Alec Baldwin : Baldwin was told the gun didn't have anything in it…

Baldwin was told the gun didn't have anything in it…

Then why was he firing it at all?

And there were other accidents on this same set involving prop guns.
A woman is dead because of these morons.

An assistant director handed Alec Baldwin a prop firearm and yelled "cold gun" before the actor fired and killed cinematographer Halyna Hutchins and injured director Joel Souza, according to a court document.

The "cold gun" remark was meant to indicate that the weapon did not have live rounds, according to an affidavit for a search warrant for the movie set filed by the Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office and obtained by CNN affiliate KOAT.

Three crew members who were on the set last weekend told the Times there were two accidental prop gun discharges before Thursday.
The rounds were accidentally fired October 16 by Baldwin's stunt double after he was told the gun was "cold," two of the crew members, who witnessed the discharges, told the newspaper.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/23/entertainment/alec-baldwin-rust-shooting-saturday/index.html

"Please vote to preserve the unique character of Warren…" - Robert Duvall

Re: Baldwin was told the gun didn't have anything in it…

of course he was told that. why would he be told anything else?

the problem is, it was HIS set, they weren't union members, most of the crew had walked out because another gun incident, and as producer, he's screwed and HE killed someone

www.thefearmakers.blogspot.com

Re: Baldwin was told the gun didn't have anything in it…

I just don't understand why or how guns that can be deadly are anywhere near a movie set.

"Please vote to preserve the unique character of Warren…" - Robert Duvall

Re: Baldwin was told the gun didn't have anything in it…

Revolvers capable of shooting blanks are also capable of shooting live rounds, so that's not that curious. The question is, was this weapon loaded with live ammunition, or was it a "squib" round (like what killed Brandon Lee)?

Either way, as a producer who allowed filming to continue after armourers walked off in protest (citing, among other things, safety concerns), responsibility rests heavily on Baldwin's shoulders.

Re: Baldwin was told the gun didn't have anything in it…

I have been searching the net trying to understand what these prop guns fire and all I found was they can fire things that shoot out paper or cardboard with gunpowder and they are deadly only at a close range.
How close, I dunno.
But for the sake of discussion suppose it is 3 ft or less.
So from what I found I guess it could mean that Baldwin fired a regular blank and the DOP and director were standing, say, 3 feet and less from him when he fired the gun in their direction.

As for other prop guns that may fire other projectiles I did not see anything about that.
If you suggest they can then please provide a link that explains it.

We will have to wait for the conclusion of the investigation though to confirm the fact of what kind of projectile it was that hit the victims.

"Please vote to preserve the unique character of Warren…" - Robert Duvall

Re: Baldwin was told the gun didn't have anything in it…

There's a difference between shooting blanks from semi-automatics and from revolvers. Blanks on their own do not generate the recoil required to cycle the loading mechanism, and therefore require a muzzle booster to increase recoil. These are mounted at the end of the muzzle on real semi-/ fully automatic firearms in order to use blanks (otherwise you'd have to manually operate the slide or lever for each shot), but that won't do in a movie. So you have specially made firearms with built-in muzzle boosters instead, and these cannot be used to fire live ammunition.

Revolvers and other non-automatic weapons, on the other hand, do not require muzzle boosters in order to shoot blanks, and so it is misleading to call a revolver a prop gun in those cases - because a revolver that can fire blanks can also fire live ammunition.

And yes, it is certainly true that even blanks can be deadly at close range. How close depends on the cartridge, and whether or not a muzzle booster is used. In Norway, what counts as safe is 2 meters with a muzzle loader for most calibres, and 20 meters for all calibres up to and including .50 without one. It's not like it's deadly for all that distance and then suddenly it's safe - but the risk of injury increases the closer you are within that safety distance. It's especially your eyes which are vulnerable to the particles from the powder and the casing itself (especially where plastic casings are used). At point blank range the injuries can be grievous, even fatal. Baldwin would have to be in handshake distance of both the cinematographer and the director in order to injure them both so seriously, and I really don't think that was the case. This was either live ammunition, or a so-called "squib" round (where a projectile from a previous firing for whatever reason lacked the energy to exit the barrel, and got stuck - this is what killed Brandon Lee).

Re: Baldwin was told the gun didn't have anything in it…

That sounds complicated. Why don't they just use unloaded firearms and then " pretend" that they are shooting the gun? I thought it was make believe? Acting.

