Doesn't work that way.
Baldwin to be charged with manslaughter
- Thread starter hso
- Start date
- Status
Mizar
Member
It is my understanding that for the particular scene, the revolver was supposed to be loaded with dummy rounds - maybe a close up shot directly to the camera was needed. Dummy rounds, at least up to that unfortunate incident, are made to resemble live ammunition 100%. You take an empty case, "prime" it with a brass plug that imitates a live primer, put a steel/plastic BB in it and load a bullet. The BB's purpose is that one can positively tell, that the given round is a dummy by shaking it and hearing the rattling BB inside. The armorer must do that for every round that is used, every time a gun is loaded. Obviously Reed failed to do so, or at least that's what the above mentioned NYT article is suggesting.
As for the assumption, that actors must check their guns - they are not supposed to do that, neither someone expects them to do so, that's the armorer's job. But they must follow Rule #1 all the time.
As for the assumption, that actors must check their guns - they are not supposed to do that, neither someone expects them to do so, that's the armorer's job. But they must follow Rule #1 all the time.
Your basis for that assumtion?
unclenunzie
Contributing Member
Part of the absurdity here is that in every state that I am aware of, it is a crime to point a firearm at another person (apart from lawful justification as with self-defense). If during production of a film that is not a crime, then it also follows there are separate rules and safety requirements that when adhered to do not result in charges and do not likewise result in a person being harmed or killed.
When this was all originally being discussed some time ago, I came to the position that absent any direct malice (knowingly causing live ammunition to be loaded into a firearm) the actor is not at fault if they followed accepted industry standards, but the person(s) responsible for the safe handling of the weapons as well as enforcing safety protocols is at fault. Thus while I don't know the particulars, I don't disagree with charges being filed against the weapons person and the producer who is charged with enforcing safety protocols.
When this was all originally being discussed some time ago, I came to the position that absent any direct malice (knowingly causing live ammunition to be loaded into a firearm) the actor is not at fault if they followed accepted industry standards, but the person(s) responsible for the safe handling of the weapons as well as enforcing safety protocols is at fault. Thus while I don't know the particulars, I don't disagree with charges being filed against the weapons person and the producer who is charged with enforcing safety protocols.
citizenconn
Member
Opinions vary, but I have you going 0/3 in this case.
I thought the armorer was off doing another job at the time. The assistant director handed Baldwin the gun and told him it was cold. Did he even check it?
I wonder if they ever found out who brought the live ammo onto the set. Or if they figured out who loaded the gun with the live ammo. It seems like whoever loaded the gun is just as liable.
I wonder if they ever found out who brought the live ammo onto the set. Or if they figured out who loaded the gun with the live ammo. It seems like whoever loaded the gun is just as liable.
Mizar
Member
Working as an armorer for several months for a large "action" movie with lot's of shooting, working with armorers and also having close friends in that business... You just don't expect for the actor/stunt man to check his weapon - it's your job. That is why trusting each other is very important. His job is to handle it in a way that no one will be harmed.
All persons who handle the firearms may bear some responsibility. None are omniscient, and the practical realties of the chain of custody can prevent no one from handling the guns.
The ultimate culpability clearly resides with Baldwin. Others may share some responsibility, but Andrew Branca's legal analysis from 10-25-21 nailed it.
Mark_Mark
Member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2021
- Messages
- 17,994
let’s not hate put judgment on the case because we hate Bladwins politics. Let’s the courts decide who is responsible for a shooting on a set. The truth is, On a Set, people point and pull the trigger all the time. This might actually be the end of real guns on set. Don’t think the insurance companies will cover liability anymore
Old Dog
Member
If that is the case on the movie you worked on, the safety protocols were never established or clearly broken. I have it on pretty good authority that this is not how things work in the industry these days (at least from some former active duty guys I know now working in television). The last person to handle the firearm -- when real guns are being used, capable of firing live ammuntion -- is still responsible to check clear. This started back in the '70s with a couple high-profile Hollywood incidents, including one actor ending up dead after firing a blank round into his temple. In those immortal words, "Trust -- but verify."
