Alec Baldwin: on-set 'Rust' shooting - NEW UPDATE

[Flopsweat]

But this happens all the time in movies; guns are pointed at fellow actors and triggers are pulled. It is just that on a properly run set nothing actually happens and all the "bad stuff" associated with such an action is handles in post (or with other practical effects on set).

Remember, this is not just about guns, it is about every potentially dangerous object on set. Do you think every actor should know how to check a pneumatic jump pad? How about validate the safety of a drop rig? Maybe they should all be knowledgeable on the safety radius for a fireball mortar for any given load?

Actors cannot be expected to be proficient, or even base level competent, with every danger on set. Just because for you or I firearms handling is second nature does not mean it will be for every actor. They need to be able to rely on a certified safety manager for that device or situation, and if they are told that device or situation is safe when it clearly is not, that incident is less on the actor and more on the safety supervisor.

Baldwin was told the gun was safe. He was also given precious little direction on safe handling by the armorer. If he had been then he would be more culpable, but given the circumstances there is little difference between this situation and if he had been told to shoot at someone for a scene. The error is in set safety, and that falls to the armorer for the production, and to the producer who holds ultimate responsibility for set safety. It is that capacity that I think Baldwin should be charged (as well as his armorer as co-defendant), and he should be charged in that capacity even if he had not been the one to pull the trigger.

This is actually decently well established liability law for such productions. I do fear, given this precedent, that if he is charged in his capacity as an actor that he may escape the bulk of liability. And given how broadly our judicial system treats the concept of double jeopardy he may not be eligible to be tried under his more well established liability as the producer

That's a nice chapter you wrote there but he still shot someone. Also note that I said I wouldn't have pointed a gun at someone before I had any training. Most of us know better or there would be way more accidents.

 

[GWS]

Even if he doesn't serve any time, he'll be prohibited from owning or even holding a firearm. He'll have to use fake guns in any movie stupid enough to take him.


edit: sp

I don't see how that hurts him at all.

 

[Flopsweat]

I don't see how that hurts him at all.

I just find it funny.

 

[RedRover]

Are they going after the armorer? Because honestly that is the person who bears the most direct culpability. She was the specialist in charge of firearms safety on the set. Now I agree that Baldwin also shares in this culpability, but not in his capacity of an actor handling a firearm, but rather in his capacity as a producer who did not replace the armorer after another safety issue on set in the previous weeks. Baldwin only has minor culpability as an actor handling a firearm, in that he was waving around a "prop" gun and acting brashly outside the directive of the designated armorer.

Remember, on sets it is assumed that the actors are dumb plebes who know nothing about the equipment they are being asked to use on set. This is why on properly run sets there are specialists for everything, from the firearms to cars to animals to special effects and even rigging. Actors are expected to trust the experts and follow directions, and not much else. The set of Rust (by all accounts) failed in these basic safety protocols, with little oversight on any of the safety gear or specialty situations. There was no discipline, no oversight and, obviously, no knowledge by the people actually handling the props.

While it is nice to bash on the anti-gun Baldwin for his ignorance (and in most any other circumstance this would be appropriate), in this case, in his capacity as an actor, he was trusting someone else to provide that safety. He was told it was a safe gun by the person in charge and he acted accordingly. The fact that he was acting out on set is of little consequence, as there would have been a similar incident if he had been following directions to the letter and pointed the gun at a fellow actor for the take. The fact that there was a hot gun on the set at all is the root of the problem, not Baldwin's temperamental outbursts.

Of course, as I said before, Baldwin does hold ultimate responsibility for the safety of the set as the producer in charge, but he would bear that responsibility regardless of if he pulled the trigger or not.

I want to add something so that it's clear for those that may have misconceptions around 'movie props', in specific -- 'prop firearms'.

The term 'prop' (as used in theatrics, film etc.) is simply short for the word 'property'. It can be almost any type of inanimate object.
There's this common misnomer that's been applied that may lead some people to believe that 'prop' may mean replica or fake.

