Alec Baldwin SHOOTING

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: peaceinoutz
I would think the police would be vigilante here since they say there was a lot of controversy about this movie set being unsafe and some disgruntled folks protesting over it. Maybe, there is a possibility of some kind of sabotage. Unlikely, but possible.


Really a sad case though--the talented young lady had a kid and was on her way up in the movie industry.

Unfortunately, no matter how vigilant the police are in investigating, they have no authority to file charges. Sometimes prosecutors make political decisions about whether to charge rather than just weighing the evidence. Hopefully that doesn't happen here. I think there's at least enough evidence to send it to trial. Let a jury decide.

Charges may still be filed against someone, says the District Attorney: www.foxnews.com...

It's interesting how the news media is labeling the above revelation as a "bombshell".

They must have believed they got Baldwin and the Crew off the hook, by repetitively declaring the shooting a tragic accident, where no one is to blame.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: randomtangentsrme

I really need to do some research on blanks. I keep seeing references to plastic blanks, which raises some questions in my mind... like, what kind of plastic are they using? Many of the plastics would melt under those temperatures, and even if they didn't actually turn liquid, just the creep from overheating would cause them to present problems with sticking to the metal in the gun.

I dunno... there are a lot of different plastics; I just know the higher-temp plastics can be quite expensive. I guess I just need to get some technical info on these plastic blanks to understand how they work.

(BTW, you're wasting your time with that poster. Did you know revolvers don't have firing pins? Smith & Wesson lies... YouTube said so!)

TheRedneck

Hey Redneck,

The current blanks I work with have a brass casing, but a plastic wad (for lack of a better term as wadding is back in cap and ball rather than modern firearms).

What I am more concerned with is we have another 3 or more entertainment professionals (self claimed) that are not vocal on this thread. And while I recognize we all have our own specialties, I would hope they all would speak up on this, at least to bring their own unique experiences to assess this situation.
I do not claim myself to be an expert of on set firearms. I am disappointed (obviously) how this situation turned out, from my own training and would hope to hear from what I believe to be my peers offer their own take on what has happen.
Regardless, I'm going back to see the conversation I have missed (it does frustrate me answering one post on a page means it respondeds to that same post next time I open a response). So it is.

originally posted by: panoz77

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: TheRedneck

Now this is interesting. Seems the wagons are circling. This is the original section from Wikipedia defining what a prop weapon is, as of the time I looked at it on October 22 (Friday) at 7:19 PM Central Time Zone:

A prop weapon, such as a gun or sword, looks functional, but lacks the intentional harmfulness of the corresponding real weapon. In the theater, prop weapons are either non-operable replicas or have safety features to ensure they are not dangerous. To make melee weapons into prop weapons, swords have their edges and points dulled, making them less able to stab or cut. Knives are often made of plastic or rubber.

Sometimes real guns (not prop guns) fire prop ammo: caps or noisy blanks. In film production, fully functional weapons (not prop weapons) are mostly used, but typically only with special smoke blanks with blank adapted guns instead of real bullets.

Real cartridges with bullets removed are still dangerously charged which has caused several tragic instances when used on stage or film, a notable example being actor Alec Baldwin firing a gun when filming Rust, killing cinematographer Halyna Hutchins and injuring director Joel Souza on October 21, 2021 in Santa Fe, New Mexico.

The safety and proper handling of real weapons used as movie props is the premiere responsibility of the prop master. ATF and other law enforcement agencies may monitor the use of real guns for film and television, but this is generally not necessary with stage props as these guns are permanently "plugged".

According to the edits stored at Wikipedia, it was changed on October 23 (Saturday) at 5.46 PM by someone at IP 174.0.48.147. The fact the editor who changed it does not even use a pen name is quite interesting to me. Anyway, here's what it was changed to:

A prop weapon, such as a gun or sword, can be a fake, a real weapon, or a real weapon which has been modified to be non-functional. To make melee weapons non-functional, swords often have their edges and points dulled, making them less able to stab or cut. Knives are often made of plastic or rubber.

Rubber bladed-weapons and guns are examples of props used by stuntmen to minimize injury, or by actors where the action requires a prop which minimizes injury.

Quite the change! Interesting that the first line of the next section says

If a gun is capable of discharging either blank ammunition or ammunition, it is considered a firearm or gun, not a prop.

