Alec Baldwin WTF

[altasnob]

Doctors don't injecct drugs in a code.

There are laws and written procedures for how meds are injected, correct? Last I checked, their weren't any universally accepted written procedures on how to handle guns on low budget film sets.

Ya, it would be great if actors checked the gun before pointing it towards anyone. Maybe there should even be a law requiring it. But you don't get to establish new law by charging someone.

At trial, the prosecutor will round up a bunch of actors and armorers who will testify that Baldwin should have checked the gun. And Baldwin will call all his actor and armorer buddies who will come in and say that it is not normal procedure for the actor to check, and that the actor relies on the armorer for safety protocol. Tie goes to the defendant.

I don't want actors to have to worry about safety protocol on the set. I want them to act. If necessary, I want them to get all coked up and act like Chevy Chase and John Belushi. I want them to become completely immersed in the role, like Joquin Phoenix as joker, who is too focused to give a shit about safety. Acting is an art. Let them be artists.

[altasnob]

Baldin is charged with involuntary manslaughter--that means he didn't intend to kill anyone and that there were actions he could have taken that would have prevented the death

The New Mexico law Baldwin has been charged with says:

"Involuntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to felony, or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection."

The phrase "without due caution and circumspection" has been held to involve the concept of "criminal negligence," which concept includes conduct which is reckless, wanton or willful.

https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mex...ection-30-2-3/

[altasnob]

Don’t forget, he lied.

I don't think Baldwin's credibility, or lack there of, really matters in this case. We all agree he killed someone. So what if he pulled the trigger, or the gun just accidentally went off. The prosecutor's theory is that Baldwin should have known it was normal for the actor to first check the gun before pointing it at someone. The crux of this case is whether that is normal practice in the industry. What Baldwin has to say about that is somewhat meaningless. It will come down to each side's "expert" witnesses.

[kathleenturneroverdrive]

Last I checked, their weren't any universally accepted written procedures on how to handle guns on low budget film sets.

I agree with a lot of your post but one small thing is that I believe Rust was a Union shoot. So they would have been expected to follow those procedures which typically put most all the responsibility on armorers/props.

The funny thing about all the “gun experts” in here is their opinions don’t line up with the reality of a typical set. The Armorers I’ve worked with would likely tossed an actor off set if the actor started inspecting their weapon/bullets.

[old goat]

There are laws and written procedures for how meds are injected, correct? Last I checked, their weren't any universally accepted written procedures on how to handle guns on low budget film sets.

Ya, it would be great if actors checked the gun before pointing it towards anyone. Maybe there should even be a law requiring it. But you don't get to establish new law by charging someone.

At trial, the prosecutor will round up a bunch of actors and armorers who will testify that Baldwin should have checked the gun. And Baldwin will call all his actor and armorer buddies who will come in and say that it is not normal procedure for the actor to check, and that the actor relies on the armorer for safety protocol. Tie goes to the defendant.

I don't want actors to have to worry about safety protocol on the set. I want them to act. If necessary, I want them to get all coked up and act like Chevy Chase and John Belushi. I want them to become completely immersed in the role, like Joquin Phoenix as joker, who is too focused to give a shit about safety. Acting is an art. Let them be artists.

AFAIK there are no laws regarding how to confirm the right drug is going into the right patient. There are regulations at the state, Joint Commission, and hospital level. Maybe at the fed level I don't know. There are various lists of various gun safety procedures--they vary, but the one to treat every gun is loaded is universal. These lists are on the websites of gun selleres and gun industry reps, among other places. California's is one of the more expansive and bears most directly on the circumstances. Rule 1 "Treat all guns as if they are loaded. Always assume that a gun is loaded even if you think it is unloaded. Every time a gun is handled for any reason, check to see that it is unloaded. If you are unable to check a gun to see if it is unloaded, leave it alone and seek help from someone more knowledgeable about guns."

AFAIK there is no law that says you have to follow the rules (unike the skier responsibility code, which is the law in many states0. Some states require gun safety courses--NM requires them for concealed carry only (I guess so you don't shoot yourself.)

