Baldwin kills cinematographer.

[deeddawg]

I'm not a film expert. So, I'm not the best person to ask this to. I just think that if we are relying on or allowing the failure point to be an Actor, the system will fail.

If it is simply that only one person should hand the Actor a gun, and someone else hands it to the Actor, the failure point is how was someone else able to hand the Actor the weapon?

An Actor should be acting, they should not be responsible for who hands them something, or should not be expected to be knowledgeable about a weapon, IMHO the process failed.

I bet if I was walking on set and trying to walk up to Bladwin, I would have been stopped... So obviously they do have some control on who has access to him...

People who's careers involve them carrying live guns, typically have extensive training on that specific gun. They get annual recertification, and have to demonstrate proficiency with that gun. If you are going to expect an Actor to do this with each weapon they touch, then and only then should they be responsible for verifying the weapon.

I'm not sure anyone is suggesting the actor be the sole point of validation, only that the actor be an additional point of validation since that is the final point in the chain of custody before the trigger is pulled.

All participants in a process are responsible for their role in the process. If the process is that the designated armorer hands the firearm to an actor and someone else tries to do so, then that actor should refuse it since his/her role in the process is to accept a firearm only from the designated armorer. If the process around firearms is so loosey goosey that there's not a clear control that ensure firearms are inert before being placed in an actors hands, then the actor shouldn't participate in that process.

To go back to a prior post in the thread. Let's say you're an actor. Scene calls for playing Russian Roulette. Someone other than the designated armorer brings you the revolver and doesn't show you that the weapon is inert, they just say so and you didn't see them check it themselves.

Would you accept the weapon and carry out the scene? I'd have questions. Wouldn't you?

BTW - you have an incorrect notion of the complexity involved in checking whether a firearm is loaded. It is typically very simple. It can be taught easily. A particular production will be using a certain set of firearms/replicas, universal knowledge is not needed and having the armorer walk the actors through the procedure would be easy to add to a safety briefing for the day.

In Baldwin's situation he was both an actor an a producer on a set where live firearms and live ammunition reportedly existed. He accepted a firearm from someone other than the armorer. Specifically a firearm reportedly used for recreational shooting earlier. A woman died because the trigger on the firearm in his hand got pulled while it was pointed in her direction. Yet in your eyes he is 100% completely absolved of any portion of any responsibility for her death. I doubt her window or son would agree.

 

[jkcerda]

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.

baldwin was the executive producer , crew had walked off set because of safety concerns so yes AB is responsible here and should be tried for manslaughter

 

[juanm]

baldwin was the executive producer , crew had walked off set because of safety concerns so yes AB is responsible here and should be tried for manslaughter

That's what I said. Just like with Brandon Lee's accident (it was indeed ruled an accident), an actor is not expected to know how a gun works or when it's safe. However, as a producer, he will be held responsible, no doubt.

 

[jkcerda]

That's what I said. Just like with Brandon Lee's accident (it was indeed ruled an accident), an actor is not expected to know how a gun works or when it's safe. However, as a producer, he will be held responsible, no doubt.

ANYONE that is too stupid to know how a gun operates should not have one on their hands.
they fired live rounds on the set while plinking so checking to make sure the gun had no live rounds was the least he could have done, he could not be bothered to do so and a woman died. he needs to go to jail for that.

 

[juanm]

ANYONE that is too stupid to know how a gun operates should not have one on their hands.
they fired live rounds on the set while plinking so checking to make sure the gun had no live rounds was the least he could have done, he could not be bothered to do so and a woman died. he needs to go to jail for that.

That's not how it works: the armourer is the ultimate authority on set when it comes to gun safety. Normal rules don't apply on a set; you let the armorer do their job, and if you have a doubt or any question, you call them and ask to recheck (and they also didn't respect the set rules to handle weapons either, just to be clear). Otherwise you'd be having lots of people unfamiliar with weapons –but who think they know what they are doing– messing with them and that would cause more problems. Now, if Americans insist on using functional regular weapons on set, it would be a very good idea to have actors undertake firearm safety training regularly, just like grips who have to use machinery will need to get they boom or scissor lift license.