Prop houses store and rent out all kinds of items used in production, be it a telephone, a stapler or Indiana Jones' whip.
A prop may be functioning or non-functioning.

Under the law, to be considered as a firearm, it must be able to function as a firearm does. If it is capable of firing live ammunition(be it 'blank' explosive charges, or charges w/ projectiles) it is a firearm. A replica or permanently inoperable (incapable of being readily restored) gun is not a firearm.

Many film productions choose to use real firearms (shooting blanks) as props for the realism factor.

Alec Baldwin has worked on many film sets, and has been trained in the operation of (functional)firearms. He also has been informed of the fundamental four rules of gun safety during his film career.

There is never a time that these firearms safety rules are to not be observed, even on film sets.
Alec Baldwin(as both producer and actor) was quite aware that firearms were being used on set, and that he was handling a real firearm that fateful day.

If this were a rap video that was being filmed, and the same incident were to occur. It is an almost surety that the person that fired the shot would not be able to use the: "I didn't know that it was loaded" as a justifiable excuse to negligent homicide. While employing a props person (or armorer) may insulate one from direct civil litigation; placing liablity coverage upon insurance policies...

In the eyes of criminal law...

The person that pulls the trigger, owns the projectile.

 

[RedRover]

But this happens all the time in movies; guns are pointed at fellow actors and triggers are pulled. It is just that on a properly run set nothing actually happens and all the "bad stuff" associated with such an action is handles in post (or with other practical effects on set).

No, it does not.

Film productions use all sorts of (what's referred to as) 'Movie Magic' to simulate firearms being pointed and fired directly at others. However, at no time ever is it allowed to point a functioning firearm in the direction of another on set(including camera operators/other film crew).

(In addition to the use of non-functioning replicas)
When functioning firearms (using realistic blanks) are used in film production various methods are employed including, but not limited to: Alternating POV, offset camera angles, panning, split-screen, booms, dollies, tracks, remote-control, green-screen, CGI, ballistic shields, dummies.

A lot of protocols were established after Brandon Lee was killed during the filming of "The Crow".

The muzzle flashes in "John Wick" movies are all VFX.

 

[lucusloc]

No, it does not.

Film productions use all sorts of (what's referred to as) 'Movie Magic' to simulate firearms being pointed and fired directly at others. However, at no time ever is it allowed to point a functioning firearm in the direction of another on set(including camera operators/other film crew).

(In addition to the use of non-functioning replicas)
When functioning firearms (using realistic blanks) are used in film production various methods are employed including, but not limited to: Alternating POV, offset camera angles, panning, split-screen, booms, dollies, tracks, remote-control, green-screen, CGI, ballistic shields, dummies.

A lot of protocols were established after Brandon Lee was killed during the filming of "The Crow".

The muzzle flashes in "John Wick" movies are all VFX.

Real guns does not mean real ammunition or even real blanks. Sets are supposed to be sterile, with no real ammunition allowed anywhere near the production. That is the armor's duty to ensure. Sure, lots of productions use fake guns entirely, but as numerous producers have pointed out this is only viable for popular models that have replicas on hand. Most production companies do not own most/any of their own props and instead rent them from "prop houses" that put in the work to curate a collection of items useful to production studios. If your production uses "props" that are rare enough no prop house has them in your collection you often have no choice but to borrow and use the real thing, unless you budget is high enough to make your own fake prop.

The director of the John Wick franchise, Chad Stahleski, had even commented on this, noting that the use of real firearms on set is still relatively commonplace. His opinion is that it does not have to be that way anymore, what with the availability of CGI and other post effect shots, but even the John Wick series used real guns in many scenes. Granted they went through the effort to have actual, functional safety protocols on their sets, and I doubt any of the real guns on their set could actually shoot, even if you did put a real bullet in the chamber (which I am sure were also not allowed anywhere near the set. All the guns were missing their internal actions as I understand it. I do not know if that was just the firing pin or if they gutted the FCG or anything else).

