Alec Baldwin update

[Metal god]

^^^^Agreed^^^^ and then some because of how they are used on set .

[44 AMP]

One of the many things this situation has made me curious about is, I wonder how many people got shot or worse killed by accidents on movie sets back in the day when they did regularly use real firearms and live ammunition to shoot things with.

Admittedly its far from headline news these days, but I don't recall hearing of many accidents back then, when I've seen the topic come up. There must have been some, no human endeavor is without some accidents, somewhere, at some level, but there seem to be a lot fewer when people KNOW they are working with real guns and live ammo.

A lot more people have been accidently shot with "unloaded" guns than "loaded" ones. On or Off movie sets, believing a gun to be unloaded, without personally checking to ensure and verify it IS unloaded is VERY DANGEROUS. An "accident waiting to happen" is a very mild way of describing it.

Specific to the RUST set shooting, from what we have been told there were so many safety rules and practices broken, ignored, or out right flouted, it was essentially a "perfect storm" of the worst possible conditions coming together and the result was a death and an injury that should not have happened.

Rules were broken and a person died. Those responsible should face the penalties appropriate under law. As far as I'm concerned, "I didn't know it was loaded" is an explanation, NOT an excuse, or a legal defense. Same as "I was only following orders" explains how or why something happens, but does NOT absolve the actor from the responsibility of having done it.

[stagpanther]

One thing is for sure--this event, if it goes to trial--will likely set a new standard for liability, maybe even beyond movie sets. I suspect a whole lot of discussions are going on.

[44 AMP]

I don't see how it could set any new standard, though it might cause people to do things differently to ensure the existing standards get applied and better respected.

What I am hoping for is that the matter does go to trial and that in the trial we get sworn testimony about who did what, when, and where. Such testimony might not be what actually happened, but as sworn testimony we have to accept it is the truth unless disproven.

Tons of little bits of information are out there, some probably true, some not.

It looks like the armorer didn't do their job properly, but its not clear if that was due to personal failing or other factors, possibly factors beyond her control.

In particular, the part about the armorer not being present when the accident happened. Industry rules say if the guns are there, the armorer must be, also. Apparently this was not done. WHY was this not done? WHO made the decision to have the guns there, without the armorer being present??
Those are just a couple things I hope to see covered in the trial. Some of what I'd like to know probably won't be, or won't be satisfactorily explained, but I am hopeful some of the big things will be.

Absent a confession, we'll probably never know who loaded the gun with "A" live round. What we do know is that the gun was unloaded before the deputies got to the scene. WHO did THAT? and what did they remove from the gun, besides the one round that was fired? Blanks? Dummy rounds?? OTHER LIVE ROUNDS???? A mixture??

It was reported that when the deputies took possession of the gun and ammo, all the ammo was in a box that contained all three kinds. SOMEONE at the set unloaded the gun (for "safety", I'm sure) totally screwing up what could have been vital evidence. I think that should be covered at trial. Along with a lot of other things.

Time will tell, and we'll see how it goes.

[Mainah]

One thing is for sure--this event, if it goes to trial--will likely set a new standard for liability, maybe even beyond movie sets.

I know this is going to set a huge new standard for liability on movie sets. I'm not sure how the criminal cases will end up, but I'm sure that the civil liability will be a wake-up call to the industry.

But beyond the film industry I don't think it'll resonate.The safety rules in place for the rest of us could have prevented this.

[44 AMP]

The safety rules in place for the rest of us could have prevented this.

Agreed.

And the safety rules for the movie industry would also have prevented it.

The only thing that stops people who won't follow safety rules is when they get hurt, or wind up in court, and possibly jail.

Why was there a fatal accident on that set? Because enough people there deliberately chose not to follow safety rules. Neither the regular gun safety rules or their own industry's safety rules.

IF you really want to be sure this kind of thing cannot happen again, there needs to be a COMPETENT safety "watchdog" who can overrule the director or PRODUCER at need. And, of course the rest of the crew and actors also have to obey the safety rulings.

Of course since human beings are involved, such a position is ripe for bribery, or to become a petty dictator, and shut down production out of spite....but hey, its Hollywood (no matter where the actual location is) so I expect they're used to that by now....

Alternately with modern tech, there's no longer any valid reason to have ANY functional firing firearms on a movie set. Realistic non firing PROPS and nothing but non firing props would also have saved a life that day

I firmly believe that firearms can be used safely for recreation, and CAN be used safely in films, BUT that takes strict adherence to safety rules and practices, and what happened on Baldwin's set proves that wasn't the case there.

The movie industry might adopt new standards, they might even adopt radical changes such as no real guns at all, period. But they don't NEED to, all they really NEED is some way to make sure existing standards are met.

Sadly, I don't see a good way to be sure of that, if the people involved don't care about safety, think they know better and don't think bad things can happen to them....

