Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Look at these movie dummy rounds

I get it. But there are more to the safety protocols than what type of ammo is in the firearm. AFAIK, there are strict prohibitions against pointing/aiming a firearm--real, prop, or otherwise--at another human being on the set. From what I've read, the hypothetical 120 armed defenders would be filmed firing a salvo aiming at nothing and no one, and the 500 hypothetical charging Army soldiers would be filmed charging and firing at nothing and no one. Am I wrong about that?

The fact is that we mere peasants will never know the truth about what happened on that movie set, only whatever spin, propaganda, and wild speculation we're fed. Knowing that, my default setting will always be that the person pulling the trigger is responsible.




The safety protocol after a mechanic pulls a wheel and reinstalls it is to check the torque on the wheel lugs after 50 -100 miles, and some advise 50 and 100 miles. In your hypothetical, soccer-mom-and-kid-killing scenario, did I perform that safety check? It would fall within your hypothetical 2-hour driving window. If I had no knowledge of how to perform such a check, should I have gone to a shop so they could check the torque on the wheel lugs, or should I have just disregarded the safety protocol because I didn't know how and I'm special?

Yes, you are wrong about the scene setup in many, many movies.

If a pitched battle is being filmed, the two sides engage as directed, just as they would in real life. There's probably several cameras filming the engagement from different angles.

The scenes during the battle that are close-ups of specific people can be done without all the charges and hand to hand... Different perspectives and different closeups of separate actors, as well as a full run of several takes of both sides engaging takes place.

I'm not speculating, as I have been there and done that. I'm also not spinning anything. Myself and Leanwolf, who has been involved in film making for decades are telling everyone the way it is, or should be. No spin.

Others here have experience in major battle motion pictures as well.

The safe practices of having a good armorer and FX manager on set has produced thousands of hours of safe movie and film entertainment.

But sometimes things go wrong. Sometimes it's nobodies fault. Sometimes it is... With this instance, look to Baldwin, the snowflake armorer, and the idiot asst director. They are all 3 at fault.

Yeah, the armorer looks more like a Tic Toc screwup than any type of professional, let alone one tasked w safety measures.

Whoever hired that dingbat is at fault ( along w the dingbat ) IMHO.

I don't have said document, but they showed it on TV the other day...it looked 10 pages long with simple and basic firearm rules. But above all stated the Armorer is King on the set when it comes to weapons and ammo, nobody can over rule his judgement and safety rules.

Wonder who suggested target practice anywhere near the set...

Somebody demand it, pressured armorer to go againat rules?

Dunno, just wondering.

I'll take your word for it as I have zero experience in filmmaking. All 3 works for me, but I still lean towards Baldwin being the primary, if for no other reason than he was also the producer.

My sneaking suspicion is that none of them will face any real consequences.

My experience with dummy rounds is that they have no primer. That is your indicator. After all in a revolver you may see the projectiles, but not the primers in a closed revolver.or any other firearm for that matter..



It was said earlier that Baldwin was the producer, therefore he had a large amount of say in the selection/hiring/firing of the armorer....therefore even if the armorer screwed up Baldwin is still at fault.
After all we have seen enough complex corporate litigation to know that the CEO winds up holding the bag for gross misdeeds under his management.

May Iintroduce to you Alec Baldwin , bagman extraordinaire....

Where does it state that Baldwin hired her ?, this keeps getting repeated...there are 6 producers on the film.

He's the head mogul.

It was his movie, his project.


That's what happens when nobody wants you in their films anymore.

You scrape together enough money to make your own low budget film... and star in it.

While I agree, with all due respect that doesn't mean he hired her. Even if he did, he might have civil risk but criminal will be another matter. The film was obviously supported by a movie studio, they will be at risk also.

"Among the seven production entities listed as backing “Rust” was Streamline Global, a company founded in 2017 to use films produced with production tax incentives as vehicles to create tax breaks for wealthy investors. Streamline Global co-founders Emily Hunter Salveson and Ryan Donnell Smith serve as executive producer and producer, respectively, on “Rust.” Industry sources cite inherent problems that can occur when goals and incentives among producers are not aligned.

