Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC News)   DA: You'd better believe criminal charges are "on the table" in Baldwin shooting. Someone was killed   (abcnews.go.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, American films, English-language films, Sheriff, Constable, Warrant, Film crew, Filmmaking, According to Jim  
•       •       •

1000 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 27 Oct 2021 at 10:20 AM (4 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



81 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2021-10-27 9:44:39 AM  
Forgive us for somehow arriving at the point where we cynically never expect charges to be filed for much of anything.
 
2021-10-27 9:53:51 AM  
It's not like a cop murdered someone.  This is serious.
 
2021-10-27 10:32:46 AM  

edmo: Forgive us for somehow arriving at the point where we cynically never expect charges to be filed for much of anything.


When it's a gun range in a conservative area handing an automatic weapon to a small child, or a parent's (or cop's) unattended gun leading to tragedy, those don't get charged. Conservatives have a lot of weasel wording for those scenarios: "a tragic accident", "they've suffered enough", things like that. (And that's ignoring those times shiatkicker cops won't enforce ANY gun laws.)

When it's a famous liberal who famously hates guns in an industry full of people who hate (real) guns - and, crucially, in an area where law enforcement might not be so apt to look the other way when it comes to gun crimes - that's an entirely different ball of wax. We can't have the rich thinking they can get away with things us reg'lar folk can't, right?
 
2021-10-27 10:34:01 AM  
Sounds like there were some negligence issues going on with that production.
Yep. I'd expect an investigation at the very least.
 
2021-10-27 10:35:40 AM  
I assume a lawsuit against the production, and an investigation leading to charges against Halls.
 
2021-10-27 10:36:10 AM  

Dr Dreidel: edmo: Forgive us for somehow arriving at the point where we cynically never expect charges to be filed for much of anything.

When it's a gun range in a conservative area handing an automatic weapon to a small child, or a parent's (or cop's) unattended gun leading to tragedy, those don't get charged. Conservatives have a lot of weasel wording for those scenarios: "a tragic accident", "they've suffered enough", things like that. (And that's ignoring those times shiatkicker cops won't enforce ANY gun laws.)

When it's a famous liberal who famously hates guns in an industry full of people who hate (real) guns - and, crucially, in an area where law enforcement might not be so apt to look the other way when it comes to gun crimes - that's an entirely different ball of wax. We can't have the rich thinking they can get away with things us reg'lar folk can't, right?


Sure, let's just ignore that this production was less safe than clearing a minefield.
 
2021-10-27 10:47:53 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: It's not like a cop murdered someone.  This is serious.


c.tenor.comView Full Size
 
2021-10-27 10:48:35 AM  
IANAL, but isn't Baldwin prima facie guilty of involuntary manslaughter?
And the armorer and associate director, guilty of criminal negligence?
Someone died, so I doubt this is going away without legal action.
 
2021-10-27 10:49:02 AM  

Clutch2013: Dr Dreidel: edmo: Forgive us for somehow arriving at the point where we cynically never expect charges to be filed for much of anything.

When it's a gun range in a conservative area handing an automatic weapon to a small child, or a parent's (or cop's) unattended gun leading to tragedy, those don't get charged. Conservatives have a lot of weasel wording for those scenarios: "a tragic accident", "they've suffered enough", things like that. (And that's ignoring those times shiatkicker cops won't enforce ANY gun laws.)

When it's a famous liberal who famously hates guns in an industry full of people who hate (real) guns - and, crucially, in an area where law enforcement might not be so apt to look the other way when it comes to gun crimes - that's an entirely different ball of wax. We can't have the rich thinking they can get away with things us reg'lar folk can't, right?

Sure, let's just ignore that this production was less safe than clearing a minefield.


Perhaps you misunderstand me - I'm sad that the former paragraph is true, not the latter. Gun crimes are gun crimes, and negligent handling/use is negligent handling/use. The fact that a tragedy happened accidentally is immaterial - a tragedy born from negligence and failure to safely prepare can also still be criminal.

// based on what I've been reading, sounds more like the propmaster/armorer is the negligent one here, Baldwin maybe a distant second or third (assuming this wasn't Alec just waving the thing around)
// it's a bit weird because this is a movie set - i.e. a place where make-believe happens - so unless we want to start certifying actors to handle weapons on-set (which is probably not a bad idea anyway; at least get them in the habit of checking the weapon when it's handed to them, just like at a real gun range), the armorer/propmaster(/producer?) should be the one(s) taking on all the liability for a mishandled firearm
 
2021-10-27 10:51:47 AM  
Speaking as a lawyer on the internet, Baldwin is guilty of first degree murder.  The propmaster clearly told him it was a gun before he murdered that poor woman whose name I can't remember but will still make a useful cudgel.

