Baldwin Charged Again With Manslaughter

[Justin]

Did Baldwin not ignore safety protocols?

Insofar as he ignored safety complaints on set, and hired an armorer who didn't follow industry standard procedures, yes.

 

[Justin]

When the actor pointed the gun at the cinematographer, he was not following the published guideline.

Here's a scene from the movie Leon: The Professional where Gary Oldman points a gun not only into the lens of the camera (and presumably at the camera operator and other crew) but also directly at another actor; Jean Reno.

 

[Kleanbore]

Insofar as he ignored safety complaints on set, and hired an armorer who didn't follow industry standard procedures, yes.

AND, most importantly, insofar as he pointed what he knew to be a real gun at another person, while depending entirely upon assurance from another person that it was not loaded..

Here's a scene from the movie Leon: The Professional where Gary Oldman points a gun not only into the lens of the camera (and presumably at the camera operator and other crew) but also directly at another actor; Jean Reno.

Pointing at the lens is not a problem.

Was that an operable firearm?

Had the actor assured himself that the firearm did not contain live rounds (or for that matter, blanks)?

Had the gun discharged with loss of life, wouild Oldman have been liable? If no, why not?

What does that clip have to do with the charges against Bsldwin?

 

[Styx]

Insofar as Baldwin is culpable, it would be from the standpoint of hiring an inexperienced armorer who ignored proper safety protocols.

I agree that Baldwin is culpable, but I do not agree that he is criminally so. He hired someone, I assume they received some training, and then the Armorer and others ignored the safety protocols that should have been followed unbeknownst to Baldwin. Based on everything I've heard about the case, Baldwin was handed a gun that was said to be "cold," so he logically, as would any actor, would have believed that the safety protocols were in fact done prior. I don't believe that Baldwin had any idea that live rounds were brought on set and loaded into the gun. I believe he should be sued civilly, but a manslaughter charge is a big stretch. I really doubt that he will be convicted.

 

[Styx]

Was that an operable firearm?

Many firearms used in movies, especially Westerns, are real firearms with blanks in them. It's common, abd these firearms are pointed at others including the camera man/woman.

Had the actor assured himself that the firearm did not contain live rounds (or for that matter, blanks)?

No, he was assured by the armorer that the gun was safe. No live rounds should have been on the set. It's not the actors job or responsibility to check the rounds. All the safety checks and protocols should have happened before the actor is handed the firearm and is told that it's clear.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

The main reason I feel Alec Baldwin is ultimately at fault are all the stories of corner-cutting in the production of this film that led to complaints and walk-outs by professional personnel. Long before the shooting there were accidents and complaints and RUST was his show.

 

[ilbob]

The main reason I feel Alec Baldwin is ultimately at fault are all the stories of corner-cutting in the production of this film that led to complaints and walk-outs by professional personnel. Long before the shooting there were accidents and complaints and RUST was his show.

"Ultimately at fault" is not the same thing as being criminally liable.

Just like ethics and morals are not the same thing.

 

[Styx]

The main reason I feel Alec Baldwin is ultimately at fault are all the stories of corner-cutting in the production of this film that led to complaints and walk-outs by professional personnel. Long before the shooting there were accidents and complaints and RUST was his show.

Let me ask you this, even if he cut corners and people walked out days/weeks prior to the incident, how does that make him guilty of manslaughter on the day of? I would have to believe that he cut corners involving the firearm on the day of the incident (it seems others, not Baldwin cut corners that day), and/or that he should have reasonably believed or knew that corners were cut and the gun wasn't safe when he pointed the gun (I don't believe anyone believes that). On that day and incident specifically, he was handed a firearm that he was told was safe and checked. I don't believe he knew that live ammo was on the set, in the gun, and that the rounds in the firearm weren't properly checked prior.

 

[Justin]

AND, most importantly, insofar as he pointed what he knew to be a real gun at another person, while depending entirely upon assurance from another person that it was not loaded..

