Alec Baldwin shoots/kills cinematographer and injured director after firing a "prop gun".

[MakiraMarlena]

that's exactly what Jon-Erik Hexum did... put a "prop" gun to his head and pulled the trigger. The gun was loaded with blank cartridges, and he knew it was. He apparently thought blanks don't fire at all, but these blanks used wadding to hold the powder charge in, and the wadding was blasted from the barrel and fractured his skull. Wadding likely wouldn't cause harm at a distance, but the barrel was right against his head.

I believe Baldwin was told that this was a "cold gun" meaning it wasn't loaded at all. I guess the question is, does he have a legal duty to check it anyway. while I have seen the allegation that he pointed the gun at the director and cinematographer because he didn't like being asked to reshoot, I don't know if that was true or not. There's another report that he was practicing a cross-draw move for a rehearsal. we aren't going to know until the investigation is made public.

 

[BrianL]

Well, yeah, because that's what it was. It wasn't someone's personal gun they brought to the set.

I agree. There is some quibbling over semantics here, but the term "prop" refers to "Property of the Studio." Literally anything can be a prop. If they dress a set with a lamp, that lamp is a "prop" but may also still be a "real" and working lamp (it also may not). There should be no difference read into the term "prop gun" as that does not imply that it is not functional.

 

[dominiondad]

It has already been reported that we do not KNOW that he pointed the gun at ANYONE nor do we even know he pulled the trigger. Guns DO sometimes go off without a person consciously pulling the trigger, either when dropped or mishandled. It happens all the time in accidental shootings. Alec was practicing a move where he had to cross draw the gun. It is very possible he lost grip of the gun and accidentally shot it or he dropped it and it went off. Guns are mechanical objects subject to failures.

I think everyone would do well to stop insinuating that he intentionally pointed at these victims and pulled the trigger.

Well, I think it's fair to assume the gun was pointed at the victim when it went off since bullets generally follow a straight line, especially over short distances. I guess it's fair to question whether Baldwin had control of the gun when it fired. It would seem reasonable that if he had dropped the gun and it went off, that would have been mentioned in the affidavit.
Also, I searched on the internet for statistics but couldn't find anything conclusive. That said, all the sites stated that dropped guns firing on their own is very rare, certainly not a problem that happens "all the time". Generally, it happens with older guns that haven't been cared for. While the revolver he was using could have easily been an older gun, it should have been is good condition assuming the producers (Baldwin) made the effort.

 

[pahoben]

I agree. There is some quibbling over semantics here, but the term "prop" refers to "Property of the Studio." Literally anything can be a prop. If they dress a set with a lamp, that lamp is a "prop" but may also still be a "real" and working lamp (it also may not). There should be no difference read into the term "prop gun" as that does not imply that it is not functional.

The worst part of this is that it was the Santa Fe DA that made an issue of this confusing prop with inoperable.

 

[TLSnell1981]

I agree. There is some quibbling over semantics here, but the term "prop" refers to "Property of the Studio." Literally anything can be a prop. If they dress a set with a lamp, that lamp is a "prop" but may also still be a "real" and working lamp (it also may not). There should be no difference read into the term "prop gun" as that does not imply that it is not functional.

I doubt the average person knows the definition. Many believe prop means fake or non working item used in a film. Headlines/words matter in the court of public opinion.

 

[Skywalker]

I agree. I also think if the AD handed him the gun and told him to put it to his head and pull the trigger, he would have double checked.He owed everyone in that room with the gun the same level of meticulous gun handling.

There is absolutely no way of knowing he would have done anything differently. Trust is trust. As said above, the actor Jon-Erik Hexum put a gun to his head and pulled the trigger. He thought it was safe. Alec Baldwin thought it was safe. The details of this are sad enough without trying to fan the flames by saying he would have acted so differently. Come on, obviously, he trusted the prop master and the AD. Wrongly, as it turns out, but I think its bizarre to imply that he thought it might have been loaded and just didn't care that much.

 

[bcla]

Yup. This is one of the many failures that led to this incident. And whose responsibility is that? The armorer. At this point, I feel like she could absolutely be held criminally liable. She failed on ALL counts here.

She loaded the bullets into that gun and she "accidentally" put a live round in with a bunch of blanks. That is inexcusable.

Right now it's not exactly clear how that got there. She's certainly claiming that she checked the cylinder to make sure that there were only dummy rounds loaded.

