Rust

[Tom Roper]

Sorry but I believe actors do have an obligation to generally behave in a workplace in a safe manner complying with the regular safety protocols that cover most worksites.

You don't have to be sorry, I agree with all of that.

 

[JAMedia]

Wow. You have no idea then.

This is the normal protocol. If you think this does not happen on almost all sets then you have never been on a US union set.


No they do not. They are often real functional weapons. Stop making false statements

And really? You are being pedantic about language. I could say ALWAYS but clearly as happened with RUST it is not the case. Happy now?


Dry fire beyond the capacity of the weapon is normal to demonstrate all rounds are dummy. I use this as an anecdote to demonstate that actors sometimes do this although it is not required protocol

Many actors take their weapon handling seriously.


Live rounds are NEVER EVER EVER used on a film set, but blanks are, and dry firing a blank like this would probably be safe if one happened to be in the spout or in ANY of the chambers. But go ahead and try to defend the guy

Wow! Lots of Maybe, often, normally and other caveats. So it is not 100% and as you say "I could say ALWAYS but clearly as happened with RUST it is not the case" Yes I am being pedantic. For 2 reasons
1 the legal teams will be
2 "empty" guns kill people as often as loaded ones. Mistakes cost lives and a maybe, often, normally is not good enough.

However, we do agree that "Live rounds are NEVER EVER EVER used on a film set" and that was down to the armourer and no one else.

And there are extensive protocols to ensure no one is killed by a routinely used FUNCTIONAL NON PROP weapon fitted with dummy rounds. None of these protocols were followed by the actor / producer who accepted a weapon that was not DEMONSTATED to be safe, by an AD that should not have handed him a weapon at all, from a propmaster who left the weapon unattended.

That comes down to the armourer, AD and producers with the processes.

 

[Paul F]

JA, i"m curious why you are defending the actor. Saying it was not a dangerous weapon is obviously untrue. It's as though you were a lawyer for the defense. What is your stake in defending Mr. Baldwin?

 

[Peter C.]

The people who setup an unsafe work environment are more responsible than someone working in it. I'm surprised there haven't been any lawsuits brought against the producers. Seems like they're going after Baldwin because he's a celebrity and his political views. Did you really think we would be hotly debating this if it was someone we never heard of?

 

[JAMedia]

JA, i"m curious why you are defending the actor. Saying it was not a dangerous weapon is obviously untrue. It's as though you were a lawyer for the defense. What is your stake in defending Mr. Baldwin?

The defence will certainly make the same case. Though that still leaves the producers in the firing line...
It was a dangerous weapon, the same as a hammer is dangerous. A lump of metal.
My point is that there should have been no live ammunition on the location at all (other than any armed security)

A "real" fire arm is as dangerous as many replicas if you put a live round in a replica. (they usually blow up in your face)

So had the Actor been holding a replica and the same thing happened, then it would probably have blown up in his face.
The problem would have been the same. Why was there live ammunition on the set.

As I said the actor is not at fault but the producers are.
In this case, one of the actor is also a producer.

If you say the Actor is responsible, then so is the AD who handed him the gun and the armour. There were two failures before the Actor got the prop.
Quite apart from there being live ammo on set.

 

[JAMedia]

The people who setup an unsafe work environment are more responsible than someone working in it. I'm surprised there haven't been any lawsuits brought against the producers. Seems like they're going after Baldwin because he's a celebrity and his political views. Did you really think we would be hotly debating this if it was someone we never heard of?

100% agree. Though Baldwin is also a producer/
We are only debating this because you stated the thread Harrison Ford to play you in the film about all this?

 

[Peter C.]

100% agree. Though Baldwin is also a producer/
We are only debating this because you stated the thread Harrison Ford to play you in the film about all this?

I didn't say he was blameless. I think there were like 7 producers and Baldwin role was very limited and might of been in name only. But I wouldn't be opposed charging him in his producer capacity if the evidence supported it.

Depends, young or old Harrison Ford?

