Rust

[Peter C.]

There seems to be two camps here:

1. I want to responsible person to be held accountable.
2. I want Alec Baldwin to pay for what he did.

There is no crossover here, since there was a person on set who was responsible for handling the guns and ammo. It was that person's job. Not that person + the actor. Not that person + the director. Not that person + their assistant....

People rationalising bringing Baldwin to court seem to mostly agree on: as long as he goes, the reason can be whatever: "it's the law", "every gun is loaded", "don't point a weapon at something you don't want to kill", "he pulled the trigger" and other comments completely lacking context.

What is the status of the armorer in all of this? Also being charged?

The armorer is the one where there is no gray area. She's the most responsible and is going to be convicted without a doubt.

Baldwin's case is trickier because the question is does the armorer have full responsibility for gun safety or is it shared with the actor? Do the delegation duties on a movie set context supersede normal gun protocol?

It is hard to know if this goes to trial what will happen because I don't believe an accidental shooting on a movie set has ever been brought before a criminal court.

From a legal stand point the DA might have had no choice but to charge him because by definition Baldwin pulled the trigger so involuntary manslaughter is the proper charge. It's up to a jury to decide based on the facts of the individual case whether he is guilty.

I'd agree separate from the legal questions there is an emotional battle based politics and the likeability of Baldwin in the media.

For me Baldwin's biggest mistake as a veteran actor and producer was turning a blind eye to the safety concerns on set.

 

[DLD]

Baldwin was the producer, so ultimately it was his decision to hire an unproven armorer.

As to the NYT article, it sounds impressive but is basically typical pile of manure you see on political talk shows. The hosts/producers bring on several guests - who in and of themselves could be fairly reasonable and competent - who all agree with the particular host on a particular issue. Surely, one can find a lawyer or a law professor who thinks that Baldwin should hang - because Alec hated the dailies and decided to surreptitiously take the matter into his own hands - to those who think that Baldwin is only being prosecuted for his role on "30 Rock". In other words, just because the "journalist" in question found several opinions unanimously exonerating the main principal, it doesn't mean that the Hollywood insiders percentages would be as supportive as the article claims. Chat GPT would have probably done a better job.

PS. In my youth, there was a Swiss writer of note named Friedrich Dürrenmatt, very popular in the USSR. As the department head, my dad was able to obtain a subscription to a monthly magazine called Foreign Literature, which published books that were otherwise unavailable to regular folks. One of Dürrenmatt's books that was published there was called "An accident" in Russian, the "Dangerous Game" in English and "Die Panne" in its original German. I read it in my early teens and found it rather terrifying. And that was before they made a film out of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Dangerous_Game_(novel)

 

[AndreeOnline]

Baldwin's case is trickier because the question is does the armorer have full responsibility for gun safety or is it shared with the actor?

No gray zone for me personally, which is only an opinion, albeit a strong one.

We can't slippery slope responsibility like that. It was the armorer's job to hand over a safe weapon. It was Baldwin's actual job to point that gun at a person on set and pull the trigger. It was not something he did just goofing around because "Hey, this is just a prop! I'm going to point it at people and pull the trigger for the giggles!"

If everyone did their job, Baldwin would have still pointed the gun and pulled the trigger, and nothing would have happened. The fact that if you just change one thing: the armorer hands over a safe weapon, which was this person's only job as it were, nothing would have happened shows us where the responsibility lies; it wouldn't have been partially avoided and not mostly, but completely.

Yes, you have have a person responsible and then double check what that person does 3 times over. That would make things safer. But as I understand it, that is not how it works on sets. And if you want an additional person to check, make it another armorer. It can't be the people preparing for other tasks like actors in character or directors and assistans that are coordinating a million other things. It should be another person whose sole focus it is to double check.

I don't have any emotional connection to any person here or the set in general, but I get extremely triggered by the some of the rhetoric considering the serious nature of the incident. To not be able to view this in context (hiding behind laws that were never intended to cover "make believe") or casually distributing guilt to satisfy the right people is utterly wrong.

 

[ahalpert]

As to the NYT article, it sounds impressive but is basically typical pile of manure you see on political talk shows. The hosts/producers bring on several guests - who in and of themselves could be fairly reasonable and competent - who all agree with the particular host on a particular issue.

Just speaking about industry standards -- as in, how are film sets typically operating -- my experience and my understanding is that the actor is not expected to inspect the weapon. Charles would know better than I, but when I was an AC that was not what I observed. If Baldwin was doing it wrong, then they're all doing it wrong.

