Alec Baldwin gun incident

[CharlesInCharge]

Not really. Many more people involved made this all occur by not following all the rules in place, so it can't be 100% on him. The person or people who brought the live ammo on set and the Armorer (who is ultimately suppose to be in charge) are more responsible.

There's plenty of case law about joint liability. Two people can separately be fully responsible for both criminally and civil liability for the same incident where it's impossible to determine fault.

An example I remember from years ago was a person was injured and lost his eyesight by two hunters firing birdshot at the same target at the same time. It was (then) forensically impossible to determine which gun - or perhaps both - the pellets came from so both were held equally liable.

 

[ZeeOSix]

There's plenty of case law about joint liability. Two people can separately be fully responsible for both criminally and civil liability for the same incident where it's impossible to determine fault.

An example I remember from years ago was a person was injured and lost his eyesight by two hunters firing birdshot at the same target at the same time. It was (then) forensically impossible to determine which gun - or perhaps both - the pellets came from so both were held equally liable.

I said he wouldn't be 100% responsible. He may be found to be responsible in some manner, but it would be ludicrous to think he would be 100% responsible when so many other people were involved with making this all happen.

 

[CharlesInCharge]

Everything you say makes sense.

But it is predicated on actors knowing something beyond their craft.

Armorers are 100% responsible for set safety with firearms. Actors aren’t expected to know it, any more than they know electrical, or other equipment safety.

Some do understand equipment safety, just like some do their own stunts, but the preponderance are simply ignorant because the protocols and procedures are so restrictive that the actors don’t have to have a working knowledge.

Keanu Reeves, for example, is a very capable shooter. He is dedicated to his craft and learned to compete in three gun in order to be more credible in the John Wick movies series.

Not many Hollywood types hold themselves to that standard.

If I recall, you are a military pilot. I may be wrong. If I'm right, thanks for serving! Let me hit an analogy. Nobody would expect you to be able to fix your engine. If the mechanic says, "Hey Astro, I fixed the engine," you'd have to accept it. But you would fire it up and do your own safety checks, listen for any unusual noises, and pay careful attention to it.

If he also says, "I filled the gas tanks too." Now, that one, you can and should look at the gauge to confirm. If you just took his word, did not personally look at the gauge, get in the air, and learn the fuel is empty and you crash, who is at fault there? I'd say, probably both parties.

 

[RooflessVW]

If I recall, you are a military pilot. I may be wrong. If I'm right, thanks for serving! Let me hit an analogy. Nobody would expect you to be able to fix your engine. If the mechanic says, "Hey Astro, I fixed the engine," you'd have to accept it. But you would fire it up and do your own safety checks, listen for any unusual noises, and pay careful attention to it.

If he also says, "I filled the gas tanks too." Now, that one, you can and should look at the gauge to confirm. If you just took his word, did not personally look at the gauge, get in the air, and learn the fuel is empty and you crash, who is at fault there? I'd say, probably both parties.

In your analogy, the mechanic would fix the engine, the test pilot would sign off the functional/operational check, and the logbook and aircraft would then be FMC.

The next guy to fly the plane flies the plane with the understanding that is FMC.

 

[CharlesInCharge]

I said he wouldn't be 100% responsible. He may be found to be responsible in some manner, but it would be ludicrous to think he would be 100% responsible when so many other people were involved with making this all happen.

Here's my understanding, but I don't fully know the job descriptions. Baldwin was the top person, producer of some sort. I suspect that involves executive level decisions, including hiring (they hired an inept person with a bad reputation, and gave her no staff, allegedly), safety protocols on live ammunition and use of guns for recreation off set. This is probably a big part of his liability exposure, both civil and criminal negligence contributing toward the death and injury.

On a personal level, I think some form of reckless or negligent homicide charge is warranted for anyone who 1) brought the live ammo, 2) loaded the live ammo, 3) had a duty to inspect the weapon and failed, and/or 4) fired the weapon causing death/injury, and/or 5) hired the inept "expert."

This is at minimum Baldwin, the 'expert' Guiterriez-Reed, and possibly other parties depending on the forensics and investigation. I do not see a reasonable scenario where Baldwin is not charged with 1 or more serious felonies. Same for Guiterriez-Reed. And whoever brought the live ammo and/or loaded the revolver.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Here's my understanding, but I don't fully know the job descriptions. Baldwin was the top person, producer of some sort. I suspect that involves executive level decisions, including hiring (they hired an inept person with a bad reputation, and gave her no staff, allegedly), safety protocols on live ammunition and use of guns for recreation off set. This is probably a big part of his liability exposure, both civil and criminal negligence contributing toward the death and injury.

On a personal level, I think some form of reckless or negligent homicide charge is warranted for anyone who 1) brought the live ammo, 2) loaded the live ammo, 3) had a duty to inspect the weapon and failed, and/or 4) fired the weapon causing death/injury, and/or 5) hired the inept "expert."

