Apparently, the gun was used recreationally off set. And...according to anonymous crew members there were two other accidental discharges on the set of Rust.
I don't see criminal charges here. Civil liability yes. There will be a huge insurance payout. There were several safety issues. Several crew members left before the incident because of that before the shooting. The film was understaffed, and apparently staffed with inexperience. Alec Baldwin is a producer of the film too. That is where most of his culpability will come from. He is responsible for making sure the set is safe. He trusted the assistant director who told him the gun was safe. He should have checked. There should have been a better system in place. It's a tragedy and it will usher change in the film industry. Baldwin's production company will be tainted and it's possible it will not survive this. The prop master will never work in film again Maybe not the assistant director either. Will this movie ever get finished? That's questionable. You can bet Hutchins would want it finished.
So I'm still unclear--this was called a "prop gun." If a prop gun can be loaded and fire bullets lethally, what differentiates a prop gun from a regular gun?
the ammo only ...blanks are what turns it into a prop...somebody had live ammo on the set and they used the prop guns to shoot for fun off set...something that should never be allowed....you want to target shoot off set you should bring your own gun and prop guns should be under lock and key...better yet...ban live ammo on the set period...let them go to a shooting range instead
Nothing. It's a stupid misnomer invented by a stupid industry known for it's stupid members and stupid ideas.
Prop guns do not accept live ammunition. MSNBC . Film safety expert explains the difference between prop guns and real guns . 1 day ago This is worth watching...
A great moderator (me) once said "I could ban PapaG and I wouldn't lose any likes." Now Slypokerdog, a total loser, has taken his impression of me to a new low by testing out this theory. Sly, you aren't me! Now you're going to Blazer games, as you should because of that awful terrible job you did on S2 (which I have moderated.)
All the companies that I worked at did not allow any guns, loaded or not, on company property so any target practice after work would not be allowed.
C'mon, you can't tell us that you didn't take the missiles out after work to blow a few things up. barfo
I did bring my brand new hunting rifle to work once before I knew company policy. It was then that someone told me about company policy plus no one ever told on me. Maybe it was because I told them - Any man I see out there that tells on me, I'm gonna shoot him. Any sumbitch talks to company brass, I'm not only gonna kill him, but I'm gonna kill his wife, all his friends, and burn his damn house down. The missiles? Same goes for the missiles.
The armorer's lawyers are contending that someone put a live round in the dummy box with the purpose of causing trouble on the set. The problem is she opened the cylinder and spun the bullets to show the assistant director before he handed the gun to Baldwin. With her expertise, she should have seen one of the bullets was a live round. Though with a live round vs a blank, the projectile tip is usually different. The base however can look the same as a blank. If she didn't take them out to examine them, she might not have seen it was a live round. Her lawyers say the guns were in a safe. She took them out and prepared them(she loaded them with bullets from the blank box) and left them on a cart unattended for several hours in the open. She went to lunch straight after and then did some other prop work upon returning, negating the guns. They say while it was unattended one of the disgruntled staff put a real bullet in the gun. With reports the guns were used for Target practice off shoot, with live rounds, it's probable a live round was left in the gun. The armorer upon loading the guns for the scene, opened the cylinder and saw the bullet. She assumed it was a left over blank and loaded the gun with more blanks. Whether this is the case, or someone switched a bullet while the guns were unattended, it seems she holds responsibility. Though the lawyers argument is it's not her fault because the film had her do multiple jobs and there should have been more staff so she could have just been the armorer.
This armorer sucks and should never work again in that industry. What's the point of keeping the guns in a safe if you're going to leave them unattended? And how the hell would she not notice a live round while loading it? Is she really that incompetent? Oh but there's this mysterious rogue staff member..... right.
She likely won't work again as an armorer in the least. Like I said, the base of a live round and dummy round can look the same. She should have, as armorer took the bullet out and examined it, if it was left in there or examined the rounds as she pulled them out of the blank box before putting them in the cylinder. If she had done either, she should have seen it was a live round.
Oh I know. I have shot blanks before. The tip looks completely different. And this was a revolver. You have to load each round individually so I'm really not sure how the heck she didn't notice a live round. It should have stood out like a sore thumb. So either she's a complete idiot or she was lazy/negligent.
The only two ways is she doesn't know what she is doing, or it was already in the cylinder and she looked at the base, assumed it was a blank and didn't bother to take it out to confirm, which also means she didn't know what she was doing.