Sound effects and editing are more advanced that ever before. Therefore the actual sound and visual effect of the gun being fired would be enough to pass as real for the audience. Rounds whether live or not should not even be loaded into the prop gun.

Right? That's what makes sense to me.

Re: Baldwin was told the gun didn't have anything in it…

Nothing looks as real as reality. Using blanks is perfectly safe - so long as the proper precautions are taken. More film crews are killed by other accidents on set than by firearms - vehicular accidents, electric shock, fire, falling objects etc. etc. This in spite of the fact that guns are present on a lot of film sets.

Re: Baldwin was told the gun didn't have anything in it…

Alec Baldwin retweeted an article shared Wednesday by The New York Times that focused on the latest search warrant that was released in the investigation of the fatal "Rust" shooting.

The accidental shooting led to the death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins.

"Before he handed a revolver that he had declared "cold" to Alec Baldwin on the set of the film "Rust," Dave Halls, an assistant director, told a detective he should have inspected each round in each chamber, according to an affidavit. But he did not," the original tweet read.

According to a previous warrant from authorities, Baldwin was handed the firearm by assistant director Dave Halls. A warrant stated that Halls handed the prop gun to Baldwin and declared it "cold," an industry term meaning that the weapon was not loaded with ammunition, including blanks. Per The Associated Press, citing the application for the search warrant, Halls was unaware live rounds were inside the firearm.

The gun Baldwin used was one of three that the armorer had placed on a cart outside the building where a scene was being rehearsed, according to court records.

The actor had previously retweeted a Variety article with the headline, "Alec Baldwin Was Told Prop Gun Was Safe Before Fatal Shooting, Affidavit Says."

Both tweets followed Baldwin's statement on Hutchins' death he shared Friday.

Halls did not immediately respond to Fox News' request for comment.


"Life is tough. Get a helmet." – Candace Owens
"Not today, Satan!" – Blaire White

Re: Baldwin was told the gun didn't have anything in it…

Dave Halls, an assistant director, told a detective he should have inspected each round in each chamber, according to an affidavit. But he did not,"

And Baldwin then took the AD at his word. It would have been sensible for both to check it, especially since Baldwin was firing it.

Baldwin would have also had plenty of firearm experience on movie sets too, when one looks at his resume and the films he's made.

Sounds like a complacent attitude taken.

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

Re: Baldwin was told the gun didn't have anything in it…

I agree.
Using any thing that shoots anything out of a gun is no longer needed in movie making anymore.

"Please vote to preserve the unique character of Warren…" - Robert Duvall

Re: Baldwin was told the gun didn't have anything in it…

Wow.
You seem to really know your stuff about prop guns.
Do you have a job that involves it or just a lot of research?

Turns out that it was live ammunition or a real bullet, I guess.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/27/entertainment/rust-set-press-conference/index.html

Why would they put a gun that can fire real bullets anywhere near prop guns?
What reason would they have for needing a real gun that can shoot and kill among the fake ones that don't?

"Please vote to preserve the unique character of Warren…" - Robert Duvall

Re: Baldwin was told the gun didn't have anything in it…

I know about firearms handling, as well as blanks and muzzle boosters from my military service. The specifics about movie props was the result of a bit of googling, but I knew what to look for.

Why would they put a gun that can fire real bullets anywhere near prop guns?
What reason would they have for needing a real gun that can shoot and kill among the fake ones that don't?
Like I said, a revolver than can shoot blanks can also shoot live ammunition. I suppose they could install an obstruction in the barrel much like starter pistols have, but realistically that would make it less safe in the long run. After all, if you accidentally fire live ammunition, you probably won't hit anyone (we tend to hear about accidents with actual consequences; rarely about near-misses). But if there's an obstruction in the barrel, it will definitely blow up in your hand.

Re: Baldwin was told the gun didn't have anything in it…

In a tragic accident, Bruce Lee's son died was shot by a prop gun on set, while filming 'The Crow' (1994).

A .44-caliber bullet was found in the actor's spine. The real bullet had reportedly been used for a close-up shot but it was not properly disposed of.

"Life is tough. Get a helmet." – Candace Owens
"Not today, Satan!" – Blaire White

Re: Baldwin was told the gun didn't have anything in it…

In a tragic accident, Bruce Lee's son died was shot by a prop gun on set, while filming 'The Crow' (1994).