Case closed.
 
2021-10-27 10:51:50 AM  

edmo: Forgive us for somehow arriving at the point where we cynically never expect charges to be filed against the rich for much of anything.


FTFY
 
2021-10-27 10:54:34 AM  
Maybe his lawyers can convince the judge to let them call the victim a "rioter" or "looter."
 
2021-10-27 10:54:37 AM  

Rapmaster2000: Speaking as a lawyer on the internet, Baldwin is guilty of first degree murder.  The propmaster clearly told him it was a gun before he murdered that poor woman whose name I can't remember but will still make a useful cudgel.

Case closed.


Normally, I'd put an equally ludicrous false dichotomy arguing the other side together, but I kinda like Alec Baldwin and hope it turns out he wasn't very involved in the production.
 
2021-10-27 10:55:32 AM  
Alec will get manslaughter but due to his richness and hiring good lawyers all charges will be dropped.
 
2021-10-27 10:55:59 AM  
Alec forgot the number one rule for guns. Always treat it like it is loaded.
 
2021-10-27 10:57:34 AM  

kdawg7736: Alec forgot the number one rule for guns. Always treat it like it is loaded.


Exactly.  When I watch a movie, and a character points a gun at another character, I'm always upset at the lack of gun safety.  You should never point a gun at someone, even if you are in a movie about WWII.
 
2021-10-27 10:58:19 AM  

Dr Dreidel: edmo: Forgive us for somehow arriving at the point where we cynically never expect charges to be filed for much of anything.

When it's a gun range in a conservative area handing an automatic weapon to a small child, or a parent's (or cop's) unattended gun leading to tragedy, those don't get charged. Conservatives have a lot of weasel wording for those scenarios: "a tragic accident", "they've suffered enough", things like that. (And that's ignoring those times shiatkicker cops won't enforce ANY gun laws.)


This fits your worldview nicely, but it's complete bullshiat.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-can​a​da-58920322
https://wcyb.com/news/tennessee-news/​c​hilds-death-under-investigation-in-bra​dley-county-monday
https://www.fox29.com/news/father-cha​r​ged-after-4-year-old-finds-gun-acciden​tally-shoots-himself
https://www.fox19.com/news/crime/

The first link was posted on FARK two weeks ago, FFS.
 
2021-10-27 11:05:31 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size

Every gun is loaded, you guys...
 
2021-10-27 11:07:27 AM  
Well, fine. As long as they're not on the props table. ...Can't trust that thing, apparently.
 
2021-10-27 11:08:16 AM  
The stories generated by this gunshot incident are way more "entertaining" than the low-budget film it was supposed to be in. Shame there's no Oscar for Best Related Work.
 
2021-10-27 11:25:03 AM  

Weaver95: Sounds like there were some negligence issues going on with that production.
Yep. I'd expect an investigation at the very least.


Not to mention national TV exposure for the DA.  That's more important than anything else.
 
2021-10-27 11:26:09 AM  

Dr Dreidel: When it's a gun range in a conservative area handing an automatic weapon to a small child, or a parent's (or cop's) unattended gun leading to tragedy, those don't get charged.


Just out of curiosity, do you know of lots of specific examples where no one was charged, or are you just assuming that no one was ever charged every time you hear about something like that?
 
2021-10-27 11:27:52 AM  

Stephen_Falken: IANAL, but isn't Baldwin prima facie guilty of involuntary manslaughter?
And the armorer and associate director, guilty of criminal negligence?
Someone died, so I doubt this is going away without legal action.


No, I don't think so. For involuntary manslaughter Baldwin has to cause death (done), but it has to be due to gross negligence.   AFAIK from what I read, Baldwin picked up a weapon, which he was told was "cold", and fired the weapon during filming and presumably in the direction he was told to fire.  If those are the facts there is no involuntary manslaughter by Baldwin.  Unless there is some sort of legal duty for the actor to inspect the weapon for live ammo - which I find unlikely as there are people for that and actors/actresses might not be familiar with the handling of real weapons.

The crew member responsible for weapons on the other hand, is boned.

