Alec Baldwin's 'prop firearm' kills one, injures another

Sheriff's office: Alec Baldwin discharged prop gun that killed crew member, wounded director

Baldwin is one of the film's star actors and producers. He went to the sheriff's office willingly and provided a statement to investigators, sheriff's office spokesman Juan Ríos said.

www.santafenewmexican.com

archive.md/jNQZQ

Actor Alec Baldwin discharged a "prop firearm" that killed a cinematographer and injured a the director of the movie Rust, being filmed on a set south of Santa Fe, a county sheriff's office spokesman said late Thursday.

Halyna Hutchins, 42 and the director of photography for the movie, died at University of New Mexico Hospital in Albuquerque. The film's director, Joel Souza, was hospitalized in Santa Fe, Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office spokesman Juan Ríos said.

A source closed to the investigation said Baldwin, 63, was questioned by investigators late Thursday and was seen by a New Mexican reporter and photographer in tears.

Investigators are still trying to determine if the incident was an accident, Ríos said. No charges have been filed, and the investigation remains open, Ríos wrote in a news release.

The prop was fired at Bonanza Creek Ranch, where filming was underway, the sheriff's office said in an early evening news release. Baldwin stars in the production.

Hutchins died from her injuries after she was flown to University of New Mexico Hospital, according to the sheriff's office. Souza was taken to Christus St. Vincent Regional Medical Center, where he is receiving emergency care, the sheriff's office said. Attempts to get comment from Baldwin were unsuccessful.

“We received the devastating news this evening, that one of our members, Halyna Hutchins, the Director of Photography on a production called ‘Rust’ in New Mexico died from injuries sustained on the set,” John Lindley, the president of the International Cinematographers Guild Local 600, and Rebecca Rhine, the executive director, said in a statement, as reported by Variety. “The details are unclear at this moment, but we are working to learn more, and we support a full investigation into this tragic event. This is a terrible loss, and we mourn the passing of a member of our Guild’s family.”

Deputies were investigating how the accident occurred and "what type of projectile was discharged," the sheriff's office said in an earlier news release.

Rust Movie Productions did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Filming for Rust was set to continue into early November, according to a news release from the New Mexico Film Office. It's described as the story of a 13-year-old boy left to fend for himself and his younger brother following the death of their parents in 1880s Kansas, with New Mexico doubling for Kansas.

Guns firing blanks have been blamed for deaths in past movie productions. Online Hollywood news site Deadline reported, "Actor Jon-Erik Hexum was killed Oct. 18, 1984, on the set of the TV series Cover Up when he accidentally shot himself in the head with a gun loaded with blanks. And in 1993, Brandon Lee, the son of martial arts legend Bruce Lee, died after he was shot in the head by a gun firing blanks on the set of The Crow. Both incidents were determined to have been accidents."

This is a developing story and will be updated.

 

[Gar For Archer]

This just in (and apologies for doublepost):

‘Rust’ script supervisor claims there was no firing of weapons required in script for fatal scene; accuses Baldwin of ’intentionally’ discharging the weapon; hires shark lawyer Gloria Allred to sue Baldwin.
Nice to see someone who really wasn’t personally affected try to flip this for a quick buck.

What‘s also interesting is the claim that no weapon was to be used in this scene, which casts doubt on the ‘accident while rehearsing’ narrative. It could well be that Baldwin was fucking around on his way to finding out. Shades of Jon-Erik Hexum?

If her claim is correct, and there was to be no gunfire in the scene that was being rehearsed, then Baldwin is a little bit more fucked… the plot thickens.

That doesn’t really contradict what we know. Like, obviously, he wasn’t supposed to pull the trigger at the camera.

 

[SITHRAK!]

That doesn’t really contradict what we know. Like, obviously, he wasn’t supposed to pull the trigger at the camera.

