Actor Alec Baldwin charged w involuntary manslaughter - Is It fair?

______________


an accident occurred while filming the movie
a gun he was handling had live ammunition - it wasn't supposed to
the gun went off and killed a woman staff member

he is being charged with involuntary manslaughter and if convicted could be facing jail time

is this fair to him_____?__________to be charged with a crime because of an accident_______?

looks to me like the Prosecutor wants to show how tough he is

I think it's not fair - what's your opinion_____?


I spelled his first name wrong - it's actually Alec



https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/19/arts/rust-shooting-charges-alec-baldwin.html



.

A bit of a tough one. On one hand he is an actor and should assume there was no a live round in the gun. The prop person should also be charged with perhaps criminally negligent homicide. OTOH, he pulled the trigger. He is no different than if some kind of plat manager who deliberately makes an unsafe working condition.

I believe in addition to starring in Baldwin was also a (one of the)producer(s) of the movie. That might play a role.

Where's Columbo? I'm sure he has just one more question.

I don't believe he will get convicted.

The prosecutor relies on safety issues. From the specifics it appears the set armourer didn't know live bullets were on set because they had mistakenly been mixed in with dummy rounds from the manufacturer. This is most likely the fatal flaw in the prosecution.

There was a pretty good analysis of the Brandon Lee death which was similar. From that case:

Dummy rounds used on film sets are purchased especially from manufacturers. The bullets are often REAL however they have had the gunpowder removed. Firing a dummy bullet within inches of an actor can still kill him and in fact one actor who didn't realize this killed himself when he fired a blank into his own skull a as a prop joke on set https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon-Erik_Hexum.

In the Brandon Lee example, the film set discovered they didn't have the proper dummy rounds so the props armourer hollowed out real bullets of their gunpowder so they could shoot the scene. But there was enough residue left in one bullet to propel it into Brandon Lee.

That case seems to fit the prosecutor argument that the set didn't follow safety protocols although the actor who shot Lee still would have had no idea the bullet was real or have any expert knowledge on how to tell(would you be able to tell?)

Here it appears there was an expectation that the manufacturer had supplied properly hollowed out dummy bullets.

Imagine if you handed your kid some candy and then he died from poisoning. The manufacturer had made the mistake of mixing in toxic chemicals. And the DA said you were guilty of involuntary manslaughter because you handed the poison candy to your child. If that sounds ridiculous well that's pretty much the situation we have here

Maybe, DarkOz. I don’t know enough yet.

Maybe the prosecution theory is that the armorer should have caught that real bullets and dummies were mixed together.

Maybe the theory on Alec is not that he shot the gun, but that as head producer he was responsible for the safety procedures, so was negligent as well.

Here’s the New Mexico statute for reference:

“Involuntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to felony, or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection.“

My guess is that this will all turn on the “due caution and circumspection” part.

I’m not saying I agree with any of this, just that I don’t have a view yet as I don’t know enough about the investigation results of the theory of the prosecutor’s case.

I do find it interesting that one of the folk has agreed to a guilty plea, and is presumably going to testify to something.

_______________


I think the Prosecutor is playing to the crowd

the public loves it when the rich and famous get sweated in a courtroom


.

Part of the problem is the armorer procedures on a movie set seem to be closer to a pirate code than a requirement across the board. At least that's my impression.

As someone with film experience I understand how confusing the roles of different players are on a film set.

Alec Baldwin as producer. The producer is the guy who raises financing. Many producers don't even appear on set. Alec Baldwin wanted this show produced so he could have a plum role and was instrumental in raising the finances

Raising finances is almost never putting up the producers own money. Usually it means convincing the studio to invest. A producer doesn't own the film rights in this situation, the studio does.

As you can see it's not as simple as a store owners responsibility because he created his storefront.

The producer usually hires the Line producer. Line producer is in charge of everyday working on the sets. Scheduling, hires etc and would have been who probably hired the armourer

As noted someone has already copped a plea. That was the assistant director. The assistant director is the "tyrant" on set who screams at everyone to be prepared for each shot. His role is to make everyone be prepared simultaneously which is more difficult than it sounds. From temperamental actors, EFX crew having trouble with props, sound crews that can't get their mikes situated because the camera operator wants a crazy circular shot etc.

The assistant director was in charge of inspecting the prop gun for safety on the set. He apparently didn't check the gun properly and was also in charge during two other misfire incidents on this set so it's understandable he took a plea.

So who hired the assistant director? Usually it's the director and not the producer. Directors strike a repoir with AD's who keep their set running smoothly. And AD(Assistant Director) is the step before Director. Many of today's directors did their own stints as AD so they feel a certain camaraderie.

So who hired the director that hired the assistant director? Most likely the studio which would want confidence their money is in good hands

Of course situations may be different in each Production and budget level

But you begin to see why simply pointing the finger at the producer because he sounds like he is in charge of the film is not the simple task it seems

Even a complete novice can tell the difference between blanks and live ammo.

Some blanks instead have slightly longer cartridges which are crimped to kinda look like a bullet. But even those are hard to confuse with live rounds.

Of course, blanks can also kill, but generally only at close range.

