Utopia Talk / Politics / Alec Baldwin claims ...

murder Member	Wed Dec 01 18:03:30 That he didn't pull the trigger. Apparently his revolver fired all by itself. -------------------------------------- Alec Baldwin: 'I didn't pull the trigger' of gun on 'Rust' set By Julia Jones, CNN Updated 6:30 PM ET, Wed December 1, 2021 (CNN)Alec Baldwin told ABC News he never pulled the trigger of the gun that shot director of photography Halyna Hutchins on the set of "Rust." "The trigger wasn't pulled. I didn't pull the trigger," Baldwin said in an excerpt released Wednesday from the sit-down interview -- his first since the October shooting. When asked why he pointed the gun at Hutchins and pulled the trigger when that wasn't in the script, Baldwin said, "I would never point a gun at anyone and then pull the trigger, never." Baldwin also said he has no idea how a live bullet got in the Colt .45 revolver he used in the scene. "Someone put a live bullet in the gun, a bullet that wasn't even supposed to be on the property," he said. An emotional Baldwin visibly fights back tears when talking about Hutchins. "She was someone who was loved by everyone who worked with her, liked by everyone who worked with her -- and admired," Baldwin said, adding, "it doesn't seem real to me." When asked by George Stephanopoulos if the shooting was the worst thing that had ever happened to him, Baldwin said yes, "because I think back and I think, what could I have done?" ABC is set to air the interview Thursday night. Hutchins was killed and director Joel Souza injured in October after Baldwin discharged a weapon during a rehearsal that contained what authorities suspect was a live round. The incident, which remains under investigation, has renewed calls for better safety practices on sets with regards to the use of weapons. Baldwin has said he believes police officers should be present on "every film/TV set that uses guns, fake or otherwise" to monitor weapons safety. http://www...c-baldwin-interview/index.html
Rugian Member	Wed Dec 01 18:54:48 Sounds like someone got himself a lawyer.
nhill Member	Wed Dec 01 19:00:32 > When asked by George Stephanopoulos if the shooting was the worst thing that had ever happened to him, Baldwin said yes, "because I think back and I think, what could I have done?" Correct response. You could have verified it was a blank, you dumbass.
Habebe Member	Wed Dec 01 19:09:10 Yeah he lawyered up. He won't face much if any criminal issues.But he will have to live with himself knowing his negligence killed a woman.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Wed Dec 01 21:59:09 which will actually bother him
Sam Adams Member	Wed Dec 01 22:07:15 Liberals who know nothing about guns will believe this.
Seb Member	Thu Dec 02 01:44:38 Nhill: It wasn't supposed to be a blank. It was supposed to be a prop round. It would look very much like a live round, but supposed to be without any charge or primer in the case.
Pillz Member	Thu Dec 02 09:36:39 Which would have been even easier to identify
Sam Adams Member	Thu Dec 02 09:40:50 "It was supposed to be a prop round." Still dont point it at your friend and pull the trigger.
kargen Member	Thu Dec 02 12:41:10 If he was practicing drawing the gun as was claimed earlier and was putting his finger inside the trigger guard there is a very good chance he could have pulled the trigger by accident. Would depend in part on how much pressure it takes on the the trigger but people accidently shooting while practicing drawing a gun happens. Usually ends up with the person shooting themselves in the foot or hitting the ground near their feet though as pressure is on the trigger as they lift it out of the holster.
Habebe Member	Thu Dec 02 12:49:17 Does anyone know the model of the gun in question. I assumed it was some sort of revolver.
Seb Member	Thu Dec 02 13:16:34 I assume he would have to put the finger on the trigger. The camera shot in the final film is going to look pretty shit if he's fumbling around for the trigger after drawing.
Dukhat Member	Thu Dec 02 15:12:07 He probably feels bad though. 99.99% of conservatives don't give a shit unless the person is white and even then, if they can assign that person to an outgroup like "liberal" or "woman," they will not care.
Habebe Member	Thu Dec 02 15:44:56 Seb, That's why I wanted to know the model/make. Was it a gun prone to this? Manufacturer defect? I think George Clooney was interesting.Basically claiming that what they are calling standard procedure is made up nonsense and that they didn't follow standard procedure which is to open the gun and show it to himself, the persons(s) it will be aimed at and the nearby crew.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Thu Dec 02 17:18:34 F.lli Pietta Long Colt 45 revolver <- is the gun
Habebe Member	Thu Dec 02 17:31:20 TW, Thanks. Btw here is the Clooney story. http://www...wins-rust-shooting-insane/amp/
kargen Member	Thu Dec 02 18:00:29 "I assume he would have to put the finger on the trigger." yep, and that is why it would be easy for someone not used to handling guns to put pressure on the trigger not knowing they did so.
kargen Member	Thu Dec 02 18:19:04 If the gun tumbleweed listed is the one used the hammer had to be cocked back in full position for the gun to fire. It can be cocked half way back for loading. The firing pin on those guns have been modified so slipping while going back to half cocked will not fire the weapon. Trigger stiffness can be adjusted but a new gun according to reviews has a stiff trigger and it takes more movement to actually get the gun to fire than some people like. For that gun to fire the hammer had to be fully cocked.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Thu Dec 02 18:28:57 you would have to analyze all potential defective circumstances, can't assume it's in intended operational order
tumbleweed the wanderer	Thu Dec 02 18:34:57 this guy does say Baldwin's claim is possible (you people can argue it out if you want): http://the...thout-him-pulling-the-trigger/ " However, a single-action revolver with the old-style firing mechanism can fire without either the hammer being cocked or the trigger being pulled. When the hammer is down on that kind of revolver, the firing pin protrudes and, if a live round is loaded in the chamber underneath, a sharp enough jolt can cause the pin to strike the round’s primer with enough force to set it off. "
tumbleweed the wanderer	Thu Dec 02 18:35:40 ^requires more specific info about gun than we have probably
Habebe Member	Thu Dec 02 18:54:23 I think its more important to look into Clooney's claim. What is normal procedure? Honestly I dont know. But Clooney who has fired dozens of guns in movies has said and seems to be agreed upon by those that worked with him that what the rust set is claiming is normal behaviour saying cold gun is not normal and is "insane". If that's true it goes back to what much of this forum said, he was negligent.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Dec 02 19:21:05 "they didn't follow standard procedure which is to open the gun and show it to himself, the persons(s) it will be aimed at and the nearby crew." Clooney is obviously not nearly as incompetent as Baldwin.