Rust had good reason to be using real guns. They wanted to go for a maximum of period authenticity, with heavy focus on the firearms. No prop house had fake guns with the level of detail required for the production, so they just rented the real thing. What Rust failed to do was implement proper safety procedures to mitigate the risks associated with using real props; they did not render the guns inoperable for shots that did not require operation, they did not sterilize their sets and they did not alter safety protocols when the conditions on set changed. All those failures are on the armorer and the producer, not the actors. Baldwin is responsible for his actions as a producer. If he was a responsible producer the gun he was using as an actor would have been guaranteed to be inert in that situation, just like the crew claimed it was. The entire situation would have wound up as just another temperamental outburst from a whiny and entitled brat of an actor. Not even worth a direct mention in retrospectives on how "contentious and stressful conditions on set were", just another unspecific incident in a long series of them on set.

But Baldwin did not implement proper safety procedures, nor did he hire someone competent to implement those procedures on his behalf. They used live ammunition for some shots, so that meant live ammunition was present on all sets. They were too cheap/ignorant to deactivate the guns for shoots that did not need fully functional firearm, so fully functional firearms were used everywhere. The failures on Rust were legion. That is the real issue, not that some actor was being an entitled DBag and went off script with a "prop".

(Yes, this is the part where we can argue about what constitutes a "real gun". Even some people who were involved in the production of John Wick have said they "used no real guns on set", but many of the "hero guns" [the stuff that was shot up close] are all "real guns" minus an indeterminate number of internal parts. Even many of the "electronic guns" were real frames and slides that actors, Reeves included, have stated was difficult to tell it was not real until you actually inspected/operated it. But even here many actors on John Wick, especially Reeves, were all well versed with real firearms. Hell, Reeves himself is probably qualified to be an expert advisor/armorer on set if his attention were not focused on acting. I find the statement that John Wick "used no real guns" to be somewhat disingenuous. They did use real guns, they just had enough safety procedures in place to make sure that no real gun could be operated in an unsafe manner, even if significant mistakes were made. They took the "swiss cheese" model of accident prevention to heart, with a dozen or more safety protocols needing to fail/be violated before someone could get hurt. Rust, on the other hand, took the "it can't happen here" model of accident prevention, until it inevitably did to tragic results.)

 

[RedRover]

I find the statement that John Wick "used no real guns" to be somewhat disingenuous.

Who made this statement?


We are discussing firearms as it relates to the legal defintion of the word - Firearm.
We are also discussing culpability.
The movie industry IS NOT (nor are film actors) INSULATED FROM CRIMINAL LIABILTY.

Would a logical person presume that Alec Baldwin (the actor) intended to kill that poor woman that day?
Of course not.
However, the burden of negligence falls upon the individual.

Had Baldwin merely obeyed the four fundamental rules of 'firearm safety' that day, she would still be alive.
He pointed a firearm at another person, and he allegedly pulled the trigger (later claiming that he didn't).
Nobody directed, nor permitted him to take those actions -- Which wouldn't exonerate him from personal liability anyways.

If I were to invite a group of friends over, handing one a pistol; telling them "It's cold, clear, empty...whatever"; when, in fact, it is has a round chambered...
If that friend then aims the pistol at another; pulling the trigger and shooting that person...
My friend would be facing negligent homicide charges. I too could be potentially charged as an accessory to that negligence.

 

[lucusloc]

Who made this statement?


We are discussing firearms as it relates to the legal defintion of the word - Firearm.
We are also discussing culpability.
The movie industry IS NOT (nor are film actors) INSULATED FROM CRIMINAL LIABILTY.

Would a logical person presume that Alec Baldwin (the actor) intended to kill that poor woman that day?
Of course not.
However, the burden of negligence falls upon the individual.