The outcome I would like to see is a conviction, probation and community service, a change in practice in the industry that mandates firearm safety training for people handling firearms, and no one gets shot on a movie set.

[kathleenturneroverdrive]

The outcome I would like to see is a conviction, probation and community service, a change in practice in the industry that mandates firearm safety training for people handling firearms, and no one gets shot on a movie set.

The movie industry’s track record of firearm safety is ridiculously high. I’d bet it’s better than any other work environment on earth that routinely handles firearms. I mean, how many bullets were fired safely on sets last year alone? Hundreds of thousands?

One accident, no matter how tragic, doesn’t warrant any industry wide changes. Just charge the appropriate people and move on as is.

[altasnob]

"Treat all guns as if they are loaded. .

Is Daniel Day Lewis thinking about gun safety protocol as he waives a gun around recklessly in character? He assumes the staff around him has properly done their job, so he can focus all his attention on doing his job.

[DBdude]

Anyone who handles a firearm is responsible for knowing if it's loaded and with what. Not something you take for granted or someone else's word for. The same applies to all potentially dangerous activites--flying, surgery come to mind. A lot of people die because someone took someone else's word for it or assumed someone else checked or otherwise did their job.
I imagine actors, the rich ones at least, get used to having people do stuff for them.

Oh stop

It was loaded

It was supposed to be loaded

It was not supposed to be loaded with a bullet


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[old goat]

I've learned the hard way, and too many times, that assuming that the people around you are doing thier jobs is a bad idea. Trust and verify.

I'm a little shocked by the deference so many of you give the movie industry that you would never give other industries and govt agencies.

As far as the argument that one fatal incident should not change practice--the reason air travel is so safe is that one unique crash is all it takes to change practices and regulations. (Unless the plane is a 737 Max, then it takes two.),

[Meadow Skipper]

The funny thing about all the “gun experts” in here is their opinions don’t line up with the reality of a typical set. The Armorers I’ve worked with would likely tossed an actor off set if the actor started inspecting their weapon/bullets.

The Rust armorer was young and inexperienced. Having worked on movie sets I can easily imagine that she was possibly marginalized, ignored, and overrun by the directors, actors, and other crew because of her inexperience and possibly her gender. I’ve seen that. Especially if the directors, producer/lead actor is a narcissist.

Just sayin’

[El Chupacabra]

I've learned the hard way, and too many times, that assuming that the people around you are doing thier jobs is a bad idea. Trust and verify.
,

There's a limit though, isn't there?

Here's an example: you are/were in medicine, right? Did you ever give a patient an injection? Before doing so, did you personally verify precisely what was in the vial? (test it in a lab to determine it was exactly what it was labeled as being?)

Nobody would do that.



Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk

[The AD]

People saying "what if it was a car and the brake lines failed" are missing the point that a gun is a weapon and a car is not. Yes, a car can become a weapon, but a gun is designed to kill people. To me that matters. This case isn't about Alec Baldwin firing that gun, it's about the movie industry's handling of firearms overall. Keep in mind Baldwin wasn't just a hired gun (ahem), he was a producer and co-writer of the movie. I don't think Alec Baldwin deserves a prison sentence for this, but he did fire a weapon that killed someone. There should never be a situation where this is a possibility.

[Meadow Skipper]

I've learned the hard way, and too many times, that assuming that the people around you are doing thier jobs is a bad idea. Trust and verify.

This

[kathleenturneroverdrive]

Airplanes aren’t even a remotely applicable argument though. If one airplane model has an issue then all models of that plane are at risk. If one live bullet is loaded on Rust it has zero connection to other film sets. You haven’t discovered a systematic problem.

[bennymac]

"There should never be a situation where this is a possibility."

I think we all agree with this.

But being a co-writer is irrelevant. Kinda my point - so many of us TGR lawyers and movie producers are in here with conjecture and exaggerated takes. No one appears to be opining that a movie set (with or without guns) should be a free for all as far as safety goes.

[Meadow Skipper]

There's a limit though, isn't there?

