Alec Baldwin WTF

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I Skied Bandini Mountain

He made fun of Cono's president.

Baldwin is also a huge gaping asshole. And it was also a shitty low budget film with poorly trained armorers. Only one of these should be pursued in a legal case - the armorer and her failings.

---

Shouldn't there be some sort of blame for hiring an unqualified unlicensed armorer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garbowski

An actor trusts the set was framed right then slams a door and it collapses on someone's head. Or flips a light switch that electrocutes a crew member.

All kinds of analogies here- the sticking point seems to be if guns are somehow special.

---

the only way i see them being special is varying degrees of difficulty of intentionally causing any of those accidents, as in murder. If thats ruled out due to no motive etc then they seem to be the same, except for the fact that a gun is far easier to check for safety than a car or house, and it should be a habit for anyone handling one to know whether or not it is loaded.

Oddly enough I've had friends who were sorta anti gun but sort of curious and wanted to at least try shooting a gun, but it was like their disdain of gun culture cus guns are scary also become a disdain for the rules of properly handling a gun as part of gun culture. I get the feeling hollywood might be similar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leroy jenkins

Shouldn't there be some sort of blame for hiring an unqualified unlicensed armorer?

---

Now we're getting somewhere. Was the armorer known to be unqualified yet hired anyway? Was due diligence not carried out? Did the armorer misrepresent her quals? Did she know chain of custody was compromised?

These are all legit questions.

As for unsafe shit show productions, that just described about 99% of projects.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MakersTeleMark

It's a jury, and I don't care how much of a db he is, he will walk.

---

No jury verdict is a sure thing but I can't imagine they convict Baldwin for this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bennymac

I guess all these actors need to check the brake lines of any vehicle they drive on set.

And a doctor in an ER running a code better draw up their own medications and inject them into the patient themselves.

There are degrees of responsibility. The court will decide his as a producer. As an actor he can easily defend himself - the whole purpose of an armourer on set is gun safety. You guys seem to think any actor who handles a gun needs to be trained to the same level as the armourer. Where does the need for redundancy end?

And again with any directors. And any producer.

Fuck it let's get craft services trained up.

---

Checking the brake lines is not taught in driver ed.* Knowing if a firearm you are handling is loaded is gun safety 101. Is it unreasonable to expect everyone on a set who handles a gun to have gun safety course?

Doctors don't injecct drugs in a code. Most drugs used in codes are in single dose syringes or cartridges with the name easily visible. And yes, if a nurse hands anotther nurse a medication to inject the second nurse is responsible for checking the label. People have died because someone grabbed the wrong drug from a crash cart in an emergency. Nurses have lost their licenses over this kind of mistake. I don't know if there has ever been a criminal charge brought in such a case. In none emergency situations the drug and the patient's wrist band are both scanned and have to agree before the drug is given.

Baldwin is charged with involuntary manslaughter--that means he didn't intend to kill anyone and that there were actions he could have taken that would have prevented the death, and I think it means his conduct was not so outrageous as to be voluntary manslaughter. But I'm no lawyer--maybe the lawyers here can tell me if I understand correctly. I won't argue whether or not his conduct fits the charge and of course even if it does I agree he may well get a not guilty verdict. If he is found guilty I doubt he will do any jail time--probably probation and maybe a fine he can easily pay. But I stand by my belief that he should have checked the gun when it was handed to him. And rather than being excused because he's an actor on a movie set--the fact that the gun could potentially go through many hands and that the actor has no way to know if the gun was secure, was ever checked by the armorer, was even a gun that belonged on the set, makes it even more important that he check. if the gun is loaded with live ammo.

* Maybe checking the brakes should be part of driver ed. My wife had her brakes replaced, drove out of the shop and immediately rear ended someone stopped at the red light at the corner where the shop was because the brakes failed--they had bled the air.. The shop owner's insurance paid.
'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I Skied Bandini Mountain

Last thing you want is an actor poking around under the hood of a hero car or into a firearm. They're actors ffs, monkeys have more common sense and intelligence than your typical actor.

---

KNowing if a firearm is loaded isn't poking around in it. Its like remembering to put your seatbelt on. Or like remembering to shut the drivers door after you get in before driving away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I Skied Bandini Mountain

Now we're getting somewhere. Was the armorer known to be unqualified yet hired anyway? Was due diligence not carried out? Did the armorer misrepresent her quals? Did she know chain of custody was compromised?

These are all legit questions.

As for unsafe shit show productions, that just described about 99% of projects.

---

I've heard unlicensed. I guess others are licensed. I guess theres no requirement for that though. I don't really know though this is a matter of idle speculation on the internet for me I haven't done much research.

