Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rust

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #61
    This is making the headlines.

    Alec Baldwin to be charged with involuntary manslaughter in 'Rust’ film shooting (msn.com)

    Comment


      #62

      Hollywood actor Alec Baldwin’s decision to sit down with George Stephanopoulos following the fatal "Rust" set shooting was a massive mistake, according to Fox News contributor Leo Terrell.

      "One of the biggest mistakes Alec Baldwin made was to go on George Stephanopoulos’ program and say he didn’t pull the trigger. That was a lie," Terrell told "The Faulkner Focus" on Thursday. "I guarantee you that’s going to come back to haunt him."
      Alec Baldwin interview with Stephanopoulos will 'come back to haunt him' in court: Leo Terrell | Fox News

      Comment


        #63
        I mean, just by damaging his credibility, right? It won't hurt him directly?
        www.AbeFilms.com

        All men are brothers

        Comment


          #64
          Originally posted by ahalpert View Post

          I mean, just by damaging his credibility, right? It won't hurt him directly?
          He was not under oath but his ability to testify under oath in own defense is now severely compromised and is probably no longer deemed feasible. In other words, he'll have to take the 5th. Which is a disadvantageous position in trials. And subsequently, his attorneys will have less clout in their negotiations with the DA office if they want to plead to a lesser charge.

          And it also worsens his position in any subsequent civil litigation.

          PS. I am not an attorney ... but Leo Terrell is.

          Comment


            #65
            A CNN interview with the DA.

            https://www.air.tv/watch?v=jTzO7O7ASQ239yUAUOTA9Q

            Comment


              #66
              Flipping through the channels while watching the "Bohemian Rhapsody" on FX (huge Queen fan but the film is soooo uneven). During a commercial break, I saw Mark Gerragos on Hannity (adjacent channels on my cable system). Gerragos thinks that the interview with Stephanopulos was as bad an idea as could possibly be imagined because "everything can be used against you in a court of law" and he thinks that there's a credible danger of a jail sentence. Because New Mexico ain't New York.

              I didn't know/remember that Baldwin has been in criminal trials before.

              Comment


                #67
                I don't know much about the specifics of this situation or the relevant laws. But I would be truly shocked if an involuntary manslaughter charge could stick to an actor who was handed a gun he was told was safe and then instructed to point it at someone.

                That would totally change the liability calculus of taking on acting roles involving gunplay, wouldn't it?
                www.AbeFilms.com

                All men are brothers

                Comment


                  #68
                  Originally posted by ahalpert View Post
                  I don't know much about the specifics of this situation or the relevant laws. But I would be truly shocked if an involuntary manslaughter charge could stick to an actor who was handed a gun he was told was safe and then instructed to point it at someone.

                  That would totally change the liability calculus of taking on acting roles involving gunplay, wouldn't it?
                  No. Existing law is what it is and the liability remains the same unless some new legislation comes along. But it would help make sets more safe. Actors have as much responsibility as anyone else on set when handling any weapon or any device for that matter. There should be no assumption on anyone's part about anything regarding weapons. As has been said many times on this topic, first and foremost (and that can't be written in too large a font) when handling guns (regardless if they are a prop or not) is standard gun handling protocols. If you have been around guns on a shooting range or in the field, this becomes very clear. I went with a friend once to a outdoor range. One thing I learned was safety, safety, safety, safety, safety and ...... safety drilled into me and everyone around me before and during handling the gun. Procedures are made clear. Weapons are cleared. Handling weapons is gone over in great detail and seriousness. I was so impressed with how adamant everyone was about how things are to be done, with a range master keeping a sharp eye on everyone.

                  I don't see that a set should be any different.

                  It costs big money to prosecute. There have been articles in the local papers about how the District Attorney had to get approval for money to conduct these proceedings. So there are good grounds for the charges. If there is a standard of care on sets regarding guns that indicate there is responsibility by the actor to assure the weapon is safe (as has been indicated by other actor's statements regarding this incident), or if there is law on the New Mexico books about handling a weapon (under any circumstances, movie se tor no movie set), then they have the grounds to put up charges.

