Alec Baldwin shooting: Lawyer suggests potential sabotage on ‘Rust’ set.

[tomtoo]

I think they should just stop using munition of any kind on filmsets and just do it in post, even if it costs more...

Or that way!

 

[litemotiv]

He should be charged criminally and do prison time. He has no excuse.

I think he has plenty of excuse. The Assistent Director who fetched and handed him the gun told him it was clear. Then there is the person actually responsible for the guns and ammo, the armorer, who was specifically hired to oversee safety. Baldwin is as much a victim here, not a perpetrator.

 

[Slayer]

I think he has plenty of excuse. The Assistent Director who fetched and handed him the gun told him it was clear. Then there is the person actually responsible for the guns and ammo, the armorer, who was specifically hired to oversee safety. Baldwin is as much a victim here, not a perpetrator.

I have to disagree and eventually so will the law, I hope. Baldwin has stated in the past he is a responsible gun owner. He has criticized other gun incidents in the past. Anyone who owns or has ever used a gun, knows it's their responsibility to ensure the gun is not loaded. They also know you never point a gun at someone unless you plan on using it for lethal force. Then you factor in, there was no call for a gun in any seen that day, which we now know of from the civil law suits, that contained a copy of the script.
If this was any other average citizen you would already be charged with, at the very least manslaughter.

 

[HiFidFan]

I think he has plenty of excuse. The Assistent Director who fetched and handed him the gun told him it was clear. Then there is the person actually responsible for the guns and ammo, the armorer, who was specifically hired to oversee safety. Baldwin is as much a victim here, not a perpetrator.

Baldwin has zero excuse. If someone hands me a firearm and "tells" me its clear, I'm NOT taking their word for it. It wouldn't matter if 10 people told me they checked it and it was "clear".

I learned this when I was 12 years old. Basic firearm safety 101.

This is what can happen when people are lax with firearms safety. . . people can die.

 

[voodooless]

It’s really strange how 3 people apparently missed the fact that there were live rounds in the gun. Also it seems the scene script never called for a gun shot in the first place. So pulling the trigger was solely something Baldwin came up with himself. Why would he do that?

 

[mhardy6647]

Of course an even better solution would be to simply make movies whose plots don't rely on people killing people.

Now that's thinking outside the box!
If only, eh...?

 

[Dro]

• Treat all guns as if they are always loaded.
• Never let the muzzle point at anything that you are not willing to destroy.
• Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on target and you have made the decision to shoot.
• Be sure of your target and what is behind it.

Doesn't work on a movie set. Guns will point in unsafe directions and triggers will be pulled or else you won't have your action movie. That is why you should not have live ammo on a set to begin with and brief everybody that even blanks are still potentially lethal. Among other precautions like checking that there really is no live round chambered.

 

[Ron Texas]

If I were his lawyer that is exactly the argument I would make. The only difference between a dummy bullet and live ammo (without unloading a revolver) is the primer has a dimple in the middle to show it was spent.

 

[litemotiv]

Also it seems the scene script never called for a gun shot in the first place.

Afaik there was a gun in the scene, but the script did not specifically mention it needed to be fired.

Baldwin has zero excuse. If someone hands me a firearm and "tells" me its clear, I'm NOT taking their word for it. It wouldn't matter if 10 people told me they checked it and it was "clear".

To me this doesn't sound right in principle. A movie set can contain many different actors, perhaps dozens wielding some type of firing weapon. They cannot all be made responsible for checking their own weapons. You specifically have people designated on set to keep it safe, you cannot rely on actors being properly trained in gun handling and being able to take the right precautions in those circumstances. They might not know the type of weapon well, they might not know the various types of ammo and/or dummies used for the specific type of weapon and whether it's the right type. It's not their responsibility at this point.

I have to disagree and eventually so will the law, I hope. Baldwin has stated in the past he is a responsible gun owner. He has criticized other gun incidents in the past. Anyone who owns or has ever used a gun, knows it's their responsibility to ensure the gun is not loaded. They also know you never point a gun at someone unless you plan on using it for lethal force.

After the Rittenhouse trial, i guess we'll see...

