Alec Baldwin- Charges dropped :-@

[Sevens]

Agreed, to a point. He should be pointing and shooting ONLY what the script calls for. Show me the script that says the actor should point his gun at the cinematographer next to the camera, and not at another actor in the scene, and I'd say Baldwin followed the script. I don't think he did.

I haven't seen the script, I won't see the script. Plenty of movies (especially low budget bad movies, as this one has the reputation for) will show an actor pointing a gun at the camera. And if he's pointing it the way most (bad) actors and (bad) scripts call for, he's not taking careful aim and using the sights, he's pointing from the hip or some version of a low hold.

It's my opinion that you are splitting hairs by suggesting the script doesn't have this (bad) actor pointing this gun in the general direction of a camera and thus a cinematographer and anyone near her.

[44 AMP]

It's my opinion that you are splitting hairs by suggesting the script doesn't have this (bad) actor pointing this gun in the general direction of a camera and thus a cinematographer and anyone near her.

Perhaps I am splitting hairs, though I see it as using details to make a point.

The point I was intending here, is that some people have argued that actors should get special consideration because of their job (which is pretending) and that pointing guns at people and (pretend shooting them) is a frequent occurrence. Because its in the script. The instructions actors are supposed to be following. No script (except an intentional parody) tell the actor to shoot one of the film crew. Another actor, a character part of the story line, yes, someone "behind" the camera? No.

This was an act entirely done by the actor, and not even an improv simply a stupid error. One that, this time, had fatal consequences.

He was off the script, off the map, and the only thing controlling his actions was himself and his lack of attention to what he was doing.

HAD there been only a non-firing prop gun involved, we wouldn't be discussing this. Had the set been properly property controlled that there was no possibility of live ammo being there, and getting into a working gun, it would also be a moot point.

Those factors are (and were) under the control of production management, and in this case, that was also Baldwin. (while there were other people hired to do the actual job, it was management's responsibility to hire competent people and ensure they did their jobs competently. Managment (ultimately Baldwin) failed in that, as well.

The entire point of "splitting hairs" and a detail focused accident investigation and review is to determine as exactly as possible precisely what happened, who did what when, step by step to be able to develop a "lessons learned" that we can apply to prevent the accident from happening again.

[JohnKSa]

...some people have argued that actors should get special consideration because of their job...

No, not special consideration. It's that they operate in a different world where the normal gun safety rules do not apply while on set. That's why they have an expert whose full time job is to make sure that things remain safe on set when guns are involved.

If something goes wrong, the expert is responsible. And, possibly, if the expert wasn't really an expert and that should have been (or became) obvious, the person who hired (or didn't fire) the expert.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

If something goes wrong, the expert is responsible. And, possibly, if the expert wasn't really an expert and that should have been (or became) obvious, the person who hired (or didn't fire) the expert.

Or maybe the person who wasn't willing to pay what an experienced expert wanted, or hire TWO people because of the number of guns involved, as most of the armorers they approached said was necessary.

Or maybe the person who wasn't willing to hire even an inexperienced expert on the cheap and then allow her to be the full-time expert. Instead, if I understood the articles correctly, the armorer had to split her time between being a part-time armorer and a part-time prop assistant.

In hindsight, clearly not a good allocation of resources.

{Edit to add}https://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...gutierrez-reed

One veteran prop master previously told The Times that he declined offers to join the film’s crew, in part, because he was concerned about producers’ insistence to combine two important jobs — armorer and props assistant — saying “this is an accident waiting to happen.”

[44 AMP]

It's that they operate in a different world where the normal gun safety rules do not apply while on set.

I think this might be one of the root causes of the problem.

Look at the history of the movie industry, and look back at the firearms accidental shootings and deaths on the set when real functional firearms and ammunition were often the standard props.

I'm sure there were some accidents, but I think more people were hurt and killed in falls and stunts gone bad than got shot by accident.

Today, we are in the situation where great effort has been made to increase safety, and the majority of prop guns are not functional firearms. I think the fact that they are not "real" guns contributes to a more lax attitude overall and this can be a problem when real guns are on the set.

As to hiring an expert and the expert being the sole responsible party if something goes wrong is a shortsighted view.

