Why you can never be too careful

Status
Not open for further replies.
Brandon Herrera did a YouTube video on this incident, and he brought out a few points. He mentioned the inexperience of the armorer -- she's Thell Reeds daughter, but this is only her second film as a chief armorer, there were complaints about her lack of knowledge on the previous film, and -- be sure you are sitting down -- she had to call her father to ask how to load blanks into a six shooter.

There's problem number one.

Apparently on this location the prop guns were allowed to be used by the actors and crew for plinking between sets. That means there was live ammunition on the set -- which has been a HUGE no-no on film sets ever since Brandon Lees death.

There's problem number two.

According to Brandon Herrera (and I had read this in one of the early reports, too, a couple of days ago), the incident occurred between shoots. The scene had been shot, the director wanted to shoot another take, Baldwin didn't like that, and he responded by saying, "Maybe I should just shoot both of you," then he drew the gun, pointed it at them, and pulled the trigger. In other words, he intentionally pointed a gun at someone and he intentionally pulled the trigger. Sure, he thought it was a cold gun -- but this is exactly why both the NRA rules and Cooper's rules stress that ALL guns are to be treated as if they are loaded, and that we must NEVER point a gun at anyone or anything we are not willing to destroy. Mr. I'm-better-and-smarter-than-you-are Baldwin intentionally violated the basic rules of firearms safety -- as a joke.

Problem number 3.
 
Last edited:
It may have been that there was no live ammo on the set.

Reporting this evening indicates the firearm in question had been taken off the set for use during "target practice" when off duty or not shooting.

If true, this could be the manner in which a live round was introduced to this firearm, and how it came to the set with the live round still in it. Aside from individuals not following the four basic rules of firearms handling, problem number one is a lack of firearms discipline - "Prop Guns" should never be taken from the set to use for target practice, then returned to the set. Prop Guns should be isolated and only used for filming. If you're going to have a "prop gun" that could conceivably fire live rounds, which is in and of itself incredibly dangerous, standard operating procedures or protocols should be in place that preclude "prop guns" from being used for anything other than filming scenes for the production.

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainme...-death-halyna-hutchins-fired-crew-off-set-fun
 
When the only tool you know is a hammer,everything looks like a nail.

BANNING IS NOT THE SOLUTION TO EVERY #&&%@@!!! PROBLEM!!!

They have been making westerns and war movies and cops and robbers movies since the beginning of black and white motion pictures without shooting people.
Using the same flipping Hollywood prop guns.
If the info Aguila Blanco revealed in his last post is true, its not the gun that was the problem.
If using the prop guns for live ammo plinking sessions between film shoots occurred,COME ON!! What more do you need to know?
And IF IT IS TRUE (it may not be) That Baldwin did the "Maybe I ought to just shoot you" thing.....I'm going to leave it unsaid. You can guess what I'm thinking.

Nothing will undo the death. It seems likely there are very serious charges to be filed.

This will take you to a statement by Her friend,a Gaffer, who was standing beside her when she was shot,and held her as she was dying.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/ne...alyna-hutchins-death/ar-AAPUyh8?ocid=msedgntp
 
Now here's my detail obsessed question, HOW MANY ROUNDS WERE IN THE GUN??? when the shooting happened...
Click to expand...
interesting question, could have only been one, but that would negate the need to look like it has live rounds, or was this mixed in with dummy bullets? I have no knowledge, but wouldn’t inert dummy bullets look or feel different from a live bullet?
 
According to Brandon Herrera......Problem number 3.
Click to expand...

First I'd heard of that...wow..

Except for the tragic horrific result, this just keeps getting "better and better" in the BAD way....

OK, so what have we got so far?
There was live ammo on the set
there was no live ammo on the set but the guns went off the set, got shot with live ammo off the set then came back on the set to be used in filming...

is that about right??

And, if Mr Herrera is to be believed, (I'd want independent verification from witnesses) the scene was shot, so Baldwin "shot" the camera (with a blank I assume) per the script. and THEN after that he was "playing" he shot a live round which killed one and wounded another.

I'm finding my credibility being stretched here....

more specific information is desperately needed. Are we supposed to believe a single live round was left in the gun from when it was off the set being used for plinking, and then when it came back on the set it was loaded with blanks, with the live round left in it?? and at least one was shot for the film and then the live round came up under the hammer AFTER the filming when Baldwin was "joking"?? about shooting them both???

I realize the most unbelievable things can happen and happen accidently or unintentionally but this scenario seems like its really ...reaching....

It may actually be true, but it sure sounds fishy with what we know right now. I wonder if the next recounting of events will be something more plausible...it can hardly be more far fetched.

People do win the lottery against odds of millions to one, so I won't categorically rule it out, but damn, this sure sounds like a Mystery of the Week movie murder plot...
SO FAR
 
Another interesting aspect of the accident was that several of the crew had resigned just days previous to the accident, among their complaints are accidental discharges. In my book AD means the gun went off without the shooter intending it to. This could mean the trigger was inadvertently pulled when it shouldn't have been--or it also could mean that the firearm itself was mechanically deficient in some way. Getting a typical revolver to do that would take some work, especially if it's a single action, though movies often depict revolvers that can fire nearly as fast as machine guns. Baldwin reportedly had been practicing cross-draws.
 
Last edited:
A Colt SAA trigger is perfectly capable of having an excellent trigger ,comparable to S+W DA s and 1911's. The hammer does not get cocked till you are ready to shoot.
But an undisciplined finger in the trigger guard while channeling Doc Holiday can make a light,crisp 3 lb trigger go off unintentionally. Maybe the "Misfires " were really ND's. Maybe.

