News Forum - Lawsuit filed against Baldwin, set gun handler claims conspiracy

[Thaiger]

Following a tragic fatal accidental shooting on the set of a Hollywood movie being filmed in New Mexico, crew members of the movie are suing actor and producer Alec Baldwin who fired the fatal shot. The famous actor was starring in as well as producing “Rust”, an Old West film, when he was handed a gun to rehearse a scene on set where he fired into the camera. The gun went off with a real bullet that passed through cinematographer Halyna Hutchins and into director Joel Souza. Hutchins was killed by the bullet while Souza was hit in the shoulder […]

The story Lawsuit filed against Baldwin, set gun handler claims conspiracy as seen on Thaiger News.

Read the full story

[Stonker]

The charges seem pretty justified against all three of them based on what's been reported, with Baldwin responsible as the producer.

Reportedly all the dummy / drill rounds in the revolver had holes through the cases to make them easy to identify, as is frequently the case apart from with "hero" / show rounds, while the case from the live round obviously had no such holes.

The armourer loaded the revolver and claimed she then put it in a gun safe during the lunch break before taking it out after lunch when it was picked up by the assistant director, without checking it, who then handed it to Baldwin declaring "cold gun".

The armourer should have checked every round before loading the revolver, so even if someone had put a live round in with the dummies she should have seen it.

She should also have ensured the assistant director checked the gun when he picked it up, if he was allowed to handle the firearm at all which he had no reason to.

The assistant director should have checked the gun when he picked it up, if he was authorised to, and he should have then shown Baldwin that it was only loaded with dummy / drill rounds.

Others on the set have said that the guns (three) weren't in a weapons safe but were just left on a table / cart along with the holsters in a "pile", which if correct opens up the possibility that at some stage someone deliberately took out a dummy round and replaced it with a live one.

After he fired the shot, Baldwin reportedly dropped the gun on the ground and the armourer picked it up and took out all the dummy rounds and the empty (fired) case.

An experienced / trained armourer would have known to preserve the evidence and "bagged" the gun, leaving it loaded to preserve the evidence for the police and an enquiry.

[HolyCowCm]

15 minutes ago, Stonker said:

The charges seem pretty justified against all three of them based on what's been reported, with Baldwin responsible as the producer.

Reportedly all the dummy / drill rounds in the revolver had holes through the cases to make them easy to identify, as is frequently the case apart from with "hero" / show rounds, while the case from the live round obviously had no such holes.

The armourer loaded the revolver and claimed she then put it in a gun safe during the lunch break before taking it out after lunch when it was picked up by the assistant director, without checking it, who then handed it to Baldwin declaring "cold gun".

The armourer should have checked every round before loading the revolver, so even if someone had put a live round in with the dummies she should have seen it.

She should also have ensured the assistant director checked the gun when he picked it up, if he was allowed to handle the firearm at all which he had no reason to.

The assistant director should have checked the gun when he picked it up, if he was authorised to, and he should have then shown Baldwin that it was only loaded with dummy / drill rounds.

Others on the set have said that the guns (three) weren't in a weapons safe but were just left on a table / cart along with the holsters in a "pile", which if correct opens up the possibility that at some stage someone deliberately took out a dummy round and replaced it with a live one.

After he fired the shot, Baldwin reportedly dropped the gun on the ground and the armourer picked it up and took out all the dummy rounds and the empty (fired) case.

An experienced / trained armourer would have known to preserve the evidence and "bagged" the gun, leaving it loaded to preserve the evidence for the police and an enquiry.

Well I sort of had guns in and out of my life growing up and one thing you learn is to always check any firearm given you or you pick up. And then hold and use it accordingly. Guns are fun but they are not a joke. 

[Stonker]

14 minutes ago, HolyCowCm said:

Well I sort of had guns in and out of my life growing up and one thing you learn is to always check any firearm given you or you pick up. And then hold and use it accordingly. Guns are fun but they are not a joke. 

Under normal circumstances, yes, but on a movie set it's always assumed that actors have no weapons experience so it's the armourer's specific responsibility to do all safety checks for them as it's safer that way ... or should be.

After 40+ years in movies Baldwin could be expected to have some gun handling experience, but that should never mean that the armourer doesn't do their job to the full, or that the producer doesn't ensure that the armourer does their job.

Based on all the reported evidence, the actor can't be blamed - but the producer, armourer, and assistant director can.

[HolyCowCm]

14 minutes ago, Stonker said:

Under normal circumstances, yes, but on a movie set it's always assumed that actors have no weapons experience so it's the armourer's specific responsibility to do all safety checks for them as it's safer that way ... or should be.

After 40+ years in movies Baldwin could be expected to have some gun handling experience, but that should never mean that the armourer doesn't do their job to the full, or that the producer doesn't ensure that the armourer does their job.

Based on all the reported evidence, the actor can't be blamed - but the producer, armourer, and assistant director can.