The most competent expert in the world cannot create a safe work environment all by themselves. IF Management doesn't listen to the expert they hired, if the workers (actors in this case) don't listen, or follow the rules, because "they know it all, already" bad things are likely, and its hardly fair to blame the expert alone.

Perhaps the woman they hired as armorer wasn't up to the job. Perhaps she would have been if the rest of the production company was required to follow ALL the rules.

There are many unanswered questions important to the situation the press has not pursued, or if they have, didn't bother reporting what was found. I'm sure the investigation is looking at those questions and hopefully does have the answers, and we'll find out what they are at the trial.

The question of "who put the live round in the gun" is just one of them.
Some others are, "who brought the guns to the set?, and how did they get them to take them to the set?" its reported that the armorer, (who SHOULD have had complete and sole control over the firearms) wasn't on that set, was at a different location doing other property management duties at the time.

MULTIPLE violations of movie industry standard safe practices were done. Literally none of the movie industry's rules about firearms on the set were followed, that day, at least.

 

[HiBC]

Long ago the shooting community figured out "I didn't know the gun was loaded" was killing people.
The shooting community adopted a code . They were happy to share it with the non-shooting community.
"Treat all guns as loaded" "Never point a gun at a target you do not want to destroy"
And so on.

Now,to my recall, Tom Mix and Hopalong Cassidy and Andy Divine and a host of others did a LOT of gunslinging and I never heard of deaths on set.
Maybe they happened.

I get it that show biz operates in the land if fantasy,they are "Artists" some are narcissists, they embrace "Nuance" and show business has its own "reality".

A shootem-up Western is going to have gun pointing.

The screen actors guild as its own safety standards. There were a number of ways those standards were violated on set at "Rust".

I'm not in the filmbiz. I am a gun guy. If I (We) decided there was sufficient need to break the usual gun rules ....say take a picture of the muzzle end of a pointed gun... We could do that.

First we would discuss it, then we would,together, take steps. Mutually clear the gun. If its an AR-15? Remove the BCG. Whatever.

But we take mutual responsibility for the fact we are "stepping out of bounds" and we install a different set of redundant safety standards for that situation.

That CAN work. Thats why the Screen Actors Guild has its own set of standards.

Now I have two points to make.

1) If you don't follow the standards, they don't work.

2) If we say "OK,for this scene, we are going outside the box. " (Time,budget,Artist Creative Nuance). You can do that . I can't stop you.
But if ANYTHING GOES WRONG you are 100% responsible. 100%. No ducking it. No "trigger thing" No "Somebody loaded it" . No "I'm just an actor"

Everyone who broke the screen actor's guild policy s 100% guilty.

Point to somebody else as guilty? Maybe so. Two people,three can ALL be guilty. That does not make anyone innocent.

FWIW "60 Minutes Australia" did documentary on this. They have video of Baldwin's gun play right up to the event. Baldwins trigger finger was fully through the trigger guard. It was part of his grip on the gun.
Not that it matters. The whole trigger thing is a red herring distraction excuse.

[stagpanther]

Simple truth is--human engineered systems are prone to entropy, and cannot account for all failure mode probabilities. Space shuttles can blow up--airliners can dive straight into the ground. The more you do something with a subjective element of risk--the greater the odds that something is going to go sideways with a bad outcome eventually.

I think I shoot a lot compared to the average person and have been at least a recreational shooter for most of my life. I've had a few ADs in my time. Only because I was "obeying the golden rule" and pointing at the ground or target when they happened have I managed to really stay out of trouble.

You could trot Baldwin out in front of a firing squad to make him "pay" for his alleged negligence if you think that's what he deserves--but that's probably not going to change the probability of something like this from happening again IMO without a more holistic system-failure approach.

My personal opinion/conjecture is that the everyone on the set treated the filming with firearms as if it were some kind of casual halloween like reenactment--especially if it turns out that in between film shoots they had fun plinking with live ammo. It's very easy for people who have little familiarity with the serious killing power of guns to get a complacent "cool toys" attitude about firearms--not that you would ever see anything like that on a firearms forum, right?

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by stagpanther

You could trot Baldwin out in front of a firing squad to make him "pay" for his alleged negligence if you think that's what he deserves--but that's probably not going to change the probability of something like this from happening again IMO without a more holistic system-failure approach.

