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

[Ron Party]

In case it wasn't evident from my posts in this thread, I just wanted to be clear that I am not expressing (or at least in my mind I have not expressed) my personal opinion about any of this. I do not wish to offend anyone here. Instead I'm looking at this strictly as an attorney who has been practicing for 38 years now.

FWIW, I have never even touched a real gun and have no intention to ever do so!

 

[Petrushka]

I would also add, speaking strictly from military experience, once handed a weapon from the range master at the range, you were absolutely 100% NOT to mess with it. Other then to take your position, fire down range, until you had expended all of the ammunition.

Once expended, you advised the range master who would confirm and take the weapon.

A sure fire way to cause a problem, or at least get yelled at - is for an actor to start messing with chambered rounds in a gun that was handed to them declared safe by the Armorer. In fact, I’d feel very confident they are absolutely instructed NOT to do this.

Edit: for clarity, assuming of course the prop guns on a set would (should) never have live rounds. Any round would be a dummy or blank. The gun was loaded by the armorer, the minute an actor starts messing with chambered “rounds” the gun can no longer be deemed safe.

I can agree that it may be policy not to mess with a prop gun that has been declared safe. What needs to be punished — maybe financially — is the absence of standards and training.

I do not expect Baldwin to be convicted, and I can live with that. But I think the prosecution is justified.

Facts presented under oath are a small subset of those bandied about.

 

[Ken Tajalli]

I've been an avid shooter, reloader, etc; for just about my entire life and will only state my personal opinion here.
Someone, if not a number of people here, are guilty of either first degree, premeditated murder, or reckless homicide.
There is NO excuse for what happened here. Movies have been being made that involve the discharge of weapons since just about the very first movie ever made. My father taught me to never have any live ammo on the bench when doing anything except shooting from day one, no exceptions. So whether I'm reloading, cleaning my guns, whatever, no live ammo around, ever.
Guns are very dangerous machines, but with the application of just a couple simple rules, they can be handled perfectly safely

And if it was not a gun, but a sword, what then?
How about a hand grenade?
How many know how to handle those?
People with personal experiences with guns, are looking at this in a wrong light.
There was no gun. Without live rounds, a gun is just a harmless prop! Just wood and metal.
all and any of those precautions, become irrelevant,

 

[Groove01]

I can agree that it may be policy not to mess with a prop gun that has been declared safe. What needs to be punished — maybe financially — is the absence of standards and training.

I do not expect Baldwin to be convicted, and I can live with that. But I think the prosecution is justified.

Facts presented under oath are a small subset of those bandied about.

I’m struggling (honestly) to understand the rationale for the prosecution being justified, if there is no reasonable expectation of conviction (or wrong doing).

Is it to prove a point, and if so what is that point?

What exactly did the actor do wrong, given the circumstances and the environment that warrants prosecution. (And would that hold equally true if it were Jessica Chastain or Meryl Streep, or a child actor under the exact same circumstances)

 

[Jim Taylor]

It is rumored that people were using the lethal gun for target practice. Ergo, everyone knew that live rounds were on the set.

Somewhere, it was reported that Baldwin himself was practicing with live rounds between takes. So Baldwin knew that there was live ammo on the set. It is obvious that he also knew how to handle the gun ... load it and unload it. From what I understood, the gun that he used to practice with live ammo was the same exact gun that he used in the filming. So he knew that there was a possibility - however remote - that there was still a live round in that gun.

That alone should have caused him to do one of two things:

1) Check the pistol for a live round.
2) Question the armorer, possibly by saying some thing like, "I was using this gun for live practice a while ago. Are you sure it's cold?".

Jim

 

[Petrushka]

And if it was not a gun, but a sword, what then?
How about a hand grenade?
How many know how to handle those?
People with personal experiences with guns, are looking at this in a wrong light.
There was no gun. Without live rounds, a gun is just a harmless prop! Just wood and metal.
all and any of those precautions, become irrelevant,

You are wrong. A gun is always loaded and always dangerous. Competent armorers know this and impart it, even with blank guns, because blanks have killed, and more often, caused permanent hearing loss.

 

[Petrushka]

Somewhere, it was reported that Baldwin himself was practicing with live rounds between takes. So Baldwin knew that there was live ammo on the set. It is obvious that he also knew how to handle the gun ... load it and unload it. From what I understood, the gun that he used to practice with live ammo was the same exact gun that he used in the filming. So he knew that there was a possibility - however remote - that there was still a live round in that gun.

That alone should have caused him to do one of two things:

1) Check the pistol for a live round.
2) Question the armorer, possibly by saying some thing like, "I was using this gun for live practice a while ago. Are you sure it's cold?".

Jim

People get distracted and do silly things. That is why all the safety rules are absolute.
If you absent-mindedly break two of them, no one dies.

 

[Duke]

The movie was a western, a period piece. Did this gun have a modern safety?

I am unaware of any production revolvers with an external safety. Some modern revolvers have an internal feature which prevents the gun from firing if it is dropped, but I wouldn't call it a "safety" in the conventional sense.

Under state law, if the gun is in your hand, you are responsible.

Is it reasonable to apply state law to the actions of actors who are in the process of rehearsing or shooting a scene for a movie? By way of example, should actors in fight scenes be charged with assault and/or battery when their punches and kicks make contact and cause injury?

I'm not arguing against responsible gun handling (such as: every gun is loaded until you KNOW otherwise; the gun is always pointed in the safest possible direction; finger off the trigger and outside of the trigger guard until ready to shoot), just not convinced that a strict application of state law is reasonable in this case.