The narrative is that it’s an ‘accident’ that happened while rehearsing a scene in which a firearm was to be used.
This suit implies that no firearm was to be used in the scene, meaning that Baldwin may have actually been fooling around like a dickhead, meaning criminal negligence charges are even more likely.

If the pistol never needed to leave the holster for the rehearsal and scene, the level of culpability for drawing, cocking, aiming, and pulling the trigger magnifies significantly.

Edit: TL;DR- an ’accidental’ shooting in a scene where it’s required is one thing, a shooting while engaged in grossly irresponsible horseplay is another.

 

[Gar For Archer]

The headline doesn’t say that no weapons were to be used, but rather that no weapons were to be fired. Without more context or info suggesting otherwise, this still jives with the idea of an accidental discharge.

The narrative is that it’s an ‘accident’ that happened while rehearsing a scene in which a firearm was to be used.
This suit implies that no firearm was to be used in the scene, meaning that Baldwin may have actually been fooling around like a dickhead, meaning criminal negligence charges are even more likely.

If the pistol never needed to leave the holster for the rehearsal and scene, the level of culpability for drawing, coming, aiming, and pulling the trigger magnifies significantly.

 

[SITHRAK!]

The headline doesn’t say that no weapons were to be used, but rather that no weapons were to be fired. Without more context or info suggesting otherwise, this still jives with the idea of an accidental discharge.

“Alec Baldwin intentionally, without just cause or excuse, cocked and fired a loaded gun even though the upcoming scene to be filmed did not call for the cocking and firing of a firearm,” Mitchell claimed in the lawsuit.

No argument that the weapon should not have been aimed at anyone. However, if the weapon was not supposed to have been fired in the scene in question, this clearly marks the shooting as a Negligent Discharge (ND) rather then the ‘accidental discharge’ line being followed by most of the media.

 

[I hate children?]

This just in (and apologies for doublepost):

‘Rust’ script supervisor claims there was no firing of weapons required in script for fatal scene; accuses Baldwin of ’intentionally’ discharging the weapon; hires shark lawyer Gloria Allred to sue Baldwin.
Nice to see someone who really wasn’t personally affected try to flip this for a quick buck.

What‘s also interesting is the claim that no weapon was to be used in this scene, which casts doubt on the ‘accident while rehearsing’ narrative. It could well be that Baldwin was fucking around on his way to finding out. Shades of Jon-Erik Hexum?

If her claim is correct, and there was to be no gunfire in the scene that was being rehearsed, then Baldwin is a little bit more fucked… the plot thickens.

IF Baldwin was fucking around it makes this even worse. Erik Hexum was only 26 and had only been acting 2 or 3 years. He also died in 1984 before more stringent safety standards were in place.

On the other hand, Alec Baldwin is 63 and has been acting 39 years . He is veteran actor and knows better.

Jmo and I don't have an opinion about what Baldwin was doing . I enjoy his acting , his political views are irrelevant to me. Conservative, liberal or other I despise anyone who makes their entirely personality and life about their political beliefs.

I don't have faith that law enforcement will find out the truth because the gun was handled before law enforcement took possession of it.

 

[Pocket Dragoon]

IF Baldwin was fucking around it makes this even worse. Erik Hexum was only 26 and had only been acting 2 or 3 years. He also died in 1984 before more stringent safety standards were in place.

Worse, how? It doesn't make Hutchins any less dead if he wasn't.

On the other hand, Alec Baldwin is 63 and has been acting 39 years . He is veteran actor and knows better.

Yet he didn't bother or care enough to learn or modify his behavior; that's fairly certifiable.

I don't have an opinion about what Baldwin was doing . I enjoy his acting , his political views are irrelevant to me. Conservative, liberal or other I despise anyone who makes their entirely personality and life about their political beliefs.

Baldwin's entire personality is his political belief. He's an activist who happens to be an actor, always has been.

I don't have faith that law enforcement will find out the truth because the gun was handled before law enforcement took possession of it.