As for a civil action against Baldwin, the standards are lower, and his insurance carrier may be likely to just settle any lawsuits against him.  The victim's family probably should file a suit against Baldwin, along with the production company.
 
2021-10-27 11:33:17 AM  

SirEattonHogg: Stephen_Falken: IANAL, but isn't Baldwin prima facie guilty of involuntary manslaughter?
And the armorer and associate director, guilty of criminal negligence?
Someone died, so I doubt this is going away without legal action.

No, I don't think so. For involuntary manslaughter Baldwin has to cause death (done), but it has to be due to gross negligence.   AFAIK from what I read, Baldwin picked up a weapon, which he was told was "cold", and fired the weapon during filming and presumably in the direction he was told to fire.  If those are the facts there is no involuntary manslaughter by Baldwin.  Unless there is some sort of legal duty for the actor to inspect the weapon for live ammo - which I find unlikely as there are people for that and actors/actresses might not be familiar with the handling of real weapons.

The crew member responsible for weapons on the other hand, is boned.

As for a civil action against Baldwin, the standards are lower, and his insurance carrier may be likely to just settle any lawsuits against him.  The victim's family probably should file a suit against Baldwin, along with the production company.


This is what I thought as well. A movie set is a completely different universe, there are a lot of people with a lot of responsibilities, and in this case, the prop master/armorer is negligent. This will have industry wide changes concerning firearms on-set.
Baldwin is a producer and will therefor be on the hook for monetary damages, or at least his insurance. I don't know anything about any protections he may have between his personal wealth and any financial liability here.

It is just a crappy situation, but if anything good can come from it, it is that no accident like this ever happens again. 

I haven't compiled an on-set gun accident list, but I don't recall another death from a "prop" gun on-set since Brandon Lee in The Crow.
 
2021-10-27 11:34:38 AM  

SirEattonHogg: Stephen_Falken: IANAL, but isn't Baldwin prima facie guilty of involuntary manslaughter?
And the armorer and associate director, guilty of criminal negligence?
Someone died, so I doubt this is going away without legal action.

No, I don't think so. For involuntary manslaughter Baldwin has to cause death (done), but it has to be due to gross negligence.   AFAIK from what I read, Baldwin picked up a weapon, which he was told was "cold", and fired the weapon during filming and presumably in the direction he was told to fire.  If those are the facts there is no involuntary manslaughter by Baldwin.  Unless there is some sort of legal duty for the actor to inspect the weapon for live ammo - which I find unlikely as there are people for that and actors/actresses might not be familiar with the handling of real weapons.

The crew member responsible for weapons on the other hand, is boned.

As for a civil action against Baldwin, the standards are lower, and his insurance carrier may be likely to just settle any lawsuits against him.  The victim's family probably should file a suit against Baldwin, along with the production company.


The problem comes is that the person who handed him the gun has lied about said cold gun before on the set. A sufficiently skilled lawyer can argue based on previous incidents on the set that no reasonable person would expect the gun not to be loaded at that point.

Add in his refusal to get basic gun safety and the general lack of safety on the set quite a few people could wind up faces charges. Conviction is more tricky, but the right jury and it's entirely possible.
 
2021-10-27 11:40:14 AM  
There had been 3 accidental gun discharges, including one earlier that day, according to my readings.  The armorer and assistant director (that's where the buck stops on set) are well and truly farked.
 
2021-10-27 11:41:44 AM  

Dr Dreidel: edmo: Forgive us for somehow arriving at the point where we cynically never expect charges to be filed for much of anything.

When it's a gun range in a conservative area handing an automatic weapon to a small child, or a parent's (or cop's) unattended gun leading to tragedy, those don't get charged. Conservatives have a lot of weasel wording for those scenarios: "a tragic accident", "they've suffered enough", things like that. (And that's ignoring those times shiatkicker cops won't enforce ANY gun laws.)

When it's a famous liberal who famously hates guns in an industry full of people who hate (real) guns - and, crucially, in an area where law enforcement might not be so apt to look the other way when it comes to gun crimes - that's an entirely different ball of wax. We can't have the rich thinking they can get away with things us reg'lar folk can't, right?


The fark are you on about?

You think Baldwin should get a pass because he's an uber-liberal?
 
2021-10-27 11:42:51 AM  

muphasta: This is what I thought as well. A movie set is a completely different universe, there are a lot of people with a lot of responsibilities, and in this case, the prop master/armorer is negligent. This will have industry wide changes concerning firearms on-set.
Baldwin is a producer and will therefor be on the hook for monetary damages, or at least his insurance. I don't know anything about any protections he may have between his personal wealth and any financial liability here.


