mcmxi
Well-known member
Lifetime Member
Equipment
***Current*** M6060HDC, MX6000HSTC & GL7000 ***Sold*** MX6000HST & BX25DLB
Alec Baldwin facing prison and shouldnt be.
- Thread starter motionclone
- Start date
Absolutely!
There isn't supposed to be live ammo on a set. Which is why they are supposed to verify what type it is. I didn't mean to insinuate that there was live rounds.
They are also supposed to verify the barrel is unobstructed. That didn't happen in the filming of The Crow and a blank killed Brandon Lee.
fried1765
Well-known member
Equipment
Kubota L48 TLB, Ford 1920 FEL, Ford 8N, SCAG Liberty Z, Gravely Pro.
Did not think I expressed any paranoia!
Just commented on not having heard of any such thing.
That makes it paranoia?
No no…I wasn’t accusing you of paranoia… I was only trying to add clarification to the intent of the proposal.
Back to Baldwin and gun handling on movie-sets:
Folks… it’s PATENTLY RIDICULOUS to require actors to handle guns in accordance with gun-safety rules on a movie set. Why? Because Movies are made to be seen by a paying audience.
Who is going to pay good money to go see Matt Dillon tell Black Bart to meet him at Noon in the street so they can pull guns out of holsters, check them for being empty, then NOT point them at the other person?
Doh!
Actors are SUPPOSED TO LOOK LIKE THEY ARE SHOOTING SOMEONE!
The safe—guards in-place on movie sets are hired firearms experts who are tasked with keeping UN-loaded guns from killing actors.
The armorer and the safety-officers on Rust are who killed that lady and injured the Director.
Doh.
The commonly practiced gun safety rules and etiquette are indeed dispensed with to some degree in making movies. However the common safety CHECKS (BEFORE) a firearm is picked up and used IS NOT.
Actors are not exempt from this. They are very much a part of the chain of custody and 'team' that ultimately insures the firearm IS in the state it is supposed to be.
The primary responsibility is that of the on site armorer. But just as is practiced off the movie set, anytime a firearm is handed to another person (other than training a novice) it should be treated as loaded and checked by that person as well. It is abundantly clear that a lot of this didn't happen OR the person handling the weapon was ignorant of its condition. Neither scenario is acceptable with firearms.
IF the person using/handling a firearm in an acting situation is not fundamentally familiar with its operation and correct use....then it shouldn't be in their hands. Someone is going to get hurt.
motionclone
Well-known member
Lifetime Member
Equipment
L345DT with Lp mower, forks and grapple thumb, Bobcat 337 Midi Ex
It was reported that "cold gun" was announced by crew member Hall right before the gun was handed to Baldwin. Cold gun is supposed to mean no live rounds.
Baldwin not being a gun guy took the experts word for it.
Alfred_2345
Active member
Equipment
L3901, LA525, BH77, SGC1060, RZ60, Box Blade, Z726XKW ZTM, RTV-X900
I think there is a misunderstanding here. We are not talking about what happens between when the director calls "action" and "cut". But before the director calls "action", the armorer is supposed to demostrate to the 1st AD and the actor that the weapon is in the proper/safe condition. (Which did not happen.) Once the safety of the weapon has been demostrated, it is turned over to the actor. (my interpretation from the probable cause statement). After the director calls "cut", the armorer is supposed to immediately collect/take possesion the weapons. (I don't remember were I found this.)
So yes everyone on the set is supposed to follow standard gun safety rules when not actually filming. In fact, the movie set rules go further such as "no live ammo". These safety rules MUST be follow because firearms can kill!
BTW: I haven't heard where the live ammo came from. Per the probably cause statement it did not come from the suppliers of the dummies and blanks. "This means the lives rounds on RUST did not match the rounds explosive chemistry taken from PDQ Arms and Prop." Per other media reports there was "plinking" going on which means someone brought live ammo. The producer (in charge of the set), 1st AD (in charge of safety) and the armorer (repsonsilbe for all firearms) should have immediately put a stop to that on the first occurance and ensured all live ammo be removed. All 3 bear responsibility.
It will be interesting to see what comes out in a trial.
If I were on the jury....that bit of information would be important to me. I would need to weigh it against any industry standards/requirements concerning everyone's role and responsibilities with respect to legal requirements.
We can muse about all the 'should have dones', but only the legal aspects are of concern in a criminal trial.
I'm not sure I agree entirely with the charge....but we will see.
