The Off Topic Topic

[grumbler]

But if the circumstances are such that Baldwin, in his role as a producer, knew that short cuts had been taken on safety in order to save money then there actually is some reason for thinking that Baldwin should not have just taken the word of the under paid, inexperienced person, who was giving him the gun.

He wasn't handed the gun by an underpaid inexperienced person.  He was handed the gun by the experienced assistant director who explicitly told him the gun had only dummy rounds (not even blanks; these were supposed to be empty except for a BB that made a noise when shaken to show the round was a dummy).

The AD is also the one who loaded the gun that morning.  It appears, though, that the gun was not locked up at lunch as he believed, but rather taken by the armorer so other members of the cast and crew could fire some live rounds.  The AD didn't check the rounds to ensure that they were dummies in the afternoon.

[DGuller]

Obviously I'm not a lawyer, but I don't see a crime in what Baldwin the actor did, if you divorce the actor completely from the producer.  I don't see how it's unreasonable for an actor to rely on professionals to do the job that only such professionals should do. 

If I start my car and it explodes, killing a bystander but miraculously leaving me unharmed, am I responsible for the death of the bystander?  I was the one who turned the ignition key, without first checking whether there was a bomb attached.

[The Brain]

Checking what rounds are loaded isn't exactly recalibrating the flux hypercore. It would have taken Baldwin the actor (a user of guns in a professional role) a few seconds of his precious time, but he declined to do so.

[The Brain]

Now if he had checked, and the rounds had been live rounds but cleverly disguised* as blanks or dummies, THEN I think that Baldwin the actor wouldn't have done anything illegal.

*Meaning indistinguishable from the real thing by a reasonable level of inspection

[The Brain]

To spam some more: if the rounds had been live rounds made to look like blanks/dummies, and Baldwin HADN'T checked, then it gets a bit more interesting. In this case I suppose it could be argued that his unreasonable lack of checking didn't cause any death/injury, since those would have occurred even if he had checked. But it's way past my bedtime and I have a headache, so yeah.

[OttoVonBismarck]

There's an interesting intersection of criminal law, Hollywood practice, gun safety and negligence laws at play with Baldwin's situation.

I am a little skeptical the prosecutor is going to be able to obtain a conviction. She made the statement that in movies, you don't point guns at people, she supposedly talked to several actors who have said the rule is you "cheat off" the shot, and don't do direct aiming. However, further reporting this appears contradicted quite a lot. Baldwin may be willing to plead guilty to get the case over with and avoid jail time, but assuming it goes to trial he is going to have a team of expensive lawyers who are going to bring in famous movies where the supposed norm that you never point a gun at someone were routinely violated in production. This would IMO undermine the claim in a lot of juror's minds that in film production you never directly aim guns at someone.

They'll argue it is normal for the AD and armorer to be primarily responsible for the state of the prop gun, and Baldwin being told the gun was "cold" by the AD would be argued as something that would normally give the actor license to handle the gun as a safe and harmless prop. Remember the prosecutor has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, I see a lot of ways a good legal team can sow doubt.

I don't know a lot about the laws involved so there may just be a lot I don't understand, but I have a suspicion if this goes to trial it will not be easy to get a conviction.

I also suspect this could be the end of real firearms on film sets--and that may be for the best. I know at least a few prominent action movie stars / directors have had already said back when this happened they planned to simply use CGI to creator gunfire in films going forward and not fire dummy rounds from real firearms.

[viper37]

Someone brought live rounds on to the set.  That's the person I'd go after.

If they hadn't a need for live rounds on the set then surely they wouldn't have used real guns?

When they use styrups on an historical movie for safety reasons, people complain it's not authentic.  People also complain when a similar but not exact historical replica is used.

I am not surprised an american movie would use real guns to feel more authentic.

[viper37]

They'll argue it is normal for the AD and armorer to be primarily responsible for the state of the prop gun, and Baldwin being told the gun was "cold" by the AD would be argued as something that would normally give the actor license to handle the gun as a safe and harmless prop. Remember the prosecutor has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, I see a lot of ways a good legal team can sow doubt.

That's assuming he's only charged as the actor who shot the gun.
If he's charged for negligeance as a producer (I do not know how involved he was in this role), it is a different matter.

[The Larch]

He's not being charged as producer of the film (of which I assume he'd be one of many), but as the person who pulled the trigger of the gun. The producing company's responsability would be a separate thing, and as I mentioned they've already been fined by the corresponding authority for the workplace health & safety violations incurred.

[grumbler]

Checking what rounds are loaded isn't exactly recalibrating the flux hypercore. It would have taken Baldwin the actor (a user of guns in a professional role) a few seconds of his precious time, but he declined to do so.

I am just guessing from the fact that you posted this that you have no idea what set safety rules and roles are, nor what it would take for each actor, upon receiving a prop gun, to stop the rehearsal to unload the gun and check each round.  There's actually a person responsible for doing exactly that, and that person clearly told everyone on the set that the gun had no bullets or blanks.  I suppose the the actors could all say to the AD "Sorry, but I don't trust you" and repeat what he just (supposedly) did, but that's not going to make for a very happy production.  Nor is that going to do wonders for the actor's career.

[grumbler]

I am not surprised an american movie would use real guns to feel more authentic.

Not just American movies, of course.

[The Brain]

Checking what rounds are loaded isn't exactly recalibrating the flux hypercore. It would have taken Baldwin the actor (a user of guns in a professional role) a few seconds of his precious time, but he declined to do so.

I am just guessing from the fact that you posted this that you have no idea what set safety rules and roles are, nor what it would take for each actor, upon receiving a prop gun, to stop the rehearsal to unload the gun and check each round.  There's actually a person responsible for doing exactly that, and that person clearly told everyone on the set that the gun had no bullets or blanks.  I suppose the the actors could all say to the AD "Sorry, but I don't trust you" and repeat what he just (supposedly) did, but that's not going to make for a very happy production.  Nor is that going to do wonders for the actor's career.

Prioritizing speed and not annoying people over basic safety is how people get killed. I don't doubt that there are movie sets with a toxic safety culture (Rust certainly seems to have been one of them). Celed said that in his experience final inspection was done in front of the actor, and I believe him. So apparently it is perfectly possible to avoid the person firing a gun blindly taking someone's word for it being loaded with blanks/dummies.

[Jacob]

So apparently it is perfectly possible to avoid the person firing a gun blindly taking someone's word for it being loaded with blanks/dummies.

... yes, but that is achieved by following an established and reasonable safety protocol, not by relying on actors applying their own expertise on guns at their own initiative.

[The Brain]

So apparently it is perfectly possible to avoid the person firing a gun blindly taking someone's word for it being loaded with blanks/dummies.

... yes, but that is achieved by following an established and reasonable safety protocol, not by relying on actors applying their own expertise on guns at their own initiative.

And that's why, as a gun user, you always check the gun yourself. You don't know for certain if the person/chain of persons telling you the gun is loaded with blanks/dummies has followed decent safety procedures.

You can't ignore basic safety just because you're an actor shooting a movie. Or you can, and then people die and you get dragged to court.

[celedhring]

Yeah, whenever I've been in shootings with guns shooting blanks the gun has always been last inspected in front of the actor. There was one time the actor was an ex-cop and he did it himself. The idea, I suppose, is besides having an extra layer of safety to also ensure the actor feels safe when handling the gun.

Wish we had Katmai around, he'll have much more experience on these matters.