Alec Baldwin gun incident

[Propflux01]

If you've been keeping up she wasn't really an expert and operated very loosely. She was not vetted properly ... obviously.

And who's responsible for that? Maybe the producer, Alec Baldwin?

Duties of a Producer​

Organizing Staff​

One of your most important producer responsibilities is hiring the director, casting director, crew, and other upper-level members of the project. Once you have the cast and crew in place, you would need to delegate responsibility to each department. As the producer, you would be responsible for making decisions that may override the decisions made by others on your staff, sometimes including the director.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Sure many did. But he was the driver. In the analogy of the plane, It is the pilots responsibility to ensure the craft is airworthy. That includes the others that have performed maintenance on it.

And exactly how do the pilot(s) determine that after the airplane has gone through a major maintenance to ensure everyone involved before the pilot got in the airplane that everything was done right and the airplane is 100% safe?

What if the mechanic(s) fudged the maintenance records? Is the pilot(s) still "100% responsible" if the airplane crashes and kills everyone?

That includes the others that have performed maintenance on it. In the case of the Alaska airliner, the fault was traced to a maintainer, who was identified and prosecuted.

Exactly, that's my point. The "end user" (the pilots) were not held responsible. You keep saying the "end user" is totally responsible, yet you just said they aren't. Which way is it?

Should all the people involved before the gun was given to Baldwin not "broke their rules"? Sure.

And I've also eluded to that. What I'm saying is that he can not be held 100% responsible and everyone else involved just walks away like nothing happened. That's been the whole argument. Some here think he's 100% responsible, which he will never be charged as so because many more people were involved and responsible for how this all unfolded. Just like the maintenance shop and mechanics involved with the jet jack screw indecent. It's really not hard to see the logic.

I would lay money if it were you or me, we'd be in jail on a 500K bond because the prosecutor would say. "You were responsible, we don't care if uncle bob, the gun expert, said it was unloaded or safe."

If it was you instead of him, it would be investigated the same way.

Should he have checked the gun ... sure. Should he be held 100% responsible ... no, because of all the other people and rules/protocols being broken. If whoever brough live ammo to the set didn't do that, none of this would have happened.

 

[ZeeOSix]

And who's responsible for that? Maybe the producer, Alec Baldwin?

Duties of a Producer​

Organizing Staff​

One of your most important producer responsibilities is hiring the director, casting director, crew, and other upper-level members of the project. Once you have the cast and crew in place, you would need to delegate responsibility to each department. As the producer, you would be responsible for making decisions that may override the decisions made by others on your staff, sometimes including the director.

Yeah, could be Baldwin will be charge with something. Again, I'm not saying Baldwin doesn't have any responsibility, never have. I'm saying he is not 100% responsible and everyone else involved walks away like nothing happened. Prosecutes are smarter than that.

 

[ZeeOSix]

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.

"Premeditate murder" ... no way. Only if he know he had a live round and had intent of killing someone. Where do people get these ideas?

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.

Guess you've never seen too many movies with gun scenes. It was discussed earlier in the thread. There is a lot of gun pointing at other people and at cameras depending on the scene required.

 

[Propflux01]

And exactly how do they determine that after the airplane has gone through a major maintenance to ensure everyone involved before the pilot got in the airplane that everything was done right and the airplane is 100% safe?


Exactly, that's my point. The "end user" (the pilots) were not held responsible. You keep saying the "end user" is totally responsible, yet you just said they aren't. Which way is it?


And I've also eluded to that. What I'm saying he can not be held 100% responsible and everyone else involved just walks away like nothing happened. That's been the whole argument. Some here think he's 100% responsible, which he will never be charged as so because many more people were involved and responsible for how this all unfolded. Just like the maintenance shop and mechanics involved with the jet jack screw indecent. It's really not hard to see the logic.


If it was you instead of him, it would be investigated the same way.

Should he have checked the gun ... sure. Should he be held 100% responsible ... no, because of all the other people and rules/protocols being broken. If whoever didn't bring live ammo to the set didn't do that, none of this would have happened.

1. It gets ran by mechanics, and the aircraft commander or company maintenance engineer signs off on it. Than the pilot does the Functional check flight and signs it off for the final. If you land the plane and the FAA is waiting o do a spot check, and they find something wrong, who gets the bust? Yup, the pilot.

2. See above

3. He can be held 100%. He is the end user. It doesn't take several people to operate a gun. You also fail to acknowledge Baldwin as being producer and his responsibilities therein.

4. I disagree with that. Too many example's out thereof 'end users' being prosecuted for essentially the same mistakes Baldwin made. Their usual excuse, "I was told it was empty / I didn't know is loaded".

 

[ZeeOSix]

If I were a "competent armorer" and saw the actor opening my gun up, I'd run up (from behind) and grab it and ask *** are you doing? He could have live ammo in his pocket that he's going to use against my policy and established practice. It was my job to give it to him ready-to-use and safe. These responsibilities should be and are clearly defined in the armorer's job, but weren't practiced on this set.

That's a good point actually.