I guess Mr. 174.0.48.147 was in a hurry.

Here's what it says today. as of the time of this post:

A prop weapon, such as a gun or sword, can be a replica, a real weapon, or a real weapon which has been modified to be non-functional. To make melee weapons non-functional, swords often have their edges and points dulled, making them less able to stab or cut. Knives are often made of plastic or rubber.

Rubber bladed-weapons and guns are examples of props used by stuntmen to minimize injury, or by actors where the action requires a prop which minimizes injury.

and the next line has remained unchanged. No one get upset, though, I'm sure someone will be along to "correct" that as well.

Panos77, the term "prop gun" has meant a disabled weapon or a non-fireable replica as long as I can remember, and I'm an old fart. Redefinition is just going to muddy the waters even more. The weapon was able to discharge a live round; it was therefore a real, working gun used as a movie prop, not a prop gun. Calling a weapon a prop gun indicates to others who are familiar with the word from more than just Wikipedia is a way to recreate this incident, as the use of the phrase "prop gun" is saying it is incapable of firing and one can pull back the trigger without anything happening. It is no different that the AD telling Baldwin he was holding a "cold gun."

Stop. Just freakin' stop. You're going to get someone else killed at this rate.

TheRedneck

Quit putting words in my mouth. There have always been a category of guns called blank firing prop guns which are only capable of firing blanks, they have modifications that prevent them from firing a round with a projectile, and they DO HAVE FIRING PINS. You keep trying to claim to have some vast firearm knowledge but are using Wikipedia for your information? Come on dude, just stop.

collectorsarmoury.com...

www.sharpimport.com...

replicaweaponry.com...

www.thespecialistsltd.com...

Again incorrect. At least in the theater, they are blank or cap guns. Not prop guns. Props do not fire.

a reply to: alphabetaone

No, not as an apples and oranges comparison.

Actually, what I would like to hear you admit is that both were wrong... both the endless needling and lies by Baldwin, and the post by Donald Jr. That's the way I see it, anyway.

I have no feelings other than the law being the law.

Agreed. Neither Baldwin's "comedic" actions nor Donald Jr.'s post are illegal. They are both free speech, and I would defend either of them if there was a call to prosecute them. My argument with Baldwin before this incident is and was personal, and not something that i will allow to color my opinion here. What I also will not do is condemn one over the other. What one may lack in intensity, it makes up for in quantity.

But ya know what brother? I didn't fight overseas for only the people i agree with or for "one side". With that, comes a basic understanding that people can actually attempt to do the right thing without the need to attach an affiliation to that desire.

On that I will agree wholeheartedly. We are all Americans when the political turmoil dies down. We are thus all equal in the rights we hold and the laws we obey (or not obey, resulting in legal charges).

At any rate, take care my friend and keep your powder dry!

My friend, I always do. You do the same.

We may disagree on issues at times, but as always I find our discussions enlightening, challenging, and informative. Thank you for the opportunity to engage you once again.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: panoz77
Regarding a squib or squib round. If you are familiar with firearms, a squib is an event where there is a malfunction usually due to a insufficient powder charge in a casing which results in the bullet being fired but with not enough power to leave the barrel and said projectile gets lodged in the barrel. If you do not recognize this when it happens, it can cause a barrel bulge or rupture when subsequent rounds are fired.

A squib is a pyro (fire) controlled explosive round that is controlled by electronic control, and are often strapped to a human with no issue.
I do not even have the words to suggest how wrong this statement is.
Said Someone who was an apprentice Pyro-technician.

a reply to: randomtangentsrme

Plastic wadding makes a lot of sense, although I would think more traditional wadding (like cotton) would be safer. Of course, cotton might be more noticeable by the audience as well. That's a little out of my forte.

I may have a way to fix that problem with our actor members showing up. I have drawn up a rough draft of what I believe would be a good set of rules to govern the use of firearms on a movie set. I may try and post them, computer willing (I'm running a CPU fan which is running on borrowed time... new one on order).

I'll come back her and post the link if I can get a new thread started.

TheRedneck

a reply to: randomtangentsrme

I cannot believe I am taking up for panoz77, but the truth is the truth.