Here's an example: you are/were in medicine, right? Did you ever give a patient an injection? Before doing so, did you personally verify precisely what was in the vial? (test it in a lab to determine it was exactly what it was labeled as being?)

Nobody would do that.

My story’s in the cancer thread, but I got really fucked up because a technician didn’t check to see that my biopsy sample went into the correctly labeled receptacle. And the Dr./surgeon trusted that tech. Things went bad.

[bennymac]

This

To what limit though? At what point do you feel you have verified with 100% certainty that the risk is 0%?

[toast2266]

He's charged with involuntary manslaughter, so the prosecution needs to prove that he caused a death "in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection."

So if you're in a movie and someone hands you a gun and says it's cold, does trusting their word constitute a lack of due caution and circumspection? I don't think it does in that context; actors are put in that situation all the time, and 99.99999% of the time it's fine because everyone is doing their job properly. I don't think you can reasonably say that every actor that "fired" a cold gun on set was negligent in relying on the statements of the armorer / AD. But I think this case will mostly ride on Baldwin's role as a producer and the environment that he, at least in part, created on that set. If his actions created an unsafe environment, then I think it's less reasonable for him to rely on others to ensure the safety of the gun he's shooting.

[Meadow Skipper]

To what limit though? At what point do you feel you have verified with 100% certainty that the risk is 0%?

To the extent humanly possible?

[bennymac]

To the extent humanly possible?

absurd. If a patient brings a doctor a vial of medicine they got from the pharmacist to be injected - does the doctor take that vial to a lab and analyse it to determine it contains what's on the label instead of poison? If not - why not? It's humanly possible.

If that hypothetical situation arose we would expect ultimately it wouldn't be seen to be the doctors fault. Just like it might not be AB's fault despite him holding the needle and being the doctor in this situation.

But sure as hell that doctor is getting named in the lawsuit for the courts to sort out - how people then equate that to automatic guilt "no exceptions" seems like a simplistic reactionary take. Baldwin might be guilty - but it's far from a sure thing just because it involves a gun.

[Meadow Skipper]

absurd. If a patient brings a doctor a vial of medicine they got from the pharmacist to be injected - does the doctor take that vial to a lab and analyse it to determine it contains what's on the label? If not - why not? It's humanly possible.

Is it humanly possible, without delaying and compromising treatment?

“Humanly” isn’t the same as “absolutely.” In my mind anyway. I don’t want to get all reductio ad absurdum on this.

[altasnob]

Keep in mind Baldwin wasn't just a hired gun (ahem), he was a producer and co-writer of the movie.

I could theoretically see a situation where the head producer is so negligent in hiring and managing the armorer that they are criminally liable. But that's not the prosecutor's theory here, at least from what I have read.

And if Baldin is criminally liable because he is a co-producer, why aren't the other producers charged? Baldwin will call them all at trial, and they will plead the 5th in front of the jury (and look guilty as hell when they do it). It's an empty chair defense (the real guilty party isn't even on trial).

[altasnob]

actors are put in that situation all the time, and 99.99999% of the time it's fine because everyone is doing their job properly.

If Baldwin is guilty of involuntary manslaughter, that would mean every actor in history who pointed a "cold" gun without checking is guilty of attempted involuntary manslaughter (or some kind of misdemeanor reckless endangerment). You don't have to complete the crime to be guilty.

[toast2266]

If Baldwin is guilty of involuntary manslaughter, that would mean every actor in history who pointed a "cold" gun without checking is guilty of attempted involuntary manslaughter (or some kind of misdemeanor reckless endangerment). You don't have to complete the crime to be guilty.

It'll be tough to convict all of those actors of involuntary manslaughter given that no one died. A dead body is a fairly critical element of that crime.

[byates1]

Who ACTUALLY LOADED THE GUN? Did they ever determine/disclose that? The fact they couldn't pinpoint where the fucking real bullets came from supports High Country's "shitshow" desctiption.

Some dingbat 22 yr old girl was the armorer. Listening to her sound bites when this happened was unbelievable. Her dad's been doing it a while. She was new in the family business. Literally unreal she was in charge.