[HiBC]

I looked over the Screen Actor's Guild 2009 safety memo. Something they got right is that safety is each and every employee's responsibility. Each and every employee can refuse to do anything unsafe and each employee can contact the Screen Actor's Guild to report a problem.

A head Safety Dude on set? I don't make movies, so get your grain of salt out.

Its seems like it could be another layer of deniability. Someone to throw under the bus. Safety should not be delegated. No one person has the power to make an operation safe.
Yes,as shooters we may have an RSO. But EVERYONE has a responsibility to call "Cease Fire!"

Its the person who rejects a tool with the ground prong cut off the cord ,or the crappy ladder that makes a job site safe. And the investor that knows nothing can destroy profit faster than injury/accident.

Its a Culture of "That does not seem safe! Lets STOP and deal with it.

The Producer KNOWS any gun activity requires the Armorer to be "Hands on Present" or they should not be Producer.

And any Armorer should reply"Bullfeathers! " to any command to stay off the set while firearms are being used. Then the phone should come out and the Screen Actor's Guild should be called.
Its not about being a Rat. Sometimes Whistle Blowing is the right thing to do.
Think what may have been different.

[44 AMP]

Again, I'm hoping this comes out as sworn testimony at the trial, but what I've seen (and yes, at this point its all hearsay)
is

they were not filming on the set the day of the accident

Actors and crew were present to judge lighting, camera angles and actors positions

The armorer was sent to a different location to do asst prop mgr duties, as she would not be needed on the set because since they were not filming, no guns would be present.

at some point after that guns showed up, and were in actors hands
apparently without the armorer's knowledge...

and from there, it goes rapidly down hill to disaster.

How much of that is true? How much is CYA for the armorer? Or for other people on the set ("its a cold gun" ) we don't know but hopefully will at the trial

Personally, I don't care if the punishment is severe or light or even non existent, (assuming a guilty finding) I really hope Baldwin doesn't cop a plea deal so that this matter goes to trial and we get stuff on the record.

I agree that industrial safety (including use of firearms) is job, and responsibility of everyone on the site. I spent decades working in an industry where that was paramount. It can be done, but it requires top down management enforcement of ALL ranks, and the ability to easily get rid of people who refuse to comply.

Doing that is not the cheapest way to run a railroad, its quite costly in fact, but its the only way to keep people as safe as possible. Cheap out, to maximize profit for investors, cut corners and people die. That may, or may not be a disaster for the shareholders (though often is) but it truly sucks for the person who gets killed or injured, and there are things no amount of money can buy.

[Tom Servo]

Its not about being a Rat. Sometimes Whistle Blowing is the right thing to do.

That's SOP for anyone on any kind of safety-sensitive worksite. And movie sets with firearms fit that definition. That's why they have prop masters and armorers in the first place. The SAG has rules on this stuff.

Problem is, the rules were disregarded. The guy in charge told people to disregard them and did so himself. There are absolutely liability issues here.

Is it enough for a criminal conviction? Time will tell. Is it enough to ensure successful civil action against him? Oh, yeah.

[44 AMP]

That's SOP for anyone on any kind of safety-sensitive worksite.

It can, however, be taken to stupid extremes.

One PITA moron threw the "stop work" card because the tube of Torque Seal didn't have the Maker's name and ADDRESS on the tube! So, he couldn't (in his own mind) be sure he had the "correct" MSDS. Those of us responsible for providing the correct MSDS had done our jobs correctly, and were satisfied it was the right one, but our assurances were not good enough for him, because he found something where what he saw didn't meet the letter of the requirements. It did, but he was too wrapped up in being a PITA to realize it.

The stuff came 12 tubes to the box and the BOX met the requirements....

Nuclear industry, dozen + guys working on that job, and ONE guy got it shut down (briefly) for petty BS..

He wound up getting sent home, that day, never brought up that issue again...if he had, he would be looking for work elsewhere....

Stop Work is a good thing, when there is an actual risk previously unidentified, but it can be abused.

[HiBC]

Stop Work is a good thing, when there is an actual risk previously unidentified, but it can be abused.

Agreed. I've seen it happen.

Some folks lose track of "Why are we here?" Bottom line,we are on a team to make money.
Unjustifiable shut downs defeats making money. The PITA you mention needs to be informed how much his BS cost. My guess is it was more then his annual salary. He wasted the efforts of his co-workers.
At the same time, an Exacto-Knife hand injury ,or a blown spinal disc or a "No Safety Glasses" eye injury can cost tens of thousands of dollars,plus pain and disability. Cutting corners does not pay in the long run. Lets not forget OSHA fines.

A "Stop Work" needs to be debriefed and critiqued. If its justifiable, Its an opportunity for management to encourage safety culture. "We stand behind this".
I would think a process engineer could evaluate the described "STOP" card and MSDS info and intervened,following up with an "Action Taken" report.