The death of Brandon Lee on a film set was in 1993, after which the film industry came up with a boatload of protocols intended specifically and explicitly to prevent another death from firearms on set. Those protocols worked for 29 years ... and then along came Rust. The protocols were ignored -- not just one of them, but many of them -- and someone died.

Regardless of what happens to Baldwin in criminal court, I don't think we'll see the safety protocols being ignored again for a very long time. Dome producers and directors have decided that they will not use any real guns again, ever. They'll stick to true prop guns, and CGI "gunfire."

[44 AMP]

You could trot Baldwin out in front of a firing squad to make him "pay" for his alleged negligence if you think that's what he deserves---

I rather like that idea!

Send him to the wall, for a "rehearsal" of the firing squad scene.

Bring in the squad, unarmed. Line them up and then have someone bring in a cart full of Colt SAA replicas, hand one to each squad member, declaring "Cold gun!" each time.

The guns were (assumedly) loaded somewhere else. No one checks what they guns are loaded with.

The firing squad is instructed to point and shoot. He'll be safe, because they were "cold guns" that nobody checked, right??

[stagpanther]

Regardless of what happens to Baldwin in criminal court, I don't think we'll see the safety protocols being ignored again for a very long time.

I think maybe some people missed my point. There are objective hazards--those that are known and can be planned for to minimize risk. Then there are subjective hazards--those that are unknown or unpredictable. You can, for example, have a preflight list that encompasses most of the probable risks that are known--but there will always be that "one in a million" chance dragon lurking out there. It's also easy to get complacent about check lists--having a false sense of security that it will catch every possible risk. It's amazing how sometimes just a small glitch in a system can cascade into a catastrophic event.

[44 AMP]

Regardless of what happens to Baldwin in criminal court, I don't think we'll see the safety protocols being ignored again for a very long time.

No, we probably won't. But, the key word here is "see". Things happen all the time that are risks, and could result in accidents, but don't. Without some degree of harm, the only people who "see" unsafe behavior (and systemic practices) are those who are being paid to look.

Or, more correctly, some of those paid to look, and occasionally a motivated activist who isn't being paid.

It doesn't seem to matter much which field you look at, as long as there are people involved, you can find the same general patterns.

There are objective hazards--those that are known and can be planned for to minimize risk. Then there are subjective hazards--those that are unknown or unpredictable. You can, for example, have a preflight list that encompasses most of the probable risks that are known--but there will always be that "one in a million" chance dragon lurking out there. It's also easy to get complacent about check lists--having a false sense of security that it will catch every possible risk. It's amazing how sometimes just a small glitch in a system can cascade into a catastrophic event.

I spent a quite a few years working in the industrial safety segment of a nuclear industry. I've had a lot of training in accident prevention, accident investigation, and root cause analysis. Spent decades working where detailed step by step procedures and check lists were the only acceptable way of life. Hazardous material and energy control, Lock & Tag, independent verification, contamination control, work in IDLH environments, all that and more for over 30 years.

Stagpanther is essentially correct, and his points are widely known in the safety community, and sadly, widely ignored by the rest of mankind, UNTIL something bites them in the ass, literally.

Virtually every accident can be traced to a series of small, usually harmless seeming acts, until the final one, where all the dominos fall, and people can die.

Nearly all the accidents have their root cause in some form of human error.

Most of the time the root cause of that is categorized as "Lack of Training". ITs a broad category, which includes several things, including fitness for duty, knowing what to do, knowing but not doing the right things, and even not following proper procedures due to familiarity and complacency.

Actual design flaws are waay down on the list, and mechanical failure is not always present, or always the major or initiating factor. When it is present, mechanical failure often is the first indicator noticed, might be the straw that breaks the camel's back, but its almost never the original cause alone.

Also note that the overwhelming majority of accidents happen during "off normal" and "non standard" conditions. Large, or small, something not usual is nearly always involved. This included the "back shift" where work is done outside of standard hours and practices.

From the Titanic through Bho Pol, and Chernobyl to many airplane crashes and the shuttle disasters, the pattern is evident, when you look.

While we don't have formal investigation reports yet, the reported information is clear that pattern was operating on the Rust film set.

This is what people do, unless there is someone specifically tasked with preventing it, AND those someone's have the authority to enforce the rules.

IF they don't, or if they're not even there, accidents will happen, and injury and death is the likely result.