An answer to all this is a safety brief at the start of the production with a box of blanks, how to tell the difference etc. Then right before filming the scene bring everyone together to show the blanks are still installed, hand the weapon off to the actor, and film the scene without the armorer taking his/her eyes off the piece until done.

I'm trying to find the official filming industry rule book for on-set protocol/rules of firearms. There might already be a rule like that in place.

Again ... rules are ONLY AS GOOD as the people who follow them.

 

[Propflux01]

Yeah, could be Baldwin will be charge with something. Again, I'm not saying Baldwin doesn't have any responsibility, never have. I'm saying he is not 100% responsible and everyone else involved walks away like nothing happened. Prosecutes are smarter than that.

If he is the boss, he is 100% responsible in that alone, notwithstanding his pulling the trigger. "The captain is responsible for the lives and actions of his crew". This is no different.

 

[ZeeOSix]

While I am in the camp that argues 100% of the blame lies with Baldwin since he is the one who pointed the pistol at another person, cocked it and pulled the trigger, I will not let anyone farther down the chain off the hook. If I give an 18 year old boy a pistol and he goes, robs a convenience store and shoot the clerk, the robbery and killing are 100% on him. However, I am not innocent since I gave the pistol to him. In my mind, the same applies here. At least one other person failed to do their job in a proper manner and a woman died.

He can't be "100% responsible" if others are also responsible.

 

[Jimmy_Russells]

1. It gets ran by mechanics, and the aircraft commander or company maintenance engineer signs off on it. Than the pilot does the Functional check flight and signs it off for the final. If you land the plane and the FAA is waiting o do a spot check, and they find something wrong, who gets the bust? Yup, the pilot.

2. See above

3. He can be held 100%. He is the end user. It doesn't take several people to operate a gun. You also fail to acknowledge Baldwin as being producer and his responsibilities therein.

4. I disagree with that. Too many example's out thereof 'end users' being prosecuted for essentially the same mistakes Baldwin made. Their usual excuse, "I was told it was empty / I didn't know is loaded".

I don't think anyone is saying Baldwin doesn't hold some responsibility (more so as a producer IMO) but he's not the only guy.

If someone is going to use the defense 'I didn't know it was loaded' they probably haven't just been handed a weapon by two different trained professionals who's job (one of which is their sole job) to make sure it is safe.

From what I understand the armorer hired is the daughter of a long time, well respected Hollywood armorer. If she misrepresented herself, it's tough to pin that on the producers, especially if her dad vouched for her. But of course that does not absolve them of all responsibility.

 

[Propflux01]

I don't think anyone is saying Baldwin doesn't hold some responsibility (more so as a producer IMO) but he's not the only guy.

If someone is going to use the defense 'I didn't know it was loaded' they probably haven't just been handed a weapon by two different trained professionals who's job (one of which is their sole job) to make sure it is safe.

From what I understand the armorer hired is the daughter of a long time, well respected Hollywood armorer. If she misrepresented herself, it's tough to pin that on the producers, especially if her dad vouched for her. But of course that does not absolve them of all responsibility.

Agreed, but again, as producer., or "boss" he IS responsible that all actions are in compliance and in accordance with all rules etc. And he is 100% responsible because he broke his own rules 'playing' with this gun. He had NO reason to point and pull.

 

[Jimmy_Russells]

Agreed, but again, as producer., or "boss" he IS responsible that all actions are in compliance and in accordance with all rules etc. And he is 100% responsible because he broke his own rules 'playing' with this gun. He had NO reason to point and pull.

Of course he did. They were rehearsing a scene that was in the script.

 

[ZeeOSix]

1. It gets ran by mechanics, and the aircraft commander or company maintenance engineer signs off on it. Than the pilot does the Functional check flight and signs it off for the final. If you land the plane and the FAA is waiting o do a spot check, and they find something wrong, who gets the bust? Yup, the pilot.

So if the maintenance guys or anyone else along the line before the pilots see it fudged the records, then based on your logic the pilots would still be "100% responsible". Sounds "logical", lol.

3. He can be held 100%. He is the end user. It doesn't take several people to operate a gun. You also fail to acknowledge Baldwin as being producer and his responsibilities therein.

He won't be held 100% responsible. Again, you speak out of both sides of your mouth.

4. I disagree with that. Too many example's out thereof 'end users' being prosecuted for essentially the same mistakes Baldwin made. Their usual excuse, "I was told it was empty / I didn't know is loaded".

He may be charged with something ... but he will not be "100% responsible". If he was 100% responsible, then everyone else involved would be 0% responsible. Not going to happen that way.

 

[ZeeOSix]

If he is the boss, he is 100% responsible in that alone, notwithstanding his pulling the trigger. "The captain is responsible for the lives and actions of his crew". This is no different.

You're logic is flawed. What you just said means that pilots are the only people 100% responsible if the airplane goes down because of faulty maintenance done by other people.

If the "boss" is responsible for 100 people, and 30 of those people broke rules and protocols without him knowing it, and their actions ultimately caused a deadly accident, those 30 people just don't walk away without any responsibility of the outcome. More people than just the "boss" hold responsibility.