                  It's all about the rule of law. Not what we may think should be the law.
                  Awarded Best Clear Com Chatter, 2001, PBS Television

                  Comment


                    #69
                    Originally posted by Paul F View Post

                    No. Existing law is what it is and the liability remains the same unless some new legislation comes along. But it would help make sets more safe. Actors have as much responsibility as anyone else on set when handling any weapon or any device for that matter. There should be no assumption on anyone's part about anything regarding weapons. As has been said many times on this topic, first and foremost (and that can't be written in too large a font) when handling guns (regardless if they are a prop or not) is standard gun handling protocols. If you have been around guns on a shooting range or in the field, this becomes very clear. I went with a friend once to a outdoor range. One thing I learned was safety, safety, safety, safety, safety and ...... safety drilled into me and everyone around me before and during handling the gun. Procedures are made clear. Weapons are cleared. Handling weapons is gone over in great detail and seriousness. I was so impressed with how adamant everyone was about how things are to be done, with a range master keeping a sharp eye on everyone.

                    I don't see that a set should be any different.

                    It costs big money to prosecute. There have been articles in the local papers about how the District Attorney had to get approval for money to conduct these proceedings. So there are good grounds for the charges. If there is a standard of care on sets regarding guns that indicate there is responsibility by the actor to assure the weapon is safe (as has been indicated by other actor's statements regarding this incident), or if there is law on the New Mexico books about handling a weapon (under any circumstances, movie se tor no movie set), then they have the grounds to put up charges.

                    It's all about the rule of law. Not what we may think should be the law.
                    This is from the NYT yesterday under the headline "Lights, Camera, Weapons Check? Actors Worry After Baldwin Charges."

                    The news that Alec Baldwin is facing manslaughter charges for killing a cinematographer with a gun he had been told was safe had the actor Steven Pasquale thinking back to the filming of “Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem” more than a decade ago, when he and other actors were handed military-style rifles and told to start shooting.

                    He felt safe, he said, because he relied on the professional props experts and the armorer who had checked and shown him the gun.

                    “We are artists — we are not actual cowboys, actual cops, actual superheroes,” Mr. Pasquale said. “We are not Jason Bourne. I can’t even begin to imagine an actor having the responsibility of now needing to be the safety person on the set regarding prop guns. That’s insane.” ...

                    SAG-AFTRA, a union representing film workers, said the responsibility lay not with actors but with trained professionals. ...

                    Industry standards say that no one should be issued a firearm without being trained in safety, but that the responsibility for checking guns before each use lies with the prop master or designated weapons handler.
                    Kirk Acevedo, an actor who has worked extensively with weapons on shows like “Band of Brothers” and in the film “The Thin Red Line,” said it was typical for a film’s armorer, who is responsible for guns and ammunition on set, to open a gun and demonstrate to the actor that it was empty. Mr. Acevedo said that while he owned guns and had experience with them, many actors lacked the expertise to check firearms on their own. In some cases, he noted, the actors are children.

                    “It’s not me,” he said, referring to who has the responsibility. “It can’t be me. If you have never fired a weapon before, how would you know how to do all of that? For some people, it’s hard to even pull back the slide.” ...

                    Mr. Baldwin told ABC News after the shooting that he had pointed the gun toward Ms. Hutchins only because he had been told it was “cold” and he was being directed to do so.

                    “I got countless people online saying, ‘You idiot, you never point a gun at someone,’” Mr. Baldwin said in the interview. “Well, unless you’re told it’s empty, and it’s the director of photography who’s instructing you on the angle for a shot we’re going to do.” ...

                    Ms. Carmack-Altwies said she would not expect Mr. Baldwin to personally check every round that was loaded into the gun, but that she would expect him to make sure that someone had checked them.

                    It was Dave Halls, the movie’s first assistant director, who had proclaimed the gun “cold” that day, according to court papers. Speaking to investigators, Mr. Halls said that Ms. Gutierrez-Reed had opened the gun that day for him but that he did not inspect each round individually. Mr. Halls has agreed to a plea deal on a charge of negligent use of a deadly weapon. ...