 

[StageTek]

I believe Baldwin was told that this was a "cold gun" meaning it wasn't loaded at all. I guess the question is, does he have a legal duty to check it anyway.

I can't speak to the legal. But I can as someone who has been the armorer on many sets:

On sets with an experienced armorer the First would never hand a gun to an actor and an actor would never accept a gun from the First. This was one of three mistakes that lead to a death. However it seems this was a common occurrence on that set so I can understand why the actor didn't do a final check. I don't know how the legal system will see this mistake.

 

[pahoben]

There is absolutely no way of knowing he would have done anything differently. Trust is trust. As said above, the actor Jon-Erik Hexum put a gun to his head and pulled the trigger. He thought it was safe. Alec Baldwin thought it was safe. The details of this are sad enough without trying to fan the flames by saying he would have acted so differently. Come on, obviously, he trusted the prop master and the AD. Wrongly, as it turns out, but I think its bizarre to imply that he thought it might have been loaded and just didn't care that much.

Hexum actually loaded the gun himself with one blank, spun the cylinder, and fired into his own temple. There were no trust issues associated with his death. Blanks would often be fatal when fired directly into the temple.

 

[lifesavacation]

There is absolutely no way of knowing he would have done anything differently. Trust is trust. As said above, the actor Jon-Erik Hexum put a gun to his head and pulled the trigger. He thought it was safe. Alec Baldwin thought it was safe. The details of this are sad enough without trying to fan the flames by saying he would have acted so differently. Come on, obviously, he trusted the prop master and the AD. Wrongly, as it turns out, but I think its bizarre to imply that he thought it might have been loaded and just didn't care that much.

You’re right. I have no way of knowing. Actor or not, though, I believe the average person would never put a gun to their head and pull the trigger without checking it. That’s not a trust issue. That’s common sense.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

It took me so long to wrap my head around the "prop gun" adjective. It wasn't a prop gun. It was a gun. A prop gun is rubber and doesn't have a firing mechanism.

 

[MakiraMarlena]

That's assuming that the definition of prop gun is a completely fake gun that cannot fire anything. Many believe that is the definition. On a movie set (I believe in theater also but I only have some experience in theater, and none in movies) a prop is anything used by actors in a performance, and a "prop gun" could define any gun used in a performance. Functional or nonfunctional.

Hexum loaded the gun with blanks himself as part of his performance. While waiting for a reshoot, he was simulating Russian roulette (and not as part of the performance, he was just playing around) and he took all the blanks out of the gun except for one and spun the cylinder. Obviously he knew the bullets were blanks, he just didn't understand that blanks were still dangerous, especially up close. However, he injured only himself, if he had put the gun to someone else's head I don't know how that would have worked out legally, even if he believed the blanks were not dangerous.

It's possible that if legal authorities decided that Baldwin reasonably believed the gun he was using was unloaded, he wouldn't be charged with a crime. That's why it's important what would be the usual procedures on movie sets related to use of firearms by actors, especially since the Hexum and Lee incidents. he's still going to have a civil suit against him, since he has deep pockets.

 

[bcla]

That's assuming that the definition of prop gun is a completely fake gun that cannot fire anything. Many believe that is the definition. On a movie set (I believe in theater also but I only have some experience in theater, and none in movies) a prop is anything used by actors in a performance, and a "prop gun" could define any gun used in a performance. Functional or nonfunctional.

Hexum loaded the gun with blanks himself as part of his performance. While waiting for a reshoot, he was simulating Russian roulette (and not as part of the performance, he was just playing around) and he took all the blanks out of the gun except for one and spun the cylinder. Obviously he knew the bullets were blanks, he just didn't understand that blanks were still dangerous, especially up close. However, he injured only himself, if he had put the gun to someone else's head I don't know how that would have worked out legally, even if he believed the blanks were not dangerous.

It's possible that if legal authorities decided that Baldwin reasonably believed the gun he was using was unloaded, he wouldn't be charged with a crime. That's why it's important what would be the usual procedures on movie sets related to use of firearms by actors, especially since the Hexum and Lee incidents. he's still going to have a civil suit against him, since he has deep pockets.

Even if it's low budget, it's almost certain that the film production was insured. However, that might run into liability limits.

 

[TLSnell1981]

Even if it's low budget, it's almost certain that the film production was insured. However, that might run into liability limits.