Alfred_2345
Active member
Equipment
L3901, LA525, BH77, SGC1060, RZ60, Box Blade, Z726XKW ZTM, RTV-X900
I agree. Actors can spend months preparing for a role (getting in physical shape, learning a trade/skill, speech patterns, etc) before the filming even starts. If the character uses fireams, learning proper firearms handling should be a part of that. There is no reason not to.
Alfred_2345
Active member
Equipment
L3901, LA525, BH77, SGC1060, RZ60, Box Blade, Z726XKW ZTM, RTV-X900
I know you said this tounge in check but OSHA was referenced a couple times in the probable cause statement so they got their fingers in it also.
Who knows what their findings will be....
NCL4701
Well-known member
Equipment
L4701, T2290, WC68, grapple, BB1572, Farmi W50R, Howes 500, 16kW IMD gen, WG24
I’m not entirely sure why I’m still reading this thread other than the wife is all into watching Hell’s Kitchen tonight and to me it’s only slightly more tolerable than fingernails on a chalkboard.
So, real question on a real scenario that happened to me about 25 years ago. I was working as an investigator for an insurance company. The company had paid one of our insureds for several long guns that were stolen. The sheriff dept recovered the guns and charged some guy with the larceny. He pled not guilty and went to trial. There were some other charges tied into it and by the time it was fully adjudicated a couple of years had passed. The company had paid the insured for the guns before they were recovered so basically the insurance company owned the recovered guns at that point. (We could argue about that if someone wants to, but that’s how it works, at least here.) Anyway, so a bit shy of two and a half years since they were stolen and about two years since they were recovered and checked into the sheriff dept evidence room, I have to pick up about a dozen long guns from the sheriff dept. I show up and meet a detective who I knew, respected, and was also a friend. Much of the time, guns coming back from LE on recovery have zip ties through the action but not always, and these didn’t. Since there were a bunch of them he rolled them out on a cart, we signed our respective chain of custody forms, and he asked if I wanted him to cart the guns out to my car so I wouldn’t have to make a bunch of trips. I said sure as I picked up a AR, dropped the clip out, opened the bolt, and checked the chamber. He flew hot asking me what the hell I thought I was doing. Told him I didn’t mean to insult anyone but if I’m taking the guns, I’m clearing them; just habit . He told me I better cut it out and started in on how they’re professionals and they’re cleared when checked into the evidence room and what I was doing was insulting and… Not sure what else he planned to say because while he was laying in to me I had put the AR down, picked up some sort of lightweight bolt action hunting rifle in 300 Win Mag, slammed the bolt open, and a live round flew across the room. That shut him up temporarily. As I picked up the next gun to clear, I told him again no offense to anyone, that’s exactly why I have that habit. He didn’t respond so I looked at him and it looked like he was about to pass out. He told me to stop as I was clearing the third gun, but this time it was a polite request, so I stopped. He said that gun had been in evidence that whole time, taken into a court room, exhibited in court as evidence, handled by attorneys in court, checked back into the evidence room, and if it had a live round in the chamber it must have been there the whole time they had it: through all that handling and checking in, out, and back in. Past that first evidence clerk that checked it in and was supposed to clear it, no one that handled it had checked it again. Together, we finished clearing all of them. The rest were clear. We rolled them out to my car and all was well. No harm, no foul.
But… what if I had taken possession of that rifle and trusted the multiple trained experts who had handled that gun several times, assured me all those guns were clear, treated it like it was safe, and had an accidental discharge that killed someone? Should I be charged with involuntary manslaughter?
How about the ADA that was handling that loaded rifle in court after the evidence clerk assured him it was properly processed on intake and cleared. If they had an accidental discharge and killed a couple of people in the courtroom, should they be charged with anything?
Or do the ADA and I both skate by laying all the blame on the evidence clerk that screwed up multiple times as that gun went in and out of his evidence room?
I have a pretty good suspicion I would have lost my career and pulled some time for involuntary manslaughter. And if it happened to the ADA they would have gotten a transfer to some backwater county in the mountains or swamplands but no charges (prosecutorial discretion and whatnot) albeit after monetary settlements with the heirs.
And I think that’s what gnaws at some people a bit (or a lot) about this type situation. Does a celebrity, or local politician who’s “connected”, or someone rich enough to hire the OJ Dream Team Part 2: do they get the same treatment as some average guy like me?
Do they (or I) get the same treatment as someone who sits in jail for a year awaiting trial because they can’t afford $2000 bail and their public defender hardly ever talks to them?