Had Baldwin merely obeyed the four fundamental rules of 'firearm safety' that day, she would still be alive.
He pointed a firearm at another person, and he allegedly pulled the trigger (later claiming that he didn't).
Nobody directed, nor permitted him to take those actions -- Which wouldn't exonerate him from personal liability anyways.

If I were to invite a group of friends over, handing one a pistol; telling them "It's cold, clear, empty...whatever"; when, in fact, it is has a round chambered...
If that friend then aims the pistol at another; pulling the trigger and shooting that person...
My friend would be facing negligent homicide charges. I too could be potentially charged as an accessory to that negligence.

If you are on set and someone hands you a fake gun, tells you to point it at your costar and pull the trigger, how liable are you if it turns out to be a real and loaded gun, but you were too ignorant to distinguish that fact? Would you still bear full culpability for the homicide, or would a significant portion of that culpability be offloaded to the person in charge who told you it was all fake? How would that culpability change if you were told it was fake and still managed to shoot someone while you were screwing around on set between takes?

No matter how you slice it things boil down to simple facts;
1. many actors are completely ignorant about the items they are using on set.
2. they are supposed to be able to trust the people on set whose principle job it is to keep them and everyone else safe.

No, the movie industry is not immune from liability, but the rules of liability do change a bit when there are people around who are explicitly responsible for that liability. This is true in many industries, including mine. If an engineer tells a technician to do something, or that something they want to do is safe, and it is reasonable to assume that the engineer knows more than the technician does and the technician has reason to trust the engineer, then the technician holds lesser culpability and liability than the engineer in that situation, even if a mishap was the direct result of the actions of the technician and not the engineer. That trust redirects liability to the more responsible party, in many cases even if the subordinate party is acting stupidly. This is not screwing around with friends where no one holds any kind of authority over another, this is a professional environment where someone holds ultimate responsibility. And that responsibility can and does mean making sure everyone follows protocol and does not act dumb.

 

[RedRover]

If you are on set and someone hands you a fake gun, tells you to point it at your costar and pull the trigger, how liable are you if it turns out to be a real and loaded gun, but you were too ignorant to distinguish that fact? Would you still bear full culpability for the homicide, or would a significant portion of that culpability be offloaded to the person in charge who told you it was all fake? How would that culpability change if you were told it was fake and still managed to shoot someone while you were screwing around on set between takes?

Now change the hypothetical location scenario from 'a (film) set' to 'your livingroom'.

While the hiring of armorers may insulate one from civil liability on a film production set, there is no insulation from criminal liability.
Why are you seemingly having such a hard time understanding that?

FACT: Alec Baldwin is familiar with the functionality and operation of firearms.
FACT: Alec Baldwin has received firearm safety training during his long career in film.
FACT: Alec Baldwin knew he had a fully-functioning firearm in his possession.
FACT: Alec Baldwin willfully ignored fundamental firearm safety protocol THAT APPLIES ANYTIME/ANYWHERE.

Perhaps you've heard or seen this phrase before:
"Ignorance of the law is not a defense."

 

[lucusloc]

Now change the hypothetical location scenario from 'a (film) set' to 'your livingroom'.

While the hiring of armorers may insulate one from civil liability on a film production set, there is no insulation from criminal liability.
Why are you seemingly having such a hard time understanding that?

FACT: Alec Baldwin is familiar with the functionality and operation of firearms.
FACT: Alec Baldwin has received firearm safety training during his long career in film.
FACT: Alec Baldwin knew he had a fully-functioning firearm in his possession.
FACT: Alec Baldwin willfully ignored fundamental firearm safety protocol THAT APPLIES ANYTIME/ANYWHERE.

Perhaps you've heard or seen this phrase before:
"Ignorance of the law is not a defense."