I have followed the story. There are some things missing. Didn’t a lunch break or off time target shooting supposedly went on? Responsible is the armourer and the situation was too lax. But guns and the USA have become that way now so no wonder it Durant happen more. As for legality of who really is or will be held responsible, who knows as that is a legal situation to evolve. 

[Stonker]

2 hours ago, HolyCowCm said:

I have followed the story. There are some things missing. Didn’t a lunch break or off time target shooting supposedly went on?

Separate incidents / issues.

It's unclear when the alleged "target practice" with the guns took place, but there's never been any suggestion that it was the same day, and the armourer's lawyer said that she was unaware of it.

According to earlier reports the armourer laid out the guns and holsters on a table / prop cart outside the church (some reports said they were put in a "pile") before an off- shoot break for lunch, with some reports suggesting they were unsupervised.

According to a statement from the armourer's lawyer she had put the guns in a weapons safe on the prop trolley after checking them, and as only a limited number of people knew the combination she didn't check them again on returning from lunch.

[AlexPTY]

it's a revolver FFC, just spin the barrel and look in the holes. cheap bastard deserves to go to jail

[palooka]

Surely if there are other live rounds they have been forensically tested for prints and dna of who touched those rounds.

Worked for a company that required daily issuing of revolvers, the rules were very strict on loading and unloading of weapons. One person unloaded or loaded, the other checked and verified number of rounds. The weapons on issuance were opened and handed to the employee opened, they verified the rounds and closed and holstered the weapon. Weapons register was then signed by the recipient.  Similar rules for the return of weapons at end of shift.

Seems no one checked the armourer or weapon at any stage and complacency always brings trouble.

[HolyCowCm]

9 hours ago, Stonker said:

According to earlier reports the armourer laid out the guns and holsters on a table / prop cart outside the church (some reports said they were put in a "pile") before an off- shoot break for lunch, with some reports suggesting they were unsupervised.

According to a statement from the armourer's lawyer she had put the guns in a weapons safe on the prop trolley after checking them, and as only a limited number of people knew the combination she didn't check them again on returning from lunch.

Yes I read that. I also read in some other article, not TT, that there was some target practice on the day of question, unless that was retracted.

[Stonker]

3 hours ago, AlexPTY said:

it's a revolver FFC, just spin the barrel and look in the holes. cheap bastard deserves to go to jail

Sorry, but that doesn't work if there are dummy / drill rounds in the chambers, as there were here, as they look virtually identical to live rounds from front or back.

Depending on the type of dummy / drill round an expert would be able to tell from the percussion cap in the base of the round, but even then not always as 'hero' / show rounds are deliberately made to look absolutely identical and the only way to tell is to check the code on the base of the round.

In this instance the only way to check would have been to unload all the chambers as the drill rounds had a hole through them (see pic above) and that's the armourer's job.

[Stonker]

3 hours ago, palooka said:

Surely if there are other live rounds they have been forensically tested for prints and dna of who touched those rounds

That wouldn't necessarily point to the round fired, as the guns were widely reported as having been used for 'target practice', but under absolutely no circumstances should live / blank / drill rounds be mixed anywhere regardless of that.

The point, though, was that after the weapon was fired no-one should have unloaded it for exactly those reasons - but the armourer unloaded it, handling all the rounds including the empty case.

3 hours ago, palooka said:

Worked for a company that required daily issuing of revolvers, the rules were very strict on loading and unloading of weapons. One person unloaded or loaded, the other checked and verified number of rounds. The weapons on issuance were opened and handed to the employee opened, they verified the rounds and closed and holstered the weapon. Weapons register was then signed by the recipient.  Similar rules for the return of weapons at end of shift.

That sounds reasonably safe but unusual and not 'best practice'.

Weapons and ammunition are normally best issued and returned separately, with the person they're issued to loading and unloading themselves, otherwise that opens up a load of potentially dangerous possibilities.

If the person the weapon's issued to can't do that competently for themselves they shouldn't be routinely handling the weapon at all.

3 hours ago, palooka said:

Seems no one checked the armourer or weapon at any stage and complacency always brings trouble

Reportedly neither the armourer nor the prop master (whose job included supervising the armourer) were members of Local 44 (the armourers and prop masters union).

[Stonker]

1 hour ago, HolyCowCm said:

Yes I read that. I also read in some other article, not TT, that there was some target practice on the day of question, unless that was retracted.

I haven't seen that, but it sounds unlikely as shooting (filming) had been going on that morning so the last thing they'd have wanted would have been someone firing rounds off nearby.

[AlexPTY]

1 hour ago, Stonker said:

Sorry, but that doesn't work if there are dummy / drill rounds in the chambers, as there were here, as they look virtually identical to live rounds from front or back.

Depending on the type of dummy / drill round an expert would be able to tell from the percussion cap in the base of the round, but even then not always as 'hero' / show rounds are deliberately made to look absolutely identical and the only way to tell is to check the code on the base of the round.