I don't know what the prosecution is going run with, but it's easy to see a standardized procedure of checks and rechecks would have prevented it. Someone has to take the rap for this, IMO. Just a question of who.

Quote: darkoz

I don't believe he will get convicted.

The prosecutor relies on safety issues. From the specifics it appears the set armourer didn't know live bullets were on set because they had mistakenly been mixed in with dummy rounds from the manufacturer. This is most likely the fatal flaw in the prosecution.


link to original post

If it’s INVOLUNTARY, I don’t get how that explanation absolves them.

I also don’t get how Alec denies having pulled the trigger. How else did it go off in his hand then? That statement to me implies the incident either rattled him to the extent he doesn’t remember what happened or he was intentionally lying to deflect any role he played. So in either circumstance there it kind of makes anything he has to say about it unreliable.

I don’t think they’ll get convicted, but I do think they should be. Charge seems appropriate to me.

_____________


if someone is killed accidentally - because there is a charge on the books of involuntary manslaughter does that mean the person should automatically be charged____?

if I'm driving my car at 35 miles an hour on a pretty quiet street

and a teenager is very upset because she just broke up with her boyfriend and runs right in front of my car

and I hit her and kill her with my car

should I be charged_________?

should I have been all tuned up and prepared for the possibility that someone is going to run right in front of my car_____? - it would have been necessary to slam on the brakes very fast not to have hit her

I don't think I should be charged


.

You'd have to be charged with negligence I believe for a manslaughter charge. Not just an accident. It you're going the speed limit, not intoxicated, not texting, not driving without prescribed glasses, just doing what you'd normally do, that's not negligent

Quote: lilredrooster

_____________


if someone is killed accidentally - because there is a charge on the books of involuntary manslaughter does that mean the person should automatically be charged____?

if I'm driving my car at 35 miles an hour on a pretty quiet street

and a teenager is very upset because she just broke up with her boyfriend and runs right in front of my car

and I hit her and kill her with my car

should I be charged_________?

should I have been all tuned up and prepared for the possibility that someone is going to run right in front of my car_____? - it would have been necessary to slam on the brakes very fast not to have hit her

I don't think I should be charged


.
link to original post

No I don’t think you should be charged there. I think they’re quite a bit different situations. You’re too old for me to assume you were texting when it happened;)

Dark’s analogy MAY make sense, idk, I’m just trained at this point to not take his analogies seriously anymore as if I could make a list of the 10 most ridiculous analogies I’ve ever seen in my life a minimum of 8 of them would have been made by Dark on this forum.

Quote: mcallister3200

Quote: lilredrooster

_____________


if someone is killed accidentally - because there is a charge on the books of involuntary manslaughter does that mean the person should automatically be charged____?

if I'm driving my car at 35 miles an hour on a pretty quiet street

and a teenager is very upset because she just broke up with her boyfriend and runs right in front of my car

and I hit her and kill her with my car

should I be charged_________?

should I have been all tuned up and prepared for the possibility that someone is going to run right in front of my car_____? - it would have been necessary to slam on the brakes very fast not to have hit her

I don't think I should be charged


.
link to original post

No I don’t think you should be charged there. I think they’re quite a bit different situations. You’re too old for me to assume you were texting when it happened;)

Dark’s analogy MAY make sense, idk, I’m just trained at this point to not take his analogies seriously anymore as if I could make a list of the 10 most ridiculous analogies I’ve ever seen in my life a minimum of 8 of them would have been made by Dark on this forum.
link to original post

DarkOz' analogy seems sensible, to me. Basically, Baldwin was acting on certain assurances from the manufacturer, and any number of other people, that there wasn't a live bullet in the gun. I could see Baldwin losing a wrongful death civil suit, (as well as others in the chain of custody of the bullets/gun, all the way up to the manufacturer) but I would find it difficult to find him guilty on any criminal grounds.

Here is the definition of Involuntary Manslaughter in New Mexico law:

Quote:

B. Involuntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to felony, or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection.

https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/2019/chapter-30/article-2/section-30-2-3/

Immediately, we must assume that the act of filming a scene is not unlawful, so we have a question of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection.

Assuming that Baldwin caused the weapon to be discharged (pulled the trigger), then my assumption would be that the pulling of the trigger would be the lawful act that was done without due caution and circumspection. That would lead me to assume that he would be the only one who could be found guilty of Involuntary Manslaughter as there was a chain of custody of the weapon, but no other stage of the custody would constitute the, 'Act,' resulting in death.

If Baldwin did not, in fact, pull the trigger, then I suppose someone else along the line of custody of the weapon might have committed Involuntary Manslaughter---most likely as a result of not properly checking that the weapon wouldn't randomly discharge, or doing so without due caution and circumspection.

If Baldwin was not personally responsible for making sure the weapon was properly gaffed, then I would have a tough time finding him guilty. The reason why is because I don't know what due caution or circumspection he should be expected to exercise.

The difference between murder and manslaughter is criminal intent, or more specifically, the degree of criminal intent.

In voluntary manslaughter, the intentional homicide is committed either recklessly or under extreme provocation such as causes extreme mental or emotional disturbance. The classic example is the husband finding his wife in bed with another man. There must be no cooling off period from the provocation and the act of homicide.

