Crew member killed when shot by prop gun on set of Baldwin movie

[88E30M50]

If someone cuts the brake lines on your car and it takes off down a hill and kills someone because you can't stop, do you go to prison? After all, you're the driver, ultimate responsibility must lie with you and you should have crawled under the car to check the condition of your brakes and make sure nobody cut them.

Is crawling under your car before driving every day the normal course of due caution? I have never met a person that held the belief that inspection of the brake lines before each use was a common and prudent act.

But, the belief that a weapon be checked and handled with due caution is a widespread belief. The 4 rules are not an obscure belief but are quite commonly known and adhered to.

 

[Twangbanger]

If someone cuts the brake lines on your car and it takes off down a hill and kills someone because you can't stop, do you go to prison? After all, you're the driver, ultimate responsibility must lie with you and you should have crawled under the car to check the condition of your brakes and make sure nobody cut them.

This is kind of a dumb analogy. If a movie scene called for me to drive a car toward someone standing up against a brick wall, and slam on the brakes at the last minute and screech up to them, scaring them but not hitting them - as the driver I would sure as hell check the brakes before running the scene (and the involvement of stunt personnel would not change that). It is not an arduous mechanical inspection - it is so simple, quick, and easily done, that to suggest otherwise strains credulity. However, your line of reasoning in this thread would suggest I have no obligation to do so, because the car is "handled" by the Propmaster, a position which I see as logically fallacious. Now granted, even my analogy above isn't perfect, because the car in question is understood to retain the function of being able to kill someone, where as "Pretend Hollywood Rules for Movie Sets" foster the perception that the guns they handle no longer possess that functional ability.

But this is where you have to be able to distinguish between objective and non-objective truth. You seem to believe the "Rules of a Hollywood Set" modify the obligations involved, and ultimate agency is removed from the trigger-puller, by virtue of an employment relationship which transfers that responsibility onto others.

And what your opponents on this thread are saying is - bullsht! If real guns are in use, they retain the ability to kill the same as the car with intact brake lines, and the 4 Rules most definitely still apply, independent of the actor's understanding or acceptance of them, or even their knowledge (or lack of knowledge) that they exist. Ignorance is not an excuse. If you are in the acting business, there are certain role-specific details the professional, studious actor has to be held responsible for knowing and learning. The actor knew, or should have known, that guns have the ability to kill people. When we're dealing with real firearms, the absolute rules of firearm safety must always apply, regardless of any constructed employment relationship between set members and actor. The responsibility to handle real guns safely cannot be contractually removed from the gun-holder by the construct of an employment relationship.

Put another way - if the filming location were in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, and the role called for Alec Baldwin to smoke a cigarette and toss it into an adequately-sized "safety bucket" not visible on screen - if he throws it on the ground and burns down six hundred thousand acres of public forest, resulting in the death of a dozen firefighters - is he accountable for that act? Or was it the "Safety Officer's" role to say, "Now, now, Alec, Simon Says we mustn't throw lit cigarettes in a forest"?

(If the Safety Officer told him the fire danger that day was low - are you still going to try to argue a contractual "out" for him?)

There is plenty of blame to go around here. The armorer was not competent, and at the very minimum committed the malfeasance of allowing her weapons out of her immediate control, and her career in Hollywood should be over, if it isn't already (and as an aside, I'm a little disappointed in Thell Reed for raising such an apparent dumpster fire of a daughter). The Propmaster was apparently not present and cognizant of what was happening. And the Assistant Director violated the safety rules of the set by overstepping his role and authority in handling weapons.

But I think what you're going to find out, to your chagrin, is that the system may very well assign accountability to Alec Baldwin as the trigger puller, not just as a muckety-muck. This would be a healthy finding for Hollywood, and would be to the betterment of everyone involved. The "Pretend Rules of Hollywood Movie Sets," where responsibility is perceived to be removed by employment relationships, is a critical failure-point in the culture which allowed this situation to occur.

