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

[lucusloc]

Well I get if the rules are different. My point was if the rules that everyone else have to follow were followed, she would still be alive. The rules need to be changed.

This setup works really well when done right. It lets you capture shots that would be completely unsafe using the everyday four rules and do so with basically zero risk to the participants (actors or crew). But it is incumbent on management to make sure that the set safety officers, the armorers and everyone else in a position of responsibility are competent and professional, as well as make sure everyone who does not hold such responsibility is in compliance with the rules dictated by those that are.

This obviously was not the case on the Set of Rust, and that was 100% the fault of Baldwin. He is guilty not because he pulled the trigger (it does not matter who pulled the trigger, they would have had very little culpability), he is guilty because he ran a production that was so unsafe a functional live gun got onto a cold set. I do not blame the actor who pulled the trigger, I blame the producer who was negligent in his duties to the point where someone died. It just so happens that those two are the same person. My concern is that under the application of the law, if Baldwin is tried as only the actor who pulled the trigger, he may get off due to lack of established culpability (see again; no duty to check gun, was told it was "cold" and safe, no directive from set management not to mess around with props [history of messing around with props already established for the production], etc., etc., etc.). To establish true, legal culpability he needs to be tried as the producer who was knowingly and willfully negligent of set safety.

 

[RedRover]

Nope. Post #344 (by VinnieBoomBah) has the details, but this is a direct quote from SAG guidelines; "The guidelines do not make it the performer's responsibility to check any firearm."

These SAG AFTRA 'guidelines' have zero binding authority in a court of law, nor do they offer any insulation for negligence/failure to comply with the law.

 

[lucusloc]

These SAG AFTRA 'guidelines' have zero binding authority in a court of law, nor do they offer any insulation for negligence/failure to comply with the law.

No, but they are written by actual lawyers who do take into account the actual law when writing their guidance. If they say something in their guidance there is a pretty good chance that it is based in some kind of law or legal precedence. Transfer of liability to designated authorities within an institution (like a production company, or in my case finance security) is well established in law. Yes, this include criminal law where fatalities occur, not just civil stuff.

If SAG says there is no responsibility for something, you can bet that there is supporting legislation or case law supporting that assertion.

 

[RedRover]

This setup works really well when done right. It lets you capture shots that would be completely unsafe using the everyday four rules and do so with basically zero risk to the participants (actors or crew). But it is incumbent on management to make sure that the set safety officers, the armorers and everyone else in a position of responsibility are competent and professional, as well as make sure everyone who does not hold such responsibility is in compliance with the rules dictated by those that are.

This obviously was not the case on the Set of Rust, and that was 100% the fault of Baldwin. He is guilty not because he pulled the trigger (it does not matter who pulled the trigger, they would have had very little culpability), he is guilty because he ran a production that was so unsafe a functional live gun got onto a cold set. I do not blame the actor who pulled the trigger, I blame the producer who was negligent in his duties to the point where someone died. It just so happens that those two are the same person. My concern is that under the application of the law, if Baldwin is tried as only the actor who pulled the trigger, he may get off due to lack of established culpability (see again; no duty to check gun, was told it was "cold" and safe, no directive from set management not to mess around with props [history of messing around with props already established for the production], etc., etc., etc.). To establish true, legal culpability he needs to be tried as the producer who was knowingly and willfully negligent of set safety.

Are you making a conscious decision to ignore that: IT IS NEVER ALLOWED TO POINT A FIREARM DIRECTLY AT ANOTHER ON A FILM SET... EVER?
There is NEVER A NEED TO with modern film techniques and SFX -- Alternating perspectives, booms, remote-operated cameras, green-screen/split-screen, CGI are among some of the techniques used. ONLY REPLICA FIREARMS ARE UTILIZED when a shot demands it.

Even when a camera operator is located downrange, they are always off to the side (never in direct line with the muzzle), and the use of LEXAN and PERSPEX barriers, goggles, ballistic cloaks are employed.

Baldwin(the actor) took it upon himself to make the personal reckless decision(as an individual) to point a firearm at another, and (allegedly) pull the trigger.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1451405623409758213

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1451405623409758213

 

[RedRover]

Watch this final scene in the movie "Departed".

Do you see that the muzzle flashes are CGI?
The sound-effect of the muzzle blasts, and spent cases hitting the floor have also been added post-production.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ha0k9DPmRrU

 

[lucusloc]

Watch this final scene in the movie "Departed".