Ballistics people also use the term "squib round" to describe a misfire in which the bullet lodges in the barrel. It is considered a very dangerous occurrence, as firing another round can create backfire (hot gasses forced back onto the hands or face of the shooter, depending on how the firearm is made), "ballooning" in the barrel (which pretty much renders the gun useless unless it has an interchangeable barrel), or can cause the barrel to explode violently (obviously endangering the shooter). A squib round is often caused by either insufficient or contaminated powder.

But my memory agrees with you that a "squib" is an explosive charge remotely detonated to mimic a bullet's impact. It's a case of the same term being used in two different ways by different professionals. it's not unusual; mathematicians, for instance, use i to denote the square root of -1; as an electrical engineer, I tend to use j instead, as we reserve i for current flow.

I have had one squib round lodge in a barrel, due to my own negligence... I used old powder. Of course, I was alert enough to what I was doing to recognize what happened and not fire a second round until the barrel was cleared and cleaned. I have had friends who have had squib rounds, usually from irreputable reloaders. Luckily all of them were alert as well.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: randomtangentsrme

Plastic wadding makes a lot of sense, although I would think more traditional wadding (like cotton) would be safer. Of course, cotton might be more noticeable by the audience as well. That's a little out of my forte.

I may have a way to fix that problem with our actor members showing up. I have drawn up a rough draft of what I believe would be a good set of rules to govern the use of firearms on a movie set. I may try and post them, computer willing (I'm running a CPU fan which is running on borrowed time... new one on order).

I'll come back her and post the link if I can get a new thread started.

TheRedneck

The "plastic wadding" is just the cap on current blank charges. Has nothing to do with safety.
It's just what is.

Truth be told in using blank firing I would be more concerned with cotton than plastic if I was dealing with the developmentally delayed again.

Said with all respect to the amazing athletes I worked with in the special Olympics. I just know wadded cotton can go up easier than super heated plastic. And while both are superseded by the individuals self pleasuring themselves (yes that happened) We need to look at the safest opportunity.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: randomtangentsrme

I cannot believe I am taking up for panoz77, but the truth is the truth.

Ballistics people also use the term "squib round" to describe a misfire in which the bullet lodges in the barrel. It is considered a very dangerous occurrence, as firing another round can create backfire (hot gasses forced back onto the hands or face of the shooter, depending on how the firearm is made), "ballooning" in the barrel (which pretty much renders the gun useless unless it has an interchangeable barrel), or can cause the barrel to explode violently (obviously endangering the shooter). A squib round is often caused by either insufficient or contaminated powder.

But my memory agrees with you that a "squib" is an explosive charge remotely detonated to mimic a bullet's impact. It's a case of the same term being used in two different ways by different professionals. it's not unusual; mathematicians, for instance, use i to denote the square root of -1; as an electrical engineer, I tend to use j instead, as we reserve i for current flow.

I have had one squib round lodge in a barrel, due to my own negligence... I used old powder. Of course, I was alert enough to what I was doing to recognize what happened and not fire a second round until the barrel was cleared and cleaned. I have had friends who have had squib rounds, usually from irreputable reloaders. Luckily all of them were alert as well.

TheRedneck

I've never heard "squibs" used in regards to firearms unless its from the receiving end. I do appreciate in advance your links provided. Again as someone who was studying pyro for a bit.
More so, I do not know of anyone on set for theater or film not checking the barrel after some mishap as soon as we can.

Perhaps we can PM as to the math, might be out of the scope of this conversation, but I enjoy the math.

a reply to: randomtangentsrme

The "plastic wadding" is just the cap on current blank charges. Has nothing to do with safety.

Ummm... we may be using different terminology. When I say "wadding," I am thinking of a material in front of the charge, which therefore can be expelled when the charge explodes. The original term "wadding" referred to a sealant (like cotton or cloth) which was used to contain the explosion and was inserted between the charge and the projectile. It is typically used today to refer to a similar material that is used in shot shells for the same purpose.

I guess a thin enough piece of plastic would pretty much disintegrate with the heat? But anyway, it was that small piece of expelled plastic that I was referring to when I mentioned safety.

I can understand the concern about cotton... yes, it is flammable and I see your point.

I don't see your point about self-pleasuring... mainly because I don't want to.