In this instance the only way to check would have been to unload all the chambers as the drill rounds had a hole through them (see pic above) and that's the armourer's job.

it was yelled to be "cold"

[palooka]

49 minutes ago, Stonker said:

That sounds reasonably safe but unusual and not 'best practice'.

Weapons and ammunition are normally best issued and returned separately, with the person they're issued to loading and unloading themselves, otherwise that opens up a load of potentially dangerous possibilities.

If the person the weapon's issued to can't do that competently for themselves they shouldn't be routinely handling the weapon at all.

Weapons room had 2 people only, the other side had anything up to 50 people milling around or waiting for weapons.  With any group there is always the idiot who will bump an elbow when someone is loading, then the risk of shells on the floor, cut that risk out plus no one had a good reason to have a weapon unholstered in that crowded room. ie no fool playing with guns. Only 2 reasons to unholster that weapon, to use it to shoot someone or to transfer the weapon to the armoury.  Worked no "accidents."

[Stonker]

15 minutes ago, AlexPTY said:

it was yelled to be "cold"

Yes, but I was replying to your comment that "it's a revolver FFC, just spin the barrel and look in the holes" as that doesn't tell you anything.

"cold gun" in set parlance doesn't mean unloaded / empty / no rounds - it simply means either unloaded or only loaded with drill / dummy rounds, which is what it was meant to be loaded with.

[Stonker]

7 minutes ago, palooka said:

Weapons room had 2 people only, the other side had anything up to 50 people milling around or waiting for weapons.  With any group there is always the idiot who will bump an elbow when someone is loading, then the risk of shells on the floor, cut that risk out plus no one had a good reason to have a weapon unholstered in that crowded room. ie no fool playing with guns. Only 2 reasons to unholster that weapon, to use it to shoot someone or to transfer the weapon to the armoury.  Worked no "accidents."

It all depends on the circumstances, I'm simply pointing out that it's not usual or considered best practice, and it's not really of any relevance to these circumstances.

[Stonker]

5 hours ago, palooka said:

Weapons room had 2 people only, the other side had anything up to 50 people milling around or waiting for weapons.  With any group there is always the idiot who will bump an elbow when someone is loading, then the risk of shells on the floor, cut that risk out plus no one had a good reason to have a weapon unholstered in that crowded room. ie no fool playing with guns. Only 2 reasons to unholster that weapon, to use it to shoot someone or to transfer the weapon to the armoury.  Worked no "accidents."

Just in case anyone thinks I'm maligning you or your unit / company in any way, @palooka, I should maybe add that that's absolutely not the case, as I know a number of units that used to do it that way with revolvers, including the UK's Civil Nuclear Police and MoD Plod, and it's good for safety but not something I'm in favour of for a number of other reasons.

[longwood50]

Two points

1. Why are crew members who were not injured by the shooting suing anyone?  

2.  On the set of a movie there should be only two types of rounds.  Dummy rounds that are inert and meant only to show a complete cartridge with a bullet.  Then blank cartridges which will fire but do not contain a bullet but only gunpowder and a primer. 

Why was there any real live ammunition on the set at all.  


 

[Stonker]

On 11/13/2021 at 11:54 AM, longwood50 said:

Two points

1. Why are crew members who were not injured by the shooting suing anyone?  

PTSD.

The latest lawsuit alleges direct negligence by Baldwin on the grounds that he wasn't supposed to pull the trigger as that wasn't scripted and wasn't part of that shoot / scene, and the cameras weren't even rolling at the time.

If so that sounds pretty reasonable and as if someone who opposes playing with guns was ... well ... playing with guns.

[Mudshark]

On 11/13/2021 at 11:54 AM, longwood50 said:

1. Why are crew members who were not injured by the shooting suing anyone?  

Lawyer up and see if you can squeeze some money out of it, an american tradition. I'll be honest I haven't paid much attention to Alec Baldwin, although I did think Miami Blues rocked. Still he seems to have gotten political over the years and that is a bone in the throat to the Faux news crowd. It's amusing, yet sobering to watch them form up into a surly mob, shaking axe handles, gnashing teeth, trying to use a tragedy to tar & feather him, or worse. Perhaps a good reminder of what they would do if they could.

[Stonker]

2 minutes ago, Mudshark said:

Lawyer up and see if you can squeeze some money out of it, an american tradition. I'll be honest I haven't paid much attention to Alec Baldwin, although I did think Miami Blues rocked. Still he seems to have gotten political over the years and that is a bone in the throat to the Faux news crowd. It's amusing, yet sobering to watch them form up into a surly mob, shaking axe handles, gnashing teeth, trying to use a tragedy to tar & feather him, or worse. Perhaps a good reminder of what they would do if they could.

One of those suing is the assistant script writer who should know if pulling the trigger was scripted. Reportedly he was next to the cameraman when the two were shot, so PTSD isn't unreasonable and as you say suing is the American way.

If correct I think he's in serious trouble as the actor and 'trigger-puller', not just the producer.