Do you see that the muzzle flashes are CGI?
The sound-effect of the muzzle blasts, and spent cases hitting the floor have also been added post-production.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ha0k9DPmRrU

Dude, it's like you are not even reading the prior posts here. We already covered how the set of Rust could have been made safer. I myself leveled criticism on mixing live, functional guns with cold "safe" sets. Even if you wanted to keep the same gun surely you could remove the firing pin/functional internals for cold shoots, among many other ways to keep the set safe while still allowing the shots you want to take.

But all that safety stuff is not the actor's responsibility. That falls to the production team. If the production team had done their jobs right (as the actor handling the prop is supposed to assume they did, according to SAG's own guidelines) then no one gets hurt.

Baldwin is at fault here, but not as the actor. He is at fault as the head honcho presiding over a production team with a proven track record of failure. Failure that eventually lead to someone dying in a 100% preventable manner even if the actor had screwed up wile handling the "prop".

 

[lucusloc]

Are you making a conscious decision to ignore that: IT IS NEVER ALLOWED TO POINT A FIREARM DIRECTLY AT ANOTHER ON A FILM SET... EVER?
There is NEVER A NEED TO with modern film techniques and SFX -- Alternating perspectives, booms, remote-operated cameras, green-screen/split-screen, CGI are among some of the techniques used. ONLY REPLICA FIREARMS ARE UTILIZED when a shot demands it.

Even when a camera operator is located downrange, they are always off to the side (never in direct line with the muzzle), and the use of LEXAN and PERSPEX barriers, goggles, ballistic cloaks are employed.

Baldwin(the actor) took it upon himself to make the personal reckless decision(as an individual) to point a firearm at another, and (allegedly) pull the trigger.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1451405623409758213

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1451405623409758213

Directly addressing the video in the tweet; that is an actor pointing a "gun" directly at the camera crew and pulling the trigger. Do you really think that thin piece of pollycarb is bullet proof for real bullets? No it is not, it is a debris screen to keep the detritus from the blanks (or whatever they are actually using) off the crew and camera equipment. If that prop got loaded with real bullets someone on that camera dolly would be dead (probably the camera guy, because it looks like the gun is pointed directly at his head). How you prevent that from happening is by making sure there is no way in hell that that prop can be loaded with real bullets; maybe it is not even a real gun and only shoots caps. Maybe it is a plugged, blanks only gun. Maybe they have other procedures that ensured safety.

But I do like how you are finding examples that back up my case; there are lots of times in filming when a "gun" is pointed at people for a shot. Proper safety protocols make safe sets, despite anything an actor might do.

 

[RedRover]

Was Baldwin fully aware that he had a firearm? YES
Did Baldwin willfuly neglect to observe accepted gun safety protocol(SAG AFTRA or otherwise)? YES
Was Baldwin directed to point a firearm at another? NO
Did Baldwin make his own personal decision to practice his draw with the muzzle pointed towards the crew, instead of an inanimate object. YES
Was there any justifiable reason that Baldwin needed to practice his draw pointing the muzzle at the crew? NO
Was the firearm malfunctioning? NO
Did Baldwin pull the trigger? THAT WILL BE PROVEN W/OUT A REASONABLE DOUBT IN COURT OF LAW BY A PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE

 

[RedRover]

Directly addressing the video in the tweet; that is an actor pointing a "gun" directly at the camera crew and pulling the trigger. Do you really think that thin piece of pollycarb is bullet proof for real bullets? No it is not, it is a debris screen to keep the detritus from the blanks (or whatever they are actually using) off the crew and camera equipment. If that prop got loaded with real bullets someone on that camera dolly would be dead (probably the camera guy, because it looks like the gun is pointed directly at his head). How you prevent that from happening is by making sure there is no way in hell that that prop can be loaded with real bullets; maybe it is not even a real gun and only shoots caps. Maybe it is a plugged, blanks only gun. Maybe they have other procedures that ensured safety.

But I do like how you are finding examples that back up my case; there are lots of times in filming when a "gun" is pointed at people for a shot. Proper safety protocols make safe sets, despite anything an actor might do.

Your case?

You're being educated here, and in fact, I'm done wasting anymore of my time with you.

 

[lucusloc]

Was Baldwin fully aware that he had a firearm? YES
Did Baldwin willfuly neglect to observe accepted gun safety protocol(SAG AFTRA or otherwise)? YES
Was Baldwin directed to point a firearm at another? NO
Did Baldwin make his own personal decision to practice his draw with the muzzle pointed towards the crew, instead of an inanimate object. YES
Was there any justifiable reason that Baldwin needed to practice his draw pointing the muzzle at the crew? NO
Was the firearm malfunctioning? NO
Did Baldwin pull the trigger? THAT WILL BE PROVEN W/OUT A REASONABLE DOUBT IN COURT OF LAW BY A PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE

And none of that makes a damn lick of difference, since if proper safety protocols had been in effect no one could have gotten hurt anyway. Baldwin was told the gun was cold by the person in charge of safety for that prop. That is enough to give him (as an actor) all the immunity from culpability he needs. If you want to nail the guy (and we all do) you need to nail him for his role in making the set so unsafe someone died on it.