Any effective corrective action to this incident must recognize this, and return _both_ the perceived and actual "Rules of Hollywood" to the objectively-confirmed, absolute rules for the safe use of firearms which apply anywhere else in the world. Any corrective action which fails to do this, is a failure in itself.

Ultimately, this will not just be about whether the rules were followed. It will be about whether the rules themselves were sufficient in the first place.

 

[churchmouse]

This is kind of a dumb analogy. If a movie scene called for me to drive a car toward someone standing up against a brick wall, and slam on the brakes at the last minute and screech up to them, scaring them but not hitting them - as the driver I would sure as hell check the brakes before running the scene (and the involvement of stunt personnel would not change that). It is not an arduous mechanical inspection - it is so simple, quick, and easily done, that to suggest otherwise strains credulity. However, your line of reasoning in this thread would suggest I have no obligation to do so, because the car is "handled" by the Propmaster, a position which I see as logically fallacious. Now granted, even my analogy above isn't perfect, because the car in question is understood to retain the function of being able to kill someone, where as "Pretend Hollywood Rules for Movie Sets" foster the perception that the guns they handle no longer possess that functional ability.

But this is where you have to be able to distinguish between objective and non-objective truth. You seem to believe the "Rules of a Hollywood Set" modify the obligations involved, and ultimate agency is removed from the trigger-puller, by virtue of an employment relationship which transfers that responsibility onto others.

And what your opponents on this thread are saying is - bullsht! If real guns are in use, they retain the ability to kill the same as the car with intact brake lines, and the 4 Rules most definitely still apply, independent of the actor's understanding or acceptance of them, or even their knowledge (or lack of knowledge) that they exist. Ignorance is not an excuse. If you are in the acting business, there are certain role-specific details the professional, studious actor has to be held responsible for knowing and learning. The actor knew, or should have known, that guns have the ability to kill people. When we're dealing with real firearms, the absolute rules of firearm safety must always apply, regardless of any constructed employment relationship between set members and actor. The responsibility to handle real guns safely cannot be contractually removed from the gun-holder by the construct of an employment relationship.

Put another way - if the filming location were in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, and the role called for Alec Baldwin to smoke a cigarette and toss it into an adequately-sized "safety bucket" not visible on screen - if he throws it on the ground and burns down six hundred thousand acres of public forest, resulting in the death of a dozen firefighters - is he accountable for that act? Or was it the "Safety Officer's" role to say, "Now, now, Alec, Simon Says we mustn't throw lit cigarettes in a forest"?

(If the Safety Officer told him the fire danger that day was low - are you still going to try to argue a contractual "out" for him?)

There is plenty of blame to go around here. The armorer was not competent, and at the very minimum committed the malfeasance of allowing her weapons out of her immediate control, and her career in Hollywood should be over, if it isn't already (and as an aside, I'm a little disappointed in Thell Reed for raising such an apparent dumpster fire of a daughter). The Propmaster was apparently not present and cognizant of what was happening. And the Assistant Director violated the safety rules of the set by overstepping his role and authority in handling weapons.

But I think what you're going to find out, to your chagrin, is that the system may very well assign accountability to Alec Baldwin as the trigger puller, not just as a muckety-muck. This would be a healthy finding for Hollywood, and would be to the betterment of everyone involved. The "Pretend Rules of Hollywood Movie Sets," where responsibility is perceived to removed by employment relationships, is a critical failure-point in the culture which allowed this situation to occur.

Any effective corrective action to this incident must recognize this, and return _both_ the perceived and actual "Rules of Hollywood" to the objectively-confirmed, absolute rules for the safe use of firearms which apply anywhere else in the world. Any corrective action which fails to do this, is a failure in itself.

Ultimately, this will not just be about whether the rules were followed. It will be about whether the rules themselves were sufficient in the first place.

Winning

 

[nipprdog]

i can't find them

https://www.indianagunowners.com/search/185540/

 

[hoosierdoc]

If someone cuts the brake lines on your car and it takes off down a hill and kills someone because you can't stop, do you go to prison? After all, you're the driver, ultimate responsibility must lie with you and you should have crawled under the car to check the condition of your brakes and make sure nobody cut them.

