Ed Haywood
En-Route
Umm, thanks Captain Obvious. Nobody is trying to justify that.
Alec Baldwin shoots and kills cinematographer.
- Thread starter Kenny Phillips
- Start date
It's been established that there were numerous previous violations of standards on the set, and as Producer he took no corrective action.
wanttaja
En-Route
I suspect it depends if we're talking criminal or civil responsibility, here. Baldwin is obviously responsible from the point of view of a civil lawsuit; it was his job, ultimately, to ensure the safety on the set.
I doubt that few believe he'll win a civil suit.
Criminal responsibility, e.g. manslaughter charges, are more iffy. Baldwin as the actor physically holding the gun is obviously at risk. The Assistant Director, or Baldwin as the producer, is probably less so.
Ron Wanttaja
I'd agree with that. The question is whether his failure to ensure safety, especially given several previous incidents, rises to the level of criminal negligence. That's up to the legal system to determine.
Ed Haywood
En-Route
Lindberg
Final Approach
"My dear boy, why don't you try acting?" -Sir Laurence Olivier
I can't tell if you're joking, but no one is s shooting up Boston or NYC in those scenes or shooting at each other. Even when shooting blanks guns aren't pointed at other actors outside of extreme circumstances, where significant additional safety precautions are taken.
There is no excuse for Baldwin pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger. None. Zero. It would have been improper and inexcusable if the gun were unloaded.
Last edited:
Ed Haywood
En-Route
Agreed. Though manslaughter requires gross negligence or recklessness. If industry professional standards establish that guns can be safely pointed and fired with blanks when correctly prepared by a credentialed armorer, it will be hard to prove he was grossly negligent or reckless in following those standards and the instructions of the safety staff and director.
Last edited:
He wasn't "the" producer; he was "a" producer. IMDB lists fourteen producers for the film.
By the way, I have watched a few videos of the guards at Buckingham Palace recently, some of whom were carrying military weapons at the ready. I noticed that none of them had their fingers on the trigger.
Last edited:
Ed Haywood
En-Route
You contradict yourself.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
No, he doesn’t.
2-Bit Speed
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2021
- Messages
- 1,553
- Display Name
Display name:
2-Bit Speed
No one should handle so flippantly any firearm. That he so disregarded the dangers associated with firearms as to point one at another human being and pull the trigger is nothing but the grossest negligence.
That no one on set considered a setup requiring a firearm aimed at people as being objectionable speaks to the dire lack of the care and caution due any firearm handling.
His claim that he did not ensure the firearm (that he was handling) was unloaded speaks volumes to his negligence.
That no one on set considered a setup requiring a firearm aimed at people as being objectionable speaks to the dire lack of the care and caution due any firearm handling.
His claim that he did not ensure the firearm (that he was handling) was unloaded speaks volumes to his negligence.
Ed Haywood
En-Route
That is the opposite of the truth.
Actors are not expected to be competent with weapons. That is the Armorer's job. The Armorer is the licensed weapons expert on set. They prepare all weapons, ensure they are safe, and provide them to the actor prepared for use. The actor is not supposed to mess with the action in any way, other than as instructed by the Armorer.
BTW there are other hazardous activities on set. Pyrotechnics and special effects. Little explosive charges for each bullet impact. Moving vehicles and machinery. All of it set up and operated by industry-licensed experts.
The actor's job is to stand where told, say their lines, and follow the instructions of the director and crew.
And collect vast sums of cash for doing these simple things if they are a "STAR". If not a "STAR", collect vastly lower amounts of cash, but still collect it.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
So this was all per instructions from the armorer?
2-Bit Speed
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2021
- Messages
- 1,553
- Display Name
Display name:
2-Bit Speed
His profession be damned. No one, NOT ONE SINGLE INDIVIDUAL should ever be so negligent with a lethal weapon.
Lindberg
Final Approach
How many film sets have you actually been on? The actors in shootout scenes don't shoot at each other. Nor do actors in sci-fi movies travel to space.
Ed Haywood
En-Route
Several.
Lindberg
Final Approach
Which ones where the actors were shooting real bullets at each other in the middle of a city?
Ed Haywood
En-Route
Never said that. Don't be a twit or I'll ignore you.
Unlike the Pyrotechnics or other hazardous operations on a set, the actor is actually the one manipulating the firing of a gun. I would assume a relationship between armorer and the actor is such that they would each verify the safety of that action. Certainly, even with blanks, a danger exists and if you take it out of the hands of the "expert" and put in the hands of the non-expert then additional checks are smart.
