Alec Baldwin Fires Prop Gun that Kills Individual on Movie Set

[RX-79G]

I think he missed the part about a "Willful Act" as in Alec PURPOSELY aimed that gun at the camera and pulled the trigger!

No. I mentioned how he was directed to do that by the victim.

 

[RX-79G]

Generally speaking, you are correct. But in this case, the employer (AB the producer) is also the employee (AB the actor) that killed another employee (HH the DP) of the employer (again, AB the producer). So, in this case, yes indeed, the boss did in fact cause the death to happen, cuz the boss and the actor are the same person that killed the DP.

But not in his role as boss. Sucks to be him twice over, but they aren't legally connected.

I submit that he can be held responsible for his actions as an actor that resulted in the death of HH, and (not "or") for his actions as the producer (alleged poor safety conditions, rushed schedule, etc.) that resulted in the death of HH. I see those two sets of actions as reinforcing each other.

He certainly can be, and that's what I already said. However, both circumstances are mitigated by his position in the production pecking order and his contractual liability due to the way the production corporation is set up. So you may not get what you want in either case.

 

[sobo]

No. I mentioned how he was directed to do that by the victim.

I'm reasonably sure that if someone directed me to point a firearm at someone, I wouldn't do it.
Even if I had verified that it was unloaded. There's just too much of a cringe-factor there...

Unless it was a case of a DGU and someone was in imminent danger of grievous bodily harm or death.
Then, all bets are off and it's open season on the assailant(s).

 

[RX-79G]

I reasonably sure that if someone directed me to point a firearm at someone, I wouldn't do it.

Unless it was a case of a DGU and someone was in imminent danger of grievous bodily harm or death.

Then you wouldn't work on movies, where they do things like set people on fire.

 

[Ura-Ki]

So your saying that the Boss can do anything he wants including murdering someone and he is held harmless simply because he is the boss? Got it!

 

[sobo]

Then you wouldn't work on movies, where they do things like set people on fire.

Nope, probably not.
I managed to set myself on fire once.
Didn't cotton to it much, upon reflection afterwards.
Don't feel any burnin' urge to try that again...

 

[RX-79G]

So your saying that the Boss can do anything he wants including murdering someone and he is held harmless simply because he is the boss? Got it!

No. Where did you get that idea?

I've explained several times that the civil liability for being the producer is completely separate from the criminal case about firing the gun. They have different causes and different solutions. If Baldwin wasn't one of the producers, he'd still have criminal problem. If he wasn't the actor that fired he'd still have the producer problem.

 

[Ura-Ki]

Ah, now finally, we see where your coming from! Alec IS liable in both sides, not one and exclusive to the other! Now you are making some sense! Liable as producer, and liable as the shooter!

 

[RX-79G]

Ah, now finally, we see where your coming from! Alec IS liable in both sides, not one and exclusive to the other! Now you are making some sense! Liable as producer, and liable as the shooter!

Finally? I've been consistent on this.

The problem is that his liability in either might be so limited that it is meaningless. But they don't reinforce each other - this isn't a conspiracy.

 

[GrayGoose]

Alec Baldwin intentionally pointed a firearm at another person. The consequences of his actions following that intentional act are solely his responsibility.
-THE END-

 

[Flopsweat]

 

[Xaevian]

 

[RedRover]

If this was Clint Eastwood rather than liberal comedian Alec Baldwin, everyone would be talking about how film sets employ credited experts as electricians, set builders, costumers, armorers, stunt coordinators, etc - and that poor old Clint is just an actor.

I don't know why anyone would expect actors - who often are flaky, drunk, learning impaired, etc - to interfere with the sometimes complex process of preparing prop firearms for use.

View attachment 1181030
This is a real revolver capable of firing .45 Colt. Does anyone actually expect that Harrison Ford took it apart to look into the cylinder every time they did a shot in Bladerunner? Should all actors know that a Colt SAA requires the hammer to be half cocked to open the loading gate, that you can't put the safety on a 1911 if not cocked, but that the safety on a P9S doesn't block the hammer or trigger? I've bought guns from guys in the infantry that didn't know that kind of stuff about the guns they owned.

We might as well be talking about Alec Baldwin inspecting the work of the eletricians on set. Maybe we should all help preflight the airplane next time we take a commercial flight and inspect the food storage practices of the restaurants we eat at.


I'm not speaking as a gun person or a from a particular political POV. I have a degree in filmmaking, and know quite a bit about the subject.

Are we revisiting this again?

Since you asked some questions, I'll answer.

There are established protocols when it comes to the use of firearms on a film production set.

1st and foremost. A functioning firearm is a firearm. A replica is replica.