Involuntary homicide, is an unintentional homicide. The person did not even intend to kill anyone, but acted either recklessly or negligently.

With Baldwin, I assume they are going to try to prove negligent involuntary homicide.

An example of negligent involuntary homicide: say a police officer brings his loaded shotgun to a gun store for cleaning, with the safety off, and it goes off and kills the clerk while he's working on it. The officer didn't intend to kill anyone, but as a law enforcement officer familiar with firearms, it is presumed that he should have known that his gun should have the safety on during certain circumstances, and also should know when his gun is loaded.

In a real world example, a parent was held to be guilty of involuntary manslaughter in California for treating her ill child, who died of meningitis, solely with prayer.

Negligence as far as involuntary manslaughter means that the defendant should be aware of a risk of death, but is not. The prosecution's contention might be that Baldwin should have been aware that there were other than blanks in the gun, but was not. And as mentioned in this thread, the fact that another has pled guilty in this case already, means that there were some facts and circumstances here that must have established negligence in the way things played out. Whether that negligence includes Baldwin too, remains to be seen.

Did Alec Baldwin, in his role of Producer, hire or okay the hiring of an inexperienced Armorer, which resulted in the death?

That is why he might be vulnerable, no matter who was holding the gun when it went off.

______________


it's the job of a Prosecutor to pick and choose which cases he will go forward with

he should be sure that his case is strong before he decides to go forward

this case - as I see it - cannot be seen as strong


.

From this article,

In addition to the bullet that killed Hutchins, investigators found five additional live rounds of ammunition mingled among the movie’s props and costumes. Two loose .45 bullets were discovered on top of a prop cart, a third was in a bandolier worn by actor Jensen Ackles, a fourth was in a gun belt worn by Baldwin, and a fifth was found in a box of dummy ammunition with Gutierrez Reed’s fingerprints on it. (Dummy rounds are fake bullets that look real, but are completely inert and have no gunpowder in them.)

It seems like it was pretty wild west with regards to having real bullets on the set.

Quote: lilredrooster

______________


is this fair to him_____?__________to be charged with a crime because of an accident_______?
.
link to original post

The accident killed someone.... that's literally what involuntary manslaughter is. An accidental death caused by negligence.

I don't think he'll end up in prison, though. Looks like most involuntary manslaughter convictions end up with 1-4 years in prison. I think the worst case scenario is he'll plea bargain down to a few years probation and maybe a hefty fine to the victim's family.

Who knows, though... even if he does go to jail I bet it's six months, tops.

The chain of command was the Assistant Director checked the gun before handing it to the actor. The Assistant Director didn't properly do that. He has pled guilty as noticed before.

The scene being prepped was thus.

Alec Baldwin was to look straight at the camera such as the audience would be seeing from a victim perspective. He was to then fire straight at the camera.

It's a classic shot first done in silent films

Naturally the person behind the camera was being aimed at as she was behind it for the shot

The gun went off during rehearsal. Guns or any expendable props are almost never used until actually filming. No point in wasting even dummy rounds. Which is why Alec Baldwin is saying he did not fire.

I don't see how he can be accused of pointing the gun at the cinematographer since that was part of production. It's not like he was jokingly waving it around at her

There is no prerequisites that Actors are gun experts. Most are not. And you wouldn't want the actors who's job is to get into character to be in charge of loading guns. They're job is to act. If they are handed a gun for performance it's expected the gun has been prepared by technician on set to be safe

As for the wild west of a film set, LMAO that's pretty much all film sets. They are chaotic. It's just a mad rush to get things done. If you have ever shot a feature film (I have shot three) you would understand.

Quote: lilredrooster

______________


it's the job of a Prosecutor to pick and choose which cases he will go forward with

he should be sure that his case is strong before he decides to go forward

this case - as I see it - cannot be seen as strong


.
link to original post

.

This may be ‘true’, but it is certainly not always followed in the real world. Many prosecutions are done due to political/social/racial/class pressures.

Easy example is Trump impeachment. Whether you believe him innocent or guilty, there was never any chance of him being convicted.

I dislike Baldwin. But I can’t see any prosecutor overcoming the hurdle of ‘reasonable doubt’ . So bottom line is I wouldn’t expect any criminal convictions, but would expect there would be some cash settlement after the threat of a civil suit.

I dunno,

If I were the defense attorney I'd certainly use the darkoz defense above.

If I were prosecuting, however, I'd simplify things. Person A pointed a gun at person B, the gun went off and person B is now dead. Members of the jury, if I handed you a real gun and told you to point it at the person sitting next to you, but don't worry, I made sure nothing bad will happen... What would you do?

It seems akin to how a ship's captain is expected to go down with his ship.

"Rust" was HIS baby.

The death most certainly meets the statutory requirements of involuntary manslaughter, i.e. it happened "in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection."

Baldwin was in charge of the production and he pulled the trigger; I see nothing "wrong" with charging him.

I suspect the prosecutor probably sympathizes a bit with him but feels constrained by the facts to charge him anyway; her attitude is probably correct, i.e. settle it by putting it in front of a jury and letting them decide his fate.

