Baldwin kills cinematographer.

[Michael Scrip]

I want the names of all the people who were using this gun for leisure target practice earlier that day. And the name of the person who put this gun loaded with real bullets back on the table.

Oh... and the name of the person who thought is was a good idea to bring live ammo onto a film set in the first place!

Yes... we should blame Baldwin. And the AD who handed him the gun. And the armorer who was supposed to be in charge of the gun. And whoever the hell brought real bullets onto a film set.

This thing goes deep...

 

[theluggage]

I find it odd how fervently some seem to wish to absolve Baldwin of any culpability at all.

The title chosen by the originator of this thread is "Baldwin kills..." not "Baldwin may have a small share of the responsibility...".

 

[Fomalhaut]

Sure, there were many process/procedure failures leading up to Hutchins death. Lots of blame to go around.

Nevertheless, the person holding a functioning firearm has an inherent responsibility in its handling and the results thereof.

I find it odd how fervently some seem to wish to absolve Baldwin of any culpability at all.

Although firearms handling and safety is easy to teach to just about anyone, you can’t assume that an actor will be taught it, any more than they are taught to ride horses, perform surgery or skydive.

The safest option is for the armorer to prove the firearm is clear to the actor, so that they both know the status. That only requires very minimal training of how to look inside the chamber(s) or magazine

 

[theluggage]

Yes... we should blame Baldwin. And the AD who handed him the gun. And the armorer who was supposed to be in charge of the gun. And whoever the hell brought real bullets onto a film set.

...sure, but maybe not in that order.

I don't think Baldwin needs punishing - unless it turns out that he's responsible for mismanagement via being a producer or something. If he's a human being he's going to be traumatised about it anyway.

 

[Tigger11]

Taking Alec Baldwin's side here is tough for me, but all are claiming he was told it was a cold gun. Now a cold gun by definition means it has NO ammo in it. No bullets, no blanks, no squibs etc. So you can shoot a cold gun as much as you want, because it literally has nothing in it. Where the producers may be in trouble is that apparently the previous week, a "cold gun" was the subject of two accidental discharges by stunt personnel on the movie. You get an accidental discharge on a movie noone is hurt and the armoror (or whoever is responsible) is replaced and safety becomes a huge issue, you have two in one week nothing happens about it and a 3rd in less then 10 days kills a person and wounds another and you really have to wonder what were they were thinking.
-Tig

 

[Michael Scrip]

I don't think Baldwin needs punishing - unless it turns out that he's responsible for mismanagement via being a producer or something. If he's a human being he's going to be traumatised about it anyway.

Yeah I'm sure he's traumatized.

But so is the husband without a wife... and the kid without a mother. ?

I heard manslaughter charges being mentioned on another forum. Criminal negligence.

This whole thing is gonna be a mess. It already is.

 

[juanm]

Yep and someone's now dead because Baldwin trusted what he was told and didn't verify the weapon's status himself.

That’s not how it works. Actors are not expected to know the status of the weapons anymore than passengers are expected to know the maintenance status of an airplane.

They are actors. It could have been a movie where the plot calls for a child shooting a gun (like in Old Yeller), they are not expected to know or do anything, they are given a gun, and told it’s safe to pull the trigger.

If anything, an actor is expected NOT to open the gun. There’s no “actors verifying their status”. One example: what would happen if it’s someone who only knows how to extract the magazine, but doesn’t know how that the chamber can hold a round?

That’s why the armourer does everything when it comes to weapons.

From what we’ve been reading, Baldwin’s only fault was that when he received the gun from someone who was not the armourer, he trusted them. He should have called the armourer and asked them to verif

With a proper chain of custody, the armourer is the only person who touches it and gives it to the actor (and of course takes it back immediately after). On a serious film set (at least in Europe) the assistant director would never touch it or even have access to them if they tried, let alone find it on a table and give it to someone saying it’s safe. That’s the armourer’s job.

 

[yaxomoxay]

Actors are not expected to know the status of the weapons

Can you cite a law that causes this exception? If there is no specific law that specifically excludes actors from being reasonably responsible of the firearm, then he will be treated the same way I would be treated if some expert told me "it's fake" and killed someone.

 

[juanm]

Can you cite a law that causes this exception? If there is no specific law that specifically excludes actors from being reasonably responsible of the firearm, then he will be treated the same way I would be treated if some expert told me "it's fake" and killed someone.

But he was acting responsibly. Laws and regulations vary by country, but the person responsible for the weapon and what’s done with it is the armourer. In exchange, the actors have to obey the instructions of the armourer, and if they don’t they are in serious trouble. So like I said, Baldwin’s fault was trusting someone who was not the person in charge of the weapon, which is of course not good. He was being responsible insofar as he was told it was safe, so he was free to pull the trigger as often as he wanted, point it at other actors, at the camera, whatever is necessary for the scene. How do you think it works when an actor plays Russian roulette on a movie? The armourer would be on their ass watching them like a hawk, and the second they are done, they would take it back and put it back in the safe in their van, but they are still expected to point it at their heads and pull the trigger.