This is at minimum Baldwin, the 'expert' Guiterriez-Reed, and possibly other parties depending on the forensics and investigation. I do not see a reasonable scenario where Baldwin is not charged with 1 or more serious felonies. Same for Guiterriez-Reed. And whoever brought the live ammo and/or loaded the revolver.

Of course ... that's a far cry from "Baldwin being 100% responsible" and nobody else. Someone thinking he would be the only person charged and being 100% responsible is blind to what happened in this situation.

 

[2005jettatdi]

For the first time today, I read the district attorney in Santa Fe was talking about the ballistics report. This is important. For example, what if it turns out the deadly bullet was a wadcutter? A wadcutter sits in the casing and with a coating of whatever plugs the blanks, might be mistaken for a blank. If it turns out the bullet is a wadcutter, premeditated murder one in on the table.

However, the part I cannot get past is that Baldwin pointed a loaded gun at someone and pulled the trigger. Since it is a single action pistol, he also cocked said loaded gun, pointed it at someone and pulled the trigger. He did not know the gun was loaded, you say? Well, every gun is a loaded gun. Even if I had personally unloaded the revolver and was sure it was empty, I still would never put it to my head and pull the trigger. So, obviously, I would not point it at anyone else and pull the trigger. That is what Baldwin did and that is why he is guilty, whether it turns out he loaded the pistol or not.

 

[RooflessVW]

However, the part I cannot get past is that Baldwin pointed a loaded gun at someone and pulled the trigger. Since it is a single action pistol, he also cocked said loaded gun, pointed it at someone and pulled the trigger. He did not know the gun was loaded, you say? Well, every gun is a loaded gun. Even if I had personally unloaded the revolver and was sure it was empty, I still would never put it to my head and pull the trigger. So, obviously, I would not point it at anyone else and pull the trigger. That is what Baldwin did and that is why he is guilty, whether it turns out he loaded the pistol or not.

So how exactly would you have filmed the scene in question?

 

[Propflux01]

You think the pilots are repsonible for that jet that went down in the ocean because the tail jackscrew locked up because mechanics failed to do the maintenance correctly?

I think you get what I mean. It was the other pilots responsibility to record the issue they had with the plane prior to the mishap pilots flight. That was not accomplished in written manor. And if you are a pilot, or maintain an aircraft, you know why there is a walk around in the checklist, and your responsibility towards it.

(Safety board officials were scheduled to interview the two Alaska Airlines pilots who flew the plane to Puerto Vallarta just before the fatal return flight for San Francisco, according to NTSB board member John Hammerschmidt. He said the crew reported to Alaska's maintenance center in Seattle that they had experienced "mechanical problems" during the flight.

Hammerschmidt would not describe the nature of the malfunctions until the crew members were interviewed.

"We are investigating their report," Hammerschmidt said.

But Alaska Airlines spokesman Jack Evans in Seattle reiterated that the airline was not aware of "any maintenance anomalies with this aircraft."

because it was a verbal mention to maintenance

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2000-02-03-0002030370-story.html )

 

[Propflux01]

I just don't understand the whole "gun rules don't apply to movie sets" thing. Sounds more like a defense of Baldwin than anything.

The 4 gun rules absolutely apply EVERYWHERE.

Yes, REAL guns get pointed at REAL people on movie sets. The rules STILL apply. Why wouldn't they?

Agreed. While yes, there is an apparent chain involved in the handling of the weapon, when it comes to a gun, or any other lethal device, I’m not taking the chance of someone’s word of “it’s not loaded (cold gun)”. I can take the 20 seconds to declip or open the cylinder and physically look before I play a part with and of it.

 

[ZeeOSix]

I think you get what I mean. It was the other pilots responsibility to record the issue they had with the plane prior to the mishap pilots flight. That was not accomplished in written manor.

Did the other pilots know what was going on and didn't report it? If that was the case, then it wasn't the pilots fault who were flying the plane. You said: "It’s the end users responsibility, period."

Well, in the airplane case and in this accidental shooting case, that's not the case. Other people were involved to make it all unfold like it did. So the end user can not be 100% responsible.

 

[billt460]

So how exactly would you have filmed the scene in question?

They weren't filming any scene. Baldwin was supposedly practicing his, "gun handling skills" off camera when this happened. The woman he killed wasn't an actress. And there was no reason for the gun to be pointed at her, PERIOD. There was also no reason for ANY rounds to be in that gun at that time..... Blanks or otherwise.

This puts even more blame on Baldwin. Is anyone going to tell me this guy doesn't know the difference between an empty chamber, and one with anything in it? Assuming he were to look, but didn't. Were back to 8 year old level here.

 

[Propflux01]

Did the other pilots know what was going on and didn't report it? If that was the case, then it wasn't the pilots fault who were flying the plane. You said: "It’s the end users responsibility, period."