For her not to charge him would be odd.

I suspect that as with OJ and Depp his celebrity will provide a degree of insulation and he'll probably beat the rap.

I think someone is bucking for national airtime and will bankrupt his poor county in his quest for glory. New Mexico county politics are almost as bad as Arizona's.

There never should have been live rounds on the set.

I have appeared in a film and been on a film set as an observer several times.

When it comes to chain of command, the actor is very low on the hierarchy. Their job is to show up and to do what the director tells them to do in front of the cameras. The actor has neither input nor responsibility for anything else. Obviously, if they are concerned about something that might be a danger they can ask questions and ultimately refuse to do a scene. In this case, there was an armorer as well as prop professionals. I don't understand the basis for these charges.

Baldwin also claims that he did not pull the trigger, but the prosecutor claims they have strong proof that he did.

There were also bad feelings on the set about compensation, and part of the crew went on strike the previous evening -which may have involved the armorer. The jury may be asked to consider that one of the crew may have mixed live ammo in among the duds as an act of defiance before they went on strike.

Quote: Gialmere

I dunno,

If I were the defense attorney I'd certainly use the darkoz defense above.

If I were prosecuting, however, I'd simplify things. Person A pointed a gun at person B, the gun went off and person B is now dead. Members of the jury, if I handed you a real gun and told you to point it at the person sitting next to you, but don't worry, I made sure nothing bad will happen... What would you do?
link to original post

I could see a prosecutor doing that. I believe a savvy jury (even halfway savvy) that could backfire. The real question is if you were acting in a movie with guns and a prop master or Assistant Director handed you a gun saying it was safe to perform with would you feel safe shooting it during the commission of the scene.

For the prosecutor to couch his question as you have could be viewed as a prosecutor who had to reach to prove his point.

Ultimately I think a lot of discovery is going to come into play. Who was in charge of safety along the entire process and where were the slip ups. For example did production cut the safety budget? (With cash strapped productions it's not far fetched.). Or did production do what it was supposed to and the problems come from a different source? That's key to holding Baldwin guilty as producer.

It's going to be a long and well covered case

Quote: gordonm888

I have appeared in a film and been on a film set as an observer several times.

When it comes to chain of command, the actor is very low on the hierarchy. Their job is to show up and to do what the director tells them to do in front of the cameras. The actor has neither input nor responsibility for anything else. Obviously, if they are concerned about something that might be a danger they can ask questions and ultimately refuse to do a scene. In this case, there was an armorer as well as prop professionals. I don't understand the basis for these charges.

Baldwin also claims that he did not pull the trigger, but the prosecutor claims they have strong proof that he did.

There were also bad feelings on the set about compensation, and part of the crew went on strike the previous evening -which may have involved the armorer. The jury may be asked to consider that one of the crew may have mixed live ammo in among the duds as an act of defiance before they went on strike.
link to original post

Hmm, a sabotage defense? I can see that as a way of creating more doubt in the jury, if such is allowed in the case.

I'm with everyone who thinks this will eventually cost Baldwin many $$$, regardless though.

Alec Baldwin, douchebag Deluxe. At one point in all of this he actually said he never pointed the gun at her and never pulled the trigger. He was that desperate to worm and weasel and lie his way out of it.

Yes. He very foolishly opened his mouth and talked to both the cops and the press without a lawyer advising him. Now it all can and will be used against him.

Quote: Gialmere

Yes. He very foolishly opened his mouth and talked to both the cops and the press without a lawyer advising him. Now it all can and will be used against him.
link to original post

Never ever speak to the cops without a lawyer present. Never ever speak to the press about anything you are suspected of committing. Never ever voluntarily go to the police station.

And do your best to never ever shoot someone, unless allowed by law,

My thoughts:
1. I really don't care who you are, if you are handling a weapon anywhere, you should check and clear it. Basic safety, taught in every responsible firearms class. This includes actors.
2. If a gun must be specially prepared to fire, then it should come directly from the armorer's own hands, or one who reports to the armorer. Breaching that chain of custody is a safety violation.
3. All firearms should be stored in holsters, with safeties on, until just before the scene is to be rehearsed/filmed. All firearms should be locked in the armorer's gun safe at the end of the production day.
4. All weapons used on films should not be used for anything else, such as target shooting during down time. If armed security must be used in/around a film set, they should have weapons easily recognized as different than weapons in the movie.
5. Under no circumstances should live ammunition ever be in/around a film set, including in the armorer's area.

Sound reasonable? Every single one of these simple rules were violated at the Rust set. Who was head mo-fo in charge on the set? Alec Baldwin. Forget titles in this case. Who could hire/fire/order around everyone, including the Director? Alec.

Accidental discharges also occurred in the vicinity, indicating either unfamiliarity with the weapon, basic safety protocols (like having safeties on, or holding the weapon improperly), or overfamiliarity with firearms and hence contempt for safety rules. This is a giant red flag of an unsafe operation. Yet Alec did nothing about these problems.

That production strike the night before the fatal shooting? One of the points they were striking over was negligent handling of firearms leading to accidental discharges.

