Alec Baldwin shoots and kills one, injures another.

[Archie Moses]

Baldwin was a producer with control of the set. If he knew of past issues with safety people he hired, he could be culpable. I don't think he'd get charged for solely pulling the trigger/not checking the chamber. It is facts regarding the other stuff that will ultimately determine culpability, be it civil or criminal.

And again, I am not saying Baldwin is to blame without all the facts, but as he controlled the set, he could be criminally liable based on facts and circumstances.

It comes down to did he know?

If he did, people can progress and learn from their mistakes. Maybe he thought she did? I have no idea.

To me though, the last person I'm gonna blame is the actor/actress with the prop - regardless if they're the producer.

He hired a professional to do their job. I don't think he needed to baby sit said professional to do their job for which he hired her for.

It's crazy, to me, how people wanna burn the witch or anyone who talked with the witch.

I don’t even like Baldwin, but I guarantee this was a preventable accident and the spilled blood is on someone else.

Saying he's the producer is a lazy argument. It's like saying he's the general contractor.

 

[Red]

Also, like another poster mentioned, usually they have plexiglass set up around the camera person and anybody else near the shoot. Another thing that wasn’t done.

“WHY WOULD THE GUN HAVE BEEN POINTING AT THE CINEMATOGRAPHER?

We don’t know what happened on the set of “Rust,” but it is fairly common to have a gun pointed at the camera, and by extension the cinematographer, to get a certain angle.

“We’ve all seen the very famous shots in films where you get that dramatic effect of a gun being pointed at you, the audience, and of course, it’s being pointed towards the camera,” explained Steven Hall, a veteran second unit director and cinematographer who has worked on films like “Fury” and “Thor: The Dark World.” “To minimize that, one would put a remote camera in that place, or at least if someone does have to operate the camera, I’m normally protected by safety goggles, a safety visor and often a PERSPEX screen that withstands pretty much anything. Obviously, it wouldn’t withstand a real shot from a gun, but it would certainly withstand a blank.”

EXPLAINER: Guns on movie sets: How does that work?

Cinematographer Halyna Hutchins died Thursday after Alec Baldwin fired a loaded weapon that was handed to him by an assistant director who mistakenly believed it was safe to use on the New Mexico set of “Rust.”

apnews.com

 

[TheGoldStandard]

It comes down to did he know?

If he did, people can progress and learn from their mistakes. Maybe he thought she did? I have no idea.

To me though, the last person I'm gonna blame is the actor/actress with the prop - regardless if they're the producer.

He hired a professional to do their job. I don't think he needed to baby sit said professional to do their job for which he hired her for.

It's crazy, to me, how people wanna burn the witch or anyone who talked with the witch.

I don’t even like Baldwin, but I guarantee this was a preventable accident and the spilled blood is on someone else.

Saying he's the producer is a lazy argument. It's like saying he's the general contractor.

Again, corporate officer criminal liability exists. The cases I know offhand are officers/people in control knowingly put employees in unnecessarily unsafe conditions. I am not judging, just stating what the law is. So yes, knowledge of certain conditions that would be considered reckless could lead to criminal liability, and it would likely be based off of the totality of the circumstances.

 

[RandyForRubio]

It comes down to did he know?

If he did, people can progress and learn from their mistakes. Maybe he thought she did? I have no idea.

To me though, the last person I'm gonna blame is the actor/actress with the prop - regardless if they're the producer.

He hired a professional to do their job. I don't think he needed to baby sit said professional to do their job for which he hired her for.

It's crazy, to me, how people wanna burn the witch or anyone who talked with the witch.

I don’t even like Baldwin, but I guarantee this was a preventable accident and the spilled blood is on someone else.

Saying he's the producer is a lazy argument. It's like saying he's the general contractor.

Never in my life have I been around a GC who doesn’t watch and check what his subs are doing, because if it isn’t done right, it’s ultimately on him.

 

[Archie Moses]

Never in my life have I been around a GC who doesn’t watch and check what his subs are doing, because if it isn’t done right, it’s ultimately on him.

Lol

You don't work in the industry then.


I do.

 

[RandyForRubio]

Lol

You don't work in the industry then.


I do.

I don’t work in construction but I’ve had a lot of things built by GC’s. I’m just going off of what I’ve heard them talk about while using them. One of them, I remember saying, “I’ve gotta watch these guys like a hawk Bc if they screw up, it’s my reputation on the line. The customer won’t remember the sub, they’ll remember me.” Responsibility comes from the top.

 

[gandalfe]

Here's how I look at it: If someone else were the producer, say, Harvey Weinstein, or Clint Eastwood. Or even just MGM. Would they deserve the blame for hiring not 1 but 2 incompetent people, one of whose entire job is to make sure this doesn't happen?

I think of it as Baldwin the actor and Baldwin the producer. And, yes, they're the same person, which complicates things - he (the producer) hired the useless people, and so felt like he (the actor) 1) had a good read on them, when he simply wasn't qualified to know their abilities, and 2) wanted to show them that he trusted them by taking them at their word.

That's assuming he personally hired them, and didn't just have an agency or whatever do that.