He's probably got his own insurance coverage, and that of his company, and maybe even other excess coverage.  I suspect he's got it covered in a lawsuit.  It aint gonna put him in the poor house or even hurt him - financially.

Decorus: The problem comes is that the person who handed him the gun has lied about said cold gun before on the set. A sufficiently skilled lawyer can argue based on previous incidents on the set that no reasonable person would expect the gun not to be loaded at that point.

Add in his refusal to get basic gun safety and the general lack of safety on the set quite a few people could wind up faces charges. Conviction is more tricky, but the right jury and it's entirely possible.


I agree.  The Plaintiff attorney will come up with some theory.  Also, the set was supposedly problematic with payments and keeping competent people in the production.  But this is the civil suit.

I don't think there will be any criminal charges against Baldwin based on his individual actions.  But could be wrong.  Maybe there are other facts or the prosecutor wants to showboat and charge a celebrity for the publicity even if the theory is weak.
 
2021-10-27 11:46:38 AM  

Unsung_Hero: I assume a lawsuit against the production, and an investigation leading to charges against Halls.


Balwin is a producer as well as an actor. He is criminally culpable if an investigation finds that firing the unionized crew over afety complaints, and hiring non-union crew who agreed to work without safety fixes, contributed to the death. Alec Baldwin is in the center of each of the contributing factors.
 
2021-10-27 11:48:06 AM  

Dr Dreidel: Clutch2013: Dr Dreidel: edmo: Forgive us for somehow arriving at the point where we cynically never expect charges to be filed for much of anything.

When it's a gun range in a conservative area handing an automatic weapon to a small child, or a parent's (or cop's) unattended gun leading to tragedy, those don't get charged. Conservatives have a lot of weasel wording for those scenarios: "a tragic accident", "they've suffered enough", things like that. (And that's ignoring those times shiatkicker cops won't enforce ANY gun laws.)

When it's a famous liberal who famously hates guns in an industry full of people who hate (real) guns - and, crucially, in an area where law enforcement might not be so apt to look the other way when it comes to gun crimes - that's an entirely different ball of wax. We can't have the rich thinking they can get away with things us reg'lar folk can't, right?

Sure, let's just ignore that this production was less safe than clearing a minefield.

Perhaps you misunderstand me - I'm sad that the former paragraph is true, not the latter. Gun crimes are gun crimes, and negligent handling/use is negligent handling/use. The fact that a tragedy happened accidentally is immaterial - a tragedy born from negligence and failure to safely prepare can also still be criminal.

// based on what I've been reading, sounds more like the propmaster/armorer is the negligent one here, Baldwin maybe a distant second or third (assuming this wasn't Alec just waving the thing around)
// it's a bit weird because this is a movie set - i.e. a place where make-believe happens - so unless we want to start certifying actors to handle weapons on-set (which is probably not a bad idea anyway; at least get them in the habit of checking the weapon when it's handed to them, just like at a real gun range), the armorer/propmaster(/producer?) should be the one(s) taking on all the liability for a mishandled firearm


FWIW, I don't think Baldwin is criminally liable.  That's just right-wing masturbation.  Civilly, he's f*cked.  It was his show, and it was a sh*tshow on multiple fronts.  Plus - and I hate bringing politics back into it - but if his anti-gun stance was enough to sway him against getting proper firearms training, then that's going to come back to haunt him more than it currently is.

The AD is even more f*cked, and needs to be facing criminal charges for reckless endangerment with firearms, at least, because he has a history of this sh*t.

That just leaves the armorer, and frankly, I no longer know what to think there.  Each new affidavit paints a worse picture for her, and it's really going to depend on whether investigators can determine what role she's played in the presence of live rounds, the after-hours shooting sessions, and her preparation of the guns.  She was never going to escape full culpability, but she might be worse off now than she was 24 hours ago.
 
2021-10-27 11:48:39 AM  

Dr Dreidel: Clutch2013: Dr Dreidel: edmo: Forgive us for somehow arriving at the point where we cynically never expect charges to be filed for much of anything.

When it's a gun range in a conservative area handing an automatic weapon to a small child, or a parent's (or cop's) unattended gun leading to tragedy, those don't get charged. Conservatives have a lot of weasel wording for those scenarios: "a tragic accident", "they've suffered enough", things like that. (And that's ignoring those times shiatkicker cops won't enforce ANY gun laws.)