kargen Member	Thu Dec 02 20:11:35 "However, a single-action revolver with the old-style firing mechanism can fire without either the hammer being cocked or the trigger being pulled." The gun you said was used doesn't have that kind of firing pin. That is something replica collectors complain about and switch out when they get the gun. The videos and articles I read/watched say the gun gun is sold with the safe modern firing pin but can be switched out. Maybe that gun had the firing pin switched out because it would be used in close-up shots? And even then a sharp jolt isn't something than happens when drawing the gun. It takes dropping the gun and it landing just right or something like that. The armorer (not that we can really trust her) says someone must have cocked the gun before taking it on set. I am saying is he could have pulled the trigger and not realized it. People with much more experience than him have accidently discharged a weapon. But others had to make mistakes for that to happen. Either he was given a cocked and loaded gun or he cocked it himself.
Rugian Member	Mon Dec 06 19:03:40 Baldwin deleted his Twitter. Looks like po po is coming for his ass...
murder Member	Mon Dec 06 19:06:16 What he needs to do is delete his mouth.
Seb Member	Tue Dec 07 04:28:13 Habebe: "I think its more important to look into Clooney's claim. What is normal procedure? Honestly I dont know. But Clooney who has fired dozens of guns in movies has said and seems to be agreed upon by those that worked with him that what the rust set is claiming is normal behaviour saying cold gun is not normal and is "insane"" I think we know that already - other armourers have said the normal procedure is the armourer to check the gun in front of the actor and everyone on set. That's a minor variant on Clooney's "do it myself". All the accounts of "proper procedure" emphasise the armourer being in control and actively managing the guns at all time, whether loaded with blanks, dummy prop rounds, or unloaded. Given what tumbleweed quoted - I'm still of the mind that actors shouldn't be messing with the gun. Have the armourer do it slowly and carefully right up next to observers.
Seb Member	Tue Dec 07 04:31:19 Kargen: "Either he was given a cocked and loaded gun or he cocked it himself." Entirely possible. In the scene he is practicing, he is pulling a gun out and firing it at someone breaking into a church IIRC. So it makes sense he is practicing pulling and cocking the gun and firing it in a fluid motion. Still think this is fundamentally about criminal gross negligence by the production company and officials charged with safety (Assistant Director and Armourer) - and very little to do with Alec Baldwin (as an actor at least - he is a producer, though whether that is materiel or just for show I'm not clear on).
murder Member	Tue Dec 07 07:12:11 "Have the armourer do it slowly and carefully right up next to observers." If I am going to handle the gun, then I am going to check the gun myself. I don't give a rats ass if the armorer just checked it in front of everyone. If I'm handling a gun, then the gun is MY responsibility. "All the accounts of "proper procedure" emphasise the armourer being in control and actively managing the guns at all time, whether loaded with blanks, dummy prop rounds, or unloaded." This is bananas! Moviemaking proper procedure does not trump gun handling proper procedure. One is relevant only to the movie industry and their insurers. The other one determines whether you spend the next decade cozying up to your cellmate. And however guilty the armorer may be, there is nothing she could have done to stop Baldwin from pointing the barrel at someone and either pulling the trigger or dropping the hammer and setting off the round. There is no circumstance in which it is acceptable to mess with the trigger or the hammer while someone is in the line of fire.
jergul large member	Tue Dec 07 08:50:10 Seb Are you taking notes? The gun cult has many liturgies to keep up with. Murder Home safety tips are nice. But in a workplace setting, the workplace has to have procedures for handling dangerous equipment. Those can and should be reviewed to see if they were sufficient and if they were followed. Not following is an employee blame issue. Not sufficient is an employer blame issue. Tampering with is definitely a criminal blame issue.
jergul large member	Tue Dec 07 08:52:58 The employer is also responsible if the procedure is practically impossible to follow. Say by not giving the armorer enough time to follow it. This is probably the case as she had two different jobs, both of them full time on set, right?
murder Member	Tue Dec 07 09:54:34 However negligent and responsible the armorer may be ... she did not kill Halyna Hutchins. The armorer could have intentionally loaded the gun with 6 live rounds, and nobody dies if Alec Baldwin doesn't dick with the trigger or the hammer while someone is in the line of fire.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Dec 07 10:04:38 "If I'm handling a gun, then the gun is MY responsibility." Correct. Seb and jergul, typical leftists, do not understand either guns or personal responsibility. That explains these threads.
Seb Member	Tue Dec 07 10:25:55 Murder: "proper gun handling procedure" emphasises personal responsibility. Work place safety emphasises corporate responsibility - particularly of lethally dangerous equipment. No, ad-hoc codes of practice for managing personal liability are not sufficient or adequate. Guns are nowhere near as lethal as stuff regulated in the workplace. This idea that there is one true approach to safety that is abstracted from context is real mickey mouse stuff.
jergul large member	Tue Dec 07 10:27:07 Murder I am not sure she is responsible. She was hired to do two full-time jobs and may not have been qualified for the armorer part. To me, that indicates a significant employer responsibility. Sammy What is your fixation with "gun"? It was a dangerous piece of equipment an employee was required to handle in proximity to other people. What were the employer procedures and were they followed? Was the piece of equipment tampered with before the employee was given it? So, unless the employee contract stipulated he had a gun fetish and was obligated to know and follow the liturgies of that cult at all times... ...Then I am afraid normal workplace standards will have to apply.
Seb Member	Tue Dec 07 10:32:51 Bottom line: Workplace safety is not a uniquely personal responsibility.
Seb Member	Tue Dec 07 10:41:24 murder: "she did not kill Halyna Hutchins." That's not obvious at all - I can quite clearly see a basis for corporate manslaughter. If this had been a big old tank of chemicals that blew up because the fire safety systems hadn't been maintained through sheer negligence; and that killed a bunch of people, it would not be on the chap who turned the valve - even if they should have double checked the fire suppression system - it would be on the person who was negligent in not maintaining the fire suppression systems; and whoever is supposed to be assuring that this person should be doing their job. That doesn't magically change because it's a gun and you want to pretend we are all rugged individuals.