Nobody is saying that the law doesn't apply here because it's a film set. The point is that there are people who have a specific role to make the weapons safe for the actor to use. And those people have far more weapons training than the actors do. Responsibility and liability are shifted from actor to armorer. Assuming liability is common in innumerable other safety scenarios, such as when a skydiving or driving instructor lead a student, or simply sending your children to school.

 

[DLD]

Just speaking about industry standards -- as in, how are film sets typically operating -- my experience and my understanding is that the actor is not expected to inspect the weapon. Charles would know better than I, but when I was an AC that was not what I observed. If Baldwin was doing it wrong, then they're all doing it wrong...

That's a Sergeant Schultz defense. I don't think it'll fly. If you don't know how to shoot a gun, don't shoot a gun.

 

[ahalpert]

That's a Sergeant Schultz defense. I don't think it'll fly. If you don't know how to shoot a gun, don't shoot a gun.

Then you might as well have the actor prep the gun themselves

 

[DLD]

Then you might as well have the actor prep the gun themselves

Steve McQueen drove his own car in "Bullitt". Because he knew how to drive a car. At high speeds. Or, at least, at speeds designed to look high on film. Because, as his contemporary Clint Eastwood once said, "A man's got to know his limitations". I.e., Alec Baldwin the Producer decided that Alec Baldwin the Actor could handle a gun. Both the producer and the actor were wrong and I say criminally so.

 

[Tom Roper]

You tell the cab driver to step on it, you’ll be late for your flight. Driver has an accident, who’s responsible? A lot of people don’t understand or don’t agree with the concept of personal responsibility.

 

[Tom Roper]

The armorer was negligent but Baldwin is not absolved. He had the last clear chance to avoid the accident.

 

[AndreeOnline]

The armorer was negligent but Baldwin is not absolved. He had the last clear chance to avoid the accident.

Baldwin was second to last then. With this sort of flawless logic, the guilt lies with the victims. They saw a gun that was slowly being pointed at them. Surely, they should have gotten out of the way. If you don't know that standing in front of a gun can be dangerous for you, I don't know what to tell you. All guns should be considered loaded and so on. Don't stand there.





This might fly over a couple of heads but....

 

[ahalpert]

Baldwin was second to last then. With this sort of flawless logic, the guilt lies with the victims. They saw a gun that was slowly being pointed at them. Surely, they should have gotten out of the way. If you don't know that standing in front of a gun can be dangerous for you, I don't know what to tell you. All guns should be considered loaded and so on. Don't stand there.....

The victim didn't just stand there, they instructed him to point the gun at them. So, of course they were responsible for checking the gun themselves, according to the line of logic you lay out

 

[ahalpert]

You tell the cab driver to step on it, you’ll be late for your flight. Driver has an accident, who’s responsible? A lot of people don’t understand or don’t agree with the concept of personal responsibility.

I'm pretty sure only the driver is liable here. But it's an imperfect analogy.

Better analogy is your passenger gets in and says, "I have a bomb in my luggage, but don't worry because it isn't armed. It's completely safe." The driver drives over a pothole and the bomb goes off in traffic, killing people in adjacent car. Probably only the passenger is liable.

What the DA is saying is that transporting a bomb is exceptionally dangerous, so the driver had a responsibility to check it himself.

Except this isn't a random driver and passenger. It's more like they're members of the same military unit and the passenger is the bomb expert. The driver has no reason not to trust the bomb expert, who also has far more experience than they do in the matter. Who is responsible for the deaths of the teammates when the bomb goes off? Probably only the bomb expert. If anyone else is also liable for ensuring safety, it would probably be someone in a supervisory role. Not the driver/actor but the sergeant/producer

 

[JAMedia]

There seems to be two camps here:

1. I want to responsible person to be held accountable.
2. I want Alec Baldwin to pay for what he did.

There is a point being missed here.
Baldwin fired the gun that killed someone. That is not in dispute.
Therefore they have to charge Baldwin with manslaughter.

In fact Baldwin also needs to be charged. The court will hear all the evidence and arguments and the jury will (hopefully) reach the correct decision.
Baldwin will hope for a clear NOT Guilty verdict. Without that his career is over.

If he was not charged there would always be a question mark over his head. Even if one or both of the others were found guilty.
Baldwin needs a positive and decisive legal ruling that he was not responsible.

Having professionally used live firearms on and off a range in many situations (range use is not the same as off-range use) as well as various gun props on a film set: I can say that in my opinion it is difficult to make the actors responsible for the firearms. In any case there should never be live rounds on any open film set.