                    Legal experts said successfully prosecuting the charges against Mr. Baldwin would require the district attorney to demonstrate that he behaved negligently. Joshua Kastenberg, a criminal law professor at the University of New Mexico and a former prosecutor, said he could see an argument being made that Mr. Baldwin might have failed to act in a manner to protect others.

                    One challenge for prosecutors will be that Mr. Baldwin was told the gun did not contain live ammunition. James J. Brosnahan, a lawyer who represented the production company behind the movie “The Crow” after the actor Brandon Lee was fatally shot on set, said Mr. Baldwin’s mind-set at the time that he took the gun from Mr. Halls would probably be crucial for a judge or a jury.

                    “If a person is going to be negligent, you’ve got to prove that they knew something and they proceeded anyway,” Mr. Brosnahan said, giving an example that “they knew the speed limit was 70 miles per hour and they went 100.”

                    Prosecutors did not file criminal charges after Mr. Lee, the son of the martial-arts star Bruce Lee, was shot at with a gun that was supposed to fire only blanks.
                    https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/20/a...fety-film.html

                    I think this prosecution possibly turns on the idea that Baldwin pulled the trigger and he wasn't supposed to. (At least, I doubt he was supposed to, considering the fact that he lied and said he didnt.) But I feel like it wouldn't matter if he had a cold gun.
                    Last edited by ahalpert; 01-21-2023, 10:31 AM.
                    www.AbeFilms.com

                    All men are brothers

                    Comment


                      #70
                      Also, I doubt that the marginal cost of prosecuting an additional person in this case is that high since they're prosecuting multiple people and already doing a full investigation. Similarly, they're charging them all with 2 counts of manslaughter, but only 1 count or the other is going to be applicable, depending on the findings of the jury. This sort of seems like an everything and everyone prosecution
                      www.AbeFilms.com

                      All men are brothers

                      Comment


                        #71
                        Originally posted by ahalpert View Post
                        Also, I doubt that the marginal cost of prosecuting an additional person in this case is that high since they're prosecuting multiple people and already doing a full investigation.
                        Without knowing anything about how district attorneys work or how developing a case works or how researching case law works or how they plan to prosecute (individual trials or a group trial), you doubt. It could be double. We don't know. We have no information of any kind in this regard.

                        Calling it an everything and everyone prosecution..... now c'mon Abe. Let's take a look. They charged the person that loaded the gun and the person that fired the gun.The thing that we need to keep in mind is that it was a weapon, not a prop. I think we are trying to make some sort of distinction here that there are props on sets and that is somehow different than when someone uses a gun. But that's not the case. It was a real gun. So all the responsibility of having a gun go along with it regardless of circumstances and assumptions. As such, regardless of it being a movie set, all those handling the weapon are responsible to treat it as a weapon. Ignorance is never an excuse to the law.

                        [edit] The people in your quote are trying to make distinctions that I don't think exist in the law.
                        Last edited by Paul F; 01-21-2023, 01:09 PM.
                        Awarded Best Clear Com Chatter, 2001, PBS Television

                        Comment


                          #72
                          Originally posted by Paul F View Post

                          Without knowing anything about how district attorneys work or how developing a case works or how researching case law works or how they plan to prosecute (individual trials or a group trial), you doubt. It could be double. We don't know. We have no information of any kind in this regard.

                          Calling it an everything and everyone prosecution..... now c'mon Abe. Let's take a look. They charged the person that loaded the gun and the person that fired the gun.The thing that we need to keep in mind is that it was a weapon, not a prop. I think we are trying to make some sort of distinction here that there are props on sets and that is somehow different than when someone uses a gun. But that's not the case. It was a real gun. So all the responsibility of having a gun go along with it regardless of circumstances and assumptions. As such, regardless of it being a movie set, all those handling the weapon are responsible to treat it as a weapon. Ignorance is never an excuse to the law.
                          They appointed a special prosecutor in the investigation that charged 3 people (armorer, assistant director, actor). They didn't appoint 3 special prosecutors. Maybe charging additional people is going to cause that prosecutor to enlarge her team, but not by double. Meanwhile, any investigation into the culpability of any of those people is going to have to investigate the culpability of the others as well. So, it makes sense to me that charging 2 or 3 people instead of one is not going to double or triple the costs of investigating. It will probably double or triple the costs of the court proceedings, but that's only a portion of the cost of prosecution.