When it's a famous liberal who famously hates guns in an industry full of people who hate (real) guns - and, crucially, in an area where law enforcement might not be so apt to look the other way when it comes to gun crimes - that's an entirely different ball of wax. We can't have the rich thinking they can get away with things us reg'lar folk can't, right?

Sure, let's just ignore that this production was less safe than clearing a minefield.

Perhaps you misunderstand me - I'm sad that the former paragraph is true, not the latter. Gun crimes are gun crimes, and negligent handling/use is negligent handling/use. The fact that a tragedy happened accidentally is immaterial - a tragedy born from negligence and failure to safely prepare can also still be criminal.

// based on what I've been reading, sounds more like the propmaster/armorer is the negligent one here, Baldwin maybe a distant second or third (assuming this wasn't Alec just waving the thing around)
// it's a bit weird because this is a movie set - i.e. a place where make-believe happens - so unless we want to start certifying actors to handle weapons on-set (which is probably not a bad idea anyway; at least get them in the habit of checking the weapon when it's handed to them, just like at a real gun range), the armorer/propmaster(/producer?) should be the one(s) taking on all the liability for a mishandled firearm


I'm not so sure about what the actor should have done or can do in this situation.

As a firearms owner and veteran of many fark gun threads, yes, treat every gun as if it is loaded. When someone hands you a gun, you verify yourself whether or not it is loaded, no matter what that person says.

But on set, and I'm assuming this being a western the gun in question is a revolver, aren't sometimes guns staged in certain ways, particularly if the rounds are visible?

Wouldn't that be a scenario where the prop master or armourer would stage the gun in a specific manner and not want to actor (or anyone) to make changes? There could also be issues of continuity between takes.

I think this is a case where the usual "universal rules" of handling firearms don't apply.

The answer is no live rounds on set. There's no reason any actor has to fire a gun, even with blanks. It's called acting, so act.

Given that we have cigarette smoke and candle flames done by CGI rather than have those dangers on set, there's no reason to have hot firearms.
 
2021-10-27 11:50:57 AM  

Stephen_Falken: IANAL, but isn't Baldwin prima facie guilty of involuntary manslaughter?
And the armorer and associate director, guilty of criminal negligence?
Someone died, so I doubt this is going away without legal action.


Uh might want to leave the law-talking to the lawyers or at least google the definition of "involuntary manslaughter."
 
2021-10-27 11:53:04 AM  

FLMountainMan: Dr Dreidel: edmo: Forgive us for somehow arriving at the point where we cynically never expect charges to be filed for much of anything.

When it's a gun range in a conservative area handing an automatic weapon to a small child, or a parent's (or cop's) unattended gun leading to tragedy, those don't get charged. Conservatives have a lot of weasel wording for those scenarios: "a tragic accident", "they've suffered enough", things like that. (And that's ignoring those times shiatkicker cops won't enforce ANY gun laws.)

This fits your worldview nicely, but it's complete bullshiat.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-cana​da-58920322
https://wcyb.com/news/tennessee-news/c​hilds-death-under-investigation-in-bra​dley-county-monday
https://www.fox29.com/news/father-char​ged-after-4-year-old-finds-gun-acciden​tally-shoots-himself
https://www.fox19.com/news/crime/

The first link was posted on FARK two weeks ago, FFS.


Both can be true. In many cases negligence with a firearm is punished by the law.

But in too many cases it is not.
 
2021-10-27 11:53:46 AM  

muphasta: SirEattonHogg: Stephen_Falken: IANAL, but isn't Baldwin prima facie guilty of involuntary manslaughter?
And the armorer and associate director, guilty of criminal negligence?
Someone died, so I doubt this is going away without legal action.

No, I don't think so. For involuntary manslaughter Baldwin has to cause death (done), but it has to be due to gross negligence.   AFAIK from what I read, Baldwin picked up a weapon, which he was told was "cold", and fired the weapon during filming and presumably in the direction he was told to fire.  If those are the facts there is no involuntary manslaughter by Baldwin.  Unless there is some sort of legal duty for the actor to inspect the weapon for live ammo - which I find unlikely as there are people for that and actors/actresses might not be familiar with the handling of real weapons.

The crew member responsible for weapons on the other hand, is boned.

As for a civil action against Baldwin, the standards are lower, and his insurance carrier may be likely to just settle any lawsuits against him.  The victim's family probably should file a suit against Baldwin, along with the production company.