Reportedly a total of $6M for "Rust"...$1M per occurrence for death and/ or injury with a $5M umbtrella.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

That's assuming that the definition of prop gun is a completely fake gun that cannot fire anything. Many believe that is the definition. On a movie set (I believe in theater also but I only have some experience in theater, and none in movies) a prop is anything used by actors in a performance, and a "prop gun" could define any gun used in a performance. Functional or nonfunctional.

That's pretty silly. Is a glass of water, made of out glass, filled with real water, that is used in a play or movie a "prop glass"?

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

That's pretty silly. Is a glass of water, made of out glass, filled with real water, that is used in a play or movie a "prop glass"?

Yup

Things used by or for those in a movie or a play are called props

 

[BrianL]

That's pretty silly. Is a glass of water, made of out glass, filled with real water, that is used in a play or movie a "prop glass"?

More specifically, "prop" is short for "property" as in property of the studio or production house. The glass is indeed a prop. It could be a glass filled with resin made to look perpetually full i.e. "fake" or a "real" glass with water in it. This is really just semantics though. The fact is that the "prop gun" in this case DID fire. It was functional, which is not uncommon for prop guns - nobody is legally going to misunderstand that. Now, why they use actual functioning guns as props is certianly a matter of concern, but is a different question altogether.

 

[JimMIA]

I think the first page was the actual search warrant, and the affidavit was attached. There are other sources. Deadline has it, but not the first page.

Yes, exactly. Initially they served a search warrant for some building or area. During that search i think they found the prop truck, which presumably was not included in the initial search warrant, so they got this warrant for the truck.

A warrant is not technically required, but getting a warrant is prudent.

It also mentions a previous search warrant on the premises - which doesn't seem to have been publicly released yet. Still - this is a lot of information that was only hinted at before.

Right. If you find the first warrant affidavit, you will probably find that most of this affidavit is cut and paste from the original.

 

[fivikse]

I think calling it a prop gun is important, because that shows that it was being used on set during filming. To me, not calling it that would imply that it was a personal gun not being used for filming. That would be far more misleading, imo.

I don't know the film industry, so probably shouldn't speculate, but I would not expect the actor to check the gun. That seems like it would introduce far more variables than just leaving it up to the professionals. Just like I would not expect the actor to check the pyrotechnics, or the stunt car crashes, things falling, or any other part of movie making that could be dangerous. And even if he had opened it, if the armorer (or whoever is in charge of that aspect) had said, "yep, those are the blanks we are using" then what? Sounds like some of you would still blame the actor for not manufacturing the blanks himself.

I mean, if he had been in a scene where he pushes a character from a height and the stunt/special effects crew/whoever does this had assured him that all the safety precautions were in place, then actor did the stunt as directed and the stunt man tragically passed away would you guys still be blaming the actor for not checking the angle of the fall and the density of the cushions before pushing? Since he was the one doing the pushing he has the ultimate responsibility? Or would you be comfortable saying that he left that aspect up to the people whose job it was to ensure safety?

Again, I don't know anything about making movies, but it seems to me that letting the professionals handle these aspects makes more sense from a safety perspective than letting a non-professional introduce an unknown variable at the last minute. Just as in the nurse/medication example above - all of those people are in the professional chain. You most likely wouldn't have the patient or a (non-medical) hospital administrator do the final check that you are using the right medicine - it seems like you would keep that within the medical experts (doctors, nurse, pharmacists). So while I do agree that multiple people should have checked it - I think they should have been the professionals hired to do that particular job, not the actor.

 

[bcla]

I don't know the film industry, so probably shouldn't speculate, but I would not expect the actor to check the gun. That seems like it would introduce far more variables than just leaving it up to the professionals. Just like I would not expect the actor to check the pyrotechnics, or the stunt car crashes, things falling, or any other part of movie making that could be dangerous. And even if he had opened it, if the armorer (or whoever is in charge of that aspect) had said, "yep, those are the blanks we are using" then what? Sounds like some of you would still blame the actor for not manufacturing the blanks himself.

The Screen Actors Guild guidelines recommend that the actor personally watch over the armorer as the firearm is loaded, but that's not necessarily a legal requirement. The actors who personally check the loading are actually violating the SAG guidelines. I get that it seems like a foreign concept to people who go target shooting or are in law enforcement, where it's continuously drilled that it's the personal responsibility of the person wielding the firearm.