A .44-caliber bullet was found in the actor's spine. The real bullet had reportedly been used for a close-up shot but it was not properly disposed of.
What happened was that they had a close-up shot of the revolver being loaded. For this they were supposed to use dummy rounds. However, the crew on the set had made those rounds themselves from live ammunition (the armourers had gone home for the day and it would have cost more money to get them back just to make some dummy rounds): they removed the bullets from real ammunition, poured out the gunpowder and re-attached the bullets. But they did not remove the primers. And at some point, the gun was fired giving the projectile enough energy to enter the barrel and get stuck there. When they later loaded the revolver with blanks, the bullet would have nearly the same force as live ammunition. This is what is known as a squib load.

Re: Baldwin was told the gun didn't have anything in it…

Shut up.

Re: Baldwin was told the gun didn't have anything in it…

#Justice4Baldwin

Re: Baldwin was told the gun didn't have anything in it…

He would have been told they were blanks.

The shot would have likely required the real action of firing the weapon and the sound for more authenticity. Though that sounds a bit dubious too, because sound effects/mixings are added and/or adjusted in post production.

It shouldn't be about Baldwin firing the weapon, but focus on why was he told it was a "cold gun" and who was it that loaded it with live ammunition and placed it in the prop cart?

Not to mention now, all weapons fired on film sets need to be fully inspected by the person firing them and the cartridges to be loaded by them. If they don't understand firearms, then they will have to do a training course.

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

Re: Baldwin was told the gun didn't have anything in it…

This!!!!

Re: Baldwin was told the gun didn't have anything in it…

They can train them and take all the precautions up the wazoo but just like guns that fire real bullets accidents still happen where lives are lost.
This is not the first time but should be the last.
What they need to do is to have guns that don't fire anything at all and then add that in as you suggested in post with CGI and sound efx.
If Star Wars can do all that shit with blasters, light swords and other shit with green screen then they can do it for simple guns.

"Please vote to preserve the unique character of Warren…" - Robert Duvall

Re: Baldwin was told the gun didn't have anything in it…

It would be cheaper for a natural shot just for firing a weapon, than post production visual effects.

Yes, nothing is absolute and things happen regardless, but if the person firing the weapon has at least fully inspected it and loaded it, then only they can then take responsibility for any incident that occurs that is detrimental.

Its like the driver of a vehicle is responsible for their mindful driving operations for the most part.

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

Re: Baldwin was told the gun didn't have anything in it…

It is being talked about to get rid of guns that can fire anything from movie sets.

"Please vote to preserve the unique character of Warren…" - Robert Duvall

Re: Baldwin was told the gun didn't have anything in it…

but a driver goes through training before he is given a drivers license. does the actor need to take a gun safety and firing course and pass before they do this? if so shouldnt every gun owner have to do the same thing?

Re: Baldwin was told the gun didn't have anything in it…

….does the actor need to take a gun safety and firing course and pass before they do this?
Treat it like driving.

Doing training and getting licenses doesn't mean things still won't happen, but it puts more of a legal responsibility on the operator/user and especially in cases like this.

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

Re: Baldwin was told the gun didn't have anything in it…

I just said kind of the same thing without having read your reply.

Re: Baldwin was told the gun didn't have anything in it…

"It shouldn't be about Baldwin firing the weapon…"

Yeah, it is.
He is a producer and there were problems on the set from previous gun incidents and crew walking off.

In any case this is not up to us.
It is up to the investigators and DA but we know how celebs get away with murder, accidental or intentional, most of the time.

Baldy bears responsibility.
Stupid murdering asshole should have double checked the gun first when it is clowns who are making this movie.

"Please vote to preserve the unique character of Warren…" - Robert Duvall

Re: Baldwin was told the gun didn't have anything in it…

Yeah, it is.
He is a producer and there were problems on the set from previous gun incidents and crew walking off.
But I very much doubt he's going to be indicted in this aspect, because by current reported accounts, he was told by the director that it was a "cold gun" and preceding that, it would have been loaded by a prop expert who was responsible for the weapons being used and fired.

Baldy bears responsibility.
Stupid murdering asshole…

I can't make any informed judgement yet on Baldwin being a stupid murdering asshole without understanding all the evidence and in all reality, neither can you.

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

Re: Baldwin was told the gun didn't have anything in it…

But I very much doubt he's going to be indicted in this aspect, because by current reported accounts, he was told by the director that it was a "cold gun" and preceding that, it would have been loaded by a prop expert who was responsible for the weapons being used and fired.
The director is not in a position to know if it's a cold gun or not. Only one person is in the position to know: the one who is currently in possession of the gun. And you never trust the previous possessor at his word, no matter who he is - never. There are no exceptions to this rule.