That is a common practice in movie production. That is why there are supposed to be other safety procedures in place to avoid a mishap.

Pointing at the lens is not a problem.

How is that not a problem? You are literally arguing that SAG guidelines say not to do that. This is also an example that very closely matches the one in rust, with a drawn revolver being pointed directly into the lens of the camera. A camera that is clearly handheld and not locked down on a tripod, e.g. a camera that has an operator directly behind it. Pointing a gun into the lens of a camera is the same as pointing it at the camera operator.

Was that an operable firearm?

For most tv and film productions, manually-operated firearms like revolvers and lever action rifles are generally the real thingand especially in a closeup shot, they will use a real gun as a rubber prop gun would look fake. Based on that, I see no reason to assume the gun is fake. I'm sure someone here will be able to tell us the make/model of the revolver shortly.

Had the actor assured himself that the firearm did not contain live rounds (or for that matter, blanks)?

The actor's job is to act. Safety protocols are going to be handled by the on set armorer. You may not like that fact, but the bottom line is that hiring a professional armorer for a movie is going to result in much more consistent safety than relying on someone as flaky as an actor to be responsible for checking the gun.

Had the gun discharged with loss of life, wouild Oldman have been liable? If no, why not?

The gun didn't discharge because the armorer did their job.

What does that clip have to do with the charges against Bsldwin?

You were making a big deal about how SAG guidelines say not to point guns at other people, I provided an example of a film (done under the auspices of SAG) that violates that guideline not once, but at least twice (pointing a gun at the camera operator and another actor), as well as your claims of illegality. Should Gary Oldman have been arrested for pointing a gun at two people? Why or why not?

 

[Justin]

Let me ask you this, even if he cut corners and people walked out days/weeks prior to the incident, how does that make him guilty of manslaughter on the day of? I would have to believe that he cut corners involving the firearm on the day of the incident (it seems others, not Baldwin cut corners that day), and/or that he should have reasonably believed or knew that corners were cut and the gun wasn't safe when he pointed the gun (I don't believe anyone believes that).

The fact that this was the armorer's first job doing this kind of work would be the first clue.
The fact that she's a nepo baby would be the second.

Whether Baldwin, Hall (the AD), or the Director were aware that live ammo was on set, or that the guns were being handled without the supervision of the armorer is something that we don't know. The AD evidently was negligent or ignorant, at least according to what I found, since he didn't bother to properly check to see if the revolver was loaded with blanks or dummy rounds, something that should have also been caught by the armorer.

 

[Justin]

For the record, I consider Alec Baldwin to be a complete d-bag.

 

[Howland937]

SAG guidelines say not to do that

SAG is a union. Disregarding their wishes might affect a member's standing, but it's not illegal to ignore their guidelines because they're not law. Could indifference toward those guidelines be used in developing a pattern of negligent behavior and submitted as evidence? (Someone smart step in here, please) Pretty sure that's up to the judge, though.

When the actor pointed the gun at the cinematographer, he was not following the published guideline

Evidence maybe, but not proof a crime was committed.

For the record, I consider Alec Baldwin to be a complete douchebag.

For the record, I wanted to say that previously but wasn't sure if it was appropriate.

 

[PWC]

All of the following is ignorant of whatever the Grand Jury was shown......

Early on in the investigation, I remember, it was established that the director wanted to pre-play the scene out and told Baldwin to point the gun at her, and yes, Dumb on her.

Now we all know the ergomomical grip of a SA Army feels right with the trigger finger in the guard. Doesn't take much to pull the uncocked trigger back in a natural grip. Now the SAA doesn't have to be cocked to go off; simply pulling the hammer back partially and letting it go can set it off. If he was hard gripping the gun, (unconciously trigger pulled) anything up to and including full cock and letting go will fire the gun. I haven't heard if the FBI tested how far back the hammer had to fall to set it off.

He will probably walk because I read that the FBI destroyed the gun after testing it, so now it becomes "He said....they said..."