 

[Archie Moses]

I don’t work in construction but I’ve had a lot of things built by GC’s. I’m just going off of what I’ve heard them talk about while using them. One of them, I remember saying, “I’ve gotta watch these guys like a hawk Bc if they screw up, it’s my reputation on the line. The customer won’t remember the sub, they’ll remember me.” Responsibility comes from the top.

Ah, dude. It's super hard right now, and don't care to explain. ;/

To me though, and I'm gonna put it bluntly, there are lots of people on this site that either educate or speak out of their *** from being biased one way or the other.

I used to be complacent hoping people like you would help me on JazzFanz, and don't get me wrong, dudes have helped me so much. It intimated me to a certain degree.

Haha.

I don't care to post more.

 

[Gameface]

I'd say it is more likely than not that Baldwin escapes criminal charges, and if charged, which I would assume would be a manslaughter, I think he would not be convicted.

A wrongful death lawsuit against him and the production will likely succeed.

The armorer will possibly face negligent homicide and manslaughter charges along with the director who handed Baldwin the gun. I don't like their chances as much.

As for moral responsibility. Alec Baldwin did not do the normal thing that ***ACTORS*** are supposed to do when handed a real gun. He failed his moral responsibility by not doing the NORMAL THING THAT ACTORS DO.

So all I know is that Alec Baldwin is an actor, and he did not do what actors typically do in that situation and it resulted in him, as an actor, killing a person who would not have died if he had done the standard thing that actors do.

 

[fishonjazz]

It does though.

A movie set has ADDITIONAL protocols in place due to the special circumstances, not less. It just means that there are even more steps that must be taken to ensure safety because some of the basic rules of firearm safety are going to be violated.

One of those additional steps is for the actor to check that the gun is "cold" after first the armorer does (did not happen allegedly) then a director or assistant director checks (happened, but the **** heel was wrong). So in my example a person is handed a gun they are told is "cold" and my example is simply to illustrate the individual responsibility of the individual in possession of the gun to make sure that their actions are safe. Alec Baldwin had that obligation and he failed to meet it. I'm not putting this all on his shoulders, but I'm also not willing to absolve him.

Movie sets are not an excuse to be lax in regard to gun safety, they are a place where additional attention to gun safety and specialized standards are required.

These are movies. Why are we using real guns? Why is real ammo even any where in the vacinity? No one should have to check if the gun is cold. It shouldn't have the ability to be hot.

 

[fishonjazz]

Negligent homicide.

Maybe by the movie industry for being stupid enough to use real guns in movies. Do you point real guns at people? Even after you check for certain that they are empty? This is what we are telling actors to do in movies. We are giving actors real guns and literally telling them to aim the real guns at the other actors.
There is the problem.

 

[fishonjazz]

Also, like another poster mentioned, usually they have plexiglass set up around the camera person and anybody else near the shoot. Another thing that wasn’t done.

There’s a lot of blame to go around. I don’t know why the producer and most experienced actor doesn’t share any of it according to some, that’s just a logic I can’t get behind.

What is the plexiglass for?

 

[fishonjazz]

Reckless disregard. I'm not saying that applies to Baldwin actually pulling the trigger depending on facts that come out, but based on what I've read, I would say it seems to be so reckless it was similar to a drunk driver killing someone, the difference is many may be culpable (crew bring live ammo on set and using in set guns, armorer for allowing it, Baldwin for potentially hiring incompetent safety people when the industry knew these people were bad news... I would not call that an accident. It is reckless disregard that led to a tragedy.

Difference between the drunk driver is that the drunk driver is told not to drink and drive but the actor is told to aim the gun at people and pull the trigger.

 

[fishonjazz]

Everyone handling the gun has a responsibility to validate it is safe and to follow basic gun safety rules regardless of who else was responsible or handling the gun. @Gameface was spot on in his analysis.

What if you don't know much about guns. I could give my daughter a gun and tell her to validate that it is safe but I wouldnt do that due to her lack of gun knowledge/safety. If I did that and she shot someone then I think that would be my fault for giving her the gun.

I have literally seen a man shoot himself in the leg while teaching a gun safety class. He was a professional instructor for gun safety and it happened to him.
Turns out guns are dangerous. Maybe we shouldn't give guns to actors and tell them to point them at other actors and pull the trigger.

 

[fishonjazz]

Here's how I look at it: If someone else were the producer, say, Harvey Weinstein, or Clint Eastwood. Or even just MGM. Would they deserve the blame for hiring not 1 but 2 incompetent people, one of whose entire job is to make sure this doesn't happen?

I think of it as Baldwin the actor and Baldwin the producer. And, yes, they're the same person, which complicates things - he (the producer) hired the useless people, and so felt like he (the actor) 1) had a good read on them, when he simply wasn't qualified to know their abilities, and 2) wanted to show them that he trusted them by taking them at their word.

That's assuming he personally hired them, and didn't just have an agency or whatever do that.

I can't know their minds but I would assume that they thought they were competent when they hired them. I wouldn't assume that they hired them hoping that they would suck at their job and get one of their employees killed.
Seems like someone getting shot while making their movie would be detrimental to the movie.