He’s referring to what you wrote in post #1072:
The "nobody in line of fire" rule is meaningless in the context of the weaponry used in modern movies anyways. How many street shootout scenes have you watched with dozens of SWAT and criminals spraying assault rifle fire at each other on full auto? Those bullets go right through vehicles and structures, ricochet wildly, and have a range of roughly one mile. Do you think when they film in Boston or NYC, they evacuate a one mile radius? The reality is everyone on or near that set is potentially in the line of fire: actors, crew, caterers, bystanders, etc.
Ed Haywood
En-Route
Only an idiot would think they are shooting live bullets. Of course they are shooting blanks. But they are pointing those weapons at people and firing them in a way that would put many participants and bystanders "in the line of fire" were they shooting real ammo. Nobody gets hurt, because they are shooting blanks. Like AB was supposed to be doing.
Which goes back to my original point. Guns are pointed and fired at people all the time in a professional environment. With blanks, or with simmunitions. This is perfectly safe when done with proper safeguards.
2-Bit Speed
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2021
- Messages
- 1,553
- Display Name
Display name:
2-Bit Speed
Those safeguards (should) include the gunman verifying that the correct items are loaded in the firearm. This gunman failed to do that.
Welp, looks like Alec has been indicted again.
apnews.com
Alec Baldwin's grand jury indictment opens up two paths for prosecutors
Alec Baldwin once again is facing a felony involuntary manslaughter charge after a grand jury indicted the actor in connection with the fatal 2021 shooting of a cinematographer on the set of a Western movie in New Mexico.
apnews.com
Matthew
Touchdown! Greaser!
I found, buried in the story:Welp, looks like Alec has been indicted again.
Alec Baldwin's grand jury indictment opens up two paths for prosecutors
Alec Baldwin once again is facing a felony involuntary manslaughter charge after a grand jury indicted the actor in connection with the fatal 2021 shooting of a cinematographer on the set of a Western movie in New Mexico.
>>>
An earlier FBI report on the agency’s analysis of the gun found that, as is common with firearms of that design, it could go off without pulling the trigger if force was applied to an uncocked hammer — such as by dropping the weapon. The gun eventually broke during testing.
<<<
(My emphasis)
Kind of wondering how that’s going to play into a trial?
2-Bit Speed
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2021
- Messages
- 1,553
- Display Name
Display name:
2-Bit Speed
Hence the need for a 'cowboy' load. Leave a chamber empty and the hammer resting against the empty chamber, but that aspect has zero bearing on this event. The gun was not dropped, nor was it struck in any manner concurrent with the discharge. Whether or not the defense can convince a jury that it's related remains to be seen.
Unrelatedly, the need for a 'cowboy' load was distinct disadvantage against prior cap-and-ball revolvers which had safety notches between the cylinders.
bflynn
Final Approach
I expect that regardless of the cause of the accidental death, the person holding the gun and pointing it at someone is at fault. That will at least be the prosecution's play.
I expect the defense to say something about how you can't blame the person holding the gun when it malfunctions.
The case will come to proving whether Baldwin was acting "with usual and ordinary caution". I personally find nothing usual or ordinary about pointing a gun at someone, even in a movie. Ordinary caution would be to put a camera there, get everyone out of the way and then do the work. It is explicitly out of the ordinary.
Agreed, but I also think part of the prosecution's case will be showing that the trigger was pulled which was not "usual and ordinary caution."
As I understand it, there's a misdemeanor charge and a felony charge, but he can only be convicted on one or the other. If that's true, I'd expect a deal where he pleads guilty to the misdemeanor and the felony charge gets dropped.
Daleandee
Final Approach
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2020
- Messages
- 6,874
- Display Name
Display name:
Dale Andee
I saw this story update but decided not to post it as I'm with you. After all the dust has settled I believe it'll be about large money and no cell time ...
The Western movie that my brother had a part in required each actor to open his revolver cylinder, and examine the cartridges in it, before going on the set or the broad prairie.
My experience with a Western set was prior to the Rust events, and represented the then current rules for safe gun use.
When I was on set, the same sequence took place, but the armorer first examined each revolver to determine that the inserts were in place that prevented "real ammunition with bullets" from being inserted. Next, he handed the revolver to the actor, and the actor examined the cylinder, and showed it to the "gunman" on each side of him, so they verified there were inserts in all chambers. The armorer then issued the required number of special blanks to the actor, and he showed them to the "gunmen" on each side of him, and loaded his revolver.
This process was repeated for each "gunman" for the shootout to come. Lined up behind the "gunmen", the other actors and actresses observed this process, as they had an interest in the impossibility that a live round was on set with them. These rules seem to waste a lot of time, but they prevent "wasting" a human being.