(edit: One reason I include "finger outside the trigger guard until ready to shoot" is because people have shot themselves when holstering their gun with their finger lingering absently inside the trigger guard because the holster pushes their finger against the trigger, and people have shot others when their finger was inside the trigger guard when they took the safety off. A Louisiana governor was mortally wounded by a bodyguard who had his finger inside the trigger guard when he snicked the safety off in an adrenaline-charged situation.)

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

Not killing people does not require expertise.

It does if you are a brain surgeon

The defense seems to be prepared to blame the armorer.

As they should. It is the correct defense

The law is fairly specific: if he knew that guns are dangerous, he could be found guilty of negligence. There is no armorer clause in the law.

Could you please cite the law?

I think it relevant whether he received safety instruction on previous movie sets.

Actors don’t receive any safety training on sets. Safety training is very specific in the film industry and a matter of union contracts. I have to take any number of online safety classes as a requirement of being IATSE. We get general training and training specific to our jobs.

The real purpose of this safety training is to let producers pass blame to crew when crew members get hurt.

It’s all about lawsuits. SAG does not make actors go through any gun safety training. And the reason is because after careful consideration of film set work it was agreed by the producers and SAG and IATSE that on set gun safety would be the responsibility and under the authority of an expert who’s only job would be gun safety. The armorer.

But trials are not conducted by onlookers. I don’t know what evidence will be presented and how the defence will respond.

They will likely respond with the obvious defense. He was handed a gun and told it was clear and safe and acted in a way that was neither negligent nor outside of on set norms. And any expectations of him being more responsible than the protocols ask of him would be an unreasonable and atypical interpretation of negligence

 

[Ken Tajalli]

You are wrong. A gun is always loaded and always dangerous. Competent armorers know this and impart it, even with blank guns, because blanks have killed, and more often, caused permanent hearing loss.

You missed the bit about the sword!
A sword without a sharp end or edge, is a piece of metal. You can treat it as such.
Without live rounds, a gun can only kill or harm with blanks, in extreme circumstances at very close ranges.
There is a scene on Zardoz 1974, where Sean Connery shoots John Boorman (the director acting as an extra) at very close range with blanks.
You can see paper shooting out at Boorman's face! It was said that some paper got embedded in his skin.
He made more movies, Connery was not prosecuted.
FWIW, a pen could kill - under extreme circumstances.

 

[amirm]

Just watched the first half of day 2 trial (I was delayed so I can go at 2X speed and skip over silent parts). It was VERY eventful! The defense attorney did an incredible job. Will post when I see the rest of the trial.....

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

Just watched the first half of day 2 trial (I was delayed so I can go at 2X speed and skip over silent parts). It was VERY eventful! The defense attorney did an incredible job. Will post when I see the rest of the trial.....

Wait….what? Even better than us?

 

[Ron Party]

Just watched the first half of day 2 trial (I was delayed so I can go at 2X speed and skip over silent parts). It was VERY eventful! The defense attorney did an incredible job. Will post when I see the rest of the trial.....

Time to watch a jury trial? The luxury of retirement !

 

[amirm]

Check out how similar the live and dummy rounds are with the only distinction being the more flattened tops one vs the other:

How would an actor be able to tell such a difference?

 

[Petrushka]

It does if you are a brain surgeon

As they should. It is the correct defense

Could you please cite the law?

Actors don’t receive any safety training on sets. Safety training is very specific in the film industry and a matter of union contracts. I have to take any number of online safety classes as a requirement of being IATSE. We get general training and training specific to our jobs.

The real purpose of this safety training is to let producers pass blame to crew when crew members get hurt.

It’s all about lawsuits. SAG does not make actors go through any gun safety training. And the reason is because after careful consideration of film set work it was agreed by the producers and SAG and IATSE that on set gun safety would be the responsibility and under the authority of an expert who’s only job would be gun safety. The armorer.

They will likely respond with the obvious defense. He was handed a gun and told it was clear and safe and acted in a way that was neither negligent nor outside of on set norms. And any expectations of him being more responsible than the protocols ask of him would be an unreasonable and atypical interpretation of negligence

Those norms are stupid, and I bet they’ve changed.

 

[Bob from Florida]

Check out how similar the live and dummy rounds are with the only distinction being the more flattened tops one vs the other:
View attachment 380441

How would an actor be able to tell such a difference?

45 long Colt rounds. You may notice the length of the brass. Single BB in place of powder will make a noticeable rattle when shaken. No rattle may mean a live round and call for stopping action to investigate further.

 

[amirm]

45 long Colt rounds. You may notice the length of the brass. Single BB in place of powder will make a noticeable rattle when shaken. No rattle may mean a live round and call for stopping action to investigate further.

The investigator testified that the rattle could be subtle or strong depending on how many ball bearing is in there. And I think the defense got her to say that it may be difficult to hear the sound that the dummy round makes. She also said (I think) that a live round may also make some noise due to the powder in there, blurring the distinction.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

Those norms are stupid,

An opinion you get that have.

and I bet they’ve changed.

If you want to lose your money.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

So who here thinks these guys were of a state of mind that they should be the final safety monitors while shooting this scene? Can you imagine handing guns to these guys just before they roll camera and telling them “hey Bob, hey Chris, maybe you should inspect the gun right now and make sure that’s a dummy round. You can tell by how flat the top is.”

 

[Blumlein 88]

The investigator testified that the rattle could be subtle or strong depending on how many ball bearing is in there. And I think the defense got her to say that it may be difficult to hear the sound that the dummy round makes. She also said (I think) that a live round may also make some noise due to the powder in there, blurring the distinction.

That last sentence is not credible.