Baldwin did what’s expected of an actor. He’s not expected to check anything, he’s given a weapon and told it’s safe to press the trigger or use it as a hammer. He should have received the weapon from the armourer, not from someone else. The moment it doesn’t come from the person responsible for it, whether it’s safe or not simply becomes hearsay. The AD and the armourer are both in serious trouble, though (especially the armourer, because ultimately they are the ones responsible for what happens with the weapon).

Likewise, when an electrician certifies an installation as safe, they are taking on a legal responsibility. If you ask your wife to make a cup of tea and she gets electrocuted when she plugs the kettle in, you won’t be in trouble, whoever certified it as safe will be.

Not everything is an actual law, some regulations are not laws per se, but they must be adhered to and are admissible in court.

That’s not to say he won’t get prosecuted (and sued, of course) but those in real trouble are the AD and armourer.

 

[theluggage]

But so is the husband without a wife... and the kid without a mother. ?

Which is terrible, but doesn't justify punishing someone who did no wrong. Nobody here is saying that somebody shouldn't be on the hook for criminal negligence - let alone a massive civil suit - for letting a live round get into a prop gun. It's just that some people seem to be in a rush to lynch Baldwin.

I would be treated if some expert told me "it's fake" and killed someone.

There are very few circumstances in which pointing even a fake gun at someone wouldn't be, at best, really stupid and irresponsible, if not actually criminal in itself (apart from qualifying as "attempted suicide by cop" in the US) so it's not really a useful analogy.

In this case there was a reasonable justification for pointing guns at people under carefully controlled circumstances, and the "expert" was the key part of the chain of responsibility responsible for ensuring that the circumstances stayed controlled.

...I mean, maybe it will turn out that the circumstances were so shambolic that any reasonable adult would have said "blow this for a game of soldiers, I'm outta here before someone gets killed!" - but that has yet to emerge.

 

[CartesianProduct2014]

Which is terrible, but doesn't justify punishing someone who did no wrong.

Despite not knowing all the information gathered in the investigation I’m skeptical of Baldwin being criminally charged for the discharge of the firearm. Of course it depends on N.M. law and how they define reasonable care.

However he is also staring down a potential criminal charge for his role as a producer and the allegations of serious safety issues. Again that depends on N.M. law on their application of reasonable care.

Lastly, the burden of proof in a civil case is the preponderance of evidence…which is 51%. I think it isn’t a matter of will he be punished but rather how much.

 

[yaxomoxay]

But he was acting responsibly.

[cut]

Sorry but no. We do not know this. Is it possible? Yes. But we do not know. Mr. Baldwin, the producer and a seasoned actor, accepted a gun from an Assistant Director, an AD he chose and that had a history of firearm problems. Just for that, he's in possible trouble. It is likely that, accepting the gun by a person that was not the armorer, he had a duty to check the gun (something I'd argue) the same way he'd have to do it if I - a random dude - passed it to him. The fact that he trusted the wrong guy - a guy he knew - does not necessarily removes his culpability.

Likewise, when an electrician certifies an installation as safe, they are taking on a legal responsibility. If you ask your wife to make a cup of tea and she gets electrocuted when she plugs the kettle in, you won’t be in trouble, whoever certified it as safe will be.

If I hire someone that is not a certified electrician (heck, not even a handyman), then yes I might be in serious trouble. In this case, whoever passed the gun was not a person in charge of the gun or anything related to special effects, costumes, props, and such.

Not everything is an actual law, some regulations are not laws per se, but they must be adhered to and are admissible in court.
That’s not to say he won’t get prosecuted (and sued, of course) but those in real trouble are the AD and armourer.

He'll be certainly sued. As for criminal charges, I guess we shall see.

 

[yaxomoxay]

...I mean, maybe it will turn out that the circumstances were so shambolic that any reasonable adult would have said "blow this for a game of soldiers, I'm outta here before someone gets killed!" - but that has yet to emerge.

The question that Mr. Baldwin will likely have to answer is: why did you accept and shot a gun from a guy you know was not the armorer?

If he can't answer in a way that makes clear he had no possibility to know he had to act better (simply being told "cold gun" by someone is not enough), then he's in big trouble.

 

[juanm]

The question that Mr. Baldwin will likely have to answer is: why did you accept and shot a gun from a guy you know was not the armorer?

If he can't answer in a way that makes clear he had no possibility to know he had to do better (simply being told "cold gun" by someone is not enough), then he's in big trouble.

