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

[Justdafactsmaam]

Failure to know the law has nothing to do with the law being broken.

What law did Alec Baldwin break? Are you suggesting every time an actor is handed a gun that is declared safe the actor now has full legal responsibility for what happens?

The last three movies I worked on guns were used on set by Penelope Cruz, a 12 year old kid, and an actor who had never touched a gun in his life before that scene.

They are in charge of safety once a gun is given to them?

Not knowing the speed limit in an area does not exempt you from a speed limit ticket if you were speeding.

Ironically when making movies we often close down streets and stunt drivers break all sorts of traffic laws.

Should the cops be standing by to give them tickets? Should they file police reports for each crash?

Things really are different on movie sets.

It's a special circumstance (it's not cut and dry): which is why there is a trial.

To figure out the non-binary nature of this special circumstance.

Looks to me like there’s a trial because the prosecution and the rest of the establishment are trophy hunting. If it were Tom Hanks this would have never been prosecuted

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

The whole set was incompetent with regard to safety. Horsing around with a real gun is inexcusable. Firing a blank at a person is inexcusable. Blanks are not harmless.

There was no blank

 

[Sal1950]

The whole set was incompetent with regard to safety. Horsing around with a real gun is inexcusable. Firing a blank at a person is inexcusable. Blanks are not harmless.

Yep!
1. There should have never been live ammo on the set, period!

2. The first rule of gun handling, the gun is always loaded! If I'm at your house and you bring out a gun to show me, whether or not I've observed you checking the gun for condition (loaded or not), I'll once more check it for condition after I've taken possession. Every gun tragedy that's ever happened has been immediately responded to with "I didn't think the gun was loaded"

3. I don't know a damn thing about movie making but I never would have guessed that guns used on the set were even capable on firing a real live round. At a minimum I would think the barrel should be blocked, a simple obstruction like a steel pin blocking any projectile from coming out would still allow realistic muzzel flash, automatic cycling, etc; but no one could ever be injured by a real bullet being fired, the gun would blow up in the holders hand. I've seen that happen around 3 times in my 60+ years of shooting.

4. This whole deal really stinks! I don't know why it was allowed to happen but there's at least 3 or 4 people here I could find legally responsable. SAD

I know the public's consensus is that OJ got away with murder, and I thought so too, but now I think the evidence just wasn't there.

OJ, hummm, they had a load of DNA. The only "cover up" was the BS over the handling of it.
The civil hearing found him guilty and fined 34 million in 1997 money..
No one else has ever been even considered a "person of interest" in the case.
He's guilty as SIN, so the saying goes.
Back OT.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

I’m going to state my meanest, nastiest thought and leave the discussion. There’s a thing called punitive damages. It goes beyond compensation for an injury. It’s purpose is to raise the stakes for bad behavior and hopefully, prevent it.

Even with a not guilty verdict, this trial sends a message and calls attention to bad behavior. If it doesn’t stop on set gun horseplay, then Hollywood is hopeless.

How much time have you spent on movie sets?

 

[Petrushka]

There was no blank

Well, if Baldwin knew that, it was murder. I don’t understand your comment.

My point is, blanks are dangerous. Even at 20 feet they can cause injury.

 

[Petrushka]

How much time have you spent on movie sets?

As a kid I spent many hundreds of hours handling guns. If movie sets don’t enforce the rules I was taught, they are cruising for major punitive damages. I also went through basic training and spent a year in Vietnam.

In Vietnam I was in the signal corps. Our rifles were locked up. Now, if the Army has enough sense to lock up weapons in the middle of a combat zone, because they were unlikely to be needed, imagine how stupid I think these movie makers were.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

Yep!
1. There should have never been live ammo on the set, period!

No kidding. But this?
Petrushka said:
“The whole set was incompetent with regard to safety. Horsing around with a real gun is inexcusable. Firing a blank at a person is inexcusable. Blanks are not harmless.”