This is what I thought as well. A movie set is a completely different universe, there are a lot of people with a lot of responsibilities, and in this case, the prop master/armorer is negligent. This will have industry wide changes concerning firearms on-set.
Baldwin is a producer and will therefor be on the hook for monetary damages, or at least his insurance. I don't know anything about any protections he may have between his personal wealth and any financial liability here.

It is just a crappy situation, but if anything good can come from it, it is that no accident like this ever happens again. 

I haven't compiled an on-set gun accident list, but I don't recall another death from a "prop" gun on-set since Brandon Lee in The Crow.


Believe it or not, movie producers don't just hire a bunch of dudes out of their pocket like they are paying someone to mow their lawn. Each movie is setup with a film production company for exactly this reason, when shiat hits the fan the mess is contained. It's possible that Baldwin is somehow implicated but just being a rich guy in the vicinity of a crime is not enough.
 
2021-10-27 12:02:28 PM  
Just to add the "always check whether a firearm is loaded" discussion is regards to actors, when I check my firearms, I can see if there are rounds in the chamber, magazine, etc. Empty=not loaded. Not empty=loaded.

For an actor, there may be something in the gun. That something may be a live round. It may be a completely inert dummy specifically designed to look like a live round.

So how does any production hold actors accountable to confirm the status of a firearm handed to them?
 
2021-10-27 12:02:51 PM  

stevesporn2000: Stephen_Falken: IANAL, but isn't Baldwin prima facie guilty of involuntary manslaughter?
And the armorer and associate director, guilty of criminal negligence?
Someone died, so I doubt this is going away without legal action.

Uh might want to leave the law-talking to the lawyers or at least google the definition of "involuntary manslaughter."


As you clearly did not comprehend, I invited the conversation because I wanted to hear what more informed people would say. And if someone who's been on Fark as long as you have expects someone else on Fark to look something up on Google before sh*tposting about it..... well, this is for you and way overdue:

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-10-27 12:04:10 PM  

stevesporn2000: muphasta: SirEattonHogg: Stephen_Falken: IANAL, but isn't Baldwin prima facie guilty of involuntary manslaughter?
And the armorer and associate director, guilty of criminal negligence?
Someone died, so I doubt this is going away without legal action.

No, I don't think so. For involuntary manslaughter Baldwin has to cause death (done), but it has to be due to gross negligence.   AFAIK from what I read, Baldwin picked up a weapon, which he was told was "cold", and fired the weapon during filming and presumably in the direction he was told to fire.  If those are the facts there is no involuntary manslaughter by Baldwin.  Unless there is some sort of legal duty for the actor to inspect the weapon for live ammo - which I find unlikely as there are people for that and actors/actresses might not be familiar with the handling of real weapons.

The crew member responsible for weapons on the other hand, is boned.

As for a civil action against Baldwin, the standards are lower, and his insurance carrier may be likely to just settle any lawsuits against him.  The victim's family probably should file a suit against Baldwin, along with the production company.

This is what I thought as well. A movie set is a completely different universe, there are a lot of people with a lot of responsibilities, and in this case, the prop master/armorer is negligent. This will have industry wide changes concerning firearms on-set.
Baldwin is a producer and will therefor be on the hook for monetary damages, or at least his insurance. I don't know anything about any protections he may have between his personal wealth and any financial liability here.

It is just a crappy situation, but if anything good can come from it, it is that no accident like this ever happens again. 

I haven't compiled an on-set gun accident list, but I don't recall another death from a "prop" gun on-set since Brandon Lee in The Crow.

Believe it or not, movie producers don't just hire a bunch of dudes out of their pocket like they are paying someone to mow their lawn. Each movie is setup with a film production company for exactly this reason, when shiat hits the fan the mess is contained. It's possible that Baldwin is somehow implicated but just being a rich guy in the vicinity of a crime is not enough.


Baldwin the actor could be blameless criminally and civilly.

Baldwin the producer should have his lawyers on speed dial.
 
2021-10-27 12:13:26 PM  

Bennie Crabtree: Unsung_Hero: I assume a lawsuit against the production, and an investigation leading to charges against Halls.

Balwin is a producer as well as an actor. He is criminally culpable if an investigation finds that firing the unionized crew over afety complaints, and hiring non-union crew who agreed to work without safety fixes, contributed to the death. Alec Baldwin is in the center of each of the contributing factors.