TheRedneck

a reply to: randomtangentsrme

I've never heard "squibs" used in regards to firearms unless its from the receiving end. I do appreciate in advance your links provided. Again as someone who was studying pyro for a bit.

Working in pyrotechnics, that's not surprising. Terminology does not always cross professional barriers easily.

It's another Wiki link (hey, I'm lazy, OK), but here you go. I don't rely a lot on the Internet when discussing things I am familiar with; I use my own knowledge. At most, I verify something I think I might be incorrect on, just to avoid embarrassment.

Incidentally, I was thinking about the two different meanings... I think they may have a common ancestry. A squib is, if I understand it correctly in pyrotechnics, a very tiny charge. In ballistics, it is an insufficient (as in too tiny) charge. So there is that in common.

More so, I do not know of anyone on set for theater or film not checking the barrel after some mishap as soon as we can.

That is a very good thing! For multiple reasons... spent gunpowder can actually damage the metal in the barrel after a long time of inattention.

Perhaps we can PM as to the math, might be out of the scope of this conversation, but I enjoy the math.

I am ALWAYS ready to discuss math! It's my first language. Please, feel free.

TheRedneck

If anyone is interested, I started a new thread to talk about what needs to change in the entertainment industry to avoid a repeat of this tragedy.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

TheRedneck

It seems the circling of the wagons around Alec Baldwin is loosening.

This from the New York Times, of all places:

SANTA FE, N.M. — The Santa Fe County district attorney said on Tuesday that she was not ruling out criminal charges in last week’s fatal shooting on a film set. The actor Alec Baldwin was rehearsing with a gun that he had been told did not contain live ammunition when it went off, killing the film’s cinematographer and wounding its director.

“We haven’t ruled out anything,” the district attorney, Mary Carmack-Altwies, said in a telephone interview. “Everything at this point, including criminal charges, is on the table.”

The disinfo angle seems to be eroding as well:

Ms. Carmack-Altwies took issue with descriptions of the firearm used in the incident as “prop-gun,” saying that the terminology, which is used in some of the court documents related to the case, could give the misleading impression that it was not a real gun.

“It was a legit gun,” she said, without naming specifically what kind of firearm was used. “It was an antique-era appropriate gun.”

Hope for justice after all?

TheRedneck

a reply to: randomtangentsrme
Hi, randomtangentsrme

I'm horrible at doing quotes, but am going to try... sorry if I mess it up.

What I am more concerned with is we have another 3 or more entertainment professionals (self claimed) that are not vocal on this thread. And while I recognize we all have our own specialties, I would hope they all would speak up on this, at least to bring their own unique experiences to assess this situation.

I know you're not singling me out, but I just wanted to clarify that I felt I didn't & don't have any good insight people might find helpful for this topic. I worked in the biz for 9yrs in the 90's to early 2000's. I was mostly on-camera and am no professional on the topic of firearms, which, again, is why I haven't spoken up. And... the judgement for having worked in the biz... I hate the pre-judgement. I've been hated on a lot (not on this site) just because I worked in the biz to keep food on the table & take care of loved ones in those times. I've done background (mostly), stand-in, stunts, principle actor. My apologies (really). I sincerely didn't mean to make anyone from the biz feel abandoned.

(This is going to be a loooong post; I think two posts. Sorry, in advance, to any who reads some of it.)
Post 1 of 2.

Please note: If I use the term "rounds" for what I fired in the biz, I am meaning blanks.

TheRedneck mentioned Rock Galotti (Armorer/Weapons Master/Weapons Specialist). I have personal experience working with Rock on a film (I don't want to say which, to keep my privacy... sorry), 6 days a week (Sunday was our off day, which was our 7th day carryover) for 13 weeks, with pretty heavy use of firearms per workday. I know I sometimes fired several hundred rounds (blanks) a day, but I don't remember if I personally did over a thousand per day at times. I forget; sorry. The following is my experience with Rock Galotti, back in the 90's; I talked to him everyday, except Sunday.

On location, Rock didn't care if you were background, principle actor, stunts, crew, director, etc. Everyone had to follow his firearm safety rules. Everyone. If you didn't, he pulled to get you fired. Period. Or he said he would quit the project. Safety is #1. Rock didn't mess around with firearm safety. If he gave you a firearm safety warning, that was your only warning for the whole project. Next time... he reported you to be removed. Simple.