No, Alec was definitely in charge, was notified of the problems, but was arrogant and negligent enough that he charged ahead anyway, safety rule violation notwithstanding. He should definitely be charged as well as other culpable members of the staff (like the armorer) for failure to operate the film set in a safe manner.

As far as his 'defense' that "I didn't know it was loaded, and the AD told me it was safe." that can easily be shown to be a violation of a safety rule he should have known and practiced for years. But Baldwin thinks rules are for little people, not him.

I hope he goes down. But I fear some soft-headed jury member with hopes of stardom will hold out, and the bully will beat the rap again. One thing is for sure--the bills have been piling up for the Rust project this whole past year...and the crew has moved on to other projects.

Would you go work on the Rust set once all this is over and a vindicated Baldwin comes back to finish it?

______________


excellent post one up from BillHasRetired

has got me thinking twice and my opinion is changing -

not fun to admit I was wrong - but I think I was wrong


.

I'm sorry to say so, and just about everyone evidently can't make themselves say so, though they are thinking it: a movie set should not have a child as an armorer. You object in this case because she is 25? My reply to that is all the evidence indicates the poor girl had not reached mental maturity sufficient to be the armorer.

There, I said it.

Furthermore, I do not believe the ammunition manufacturer accidentally mixed in live ammunition into boxes that were supposed to be blanks. Nor will the jury think much of this childish claim.

Correct handling described at 00:56

Quote: BillHasRetired

My thoughts:
1. I really don't care who you are, if you are handling a weapon anywhere, you should check and clear it. Basic safety, taught in every responsible firearms class. This includes actors.
2. If a gun must be specially prepared to fire, then it should come directly from the armorer's own hands, or one who reports to the armorer. Breaching that chain of custody is a safety violation.
3. All firearms should be stored in holsters, with safeties on, until just before the scene is to be rehearsed/filmed. All firearms should be locked in the armorer's gun safe at the end of the production day.
4. All weapons used on films should not be used for anything else, such as target shooting during down time. If armed security must be used in/around a film set, they should have weapons easily recognized as different than weapons in the movie.
5. Under no circumstances should live ammunition ever be in/around a film set, including in the armorer's area.

Sound reasonable? Every single one of these simple rules were violated at the Rust set. Who was head mo-fo in charge on the set? Alec Baldwin. Forget titles in this case. Who could hire/fire/order around everyone, including the Director? Alec.

Accidental discharges also occurred in the vicinity, indicating either unfamiliarity with the weapon, basic safety protocols (like having safeties on, or holding the weapon improperly), or overfamiliarity with firearms and hence contempt for safety rules. This is a giant red flag of an unsafe operation. Yet Alec did nothing about these problems.

That production strike the night before the fatal shooting? One of the points they were striking over was negligent handling of firearms leading to accidental discharges.

No, Alec was definitely in charge, was notified of the problems, but was arrogant and negligent enough that he charged ahead anyway, safety rule violation notwithstanding. He should definitely be charged as well as other culpable members of the staff (like the armorer) for failure to operate the film set in a safe manner.

As far as his 'defense' that "I didn't know it was loaded, and the AD told me it was safe." that can easily be shown to be a violation of a safety rule he should have known and practiced for years. But Baldwin thinks rules are for little people, not him.

I hope he goes down. But I fear some soft-headed jury member with hopes of stardom will hold out, and the bully will beat the rap again. One thing is for sure--the bills have been piling up for the Rust project this whole past year...and the crew has moved on to other projects.

Would you go work on the Rust set once all this is over and a vindicated Baldwin comes back to finish it?
link to original post

Except every single one of those rules was not violated!

Your rule one:. The gun should have been checked and cleared.
It was supposed to have bullets just dummy rounds.

Your rule two: the gun should come from the armourer own hands or one who reports to the armourer.
Okay that was the assistant director who checked the gun before giving it to Alec. He didn't check it well and that's why he's already pled guilty.

Your rule three: All guns should be stored until being rehearsed/filmed
The scene was being rehearsed

Your rule four: guns on set should not be used for anything else
From what I read those were disputes rumors.

Your rule five: no live ammunition should be around the set
Agreed. This rule was violated

Actors are hired based on acting skill. They often don't have experience with what they are doing onscreen. Whether they are playing an astronaut, judge, serial killer or gunman. Their job is to just make a performance believable.

As far as the bills piling up that's being handled by the "completion guarantor" which is insurance this Production would have for such calamity. The insurance company will do whatever is in its power to get Rust back on track as well as the Unions involved and the studio. Millions of dollars are at stake here. Trust me people will show up once production resumes

Quote: darkoz

Your rule one:. The gun should have been checked and cleared.
It was supposed to ...

supposed to?

Quote:

... have bullets just dummy rounds.

Imagine you are a manufacturer of dummy rounds. Would you make sure it is clear what are dummy rounds and what are not?



guess what kind these are? clearly the gun was not checked by a competent person

you may be unaware how just completely 'ape' people want to go on perhaps seemingly-minor-to-some violations of rules, who have gone through safety training on guns

and in fact I will say that if you are around guns being used much, you will be around an incident of some sort ... certainly eventually a gun going off when it shouldn't. This is why the rule about not pointing the muzzle at something you don't intend to shoot is so paramount

link to original post

Quote: odiousgambit

Quote: darkoz

Your rule one:. The gun should have been checked and cleared.
It was supposed to ...

supposed to?