That's silly. A car's intended purpose is not to run people over. You don't need to check every time to make sure it isn't going to do what it is designed to do.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Like Baldwin would spring for random teenagers with iPhones! Well, maybe if they worked 18 hour days and sacked out on cots on the set.

I've heard how he talks to to teenage girls, not a fan

 

[Thor]

That's silly. A car's intended purpose is not to run people over. You don't need to check every time to make sure it isn't going to do what it is designed to do.

Unless you're the AF advisor to the Turkish AF during the start of Desert Storm and they put you up in the Ankara Hilton next to the Iranian Embassy and across the street from the Libyan Consulate...then you check everything under your vehicle before you get in it or drive it; every day...every time.

 

[Ziggidy]

KellyinAvon; I sent you a request, but am unaware if you received it or not. Please delete my account, I no longer wish for my information to be at stored on your site. Good Bye!

Addios, beunos mucous

 

[tsm]

New Mexico attorney Andrew Branca at lawofselfdefense.com has a write up and video discussing Baldwin’s culpability from the legal POV. Interesting if you haven’t seen it. Saw it originally on a YouTube link, but it was taken down there after a couple days.

 

[BugI02]

Negligence is defined as a failure of your duty of care. I don't see how a completely routine action by an actor constitutes failure of a duty to care. The actor has no duty of care to ensure the safety of the gun, there are multiple staff members whose entire job it is to fulfill that duty of care on behalf of the actor.

I absolutely think he may face liability in his role as the producer on the production, but not as the trigger puller. He did nothing wrong, unusual, or irresponsible by being handed a prop and doing as the director instructed him with it.

If a prop man 'hands' an actor a 'prop' car and the director instructs him to film a scene that will be integrated into a high speed chase sequence, but the actor controls the vehicle poorly and kills members of the camera crew - the director is somehow responsible!?

 

[actaeon277]

 

[thunderchicken]

Negligence is defined as a failure of your duty of care. I don't see how a completely routine action by an actor constitutes failure of a duty to care. The actor has no duty of care to ensure the safety of the gun, there are multiple staff members whose entire job it is to fulfill that duty of care on behalf of the actor.

I absolutely think he may face liability in his role as the producer on the production, but not as the trigger puller. He did nothing wrong, unusual, or irresponsible by being handed a prop and doing as the director instructed him with it.

Given that we know the 4 rules aren't necessarily the safety protocols followed on a movie set here is my thoughts. If you are knowingly going to point a gun in the direction of anyone, you better dang well care enough to at make sure it's empty. Even if someone (armorer or AD etc) says it is, you have a responsibility to at least have them show you it is clear and "cold" before anyone declares it "cold" and using it in a manner for which it really was never intended to be used for.

Clearly Baldwin failed to care for the safety of others on the set. Regardless if the AD handed it to him. It was in his hands, he must carry some burden of responsibility

 

[Ark]

It was in his hands, he must carry some burden of responsibility

Nope. This is magical thinking, not logical or causal thinking.

 

[Alpo]

I was thinking about this last night and remembered an incident at the Cowboy Action World Championships in New Mexico about a decade or so ago.

A crew was filming either a promo or a documentary for the CAS owners. As the film crew became more accustomed to what was happening and how the matches flowed, they kept moving forward up to and BEYOND the firing line. As I walked by one of the shooting bays, I saw a cameraman about 5 yards over the firing line and 7 yards to the side of a steel target getting ready to film a shooter.

****! I yelled STOP!!!, ran into the bay and told the cameraman to GTF out of the bay and did he realize that blah blah blah. I also yelled at the RangeOfficer who clearly knew better. The shooter didn't need to be yelled at because he had already turned beet red and heard my other two profanity laced conversations.

All that being said......

I think the Director of Photography was just as much to blame for being downrange of a loaded firearm as Baldwin. Cameras can operate remotely. There was no need for Hutchins to be in the "kill zone". As a DP, she should have known better.