 

[CharlesInCharge]

Don't forget the part where stepping on the pedal was his job.

Also, don't forget the part where Baldwin has been viciously publicly critical of cops who shoot non-compliant and dangerous suspects, when "just doing their jobs."

This is a point that should not be overlooked. Law enforcement dealing with life/death situations in which THEIR lives are at stake and have to react to possibly armed violent noncompliant suspects, reacting in split-seconds, sometimes shoot. Many times those police are prosecuted and convicted.

Here, Baldwin was under no such stress. Nobody was threatening him. No time stressors. Just horsing around quick drawing, and then firing at a person. All he had to do was personally inspect the firearm. Very simple task.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Also, don't forget the part where Baldwin has been viciously publicly critical of cops who shoot non-compliant and dangerous suspects, when "just doing their jobs."

This is a point that should not be overlooked. Law enforcement dealing with life/death situations in which THEIR lives are at stake and have to react to possibly armed violent noncompliant suspects, reacting in split-seconds, sometimes shoot. Many times those police are prosecuted and convicted.

And some police shootings are obviously not justified, as proven in court. Don't know what that has to do with the subject matter of this thread - whole different subject. Guess we have to spin-off somehow to search for straw. Would it be justified to say Baldwin was the only person "100% responsible" for this accident and nobody else was?

 

[CharlesInCharge]

Yeah, could be Baldwin will be charge with something. Again, I'm not saying Baldwin doesn't have any responsibility, never have. I'm saying he is not 100% responsible and everyone else involved walks away like nothing happened. Prosecutes are smarter than that.

He can't be "100% responsible" if others are also responsible.

So 100% of the blame lies with Baldwin but then 100% of the blame does not lie with Baldwin. Got it.

I think you're not understanding a fundamental point I and others have made. Many people can be 100% liable. Happens all the time in co-conspiracy cases where numerous people are held equally liable; the bank robber, the shooter, the get-away driver, etc.

There is no apparent evidence (yet) that this was a planned crime. It appears more akin to gross negligence on the part of many; the party that hired the inept 'expert,' the party/parties that brought live ammo, whoever loaded the gun, whoever failed his/her duty to unload or inspect and ensure it's unloaded, and, ultimately, the shooter himself. All many points of reckless, careless, and somewhat intentional acts.

Note, none of this is an ACCIDENT. These act were all negligent acts or omissions. The gun functioned correctly. It was the human negligence at probably 5-10 causation chains that lead to this. And as head producer and the actor that fired the gun, Baldwin will or at least should shoulder much of the criminal and civil liability.

 

[Jimmy_Russells]

Also, don't forget the part where Baldwin has been viciously publicly critical of cops who shoot non-compliant and dangerous suspects, when "just doing their jobs."

This is a point that should not be overlooked. Law enforcement dealing with life/death situations in which THEIR lives are at stake and have to react to possibly armed violent noncompliant suspects, reacting in split-seconds, sometimes shoot. Many times those police are prosecuted and convicted.

Here, Baldwin was under no such stress. Nobody was threatening him. No time stressors. Just horsing around quick drawing, and then firing at a person. All he had to do was personally inspect the firearm. Very simple task.

Ok, now we've gone off the deep end

 

[ZeeOSix]

Note, none of this is an ACCIDENT. These act were all negligent acts or omissions. The gun functioned correctly. It was the human negligence at probably 5-10 causation chains that lead to this. And as head producer and the actor that fired the gun, Baldwin will or at least should shoulder much of the criminal and civil liability.

Based on the definition of an accident, it was an accident. The word may not be used or liked in the gun world, but by the very definition of accident, it was an accident. People like to make up their own definition of words these days fore some reason.

Definition of ACCIDENT

an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance; lack of intention or necessity : chance; an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[CharlesInCharge]

I don't think anyone is saying Baldwin doesn't hold some responsibility (more so as a producer IMO) but he's not the only guy.

If someone is going to use the defense 'I didn't know it was loaded' they probably haven't just been handed a weapon by two different trained professionals who's job (one of which is their sole job) to make sure it is safe.

From what I understand the armorer hired is the daughter of a long time, well respected Hollywood armorer. If she misrepresented herself, it's tough to pin that on the producers, especially if her dad vouched for her. But of course that does not absolve them of all responsibility.

Who, precisely, handed Baldwin the gun and said it was "cold" or words to that effect?

News sources are stating that the "armorer" Guiterrez was not even on set. It was assistant director David Halls. So, that begs the questions about where was the armorer, why not there, why did Baldwin trust Halls, why didn't Baldwin get the expert to check it and/or check it himself, and many others.

But being handed the gun from an assistant producer (e.g. your subordinate, non-expert), and then pointing it at a person and shooting is 100% unsat with no valid explanation.

 

[billt460]

Did they? I'd argue that is clearly not a fact in this case... They had a 24 year old armorer who had previously stated she wasn't ready... Yet the show went on...

"They" = Alec Baldwin. He hired her. So now what's your argument? They need more and "better experts"? ...... No matter how you want to play this, it keeps coming right back to him, like it's on a rubber band. He can't even shake it down to 99%.