Alec Baldwin shoots and kills cinematographer.

PPC1052 said:
I think a better analogy is you pay the FBO to fill your tanks, and you take off without checking whether they are full.
Click to expand...
That. And you happen to be a CFI and the student said they checked the fuel, then you run out of fuel because only one side got filled and the student happened to only check the one side. Then the plane crashes and the student is killed but you aren’t. Are you guilty of negligent homicide?

Sure feels like a fair amount of people want jail time for an actor not at all intending to have a real, live gun in his hands and who feels horrible about the events. Maybe it could be technically classed as negligent homicide but, just like the grandfather who dropped his grandkid off a cruise ship, that doesn’t mean it should go to trial or result in jail time. In either case, would a guilty finding, let alone jail time, really reduce the likelihood of this happening again? I don’t think so. And if nobody knew the name of this actor would there be such a push for jail time? I don’t think so.
 
Half Fast said:
This was a rehearsal of a scene! What possible justification is there for using a real gun for a rehearsal?!

Most gun handling classes I know about use rubber training guns wherever possible. Like this: https://www.amazon.com/BladesUSA-Rubber-Training-Gun/dp/B01M5BQOUZ . Why not use something similar for a rehearsal?

I can’t fathom why he needed to be handling an actual firearm in this situation. Sheer idiocy.
Click to expand...

Getting the feel/shape/weight of the actual gun was possibly the reason to use it for rehearsing the church pew seated quick-draw that they were reportedly working on. Like simulating an engine out emergency landing- sometimes those are practiced in a real live airplanes, and they've been known to result in real live (and dead) accidents. All avoidable. Similar, yeah- dissimilar, yup. Doesn’t make the movie set actions ok by any means, but it might explain a possible reason for rehearsing with the real gun, especially if they were going to start filming after a bit of practice.
 
Lachlan said:
Getting the feel/shape/weight of the actual gun was possibly the reason to use it for rehearsing the church pew seated quick-draw that they were reportedly working on. Like simulating an engine out emergency landing- sometimes those are practiced in a real live airplanes, and they've been known to result in real live (and dead) accidents. All avoidable. Similar, yeah- dissimilar, yup. Doesn’t make the movie set actions ok by any means, but it might explain a possible reason for rehearsing with the real gun, especially if they were going to start filming after a bit of practice.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I ain't buyin' it.

An inoperative gun can have the same weight and dimensions as a real one. And it's really not that hard to make a real gun into a non-functioning one in order to have a rehearsal piece. Disable a gun so that it cannot fire, spray paint it orange, and it becomes very obvious whether someone is holding the practice weapon or not.
 
Is it just assumption that he aimed at the camera, and people behind the camera, or were they in the line of fire when he swung the weapon around?

Not that it makes any difference to the DP.
 
PPC1052 said:
A lot of information to unpack here. The first question is whether the decedent was an "employee" subject to worker's compensation or an independent contractor. I don't know how the film industry is set up in general, or this production in particular. Maybe someone on here does. If she was an employee entitled to workers compensation, then very likely her estate's exclusive recovery for claims of negligence would be under worker's compensation. Also if so, there very likely is co-worker immunity. Some states are more lenient about permitting claims for intentional or other conduct rising to a level above negligence to be made despite the exclusivity of the worker's compensation recovery.

I don't know what you mean by the term "production underwriter claims department." In all likelihood, the production had liability insurance, and that policy would no doubt cover Baldwin's actions, too. If you are referring to that insurance carrier, you may be correct that they will ultimately offer money to settle in the event there is not some worker's compensation exclusive remedy that bars tort claims. Doubtful that Baldwin's personal liability carrier and umbrella carrier will be making payments.

I don't see subrogation here. That generally happens when there is a property or health insurer that makes a payment. Liability carriers can't generally subrogate because they are paying for their own insured's negligence. Maybe there would an indemnity or contribution claim, but against whom? Not sure who they would have such claims against anyone who was not also their own insured. Similarly I suppose the health insurer of the decedent and the AD who was shot and injured might have a claim medical treatment.
Click to expand...
Typically, on a movie production and especially one where workers are working under the IATSE basic agreement, the crew is hired as employees of the production company and are covered by a workers comp policy. The production also carries production insurance which covers liability, equipment rental etc etc. and the insurance company's application requires the production to detail if there are stunts, pyro, firearms, etc etc. before they quote and issue the policy.
 