                          They charged 3 people, not 2 - the person who loaded the gun, the person responsible for double-checking their work and conveying it to the actor, and the actor.

                          Even the DA makes a distinction between firearms safety on set and in general in that the the actor can rely on someone else's gun safety expertise if he witnesses their inspection, saying

                          “He absolutely had a duty to either check the weapon himself or have someone to check in front of him,” Carmack-Altwies said
                          Finally, the DA claims that you should never point a gun (presumably even an empty gun or a gun loaded with blanks) at someone you don't want to shoot. But actors do that all the time on film sets.

                          “Not only that, but just when anyone is handed a gun you need to make sure that you are not pointing it or pulling the trigger at anyone or anything that you’re not willing to shoot."
                          Loads of actors are guilty of that same crime but didn't have the misfortune of accidentally killing someone. In this case, the victim explicitly directed the actor to point the gun at her. If she had directed him to point the gun at someone else who was then shot, she might be facing charges herself.

                          If Baldwin is convicted, I would think that productions will stop using real firearms altogether because the cost of making the effects in post may be favorable to the burden of liability. Not that that would be a bad outcome.
                          www.AbeFilms.com

                          All men are brothers

                          Comment


                            #73
                            Originally posted by ahalpert View Post
                            Finally, the DA claims that you should never point a gun (presumably even an empty gun or a gun loaded with blanks) at someone you don't want to shoot. But actors do that all the time on film sets..
                            Yes, and none of them killed anyone so no one prosecuted them. The fact that actors have guns in their hands all the time means nothing to the law. That doesn't change the law or concepts of negligence or manslaughter.

                            People drive cars all the time and no one goes to court for driving. But if you kill someone while driving, it's manslaughter. It doesn't matter how it happened You killed someone. You're going to court for it.
                            Awarded Best Clear Com Chatter, 2001, PBS Television

                            Comment


                              #74
                              Originally posted by Paul F View Post
                              .

                              People drive cars all the time and no one goes to court for driving. But if you kill someone while driving, it's manslaughter. It doesn't matter how it happened You killed someone. You're going to court for it.
                              If you're driving a car and you kill someone because your brakes fail, the germane question is if you knew there was a problem with your brakes or if you thought they were in working order. Did your car pass a safety inspection within the last 12 months? If you didn't take it in to get inspected, then it's surely your fault. But you don't have to inspect the brakes yourself, certainly not every time before you drive. You pay a specialist to do so and then you can assume they're in working order for the next year unless you notice a problem.

                              My point about actors doing this all the time is that clearly the film industry at large does not believe that pointing a real gun at someone during filming is wrong or illegal. And they don't hold the actor responsible for safetying the firearm. Baldwin wasn't coming out of left field. If you or the law have a problem with what he did, then you have a problem with the industry at large.

                              And you can prosecute people for reckless endangerment or negligence even if their conduct doesn't injure or kill anyone. So basically, most film shoots featuring gunplay would probably be breaking the law. And if that's found to be the case, I would think it will prompt a reconsideration of film firearm protocol.
                              www.AbeFilms.com

                              All men are brothers

                              Comment


                                #75
                                Originally posted by ahalpert View Post
                                My point about actors doing this all the time is that clearly the film industry at large does not believe that pointing a real gun at someone during filming is wrong or illegal. And they don't hold the actor responsible for safetying the firearm. Baldwin wasn't coming out of left field.
                                Yes. I don't think anyone disagrees with those generalizations.

                                Originally posted by ahalpert View Post
                                If you or the law have a problem with what he did, then you have a problem with the industry at large.
                                Nobody I know has a problem with the industry at-large. I don't have an opinion. Because I am arguing certain points doesn't mean I am siding with the DA's office or want to see Alec Baldwin prosecuted. It's the DA's job to have an opinion based on law........ or, maybe they hate Alec Baldwin. Who knows.



                                Awarded Best Clear Com Chatter, 2001, PBS Television

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X