Th armourer had already had an incident in her previous movie when a gun went off. Then again on this movie. The AD also had a similar incident on a previous movie, and people had been playing with the weapons when not working (I've NEVER EVER seen a gun not put in its safe immediately after they are done with it, not even to take pictures for instagram or whatever). Leaving guns out on a table instead of in their safe beggars belief. The AD taking one (alledgedly) and without checking (or maybe he checked but didn't know how to check, see my point about people not knowing what they are doing) and telling someone else that it was safe was again extremely irresponsible and finally Baldwin taking it from someone who was not the armourer was again very very dumb. I've been on sets that were a **** show, but never a safety hazard like that.

 

[jkcerda]

That's not how it works: the armourer is the ultimate authority on set when it comes to gun safety. Normal rules don't apply on a set; you let the armorer do their job, and if you have a doubt or any question, you call them and ask to recheck (and they also didn't respect the set rules to handle weapon either, just to be clear). Otherwise you'd be having lots of people unfamiliar with weapons –but who think they know what they are doing– messing with them and that would cause more problems. Now, if Americans insist on using functional regular weapons on set, it would be a very good idea to have actors undertake firearm safety training regularly, just like grips who have to use machinery will need to get they boom or scissor lift license.

Th armourer had already had an incident in her previous movie when a gun went off. Then again on this movie. The AD also had a similar incident on a previous movie, and people had been playing with the weapons when not working (I've NEVER EVER seen a gun not put in its safe immediately after they are done with it, not even to take pictures for instagram or whatever). Leaving guns out on a table instead of in their safe beggars belief. The AD taking one (alledgedly) and without checking (or maybe he checked but didn't know how to check, see my point about people not knowing what they are doing) and telling someone else that it was safe was again extremely irresponsible and finally Baldwin taking it from someone who was not the armourer was again very very dumb. I've been on sets that were a **** show, but never a safety hazard like that.

the person holding the gun is the one responsible for it no matter how you slice it. he needs to be charged just like any other civilian would in the normal world.

 

[juanm]

the person holding the gun is the one responsible for it no matter how you slice it.

Not in this context. Think of actors as children: they need someone to show them how to do everything, or someone to do everything in their place. Their job is to pretend they do stuff. If Baldwin were a certified armourer, sure, it could be assumed he knows what he's doing. But the person in charge of weapons on a set, of what happens to them, of what's done with them (as long as their instructions are not explicitly disregarded) is always the armourer. Just like sometimes in some movies you'll see a kid handle weapons, or drive a car: everything is done so that they don't hurt themselves or anyone, but the person legally responsible for the safety is the armourer/stunt coordinator etc. I think it could be even be argued that the AD did nothing wrong (of course he did) because there shouldn't have been a weapon with live ammo on set. Again, the armourer should have been fired by the production company as soon as something went wrong.

 

[jkcerda]

Not in this context. Think of actors as children: they need someone to show them how to do everything, and to do everything for them. If Baldwin were a certified armourer, sure. But the person in charge of weapons on a set, of what happens to them, of what's done with them (as long as their instructions are not explicitly disregarded) is always the armourer. Just like sometimes in some movies you'll see a kid handle weapons, or drive a car: everything is done so that they don't hurt themselves or anyone, but the person legally responsible for the safety is the armourer/stunt coordinator etc. I think it could be even be argued that the AD did nothing wrong (of course he did) because there shouldn't have been a weapon with live ammo on set. Again, the armourer should have been fired by the production company as soon as something went wrong.

He is a grown man who shot a woman due to his own negligence . he KNEW they shot live ammo on set just for fun so HE should have checked the gun himself or at the very least have the armorer CONFIRM it was a gun safe to use. charge the clown.

 

[CartesianProduct2014]

…he KNEW they shot live ammo on set just for fun…

Im not challenging you but where did you learn this?

 

[jkcerda]

Im not challenging you but where did you learn this?

plenty of reports out there.

‘Rust’ crew describes on-set gun safety issues and misfires days before fatal shooting

Hours before actor Alec Baldwin fatally shot a cinematographer on the New Mexico set of “Rust” with a prop gun, a half-dozen camera crew workers walked off the set to protest working co…

www.sandiegouniontribune.com

***
As the camera crew — members of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees — spent about an hour assembling their gear at the Bonanza Creek Ranch, several nonunion crew members showed up to replace them, the knowledgeable person said.