Doug Reid said:
How long does it take to verify a gun is not loaded with live rounds ?

In reference to my earlier post, there were 28 shootings in Chicago over the weekend...anyone seen news coverage of the victims ? IBTL
Click to expand...
It could be nearly impossible without a hammer strike or a dram scale to tell if a round is live or not.

...and since you didn't see any reports of the victims you must not live in Chicago, you just got the fauxnews version of what they want you to be mad about. Did you hear about the shootings within a hundred miles of where you live? Did you get their name?
 
Juliet Hotel said:
You do know what actors are right? I mean, you do understand that when a guy puts on a batman outfit for a movie, he doesn't actually believe he's batman right? Right?

Or do you assume that anyone who chooses to play the part of a murderer in a movie must therefore be a-ok will actually killing people?
Click to expand...

Why would that make a difference…? Dead is dead..negligent is negligent…Irony is Irony…Actor or not…
 
Half Fast said:
This was a rehearsal of a scene! What possible justification is there for using a real gun for a rehearsal?!

Most gun handling classes I know about use rubber training guns wherever possible. Like this: https://www.amazon.com/BladesUSA-Rubber-Training-Gun/dp/B01M5BQOUZ . Why not use something similar for a rehearsal?

I can’t fathom why he needed to be handling an actual firearm in this situation. Sheer idiocy.
Click to expand...

I guess "lighting the scene," muscle memory or "practicing how you play" might be too deep a subject for you to wade into.
 
Robert Gee said:
I guess "lighting the scene," muscle memory or "practicing how you play" might be too deep a subject for you to wade into.
Click to expand...


Not at all. As I mentioned in another post, practice weapons can easily be made with the same weight, shape, etc., as real ones.

Or is firearm functionality and safety too deep a subject for you to wade into?
 
The reports of "cold gun" kinda haunts me. I can misconstrue that a few ways and hope they all had a clear understanding of what is meant and were using the phrase consistently.
 
Half Fast said:
Not at all. As I mentioned in another post, practice weapons can easily be made with the same weight, shape, etc., as real ones.

Or is firearm functionality and safety too deep a subject for you to wade into?
Click to expand...
I stuck my toe in, answered your question factually but you deflected it and reversed like a typical... If there can be identical, non-functional guns then the same thing goes for rounds and be impossible to tell the difference, so, how long would it take, right?

A rehearsal session would also need to be run through of the handling AND firing of the gun. They need to get the sound, smoke and reactions practiced at some time or another.
 
Matthew said:
Is it just assumption that he aimed at the camera, and people behind the camera, or were they in the line of fire when he swung the weapon around?

Not that it makes any difference to the DP.
Click to expand...
...or that he meant to fire, or that it wasn't a worn out gun or that he had his finger on the trigger or that he had it drawn and hammer cocked then slammed it on the back of a pew or that he wasn't like so many drunken cowboys that shot themselves. Just plane un-coordinated.
 
PPC1052 said:
I think a better analogy is you pay the FBO to fill your tanks, and you take off without checking whether they are full.
Click to expand...
That would be a good analogy if the person holding the gun has received training comparable to what a pilot receives.
 
Llewtrah381 said:
That. And you happen to be a CFI and the student said they checked the fuel, then you run out of fuel because only one side got filled and the student happened to only check the one side. Then the plane crashes and the student is killed but you aren’t. Are you guilty of negligent homicide?

Sure feels like a fair amount of people want jail time for an actor not at all intending to have a real, live gun in his hands and who feels horrible about the events. Maybe it could be technically classed as negligent homicide but, just like the grandfather who dropped his grandkid off a cruise ship, that doesn’t mean it should go to trial or result in jail time. In either case, would a guilty finding, let alone jail time, really reduce the likelihood of this happening again? I don’t think so. And if nobody knew the name of this actor would there be such a push for jail time? I don’t think so.
Click to expand...
I'm uncertain about whether prosecution would be warranted, but if so, it seems like it could apply to more than just the last link in the accident chain in this case.
 
Last edited:
...or that it wasn't similar to how Brandon Lee died, or that it wasn't part of a Masonic test, or that someone wanted to frame Baldwin, or that it wasn't a mfg'ing packaging flaw of the dum dums, or that the armorer mixed up the rounds, or that the AD didn't pick up the wrong gun, or that it was a rock packed in the barrel, or....
 