Baldwin didn't "fire" the union crew; they walked off the set because of safety concerns.  Were their concerns SOLELY about the handling of firearms, or was it a combination of firearms, COVID, long hours with no breaks, no safety meetings, etc.?  Baldwin (and any other production) hires (alleged) experts for various tasks, and often union rules require that only certain people handle certain tasks because of the level of knowledge required.

By your logic, the CEO of Boeing should be facing murder charges because some programmer screwed up the software for the 737 MAX MCAS system, and the chief test pilot failed to document issues with the system that could catch an untrained pilot unaware of what to do when the system engaged.

The armorer is certainly culpable, as those guns should never have left her sight, nor should they have been used for "plinking".  The AD is culpable, because he described the firearm as "cold" (not loaded) when it was "hot", and his past behavior shows a pattern of disregarding safety protocols.

The production company will certainly face civil action, and Baldwin is part of that.  I doubt he will face any litigation personally, not because he's rich, but because the chain of events had several key points where the supposed experts failed to discover the gun was loaded with real ammo.
 
2021-10-27 12:16:55 PM  

Stephen_Falken: IANAL, but isn't Baldwin prima facie guilty of involuntary manslaughter?
And the armorer and associate director, guilty of criminal negligence?
Someone died, so I doubt this is going away without legal action.


Alec Baldwin in his capacity as producer is going to be feeling more of the repercussions than he is as the dude that pulled the trigger.

/and being the guy that hit the bang switch is going to fark with his head real farking bad
 
2021-10-27 12:18:13 PM  
Come on, it's not like ran over some old lady with a car.
 
2021-10-27 12:20:14 PM  
And THIS shiat is already starting...
Fark user imageView Full Size


And of course I am the one who got a ban for saying that the obsession with attributing random events to a mythical pedophilia ring is psycho.  🙄
 
2021-10-27 12:21:37 PM  
Just watching the press conference. I have questions: first, who the fark are all those people standing around behind the podium? Second, why the fark do they open it up for questions? The journos always ask inane or dumb questions that they know the authorities can't or won't answer.
 
2021-10-27 12:25:35 PM  

mcmnky: Baldwin the actor could be blameless criminally and civilly.

Baldwin the producer should have his lawyers on speed dial.


Assuming Baldwin is sued in civil court, because he's being sued in his capacity as producer, it's the studio (but likely the insurance carrier) that's going to pay a judgement. He has no personal liability. Worst case scenario is that studios won't work with him as a producer after this because insurance companies won't insure him.

As for criminal liability as a producer, he would have had to have done something that knowingly, directly led to the shooting to be held responsible. Creating an unsafe work environment won't be enough.
 
2021-10-27 12:26:50 PM  

Chemlight Battery: Dr Dreidel: When it's a gun range in a conservative area handing an automatic weapon to a small child, or a parent's (or cop's) unattended gun leading to tragedy, those don't get charged.

Just out of curiosity, do you know of lots of specific examples where no one was charged, or are you just assuming that no one was ever charged every time you hear about something like that?


Dig around a bit, you can find plenty of examples. Most of the time, you can easily spot the person who farked up - the cop who left their loaded gun in a school bathroom, the parent who didn't secure their weapon around the children, the gun owners who negligently discharged "while cleaning it"...

You'll also find plenty of examples of those shiatkicker "all gun laws are unConstitutional" cops/sheriffs.

The one about a small child accidentally killing a range instructor with an automatic weapon falls into the "legal" category (as in "it's legal under AZ law for a nine-year-old to handle automatic weapons with supervision), but a symptom of the same problem - that guns are somehow special and sacrosanct such that we can't treat them like we would any farking other dangerous thing.

// yes, I know that sometimes gun negligence gets charged (and even prosecuted!)
// I also know that there are a lot of times it doesn't get prosecuted (or even charged!)
// although fair's fair - those not charged/prosecuted are often cops
 
2021-10-27 12:33:43 PM  

mcmnky: Dr Dreidel: Clutch2013: Dr Dreidel: edmo: Forgive us for somehow arriving at the point where we cynically never expect charges to be filed for much of anything.

When it's a gun range in a conservative area handing an automatic weapon to a small child, or a parent's (or cop's) unattended gun leading to tragedy, those don't get charged. Conservatives have a lot of weasel wording for those scenarios: "a tragic accident", "they've suffered enough", things like that. (And that's ignoring those times shiatkicker cops won't enforce ANY gun laws.)