 

[fishonjazz]

I'd say it is more likely than not that Baldwin escapes criminal charges, and if charged, which I would assume would be a manslaughter, I think he would not be convicted.

A wrongful death lawsuit against him and the production will likely succeed.

The armorer will possibly face negligent homicide and manslaughter charges along with the director who handed Baldwin the gun. I don't like their chances as much.

As for moral responsibility. Alec Baldwin did not do the normal thing that ***ACTORS*** are supposed to do when handed a real gun. He failed his moral responsibility by not doing the NORMAL THING THAT ACTORS DO.

So all I know is that Alec Baldwin is an actor, and he did not do what actors typically do in that situation and it resulted in him, as an actor, killing a person who would not have died if he had done the standard thing that actors do.

Do we know that Baldwin didn't do what actors normally do when handed a gun? Maybe most all actors do a poor job of checking the gun when it's handed to them (or don't check at all) but it didn't result in someone getting shot because the person that is in charge of the guns (the professional) did their job.

 

[LogGrad98]

What if you don't know much about guns. I could give my daughter a gun and tell her to validate that it is safe but I wouldnt do that due to her lack of gun knowledge/safety. If I did that and she shot someone then I think that would be my fault for giving her the gun.

I have literally seen a man shoot himself in the leg while teaching a gun safety class. He was a professional instructor for gun safety and it happened to him.
Turns out guns are dangerous. Maybe we shouldn't give guns to actors and tell them to point them at other actors and pull the trigger.

You can come up with a million scenarios where exceptions prove the rule. If your daughter has a job that requires her to occasionally handle firearms i would certainly hope she gets at least minimal training on how to handle them. If not, shame on everyone, and in this case, especially shame on the producer (who was Baldwin by the way). The scenarios aren't remotely comparable. Obviously the idea the everyone handling a gun is responsible for handling it safely assumes some basic knowledge of gun safety. What if i go back in time and hand a gun to a cave man and walk away? Doesn't apply in the least.

And the fact that accidents can and do happen just makes it that much more important for people who are expected to handle firearms to get the proper training then to follow that training every time they touch a gun. Obviously the instructor didn't follow all the rules, what a great object lesson, although it sucks for him. Lucky he didn't shoot anyone else.

 

[LogGrad98]

Do we know that Baldwin didn't do what actors normally do when handed a gun? Maybe most all actors do a poor job of checking the gun when it's handed to them (or don't check at all) but it didn't result in someone getting shot because the person that is in charge of the guns (the professional) did they're job.

If he did or didn't due to being an actor shouldn't be an excuse. But people do a lot of stupid things because of habit or carelessness or not using their own brain all the time when they should be. We are creatures of habit and routine. If the normal routine on a movie set when handling a gun is "every gun an actor touches is always safe to point and fire at anyone at any time" well that's one thing. I seriously doubt that but I guess it could be the case. If that is the norm maybe something like this will help change that. Although that's what was said when a similar incident killed Brandon Lee 30 years ago. Apparently these incidents aren't strong enough, or maybe frequent enough, to drive any kind of meaningful change.

 

[fishonjazz]

You can come up with a million scenarios where exceptions prove the rule. If your daughter has a job that requires her to occasionally handle firearms i would certainly hope she gets at least minimal training on how to handle them. If not, shame on everyone, and in this case, especially shame on the producer (who was Baldwin by the way). The scenarios aren't remotely comparable. Obviously the idea the everyone handling a gun is responsible for handling it safely assumes some basic knowledge of gun safety. What if i go back in time and hand a gun to a cave man and walk away? Doesn't apply in the least.

And the fact that accidents can and do happen just makes it that much more important for people who are expected to handle firearms to get the proper training then to follow that training every time they touch a gun. Obviously the instructor didn't follow all the rules, what a great object lesson, although it sucks for him. Lucky he didn't shoot anyone else.

Ok how about this. What if Baldwin was handed the gun, and then he did all the checks he was supposed to do to the best of his ability (like the armorer and everyone else who handled the gun did) and he still shot someone? Then would he still be to blame?

 

[LogGrad98]

Ok how about this. What if Baldwin was handed the gun, and then he did all the checks he was supposed to do to the best of his ability (like the armorer and everyone else who handled the gun did) and he still shot someone? Then would he still be to blame?

I never said he was to blame. There is blame to go around. He carries some of the blame in this instance depending on his actions surrounding handling the gun and if he knowingly hired a crappy armorer, etc. There are some news outlets claiming he was messing around between takes and picked up a gun off the armorer's table and just fired it. Whether that's true or not remains to be seen. But he carries some blame based on the above.

But if he truly was handed a gun, told it was safe, checked it to the best of his knowledge and used it fully as directed then that is called an "accident" and sometime even with the best of intentions they happen. In that case he would of course not be to blame.

Now from everything that is out there it is seems that is not the case. However we really won't know until the investigation is completed.

My point, and I don't want to speak for @Gameface , but I think we were both thinking along the same lines, is that everyone who handles the weapon needs to validate it's safety. They have a responsibility to do that. If that wasn't done at any or even at a few points along the chain of custody then everyone who touched it and didn't do their part are partly culpable. Up to and including the guy that fired it.