The way that shot was positioned, I'm given the impression that it was meant to look authentic, head on and close up. As in, see something that looks like a round(s) in the cylinder. How are authentic looking dummy rounds identified from live rounds? Is that something an actor can easily discern from inspection?

I mean...movies. Meant to look realistic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I Skied Bandini Mountain

Last thing you want is an actor poking around under the hood of a hero car or into a firearm. They're actors ffs, monkeys have more common sense and intelligence than your typical actor.

---

Attachment 443553

Don’t forget, he lied. He said he never pulled the trigger. I’m not a single action expert, but the prosecutor was waiting on the FBI, and they said said that was impossible.

I like the guy, he was hard working, I hope he doesn’t serve time, but someone lost a wife and mother.

Who ACTUALLY LOADED THE GUN? Did they ever determine/disclose that? The fact they couldn't pinpoint where the fucking real bullets came from supports High Country's "shitshow" desctiption.

One more factor: the assistant director handed the gun to Baldwin and called out “cold gun” indicating it didn’t have live rounds in it. The AD copped a plea, ending up with probation and community service. I’m sort of scratching my head about that.

I don’t know for certain if armorers are certified or licensed, but she was inexperienced and the daughter of a well-known and highly experienced armorer.

https://wapo.st/3iSskH0
https://www.iatselocal52.org/Applica...pArmorerJD.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_master

And yeah, Baldwin lied, flat out, about pulling the trigger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meadow Skipper

And yeah, Baldwin lied, flat out, about pulling the trigger.

---

It kills me to be carrying AB's water here... but first hand account/eyewitness testimony is just terrible and unreliable. So did he knowingly lie in a (bad) attempt to save his skin? Or is his brain and recall in traumatic event mode where it's grappling with killing a person?

Fucked if I know. I can say I empathize with AB's (or any actor's) position here. "Cold gun!". Then the next thing you know...bang. Blood. What. The. Fuck. Happened? Shit goes sideways. Why the fuck is there a live round on set? how? why? who? I'd be in crisis mode.

And I can see the actor being both somewhat negligent and also a victim. What sort of command fuck up has to happen where an actor is put in a position where they can kill someone? My mind boggles.

What are the details. Were they shooting a scene, was he rehearsing? Because they have rules even with prop guns, like not aiming at people and using camera angles. Sounds like the “it just went off” cameras were not rolling. So he was fucking around with the gun for no good reason then.

my god have you ever watched a movie or TV show?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old goat

Doctors don't injecct drugs in a code.

---

There are laws and written procedures for how meds are injected, correct? Last I checked, their weren't any universally accepted written procedures on how to handle guns on low budget film sets.

Ya, it would be great if actors checked the gun before pointing it towards anyone. Maybe there should even be a law requiring it. But you don't get to establish new law by charging someone.

At trial, the prosecutor will round up a bunch of actors and armorers who will testify that Baldwin should have checked the gun. And Baldwin will call all his actor and armorer buddies who will come in and say that it is not normal procedure for the actor to check, and that the actor relies on the armorer for safety protocol. Tie goes to the defendant.

I don't want actors to have to worry about safety protocol on the set. I want them to act. If necessary, I want them to get all coked up and act like Chevy Chase and John Belushi. I want them to become completely immersed in the role, like Joquin Phoenix as joker, who is too focused to give a shit about safety. Acting is an art. Let them be artists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old goat

Baldin is charged with involuntary manslaughter--that means he didn't intend to kill anyone and that there were actions he could have taken that would have prevented the death

---

The New Mexico law Baldwin has been charged with says:

"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 phrase "without due caution and circumspection" has been held to involve the concept of "criminal negligence," which concept includes conduct which is reckless, wanton or willful.

https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mex...ection-30-2-3/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cono Este

Don’t forget, he lied.

---

I don't think Baldwin's credibility, or lack there of, really matters in this case. We all agree he killed someone. So what if he pulled the trigger, or the gun just accidentally went off. The prosecutor's theory is that Baldwin should have known it was normal for the actor to first check the gun before pointing it at someone. The crux of this case is whether that is normal practice in the industry. What Baldwin has to say about that is somewhat meaningless. It will come down to each side's "expert" witnesses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altasnob

Last I checked, their weren't any universally accepted written procedures on how to handle guns on low budget film sets.

---

I agree with a lot of your post but one small thing is that I believe Rust was a Union shoot. So they would have been expected to follow those procedures which typically put most all the responsibility on armorers/props.

The funny thing about all the “gun experts” in here is their opinions don’t line up with the reality of a typical set. The Armorers I’ve worked with would likely tossed an actor off set if the actor started inspecting their weapon/bullets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altasnob

There are laws and written procedures for how meds are injected, correct? Last I checked, their weren't any universally accepted written procedures on how to handle guns on low budget film sets.