 

[HiFidFan]

To me this doesn't sound right in principle. A movie set can contain many different actors, perhaps dozens wielding some type of firing weapon. They cannot all be made responsible for checking their own weapons. You specifically have people designated on set to keep it safe, you cannot rely on actors being properly trained in gun handling and being able to take the right precautions in those circumstances. They might not know the type of weapon well, they might not know the various types of ammo and/or dummies used for the specific type of weapon and whether it's the right type. It's not their responsibility at this point.

It may not sound "right" to you, but that doesn't matter.

If every actor involved in a movie where firearms were used on set went through a mandatory basic firearms safety training this probably wouldn't have happened. Actors go through months preparing for roles; speech training, physical training, dieting (or gaining weight), fight training, various combat training, stunt training, driving, riding, on and on.

After the Rittenhouse trial, i guess we'll see...

How is the Rittenhouse trial/verdict relevant? Was Baldwin being pursued and threatened at the time he discharged his weapon? Did he feel his life was in danger from the cinematographer and director? I sure hope he's not counting on a self defense plea.

 

[litemotiv]

If every actor involved in a movie where firearms were used on set went through a basic firearms safety training this probably wouldn't have happened.

Based on what? Why would the actor with the 'basic firearms training' do a better gun check than the professional armorer hired specifically for this job? You cannot make everyone responsible, people have to be able to rely on professionals for this type of work. Actors are not gun specialists, and many of these types of guns require specific knowledge or handling.

How is that trial/verdict relevant?

It's relevant because if you say "never point a gun at someone unless you plan on using it for lethal force", then according to that logic Rittenhouse was planning to use lethal force at several points in time, even when he was not directly threatened (he only said he 'felt threatened', which is different).

Anyhow this is probably getting too political.

 

[HiFidFan]

Based on what? Why would the actor with the 'basic firearms training' do a better gun check than the professional armorer hired specifically for this job? You cannot make everyone responsible, people have to be able to rely on professionals for this type of work. Actors are not gun specialists, and many of these types of guns require specific knowledge or handling.



It's relevant because if you say "never point a gun at someone unless you plan on using it for lethal force", then according to that logic Rittenhouse was planning to use lethal force at several points in time, even when he was not directly threatened (he only said he 'felt threatened', which is different).

Anyhow this is probably getting too political.

Uh huh

"Plan to use it" does not mean "definitely are going to use it". You probably do not understand the distinction

And as far as "do a better gun check than the professional armorer hired specifically for this job?" Really? In this specific case it very well might have saved a life.

 

[Destination: Moon]

The whole place was set up for people to shoot at each other for filming. So all the *rules" we learn and follow at home - where we don't have blanks and dummy rounds to decipher makes these points moot.

They had a system in place and protocols for checking and handling these guns. There are numerous errors and several places that should have prevented this from happening all sequentially failed..... The first and most obvious problem was there being live ammo and actual shooting happening anywhere near the crew working at the location. Then it was a series of blunders on top of blunders that resulted in this sad loss of life.

It's funny that we're even discussing this. Today and almost everyday in America more than 400 people are shot with a gun. Every f*ing day. 365 days a year. Nothing has happened in 20 years or more to even begin to reign in this non stop calamity. And if that's too political then there is obviously something wrong with our politics.

 

[litemotiv]

The number of people here in the thread shifting the responsibility straight towards Baldwin really surprises me, and also somewhat disturbs me. I wonder why the sentiment here is so quite different from a number of other places online.

You cannot force dozens or sometimes hundreds of actors in each and every film to go through a weapons training, just because you don't trust the designated armorer(s) to do their jobs and not bring live ammo to a set or follow safety protocols. At the same time shifting liability from the armorer to the actor, since they would now be personally responsible for how well their prop or real gun works and whether it contains the right kind of ammo. No sane actor would ever sign for that, films could not be made anymore that way.

The rules on set are straightforward, from an actual armorer:

On a safe production, each firearm is meticulously inspected every time it changes hands. It means every take of every angle of every scene; the same prop gun could be checked and re-checked dozens upon dozens of times in a single day. Live ammunition, without question, is never allowed on set. Aside from the actors during a scene, the firearms specialist is the only person who handles the weapons and the only person who can open them for full inspection by cast and crew.