Even if they hadn't handled the pistol after the fact, no amount of CSI-level forensic analysis & witness interrogation can make up for the checks being written to keep Baldwin out of jail.

 

[SITHRAK!]

Worse, how?

I’d say when the firearm was a ‘necessary evil’ it’s one thing. If the firearm was absolutely unnecessary and the actor was not handling it in line with safety rules it’s another thing altogether.

Shooting someone negligently when you are required to discharge a firearm isn’t great, but shooting someone negligently when you shouldn’t have been wielding the firearm at all is far worse.

If what this script supervisor is saying is true, then there’s every chance Baldwin was joking around, doing ‘fast draws’ or whatever, hamming it up for the yuks. Which is a violation of so many firearm safety rules (especially ‘treat every firearm as though it were loaded’) that he deserves to lose the millions this is going to cost him.

I feel that IHC was talking about inputs whereas you’re talking about outcomes, so it’s a bit of an apples vs oranges comparison.

 

[Snekposter]

I’d say when the firearm was a ‘necessary evil’ it’s one thing. If the firearm was absolutely unnecessary and the actor was not handling it in line with safety rules it’s another thing altogether.

Shooting someone negligently when you are required to discharge a firearm isn’t great, but shooting someone negligently when you shouldn’t have been wielding the firearm at all is far worse.

If what this script supervisor is saying is true, then there’s every chance Baldwin was joking around, doing ‘fast draws’ or whatever, hamming it up for the yuks. Which is a violation of so many firearm safety rules (especially ‘treat every firearm as though it were loaded’) that he deserves to lose the millions this is going to cost him.

I feel that IHC was talking about inputs whereas you’re talking about outcomes, so it’s a bit of an apples vs oranges comparison.

From what I heard the scene they were practicing was supposed to be a dramatic fast draw aiming somewhere in the camera's general direction, you know, perhaps the archetypal scene in Westerns. The gun should have only been loaded with drilled fake rounds and Baldwin should have had his hands completely off the hammer and trigger during the rehearsals prior to the actual filming. Instead the gun had live rounds and Baldwin was fucking around with either the trigger, hammer, or both.

 

[SITHRAK!]

From what I heard the scene they were practicing was supposed to be a dramatic fast draw aiming somewhere in the camera's general direction, you know, perhaps the archetypal scene in Westerns. The gun should have only been loaded with drilled fake rounds and Baldwin should have had his hands completely off the hammer and trigger during the rehearsals prior to the actual filming. Instead the gun had live rounds and Baldwin was fucking around with either the trigger, hammer, or both.

And yet now we have the script supervisor claiming that the scene didn't require weapon handling at all. Assuming that's true, it means that Baldwin was handling the weapon unnecessarily, and the fact that it was cocked and the trigger pulled hints heavily at horseplay on-set.

It's entirely plausible that Baldwin was fucking around, and this led to the shooting, which would also mean that the official narrative of 'an accidental discharge while rehearsing' becomes 'a negligent discharge while engaging in horseplay'. That would definitely put the shooting into the realm of manslaughter or negligent homicide.

The possibility must be considered that the 'rehearsal' narrative may have been crafted and released to cover for Baldwin acting like a jackass on set with the firearm.

 

[Snekposter]

And yet now we have the script supervisor claiming that the scene didn't require weapon handling at all. Assuming that's true, it means that Baldwin was handling the weapon unnecessarily, and the fact that it was cocked and the trigger pulled hints heavily at horseplay on-set.

It's entirely plausible that Baldwin was fucking around, and this led to the shooting, which would also mean that the official narrative of 'an accidental discharge while rehearsing' becomes 'a negligent discharge while engaging in horseplay'. That would definitely put the shooting into the realm of manslaughter or negligent homicide.

The possibility must be considered that the 'rehearsal' narrative may have been crafted and released to cover for Baldwin acting like a jackass on set with the firearm.