 

[Paul F]

To be clear, I'm not taking sides on this as I have no knowledge about the ins and outs of movie production, standards of procedure, and the law. I just wanted to know why you are defending the actor.

Jury selection will no doubt determine the outcome of the trial. With the two clear sides expressed in this thread, is it possible to turn JA's opinion around with evidence, witness testimony, and judges instructions.

Having sat on a criminal trial, I found the whole thing quite surprising in how my opinion formed and changed through the trial.

 

[Tom Roper]

The people who setup an unsafe work environment are more responsible than someone working in it. I'm surprised there haven't been any lawsuits brought against the producers. Seems like they're going after Baldwin because he's a celebrity and his political views. Did you really think we would be hotly debating this if it was someone we never heard of?

Nobody is out to get Baldwin. In a grand jury proceeding, the jurors are presented with evidence by prosecutors to determine whether there is enough probable cause to issue an indictment and bring formal charges against a person. They are secretive and closed to protect the accused individual's reputation in case they decide not to indict. The legal liability is based on the law, not on-set protocols. The case against him was botched, dropped and probably should have stayed that way. And whether we're having the conversation about his celebrity or political views is irrelevant to the factual legal basis for the charges he faces.

Regardless of who's more responsible, the people who setup the unsafe work environment or someone working in it, "last clear chance" is a legal concept of tort law. The doctrine applies to situations where both parties involved in an accident or injury were negligent, but one of them had the last opportunity to avoid the harm. It means even if the one party was negligent, the other party had a final opportunity to prevent the harm and failed to do so. The negligent party with the last chance can be held liable for the damages. The doctrine is applied so that the party who could have prevented the harm is not entirely absolved of liability just because the other party was also negligent.

 

[Tom Roper]

Separate from the civil liability he faces from the Hutchins family and attorney Gloria Allred, the criminal charges he was indicted for are involuntary manslaughter (negligent use of a firearm) and involuntary manslaughter (without due caution or circumspection), both fourth-degree felonies.

No matter what we think about it, a jury will decide. Anyone who wants to believe they are legally exempt from criminal prosecution by the existence of industry mandated safety protocols should think twice, especially when using guns. There are federal code violations he could be charged with separately.

 

[Doug Bee]

Still you guys are making up your own legal stories.

The producers have already been taken to task over their failings. They were fined the maximum penalty under state law.

Here is the report.

It says things like

”Rust management failed to adhere to firearm safety guidelines, which dictated that live ammunition should “never to be used nor brought onto any studio lot or stage,” that safety meetings must take place on any day firearms are being used and that employees should “refrain from pointing a firearm at anyone” except after consultation with the props master, armorer or other safety leader.”

and

““Our investigation found that this tragic incident never would have happened if Rust Movie Productions, LLC had followed national film industry standards for firearm safety,” Environment Cabinet Secretary James Kenney said. “This is a complete failure of the employer to follow recognized national protocols that keep employees safe.”

https://www.env.nm.gov/occupational_health_safety/ohsb-rust-investigation-report-materials/

The AD has already taken a deal and pleaded guilty and has been sentenced.

https://www.latimes.com/entertainme...d-halls-accepts-plea-in-alec-baldwin-shooting

 

[Doug Bee]

If you say the Actor is responsible, then so is the AD who handed him the gun and the armour. There were two failures before the Actor got the prop.
Quite apart from there being live ammo on set.

Finally.
Thats exactly the lay of the land. This has been my point the whole time. There is a chain of responsibility. Any one of them doing their job diligently would have prevented this. The producers, the armorer, the AD and the actor who is also a producer.

The producers have already been fined the maximum penalty for a workplace accident. The AD has already plead guilty.

The armorer, like Alec is going to take their chances with a jury.

Wow! Lots of Maybe, often, normally and other caveats. So it is not 100% and as you say "I could say ALWAYS but clearly as happened with RUST it is not the case" Yes I am being pedantic. For 2 reasons
1 the legal teams will be
2 "empty" guns kill people as often as loaded ones. Mistakes cost lives and a maybe, often, normally is not good enough.