Seb Member	Tue Dec 07 10:43:39 jergul: "To me, that indicates a significant employer responsibility." They may also be responsible - but hiring an incompetent person into a role doesn't normally resolve the person of being incompetent. It depends on her JD.
jergul large member	Tue Dec 07 11:18:53 Seb More the part of having two jobs, but hiring someone obviously unqualified makes it an employer responsibility. She may be in trouble too, but that was beside to point I was making.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Dec 07 13:18:10 Lol euros trying to understand guns. Like toddlers trying to walk.
jergul large member	Tue Dec 07 13:19:08 Lol sammy trying to understand procedures. Like a toddler trying to predict weather.
jergul large member	Tue Dec 07 13:22:52 Its like so stupid. Gun safety is easy. Store weapon in weapon safe, store bolt and ammo somewhere else that you can access within 30 minutes if you need to. Your problem is imagining you need a weapon with less than 30 minutes warning, because, like, you never know when the voices in your head will tell you to end yourself.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Dec 07 14:18:55 toddler talk. Lol
jergul large member	Tue Dec 07 14:31:15 I cited Norwegian military safeguard rules for service weapons at home. You are in a cult sammy. As with all cults, you have fucking strange rules. Because who knows when you will be called to end yourself. Which is what you use your guns for statistically when applying deadly force.
Habebe Member	Tue Dec 07 14:35:02 Sammy seems to have really got under Jerguls skin.He doesn't like being dissmissed without being heard out.
Seb Member	Tue Dec 07 17:15:56 It looks the other way around from here. It looks like you guys are super triggered that we don't treat guns as a special case. I think that's because on some level, you think guns make you special - both as individuals and as a country. The idea you'd treat them like dangerous industrial machinery seems to almost offend you: turning them into meer equipment rather than dangerous instruments that give the user power over death. Like I said, regulatory principles that apply to something as dangerous as an LPG facility or a nuclear power plant easily work for guns.
murder Member	Tue Dec 07 17:37:03 "It looks like you guys are super triggered that we don't treat guns as a special case." Killing people out of recklessness and laziness is a special case. There is zero reason not to take a gun safety course if you're going to be handling a firearm. These retards spend weeks working on their stupid accents or putting on weight or random other crap. It isn't too much to ask that they value the lives of their coworkers. It's nothing at all. It's as little to ask as wearing a mask or getting vaccinated.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Dec 07 17:40:24 "we don't treat guns as a special case" From a regulatory perspective though the intended use of said machinery is probably the biggest influencing factor on what kind of regulatory standards that apply. What is the intended use of guns? I can't find a lot crossover between guns and any other categories of "dangerous machinery" to be honest.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Dec 07 18:47:22 "I cited Norwegian" Right. Like i said... euro toddlers. "It looks like you guys are super triggered that we don't treat guns" Hardly. I could care less what you do with your guns over there in retardville, so long as you keep that retardation over there. when you toddlers fuck up and negligent discharge, like baldwin, i'll be far beyond your effective range. It is funny that you try to insert yourself into a subject in which you have 0 ability though. Its like a trumper trying to talk about vaccines. Kindof funny to watch and make fun of, thats about it.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Dec 07 18:56:25 " Killing people out of recklessness and laziness is a special case. There is zero reason not to take a gun safety course" The sad part is they didnt even need a whole course. Its almost the easiest safety rules ever. You can sum up basic gun safety in about 3 short sentences. Any one of which, if followed, would have saved baldwin from killing that chick. Its just barely more difficult than teaching toddlers not to touch hot stoves and not to play in the road.
jergul large member	Wed Dec 08 01:51:12 Sammy Lern histery dude. We don't have cult instructions to be able to off ourselves at any time. You do. That is the difference. Nimi The intended purpose of guns is to commit suicide as statistics prove. The burden of regulations is not based on purpose, but on risk (= likelihood x consequence). It is an employer responsibility to minimize risk. Habebe What is up with replublitards and projection?
jergul large member	Wed Dec 08 02:33:26 My takeaway is that Sammy and Murder favour mandatory weapon safety classes as a prerequisite for handling firearms. A driver's license for guns so to speak. Like they do in DC.
Habebe Member	Wed Dec 08 02:37:02 Jergul, That doesn't even make sense here.Its like a go to "Im rubber your glue" statement but how would Sammy pissing you off have anything to do with me projecting?
Seb Member	Wed Dec 08 03:28:16 Murder: Recklessness is exactly describes the armorer and assistant directors role here. A basic gun safety course isn't going to enable you to tell the difference between live rounds and prop rounds designed to look exactly like live rounds on close up high def footage. Given what has been made public, that the gun was loaded with a mix of these - it suggests to me that even if someone with basic training had checked the gun, they probably would have assumed the live rounds were props. It was the armourers responsibility to provide assurances that the prop rounds were inert, and to maintain control of the gun so she could do so. It was the ADs accountability to ensure processes on place to do so (or, so I understand, that's habitually the case). Their failure to do so is negligence, and reckless.
jergul large member	Wed Dec 08 03:34:44 Habebe You guys get hysterical any time guns are spoken about. Because guns are religious icons to you. Case in point. This is not a gun issue. Its a workplace safety issue. Sammy is butthurt because his fetish is going unrecognized as something special. Seb It may not be negligence and reckless if it turns out the workload was too heavy to manage.
jergul large member	Wed Dec 08 03:43:05 US gun safety is a joke in any event as it assumes that guns have to be immediately available for use. An assumption that undermines all practical gun safety and is the root cause of almost all gun-related misadventures. You don't actually have to check if a gun is loaded if you are putting the separately stored bolt mechanism back into the rifle when you start hunting.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Dec 08 04:30:51 Jergul "The burden of regulations is not based on purpose, but on risk (= likelihood x consequence)." The intended use and purpose of things and stuff is what creates the different risks among other things. Say a locking system intended to be used as part of a fire escape route vs one that isn't. A stethoscope that is sold as a children's toy vs one that is intended to be used as an actual medical device. Or pipes intended to supply potable water vs pipes intended to supply district heating. That last one is interesting, because you find both those types of pipes near human dwellings and they both pose very different risks nested in their intended use. One has to primarily withstand pressure and heat, for the other one the risks are related to hygien and metal leaching. And in the other tail end of the regulatory framework, if you use something outside the bounds of its' intended use and not as instructed by the manufacturer and things turn out ugly, well guess who isn't liable? Intended use is the alpha and omega of regulation it sets the entire "scope" as it is called for that specific "dangerous machinery".
jergul large member	Wed Dec 08 05:03:33 Nimi Wow. That is putting the horse in front of the cart. The intended purpose decides the equipment. Lets pump radioactive water gives a different pipe and pump solution than pumping potable water because risk = likelihood x consequence, where the consequence of spilling nuclear waste is greater than spilling tapwater. So regulations specify a whole bunch of stuff for radioactive water. Anything with consequence has procedures. As it is in this case. Was the procedure followed? Was the procedure good enough? If not in either case, then why not? The answer to that tells you who is to blame.
jergul large member	Wed Dec 08 05:03:55 Guns are not special unless you are in a cult.