Here, from the article itself:

In the suit, Mitchell claimed, “Alec Baldwin intentionally, without just cause or excuse, cocked and fired and loaded gun even though the upcoming scene to be filmed did not call for the cocking and firing of a firearm.”

There's a difference between handling a firearm (like say, with a draw) and cocking and firing one. Doesn't change the fact he went off-script with the cocking and firing though.

 

[SITHRAK!]

There's a difference between handling a firearm (like say, with a draw) and cocking and firing one. Doesn't change the fact he went off-script with the cocking and firing though.

The issue is that for rehearsal purposes, the revolver should have been a deactivated version (such as hammer welded in place and cylinder obstructions welded in so it couldn’t be loaded).
Any weapon on-set that isn’t obviously deactivated is supposed to be treated as a live weapon, whether ‘hot’ or ‘cold’. As mentioned earlier in the thread, if a firearm is to be handled for a scene it is no longer a ‘prop’ (as the property master doesn‘t deal with weapons to be used by actors, only weapons used as set dressing).

In effect, ‘prop’ guns, deactivated/dummy guns and live/blank firing guns are all supposed to be treated in a specific way. If the script supervisor is right, a live weapon was issued in place of a dummy weapon and subsequent skylarking led directly to the incident.

 

[Snekposter]

The issue is that for rehearsal purposes, the revolver should have been a deactivated version (such as hammer welded in place and cylinder obstructions welded in so it couldn’t be loaded).
Any weapon on-set that isn’t obviously deactivated is supposed to be treated as a live weapon, whether ‘hot’ or ‘cold’. As mentioned earlier in the thread, if a firearm is to be handled for a scene it is no longer a ‘prop’ (as the property master doesn‘t deal with weapons to be used by actors, only weapons used as set dressing).

In effect, ‘prop’ guns, deactivated/dummy guns and live/blank firing guns are all supposed to be treated in a specific way. If the script supervisor is right, a live weapon was issued in place of a dummy weapon and subsequent skylarking led directly to the incident.

Indeed. Although with all of the corner-cutting that's been documented, I doubt they even had any deactivated weapons (since those cost money after all), and just figured they'd wing it with actual weapons. To say things were fucked at every level is probably an understatement, since I figure there's a 90% chance at least one firearm had been acquired without proper diligence since again, crossing the t's and dotting the i's costs time and money.

 

[Product Placement]

This just in (and apologies for doublepost):

‘Rust’ script supervisor claims there was no firing of weapons required in script for fatal scene; accuses Baldwin of ’intentionally’ discharging the weapon; hires shark lawyer Gloria Allred to sue Baldwin.
Nice to see someone who really wasn’t personally affected try to flip this for a quick buck.

What‘s also interesting is the claim that no weapon was to be used in this scene, which casts doubt on the ‘accident while rehearsing’ narrative. It could well be that Baldwin was fucking around on his way to finding out. Shades of Jon-Erik Hexum?

If her claim is correct, and there was to be no gunfire in the scene that was being rehearsed, then Baldwin is a little bit more fucked… the plot thickens.

Seem too soon to sue, I mean wouldn't it be better to wait until the police do their job and you can use their finding to back up your case?

 

[SITHRAK!]

Seem too soon to sue, I mean wouldn't it be better to wait until the police do their job and you can use their finding to back up your case?

Gotta get in quick while he still has money IMHO.
Also, lawsuits use a different standard of proof to criminal cases.
It's why Nicole Brown Simpson's family made a shit load of money suing OJ even though he was found 'not guilty' of her murder.

 

[thyme's up]

This just in (and apologies for doublepost):

‘Rust’ script supervisor claims there was no firing of weapons required in script for fatal scene; accuses Baldwin of ’intentionally’ discharging the weapon; hires shark lawyer Gloria Allred to sue Baldwin.
Nice to see someone who really wasn’t personally affected try to flip this for a quick buck.

Or simply getting out of the way of the bus about to hit her.

