ABC: Judge dismisses Alec Baldwin's 'Rust' case after defense claims evidence was withheld.

[SC Maintenance]

Still missing how this works on a movie set. You do what you are told and don't do anything that isn't within what you are told with the firearm. This isn't about being a gun guy or not. If you, a gun guy, were handed a firearm on set, told to do xyz with it, you aren't inspecting it to determine what sorts of loads are in it b/c of your knowledge of firearms, that's not in your role nor is it allowed from what I can find, that's the armorers job. If you go outside of what you are told to do or don't follow the portion of the safety rules pertaining to what you should do/shouldn't do with a firearm prop while working on a scene, then yes, you screwed up and are part of it. AB's beliefs about 2A and firearms have gotten tangled (of course, it's BITOG) with a workplace safety incident that resulted in a fatality b/c more than one person(s) did not follow procedures w/r to prop firearms that were set forth to ensure that didn't happen. A root-cause analysis would likely point back to the fact that live ammo was allowed on set (and whoever allowed that) and unknowingly loaded into a prop firearm, not that the actor pointed the gun at the a camera and pulled the hammer/trigger that was part of the scene and what he was told to do. From what I can tell, beyond what I posted above showing some rules surrounding firearms for movies/plays, the actor doesn't do much here w/r to the inspection of the firearms, loading, etc. If AB was also part of the management that allowed knowingly safety rules to be violated, on that he would also be accountable as he should be like in any other workplace fatality.

You do realize that if your employer tells you to do something illegal and you do it, your still at fault?

Your argument is not justification. Who cares if its the armorers job. This is why pilots have pre-flight checks, and truck drivers inspect there rigs before getting in, etc.

 

[TiGeo]

Lets say you and I were making a youtube video in my backyard. I hand you a gun that we both know is real (because Baldwin did - he was the producer and demanded it). You take the gun assuming it unloaded, point it towards nothing, and kill some person walking down the sidewalk.

Do you think either of us would skate on that? Of course we would not. Nor should we.

Add to the fact that Hollywood can CGI anything into anything so there really is no need for a real gun on set at all. Not to mention they have killed an actor on set in the past. So everyone knows this can happen. That makes them all negligent.

But as usual - different rules for different folks. That part unfortunately is not new.

The situation on the movie set is v. different b/c of the rules setup to prevent it. I undestand you and what you are saying, and yes, if I shoot someone b/c I was negligent in my backyard, of course it's 100% on me. Here, we have contracts, legal docs, industry standard practices (this is a job site)and my lawyer will say "Your honor, these were the safety protocols on the job/movie set (hands them to judge along with my contractual agreements which more than likely say that I am not responsible for the condition of prop firearms when used in accordance with the industry protocols in-place) and per the agreements etc. set forth, my client was not responsible in his role for checking the condition of the prop firearm at his place of work or ammunition, she was (pointing at armorer)." I can't believe anyone would be an actor in an action movie based on what I am reading here if they were always resposible for the prop firearm management when following the safety protocols when there is litterally someone in that position whose sole job is to deal with firearm safety onsite.

As an actor, if AB did not follow the rules that were in-place, he is to blame along with the ubelieveable neglegence of the armorer. If he did everything to follow these rules and the rules were industry-standard, contacts all were in-line with this etc., I don't see how he can be held criminally liable (I'm sure the civil case(s) are coming) for this tragedy. If AB was also in a managment position on set/for the movie and knowingly allowed things to go on that comprimsied safety on set, he is liable on that end. Sounds like it doesn't matter b/c when you withold evidence, cases are tossed as they should be regardless of who it benefits. The armorer was sentenced already but may get out of it now. Also of interest, Michael Masse, the actor that fired the gun that killed Brandon Lee, was never charged criminally in his death b/c while negligence was present, there was no evidence of criminal behavior . Interesting reading about that, I remember the movie coming out when I was in college, going to see it, buying the soundtrack CD etc. and reading about the fatality on set. The details of it are similar though...procedures for the prop gun management for that scene were not followed as they should have been.

 

[TiGeo]

You do realize that if your employer tells you to do something illegal and you do it, your still at fault?

Your argument is not justification. Who cares if its the armorers job. This is why pilots have pre-flight checks, and truck drivers inspect there rigs before getting in, etc.

So the entire film/entertainment industry is performing illegal criminal activity (and the actors are by defualt all criminals) everytime they make a movie with prop guns following the industry standard safety protocols? Clearly based on the news lates with Boeing aircraft the pilots aren't catching all the issues during their pre-flight checks aan should be criminally prosecuted for any issues stemming from piloting Boeing aircraft that have issues that crash, wheels falling off, etc.

 

[AZjeff]

Gentlemen, we live in the world of real guns and real ammo and real consequences if safety rules aren't followed. The movie industry has a different set of safety rules because REAL AMMO should never be on site and not-gun people are involved. Their rules work when they're followed. This back and forth is never going to end.

 

[SammyChevelleTypeS3]

Regardless who did what and what we think..... I hear tell the armorer has already been found guilty of "something?" and sentenced to jail time. There is some strange stuff in this story and more keeps coming out bit by bit. A good question someone mentioned was how is it that it was the movie director who died when she is not acting in the film and no guns should have been pointed at or discharged at her!?
If I had to guess I would bet that movie was being done on a shoestring budget and all of the normal movie set protocols (safety and others) were not in place because of that low budget. Its already been exposed that this armorer was very inexperienced and was the daughter of some long time well known movie armorer and that is likely how she even got that job she normally would not have except for inside connections.

 

[SC Maintenance]

So the entire film/entertainment industry is performing illegal criminal activity (and the actors are by defualt all criminals) everytime they make a movie with prop guns following the industry standard safety protocols? Clearly based on the news lates with Boeing aircraft the pilots aren't catching all the issues during their pre-flight checks aan should be criminally prosecuted for any issues stemming from piloting Boeing aircraft that have issues that crash, wheels falling off, etc.

But in this case, the trigger man was the producer that demanded using a real gun. Hence it wasn’t a prop at all.

You might convince me of your argument, if it was some unknown actor who had been handed a gun and led to believe it wasn’t real. But that’s clearly not the case here.

 

[wemay]

Gentlemen, we live in the world of real guns and real ammo and real consequences if safety rules aren't followed. The movie industry has a different set of safety rules because REAL AMMO should never be on site and not-gun people are involved. Their rules work when they're followed. This back and forth is never going to end.

This^

 

[wwillson]

Let's give this thread a break.