Seb Member	Wed Dec 08 06:13:29 jergul: I doubt that would fly - if she can't assure the safety of the guns - her primary responsibilities - she ought to have justified as such. Besides, her story is she checked the guns before lunch, locked them up, then unloaded them onto the cart and left them there. Hard to explain that in terms of workload: *why didn't she check them when she removed them from the safe? *why did she leave them unattended on the cart? *if she was over-worked why did she choose to prioritise other activities over safety procedure: why did she abandon procedure and not check the guns on removing them from the safe? When forced to leave the cart to attend to other duties, , bring the cart or guns with her, or e.g. return the guns to the safe? *What were these other tasks that took greater precedence, and why did she judge them to be of higher priortity? *Had she raised with her superiors and production team that her workload prevented her pperforming crucial safety procedures? I think she will find this line very difficult. A professional in this situation is obligated to resign, if their management chain will not allow them to fulfill their responsibilites but also not remove such responsibilities from them I'd expect them to report their employer to the appropriate regulatory /professional body.
Seb Member	Wed Dec 08 06:19:40 Nim: Or in this case, a gun intended to be used without live ammunition and thus safe to point at the camera and operators and pull the trigger, loaded dummy rounds that are supposed to look very very close to live ammunition but not be detonated. It seems pretty obvious to me that procedures designed to ensure safety with a gun intended to fire projectiles and kill an individual will not be sufficient. Do not point a gun at anyone, ever, unless you intend to kill them - is clearly incompatible with intended use case. Always check your gun is unloaded unless you are about to shoot it - again, doesn't work when your gun is loaded with rounds that are designed to look to the untrained eye like they are live, but are not. This situation is different, and requires different rules. The key point underpinning safety here is: the gun should never, ever, be loaded with live ammunition, but must appear to the untrained eye that it is. This is all about control of the firearm and what goes in it, and it's not something you can outsource to the actor.
jergul large member	Wed Dec 08 06:33:25 Seb It does fly. I have been to enough marine inquiries to see that blame is quite quickly passed to shipowners if conditions were by design likely to cause incidents. In this case, she was required to fill two positions. Also, the gun was de facto tampered with. We do not know why procedure failed to hinder tampering. Assistant director Dave Hall is the fellow likely in most trouble of those involved. Also2 OMG, what a clusterfuck. Malicious tampering cannot be excluded: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rust_shooting_incident
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Dec 08 06:37:57 Jergul "Wow. That is putting the horse in front of the cart." I have rode this horse and cart from all imaginable sides, it's a matter of perspective and relative to where you stand on the regulatory elephants ass. "The intended purpose decides the equipment." Here you are describing it from the perspective of someone who intends to achieve a goal (pumping radioactive water) I don't disagree with the perspective you present as it complements what I am saying, intended use is central to regulating machinery or broadly "things". You have to consult what I was responding to. Seb wrote "special case" and treating it like "dangerous machinery". It wouldn't be called a "special case" outside the colloquial usage, but the regulation of "guns" under the category "dangerous work machinery" would be appropriate for its' intended usage and different from other dangerous machinery like a car to be used on a movie set. Guns have a unique intended use, to project harm. The point is that yes there are some equipment or dangerous machinery we could colloquially call "special case" and from a regulatory perspective it is perfectable reasonable that certain equipment would require the operator to have a proven competency with them which in turn may carry the risk of more personal liability if things go wrong. Guns are designed (intended use) to project deadly violence, they achieve this very effectively and it only takes one human minimum training and the usage of 1 hand to operate them with deadly effect. So if people want to make a special case for more personal liability, it's not an absurd proposition and signs of a massive triggering. What I am saying however actually underpins the case you and seb are trying to make here. This is a case of workplace safety and in that regard Baldwin can not be the sole bearer of responsibility, but beyond that and with regards to different workplace equipment, intended use is central to how they are regulated, from the product certification itself all the way to the workplace safety systems and procedures. Even the intended usage of guns in the same workplace can be further broken down, the gun of a security guard vs the gun used on set. All else is equal, but you would draft different procedures for their safety involving different people and their safe operation would carry different liability simply based on intended usage.
Seb Member	Wed Dec 08 07:59:49 jergul: It depends on her JD and the corporate manslaughter rules. Normally someone who is specifically charged with being responsible for safety is in the line of fire. I agree the AD is more so in the line of fire. It will be harder to put corporate manslaughter charges on more senior figures in the production company I suspect, unless they can be shown to be aware that procedures were inadequate or not followed. As I understand it, the Armourer is responsible for drawing up and operating procedures, and the 1st AD accountable to the production company for them (though, of course, that's just the reports on the general set up - this one might be very different - if the production companies senior management had not explicitly tasked the 1st AD with this etc. that starts to look a lot like criminal negligence also). Nim: "t. All else is equal, but you would draft different procedures for their safety involving different people and their safe operation would carry different liability simply based on intended usage." Isn't that basically agreeing with our proposition though? That trying to apply processes and standards designed around safe use of a gun for the purpose of shooting a deer doesn't work for safe use of a gun that is supposed to be loaded with near identical but inert bullets, pointed at a camera crew, and the trigger pulled. The use case requires you to break several of the key elements of standard codes of practice for guns when intended to be used as weapons, and makes one of them much harder to fullfill.
jergul large member	Wed Dec 08 08:57:27 Nimi "it is perfectable reasonable that certain equipment would require the operator to have a proven competency with them" Obviously. A requirement that an employer would need to have procedures in place to make sure was met at all times. Personally, I would worry far more about forklifts being used on set by unqualified personnel than I would guns. Specifically because procedures on weapon handling are supposedly way better than the case is for forklifts. Seb Her job descriptions. She was doing two jobs.