 

[Product Placement]

Quick survey question, just out of curiosity. How would you rank the level of responsibility for this between Baldwin, the armorer and the assistant director? Who was the most/least at fault? Based on the currently known facts, of course.

Depends on what you mean on responsibility, legally or how much personally I put on them.

Criminal wise the armorer is most at fault followed by the assistant director. But who I find personally more responsible I'm not sure. The producers cut costs and didn't care about set safety however I don't think they ever expected it to get this bad. While Baldwin is lying right now about the set not being bad, I'm still not sure how much of it he was aware of during the time of the shooting. Think it's all about greed with them and getting the movie done as fast as they could rather than any malice not that makes it right in any way. Baldwin should have asked for the gun to be checked in his view but again not sure if he had any legal requirement for that.


Armorer clearly couldn't do the job, her first film was a nightmare and that should have been the wake-up call she needed to find a new career path but she played with people lives and it's not just she is bad at her job as it really seems she just didn't do it in many cases. With everyone else, I feel they mostly acted legally even if it shouldn't be legally, she outright broke the law and even did the big no of messing with evidence. Her story has already been disproven and she keeps adding crazy shit to it which only makes her look worse. But the thing that makes me not sure if she is not the most at fault is because why wasn't she fired, surely one of the producers or the director would have been aware of the other fuck ups she had onset.

The assistant director has issues on past sets so have to ask the question of why he got the job and have to ask why he didn't check the gun despite saying he did.

I feel it's too early to say who is most at fault, I mean they clearly all are at fault to some point but we have yet to get a full understanding of everything.

 

[BobbyBriggs69420]

As a normal non-hollywood person who's been around guns, I would say close to 100% Alec at fault. You're the one in possession, you're the one responsible, it doesn't matter what anyone told you about the gun, it's a simple concept and I would think/hope a judge or jury would see it the same.

Gun safety is not a hugely complicated hard to understand thing and even actors should be able to get it, make time for it and not rely solely on what someone told you.

 

[Snekposter]

Criminal wise the armorer is most at fault followed by the assistant director. But who I find personally more responsible I'm not sure. The producers cut costs and didn't care about set safety however I don't think they ever expected it to get this bad. While Baldwin is lying right now about the set not being bad, I'm still not sure how much of it he was aware of during the time of the shooting. Think it's all about greed with them and getting the movie done as fast as they could rather than any malice not that makes it right in any way. Baldwin should have asked for the gun to be checked in his view but again not sure if he had any legal requirement for that.

What complicates things is that Baldwin is IIRC the top-listed producer (aka the head producer), and I believe the head investor as well. It looks like it was some big personal project to get him back into the limelight. And it worked. Just not the way he wanted.

 

[Product Placement]

What complicates things is that Baldwin is IIRC the top-listed producer (aka the head producer), and I believe the head investor as well. It looks like it was some big personal project to get him back into the limelight. And it worked. Just not the way he wanted.

What you talking about Boss Baby 1 and 2 are huge

 

[The Dude]

What complicates things is that Baldwin is IIRC the top-listed producer (aka the head producer), and I believe the head investor as well. It looks like it was some big personal project to get him back into the limelight. And it worked. Just not the way he wanted.

He was indeed one of the higher-up producers and also the most experienced person on set when it comes to making movies and the details therein. He had a moral and ethical duty and professional responsibility to foster a culture of safety on set, and to push for all safety concerns voiced by the crew to be taken seriously. And that's all before we even discuss his own unsafe behavior. Alec Baldwin has a well-known reputation for being an egotistical, self-important asshole, so I can easily believe a scenario where he was fucking around with his gun on set which resulted in a negligent discharge that caused death and bodily harm. I can also also see a flase narrative being pushed to cover up for Baldwin's dangerous behavior. Alec is just as much to blame for this incident as the AD and Armorer because he was the "last line of defense" so to speak in regards to safety with that firearm.