A member of the producer staff then ordered the union members to leave the set. She said if they didn’t leave, the producers would call security to remove them.

“Corners were being cut — and they brought in nonunion people so they could continue shooting,” the knowledgeable person said.***

 

[juanm]

Im not challenging you but where did you learn this?

He's assuming because he doesn't like Baldwin* and really wants to believe he can be charged. It will be very very hard to prove he knew, and even then, weapons on set are still the armourer's responsibility (unless the armourer tells you to point at the wall because it's loaded, and you disregard his instructions, or if you take the blanks out and you replace them with live ammo).


*For the record I don't like him either.

 

[juanm]

plenty of reports out there.

‘Rust’ crew describes on-set gun safety issues and misfires days before fatal shooting

Hours before actor Alec Baldwin fatally shot a cinematographer on the New Mexico set of “Rust” with a prop gun, a half-dozen camera crew workers walked off the set to protest working co…

www.sandiegouniontribune.com

***
As the camera crew — members of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees — spent about an hour assembling their gear at the Bonanza Creek Ranch, several nonunion crew members showed up to replace them, the knowledgeable person said.

A member of the producer staff then ordered the union members to leave the set. She said if they didn’t leave, the producers would call security to remove them.

“Corners were being cut — and they brought in nonunion people so they could continue shooting,” the knowledgeable person said.***

That doesn't mean anything. "Producers" as used in non specialist media outlets means nothing. That's like saying everyone who works in a factory is a "manufacturer". Producer can mean executive producer (ie people who put money in the project or have a hand in the company that manages it) or it can mean the people who work with spreadsheets organising subcontractors like catering or the person who has a walkie talkie and lets you in. Even on a small budget movie you can have 100+ people, and at least a third could be classed as producers. When there's a star like Baldwin, the "lesser" producers would tend not to bother them with day to day issues like changes in the staff, unless it's some head of department.

 

[satcomer]

Tend to think the Armor on set was the daughter of an older armor and only 24 she obviously didn't check the magazine of check to ammo and make sure the camber is clear!

 

[jkcerda]

He's assuming because he doesn't like Baldwin* and really wants to believe he can be charged. It will be very very hard to prove he knew, and even then, weapons on set are still the armourer's responsibility (unless the armourer tells you to point at the wall because it's loaded, and you disregard his instructions, or if you take the blanks out and you replace them with live ammo).


*For the record I don't like him either.

**man·slaugh·ter***
the crime of killing a human being without malice aforethought, or otherwise in circumstances not amounting to murder.

he can and SHOULD be charged. the person holding the gun is the one ultimately responsible no matter what Hollywood wants you to think.
link
from the DA.
***“Whoever handles the firearm has a duty to check it for any live rounds,”****

 

[jkcerda]

Tend to think the Armor on set was the daughter of an older armor and only 24 she obviously didn't check the magazine of check to ammo and make sure the camber is clear!

it was a revolver as it was an old west movie, revolvers are easy to check.

 

[juanm]

**man·slaugh·ter***
the crime of killing a human being without malice aforethought, or otherwise in circumstances not amounting to murder.

he can and SHOULD be charged. the person holding the gun is the one ultimately responsible no matter what Hollywood wants you to think.
link
from the DA.
***“Whoever handles the firearm has a duty to check it for any live rounds,”****

So, say it's a movie about child-soldiers set in East Africa... You're saying the 8yo actor should check his AK-47 before using it? No. it's up to the armourer to give them a non-functioning "weapon" because the actors -as it is now- don't know any better, their job is to just recite lines and the responsibility for firearm safety is on the armourer. If there's some kind of change in the regulations, and they are made to take a safety course sure, the actors might bear some responsibility.

Will he be charged? Maybe. But you're already sending him to jail, and that's not how it works.

 

[jkcerda]

So, say it's a movie about child-soldiers set in East Africa... You're saying the 8yo actor should check his AK-47 before using it? No. it's up to the armourer to give them a non-functioning "weapon" because the actors -as it is now- don't know any better, their job is to just recite lines and the responsibility for firearm safety is on the armourer. If there's some kind of change in the regulations, and they are made to take a safety course sure, the actors might bear some responsibility.