Habebe Member	Wed Dec 08 09:02:34 "Obviously. A requirement that an employer would need to have procedures in place to make sure was met at all times." Isnt he self employed being a producer? Jergul views this is a workplace hazard like OSHA. Even if that were the case we have conflicting reports (See George Clooney) who says they didnt follow normal procedure at all.
jergul large member	Wed Dec 08 09:28:01 That is where the plot thickens. A labour dispute was in progress. Did the replacement workers know the procedures? There is some evidence of weapon tampering. During a labour dispute. Malicious tampering cannot be discounted.
Habebe Member	Wed Dec 08 09:35:06 Fair enough.Baldwin is also known to be not the nicest guy in the world. Workers dispute, someone pissed off at Baldwin, all sounds plausible.
Seb Member	Wed Dec 08 09:47:24 habebe: "Jergul views this is a workplace hazard like OSHA." It is. How is it not? "who says they didnt follow normal procedure at all." Who is responsible for setting the procedures which that production company will use? There may be formal codes of practice in the industry, or it may be more a norm, but normally in an organisation there will be a senior responsible officer that is charged with creating formal rules (normally as simple as pulling down formal codes of practice and localising them for the specifics of that organisation) and then enforcing them. As I understand, normally the first assistant director is accountable to regulators on behalf of the production company for ensuring that such documents, processes etc. are created and exist and are followed, and under him will be responsible officers that are charged with actually producing the relevant documentation. So e.g. there will be a fire safety officer who will be responsible for ensuring that there are guidelines, procedures etc. that for example, ensure that production sets are fire safe, that there is a fire safety protocol for what happens when there is a fire, that there are processes in place to ensure that people are safely evacuated, and that people working on the set know what these are etc. In the case of firearms used in filming, that person is called "the armourer". So between the two of them, the Armourer and the 1st AD - you have the people that are the locus for any criminal liability within the production company. They also happen to be directly implicated in the actual chain of events by acts of negligent omission and commission; as well as being accountable and responsible for safety procedures that should have prevented such acts of omission and commission. This is why I think they are in very deep trouble; and Baldwin less so.
Seb Member	Wed Dec 08 09:55:50 jergul: "There is some evidence of weapon tampering. During a labour dispute. Malicious tampering cannot be discounted." True, but equally, procedures are also supposed to be robust to a reasonable degree. Lets say that the safe had been illegally entered, a live bullet had been tampered to look like prop round... I think that would let them off scot free. Lets say that there is a possibility that someone knew that the guns were habitually left unattended on a cart, slipped a live round into the bullet before lunch, the armourer checked it before lunch, failed to notice the live round, put it in the safe, took it out again, left it unattended, the AD picked it up, assumed it had been checked, gave it to Alec Baldwin using weird terminology that implied it was checked safe... which was the habitual process he (AD) had created and habituated the cast and production to on this shoot... well, that's a different story. There could still be grounds for corporate manslaughter charges, the possibility of malicious interference due to lack of adequate controls doesn't obviate the production company or officers of responsibility. Though if they definitively found someone *had* maliciously interfered, I suspect in practice the intentional nature of original perpetrator would overshadow the negligent failures of the production company and mitigate some of the responsibility of the officers. Prosecutors might look at that and think "nah, we will never get a jury to convict when we have someone who deliberately did this, even if they exploited criminal negligence to do so"
Seb Member	Wed Dec 08 09:58:33 As you say, it's a shit show. I feel sorry for the 24 year old armourer. But equally, I wouldn't take a job as a senior information risk owner in govt - I'm not competent for that job and it comes with formal responsibility to regulators on behalf of the company for crimes where as an individual I'm criminally liable for the company fuck up. It's dumb to accept such jobs if not competent and its not guaranteed you will have the resources to ensure compliance. And you need to resign immediately you feel you cannot do the job. It is literally the core aspect of it.
Habebe Member	Wed Dec 08 10:07:17 deb, Jergul views this is a workplace hazard like OSHA." It is. How is it not?" Im not saying it isn't, but what defines this as such? Why is this different from a youtuber? If a cop was demonstrating a crime and didn't realize there was a round left in the chamber, is that a workplace safety issue? Maybe. I wont argue it.
Habebe Member	Wed Dec 08 10:11:08 I guess my issue on that boils down to when does the actor become relinquished of responsibility of handling a gun because of the armorer? You and I went down this road before.
Habebe Member	Wed Dec 08 10:15:23 Also, if the actor takes the gun from someone other than the armorer does that shield of protection from prosecution still stand?
Habebe Member	Wed Dec 08 10:19:41 "So between the two of them, the Armourer and the 1st AD - you have the people that are the locus for any criminal liability within the production company" If the armorer can legally shield the actor from legal responsibility of gun use does that still apply if the actor doesnt get the gun from the armorour. It seems like at the very least he should have waited for the armorour to check and hand him the gun.
murder Member	Wed Dec 08 13:11:40 "It seems like at the very least he should have waited for the armorour to check and hand him the gun." It seems like at the least he shouldn't have discharged the weapon with someone in the line of fire. But you can't hold him responsible for his actions because apparently he's only 8 years old.
Seb Member	Wed Dec 08 15:43:22 Habebe: His employer - the production company - requires him to point a gun, loaded with prop rounds, at a crew, and pull the trigger, under assurance from his employer that this will be safe; and with the consent of the camera crew who are also assured this will be safe, because there are process in place to ensure that there will never be live rounds in the gun. That's where his legal liability is curtailed. Under the circumstances, it is very difficult to show intent or recklessness. Unless you've put into statutory law that a gun, even an unloaded gun, should never be pointed at someone - which you assuredly haven't (and if you had, this would never have happened) it would be difficult to show otherwise. I'm pretty sure there have been fatal accidents with magicians and actors where props have failed or been mixed up (e.g. colapsable trick knifes blades but wrong prop used etc). Criminal liability for people shooting guns that they know, or ought reasonably to know, are loaded with live amo because they are being primarily used as weapons is a different kettle of fish.
