut you
A prop chair isn't made of solid wood and breaks away when it hits you in the back
Prop glass is rock candy or polymer not real glass to not cut actors/stunt people
etc.

They key point was it was not a blank firing gun incapable of firing a live round.

Real fire arm + live round + pointed at person + trigger squeeze = dead/injured person

Should N E V E R even be remotely possible on a movie set.


That’s the misunderstanding

A Prop gun can and is a fully functioning weapon. If a firing pin can detonate a primer for a blank. It can detonate a primer for a cartridge

It’s not a rubber knife

We all spinning nickels. When it comes down to it. Hollywood has a pretty stellar record of safety. 3 deaths in a century? How many tens of thousands of scenes and retakes.

I despise Hollywood however they have done pretty good

I’d be remiss if I didn’t think AB is an ass and it’s karma coming back at him


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live today as if it may be your last and learn today as if you will live forever
 
Posts: 5825 | Location: New Orleans...outside the levees, fishing in the Rigolets | Registered: October 11, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
"Armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed said in a statement through her lawyer on Thursday that she "has no idea where the live rounds came from," according to reports."

We now know the armorer didn't have control of the guns.
 
Posts: 6782 | Registered: April 02, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Do---or do not.
There is no try.
posted Hide Post
There's another possible variable in here, although it hasn't been brought up in media accounts and I'm just throwing it out as a "what if."

From one news source, Gutierrez-Reed told investigators that live ammunition was not used on the set. She also alleged that during lunch the guns were stored in a safe in the prop truck and only a few people had access to the safe, according to Variety. Gutierrez-Reed claimed the film's property master, Sarah Zachry, brought the firearms out of the truck and gave them to her. I'm wondering if Zachry or others who had access to the gun safe (like perhaps Assistant Director Dave Halls?) were taking the firearms out for "practice"---or perhaps "fun"---using live ammunition, and I also wonder if these sessions went on without Gutierrez-Reed's knowledge

If that's true, it's possible that Gutierrez-Reed was being given guns out of the safe that she had put in the safe unloaded but that were later "played with" and put back in the safe, maybe even with a live round still in the cylinder. Not making any direct accusations here, but just stating a possibility.
 
Posts: 4267 | Registered: January 01, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of DougE
posted Hide Post
quote:
From one news source, Gutierrez-Reed told investigators that live ammunition was not used on the set. She also alleged that during lunch the guns were stored in a safe in the prop truck and only a few people had access to the safe, according to Variety. Gutierrez-Reed claimed the film's property master, Sarah Zachry, brought the firearms out of the truck and gave them to her. I'm wondering if Zachry or others who had access to the gun safe (like perhaps Assistant Director Dave Halls?) were taking the firearms out for "practice"---or perhaps "fun"---using live ammunition, and I also wonder if these sessions went on without Gutierrez-Reed's knowledge


How the live rounds got into the gun is really beside the point. Nobody bothered to check the gun before it went into action on the set. Gutierrez-Reed didn't check it, Dave Halls didn't check it, nor did Baldwin, himself, check it. The blame rests squarely on Baldwin since he is the one who pointed it and pulled the trigger.

I can't really see how it would be anyone else's fault. If someone hands me a gun and tells me it's not loaded, or has snap caps in it, or whatever, the first thing I'm doing is pointing the gun in a safe direction while I check it for myself.



The water in Washington won't clear up until we get the pigs out of the creek~Senator John Kennedy

 
Posts: 947 | Location: Richmond, KY | Registered: February 02, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
I Deal In Lead
Picture of Flash-LB
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by ulsterman:
"Armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed said in a statement through her lawyer on Thursday that she "has no idea where the live rounds came from," according to reports."

We now know the armorer didn't have control of the guns.


What we've got here is an affirmative action hire for Armorer.
 
Posts: 9677 | Location: Gilbert Arizona | Registered: March 21, 2013Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Staring back
from the abyss
Picture of Gustofer
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Flash-LB:
quote:
Originally posted by ulsterman:
"Armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed said in a statement through her lawyer on Thursday that she "has no idea where the live rounds came from," according to reports."

We now know the armorer didn't have control of the guns.


What we've got here is an affirmative action hire for Armorer.

I think that it's more a dumb-ass penny-pincher assumed that since her father is the armorer's armorer, she must be good and we can get her on the cheap kind of thing.


________________________________________________________
"Great danger lies in the notion that we can reason with evil." Doug Patton.
 
Posts: 17989 | Location: Montana | Registered: November 01, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of EasyFire
posted Hide Post
What I would like to know is whose fingerprints are on the unfired live ammo. And who was shooting (plinking) the the gun earlier....

My suspicion is was Gutierrez-Reed. Just young enough and with the armorer title she gives legitimacy to goofing around with an antique gun.