Also, the armourers had already walked out on the set at that point, in protest - among other things because of safety concerns. Two negligent discharges had already occurred on the set on a separate occasion, and apparently they were playing fast and loose with gun safety. Without the experts present, it is the height of recklessness to continue filming scenes involving firearms. Brandon Lee died because the director figured they could make dummy loads as well as the armourers could.

So Baldwin is responsible, because he is one of the producers.
He is also responsible because he was holding the gun, and very obviously not following basic safety guidelines. Did he check if the gun was loaded, and if so with what? That's a big 'if', and the answer is likely 'no'. But even if he did, he certainly did not exercise muzzle discipline, as there is no good reason why his gun should ever have been pointed at a cinematographer and a director.

No matter how you cut it, Baldwin can't pass the buck on this one.

Re: Baldwin was told the gun didn't have anything in it…

I am still having a problem with this. If there were prior incidents more reason to be extra careful.

Re: Baldwin was told the gun didn't have anything in it…

If there were prior incidents more reason to be extra careful.
It sounds a bit dodgy, like some stuff is being covered up.

Investigative measures will be suppressed until all evidence is collated, yet we can't always trust what the MSM report either. They tell us what they want us to know.

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

Re: Baldwin was told the gun didn't have anything in it…

Yup. It seems dicey at best. Rule number one, respect the gun as if it is loaded, NEVER point a gun at a person unless you plan on doing that person harm.

They arwnt even actors so why point it at them? As usual, i will wait for more info.

Re: Baldwin was told the gun didn't have anything in it…

They arwnt even actors so why point it at them?
I think that is normal for a down the barrel shot to shoot straight at the camera, so there is nothing really unusual there.

Yes, we will just have to wait to see what reports come out in the MSM, which I don't often trust.

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

Re: Baldwin was told the gun didn't have anything in it…

I think that is normal for a down the barrel shot to shoot straight at the camera, so there is nothing really unusual there.
The camera, sure. But there is no good reason why there should be a person in line with the barrel, directly behind the camera, at that time. Let alone two.

Re: Baldwin was told the gun didn't have anything in it…

Yet there were 2 people in front of him, so it would have been a shot set-up. There can be no disputing that.

I will hold off until any further personal opinion is made and more evidence is brought forward. We all will have too.

For whatever Baldwin's responsibility is in ensuring the gun he fired didn't have live dangerous rounds and his status as producer too, I have a feeling this is something that he may not be made accountable for.

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

Re: Baldwin was told the gun didn't have anything in it…

https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/peopleandplaces/nicolas-cage-allegedly-walked-off-previous-film-set-because-of-rust-armorer/vi-AAQ1LZ9?ocid=msedgntp


Remember when I posted that previous complaints had been filed for lax safety on previous movie sets? I think it was Goll. I found another one from Nicholas Cage.

With the movie Rust, people were walking off set just the day before with regards to unrelated safety concerns. This is not going to bode well, and I'm not sure how or if it will factor into this specific issue.

Generally when a weapon is being used in a scene, there's a prop master, an armourer, and the person using the weapon as well as the person being "fired at" all get to inspect the weapon and are trained and informed in what to look at. (Don't quote me, but that might be exclusive to "weapon-heavy movies" and not ones that aren't essentially high action).

I am not really familiar with Rust and what it was supposed to be about. The AD has had safety complaints against him (see article) and if I recall correctly, this armourer had expressed concern when being approached for this movie that she wasn't sure she was ready and felt intimidated by firearms. Personally, that would set off some red flags, but one would also assume she had completed all the required training and in fact, might even be more diligent.

The AD who selected that one particular firearm out of the three that were on the table is going to be on the line as well.

"Life is tough. Get a helmet." – Candace Owens
"Not today, Satan!" – Blaire White

Re: Baldwin was told the gun didn't have anything in it…

It's just one big mess and what were live rounds doing on the set for these prop guns in the first place too? Were live rounds needed for some other shot they needed to take?

Something dodgy is underfoot….🤔

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

Re: Baldwin was told the gun didn't have anything in it…

You pulled all of that information from things I wrote on here. You're such a fucking stalker! I cannot stand your ass.

Re: Baldwin was told the gun didn't have anything in it…

You're such a fucking stalker! I cannot stand your ass.
I'd say this is the very same reason why 99.9999999999% of posters around her struggle to stand your wide load too.

Norman! What did you put in my tea?
Top