This person is commonly referred to as the Firearms Safety Coordinator, a title I've held many times. Other productions may use the term Armorer or Key Weapons Handler. But it doesn't matter what we are called; it matters why we are there.

It's not just about keeping the cast and crew safe when there are firearms present on set. We make sure people know the weapon itself is safe to use. Once we inspect a firearm to make sure it is empty and ready to handle, we show it to both the actor who is going to work with it and any other cast members who may have the empty firearm pointed at them. On film sets, the person most responsible for safety is usually the First Assistant Director, and as a result they will also inspect the firearm -- a task the director, producer, camera operator or cinematographer may oversee, too.

Every single person on set -- cast or crew -- has the right to inspect a prop gun. But the specialist is the only person who will hand the firearm to an actor for use, and the specialist is the same person who receives it back when the talent is done.

This professionalism helps the cast and crew concentrate on their work and not worry about their safety with firearms. The presence of prop guns should not put people on edge.

Our goal is to always have an environment where a calm and professional weapons handler can stroll onto a film set, and cast and crew think, "Nice. It's going to be a safe day."

So yes, an actor may inspect a gun if he or she feels confident doing that. But it should never replace the responsibility of the person(s) actually designated to ensure safety on set.

 

[AudioJester]

Why are you all debating this here on ASR????
Enough conspiracy theories in audio, dont need this nonsense

 

[HiFidFan]

I agree that legally, an actor would never sign up to be the final responsible party where firearms are concerned. That will never ever happen. And "Hollywood" most certainly would grind to a halt if that was the case.

 

[litemotiv]

"Plan to use it" does not mean "definitely are going to use it". You probably do not understand the distinction

I intended to ignore this because of the unnecessary ad hominem, but i'll respond to it for completeness.

This isn't a clear cut situation. Ofcourse the Kenosha incident happened in the USA, but in many other countries the decision alone to take a loaded gun/rifle with you to a place where you know you might (have to) use it against others will carry a mandatory legal culpability for manslaughter, and murder if premeditation or intention can be proven.

The USA is an outlier with it's current gun laws, and even those vary by state obviously. In Mass. for instance Rittenhouse would most likely have been legally guilty, because that state does not allow a self defense claim unless a defendant can prove beyond reasonable doubt that no other avenues of escape were reasonably available. That would have been very hard if not impossible for the defense to prove, and rightfully so.

 

[HiFidFan]

I intended to ignore this because of the unnecessary ad hominem, but i'll respond to it for completeness.

This isn't a clear cut situation. Ofcourse the Kenosha incident happened in the USA, but in many other countries the decision alone to take a loaded gun/rifle with you to a place where you know you might (have to) use it against others will carry a mandatory legal culpability for manslaughter, and murder if premeditation or intention can be proven.

The USA is an outlier with it's current gun laws, and even those vary by state obviously. In Mass. for instance Rittenhouse would most likely have been legally guilty, because that state does not allow a self defense claim unless a defendant can prove beyond reasonable doubt that no other avenues of escape were reasonably available. That would have been very hard if not impossible for the defense to prove, and rightfully so.

I truly hope you are not a lawyer. Actually, I'm pretty certain, based on your posts here that you indeed are not.

As far as ad hominem. Yes, I suppose it was. But sometimes it's hard to tell if someone is being obtuse.

 

[Destination: Moon]

Why are you all debating this here on ASR????
Enough conspiracy theories in audio, dont need this nonsense

For the same reasons we talk about bikes, beer, wine, spirits, watches, computers.....
Because it's interesting or fun? The subject is clear. If it's not what you want to read about then click somewhere else on the forum.

 

[AudioJester]

For the same reasons we talk about bikes, beer, wine, spirits, watches, computers.....
Because it's interesting or fun? The subject is clear. If it's not what you want to read about then click somewhere else on the forum.

Yeah, but none of those other topics are speculating how and why someone died or who should be held responsible!

Anyway, point taken I will click elsewhere....