I'm not attempting to blame the victim. But I am calling out the contributory negligence of a professional filmmaker.

 

[Twangbanger]

Hollywood has to choose between drama and realism. It can't have both.

If you want dramatic Sylvain scenes of guns pointed at people - you have to use fake guns.

If you want realistic scenes with the flash and bang of real guns, you have to accept the rules of handling real guns. Which are absolute, and cannot be "modified" via contractual employee relationships.

Trying to mix the two by using real guns with blanks - but handled according to fake gun rules - has been proven to work out tragically again and again.

 

[Twangbanger]

Nope. This is magical thinking, not logical or causal thinking.

Thinking that real guns can be safely handled according to fake gun rules - with good results - is the magical thinking.

When you get physics mixed up with employment relationships - physics wins.

Ignore it at your peril.

 

[Alpo]

Hollywood has to choose between drama and realism. It can't have both.

If you want dramatic Sylvain scenes of guns pointed at people - you have to use fake guns.

If you want realistic scenes with the flash and bang of real guns, you have to accept the rules of handling real guns. Which are absolute, and cannot be "modified" via contractual employee relationships.

Trying to mix the two by using real guns with blanks - but handled according to fake gun rules - has been proven to work out tragically again and again.

Yeah, or use professional stunt doubles. John Wayne and Sammy Davis Jr are dead. The newer guys are idiots.

 

[Butch627]

Given that we know the 4 rules aren't necessarily the safety protocols followed on a movie set here is my thoughts. If you are knowingly going to point a gun in the direction of anyone, you better dang well care enough to at make sure it's empty. Even if someone (armorer or AD etc) says it is, you have a responsibility to at least have them show you it is clear and "cold" before anyone declares it "cold" and using it in a manner for which it really was never intended to be used for.

Clearly Baldwin failed to care for the safety of others on the set. Regardless if the AD handed it to him. It was in his hands, he must carry some burden of responsibility

Yes.

I tracked down the article mentioned but not linked earlier, I think it is worth a slow read pondering all the points he made. https://lawofselfdefense.com/legal-...on-beginning-to-look-a-lot-like-manslaughter/

 

[thunderchicken]

Nope. This is magical thinking, not logical or causal thinking.

Please explain how you figure it isn't logical or casual?
If you are going to knowingly point a gun at someone or something you aren't willing to destroy, you dang well better care enough to either actively check the gun yourself or be shown it is in fact clear before you accept it being handed to you.

So then if you pick up a gun off a table at a gun show and the dude behind the table says they're all empty, the gun goes off in your hands... it's not your fault? Because that's basically what I hear you arguing here.

Sorry son, but that dog just don't hunt

 

[Ark]

Please explain how you figure it isn't logical or casual?
If you are going to knowingly point a gun at someone or something you aren't willing to destroy, you dang well better care enough to either actively check the gun yourself or be shown it is in fact clear before you accept it being handed to you.

So then if you pick up a gun off a table at a gun show and the dude behind the table says they're all empty, the gun goes off in your hands... it's not your fault? Because that's basically what I hear you arguing here.

Sorry son, but that dog just don't hunt

Because there are people behind you whose job it is to safe the guns, and you are specifically instructed in YOUR job not to manipulate them in any way.

If the electrician crosses the wires in your wall and sets the building on fire when you flip the switch, it's not your fault for flipping the switch without tearing the wall open to check first. I feel like I've given a thousand other examples in this thread that are simply ignored over and over. Maybe I'll bold it this time so people understand:

It's not the same as shooting your gun with live ammo at the range. The rules are not the same. The responsibilities are not the same. There is no comparison. Your NRA four gun rules are not relevant to prop guns and blanks on a movie set. You're not using logic because you already hated Alec Baldwin and your emotions dictate that you rationalize the feeling that it's his fault.

I'm completely done with this entire topic, it has completely shut gun owners' brains off. "It's Alec's fault" is our version of "Kyle Rittenhouse is a mass shooter", it's just a big 'ol emotional blob that logic and law cannot penetrate.