EasyFire [AT] zianet.com
----------------------------------
NRA Certified Pistol Instructor
Colorado Concealed Handgun Permit Instructor
Nationwide Agent for >
US LawShield > https://www.texaslawshield.com...p.php?promo=ondemand
CCW Safe > www.ccwsafe.com/CCHPI
 
Posts: 1434 | Location: Denver Area Colorado | Registered: December 14, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Glorious SPAM!
Picture of mbinky
posted Hide Post
quote:
What I would like to know is whose fingerprints are on the unfired live ammo.


When this happened I thought "Well it's a revolver so they have the empty case. I wonder if they can get any prints off of it?"
 
Posts: 10587 | Registered: June 13, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of bigdeal
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by DougE:
How the live rounds got into the gun is really beside the point.
Wrong. Everyone needs the complete picture of what happened, start to finish, fully mapped out.
- Who brought the live rounds onto the set?
- Once known, why were the live rounds allowed on set?
- Why was anyone other than the armorer handling the guns?
- Were the guns actually maintained under full control of the armorer when not in the hands of the actors as has been claimed?
- Were the guns actually checked before being provided to the actors as has been claimed by the armorer?
quote:
Nobody bothered to check the gun before it went into action on the set. Gutierrez-Reed didn't check it,
Remains to be proven, but appears to be the case.
quote:
Dave Halls didn't check it,
Per what I've read from other armorers procedures, this person should not have been permitted to handle any of the guns.
quote:
...nor did Baldwin, himself, check it.
Again, according tot he procedures I've read that other armorers use, the armorer and actor should have jointly checked and agreed the weapon was as the armorer claimed it was (i.e. hot or cold). Pretty obvious this didn't happen.
quote:
The blame rests squarely on Baldwin since he is the one who pointed it and pulled the trigger.
For the death of the cinematographer, yes. However, there may well be additional blame (and charges) to go around to other people on the set as well.


-----------------------------
Guns are awesome because they shoot solid lead freedom. Every man should have several guns. And several dogs, because a man with a cat is a woman. Kurt Schlichter
 
Posts: 33836 | Location: Orlando, FL | Registered: April 30, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of DougE
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by bigdeal:
quote:
Originally posted by DougE:
How the live rounds got into the gun is really beside the point.
Wrong. Everyone needs the complete picture of what happened, start to finish, fully mapped out.
- Who brought the live rounds onto the set?
- Once known, why were the live rounds allowed on set?
- Why was anyone other than the armorer handling the guns?
- Were the guns actually maintained under full control of the armorer when not in the hands of the actors as has been claimed?
- Were the guns actually checked before being provided to the actors as has been claimed by the armorer?
quote:
Nobody bothered to check the gun before it went into action on the set. Gutierrez-Reed didn't check it,
Remains to be proven, but appears to be the case.
quote:
Dave Halls didn't check it,
Per what I've read from other armorers procedures, this person should not have been permitted to handle any of the guns.
quote:
...nor did Baldwin, himself, check it.
Again, according tot he procedures I've read that other armorers use, the armorer and actor should have jointly checked and agreed the weapon was as the armorer claimed it was (i.e. hot or cold). Pretty obvious this didn't happen.
quote:
The blame rests squarely on Baldwin since he is the one who pointed it and pulled the trigger.
For the death of the cinematographer, yes. However, there may well be additional blame (and charges) to go around to other people on the set as well.


Civilly, sure, there may be blame to go around.

As far as criminal charges, the guy who pointed the gun and pulled the trigger should be the one holding the bag. He is ultimately responsible for the gun that was in his hand.

I'm not saying we shouldn't find out how the live ammo got into the gun, but the guy who pulled the trigger is responsible party in the death/injury he caused.



The water in Washington won't clear up until we get the pigs out of the creek~Senator John Kennedy

 
Posts: 947 | Location: Richmond, KY | Registered: February 02, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
A Grateful American
Picture of sigmonkey
posted Hide Post
bigdeal is barking up the right tree.

This is similar to an aircraft mishap where the number of people with responsibility and integral links in the chain of events must be investigated, cleared and/or held properly accountable for their part of the chain, and for failure to execute their duties and responsibilities.

No body gets a pass, and nobody is made the "fall guy".

Anything short of that will result in this happening again, and most likely for the same reason.

And it speaks back to the point I made about 100% responsibility being applied to more than one person.

Each person involved is 100% responsible for their specific "link" and "failure to perform".

Folks may disagree, but that disagreement will be from a position of opinion.

So many opportunities to have prevented this by many people involved, yet each of those missed opportunities, created the finished path to the outcome.

I do believe that there will be changes in the way things are done in the future.

And the fact that there have been relatively few incidents in the making of many films, speaks to the proper things that are done.

Regrettable that one person was killed, another injured and so many having had to experience this in their lives.

I hope this gets investigated and handled properly.




"the meaning of life, is to give life meaning" I could explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
 
Posts: 43344 | Location: ...... I am thrice divorced, and I live in a van DOWN BY THE RIVER!!!  | Registered: December 20, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 ... 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 ... 63 
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    One crew member dies, another hospitalized after Alec Baldwin shoots two people on set of his film

© SIGforum 2022