Well, in the airplane case and in this accidental shooting case, that's not the case. Other people were involved to make it all unfold like it did. So the end user can not be 100% responsible.

See my edit. And yes, in the case of a GUN, the end user is ALWAYS responsible. Would you really believe anyone who says “it’s not loaded” then point it to your head and pull the trigger? Would you really trust someone, even family member, that much?

 

[ZeeOSix]

See my edit. And yes, in the case of a GUN, the end user is ALWAYS responsible. Would you really believe anyone who says “it’s not ,landed” then point it to your head and pull the trigger? Would you really trust someone, even family member, that much?

They were on a movie set trying to follow gun protocols. Problem was, many people broke the rules. It can not be 100% the fault of the end user, regardless of how someone might think to handle a gun at home or in other settings. No different than if mechanics and head of maintenance wouldn't be held responsible for taking down an airplane from their incompetence. Many other people were involved with how this unfolded, and they are therefore responsible too.

 

[billt460]

It can not be 100% the fault of the end user, regardless of how someone might think to handle a gun at home or in other settings. No different than if mechanics and head of maintenance wouldn't be held responsible for taking down an airplane from their incompetence. Many other people were involved with how this unfolded, and they are therefore responsible too.

Why not? Why would you check a gun any differently in, "other settings"? Be it at home, in the field, at the range, or on a movie set? A gun is either loaded, or it isn't. It takes almost nothing to check to see if 6 round holes have anything in them. We're not talking advanced calculus, or electrical engineering here.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Why not? Why would you check a gun any differently in, "other settings"? Be it at home, in the field, at the range, or on a movie set? A gun is either loaded, or it isn't. It takes almost nothing to check to see if 6 round holes have anything in them. We're not talking advanced calculus, or electrical engineering here.

Because there are rules and protocols used on movie sets - there have been for many years. Some links were posted showing some of the rules and protocols. Just because Baldwin trusted his firearm crew doesn't make him solely responsible. Many other people were involved and made mistakes too for this to unfold like it did.

It's no different than saying the pilots were solely responsible for the plane going down when the incompetent maintenance system and mechanics were really the people who ultimately caused the accident.

 

[CharlesInCharge]

They were on a movie set trying to follow gun protocols. Problem was, many people broke the rules. It can not be 100% the fault of the end user, regardless of how someone might think to handle a gun at home or in other settings. No different than if mechanics and head of maintenance wouldn't be held responsible for taking down an airplane from their incompetence. Many other people were involved with how this unfolded, and they are therefore responsible too.

Poor analogy, being repeated. Airplanes are ultra complex machines and each portion requires significantly trained experts with significant experience and education. It's not feasible for the pilot to go out and inspect the engine. Engine experts do that.

Handling a firearm and check it is safe empty or with blanks is a low-skill level task. And since guns are inherently dangerous, it's a task that is so easy and quick to perform THERE IS NO EXCUSE IT WAS NOT PERFORMED REPEATEDLY BY MANY PEOPLE.

As someone said up stream, would you (or would Baldwin) put a "cold gun" to your head and pull the trigger? Not without personally confirming many many times it is empty (and sans firing pin).

 

[Jimmy_Russells]

They weren't filming any scene. Baldwin was supposedly practicing his, "gun handling skills" off camera when this happened. The woman he killed wasn't an actress. And there was no reason for the gun to be pointed at her, PERIOD. There was also no reason for ANY rounds to be in that gun at that time..... Blanks or otherwise.

They were rehearsing a scene that was about to be filmed. The woman was the camera operator and part of the scene was a dramatic shot of the gun pointing/shooting towards the camera.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Poor analogy, being repeated. Airplanes are ultra complex machines and each portion requires significantly trained experts with significant experience and education. It's not feasible for the pilot to go out and inspect the engine. Engine experts do that.

Go back and re-read how this analogy got started. The comments were made that: "the end user was solely responsible". And an airplane case was used to support that - ie, "I walk around my airplane to check it out before flying, so I'm ultimately responsible". If that was the case, every airplane that crashed due to some incompetent maintenance would be blamed 100% on the pilot(s). Not the case.

Handling a firearm and check it is safe empty or with blanks is a low-skill level task. And since guns are inherently dangerous, it's a task that is so easy and quick to perform THERE IS NO EXCUSE IT WAS NOT PERFORMED REPEATEDLY BY MANY PEOPLE.

As someone said up stream, would you (or would Baldwin) put a "cold gun" to your head and pull the trigger? Not without personally confirming many many times it is empty (and sans firing pin).

And there may be rules in place for that to be done on movie sets by someone, maybe even the "end user". But that still doesn't mean the "end user" is 100% responsible when many other people are involved.

 

[billt460]

But that still doesn't mean the "end user" is 100% responsible when many other people are involved.

How many "users" and "other people" does it take to point an unchecked gun at a person you don't want to harm.... And pull the trigger, killing them?