Quote:

... have bullets just dummy rounds.

Imagine you are a manufacturer of dummy rounds. Would you make sure it is clear what are dummy rounds and what are not?



guess what kind these are? clearly the gun was not checked by a competent person

you may be unaware how just completely 'ape' people want to go on perhaps seemingly-minor-to-some violations of rules, who have gone through safety training on guns

and in fact I will say that if you are around guns being used much, you will be around an incident of some sort ... certainly eventually a gun going off when it shouldn't. This is why the rule about not pointing the muzzle at something you don't intend to shoot is so paramount

link to original post

link to original post

Agreed. The gun was not checked by someone competent. That person has already pled guilty.

The gun was pointed at something that was intended to be shot. The camera! That's why the cinematographer behind the camera was struck and killed.

Quote: darkoz

Quote: BillHasRetired

My thoughts:
1. I really don't care who you are, if you are handling a weapon anywhere, you should check and clear it. Basic safety, taught in every responsible firearms class. This includes actors.
2. If a gun must be specially prepared to fire, then it should come directly from the armorer's own hands, or one who reports to the armorer. Breaching that chain of custody is a safety violation.
3. All firearms should be stored in holsters, with safeties on, until just before the scene is to be rehearsed/filmed. All firearms should be locked in the armorer's gun safe at the end of the production day.
4. All weapons used on films should not be used for anything else, such as target shooting during down time. If armed security must be used in/around a film set, they should have weapons easily recognized as different than weapons in the movie.
5. Under no circumstances should live ammunition ever be in/around a film set, including in the armorer's area.

Sound reasonable? Every single one of these simple rules were violated at the Rust set. Who was head mo-fo in charge on the set? Alec Baldwin. Forget titles in this case. Who could hire/fire/order around everyone, including the Director? Alec.

Accidental discharges also occurred in the vicinity, indicating either unfamiliarity with the weapon, basic safety protocols (like having safeties on, or holding the weapon improperly), or overfamiliarity with firearms and hence contempt for safety rules. This is a giant red flag of an unsafe operation. Yet Alec did nothing about these problems.

That production strike the night before the fatal shooting? One of the points they were striking over was negligent handling of firearms leading to accidental discharges.

No, Alec was definitely in charge, was notified of the problems, but was arrogant and negligent enough that he charged ahead anyway, safety rule violation notwithstanding. He should definitely be charged as well as other culpable members of the staff (like the armorer) for failure to operate the film set in a safe manner.

As far as his 'defense' that "I didn't know it was loaded, and the AD told me it was safe." that can easily be shown to be a violation of a safety rule he should have known and practiced for years. But Baldwin thinks rules are for little people, not him.

I hope he goes down. But I fear some soft-headed jury member with hopes of stardom will hold out, and the bully will beat the rap again. One thing is for sure--the bills have been piling up for the Rust project this whole past year...and the crew has moved on to other projects.

Would you go work on the Rust set once all this is over and a vindicated Baldwin comes back to finish it?
link to original post

As far as the bills piling up that's being handled by the "completion guarantor" which is insurance this Production would have for such calamity. The insurance company will do whatever is in its power to get Rust back on track as well as the Unions involved and the studio. Millions of dollars are at stake here. Trust me people will show up once production resumes
link to original post

I can’t believe virtually anyone in the public has any appetite to see this film, too tainted. The millions have already been lost, would be throwing good money after bad imo. Also seems like a complete lack of human decency to go forward with it.

I guess I believe since you have some domain knowledge, but seems incredibly tone deaf and I’d be astonished if it’s even remotely successful by any measure.

I think as a defense lawyer I would try to come up with other acting situations where the actor could check a prop before he used it, and then ask if he was expected to? But it would have to be something that would be checkable. I'm not sure if there is a way to check a chair which is supposed to break if you hit someone over the head. But perhaps something like where the actor is told a gas can isn't really filled with real gas and he throws it on someone, and it catches fire.

This would be an attempt to show actors do a lot of things which would be dangerous normally, but depend heavily on the professional prop handlers. Ah, that might be a weak argument, but you may be only needing to convince one juror, not all of them to hang a verdict.

Like in a play about the stabbing of Ceasar, are the actors checking that the knives laid out are still the same rubber tipped instrument before each performance?

Quote: darkoz

The gun was pointed at something that was intended to be shot. The camera! That's why the cinematographer behind the camera was struck and killed.
link to original post

Extra alarm at that situation would be natural to someone used to safely handling firearms. These people were not used to it, clearly, including the armorer. A tragic, perverse set of circumstances all had to come together here at the same time.

Why do I say extra alarm? Because though I am not someone who thinks guns are perverse when handled properly, I do think of them becoming perverse when they are not. It can really be weird.

If Elon Musk was the director, how would have Rust ended any different? I can't think of any better outcome. All these movies I see on LMN would have me believe the director did it, which he did.

There is a long history in film of stuntmen and actors either dieing or getting injured during the process of filming. The issue has always been financial compensation not criminal charges.