I'd wager (and of course this is just conjecture, IANAL) that he can’t be expected to know that he's absolutely not supposed to receive a weapon from anyone on set but the armourer. On the other hand, when it comes to the armourer, the weapon was out of their sight and control, and they are responsible for that. It might even be that the AD is found not responsible because when he asked for the weapon, the armourer should have said "I'll take care of that". And if it was just laying on the table and he took it, then again it's in great part the responsibility of the armourer for not locking it up in a safe.

Like with the electrician analogy: if I an old person asks their handyman to install a new circuit, and they do it, and there's a problem, the handiman is the one in trouble. They are the ones who should have said "Hey, no, sorry I'm not a certified electrician, I can't do that". You're not expected to know that what constitutes a certified electrician your state/country.

Likewise, if some extra was given a working weapon and shot it, I doubt he would be liable.

 

[CartesianProduct2014]

I'd wager (and of course this is just conjecture, IANAL) that he can’t be expected to know that he's absolutely not supposed to receive a weapon from anyone on set but the armourer. On the other hand, when it comes to the armourer, the weapon was out of their sight and control, and they are responsible for that. It might even be that the AD is found not responsible because when he asked for the weapon, the armourer should have said "I'll take care of that". And if it was just laying on the table and he took it, then again it's in great part the responsibility of the armourer for not locking it up in a safe.

Like with the electrician analogy: if I an old person asks their handyman to install a new circuit, and they do it, and there's a problem, the handiman is the one in trouble. They are the ones who should have said "Hey, no, sorry I'm not a certified electrician, I can't do that". You're not expected to know that what constitutes a certified electrician your state/country.

Likewise, if some extra was given a working weapon and shot it, I doubt he would be liable.

My guess there are production policies governing this.
Perhaps we should have everyone wearing body cams and security cameras constantly rolling.

There’s no denying Alec Baldwin’s role in on-set shooting tragedy

The death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins has also been painted as Alec Baldwin’s tragedy.

nypost.com

 

[theluggage]

However he is also staring down a potential criminal charge for his role as a producer and the allegations of serious safety issues.

Maybe, if the corporate responsibility buck stops at his desk - but that’s not the “he should have checked the chamber” argument being presented here.

...and if it comes to civil cases, everybody will be suing and counter-suing everybody else, the production company will declare bankruptcy and in about 10 years time the victim’s family will get $5.99 (after fees).

 

[deeddawg]

That’s not how it works. Actors are not expected to know the status of the weapons anymore than passengers are expected to know the maintenance status of an airplane.

... and because of that policy a woman is dead, a husband is now a widow, and a son is without his mother.

Maybe "how it works" should change?

IMHO when dealing with firearms, especially when they will be used in a manner such as being aimed at a person, all people who will even touch one should learn basic firearms safety techniques. Such as the assumption all firearms are "hot" until verified otherwise by the person taking possession of the firearm. This is easily taught. It is easily learned. Even by youth. It takes just a few seconds. And it'd like have prevented the tragedy.

From what we’ve been reading, Baldwin’s only fault was that when he received the gun from someone who was not the armourer, he trusted them. He should have called the armourer and asked them to verif

I don't know about you, but when there'd already been accidental discharges maybe not trusting anyone telling you the weapon is cold might've been a smart idea.

 

[juanm]

My guess there are production policies governing this.
Perhaps we should have everyone wearing body cams and security cameras constantly rolling.

There’s no denying Alec Baldwin’s role in on-set shooting tragedy

The death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins has also been painted as Alec Baldwin’s tragedy.

nypost.com

Ah, yes, the NY Post. that very serious news outlet going after someone who insulted their Messiah on SNL. How very surprising...

They do make a good point that as a producer they might bear some responsibility, but otherwise their arguments are ridiculous. I don't know what kind of movie expert says this:

“Don’t point guns at people” is the most elemental rule on sets, Wolf says.

“Don’t point guns at anything you don’t want to put a hole in.”

Actors point guns at people ALL. THE. TIME. In virtually any movie with guns, they will be pointed at someone at some point. That's why there are people whose sole job is to take care of gun safety. And no, the actor doesn't check the guns before doing anything, because that's the armourer's job, not theirs. Would some random actor know at a glance the difference between blanks, live rounds, or even know how to extract a magazine?

IMHO when dealing with firearms, especially when they will be used in a manner such as being aimed at a person, all people who will even touch one should learn basic firearms safety techniques. Such as the assumption all firearms are "hot" until verified otherwise by the person taking possession of the firearm. This is easily taught. It is easily learned. Even by youth. It takes just a few seconds. And it'd like have prevented the tragedy.