If Baldwin has a fair trial and the outcome is in keeping with the actual evidence applied to the laws of the jurisdiction in which the incident occurred, I personally don’t care if that means he goes to jail or is acquitted or what. He has the money to defend himself as well as anyone, and he’d be a fool not to do so. If he’s exonerated based on the evidence objectively applied to the law, fine. If he’s acquitted or gets preferential treatment BECAUSE he’s Alec Baldwin, that’s not fine.
So, real question on a real scenario that happened to me about 25 years ago. I was working as an investigator for an insurance company. The company had paid one of our insureds for several long guns that were stolen. The sheriff dept recovered the guns and charged some guy with the larceny. He pled not guilty and went to trial. There were some other charges tied into it and by the time it was fully adjudicated a couple of years had passed. The company had paid the insured for the guns before they were recovered so basically the insurance company owned the recovered guns at that point. (We could argue about that if someone wants to, but that’s how it works, at least here.) Anyway, so a bit shy of two and a half years since they were stolen and about two years since they were recovered and checked into the sheriff dept evidence room, I have to pick up about a dozen long guns from the sheriff dept. I show up and meet a detective who I knew, respected, and was also a friend. Much of the time, guns coming back from LE on recovery have zip ties through the action but not always, and these didn’t. Since there were a bunch of them he rolled them out on a cart, we signed our respective chain of custody forms, and he asked if I wanted him to cart the guns out to my car so I wouldn’t have to make a bunch of trips. I said sure as I picked up a AR, dropped the clip out, opened the bolt, and checked the chamber. He flew hot asking me what the hell I thought I was doing. Told him I didn’t mean to insult anyone but if I’m taking the guns, I’m clearing them; just habit . He told me I better cut it out and started in on how they’re professionals and they’re cleared when checked into the evidence room and what I was doing was insulting and… Not sure what else he planned to say because while he was laying in to me I had put the AR down, picked up some sort of lightweight bolt action hunting rifle in 300 Win Mag, slammed the bolt open, and a live round flew across the room. That shut him up temporarily. As I picked up the next gun to clear, I told him again no offense to anyone, that’s exactly why I have that habit. He didn’t respond so I looked at him and it looked like he was about to pass out. He told me to stop as I was clearing the third gun, but this time it was a polite request, so I stopped. He said that gun had been in evidence that whole time, taken into a court room, exhibited in court as evidence, handled by attorneys in court, checked back into the evidence room, and if it had a live round in the chamber it must have been there the whole time they had it: through all that handling and checking in, out, and back in. Past that first evidence clerk that checked it in and was supposed to clear it, no one that handled it had checked it again. Together, we finished clearing all of them. The rest were clear. We rolled them out to my car and all was well. No harm, no foul.
But… what if I had taken possession of that rifle and trusted the multiple trained experts who had handled that gun several times, assured me all those guns were clear, treated it like it was safe, and had an accidental discharge that killed someone? Should I be charged with involuntary manslaughter?
How about the ADA that was handling that loaded rifle in court after the evidence clerk assured him it was properly processed on intake and cleared. If they had an accidental discharge and killed a couple of people in the courtroom, should they be charged with anything?
Or do the ADA and I both skate by laying all the blame on the evidence clerk that screwed up multiple times as that gun went in and out of his evidence room?
I have a pretty good suspicion I would have lost my career and pulled some time for involuntary manslaughter. And if it happened to the ADA they would have gotten a transfer to some backwater county in the mountains or swamplands but no charges (prosecutorial discretion and whatnot) albeit after monetary settlements with the heirs.
And I think that’s what gnaws at some people a bit (or a lot) about this type situation. Does a celebrity, or local politician who’s “connected”, or someone rich enough to hire the OJ Dream Team Part 2: do they get the same treatment as some average guy like me?
Do they (or I) get the same treatment as someone who sits in jail for a year awaiting trial because they can’t afford $2000 bail and their public defender hardly ever talks to them?
If Baldwin has a fair trial and the outcome is in keeping with the actual evidence applied to the laws of the jurisdiction in which the incident occurred, I personally don’t care if that means he goes to jail or is acquitted or what. He has the money to defend himself as well as anyone, and he’d be a fool not to do so. If he’s exonerated based on the evidence objectively applied to the law, fine. If he’s acquitted or gets preferential treatment BECAUSE he’s Alec Baldwin, that’s not fine.
NCL4701: THAT is a horrifying experience you tell. (I gave you a “like’ because I completely agree with your conclusion.)
However there is a major difference between your experience and the “Baldwin” case.
YOU and the detective were handling real firearms and you knew it. To YOUR credit, you treated them as firearms should be treated. (Damn! That is an amazing thing about that rifle going thru all that handling and no one checking it until YOU got your hands on it!)