Continuing to call it a prop gun is a far bigger stretch if you are pretending to be a lawyer now. Theres no such thing as a prop gun to an armorer. They are either firearms (functional or non functional) replicas or dummy guns. Cut it out.

 

[Tom Roper]

The Hannah Gutierrez trial is underway. Her presentation appearance, neat, conservatively dressed, very pretty even, and completely unlike the trampy tattooed multi-colored hair appearance she displayed on the set. She looks and is, very young. It will be interesting to see how sympathetic will be the N.M. jury. The opening statement by her attorney Jason Bowles is outlining that dual roles from production were mandated on her part time responsibilities, and that her warnings were ignored, that she called for cross draw training on Baldwin that he ignored, that the scene did not require him to draw from his holster, and that dummy rounds were sourced by production from and supplied by Seth Kenney who owned PDQ Props, primary supplier to the Rust set, that the dummy rounds as well as the live round had silver primers, that a box removed from the truck of rounds with silver primers contained 16 dummies and 1 live, thus the theory that she intentionally brought live rounds onto the set is not correct, that after the shooting Sarah Zachary who works for Seth sent him a text saying emergency, which led to a phone call between them, contents unknown, but she removed rounds from two of the guns and threw them away, an act of scene tampering, and when asked about it by the Sheriff claimed that she was panicked and that was all she could say. You can watch the rest on Court TV or online, but it's fascinating to finally hear what her defense is going to be, and the prosecution's case.

 

[JAMedia]

that the dummy rounds as well as the live round had silver primers, .

Colour of primers in no indication as to a round being live, blank or dummy.
It is certainly a very unsafe way to differentiate rounds

 

[Tom Roper]

I know but the prosecution's opening statements were the 3 ways to identify dummy rounds, hole in the side of the case, ball rattling inside the case and primer color which is obviously incorrect. The Court TV lawyers say the evidence weighs heavily against Hannah. We'll see how it plays out. Ironic that if the state succeeds in getting a conviction against Hannah, they could face defending its prosecution against similar facts Baldwin would use in his defense. I have this feeling, probably wrong but that the jury is going to be more sympathetic toward the 24 year old, one of their own and less so against the indomitable California interloper. Defense is going to argue that Baldwin controlled the set with his force of will, impatience and superiority.

 

[Tom Roper]

I was watching the day 1 highlight summary from Court TV. Vinnie Politan sounds ready to convict Hannah, and along with the other experts are adamant that she brought the live rounds to the set of Rust. This was based on her statements made to an investigator on scene who asked her for the meaning of the letters "JS" marked on the white carton of an ammunition box. She said she didn't know but she would ask her father, a famed armorer on movie sets. One or more live rounds were found inside a box like this on the set. It is not stated at that point if she had been aware a live round had been or would be discovered inside the box or not. Her father texted back to Hannah a photo he took of an identical white ammunition carton with the JS marking. From this if I am to understand, the picture texted to Hannah by her father to answer the investigator's question, is the prosecution's basis for charging that she brought the live rounds to the set. After the prosecution's opening statements, defense council made theirs. Her attorney presented pictures from a search of PDQ Props owned by Seth Kenney that appeared to show a very disorganized closet containing numerous similar or identical white cartons of ammunition also containing the marking JS, and alleged that he supplied the ammunition to the Rust production making it very murky at this stage as to who actually carried the ammunition carton to the set. Hannah also made a statement to an investigator that she wished she had checked the rounds more closely. It doesn't look good for her; the Court TV lawyers are usually correct in their predictions. These questions will have to be answered by witness accounts and other testimony. From the disorganization of the storage closet at PDQ, it would not be difficult to imagine a live round getting mixed up or thrown into a white box. Apparently, the prosecution did not go through the other boxes to see if any contained live rounds or explain the meaning of JS.