Before he handed any firearm to you, he made you watch him clear it & showed you it was all clear. Next, you gave him your driver's license, which he handed to his assistant. Why to Rock? His armory, so he wanted to make sure the ID was yours. Some people jokingly changed ID with each other; Rock wasn't happy and didn't give them their weapon, until they gave their own ID.

From there, Rock's assistant printed your name into a book and you had to sign the logbook to confirm you both saw & confirmed the weapon you were receiving was cleared (the assistant wrote your name, to ensure the weapon user wasn't going to put a name like Bugs Bunny as their name). Then, Rock personally handed you the weapon and right there, before you even turned to walk away, you had to clear your weapon and show him it was cleared. He forced everyone to learn to clear it and show him it was cleared. If anyone refused to clear the weapon, he gave them one warning... and next time they would be fired from the production. I had witnessed some people give him attitude, that they didn't want to give their driver's license, until they had weapon in hand. He refused, chuckled in disbelief and told them no, he wasn't messing around. A few refused and were removed from the project.

At the end of each day, we lined up single-file and one at a time, we waited for Rock to watch us clear our weapon and if he said okay, we handed it to him. Then, he would clear it personally and inspect our weapon for any damages. If all was good, you signed the book again, showing that you returned the weapon, it was safe and that your license was being returned to you. Then, we got our driver's license back. When a person refused to clear their weapon, refused to clear it properly, handed your weapon to him in an aggressive manner... any of that, you were given one warning (for the whole project). Rock didn't mess around... tolerated zero disrespect for firearm safety.

If a person didn't know firearm etiquette & safety, how to clear, keep their weapon clean, etc., he taught them. A lot of people compained Rock took too long; he didn't care. He said- you want no firearm accidents on this production, then it is my way or find yourself another weapons master for the film. Rock was kept.

If he caught anyone pointing a firearm at person as a joke... fired. He told everyone to never, never point the firearm at camera, operators, etc.; always slightly off camera (that was a standard rule from all sets I was on), but never at a person. He was not afraid to tell any director, actor, stunts, AD, etc, that nope... you won't be doing that as long as I'm armorer here.

From my memory, he did not tolerate foam weapons (props that resembled our firearms) being pointed at anyone (prop weapons shouldn't be pointed at anyone anyways). If Rock saw anyone doing that with a foam weapon, he jumped all over the person. Much respect to him.

I feel Rock was the best armorer in the biz that I had worked with... ever. Safety #1. Production refuses to do it... he quits, as there are always productions that will put safety first. I'm not in the biz anymore, so I don't know how he is now.

My personal feeling is that everyone on every set should follow the firearm safety that Rock did on the film. And the ET biz armors should be like Rock was in terms of safety & educating others.
--
As far as (in the biz) what consitutes a firearm or prop, I have my own personal view, which probably doesn't align with definitions of industry professionals. I feel that if a firearm (biz) projects/launches (or has a chance to project) any projectile, if it uses gunpowder or any type of propellant (I don't care if it's a CO2, spring, etc), spark guns (shoots those spark balls)... I class those as firearms (just to me). And I feel they should be handled by armorers, but that is only my opinion. Yes, production costs to hire an armor. Safety is always #1.

I understand there are some definitions where a "prop" is anything handled/moved during the filming of the scene (I am trying to refrain from using the word "shot", due to the nature of this topic). To me, a firearm prop is 100% incapable of firing anything & cannot be modified to do so, it is a prop (although... we know that is still a weapon). Example: the props that resembled our firearms were made of foam, no moving parts, and a sling.

For non-firing replicas that can fire nothing, I class those as weapons, due to the fact they can be mistaken as a functional weapon. Because of that, I feel the armorer should handle those, too.

As far as special weapons that only fired blanks. I don't have personal experience firing those in the biz.

a reply to: randomtangentsrme
(Apologies for replying to you with Part 2... I struggled to find how to just add a post.)

Post 2 of 2.