Ya, it would be great if actors checked the gun before pointing it towards anyone. Maybe there should even be a law requiring it. But you don't get to establish new law by charging someone.

At trial, the prosecutor will round up a bunch of actors and armorers who will testify that Baldwin should have checked the gun. And Baldwin will call all his actor and armorer buddies who will come in and say that it is not normal procedure for the actor to check, and that the actor relies on the armorer for safety protocol. Tie goes to the defendant.

I don't want actors to have to worry about safety protocol on the set. I want them to act. If necessary, I want them to get all coked up and act like Chevy Chase and John Belushi. I want them to become completely immersed in the role, like Joquin Phoenix as joker, who is too focused to give a shit about safety. Acting is an art. Let them be artists.

---

AFAIK there are no laws regarding how to confirm the right drug is going into the right patient. There are regulations at the state, Joint Commission, and hospital level. Maybe at the fed level I don't know. There are various lists of various gun safety procedures--they vary, but the one to treat every gun is loaded is universal. These lists are on the websites of gun selleres and gun industry reps, among other places. California's is one of the more expansive and bears most directly on the circumstances. Rule 1 "Treat all guns as if they are loaded. Always assume that a gun is loaded even if you think it is unloaded. Every time a gun is handled for any reason, check to see that it is unloaded. If you are unable to check a gun to see if it is unloaded, leave it alone and seek help from someone more knowledgeable about guns."

AFAIK there is no law that says you have to follow the rules (unike the skier responsibility code, which is the law in many states0. Some states require gun safety courses--NM requires them for concealed carry only (I guess so you don't shoot yourself.)

The outcome I would like to see is a conviction, probation and community service, a change in practice in the industry that mandates firearm safety training for people handling firearms, and no one gets shot on a movie set.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old goat

The outcome I would like to see is a conviction, probation and community service, a change in practice in the industry that mandates firearm safety training for people handling firearms, and no one gets shot on a movie set.

---

The movie industry’s track record of firearm safety is ridiculously high. I’d bet it’s better than any other work environment on earth that routinely handles firearms. I mean, how many bullets were fired safely on sets last year alone? Hundreds of thousands?

One accident, no matter how tragic, doesn’t warrant any industry wide changes. Just charge the appropriate people and move on as is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old goat

"Treat all guns as if they are loaded. .

---

Is Daniel Day Lewis thinking about gun safety protocol as he waives a gun around recklessly in character? He assumes the staff around him has properly done their job, so he can focus all his attention on doing his job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old goat

Anyone who handles a firearm is responsible for knowing if it's loaded and with what. Not something you take for granted or someone else's word for. The same applies to all potentially dangerous activites--flying, surgery come to mind. A lot of people die because someone took someone else's word for it or assumed someone else checked or otherwise did their job.
I imagine actors, the rich ones at least, get used to having people do stuff for them.

---

Oh stop

It was loaded

It was supposed to be loaded

It was not supposed to be loaded with a bullet


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

I've learned the hard way, and too many times, that assuming that the people around you are doing thier jobs is a bad idea. Trust and verify.

I'm a little shocked by the deference so many of you give the movie industry that you would never give other industries and govt agencies.

As far as the argument that one fatal incident should not change practice--the reason air travel is so safe is that one unique crash is all it takes to change practices and regulations. (Unless the plane is a 737 Max, then it takes two.),

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kathleenturneroverdrive

The funny thing about all the “gun experts” in here is their opinions don’t line up with the reality of a typical set. The Armorers I’ve worked with would likely tossed an actor off set if the actor started inspecting their weapon/bullets.

---

The Rust armorer was young and inexperienced. Having worked on movie sets I can easily imagine that she was possibly marginalized, ignored, and overrun by the directors, actors, and other crew because of her inexperience and possibly her gender. I’ve seen that. Especially if the directors, producer/lead actor is a narcissist.

Just sayin’

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old goat

I've learned the hard way, and too many times, that assuming that the people around you are doing thier jobs is a bad idea. Trust and verify.
,

---

There's a limit though, isn't there?

Here's an example: you are/were in medicine, right? Did you ever give a patient an injection? Before doing so, did you personally verify precisely what was in the vial? (test it in a lab to determine it was exactly what it was labeled as being?)

Nobody would do that.



Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk

People saying "what if it was a car and the brake lines failed" are missing the point that a gun is a weapon and a car is not. Yes, a car can become a weapon, but a gun is designed to kill people. To me that matters. This case isn't about Alec Baldwin firing that gun, it's about the movie industry's handling of firearms overall. Keep in mind Baldwin wasn't just a hired gun (ahem), he was a producer and co-writer of the movie. I don't think Alec Baldwin deserves a prison sentence for this, but he did fire a weapon that killed someone. There should never be a situation where this is a possibility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old goat

I've learned the hard way, and too many times, that assuming that the people around you are doing thier jobs is a bad idea. Trust and verify.