I said this in the previous comment; this is not your living room, this is a professional environment, with professional liability laws. Take my industry, for example; I work in security. Do you know what happens if one of my technicians does something stupid and accidentally opens a back door that injures my clients? I may be able to fire them sure, but when the regulators get word of the breach they are coming after me, as the engineer of record (and responsibility!) for those systems. Yes, this even includes potential criminal liability if the regulators deem the breach serious enough. They are not going to hang the technician (Who may or may not have been acting under my direct supervision or instruction). They are going after the guy with his name on the documents of record regardless of whose actual actions caused the issue. Just about the only way I can avoid that liability and pin it back on the person who made the action is if I can demonstrate that actions was done with willful and knowing maliciousness on their part. I need to show the that resultant breach was intentional. Even if the action was a boneheaded stupid mistake that the technician should have known better than to do I still hang, because I was the guy who vetted him and gave him that responsibility and access.

(Expanding on this, my managers also face responsibility, since they hired me and gave me the keys to the kingdom, and this chain of liability goes right up to the top CEO, as the one ultimately responsible for the delegation. Who they eventually choose to charge with criminal liability, if any, is kinda a crap-shoot for us. But one thing that is clear from prior case law, my name is on the documents so I am the very first in the chain of possible people, the technicians under me are basically immune even if it was their direct action that caused the problem.)

Architects work by the same law. Factories work by the same law. Law firms work by the same law. Film studios work by the same law. This is not the law of your living room, this is the law of professional employment.

Now it just so happens the person who did the shooting in this situation was also the person who held ultimate responsibility for set safety. But, as I said so long ago, that means Baldwin should be on trial in his role as producer, not his role as ignorant, misbehaving actor. When there are people above you who are in charge of those processes and systems ignorance absolutely is a defense against liability. . . For you. But not for the people who hold that responsibility though. They are on the hook in your place.

 

[RedRover]

You are a still conflating civil liability with criminal liabilty.
Professional liability = Insurance for malpractice. It does not cover criminal acts. Nor does it provide immunity from prosecution for those that have committed a criminal act.

Your giving me your background is irrelevant to this entire discussion. This isn't leaving a door open that may have caused financial harm to a client. This is the willful negligence of an individual that intentionally pointed a firearm directly at another and (allegedly) pulled the trigger. The actual setting has zero bearing.

Please provide any example of an insurance policy (or rider) that covers criminal negligence...or any damn law that can be cited showing that a person is immune to criminal prosecution for negligence -- because they work in a professional capacity or "employment".....

Even soldiers of a signatory country are bound to the rules of the Geneva Convention.
The Nuremburg excuse: "I was merely following superior orders" didn't save those guilty of war crimes from prosecution.

Yes... Alec Baldwin (the actor) isn't the only one that ought to be held criminally liable for negligence. Alec Baldwin (the producer) may also be held criminally liable as well.

In your own words -- Alec Baldwin (the actor) was "Ignorant and Misbehaving".

"When there are people above you who are in charge of those processes and systems ignorance absolutely is a defense against liability"
That's not how criminal law works.

I'm done dude.

 

[Certaindeaf]

Someone should draw pictures of what happened. And make me a sandwich.

 

[Duneblaster]

Lies, lies, lies, lies, lies, lies, lies,....

The girl he supposedly "shot" was born in Ukraine. And the director didn't strike me as the western movie type.

Quote: "Your Guns Have 2 Enemies - RUST & Politicians"

Just a coincidence? Doubt it. I don't trust the media.

 

[Certaindeaf]

I heard she always drank out of a free mason jar she found down by the creek.

 

[lucusloc]

You are a still conflating civil liability with criminal liabilty.
Professional liability = Insurance for malpractice. It does not cover criminal acts. Nor does it provide immunity from prosecution for those that have committed a criminal act.

Your giving me your background is irrelevant to this entire discussion. This isn't leaving a door open that may have caused financial harm to a client. This is the willful negligence of an individual that intentionally pointed a firearm directly at another and (allegedly) pulled the trigger. The actual setting has zero bearing.