But you, the detective, and everyone who handled it KNEW it was a firearm.
I suspect that: In Baldwins’ mind he did not have a firearm in his holster. He had a movie-prop.
That is the argument which will be made by his attorney also.…. who will be paid to place that question in the minds of the jury.
I wonder…. will the attorneys allow gun-enthusiasts on the jury… ? …or try to exclude them entirely?
Therefore it’s illogical to use that as your basis to argue that all actors are required to check the gun after the armorer has provided it after the weapon has been certified by that armorer. There is no “requirement” of the actor to do anything other than pretend to shoot the weapon.
The primary cause of the automobile crash was the “failure to control speed to avoid an accident”…by someone operating the vehicle. There may be circumstances to relieve some degree of responsibility of that driver but the prime cause is the same.
In Baldwin’s case, this trial will be about the “prime cause” and who should be held accountable.
I cannot imagine myself not checking a gun before pretending to shoot a camera. But I would also never use an actual firearm to pretend to shoot someone. Period! But I am not a movie actor being paid to do so. I am also surprised that California law, of All Places, should allow a real firearm to be used as a movie-prop.)
I believe there will be ample evidence to absolve Baldwin of major responsibility and that Reed and the safety-officer will be found criminally negligent.
Baldwin will never get over this, nor will the family of the deceased.
However there is a major difference between your experience and the “Baldwin” case.
YOU and the detective were handling real firearms and you knew it. To YOUR credit, you treated them as firearms should be treated. (Damn! That is an amazing thing about that rifle going thru all that handling and no one checking it until YOU got your hands on it!)
But you, the detective, and everyone who handled it KNEW it was a firearm.
I suspect that: In Baldwins’ mind he did not have a firearm in his holster. He had a movie-prop.
That is the argument which will be made by his attorney also.…. who will be paid to place that question in the minds of the jury.
I wonder…. will the attorneys allow gun-enthusiasts on the jury… ? …or try to exclude them entirely?
Technically…and legally….the Probable Cause document is not evidence. It is a prosecutors’ summary of what occurs on many movie-sets. It clearly cannot represent what occurred on the “Rust” set.
Therefore it’s illogical to use that as your basis to argue that all actors are required to check the gun after the armorer has provided it after the weapon has been certified by that armorer. There is no “requirement” of the actor to do anything other than pretend to shoot the weapon.
The primary cause of the automobile crash was the “failure to control speed to avoid an accident”…by someone operating the vehicle. There may be circumstances to relieve some degree of responsibility of that driver but the prime cause is the same.
In Baldwin’s case, this trial will be about the “prime cause” and who should be held accountable.
I cannot imagine myself not checking a gun before pretending to shoot a camera. But I would also never use an actual firearm to pretend to shoot someone. Period! But I am not a movie actor being paid to do so. I am also surprised that California law, of All Places, should allow a real firearm to be used as a movie-prop.)
I believe there will be ample evidence to absolve Baldwin of major responsibility and that Reed and the safety-officer will be found criminally negligent.
Baldwin will never get over this, nor will the family of the deceased.
Last edited:
Baldwin knew the firearm was real and that is was being used as a prop (for authenticity's sake). Else, there would be no need for an armorer on the set. I find your argument quite circular.
I hope Baldwin's attorney can come up with a better defense than "He's an actor, lives in a pretend world, didn't know he was actually handling a real firearm....or in his mind, didn't think it was".
GreensvilleJay
Well-known member
Equipment
BX23-S,57 A-C D-14,58 A-C D-14, 57 A-C D-14,tiller,cults,Millcreek 25G spreader,
IF he gets off, 'Scot free', it'll change all future cases involving firearms where someone got killed or injured.
EVERYONE will use the 'Alex Baldwin' defense and get off.
EVERYONE will use the 'Alex Baldwin' defense and get off.
I can hear it now...."Pulled a Baldwin"
The only reason John Doe was acquitted was because his attorney pulled a Baldwin.
Would you even need an attorney? When the judge asks you how you plea...just say 'Baldwin'.I can hear it now...."Pulled a Baldwin"
The only reason John Doe was acquitted was because his attorney pulled a Baldwin.
True. The suspect in the interrogation room is not even going to say "Lawyer". They will simply say "Baldwin"
fried1765
Well-known member
Equipment
Kubota L48 TLB, Ford 1920 FEL, Ford 8N, SCAG Liberty Z, Gravely Pro.
Everyone here should read the actual indictment.
Very correctly lays the blame where it belongs.
Alec Baldwin !