---

This

Airplanes aren’t even a remotely applicable argument though. If one airplane model has an issue then all models of that plane are at risk. If one live bullet is loaded on Rust it has zero connection to other film sets. You haven’t discovered a systematic problem.

"There should never be a situation where this is a possibility."

I think we all agree with this.

But being a co-writer is irrelevant. Kinda my point - so many of us TGR lawyers and movie producers are in here with conjecture and exaggerated takes. No one appears to be opining that a movie set (with or without guns) should be a free for all as far as safety goes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Chupacabra

There's a limit though, isn't there?

Here's an example: you are/were in medicine, right? Did you ever give a patient an injection? Before doing so, did you personally verify precisely what was in the vial? (test it in a lab to determine it was exactly what it was labeled as being?)

Nobody would do that.

---

My story’s in the cancer thread, but I got really fucked up because a technician didn’t check to see that my biopsy sample went into the correctly labeled receptacle. And the Dr./surgeon trusted that tech. Things went bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meadow Skipper

This

---

To what limit though? At what point do you feel you have verified with 100% certainty that the risk is 0%?

He's charged with involuntary manslaughter, so the prosecution needs to prove that he caused a death "in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection."

So if you're in a movie and someone hands you a gun and says it's cold, does trusting their word constitute a lack of due caution and circumspection? I don't think it does in that context; actors are put in that situation all the time, and 99.99999% of the time it's fine because everyone is doing their job properly. I don't think you can reasonably say that every actor that "fired" a cold gun on set was negligent in relying on the statements of the armorer / AD. But I think this case will mostly ride on Baldwin's role as a producer and the environment that he, at least in part, created on that set. If his actions created an unsafe environment, then I think it's less reasonable for him to rely on others to ensure the safety of the gun he's shooting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bennymac

To what limit though? At what point do you feel you have verified with 100% certainty that the risk is 0%?

---

To the extent humanly possible?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meadow Skipper

To the extent humanly possible?

---

absurd. If a patient brings a doctor a vial of medicine they got from the pharmacist to be injected - does the doctor take that vial to a lab and analyse it to determine it contains what's on the label instead of poison? If not - why not? It's humanly possible.

If that hypothetical situation arose we would expect ultimately it wouldn't be seen to be the doctors fault. Just like it might not be AB's fault despite him holding the needle and being the doctor in this situation.

But sure as hell that doctor is getting named in the lawsuit for the courts to sort out - how people then equate that to automatic guilt "no exceptions" seems like a simplistic reactionary take. Baldwin might be guilty - but it's far from a sure thing just because it involves a gun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bennymac

absurd. If a patient brings a doctor a vial of medicine they got from the pharmacist to be injected - does the doctor take that vial to a lab and analyse it to determine it contains what's on the label? If not - why not? It's humanly possible.

---

Is it humanly possible, without delaying and compromising treatment?

“Humanly” isn’t the same as “absolutely.” In my mind anyway. I don’t want to get all reductio ad absurdum on this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The AD

Keep in mind Baldwin wasn't just a hired gun (ahem), he was a producer and co-writer of the movie.

---

I could theoretically see a situation where the head producer is so negligent in hiring and managing the armorer that they are criminally liable. But that's not the prosecutor's theory here, at least from what I have read.

And if Baldin is criminally liable because he is a co-producer, why aren't the other producers charged? Baldwin will call them all at trial, and they will plead the 5th in front of the jury (and look guilty as hell when they do it). It's an empty chair defense (the real guilty party isn't even on trial).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by toast2266

actors are put in that situation all the time, and 99.99999% of the time it's fine because everyone is doing their job properly.

---

If Baldwin is guilty of involuntary manslaughter, that would mean every actor in history who pointed a "cold" gun without checking is guilty of attempted involuntary manslaughter (or some kind of misdemeanor reckless endangerment). You don't have to complete the crime to be guilty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altasnob

If Baldwin is guilty of involuntary manslaughter, that would mean every actor in history who pointed a "cold" gun without checking is guilty of attempted involuntary manslaughter (or some kind of misdemeanor reckless endangerment). You don't have to complete the crime to be guilty.

---

It'll be tough to convict all of those actors of involuntary manslaughter given that no one died. A dead body is a fairly critical element of that crime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SumJongGuy

Who ACTUALLY LOADED THE GUN? Did they ever determine/disclose that? The fact they couldn't pinpoint where the fucking real bullets came from supports High Country's "shitshow" desctiption.

---

Some dingbat 22 yr old girl was the armorer. Listening to her sound bites when this happened was unbelievable. Her dad's been doing it a while. She was new in the family business. Literally unreal she was in charge.