[fastbolt]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

I think it's also important to include the fact that he pointed the gun at a person, AND, OPERATED the gun that he had not personally inspected the gun to see if it was loaded, (or with what).

He admits to cocking the hammer, but denies pulling the trigger. I think a court should determine if expert testimony or Baldwin's memory is the deciding factor describing what really happened.

My vote is not on his memory...

If I am understanding the linked article correctly, NM now believes there is enough evidence to charge and send the case to a Grand Jury. Period.

No claims (other then "new evidence") or explanation what the new evidence is, or might be, and I'm fine with that. They don't have to tell the press what it is, or how they are making their decision process, only what the decision is.

The rest of the information will come out, if the case goes to trial, and my personal opinion is that it should go to trial.

Agree. All the way around.

[fastbolt]

If the bar for criminal culpability for involuntary manslaughter is set as low as I briefly saw when I looked up the NM statutes after the incident on the film set, it doesn't seem that a good case, including credible expert witnesses explaining evidence, would make it terribly difficult to get an informed jury to convict. Of course, people being people, not everyone who makes it onto a jury listens to the judge explain the law, and how it's applied, or believes evidence presented by a prosecutor.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

No, we probably won't. But, the key word here is "see". Things happen all the time that are risks, and could result in accidents, but don't. Without some degree of harm, the only people who "see" unsafe behavior (and systemic practices) are those who are being paid to look.

I wasn't saying that NO rules will be broken. People are human, and do make mistakes. That's exactly why we have redundant safety rules -- so that it one rule is broken, one or more other rules will (we hope) still prevent a catastrophe.

What happened in the Rust incident was a wholesale, organization-wide, systemic culture of ignoring the rules (or industry protocols). Look at all the things that contributed to the shooting:

• Experienced armorers told them they needed TWO armorers due to the number of guns involved. They hired one -- an inexperienced druggie -- and then made her only part-time as armorer
• Baldwin, the star, refused to participate in firearm safety training
• Live ammunition was allowed on the set
• Prop guns were allowed to be used for recreational shooting with live ammo
• The firearm involved was not loaded by the armorer in the physical presence of both the assistant director in charge of safety AND the actor who was to handle the gun
• The firearm was left on a cart near the set, unattended
• The assistant director picked up the firearm and declared it to be a "cold gun" without performing even a rudimentary check, AND without having been present when it was loaded
• There was no reason or need to have even dummy rounds in the gun when setting up the shot to check camera angles and actor movements
• The camera and personnel were not behind a ballistic screen when a firearm was being pointed directly at the camera
• The armorer wasn't anywhere near the set when the gun was being handled

There are probably a few more that could be cited if one were to rigorously review the Screen Actors Guild protocols. We don't need any more -- the above are enough. In a previous post I referred to the Swiss cheese analogy. This is that safety is made up of redundant rules, and each rule is like a slice of Swiss cheese. The goal is to layer the cheese so the holes don't align. If each hole represents a rule, then if something happens and something slips through one of the holes, the next slice should have solid cheese there to stop the error from causing a major problem. Looking at the Baldwin incident this way, how many slices of Swiss cheese had to be arranged with the holes in alignment for Halyna Hutchins to be killed by what was supposed to have been a "cold gun."

Will individual mistakes be made again on film sets? Almost certainly. But I very much doubt that there will be another production that engages in institutional flouting of just about ALL of the safety protocols for a very long time.

[44 AMP]

One of my points was that, whether they flout or follow all the rules or just some of them, if there is no accident, we won't hear about it.

Just as many people feel things are only criminal if you get caught, so it is with safety, to a point. IF there is no accident, your safety system "works" whether there is one, or not. Its only after there is an accident (or a serious near miss) that the safety system, or lack of it, becomes known to the general public.

[HiBC]

When you have maturity and LEADERSHIP in management you can/will have a safe environment.
First and foremost there was a LIFE lost. Thats a Mom.A Wife. A loved one.
And a serious injury.

Next we have the lesser losses. A ton of money,a lot of time,maybe careers.

What will wipe out the bottom line profits faster than medical bills,lawsuits ,OSHA fines, etc.

Where did cutting corners save time or money?

When management sends a clear message about the priority of safety...that safety is ALWAYS the right thing to do....its a start. A critical start.