Seb Member	Wed Dec 08 15:45:24 Murder: "It seems like at the least he shouldn't have discharged the weapon with someone in the line of fire." Except that's the literal requirement of the shot: to draw and pull the trigger at the camera with its crew operating it. Stubbornly insisting that this kind of film footage should never be shot just emphasises the responsibility of the director, who is the one that composes the shot and instructs the actor in where to point the gun.
Habebe Member	Wed Dec 08 16:51:47 "Except that's the literal requirement of the shot: to draw and pull the trigger at the camera with its crew operating it." You forgot while not killing people :) I'll look at the other posts ns respond later.
murder Member	Wed Dec 08 17:21:42 "Except that's the literal requirement of the shot: to draw and pull the trigger at the camera with its crew operating it." I'm sorry, the answer is "no". Even children learn that word. I was just following orders has never ... never mind. And that ignores that Baldwin is a producer on the film ... and as a star has more power than everyone else on the set combined.
Habebe Member	Wed Dec 08 17:21:52 "Unless you've put into statutory law that a gun, even an unloaded" Is it statutory law that he is absolved of guilt because it was a job? Didn't work in Nurembourg. I think the fault with your argument is that your saying he should be green or responsibility because 1. The armorer job, but he didnt utilize her. 2. His job requires it, would it be different if two buddies did it on YouTube? If its a monetized video its a job.
kargen Member	Wed Dec 08 17:52:20 "the production company - requires him to point a gun, loaded with prop rounds, at a crew, and pull the trigger, under assurance from his employer that this will be safe;" This was practice (unless something changed since I last read about this) and easily could have been done with no ammo of any kind in the gun. Also seems fairly common practice when a gun is to be pointed directly at the camera both the actor and the person behind the camera are shown that the gun is safe. Beyond that many producers go so far as to have safety glass in place for people to be behind when a shot requires a gun be pointed in the direction of the crew. This production was taking short cuts. Baldwin was both producer and actor. He didn't provide a safe work environment as producer and didn't provide one as an actor. He should have never accepted that gun without it actually being checked as he watched. I still stand by my statement from early on that actors shouldn't be expected to inspect the gun themselves but if they do not they should insist it be inspected while they witness the inspection. Every time. "Unless you've put into statutory law that a gun, even an unloaded gun, should never be pointed at someone - which you assuredly haven't" I didn't know the gun was loaded has never worked as a defense. The pulling of the trigger isn't going to be what this case will be about. It will be about who was negligent up to the point the trigger was pulled. I think we can all agree there was no intent to cause harm. So now the courts have to decide who was negligent and were they so negligent that a normal person would see it as a decision that put another persons life or well being in jeopardy. At the end of the day whether it be on a movie set or anywhere else each person is responsible for their own actions. If those actions are negligent and cause others harm they could be criminal or civil violations. I'm betting civil for Baldwin and criminal if they ever find out who put the live shells in the gun for that person. The armorer will need to find a new line of work but sounds like she really wasn't much interested in the job anyway.
jergul large member	Wed Dec 08 18:31:25 http://gyazo.com/7faafc4c197559b56923cf87fe74b3c3
Habebe Member	Wed Dec 08 18:34:18 Gabby Pickle-Line producer.
Seb Member	Wed Dec 08 19:40:52 Murder: I've always been clear that as producer he may well be in the firing line. But this bullshit argument that the actor, as the person pulling the trigger, has ultimate responsibility, is childish bullshit. It could equally have been an 18 year old extra playing "unnamed bad guy henchman number 73". The shot requires a gun be pointed at a camera crew. This can be done safely, by untrained people, with the simple expedient of ensuring the gun is not loaded with live ammunition. The people responsible for ensuring that didn't happen fucked up badly. "muh but when I'm hunting I know I don't point a gun at anyone ever" is kinda stupid comment when the actual contacted nature of a job as an actor in a Western explicitly requires you to point a gun at camera crew and pull the trigger. Your argument is that guns are just too damned dangerous and such films should not be shot. Alongside that, obviously no car stunts (breaks highway code), no pyrotechnics (breaks numerous fire safety regulations that would apply in a domestic home) etc. etc. It is just nonsense - of course you can film things that you wouldn't do under usual circumstances. They point is you do it safely by controlling the environment, not by demanding your Mook actors behave as though the situation were actually real. If it was, you'd not be shooting a film. Habebe: Wow, just wow. I mean that's tasteless and stupid, even for you. The camp staff knew they were killing people, and followed the orders anyway, on the basis that their orders superceded their moral obligation not to exterminate innocent civilians which they knew was not an unfortunate byproduct of a legitimate act of war, but the sole intent and a breach of established norms. That is rather different to following instructions on the explicit understanding that they will not result in anything dangerous occurring. I'm surprised you can't see the difference, but given that you can't you are probably half way there to being the kind of person who might rationalise such illegal orders - as evidentially you only see the procedural element that can be easily renormalised, rather than the moral element. "The armorer job, but he didnt utilize her." I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean. The first assistant director is normally accountable for safety procedures. I'm going to assume that was the case here also. He handed him the gun, and implied it was safe. The directors direct the actors. The armorer reports to the first assistant director. This idea that it is up to the actors to "utilise" the people supposed to give them instructions is a highly contrived rationalisation you've created. I'm not sure where you are going with YouTubers, but if it were an amateur dramatics club, yeah I think the same laws about corporate responsibility can apply. I remember at university clubs, club officers were defacto trustees and we had corporate responsibility as a result. Obviously the more formal the relationship the clearer the liability. This wasn't a youtuber or a couple of private individuals fucking about in front of a camera though. It was a for profit production company with clearly defined legal responsibilities, officers etc. Trying to argue that a suitably amateur situation might eventually result in individuals being specifically liable as private individuals doesn't work because that's not the situation we are talking about. Actors have a reasonable expectation, possibly even a written contractual understanding, regarding roles and responsibilities. If Joe blogs on the street hands me a gun and tells me to shoot it at someone because it's got no bullets in and I do so, the question you'd be asked on the stand is "on what possible basis could you reasonably believe that to have been true? " The answer I could give would be "er well... this stranger said.. so... I guess?". That's rather different from "I was handed the gun to practice for the scene where I was scripted to point it at the camera and fire it, by the man charged with accountability for firearm safety. In the written procedures I understood that he and the armourer were to have checked the gun to ensure it had no live ammunition, and indeed, that no live ammunition was to be held on site. I was told explicitly the gun was unloaded. I therefore assumed it was safe to do so. I could see it had rounds, but I expected these rounds to be prop rounds, as per instructions. I was under direct written instruction from the director to point the gun at the camera. Again, I stress, the explicit expectation from both verbal and written instruction was that this gun would contain no live rounds and was safe to do so." The situation is potentially very different, if by youtuber you mean a complete amateur where some guy has told an actor to point a gun and pull the trigger, without the actor having been given a whole stack of operational procedures etc. and briefed. And even if he had, the courts might find it less than reasonable for the actor to have put so much faith in such an amateur production. It hinges on what the actor can reasonably expect, so radically changing the scenario makes them incomparable.