“Rust” had seven production entities listed as backing the film: Alec Baldwin’s El Dorado Pictures, Thomasville Pictures, Cavalry Media, Brittany House Pictures, Short Porch Pictures and financiers Bondit Media Capital and Streamline Global."

You could have all the weapons in one caliber and have the dummies in a completely different caliber. For instance .45LC guns and .38 Special dummies.

Whoever hired who, a lot of people left the set and there was a lot of controversy about safety on the set. Corners were cut. I don't have a dog in this fight but I do believe Baldwin bears a lot of responsibility. for this fiasco. I'll leave the technicalities to those that have done films because I haven't. I have watched a heck of a lot of them in my lifetime that nobody ever got actually killed in though.

You can bet there will be lawsuits.

The lawyers will first look at the liability limits of the insurance policy issued for the filming.

Next they look at contractors. Because they can sue them individually outside the liability of the insurance policy. Who the armorer was actually working for, was she a business contracted? Same with who supplied the guns, blanks, and ammo.

They'll be looking at the production company, and who owned it.

They may even look at the landowner.

I don't think I'd hold my breath for criminal convictions. Maybe, but probably not.

Remember the actor Vic Morrow and the two child actors who were killed when a movie helicopter crashed and cut them to pieces with the props?
There was criminal cases filed, but no convictions...

Channeling the satanic has never been good for safety.

Yes I do remember that accident, but wasn't aware of the final outcome, it seems a damn shame somebody doesn't have to pay for wrongful death...especially if due to negligence or irresponsibility. In this Rust incident I'd be shocked if somebody doesn't go down for the death, and big sums of money paid out.

I'd be fine with Baldwin never working again, kind of like Kevin Spacey....fugg em

Brother, you ain't kidding about the lawsuits. I read on an industry site today where the woman who was script supervisor has already hired that bottom feeding ambulance chasing Gloria Allred to represent her. Probably go for "horrendous and unremitting mental anguish. Ten million, please." Those entities you listed will definitely be on the hook for big bucks.

Also read that the RUST production company had a liability insurance policy for only $6,000,000.00. That is only going to be a drop in the bucket as to the amount various plaintiffs sue the company, producers, Baldwin, and various others who had any kind of responsibility on the flick. The civil court cases are going to go on for a long time, too.

As for any criminal liability, I think it'll depend on a number of factors as determined by the reports of the S.F. Sheriff's homicide investigators. Such as, did Baldwin's deliberate act of cocking the revolver, aiming at the woman, deliberately pulling the trigger, result in "reckless endangerment," "negligent homicide," or "manslaughter 2?" Big "maybe" there.

Also, if it could be proved that whomever was using the revolver to "plink" during lunch hour, deliberately left a live cartridge in the revolver, knowing full well it would be used in a shooting by the actor, the dude will be up to his ass in alligators. Or, if it can be proved "someone" deliberately placed a cartridge in the revolver's cylinder after it was used and placed on the firearms cart. Same charges. Another big "maybe."

All this will hinge on SFSO detectives' reports, and the willingness of the SF DA to prosecute anyone criminally. We'll have to wait and see.

Hell, I'm a geezer. I may not live long enough to see the end of all the lawsuits filed in this tragic incident.

L.W.

Several folks involved in that incident should do time all the way up to the actor who assumed everyone else had done their job. Anyone that handled the firearm should have determined if it was loaded or not.

Hannah Guterriez — the emotional maturity and self-image uncertainty of a thirteen-year old…and she’s hired as an armorer?

However, multi-level failures.

Yes! Every Time!

I simply won't believe the overall fault lies with anyone but Baldwin, assuming he was the one who really did pull the trigger.

Everyone else responsible for safety on the set needs their ass kicked for incompetence but they're not ultimately responsible, regardless of their title, position or responsibility. If it is proven that someone sabotaged the set with a live round (which I doubt, but who knows) then they're needing appropriate charges too, but that doesn't change who ultimately pulled a trigger while pointing the gun at someone, cleared or not.

There's no way in hell I'd point a real gun at someone even if I personally cleared it, let alone pull the trigger but I guess that's just me. A few of the responses on this thread are ridiculous concerning personal responsibility.