Personally, I do not understand why anyone would need box after box of dummy rounds that are not expended, are reused, so my assumption was that all the boxes shown in PDQ's closet were potentially live or expendable rounds of some kind. Further if anything was being recycled it might be argued the cartons themselves were reused, to store the supply of dummy rounds. If Seth or PDQ had any role in supplying dummy rounds to the production, it seems inappropriate that it would not be under the same suspicion as the armorer, which does go to Vinnie's point at the conclusion of day 1, that Hannah was singled out because she was the least powerful person. In the shooting aftermath, the prosecution was said to be working closely with Seth Kenney obtaining accounts of the shooting and other witnesses. That might all be perfectly appropriate but does feel odd to me that no charges were brought. Could it have been an offer of immunity for his witness testimony? Stay tuned.

 

[JAMedia]

This does not look good that she had to ask someone else what the letters on the box were. Nor as you say there were lots of boxes of rounds. As dummy rounds are not fired you only need enough for the bandoliers, gun belts and revolvers and a few spares.

However, given the other issues on set and that there seemed to be a lack of control, was the armourer the only person who had access to the guns and [dummy] ammunition? There were comments that some people (cast and crew?) were using live rounds on the location for some plinking. Who brought those rounds to the location?

I have seen some photos of the armourers area and it did look a mess. My question would be: was that its normal state? I have not heard the armourer say it was normally ordered and tidy and those pictures were taken after someone went in after the accident. EG police, investigators, others.

 

[Tom Roper]

Good points. Defense did present various pictures of carts, tables without comment. I think that hurts more than it helps because that was her responsibility. Although the defense reiterated that PDQ supplied the rounds to Rust Production, I think there exists probably through witness testimony to come, that Hannah directly brought the rounds to the set. The facts seem lined up against her. I think her best chance is to build a case about her being assigned other menial servitudes like rolling cigarettes for the cast, and that others had control of the set including dismissiveness of her requests for safety training. I don't know how successful or insistent she could have been if she was in such low regard that there was no respect. I think it could have been true nobody much paid attention to her beyond using her as the lowest paid runner. If they can succeed in making the case she was a pawn, the jury could be sympathetic which to me is her best defense. How successful the prosecution's case at putting the blame with Hannah could be some of the same facts that undermine their other case against Baldwin. Will that jury be persuaded to exonerate Alec upon a finding of guilt by Hannah? In a more usual case against someone not a celebrity, it's unheard of that the accused beats a gun charge because he was told it wasn't, and didn't know it was; that a gun was loaded. This is also the only case I have heard of where intentionally pointing a gun at someone is excused by protocol that relies on a simple 3rd party notation (cold gun) it was not loaded. Civil gun laws have always asserted responsibility on the person with the gun.

 

[JAMedia]

Although the defense reiterated that PDQ supplied the rounds to Rust Production,

They are saying that PDQ supplied the live and dummy rounds mixed in the same box with no differentiation to the Rust Production?

Shirley the Armourer should have sourced the rounds? And checked them. How else could they be sure what they were getting?

Civil gun laws have always asserted responsibility on the person with the gun.

That is in the real world with real guns.

This is a make believe film set. It is simulated reality. You can't apply range rules, military or police gun rules or standard civil law as you would for a mugging. It is a character threatening another character, NOT a person threatening another person. This is the problem.

It comes back to the set and location set-up and control. Its going to be messy with everyone blaming everyone else.

I would love to have the time to sit through this case on TV to hear the arguments.

 

[Peter C.]

I watched Youtube videos last couple of days of the trial. It's interesting but slow and convoluted.

That's surprising PDQ mixed in live rounds. She should have still inspected what she received and done another check when loading the gun. Sound like a chain of errors where each person down the line assumes the person before them did their job instead of verifying it.

I'm also wondering if she requested live rounds from PDQ or did she obtain them somewhere else because I've heard that she would take the gun to a firing range and cast members would use live ammo during lunch breaks to target shoot.

One thing that came out in pre trial she was involved in her bf death. Apparently she handed the motorcycle keys to her bf who died in a crash then lied to the police to cover up her involvement. But this can't be used for legal reasons in this trial.

She's not a responsible person. So far they shown that the ammo wasn't organized.