So everyone on that set was responsible for live rounds being there? (There was no blank involved)

2. The first rule of gun handling, the gun is always loaded! If I'm at your house and you bring out a gun to show me, whether or not I've observed you checking the gun for condition (loaded or not), I'll once more check it for condition after I've taken possession. Every gun tragedy that's ever happened has been immediately responded to with "I didn't think the gun was loaded"

That’s why there is a designated expert in charge of firearms on a set. Let’s look at the results.

There have been two accidental gun deaths in 40 years on film sets. How many accidental gun deaths have there been in private homes since then?

The protocols work.

3. I don't know a damn thing about movie making

Clearly. Which is a common problem with these discussions on an audio forum

Life is risky. Do you know what kills most film crew members? Driving home tired after a long work day. But that’s a boring headline.

There is no such thing as perfect safety. The idea that this was the result of bad protocols is absurd. None of you heard about the thousands and thousands of times guns have been used in film making with no incidents

But Hollywood baaaaaaad!!! Is much more self gratifying mind set.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

Well, if Baldwin knew that, it was murder. I don’t understand your comment.

My point is, blanks are dangerous. Even at 20 feet they can cause injury.

So are wild grizzly bears. Neither were present

 

[Groove01]

Well, if Baldwin knew that, it was murder. I don’t understand your comment.

My point is, blanks are dangerous. Even at 20 feet they can cause injury.

I don’t think your objectively engaging in the discussion as you keep going back to moot points and simply restating them as opinions.

It wasn’t supposed to be a blank! It was supposed to be a DUMMY round. A dummy round is inert.

 

[Petrushka]

There have been two accidental gun deaths in 40 years on film sets. How many accidental gun deaths have there been in private homes since then?

This wasn’t an accident. There is a difference between heedlessness and bad luck.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

As a kid I spent many hundreds of hours handling guns. If movie sets don’t enforce the rules I was taught, they are cruising for major punitive damages. I also went through basic training and spent a year in Vietnam.

Ok so that would be zero time spent on sets.

Actors act. Spending hundreds of hours as a child handling guns is not a requirement nor is basic military training or a tour in Nam.

In Vietnam I was in the signal corps. Our rifles were locked up. Now, if the Army has enough sense to lock up weapons in the middle of a combat zone, because they were unlikely to be needed, imagine how stupid I think these movie makers were.

Reality is not contingent on what you personally think.
Your opinion is grossly ill informed.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

This wasn’t an accident. There is a difference between heedlessness and bad luck.

It was an accident. You are diving deep into absurdity

 

[Petrushka]

I don’t think your objectively engaging in the discussion as you keep going back to moot points and simply restating them as opinions.

It wasn’t supposed to be a blank! It was supposed to be a DUMMY round. A dummy round is inert.

That is actually news to me, but it makes things worse.

First, if it isn’t supposed to be able to fire, then it should have been an inert prop.
Second, there was nothing preventing Baldwin from cycling the revolver, pointing at the ground.
Third, I understand that hindsight is easy, but that same effing gun has recently been used with live rounds. If the cartridges were supposed to be inert, there was no reason not to test them.

I’m not claiming murder. I’m not advocating jail time. I’m asserting a system wide failure to take reasonable precautions.

Starting with no live rounds on the set.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

Starting with no live rounds on the set.

That is already a rule. Rules and protocols don’t work when people break them. This idea that we need to personally check everything all time in every situation of potential danger is simply impractical to the point of paralysis.

We wouldn’t even get in our cars and drive to work if those were the standards.

 

[Petrushka]

That is already a rule. Rules and protocols don’t work when people break them. This idea that we need to personally check everything all time in every situation of potential danger is simply impractical to the point of paralysis.

We wouldn’t even get in our cars and drive to work if those were the standards.

The idea that there can be no priorities is ridiculous.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

The idea that there can be no priorities is ridiculous.

The idea is in place. Your perspective is unrealistic and frankly counter productive. Actual experts on gun safety and film work hashed out these protocols 30+ years ago after the accidental death of Brandon Lee. This is the first accidental gun death on a film set since then.