Will he be charged? Maybe. But you're already sending him to jail, and that's not how it works.

****. But you're already sending him to jail,***** oh that is funny as hell.
he killed a woman due to HIS own negligence and stupidity, he needs to be tried for that . the moron has enough money to possibly avoid jail and again those holding the gun in their hand have the ultimate responsibility . makes no difference how Hollywood "thinks" works.

 

[Beerstalker]

He is an adult actor, and producer on the film. He knows that he should only accept a gun from the armorer, and only take the armorer's word on it being safe. That is negligence and I think will end up seeing him get in trouble.

If he had received the gun from the armorer and the armorer told him it was safe, and then this accident happened I could possibly see him being resolved of responsibility, but not in this case.

All that said I just can't understand handling a firearm without checking it myself. Maybe that is just the way I was raised, but I can watch my father clear a gun and hand it to me and I would still check it myself before doing anything else with it.

 

[44267547]

revolvers are easy to check.

Not true. Without referencing the Baldwin scenario, anyone inexperienced with a firearm, it’s not easy to check. It narrows down to be trained on a firearm in general for inspection. You can’t just hand somebody a revolver who isn’t experienced and tell someone that’s never handled a firearm, ‘Show me that it’s not loaded.’ It doesn’t work like that. You need proper dry handling/training first.

 

[ucfgrad93]

I have no love for Baldwin. That said, I don't think he is responsible in his role as an actor for what happened. He was given what he was told was a "cold weapon." As a producer, I think he bears responsibility for cutting corners, hiring incompetent staff, etc.

 

[CartesianProduct2014]

Not true.

You’re wrong and @jkcerda is right. Revolvers are extremely easy to check.

Furthermore, anyone handling a firearm during the course of employment ought to know the fundamentals.

 

[jkcerda]

Not true. Without referencing the Baldwin scenario, anyone inexperienced with a firearm, it’s not easy to check. It narrows down to be trained on a firearm in general for inspection. You can’t just hand somebody a revolver who isn’t experienced and tell someone that’s never handled a firearm, ‘Show me that it’s not loaded.’ It doesn’t work like that. You need proper dry handling/training first.

you don't even have to open it, you can see through the side if it has any bullets on it.
see the shiny things on the cylinder? that is how you know it's loaded.
AB has been in plenty of movies handling firearms. his negligence got someone killed.

 

[CartesianProduct2014]

you don't even have to open it, you can see through the side if it has any bullets on it.
see the shiny things on the cylinder? that is how you know it's loaded.
AB has been in plenty of movies handling firearms. his negligence got someone killed.

Agreed.

Baldwin was using an old single shot colt, i think. The cylinder does not drop open on that type… you load/unload by opening the loading gate. None of that discredits your point though.

While many people feel Baldwin should be considered criminally responsible I doubt he will face charges. Civil is a whole other matter, of course.

 

[44267547]

his negligence got someone killed.

I don’t disagree with this. I assume complacency was a factor and being nonchalant, all of which could have been prevented. To me, there’s multiple people responsible here. I can only imagine how traumatic this whole scenario was and something that will change ‘Gun movie sets’ forever.

 

[Macky-Mac]

you don't even have to open it, you can see through the side if it has any bullets on it.
see the shiny things on the cylinder? that is how you know it's loaded...

Don't know if it's true, but I've read there were supposed to be dummies in the gun. Dummies are used in filming so that it looks like the gun is loaded.....and blanks would look the same too. So just looking at the gun without opening it isn't going to tell you whether it's safe or not.

The armorer.... and I wouldn't want to be in her situation right now....obviously was hired so that an experienced gun pro would be in control of and responsible for loading the gun with whatever should be in there. She and the AD have said she showed him the gun after she'd loaded it, and he's said she opened it so he could see how it was loaded....I wouldn't want to be in his situation either......and yet neither of them spotted the live bullet.

Even if Baldwin had looked inside the gun, I'm not so sure he would have spotted what both the gun pro and the AD missed.

One thing's for sure, there will be lawsuits!