Half Fast said:
This was a rehearsal of a scene! What possible justification is there for using a real gun for a rehearsal?!

Most gun handling classes I know about use rubber training guns wherever possible. Like this: https://www.amazon.com/BladesUSA-Rubber-Training-Gun/dp/B01M5BQOUZ . Why not use something similar for a rehearsal?

I can’t fathom why he needed to be handling an actual firearm in this situation. Sheer idiocy.
Click to expand...

If I had to guess, the gun being used didn’t have an off the shelf fake version, the camera shot was probably a closeup of Baldwin (like old Clint Eastwood movies) with him holding the gun towards the camera. A realistic fake gun would cost too much to make since this movie was pinching pennies. Add a careless AD and an egotistical SOB who is used to having everything done by subordinates….and we have an “accident” that was easily preventable.
 
MooneyDriver78 said:
If I had to guess, the gun being used didn’t have an off the shelf fake version, the camera shot was probably a closeup of Baldwin (like old Clint Eastwood movies) with him holding the gun towards the camera. A realistic fake gun would cost too much to make since this movie was pinching pennies. Add a careless AD and an egotistical SOB who is used to having everything done by subordinates….and we have an “accident” that was easily preventable.
Click to expand...


Maybe.... But take a look at available non-firing replicas. https://www.bytheswordinc.com/c-1056-americana-and-western-pistol-non-firing-replicas.aspx Lots of period guns available and lots cheaper than what this will cost.

But I doubt the production was buying its own guns anyway. More likely leased.
 
I think a video earlier in the thread showed inserts that prevent insertion of real bullets in a revolver. Are those expensive or difficult to find?
 
Kenny Phillips said:
I actually like the film, and just watched it (pre-shooting.)
Click to expand...
One of my favorite movies from back in the day. I don't think that Alec added much to the film though. I was more into Danny Elfman's score of that movie than anything else.
 
Robert Gee said:
It could be nearly impossible without a hammer strike or a dram scale to tell if a round is live or not.

...and since you didn't see any reports of the victims you must not live in Chicago, you just got the fauxnews version of what they want you to be mad about. Did you hear about the shootings within a hundred miles of where you live? Did you get their name?
Click to expand...
foh news. nice touch
 
Lachlan said:
Sister’s husband or wife’s brother?
Click to expand...
Wife's brother. He lives in Culver City. He and his neighbor were both retrieving mail out of a common mailbox when his neighbor, who was working on the movie observed, 'You've great hands! Can we use them for a movie?' He also appeared in Tony Danza's movie 'She's out of control' as one of the characters who Danza slams the door on. At the time he was a drummer in a heavy metal band and looked the part. Same deal. Walking down the street when someone noticed him and said "you'll be perfect...no makeup or wardrobe required...come just as you are!" :)
 
Silvaire said:
Okay but shouldn't training (or possibly licensing) then be a requirement for anyone who wants to purchase or own a firearm? Or would that be considered "gun control"?
Click to expand...
OSHA regulates lots of things that are work related, that has nothing to do with how private citizens do things. If I want to use a chainsaw in my backyard without eye or hearing protection while wearing flip flops and a bathing suit I am free to do so. If I tried to do the same thing on a worksite I am sure OSHA would fine my company for the violations if they found out about it.
 
eman1200 said:
mandatory safety course for CCW here in NC. had to take a safety course back in NJ when I got my hunting license. no problems with that at all, and I encourage more training than that as well.
Click to expand...

I did the hunting course here in Texas with my son years ago (if you're old enough you don't need course - but I didn't want him to have to sit there on his own all day on a Saturday). Holy cow they went into EVERYTHING including muzzle load operation and bow types which was really interesting. Only thing I got hacked at was there was an actual question regarding operation of a CANNON that wasn't covered in the course:confused:
 
PPC1052 said:
A lot of information to unpack here. The first question is whether the decedent was an "employee" subject to worker's compensation or an independent contractor. I don't know how the film industry is set up in general, or this production in particular. Maybe someone on here does. If she was an employee entitled to workers compensation, then very likely her estate's exclusive recovery for claims of negligence would be under worker's compensation. Also if so, there very likely is co-worker immunity. Some states are more lenient about permitting claims for intentional or other conduct rising to a level above negligence to be made despite the exclusivity of the worker's compensation recovery.