Please provide any example of an insurance policy (or rider) that covers criminal negligence...or any damn law that can be cited showing that a person is immune to criminal prosecution for negligence -- because they work in a professional capacity or "employment".....

Even soldiers of a signatory country are bound to the rules of the Geneva Convention.
The Nuremburg excuse: "I was merely following superior orders" didn't save those guilty of war crimes from prosecution.

Yes... Alec Baldwin (the actor) isn't the only one that ought to be held criminally liable for negligence. Alec Baldwin (the producer) may also be held criminally liable as well.

In your own words -- Alec Baldwin (the actor) was "Ignorant and Misbehaving".

"When there are people above you who are in charge of those processes and systems ignorance absolutely is a defense against liability"
That's not how criminal law works.

I'm done dude.

Architect Gets Prison in Deadly Collapse : PaintSquare News

A Japanese architect will spend eight months in prison in connection with a fatal grocery store parking garage collapse in 2011.

www.paintsquare.com

An Architect was found criminally liable for one of their buildings that collapsed. Other who also face liability in the collapse? The site foreman/contractors in charge of the construction. People who are not facing liability in the case? The guys who actually built the thing that collapsed. They were, quite literally, "just following orders" as they put it together as directed.

New Orleans Hard Rock collapse: Despite calls for justice, criminal charges will be 'complex' issue

Last Halloween, weeks after three workers on the Hard Rock hotel project in New Orleans were killed in a crush of concrete and steel, a judge in Boston convicted the

www.nola.com

This is an article that talks about several different U.S. cases where managers and leadership got jail time (or face potential jail time) for the actions of their underlings. In some of them the workers in question also face prosecution, but, as stated in the article, this kind of liability can get complicated. (again, in most such cases you have to prove that the low guy on the totem pole had some kind of intent, or at least was willfully negligent with reasonable knowledge of that fact. If they were following explicit orders, or the incident was deemed to be out of their depth, they typically will receive immunity from prosecution.)

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/paralegals/profession-information/information_for_lawyers_how_paralegals_can_improve_your_practice/

Here are the cliffnotes for attorneys from the American Bar Association about paralegal work. Of interest is that the ABS calls out the fact that attorneys are responsible for all the work of their underlings. If your paralegal files something under your name you bear the responsibility for that filing.

Hollywood's History of On-Set Deaths

The shooting death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the set of "Rust" was not the first time a non-stuntperson has perished during production

www.thewrap.com

This one is a retrospective of other Hollywood accidents before the Rust tragedy. It does not include any convictions, but it does include criminal trials or potential indictments of people not directly involved with the accident, but who were ultimately responsible for set safety.

These are just the examples I could remember and dig up. I am aware of other incidents I cannot find at the moment, and there are a number of others that are still working their way through the legal system with unknown outcomes (the Miami building collapse in Florida, for example).

 

[eustace_stelio]

Semantics

Either way I'm guessing the jury will comeback with a "not guilty" verdict because who didn't grow up liking Beetlejuice?...

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Charged again apparently:

Alec Baldwin charged with involuntary manslaughter for a second time over fatal ‘Rust’ shooting

Alec Baldwin has charged for involuntary manslaughter over the fatal shooting on the set of “Rust” for a second time.

nypost.com

 

[Mikej]

Charged again apparently:

Alec Baldwin charged with involuntary manslaughter for a second time over fatal ‘Rust’ shooting

Alec Baldwin has charged for involuntary manslaughter over the fatal shooting on the set of “Rust” for a second time.

nypost.com

Just heard that myself. Yawn. What is wrong with our legal/ judicial system? He was negligent, 3 years ago? Indict, try and punish! So we don't need to keep hearing about it.

 

[Certaindeaf]

I heard his glove didn't fit so pow, right in the sternum!

 

[huntpotter]

Guns don't kill people.
Alec Baldwin kills people.