Then make it clear each individual is EXPECTED to say " Wait! No,that is unsafe!! "

The individual is responsible for his own safety. And we all have to look out for each other.

Fix or scrap a rickety ladder. Electrical cord missing a ground prong? Cut the plug off. Right now, Then it will get fixed. Oil leak? Document a repair order and post a slip hazard sign. Put down a pig mat and oil dry. Do something.

Give EVERY EMPLOYEE the power to shut down unsafe operation.

Nobody wants a dangerous workplace. Most people want the enterprise to be successful. Thats where pay raises and job security come from.

Baldwin had crew walking off set due to safety issues. There was no Leader. No commitment to a safe workplace,
But we can get stoned and take "Gunslinger Selfies" with our gunleather.

Cartridge belt? Loops full of cartridges? I don't recall. Maybe. But dang,cant pose for a selfie of the loops aint full. Empty loop looks like a missing tooth.

Now....Hmmm. Are those all dummies or might a live round get poked in to make it look right?

Do these jeans make my butt look........???? ( Just a little off script creativity and nuance.)

[rickyrick]

Funny how there’s millions (probably billions) of words written in our country discussing a right that’s supposed to be protected by on sentence in the constitution.

[HiBC]

Funny how there’s millions (probably billions) of words written in our country discussing a right that’s supposed to be protected by on sentence in the constitution.

I have not particularly noticed anyone questioning the RTKBA on this thread.

Have you?

[Paul B.]

Quote:
Funny how there’s millions (probably billions) of words written in our country discussing a right that’s supposed to be protected by on sentence in the constitution.
I have not particularly noticed anyone questioning the RTKBA on this thread.

Have you? Unquote:

Probably because this is not a RTKBA issue at hand.

What is at issue is, "Who put the live round in the gun that killed the woman and injured another, and WHY?

One of the things I remember reading was that she'd asked him to point the gun more at her while trying to find the camera angle she wanted. If that's the case, I can't fault Baldwin for doing as directed but I'm surprised neither he nor someone else on the set didn't object about the safety issue.

At this stage of the game, I wonder if we'll ever really find out what actually happened?
Paul B.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Paul B.

One of the things I remember reading was that she'd asked him to point the gun more at her while trying to find the camera angle she wanted. If that's the case, I can't fault Baldwin for doing as directed but I'm surprised neither he nor someone else on the set didn't object about the safety issue.

I remember reading the same thing. And you're right -- someone on the set should have objected. This fits in with what I posted above regarding the fact that so many of the safety protocols were ignored in this incident that they completely negated the intended purpose of having redundant rules. If you have three overlapping rules and one of them is broken, the other two (in theory) still operate to avoid a mishap. If you have three overlapping rules and violate all three ... you ain't got nuttin'.

[44 AMP]

One of the things I remember reading was that she'd asked him to point the gun more at her while trying to find the camera angle she wanted. If that's the case, I can't fault Baldwin for doing as directed but I'm surprised neither he nor someone else on the set didn't object about the safety issue.

That might well be true.

But, balance that with this,
One of the things I remember reading was that Balwin was practicing drawing, cocking the hammer, pointing the gun at various people, and one report even went so far as to say she mentioned it, and Balwin supposedly said "how about I just shoot you?" and then, did.

There is so much stuff out there that is 100% opposites, no one can easily tell the truth, though some things seem more likely than others.

This is the primary reason I want to see the matter go to a full trial, so that there will be sworn testimony about the various stories, which will give us a better standard to use understanding what actually happened, and didn't happen.

I would like to know who put (or left) the live round in the gun, so we have an idea if the act was simple negligence or an intentional (and criminal?) act with the motive to cause harm. I'd like to know (as best we can) if the gun had more than one live round in it.

We can posit all kinds of "what if" scenarios, sworn testimony in court, challenged and accepted, supported by verified facts will, at least, allow us to toss out the fantastic theories.

The idea that there was only one live round in the gun, and that round was under the hammer, while the gun was pointed at a person, and Baldwin slipped the hammer allowing the gun to fire is a lot of highly unlikely things all lined up in such a way to create a fatal accident. It is not, however, impossible.

It will hopefully be up to a jury and not just the court of public opinion (and misinformation) to determine, as best we can what actually happened, and not just what we think likely to have happened.