Humans are humans. Some will be passive/aggressive PITAs Those MAY be given a "coaching session", System corrected....maybe.

Or they may lose their place on the team.

With consistent application, the Culture can stabilize.

Baldwin has been in the industry a long time. He ought to know where the fences are. With somehing like gun safety, a "Workaround" is intolerable.

Halyna is dead.

[Metal god]

Here is the "statement of probable cause"

https://lawofselfdefense.com/alec-ba...robable-cause/

Based on this Probable cause statement with out further evidence and cross examination . Clearly shows the criminal liability of both Baldwin and Reed .

[Aguila Blanca]

Thanks for posting the charging document. The details spell out pretty much what we have already determined. It will be interesting to see what happens at trial.

[Tom Servo]

Yowza. He's in trouble. Here's the stuff he's going to get grilled on:

• he blew off the firearm safety training the armorer insisted upon
• he claimed in a later interview to be an "expert" in firearms based on this
• he handled a functional firearm, even after he'd been told the gun for that scene should have been a non-firing dummy gun
• he admitted to first responders that he "fired" the shot
• the FBI tried to make the gun fire without the trigger being pulled. They could not.
• the armorer had no certification, or even the required union card. Baldwin cut corners hiring her
• prop master Sarah Zachary had no verifiable experience with firearms, but was made to act as armorer. Among her responsibilities was loading and unloading firearms on set.
• Zachary had a negligent discharge on set, for which she wasn't reprimanded in any way
• the prior camera crew quit because of safety concerns, and the new crew started on the day of shooting. They had received no briefings on safe practices

[Mainah]

Baldwin is a lawyer's wet dream, a rich guy who won't shut up.

[mehavey]

Is there a companion charging doc for Hannah Reed?
I' d like to see the specifics associated w/ charging her w/manslaughter

[Metal god]

Ms Reeds statement of probable cause

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...sive=1&title=1

[Metal god]

Well I was wrong , in that Reed had NO certification what so ever in firearms training or safety On top of that you hire a complete noob as her assistant , what the hell man !! . I don't do anything professionally firearms related and I have multiple certificates of firearms safety and training . I'm likely more qualified to be the armorer on set then Reed
and likely anyone else on set for that matter .

Based on these probable cause statements there really isn't much more to say about this case . The one thing I've read and had not thought of is where are the reckless endangerment charges ? I mean he did shoot two people so where's the charges for the second victim and anyone else near by that could have been injured by all these reckless acts ?

[44 AMP]

A couple of things I would like to point out, first, lack of formal certification does NOT absolutely mean a person doesn't know what they are doing, just as having a certifiaction does NOT mean the person absolutely does. All having a certification (or diploma, etc) proves is that the person who has it didn't flunk out of the class.

Actual competence is not determined by what piece of paper you have or don't have.

Legal/job requirements might be.

Second, and relatively minor point, Baldwin did not "shoot" two people. Two people were struck, one killed, by the SINGLE bullet fired. A small nuance of language, perhaps, but in legal mattes, small nuances can carry a huge weight.

[Metal god]

44 oh I know to well what you are saying . There’s definitely levels of understanding and abilities to explain/teach that's for sure .

[Aguila Blanca]

Link to an article about the charges:
https://deadline.com/2023/02/alec-ba...is-1235239588/

Hannah Gutierrez-Reed has been charged, but reading the details in this article it appears that as armorer she was working with one arm tied behind her back, being limited to 8 "armorer days" for a movie with lots of guns and lots of shooting.

[Metal god]

in this article it appears that as armorer she was working with one arm tied behind her back, being limited to 8 "armorer days" for a movie with lots of guns and lots of shooting.

As others have said in this thread . I'd like to see how much bullying Baldwin did on the set . Yes she was in charge of firearms but Baldwin was not only an actor on set , as the producer he was her boss as well . She clearly was not a strong enough person to challenge his authority and that's on her . I really hope one of these goes to trial , televised would be even better .

[44 AMP]

Considering both recorded incidents, and his reputation bullying people who didn't work for him, I think we can form a reasonable opinion about how Baldwin would behave on a set where he was the boss.

One of the serious flaws in the movie industry, still, is the fact that disagreeing with "the boss" (about ANYTHING) can not only cost you your job at the time, it can cost you a lot more, even your entire future career in the industry.

The fact that some people risked that and walked off the job anyway tells me that the set was not a happy workplace.

[4V50 Gary]

I wish I could find the video but it shows Baldwin carelessly pointing a handgun during a filming break. Some guy in the background is telling him to stop messing around and to put it down.

[Metal god]

You won’t find it , at least not in main stream anything. That has been scrubbed from the net . It’s called controlling the narrative .

Was the clip on the set of rust or other movie ?