Quote: rxwine

I think as a defense lawyer I would try to come up with other acting situations where the actor could check a prop before he used it, and then ask if he was expected to? But it would have to be something that would be checkable. I'm not sure if there is a way to check a chair which is supposed to break if you hit someone over the head. But perhaps something like where the actor is told a gas can isn't really filled with real gas and he throws it on someone, and it catches fire.

This would be an attempt to show actors do a lot of things which would be dangerous normally, but depend heavily on the professional prop handlers. Ah, that might be a weak argument, but you may be only needing to convince one juror, not all of them to hang a verdict.

Like in a play about the stabbing of Ceasar, are the actors checking that the knives laid out are still the same rubber tipped instrument before each performance?
link to original post

There is a long history of accidents on set.
Christopher Lee on the Mummy comes to mind.

Quote: mcallister3200

Quote: darkoz

Quote: BillHasRetired

My thoughts:
1. I really don't care who you are, if you are handling a weapon anywhere, you should check and clear it. Basic safety, taught in every responsible firearms class. This includes actors.
2. If a gun must be specially prepared to fire, then it should come directly from the armorer's own hands, or one who reports to the armorer. Breaching that chain of custody is a safety violation.
3. All firearms should be stored in holsters, with safeties on, until just before the scene is to be rehearsed/filmed. All firearms should be locked in the armorer's gun safe at the end of the production day.
4. All weapons used on films should not be used for anything else, such as target shooting during down time. If armed security must be used in/around a film set, they should have weapons easily recognized as different than weapons in the movie.
5. Under no circumstances should live ammunition ever be in/around a film set, including in the armorer's area.

Sound reasonable? Every single one of these simple rules were violated at the Rust set. Who was head mo-fo in charge on the set? Alec Baldwin. Forget titles in this case. Who could hire/fire/order around everyone, including the Director? Alec.

Accidental discharges also occurred in the vicinity, indicating either unfamiliarity with the weapon, basic safety protocols (like having safeties on, or holding the weapon improperly), or overfamiliarity with firearms and hence contempt for safety rules. This is a giant red flag of an unsafe operation. Yet Alec did nothing about these problems.

That production strike the night before the fatal shooting? One of the points they were striking over was negligent handling of firearms leading to accidental discharges.

No, Alec was definitely in charge, was notified of the problems, but was arrogant and negligent enough that he charged ahead anyway, safety rule violation notwithstanding. He should definitely be charged as well as other culpable members of the staff (like the armorer) for failure to operate the film set in a safe manner.

As far as his 'defense' that "I didn't know it was loaded, and the AD told me it was safe." that can easily be shown to be a violation of a safety rule he should have known and practiced for years. But Baldwin thinks rules are for little people, not him.

I hope he goes down. But I fear some soft-headed jury member with hopes of stardom will hold out, and the bully will beat the rap again. One thing is for sure--the bills have been piling up for the Rust project this whole past year...and the crew has moved on to other projects.

Would you go work on the Rust set once all this is over and a vindicated Baldwin comes back to finish it?
link to original post

As far as the bills piling up that's being handled by the "completion guarantor" which is insurance this Production would have for such calamity. The insurance company will do whatever is in its power to get Rust back on track as well as the Unions involved and the studio. Millions of dollars are at stake here. Trust me people will show up once production resumes
link to original post

I can’t believe virtually anyone in the public has any appetite to see this film, too tainted. The millions have already been lost, would be throwing good money after bad imo. Also seems like a complete lack of human decency to go forward with it.

I guess I believe since you have some domain knowledge, but seems incredibly tone deaf and I’d be astonished if it’s even remotely successful by any measure.
link to original post

Millions have been spent. That's not going to just be chucked.

These films will have completion guarantee insurance. If the film reaches a point where it's definitely in danger of not being finished the completion guarantor has the legal right to take over.

It's usually a disaster. They assign their own directors and editors in an attempt to finish what they have and the final products are notorious for being atrocious. Yes it's happened before.

I have to say the more y’all educate me about the standards the more deplorable the industry seems.

I also understand actors are hired for acting skills, but I’d think going forward it shouldn’t be too much that those handling firearms get some basic safety education that 12 year olds all over the country receive.

Quote: darkoz

Quote: BillHasRetired

My thoughts:
1. I really don't care who you are, if you are handling a weapon anywhere, you should check and clear it. Basic safety, taught in every responsible firearms class. This includes actors.
2. If a gun must be specially prepared to fire, then it should come directly from the armorer's own hands, or one who reports to the armorer. Breaching that chain of custody is a safety violation.
3. All firearms should be stored in holsters, with safeties on, until just before the scene is to be rehearsed/filmed. All firearms should be locked in the armorer's gun safe at the end of the production day.
4. All weapons used on films should not be used for anything else, such as target shooting during down time. If armed security must be used in/around a film set, they should have weapons easily recognized as different than weapons in the movie.
5. Under no circumstances should live ammunition ever be in/around a film set, including in the armorer's area.

Sound reasonable? Every single one of these simple rules were violated at the Rust set. Who was head mo-fo in charge on the set? Alec Baldwin. Forget titles in this case. Who could hire/fire/order around everyone, including the Director? Alec.