 

[Styx]

For the record, I consider Alec Baldwin to be a complete d-bag.

I agree. I don't like his personally, politics, or stance on firearms, but that's completely irrelevant or at least it should be. It would not make a bit of a difference to me if I was on the jury, but I realize the majority of Americans allow their feelings about people and personal prejudices to dictate whether or not someone is guilty of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[JohnKSa]

No matter what they did or could have done, unless they actually accompanied the gun to thet rehearsal, and witnessed it's having been handed to the actor, there is no way that either the armorer or the property master could realistically have been expected to ensure that the gun did not contain a live round at the time it was used in the rehearsal.

That is, in fact, exactly their responsibility. By not doing exactly what you said, they did not fulfill their responsibility and that was a major contributor in the outcome.

According to Attorney Andrew Branca. that makes Baldwin culpable of involuntary manslaughter under New Mexico law. Contributory negligence by others may well have existed, but that cannot exonerate Mr. Baldwin.

I know what he says, but he's ignoring the context of the situation, as are you. "Due caution and circumspection" does not mean the same thing on a movie set as it does in a more general context when it comes to gun handling. The only way I see this going against Baldwin is if the judge does not allow any experts from the industry to talk about whose responsibility it is to insure gun safety on a movie set. And if that happens, Baldwin will have a great argument for an appeal.

The law makes no exclusions for movie sets--or for police departments. gun shops, gun ranges, or your back yard.

Not explicitly, but it is self-evident that the context determines the specific meaning of "due caution and circumspection". It isn't at all difficult to understand, for example, how something that would be perfectly legal to do with a firearm at a gun range would be highly illegal if done in a busy department store. How something that would easily qualify as "due caution and circumspection" in one setting would be very obviously and horribly negligent in a different setting.

BUT the SAG guidelines do state that the actor is ultimately responsible, and that no one should ever point a real gun at any person. I'm sure that the prosecutor will make that point, should it come to that, should the defense try to contend otherwise.

Ok, let's ignore for the moment that SAG guidelines are not law, they are not binding, and they are not the only set of guidelines used in the industry. If they try to use the SAG guidelines in the prosecution, it will be impossible for them to prevent Baldwin's defense from bringing up the fact that SAG has made a public statement he is not criminally responsible. And it will be very difficult for them to prevent Baldwin's defense from calling experts in the industry to talk about how gun safety is typically handled on movie sets if they start bringing up how the industry handles gun safety. If the prosecution has any brains, they will do their best to suppress absolutely anything and everything that relates to how things are done on gun sets and attempt, as you have, to make it seem that the context is meaningless.

Where did you get that idea? Where in the law is that stated?

It's stated in exactly the same place that the law says that "due caution and circumspection" means precisely the same thing in absolutely every possible context regardless of any circumstances or situational differences.

Did Baldwin not ignore safety protocols?

Did you read the articles I linked to and quoted?
1. There is no single set of guidelines for the industry.
2. None of the guidelines are law.
3. SAG says that Baldwin's actions are not criminal.
4. None of the guidelines are binding.
5. We can see, and industry experts explicitly note that the gun safety rules are broken on set and that it is the propmasters/armorer's responsibility to insure safety in those circumstances.

It is quite problematic to try to impugn Baldwin's actions using a set of guidelines from the industry while at the same time trying to argue that how things are routinely done in the industry doesn't matter because the law is the only thing that has any weight in the situation. You can't have it both ways. You can pick one or the other of the arguments to pursue, but not both--at least not logically speaking.

 

[bdickens]

Except for the fact that there is wide leeway given when doing things that are dangerous if it's being done as part of film or television production.

Except for the fact that your statement is complete BS.

 

[bdickens]

Here's a scene from the movie Leon: The Professional where Gary Oldman points a gun not only into the lens of the camera (and presumably at the camera operator and other crew) but also directly at another actor; Jean Reno.

All I can say is that you need your vision checked....

 

[Robert]

This went right off the rails and into the dumpster...