A functioning firearm is NEVER ALLOWED TO BE POINTED IN THE DIRECTION OF ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL AT ANY TIME EVER ON A FILM SET.
Movies use all sorts of so-called 'movie magic' to simulate this. IE. camera-angles/boom-cranes/drones/remote-control/panning from one camera perspective to another/dummies/split-screen/CGI effects/green screen etc. etc. etc.

Whenever a 'shot' requires the appearance of a firearm to be pointed directly at a person -- IE. gun pressed against head, in mouth, - a non-operating replica is used.

Whenever a real firearm is used on set firing blanks. To reiterate again -- IT IS NEVER ALLOWED TO POINT THE FIREARM AT ANY OTHER PERSON. If it is required that a camera person must be down range to get the shot, the camera person is ALWAYS OFF AT AN ANGLE and is never lined up directly with the muzzle of the firearm. The camera person is usually behind a shield to protect against hot gases or any wad ejections that can be discharged from the muzzle

LIVE AMMO IS NEVER ALLOWED ON SET. If the appearance of loose ammo is needed, then special realistic snap-caps are used with painted rubber plugs in the primer pockets.

Other protocols is that an armorer is the only person that should be responsible for handling the firearms, and they should never be out of the armorer's control off set. When needed on set, the armorer is to take the weapon to the actor, show the weapon to the actor, explain how the firearm functions, and confirm with the actor's acknowledgment that the firearms is 'clear' or 'cold'. It is only then that the actor takes possession of the firearm.

A competent armorer also is usually expected to give a safety briefing about the safe handling of firearms at some point during pre-production to all crew. It's something that can be done effectively in 5-10 minutes.

The reality is that a lot of these standard protocols were ignored on the "Rust" set.

Baldwin pointed a firearm directly at a person and pulled the trigger. Being in the industry for decades and having been in other movies involving firearms, it is of the highest probability that he was given firearms safety protocols previously even if he wasn't on this set. He is not absolved from criminal or civil liability because he is on a movie set, or as an actor 'he has other people check it for him'.

The same would apply if someone was killed in a similar manner while shooting a rap video in the ghetto.

It's my personal opinion Baldwin should be charged for his negligence. His celebrity does not make him exempt for being responsible for that poor women's death. He's also a colossal dbag anti-gunner, so perhaps I've got a little bias about the matter. His cocky, take no responsibility attitude since the incident would have me not mad if he gets his just due.

I'll believe it when I see it.



EDIT: Now that I've gone ahead and read the 5 pages in responses since you posted this, I see that the rest of the board is consistently inline with my personal opinion about it. You're dealing with 'gun persons' here. Did they teach you any of the stuff that I wrote above in your filmmaking school?

 

[RX-79G]

Are we revisiting this again?

Since you asked some questions, I'll answer.

There are established protocols when it comes to the use of firearms on a film production set.

1st and foremost. A functioning firearm is a firearm. A replica is replica.

A functioning firearm is NEVER ALLOWED TO BE POINTED IN THE DIRECTION OF ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL AT ANY TIME EVER ON A FILM SET.
Movies use all sorts of so-called 'movie magic' to simulate this. IE. camera-angles/boom-cranes/drones/remote-control/panning from one camera perspective to another/dummies/split-screen/CGI effects/green screen etc. etc. etc.

Whenever a 'shot' requires the appearance of a firearm to be pointed directly at a person -- IE. gun pressed against head, in mouth, - a non-operating replica is used.

Whenever a real firearm is used on set firing blanks. To reiterate again -- IT IS NEVER ALLOWED TO POINT THE FIREARM AT ANY OTHER PERSON. If it is required that a camera person must be down range to get the shot, the camera person is ALWAYS OFF AT AN ANGLE and is never lined up directly with the muzzle of the firearm. The camera person is usually behind a shield to protect against hot gases or any wad ejections that can be discharged from the muzzle

LIVE AMMO IS NEVER ALLOWED ON SET. If the appearance of loose ammo is needed, then special realistic snap-caps are used with painted rubber plugs in the primer pockets.

Other protocols is that an armorer is the only person that should be responsible for handling the firearms, and they should never be out of the armorer's control off set. When needed on set, the armorer is to take the weapon to the actor, show the weapon to the actor, explain how the firearm functions, and confirm with the actor's acknowledgment that the firearms is 'clear' or 'cold'. It is only then that the actor takes possession of the firearm.

A competent armorer also is usually expected to give a safety briefing about the safe handling of firearms at some point during pre-production to all crew. It's something that can be done effectively in 5-10 minutes.

The reality is that a lot of these standard protocols were ignored on the "Rust" set.