 

[lucusloc]

Your case?

You're being educated here, and in fact, I'm done wasting anymore of my time with you.

See, now I am confused (not really, but I am going somewhere here). Are you saying you did not just find an example of someone pointing a gun at a person on set, just like you said should never happen?

 

[RedRover]

See, now I am confused (not really, but I am going somewhere here). Are you saying you did not just find an example of someone pointing a gun at a person on set, just like you said should never happen?

Perhaps a visit to an optometrist is in order?
The cameraman is clearly at an angle, and is never in direct line of the muzzle.

As for this little gem of yours...

Do you really think that thin piece of pollycarb is bullet proof for real bullets?

Apparently you aren't familiar with bullet resistant LEXAN. Look up PALSHIELD®.

You really ought to try to save some face, and bow out of the discussion at this point.

 

[lucusloc]

Perhaps a visit to an optometrist is in order?
The cameraman is clearly at an angle, and is never in direct line of the muzzle.

As for this little gem of yours...

Apparently you aren't familiar with bullet resistant LEXAN. Look up PALSHIELD®.

You really ought to try to save some face, and bow out of the discussion at this point.

View attachment 1808422

Your telling me to save face? Did you even bother to look up how thick lexan has to be to be considered merely bullet resistant? A one inch think sheet is considered the minimum necessary for that rating. PALSHIELD sates their product needs to be 1.25 inches thick to be rated to .44mag. . . from a handgun. Their lowest rated product is over a third of an inch thick, and that is not rated for anything that comes out of a rifle. Now look at the video you linked (you can make it full screen, it has decent resolution). That looks to be maybe a quarter inch. It is definitely not well over an inch, which it would need to be to provide any kind of actual ballistic protection.

And the whole "it could be pointed kinda at him but maybe not" bit is laughable. How close is close enough to be dangerous? Or are you a James Yaeger acolyte where having photographers next to targets on a hot range is considered "safe" because missing is not a thing that is possible? That camera guy is "down range" by any reasonable standard you can set. That means he is in the danger zone and there needs to be other protocols in place to keep him safe.

I would tell you to take your own advice, but at this point I kinda want to see how deep a hole you are wiling to dig.

 

[RedRover]

Your telling me to save face? Did you even bother to look up how thick lexan has to be to be considered merely bullet resistant? A one inch think sheet is considered the minimum necessary for that rating. PALSHIELD sates their product needs to be 1.25 inches thick to be rated to .44mag. . . from a handgun. Their lowest rated product is over a third of an inch thick, and that is not rated for anything that comes out of a rifle. Now look at the video you linked (you can make it full screen, it has decent resolution). That looks to be maybe a quarter inch. It is definitely not well over an inch, which it would need to be to provide any kind of actual ballistic protection.

And the whole "it could be pointed kinda at him but maybe not" bit is laughable. How close is close enough to be dangerous? Or are you a James Yaeger acolyte where having photographers next to targets on a hot range is considered "safe" because missing is not a thing that is possible? That camera guy is "down range" by any reasonable standard you can set. That means he is in the danger zone and there needs to be other protocols in place to keep him safe.

I would tell you to take your own advice, but at this point I kinda want to see how deep a hole you are wiling to dig.

He's wearing a ballistic cloak too

 

[JohnnyMac]

View attachment 1806132

Hey now....

 

[Mikej]

How you know when a thread no longer serves any purpose what-so-ever?? When only 2 people are yapping at each other back and forth for 10 posts.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

How you know when a thread no longer serves any purpose what-so-ever?? When only 2 people are yapping at each other back and forth for 10 posts.

I mean, the pages are flicking by so quickly the rest of us are just trying to figure out how to jump back in like . . .

 

[Mikej]

I mean, the pages are flicking by so quickly the rest of us are just trying to figure out how to jump back in like . . .
View attachment 1808496

But there just isn't anything more to say! So, it's time for, Thread DRIFT!!!!

How 'bout them Lions, huh?

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

But there just isn't anything more to say! So, it's time for, Thread DRIFT!!!!

How 'bout them Lions, huh?

 

[Mikej]

View attachment 1808502

Now that right there is funny. But, it's still not as dumb as soccer.
Oh, and golf.