I don't know what you mean by the term "production underwriter claims department." In all likelihood, the production had liability insurance, and that policy would no doubt cover Baldwin's actions, too. If you are referring to that insurance carrier, you may be correct that they will ultimately offer money to settle in the event there is not some worker's compensation exclusive remedy that bars tort claims. Doubtful that Baldwin's personal liability carrier and umbrella carrier will be making payments.

I don't see subrogation here. That generally happens when there is a property or health insurer that makes a payment. Liability carriers can't generally subrogate because they are paying for their own insured's negligence. Maybe there would an indemnity or contribution claim, but against whom? Not sure who they would have such claims against anyone who was not also their own insured. Similarly I suppose the health insurer of the decedent and the AD who was shot and injured might have a claim medical treatment.
Click to expand...

I would argue that the estate would certainly pursue a wrongful death suit, which seems clear in this case: negligence and harm to the family. Such suits don't have the caps of workers comp claims and the production company's liability insurer would certainly be on the hook to defend. I also have no doubt Baldwin would be named if for no other reason he's a deep pocket. As such, his personal liability insurer would be called on to defend..and may just prefer to settle the case given the facts so far.

Liability insurers subrogate all the time. For example, you crash your airplane into a school bus full of kids, your insurer will pay for more than just the damages to the bus, you are also subject to liability claims. If further accident investigation reveals the root cause of the accident was negligent design and manufacture of a critical widget, the widget manufacturer will be subrogated against for the total value of the claim, liability as well as property damage.

I agree with you that in this case a subro is unlikely, but all the facts aren't in. I also agree insurers don't subro against their insureds. Totally off topic, but that's one of the lesser known benefits of having low-limit non-owned aircraft insurance. If the owners coverage and your policy are the same underwriter, they won't generally come after you for the excess loss.
 
Last edited:
Chip Sylverne said:
I would argue that the estate would certainly pursue a wrongful death suit, which seems clear in this case: negligence and harm to the family. Such suits don't have the caps of workers comp claims and the production company's liability insurer would certainly be on the hook to defend.
Click to expand...

It's not about a cap. It's a question of the exclusivity of the remedy of worker's compensation.

Chip Sylverne said:
I also have no doubt Baldwin would be named if for no other reason he's a deep pocket. As such, his personal liability insurer would be called on to defend..and may just prefer to settle the case given the facts so far.
Click to expand...
If there is co-worker immunity, again it won't matter. You can't sue him. In my state, the court would even lack subject matter jurisdiction over the claim. If there is no such immunity in this case, no doubt you are correct-- they would sue him. But again, doubtful his personal insurance would pay. It will almost certainly be resolved within the limits of the production company's insurance.

Chip Sylverne said:
Liability insurers subrogate all the time. For example, you crash your airplane into a school bus full of kids, your insurer will pay for more than just the damages to the bus, you are also subject to liability claims. If further accident investigation reveals the root cause of the accident was negligent design and manufacture of a critical widget, the widget manufacturer will be subrogated against for the total value of the claim, liability as well as property damage.
Click to expand...
Ok, I have been a litigator for over 25 years, all of them in the insurance defense industry defending claims exactly like that, as well bringing subrogation claims on behalf of the insurance carriers. I have never once seen a liability carrier subrogate for payments on behalf of their insured. Not saying it has never happened. But I am saying it isn't common. One problem is that the carrier steps into the shoes of it's insured, and would therefore be barred by the fault of its own insured.

Chip Sylverne said:
I also agree insurers don't subro against their insureds.
Click to expand...
In most states, it is not even permitted to subrogate against your own insured.
 
I don't think any cast or crew was hurt like this during the filming of star wars. I guess they were a little more careful.
 
eman1200 said:
I don't think any cast or crew was hurt like this during the filming of star wars. I guess they were a little more careful.
Click to expand...

I think I read someplace someone never reappeared after they went into the Transporter on Starship Enterprise. Scotty was a person of interest but since the body was never found, he wasn’t charged.

Cheers
 
X3 Skier said:
I think I read someplace someone never reappeared after they went into the Transporter on Starship Enterprise. Scotty was a person of interest but since the body was never found, he wasn’t charged.

Cheers
Click to expand...

Musta been the one in the red shirt ... :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top