They knew what they were doing. The protocols, when followed, work.

Can you point to any other situation or setting with such large scale handling of firearms with anywhere near the same safety record?

Clearly personal gun ownership and all the cardinal rules you and others have touted on this thread have not had anywhere near the same level of results. On average we have over 500 accidental gun deaths per year here in the U.S.

 

[kemmler3D]

I’m asserting a system wide failure to take reasonable precautions.

A system-wide failure is what gets kids shot in schools on a regular basis.

A system that works is what makes a gun death on a movie set so remarkable that we're on page 25 discussing it, when guns on set (real or otherwise) are as common as dirt.

Obviously they screwed up on the Rust set, big time. That's not indicative of anything about the SOP on movie sets.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

A system-wide failure is what gets kids shot in schools on a regular basis.

A system that works is what makes a gun death on a movie set so remarkable that we're on page 25 discussing it, when guns on set (real or otherwise) are as common as dirt.

Obviously they screwed up on the Rust set, big time. That's not indicative of anything about the SOP on movie sets.

Thank You!!!

 

[Duke]

OJ, hummm, they had a load of DNA. The only "cover up" was the BS over the handling of it.

My recollection is that there was a serious defect in the custody chain of the DNA evidence.

The civil hearing found him guilty and fined 34 million in 1997 money..

Actually they found him "liable". My understanding is that the standard in a civil case is "the preponderance of the evidence", while in a criminal case the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt".

No one else has ever been even considered a "person of interest" in the case.

The DA's office probably believed it was OJ.

He's guilty as SIN, so the saying goes.

Once upon a time my mind was made up the same as yours is now. And I don't expect you to change your mind based on a post on an audio forum.

 

[Ron Party]

Much has been made in this thread about the fact Baldwin handled guns on movie sets before the day in question. If I'm arguing for the defense and given leeway by the judge on what evidence I can offer, I'm using this history to my client's advantage!

I offer evidence that my client handled guns on movie sets on 20, 30 or, heck, 100 occasions before this tragedy. The more, the better, because I'm also offering evidence that on each and every occasion an armorer handed the gun to my client, who pulled the trigger in each rehearsal and/or actual take and there was never a live round. Not even once.

Given this extensive history, I'm arguing it is simply impossible for any juror to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that somehow this occasion was different from the 20, 30 or 100 past occasions such that at the time of this particular event my client gave consideration to the possibility that that gun was loaded with a real bullet and pulled the trigger notwithstanding. Reasonable doubt? Heck, I'm arguing it would be unreasonable to conclude he had the mens rea and that a unanimous not guilty verdict must be returned.

There have been two accidental gun deaths in 40 years on film sets. How many accidental gun deaths have there been in private homes since then?

The protocols work.

Again, if I'm counsel for the defense and I get the leeway, I'm seeking to introduce evidence not only of Baldwin's prior on set experience with guns with no live round, ever, but also I'm seeking to introduce into evidence the fact that the last time the de facto industry standard failed was 40 years ago. As such, I argue the jury should consider not just Baldwin's personal acting history but the thousands and thousands of prior occasions. I argue, as Justdafactsmaam concluded, the de facto industry standard works. 40 years and thousands of prior occasions is a lot, seemingly plenty for the defense and the jury to hang their hats on.

Based upon this lengthy track record, I argue Baldwin had no reason whatsoever to think for even a moment there might be a live round. And if this is the case, we never even get to the second half of the test, namely, that he thought about the possibility it was loaded with a real bullet and pulled the trigger anyway.

Remember, the prosecution has the burden of proof. How do they overcome the wealth of evidence as demonstrated by this extensive history and de facto industry standard? How does the prosecution attempt to prove Baldwin did not exercise due caution? For example, maybe they seek to introduce instances where: (1) an armorer handed a gun to an actor, (2) before doing so the armorer told the actor it did not have a live round, (3) the actor nevertheless personally inspected the gun and found a live round, and (perhaps most critically) (4) Baldwin knew of such prior instances before that tragic day.