As for "squibs" (in the biz, not in ballistics terms), I've done a headsquib, to look like I was shot in forehead and it blew out the back of my skull. For mine, the squib was attached to the back of my head and wires run down my R arm sleeve to a button. I detonated it myself for the shot (filming). Props said that due to the danger in using a headsquib and the timing of when I was going to do my take (reaction), they felt more it would be safer if the stuntperson (me) detonated it by themselves and as only I would know exactly when I to do my take (reaction) right after the headsquib fired. Three camera setup and we got it on the first take.
--
I do feel that people that work/worked in the biz (any dept) are unfairly judged as a collective 100% group vs. judging each person as an individual for their pros/cons. I've worked with great armorers, like Rock. And with others that I felt shouldn't have been armorers. Same with people in the Props Dept. And other depts in the biz.
--
As said, I was nobody important and never saw myself as a "professional" and I am not an expert on the biz. I feel on the topic of this thread (I might get hated on... oof), I feel that when there is a production that is going to use any fiream/s, then in pre-production that everyone needs to take a firearm safety course before production can start from a firearm safety instructor is hired to be on the project. As well as having an armorer hired for the project.

And then, each workday (yes, this will take longer & cost $$, but I don't care), everyone needs to sign (handwrite, thumbprint, etc... whatever) that they have taken the firearm safety course. This means crew, producers, talent (and stunts), etc.

For big background calls (the ones I've been some with a few thousand background cast per day), casting notified us of the project usually 1.5 - 2 weeks+ before we showed on the day. So, there is time to get the background firearm safety instruction. I understand that sometimes, background is called last minute. For cases like that, hey... give those background actors an earlier call time, so the firearm instructor is there on location to teach them. Once that is done, those background give their signature/thumbprint, etc. that they were instructed on fiream safety.

If a person hasn't taken the required course from the instructor the production has provided or refuses to, those people cannot work the project.

Again... these are just some of my uneducated thoughts off the top of my head and I'm sure they're full of holes. I'm not looking to argue, say anyone is right or wrong, say whatever definition is right or wrong.

I don't know if what I wrote is of any help, but I tried. If anyone has made it this far, thanks. Sorry for the long read and hope maybe there was some insight.

Editing to add:
On the project I was on with Rock, if one of his firearms was to be pointed slightly off camera, he made sure the path was clear i.e. no humans, no objects to reflect off of, etc. He didn't care that people said blanks (the wad) only went xx feet. He wanted the path completely clear. I don't think he set zone width... everybody out of that area that didn't need to be there; observe from a different location; don't be in the path of where the firearm was shooting. Our muzzles were to never touch the deck, to make sure no pebbles, glass, dirt, etc. got in there, as it could jam the muzzle, as well chances of particles become projectiles. Our environment was very dusty, so I tore a t-shirt and kept my muzzle wrapped in a torn t-shirt and & ejection port (closed) wrapped in another large piece of t-shirt, when I was not in the shot (scene).

Just wanted to clarify, in case anyone that read all this wonders. After every shot (filmed scene) where we fired our weapons, we cleared our weapons. Every time.

There is a live press conference today at 10:00 EST.

a reply to: TheRedneck

i suspect they are going to throw the girl who was in charge of firearms under the bus as the person in charge, and ultimately responsible. even though i have seen nothing to suggest she had anything to do with him getting this gun, and it having an actual live bullet in it. my understanding is that he was given the gun, supposedly being told it was a "cold gun", as in not being loaded. yet i have heard nothing about where, and how, they got the gun. for all we know he just went and took it from wherever. and this seems rather likely since it would seem crew had walked off the job, earlier that day due to safety and other "concerns", including firearms safety.

and if anyone on the set at that time bears ultimate responsibility for things like safety, it would be the producer that was on set at the time of the incident, ie Alek Baldwin himself. especially since the reality of the situation is that with crew walking off the job due to concerns about safety, then ALL work should have been stopped. the fact one of the reasons being "firearms safety", at the very least ALL firearms should have been securely locked up, under his orders. and not having a gun, given to him, himself, to "practice with" (IF that is really what happened, since as we all know the film industry have long been experts in cover up "so as not to cause embarrassment" to the film companies, and especially stars.

to me it seems appropriate that Baldwin get charged with TWO counts of manslaughter, at the least. one charge for firing the gun that killed her. the second for allowing the conditions for it to happen in the first place as the person ultimately in charge of it.

edit on 27-10-2021 by generik because: (no reason given)