Seb Member	Wed Dec 08 19:51:15 Kargen: "This was practice (unless something changed since I last read about this) and easily could have been done with no ammo of any kind in the gun" Would look kinda silly on film when you can see into the cylinder from the front and our hero's gun is clearly empty as he shoots the bad guys dead. "Also seems fairly common practice when a gun is to be pointed directly at the camera both the actor and the person behind the camera are shown that the gun is safe" Yes, on that we are in agreement - but that's the production companies responsibility, not the actors. "Baldwin was both producer and actor" We've covered this a few times already. Yes, depending on what his producer credit means, he's probably got some - potentially a lot - of liability. Though other people point out, that can be an honorific. I'd also say, depending on exactly what happened re process, it might be hard to pin criminal negligence on the producers versus the assistant director. "I didn't know the gun was loaded has never worked as a defense." In situations when you can reasonably expect the gun might possibly be loaded because it's primary purpose is as a weapon. This is different from a situation where it's primary purpose is as a prop, you expect it to be loaded with inert rounds, and have been explicitly told as such, have a whole set of processes and professionals whose job is explicitly to ensure as such, they hand it to you telling you it is not loaded; and everyone, including the camera crew, are expecting you to then point it at the camera crew and pull the trigger, and all of this is documented in writing in procedures that everyone will have signed up to. In the first case, failure of the person holding the gun to check is recklessness. In the second case, it's likely that the person holding the gun wouldn't be qualified or trusted to tell dummy rounds from real ones.
Habebe Member	Wed Dec 08 20:10:19 Someone as 1. Pointing a real gun at someone regardless if they told you it eas "cold" carries grave risk. 6 year olds should know this. 1A cold gun appears to be a made up term that isn't commonly used.* 2. He would be protected from the use of the armorer, but the armorer didnt hand him a gun. Now your argument was that he was following orders. But orders as you pointed out that would likely result in death are no defense against crimes that only crimes after the fact. I still cant wrap my head around you think its a totally normal behaviour for a person to point a REAL gun around at living people without checking it. Murder sums up the common sense argument quite well. "Trying to argue that a suitably amateur situation might eventually result in individuals being specifically liable as private individuals doesn't work because that's not the situation we are talking about. " By all accounts this does not seem to be a "professional" job. No more so than some Joe on the street. The crew have claimed this was an unprofessional set. Many other actors have claimed the same. I can print free contracts off the internet and hire a YouTube crew to film with raspberry PI camera. What makes this movie more "professional" in your eyes and thus should exclude the actors from liability for waiving firearms at people all Willy nilly. Yeah I said it, willy nilly.
Habebe Member	Wed Dec 08 20:10:19 Someone as 1. Pointing a real gun at someone regardless if they told you it eas "cold" carries grave risk. 6 year olds should know this. 1A cold gun appears to be a made up term that isn't commonly used.* 2. He would be protected from the use of the armorer, but the armorer didnt hand him a gun. Now your argument was that he was following orders. But orders as you pointed out that would likely result in death are no defense against crimes that only crimes after the fact. I still cant wrap my head around you think its a totally normal behaviour for a person to point a REAL gun around at living people without checking it. Murder sums up the common sense argument quite well. "Trying to argue that a suitably amateur situation might eventually result in individuals being specifically liable as private individuals doesn't work because that's not the situation we are talking about. " By all accounts this does not seem to be a "professional" job. No more so than some Joe on the street. The crew have claimed this was an unprofessional set. Many other actors have claimed the same. I can print free contracts off the internet and hire a YouTube crew to film with raspberry PI camera. What makes this movie more "professional" in your eyes and thus should exclude the actors from liability for waiving firearms at people all Willy nilly. Yeah I said it, willy nilly.
Habebe Member	Wed Dec 08 20:17:04 I dont think he will have much of an issue because 1. He is alec baldwin. 2. He didnt have malice or intent. But while reasonable people can disagree I personally think that behaviour was reckless and that his carelessness killed her.
Seb Member	Thu Dec 09 02:37:13 Habebe: *Sigh* - you are completely missing the point. 1. - in most situations yes, an individual pointing a gun - that had been kept with the intention of it habitually being used to fire live bullets - would be taking a big risk. Particularly as there is seldom a need to do so. *That is what makes it reckless endangerment*. But none of those elements are present here. 1A. "Cold gun" may not be habitually used in industry, but if it was part of the ad-hoc process being applied on this production, that's what matters. 2.Again "use of the armourer" - nah. It's not on him to assure the process. It's on the production team to ensure the process is followed. And as it happened he was handed the gun by the person accountable for gun safety. The fact it wasn't the armourer, but the armourers boss and person with ultimate responsibility for safety completely undermines your point. Why would he think the instructions typically result in death? Procedures Very similar to this are used in many many film sets safely without live rounds finding their way into guns used in filming. If some random member of the cast handed him a gun, maybe you have a point. But it was the assistant director, a core part of their job is overseeing safety of the shoot, including firearms and stunts. You'd naturally assume that if this person handed you equipment, they were doing so in line with safety procedures. "The crew have claimed this was an unprofessional set." Yes. And my point is the professionals that were failing here are not the actors, but the armourer and assistant director and the producers.
Seb Member	Thu Dec 09 09:06:11 I'm beginning to understand how American businesses can get away with inflicting all the harms they do. Clearly, they just arrange it so the blame falls on the minion and Americans don't think senior managers should have responsibility for the outcomes.