Accidental discharges also occurred in the vicinity, indicating either unfamiliarity with the weapon, basic safety protocols (like having safeties on, or holding the weapon improperly), or overfamiliarity with firearms and hence contempt for safety rules. This is a giant red flag of an unsafe operation. Yet Alec did nothing about these problems.

That production strike the night before the fatal shooting? One of the points they were striking over was negligent handling of firearms leading to accidental discharges.

No, Alec was definitely in charge, was notified of the problems, but was arrogant and negligent enough that he charged ahead anyway, safety rule violation notwithstanding. He should definitely be charged as well as other culpable members of the staff (like the armorer) for failure to operate the film set in a safe manner.

As far as his 'defense' that "I didn't know it was loaded, and the AD told me it was safe." that can easily be shown to be a violation of a safety rule he should have known and practiced for years. But Baldwin thinks rules are for little people, not him.

I hope he goes down. But I fear some soft-headed jury member with hopes of stardom will hold out, and the bully will beat the rap again. One thing is for sure--the bills have been piling up for the Rust project this whole past year...and the crew has moved on to other projects.

Would you go work on the Rust set once all this is over and a vindicated Baldwin comes back to finish it?
link to original post

Except every single one of those rules was not violated!

Your rule one:. The gun should have been checked and cleared.
It was supposed to have bullets just dummy rounds.

Your rule two: the gun should come from the armourer own hands or one who reports to the armourer.
Okay that was the assistant director who checked the gun before giving it to Alec. He didn't check it well and that's why he's already pled guilty.

Your rule three: All guns should be stored until being rehearsed/filmed
The scene was being rehearsed

Your rule four: guns on set should not be used for anything else
From what I read those were disputes rumors.

Your rule five: no live ammunition should be around the set
Agreed. This rule was violated

Actors are hired based on acting skill. They often don't have experience with what they are doing onscreen. Whether they are playing an astronaut, judge, serial killer or gunman. Their job is to just make a performance believable.

As far as the bills piling up that's being handled by the "completion guarantor" which is insurance this Production would have for such calamity. The insurance company will do whatever is in its power to get Rust back on track as well as the Unions involved and the studio. Millions of dollars are at stake here. Trust me people will show up once production resumes
link to original post

DarkOz, you didn’t address Bill’s main argument that Alec was “in charge” so responsible for the deplorable conditions that led to the gun having live rounds.

Quote: unJon

DarkOz, you didn’t address Bill’s main argument that Alec was “in charge” so responsible for the deplorable conditions that led to the gun having live rounds.
link to original post

I didn't want to repeat myself. I explained it on page one of this thread.

Here is what I wrote if you missed it:

Quote: darkoz

As someone with film experience I understand how confusing the roles of different players are on a film set.

Alec Baldwin as producer. The producer is the guy who raises financing. Many producers don't even appear on set. Alec Baldwin wanted this show produced so he could have a plum role and was instrumental in raising the finances

Raising finances is almost never putting up the producers own money. Usually it means convincing the studio to invest. A producer doesn't own the film rights in this situation, the studio does.

As you can see it's not as simple as a store owners responsibility because he created his storefront.

The producer usually hires the Line producer. Line producer is in charge of everyday working on the sets. Scheduling, hires etc and would have been who probably hired the armourer

As noted someone has already copped a plea. That was the assistant director. The assistant director is the "tyrant" on set who screams at everyone to be prepared for each shot. His role is to make everyone be prepared simultaneously which is more difficult than it sounds. From temperamental actors, EFX crew having trouble with props, sound crews that can't get their mikes situated because the camera operator wants a crazy circular shot etc.

The assistant director was in charge of inspecting the prop gun for safety on the set. He apparently didn't check the gun properly and was also in charge during two other misfire incidents on this set so it's understandable he took a plea.

So who hired the assistant director? Usually it's the director and not the producer. Directors strike a repoir with AD's who keep their set running smoothly. And AD(Assistant Director) is the step before Director. Many of today's directors did their own stints as AD so they feel a certain camaraderie.

So who hired the director that hired the assistant director? Most likely the studio which would want confidence their money is in good hands

Of course situations may be different in each Production and budget level

But you begin to see why simply pointing the finger at the producer because he sounds like he is in charge of the film is not the simple task it seems
link to original post

To add to that once the studio is behind the project they can still change their minds and pull the financing. That would put the film into turnaround. The producer (in this case Alec Baldwin) has no input into that.

Turnaround is bad. The producer has to shop the film anew to other studios BUT the rights are still with the original studio. If the producer convinces another studio to come onboard then they have to cover the costs already incurred by the initial studios (basically buying the rights at cost as the initial studios isn't going to lose money already invested).

It's a complicated business but definitely saying the producer owns the property and is in charge isn't anywhere near the truth.

Of course there are lots of different scenarios. For example Tyler Perry was so frustrated that he created his own studio and has nearly 100% control over his projects. If this was a Tyler Perry film I actually would be inclined to agree with Bill on the producer responsibility issue.

Finally just to show how complicated the "producer issue" is there are several producers on most films. Alec Baldwin just happens to be the celebrity producer.