The photographer tries hard to see that the gunman seems to point his firearm at the victim, but the reality on the set is that such shooting has no blanks at all, the smoke and noise is dubbed in. Some of the action took place on a train, and the distances were too short for safe use of blanks, and there were absolutely NO cartridges of any kind on the train.
In the Rust movie, there was no need to even point the revolver at the videographer, and no need to thumb the hammer back.
My experience with a Western set was prior to the Rust events, and represented the then current rules for safe gun use.
When I was on set, the same sequence took place, but the armorer first examined each revolver to determine that the inserts were in place that prevented "real ammunition with bullets" from being inserted. Next, he handed the revolver to the actor, and the actor examined the cylinder, and showed it to the "gunman" on each side of him, so they verified there were inserts in all chambers. The armorer then issued the required number of special blanks to the actor, and he showed them to the "gunmen" on each side of him, and loaded his revolver.
This process was repeated for each "gunman" for the shootout to come. Lined up behind the "gunmen", the other actors and actresses observed this process, as they had an interest in the impossibility that a live round was on set with them. These rules seem to waste a lot of time, but they prevent "wasting" a human being.
The photographer tries hard to see that the gunman seems to point his firearm at the victim, but the reality on the set is that such shooting has no blanks at all, the smoke and noise is dubbed in. Some of the action took place on a train, and the distances were too short for safe use of blanks, and there were absolutely NO cartridges of any kind on the train.
In the Rust movie, there was no need to even point the revolver at the videographer, and no need to thumb the hammer back.
Ed Haywood
En-Route
The armorer, who reportedly loaded the gun, goes on trial later this spring.
‘Rust’ Armorer Was Offered Leniency if She Explained Source of Live Bullet
The armorer in the 'Rust' case was offered a 'favorable' outcome in her criminal case if she explained how live bullets made it on set.
variety.com
The assistant director apparently handed the gun to Baldwin. He got 6 months suspended and is cooperating. From another article:
The Baldwin charge could be tactical, to force cooperation. Sounds like there is some degree of obstruction going on WRT the source of the live rounds. If he followed the explicit instructions of the armorer and director, they are going to have a hard time meeting the gross negligence test necessary for an involuntary manslaughter conviction.
Unfounded speculation on my part: someone thought it would be a good idea for the actors to feel what shooting a real gun of that size was like, so they could better portray the recoil and recovery. The armorer brought some live rounds and had a range day out in the desert. They are all denying it and nobody wants to rat out the others. The investigators are using the standard LEO tactic of leniency for the first one to cooperate.
Last edited:
I’ll be astonished if there were explicit instructions to pull the trigger.
Ed Haywood
En-Route
I agree. Blanks spray hot powder and are dangerous at close range without a blank adaptor on the muzzle. Good way to blind someone. Most likely they were going to line up the scene, then step out of the way and have him shoot at or past the unmanned camera.
He claims the gun went off without him pulling the trigger. The FBI tested the gun and could not replicate the event. But the testing damaged the gun to the point where the parts had to be replaced.
My guess is his finger was on the trigger and he had an AD. Have not read anything about the FBI testing trigger pull. A 2 pound trigger is really easy to accidentally fire.
A competent armorer or safety director would have had him do all that with the hammer forward.
Mxfarm
Line Up and Wait
Just a guess, but I suspect he did a fast draw and habit took over. Actors are trained to do a quick draw using a “holster cocking” technique. When the hand first grabs the gun’s grip, the thumb pulls back the hammer and holds it. As soon as the trigger clears the holster, the forefinger pulls back the trigger and holds it. As soon as the muzzle clears and points at the target, the thumb is slipped off the hammer and the gun fires.
Skilled handgunners can do it in less than 0.3 seconds. If Baldwin was trained in the technique, he may have done it without thinking, and have no recollection of consciously pulling the trigger.
Skilled handgunners can do it in less than 0.3 seconds. If Baldwin was trained in the technique, he may have done it without thinking, and have no recollection of consciously pulling the trigger.
2-Bit Speed
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2021
- Messages
- 1,553
- Display Name
Display name:
2-Bit Speed
I'm sure that armorers are putting in more effort to avoid this kind of thing, but this incident occurred on a set that was operating outside the guilds/unions and wasn't following 'best-practices' as established by those guilds/unions.
I recall an interview where an experienced armorer turned down the offer to work on this set because there wasn't enough budget for him to do his job (hire assistants and a prop master).
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 23,959
- Display Name
Display name:
Bob Noel
If baldwin had any training, it should have started with don't-point-the-gun, and should have ended with don't-point-the-gun. (safety first, last, and always)
NDs are kind of hard to do if you've had proper training.