Baldwin pointed a firearm directly at a person and pulled the trigger. Being in the industry for decades and having been in other movies involving firearms, it is of the highest probability that he was given firearms safety protocols previously even if he wasn't on this set. He is not absolved from criminal or civil liability because he is on a movie set, or as an actor 'he has other people check it for him'.

The same would apply if someone was killed in a similar manner while shooting a rap video in the ghetto.

It's my personal opinion Baldwin should be charged for his negligence. His celebrity does not make him exempt for being responsible for that poor women's die. He's also a colossal dbag anti-gunner, so perhaps I've got a little bias about the matter. His cocky, take no responsibility attitude since the incident would have me not mad if he gets his just due.

I'll believe it when I see.

What are you quoting this protocol from?

 

[sobo]

Here it comes...

 

[RedRover]

What are you quoting this protocol from?

From experienced armorers with decades of experience in the film industry.

It is logged in my head, from the last time I had to explain it to a person such as yourself.

Here's an example of what I'm referring to; where blanks are used to portray a sense of realism.

Note how the camera pans/angles/perspectives are used so that at no time is a real firearm firing blanks pointed directly at any other human. It is all precisely choreographed. Replicas/dubbed-in sound-effects are utilized the few times when needed.

Action starts @ 4:20

 

[RX-79G]

From experienced armorers with decades of experience in the film industry.

It is logged in my head, from the last time I had to explain it to a person such as yourself.

Here's an example of what I'm referring to; where blanks are used to portray a sense of realism.

Note how the camera pans/angles/perspectives are used so that at no time is a real firearm firing blanks pointed directly at any other human. It is all precisely choreographed. Replicas/dubbed-in sound-effects are utilized the few times when needed.

Action starts @ 4:20

I'm not calling you a liar. I'm asking where you came upon those specifics and if there is a book, website, contract or other reference material you could share with people interested in the case. If so, these documents are going to be critically important to presecutors.

I'm a pilot. If I assert something is the case about an aircraft or FAA flight rules, I can usually pull up the manual or regulations. So I'm interested in what you're suggesting are codified industry practices that are universally applied.

 

[mhayd93]

If this was Clint Eastwood rather than liberal comedian Alec Baldwin, everyone would be talking about how film sets employ credited experts as electricians, set builders, costumers, armorers, stunt coordinators, etc - and that poor old Clint is just an actor.

I don't know why anyone would expect actors - who often are flaky, drunk, learning impaired, etc - to interfere with the sometimes complex process of preparing prop firearms for use.

View attachment 1181030
This is a real revolver capable of firing .45 Colt. Does anyone actually expect that Harrison Ford took it apart to look into the cylinder every time they did a shot in Bladerunner? Should all actors know that a Colt SAA requires the hammer to be half cocked to open the loading gate, that you can't put the safety on a 1911 if not cocked, but that the safety on a P9S doesn't block the hammer or trigger? I've bought guns from guys in the infantry that didn't know that kind of stuff about the guns they owned.

We might as well be talking about Alec Baldwin inspecting the work of the eletricians on set. Maybe we should all help preflight the airplane next time we take a commercial flight and inspect the food storage practices of the restaurants we eat at.


I'm not speaking as a gun person or a from a particular political POV. I have a degree in filmmaking, and know quite a bit about the subject.

Source?

 

[RedRover]

I'm not calling you a liar. I'm asking where you came upon those specifics and if there is a book, website, contract or other reference material you could share with people interested in the case. If so, these documents are going to be critically important to presecutors.

I'm a pilot. If I assert something is the case about an aircraft or FAA flight rules, I can usually pull up the manual or regulations. So I'm interested in what you're suggesting are codified industry practices that are universally applied.

Google is your friend. A quick search brings up a few articles with references to armorers in the industry, their take on the "Rust" incident, and standard film-set protocol.

A competent DA ought to already be fully versed in what the law reads as it pertains to involuntary manslaughter. As that's only what matters here. While one may be insulated from civil tort lawsuits -- as far as what entity is financially liable (usually insurer), Hollywood movie standards and protocols does not insulate one from what the criminal law reads in the State of New Mexico.

Involuntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to felony, or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection.

The key words here are: 'without due caution and circumspection'.

 

[mhayd93]

I'm not calling you a liar. I'm asking where you came upon those specifics and if there is a book, website, contract or other reference material you could share with people interested in the case. If so, these documents are going to be critically important to presecutors.

I'm a pilot. If I assert something is the case about an aircraft or FAA flight rules, I can usually pull up the manual or regulations. So I'm interested in what you're suggesting are codified industry practices that are universally applied.

You are so insistent on everyone else providing sources for their information, yet I'm having troubles finding any sources you have provided to support your statements.

The "what's your source??" game is fun, but it takes two to play! Maybe lead by example?