Habebe Member	Sun Dec 19 18:53:14 By minion you mean the man who crossed state lines to shoot a mother to death? Did I mention he crossed state lines?
Habebe Member	Sun Dec 19 18:55:10 Seb, Let me ask you this, can you show me in statute or precedent that the actor bears no responsibility?
Seb Member	Mon Dec 20 04:52:17 Habebe: "Seb, Let me ask you this, can you show me in statute or precedent that the actor bears no responsibility?" Sure - Michael Masse shot Brandon Lee - having failed (and production company having failed) to check the gun properly before firing. Michael Masse didn't even face charges.
Seb Member	Mon Dec 20 04:52:57 *Massee
Habebe Member	Mon Dec 20 05:14:25 1. The DA in that case said it was crew negligence. That is a crime. 2. Maybe with Alec too, but it was at least partially a product defect as the round broke off. 3. The fact that Spivey decided not to bring charges isn't much precedent , not bringing charges is usually used to show something was common practice, not a singular event. 4. Persuasive precedent at best, not binding since NC law has no bearing on Nevada law.It may as well have happened in your neck of the woods.
Seb Member	Mon Dec 20 06:33:26 Habebe: 1. Yes. Have you by any chance read any of my posts on this subject? 2. The bit that broke off was from a prop round in a previous scene. A proper check would have cleared the barrel for obstructions prior to loading with blanks. My argument all along: this is the production cos liability. Your argument is it is the actors liability as the trigger puller. The DA in Brandon Lee case is totally in line with my position, and totally contrary to yours. In this case, it appears a gun that should have been loaded with prop rounds was loaded with live rounds. That's definitely the production companies responsibility. Far from clear someone with only basic understanding of guns would know the difference (unlike blanks that at least don't have the bullet). Ok, so you want a case where an actor was charged, but then acquitted in similar circumstances. But it's kinda obvious charges aren't going to be brought if, as I maintain, such accidents are clearly the culpability of the production co and it's employees charged with ensuring safety. How about this: find me an example of where, in this kind of situation, the trigger puller is charged with manslaughter and murder. N.b. situations where the trigger puller is *also* formally responsible for safety within the enterprise (say a one man gun trick show) and this fuse the role of armourer and actor don't count.
Habebe Member	Mon Dec 20 07:24:38 1. Yes, Well Alec is oart of the crew, kind of a vital one at that. 2.Are you claiming akecs gun was at fault by manufacturers defective? Different story. "Your argument is it is the actors liability as the trigger puller." That's the case for almost every shooting in all of legal history. "The DA in Brandon Lee case is totally in line with my position, and totally contrary to yours." By claiming the crew including the armorer, the guy waving a gun at people etc. And again, that is not Nevada nore does it have any binding precedent. Its like when European abortion laws were defended in the SC abortion case recently , you can mention it for reference but it has no legal clout. The burden of proof in this case isn't on the state. If you waive a loaded gun at people and kill them, its a crime. Your arguing special privelege that in this case those laws don't apply as they would in every other situation.
Seb Member	Mon Dec 20 11:44:01 Habebe: "1. Yes, Well Alec is part of the crew, kind of a vital one at that." He's an actor, not part of the production crew. 2. Er... no, what? In the Brandon Lee case, the prop round was made by the crew, it was defective in that the slug came loose and then wedged in the barrel. This could and should have been picked up in checks: when the gun was unloaded (prop round missing slug), when it was re-loaded with blanks (clear the barrel) before firing; as well as a case of possibly deficient manufacturing of the dummy round. In this (Baldwin) case, the gun appears to have been loaded with a mix of prop and live rounds. That is - assuming no deliberate tampering - primarily the fault of the production crew: How did they mismanage the production such that live rounds were even present, let alone ended up in the gun, why was this not discovered before hand during checks, how was it that the gun found it's way into Alex Baldwins hand without being checked at all? etc. etc. Again, the failures lie with the crew. "That's the case for almost every shooting in all of legal history." Yes, because most of those crimes in shooting meet the legal figure for manslaughter or murder - which doesn't necessarily specify the weapon to be used - but the circumstances in which the liability falls on the individual via a set of criteria, which are not met here. " If you waive a loaded gun at people and kill them, its a crime." Well actually no. Lets look at Nevada's statute for involuntary manslaughter: http://cas...voluntary-manslaughter-defined "Except under the circumstances provided in NRS 484B.550 and 484B.653, involuntary manslaughter is the killing of a human being, without any intent to do so, in the commission of an unlawful act, or a lawful act which probably might produce such a consequence in an unlawful manner, but where the involuntary killing occurs in the commission of an unlawful act, which, in its consequences, naturally tends to destroy the life of a human being, or is committed in the prosecution of a felonious intent, the offense is murder." You will note no mention of guns anywhere. So what are the criteria: *Lack of intent *Killing a person *In commission of a lawful act that which probably might produce such a consequence in an unlawful manner This last bit means "negligent" - I.e. there has to be something criminally negligent by the person being charged. So this will come down to: 1. Whose job was it to assure gun safety 2. How did the live round get into the barrel 3. Was it negligent for Baldwin to assume that the Assistant Director (in charge of safety) had handed him a unloaded weapon while calling "cold gun". 4. Would Baldwin have reasonably been able to tell the difference between a prop round and a live round? I think there is zero chance of him being charged.
Seb Member	Mon Dec 20 17:21:23 Nevada's definition of criminal negligence derives from it's reckless endangerment statute: "[A] person who performs any act or neglects any duty imposed by law in willful or wanton disregard of the safety of persons or property shall be punished:" Is there a duty in law to check the gun before firing? Not for Alec Baldwin (as an actor, possibly as a producer), but almost certainly for the Armourer and 1st Assistant Director via their obligations as formal officers of the production company that has safety duties and responsibilities. Assistant Director in particular would be vulnerable here: he picked up the gun when the armourer was not present, and announced it safe without checking it. That's definitely wanton disregard as he violated best practice, and (I should imagine) their own procedures here, which he was responsible for ensuring were in place. Was Alec Baldwin in wanton disregard of the safety of persons? Would be hard to prove as it is entirely reasonable to think the gun handed to him was safe.
	show deleted posts