Normal rules don't apply. This is the opposite of the real world: shooting with live ammo is exceedingly rare (I've never seen it) and they are pointing guns at people frequently. Trusting random people to take over gun safety would result in more accidents than having experts do it (how often do accidents like this one happen?).
Although for the record, actors with roles heavy on guns do undertake additional training (but again, even for them, the armourer is in charge of anything related to the weapons.

 

[yaxomoxay]

t he can’t be expected to know that he's absolutely not supposed to receive a weapon from anyone on set but the armorer.

So you're saying that a seasoned actor, a producer, a successful Hollywood entrepreneur can't be reasonably expected to know that? That's saying that anyone can hand out a gun and the receiver will never have any responsibility, which is preposterous to say the least.

On the other hand, when it comes to the armourer, the weapon was out of their sight and control, and they are responsible for that. It might even be that the AD is found not responsible because when he asked for the weapon, the armourer should have said "I'll take care of that". And if it was just laying on the table and he took it, then again it's in great part the responsibility of the armourer for not locking it up in a safe.

That's the part that is missing. Did the armorer clear the weapon, or did the AD simply stole it from the table the armorer was working on?

Like with the electrician analogy: if I an old person asks their handyman to install a new circuit, and they do it, and there's a problem, the handiman is the one in trouble. They are the ones who should have said "Hey, no, sorry I'm not a certified electrician, I can't do that". You're not expected to know that what constitutes a certified electrician your state/country.

If your state requires certification for electrical work, then you might be in trouble for hiring the wrong person.

 

[yaxomoxay]

Actors point guns at people ALL. THE. TIME. In virtually any movie with guns, they will be pointed at someone at some point. That's why there are people whose sole job is to take care of gun safety. And no, the actor doesn't check the guns before doing anything, because that's the armourer's job, not theirs. Would some random actor know at a glance the difference between blanks, live rounds, or even know how to extract a magazine?

This is NOT a good defense for Mr. Baldwin. An actor might not know the difference between a live round and a blank, but the actor WILL know the difference between the Assistant Director and the armorer (especially if the actor is the same guy that hired them!). This is even truer if as you say is an action that is done "ALL. THE. TIME."

By accepting the gun from the AD, Mr. Baldwin likely sidestepped rules, regulations, policies, and common practice. The armorer was not even on the scene.

IMO the fact that multiple agencies haven't brought up a single charge is telling that something we don't know happened.

 

[CartesianProduct2014]

Maybe, if the corporate responsibility buck stops at his desk - but that’s not the “he should have checked the chamber” argument being presented here.

You might be right. The affidavit quoted someone saying it was their opinion Baldwin always acted carefully when handling firearms.

 

[yaxomoxay]

that’s not the “he should have checked the chamber” argument being presented here.

I agree that it was not his duty to check the chamber. However, it was certainly his duty to refuse the gun handed by the wrong person. Criminal? I don't know. Reckless? For sure.

 

[juanm]

So you're saying that a seasoned actor, a producer, a successful Hollywood entrepreneur can't be reasonably expected to know that? That's saying that anyone can hand out a gun and the receiver will never have any responsibility, which is preposterous to say the least.

This has been my point since the beginning: that his fault was accepting a gun from someone else than the armourer. But again, the blame would –likely– be on the armourer. As for the AD, he might be in big trouble or not, we don't know enough, but considering what we know about other events on that film set, chances are the armourer f-ed up. If they were shooting at cans with live ammo, with the same weapons they used for the movie, it must have been a **** show. In my experience, weapons are locked in dedicated vans and no one can access them except for the master armourer and their assistants.

 

[yaxomoxay]

This has been my point since the beginning: that his fault was accepting a gun from someone else than the armourer. But again, the blame would –likely– be on the armourer.

Well, criminally I don't know who is to blame esp. because we don't know all the facts. However, a series of negligent events, and multiple parties in the wrong is absolutely not out of the question.

As for the AD, he might be in big trouble or not, we don't know enough, but considering what we know about other events on that film set, chances are the armourer f-ed up.

Possibly. It seems that the armorer was outside, and the AD took the gun from a table outside. Did the armorer know? Did she clear the gun? I am really curious to see the chain of events.

If they were shooting at cans with live ammo, with the same weapons they used for the movie, it must have been a **** show. In my experience, weapons are locked in dedicated vans and no one can access them except for the master armourer and their assistants.

Agreed. Or, in 2021 they could easily mark the "live guns" (as in, guns that can be used with live bullets) with green tape that is then artificially removed during editing. This could allow for some extra procedures for those guns.

 

[CartesianProduct2014]

They do make a good point that as a producer they might bear some responsibility…

This was an interesting point too:

“If that scene required him to put the gun to his head and pull the trigger, I’m sure he would have taken a look inside the gun. Wouldn’t you?”