BTW I have live rounds with both brass and silver primers. So despite having been around firearms for several decades, and made my own ammunition on occasions, I would not have known which was a live or dummy round just by looking at the ones on the Rust set. You certainly could not expect actors to do that. How could they tell what was live and what was not?

 

[Paul F]

The DA is charging Alec Baldwin both as the person firing the gun and as a producer. This is what I've been looking for - the DA's rationale.

ACTOR - The DA has taken the position that a movie set and being an actor is no exception to the responsibility of handling a gun. Movie lawyers argue it that they are not responsible for props, but the DA doesn't agree.

Other actors – including “A-list” celebrities – consulted by prosecutors said they “always check their guns or have someone check it in front of them,” Carmack-Altwies [the DA] told CNN shortly after announcing her intention to file involuntary manslaughter charges.

“Every person that handles a gun has a duty to make sure that if they’re going to handle that gun, point it at someone and pull the trigger, that it is not going to fire a projectile and kill someone,” she said.

She added, “An actor does not get a free pass just because they are an actor. That is what is so important. We are saying here in New Mexico, that everyone is equal under the law.”

PRODUCER - “He was the actor that pulled the trigger so certainly he’s charged as an actor but also as a producer,” Carmack-Altwies said.

“He also had a duty to make sure that the set was safe and we know from our investigation that there had been accidental misfires prior to this.”

 

[ahalpert]

The DA is charging Alec Baldwin both as the person firing the gun and as a producer. This is what I've been looking for - the DA's rationale.

;

I saw that but it seems a bit fishy to me since they aren't charging any of the other producers. Prosecuting him really seems to turn on the fact that he was holding the gun.

 

[DLD]

In fact Baldwin also needs to be charged. The court will hear all the evidence and arguments and the jury will (hopefully) reach the correct decision.
Baldwin will hope for a clear NOT Guilty verdict. Without that his career is over.

Eh, it's Hollywood. If Harvey Weinstein escaped from his jail tomorrow and made a movie in Mexico, there'll be a long line trying to get in on the deal.

Which doesn't mean he is liked there - Harvey or Alec.

But some things do take precedent.

 

[ahalpert]

“Every person that handles a gun has a duty to make sure that if they’re going to handle that gun, point it at someone and pull the trigger, that it is not going to fire a projectile and kill someone,” she said.
;

We can entrust a mechanic to ensure the safety of our cars without inspecting it ourselves. When you play paintball, the players have liability for injuries but so does the host facility and the gun manufacturers.

. In 2004, a 37-year-old female bystander died after being hit in the back of the head by a carbon dioxide cylinder that was accidentally unscrewed from a gun by a player. The husband of the woman who died sued the makers of the paintball gun, arguing the gun was defective. The case was settled for $8 million.
Assumption of risk. Because participating in a sport like paintball carries some degree of risk, the defendant may raise the "assumption of risk" defense. With this defense, the defendant argues that you are not entitled to compensation because you chose to take part in an activity that presented a known risk or harm.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/paintball-injury-lawsuits-33966.html

 

[JAMedia]

The DA is charging Alec Baldwin both as the person firing the gun and as a producer. This is what I've been looking for - the DA's rationale.

ACTOR - The DA has taken the position that a movie set and being an actor is no exception to the responsibility of handling a gun. Movie lawyers argue it that they are not responsible for props, but the DA doesn't agree.

Interesting. How come they are charging one Producer and not the others? That makes no sense. Unless Baldwin was the sole producer responsible for the gun props, the armourer and the procedures etc?

As the Actor there is no dispute that he was holding the gun when it killed someone. There is a dead person and a smoking gun. So it was either murder or manslaughter. The authorities have decided it is not Murder. The question for the court (and no one else eg the media, forums etc ) is if there is any guilt.

In my opinion the actor is not is a position to check if the firearm is safe. How would you be able to tell a live round from a blank round from a dummy round?
You could only tell if there were rounds in the gun or not. On a film set guns often contain rounds. indeed actors will often load guns and "fire" them on set as part of the film.

 

[Paul F]

We can entrust a mechanic to ensure the safety of our cars without inspecting it ourselves.

But that is not the standard of care with guns. It doesn't apply.

 

[JAMedia]

But that is not the standard of care with guns. It doesn't apply.

In this case it does apply. The actor is using a prop not a firearm under the direction of a director (and amourer).
It would not apply if you were using a firearm as such and you were responsible for it.

I have many years experience of firearms but on a film set it is different to handling real fire arms as such. Range use is different to real world use.
On a film set a 45 peacemaker is no different to the Phasor or Photo torpedoes.....