Mizar
Member
Well, I don't know - the movie in which I was working was a pretty big US production with some quite recognizable "old school" action stars. And let's not fool ourselves - maybe 99% of the actors don't have a single clue how to check a firearm, or even load it. They are simply ignorant and more importantly, they don't want to learn.
Last edited:
That is what the criminal charges will bring about.
Pointed at what?
Insurance does not cover losses resulting from criminal acts.
Actors have been doing that since "The Great Train Robbery" was filmed in 1903. Have been using real guns with blanks in them all along.
Regardless of how anyone feels about Baldwin, this sets a bad precedent that could be used against all gun owners in the future. The Anti's have been claiming for decades that merely owing a gun is an act of negligence.
As an actor I don't see any accountability on Baldwins part. Whoever allowed real ammo into the gun, even on the property, is at fault.
I can see where Baldwin could be held accountable as the producer if sloppy work and lax enforcement of rules can be shown. Until more information comes out, I'm with holding any opinions.
Mark_Mark
Member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2021
- Messages
- 17,994
Sound like a big legal cluster that will have 2 conclusion. No real guns on Set & Lawyers getting rich from nice billable hours
unclenunzie
Contributing Member
Context matters.
No--it's just made to look that way.
That does not relieve Baldwin of responsibility.
He shot the victim. With what aspect of Attorney Andrew Branca's legal analysis do you disagree, and on what basis?
AlexanderA
Member
If Baldwin is convicted (manslaughter is a felony), that would make him a "disqualified person." We know that he would not pass a NICS check, and would not be able to purchase a gun. Would that extend to possession, or even being able to lay hands on a gun? Kind of hard to star in action movies if you can't even hold a gun. Maybe prop guns don't count.
wally
Member
If only Baldwin had been paying attention and heeding the NRA's rules for safe gun handling instead of vilifying them in the media, she would still be alive and he would not be in this mess!
The "they said it wasn't loaded" defense doesn't work when a thug kills a liquor store owner and says "Rufus said it was unloaded when he gave it to me" so let's hope it doesn't work for Baldwin.
The "they said it wasn't loaded" defense doesn't work when a thug kills a liquor store owner and says "Rufus said it was unloaded when he gave it to me" so let's hope it doesn't work for Baldwin.
Same here. I abhor paintball shooting for the same reason.
Long ago, I took a defensive training course. I was instructed to unload my .45 Auto, let an instructor check it, and re-holster. An instructor stepped in front of me and told me to draw the gun and point it at him.
I refused.
I passed the test.
Read Branca's legal analysis.
DeepSouth
Random Guy
90+% are decided in an office, via plea bargain. It’s likely this will be no exception, some high priced lawyer of the stars will get this reduced to a misdemeanor, and possibly a little jail time just to pacify the public.
Of course this is pure speculation, time will tell.
Yes, and that is within the purview of the court.
Are there any such lesser included charges on the table?
redcon1
member
He earned his day in court the same way any one of us would have earned our day in court if we pointed a gun at another person, cocked the hammer back, pulled the trigger and killed them. The judge and jury can settle the matter of culpability and I will be happy with whatever they decide personally.
lysanderxiii
Member
Alex Baldwin is one of the producers, by the way . . .
Even if he hadn't pulled the trigger, he is still responsible. He and the other producers lead to the cost cutting that allowed a unqualified armorer to be hired. He and the other producers allowed the guns to wander on and off set. He and the other producers allowed THREE live round discharges including the fatal incident and did nothing to address safety concerns from the crew.
Even if he hadn't pulled the trigger, he is still responsible. He and the other producers lead to the cost cutting that allowed a unqualified armorer to be hired. He and the other producers allowed the guns to wander on and off set. He and the other producers allowed THREE live round discharges including the fatal incident and did nothing to address safety concerns from the crew.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