But then an old prop gun may have seen a lot if fanning and other abuse. Folks spinning and twirling and dropping them . Hammer notches and sears DO get damaged. How hard is it to Red Tag them,Out of Service till repaired? There is no justification for complaining about "unsafe guns that misfire". What good does that do? Is it ANY HARDER to report it in such a way that its documented? Write "Hammer Drops" on a red tag and tie it in the trigger guard? Then it gets fixed. Better,it does not get issued again.

That is one safety issue. Valid and real. But its totally separate from live ammo anywhere near the production of the film. The unconfirmed hearsay info I have heard seems to indicate there was NO MISFIRE. The gun worked as it was supposed to. SOMEONE loaded at least one cartridge in the cylinder. Gun was declared unloaded. Alec Baldwin cocked hammer,pointed it at People,and pulled the trigger. Whether it was acting,doing the work of making the film, or horseplay, A Woman is dead.
 
They used "prop" guns for target practice/plinking during breaks? Of all the utter insanity...I cannot imagine the level of thinking that entails.
I have seen old ,movie "prop" guns from years on past, and they were TERRIBLY maintained, look great on the outside, beat to death on the inside.
Long and short is the person owning the trigger finger is responsible.
 
Several days later, I'm doubting any actual "facts" will ever be released.

Doesn't fit the agenda. The whole thing stinks.
 
Several days later, I'm doubting any actual "facts" will ever be released.
Click to expand...
I think just the opposite--probably the facts and evidence will be gathered up pretty quickly. Figuring out the legal implications will be the tricky part. My guess is the whole guns in films industry will change as a result.

There's a difference between a Keanu Reeves or a Tom Sellick handling a firearm on the set and an Alec Baldwin.

A Colt SAA trigger is perfectly capable of having an excellent trigger ,comparable to S+W DA s and 1911's. The hammer does not get cocked till you are ready to shoot.
Click to expand...
Been a long time since I worked on a revolver trigger (done a couple of Blackhawks), as I recall one of the hardest triggers there is in any firearm to adjust safely and properly (in reducing the pull weight) so everything works properly in sequence.
 
Last edited:
It sounds like that article is blaming the firearm for the discharge and chain of custody. I hope someone goes to jail for this stupidity.
Click to expand...
Probably a mad scramble to see who is going to get thrown under the bus is my guess. Then I imagine "special extenuating circumstances" will result in a contributory negligence charge of some sort. Then I imagine a gargantuan civil lawsuit being filed by the family of Hutchins, most likely against Baldwin himself. Like most things in our country--just follow the bouncing dollar sign.
 
Later article mentions "...people actually using the firearms off the set..."
(Which is consistent with my view that someone purposefully loaded the gun/though w/o intent)

That said: Spaghetti's on the wall as far as lawyers see it

- Gunmaker (general principles - free money)
- RUST (corporate responsibility)
- Landowner (did I mention spaghetti?)
- Armorer (who should have been in control of all guns at all times)
- Ass't Director (who handed the gun off as 'Cold' w/o checking)
- Baldwin (WHO WAS THE LAST FIGURE IN THE CHAIN to be able to stop the disaster by simply checking... 2 seconds....
....... but didn't




But in the end... it was the gun's fault.

.
 
Last edited:
44 AMP said:
Ms. Gutierrez took the spent casing out of the gun used in the shooting and later handed the gun to sheriff’s deputies.
Click to expand...

this bothers me a little. not that its in an affidavit, or that its an unreasonable thing to do, but I wonder about they way it is being reported and what other details either never got into the affidavit or are being left out by reporters.
Click to expand...

The quote about removing the casing bothers me a lot, as in it looks like evidence tampering. The extra handling may obscure/remove such things as the fingerprints of who handled that cartridge.
 
I haven’t read all comments, but it seems that there is a high probability that there’s footage of the event. However, this seems to be prepping for filming a scene so the camera may not have been running either. But there might be high def recordings.
 
Somebody suggested its seldom a good idea to explain with conspiracy what can be covered with incompetence.

Good plan. But,since I have a wild imagination,

What if,after returning from a lunchtime plinking session, The Crew staging the Walk-Off included one person who was not quite right in the head. There is one in every crowd .(Might even be one of those Meth Head Tweakers!!)

What if these strikers expected solidarity.

It really ,really ,hurted their feelings that some crew kept working and the show would go on without those who walked off. That Compromised Their Relevance!!! Dude,they got Disrespected!!

Haylna was the one cinema photographer who kept working. She was the only camera.

What if "Guy not Right in The Head" kept a loaded round from the plink session. It might get slipped into a cylinder to ruin the day for the "scabs"

Now,I do not believe thats what really happened. But before we get too sure of ourselves about any one theory,

It COULD have happened.
 
There seems a common misconception that a prop gun is not a real gun capable of firing a real shot.

Well, sometimes. A lot of actors carry lighter weight, unbreakable plastic dummies when all that is required is to show a filled holster.

If an automatic or semiautomatic is required to fire more than one shot in one take, it must be considerably modified to function with blanks and is not then safe or able to fire live ammo. But I have seen numerous cases where an auto was only fired once, or only fired again after a camera cut which gave an opportunity to rack in another blank, or even showing the actor racking the slide.

And the revolver doesn't care. It just shoots what you feed it. The prop houses bought up a lot of real Colts and Winchesters back when second hand guns were cheap and westerns popular.

You can make something fool proof but you can't make it damn fool proof.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top