When it's a famous liberal who famously hates guns in an industry full of people who hate (real) guns - and, crucially, in an area where law enforcement might not be so apt to look the other way when it comes to gun crimes - that's an entirely different ball of wax. We can't have the rich thinking they can get away with things us reg'lar folk can't, right?

Sure, let's just ignore that this production was less safe than clearing a minefield.

Perhaps you misunderstand me - I'm sad that the former paragraph is true, not the latter. Gun crimes are gun crimes, and negligent handling/use is negligent handling/use. The fact that a tragedy happened accidentally is immaterial - a tragedy born from negligence and failure to safely prepare can also still be criminal.

// based on what I've been reading, sounds more like the propmaster/armorer is the negligent one here, Baldwin maybe a distant second or third (assuming this wasn't Alec just waving the thing around)
// it's a bit weird because this is a movie set - i.e. a place where make-believe happens - so unless we want to start certifying actors to handle weapons on-set (which is probably not a bad idea anyway; at least get them in the habit of checking the weapon when it's handed to them, just like at a real gun range), the armorer/propmaster(/producer?) should be the one(s) taking on all the liability for a mishandled firearm

I'm not so sure about what the actor should have done or can do in this situation.

As a firearms owner and veteran of many fark gun threads, yes, treat every gun as if it is loaded. When someone hands you a gun, you verify yourself whether or not it is loaded, no matter what that person says.

But on set, and I'm assuming this being a western the gun in question is a revolver, aren't sometimes guns staged in certain ways, particularly if the rounds are visible?

Wouldn't that be a scenario where the prop master or armourer would stage the gun in a specific manner and not want to actor (or anyone) to make changes? There could also be issues of continuity between takes.

I think this is a case where the usual "universal rules" of handling firearms don't apply.

The answer is no live rounds on set. There's no reason any actor has to fire a gun, even with blanks. It's called acting, so act.

Given that we have cigarette smoke and candle flames done by CGI rather than have those dangers on set, there's no reason to have hot firearms.


Especially if you consider that as a Colt revolver the ammo is visible so you load it with realistic dummy rounds that even most trained gun handlers couldn't tell from live ones visually. Unless they used a dimpled primer cap, they would look exactly the same.
 
2021-10-27 12:34:12 PM  

Stephen_Falken: I invited the conversation because I wanted to hear what more informed people would say


OK, so here we go again.

First, the "hard and fast never break them" rules of IRL gun safety do not universally apply.  Similar to how a "hard-and-fast never break it" rule of working on electronics is "disconnect the power before working on it", but professionals don't always do that as long as they're following other safety rules extremely closely, so to do we *occasionally* point guns directly at people on a film set.  Examples:
Fark user imageView Full Size

Fark user imageView Full Size


Those guns aren't aimed "off-line". It happens, and we get super-extra safety conscious about every OTHER safety rule, plus a few more which aren't in the Big 4, when this sort of thing happens. Hell, those gun safety rules don't even universally apply off of a film set.  Disassemble a Glock without pulling the trigger? Oh wait, you physically can't, even though the rule about "don't put your finger on the trigger till you're ready to shoot" doesn't have an exception for weapon disassembly.

So first and foremost, anyone saying that Baldwin is criminally negligent or liable "for pointing the prop gun at a person" doesn't know what they're talking about, and are, flatly, wrong.

Second, Baldwin the PRODUCER might incur some liability in regards to how the production was being run, and how (pretty clearly incompetent) people were hired.  We don't know how much culpability he had in those things, and are not privy to said details, so we cannot reasonably speculate. The title of "producer" incurs wildly varying responsbilities, and we don't know which were his, personally.

Third, Baldwin the ACTOR has the option to involve himself with gun safety.  Actors are never required to check their own weapons, and many armorers, particularly old school ones, prefer they don't.  Newer school armorers will try and train the actors in a bit of safety (particularly checking the weapon to see if it's loaded) and welcome the help, because it's another link in the chain of safety that involves bringing the gun from storage to being on-camera.  Guys like Will Smith and Keanu Reeves have chosen to learn in-depth about firearm operation and safety, and are welcomed by armorers to help out and take responsibility for on-set safety.

An example of Will Smith being good at this:
"Bad Boys" star, Will Smith, swiftly points out gun safety faux pas on movie set.
Youtube LCzDQvX0hAY


Alec Baldwin has made choices his entire life to refuse to be involved in this process, and has actively campaigned against gun safety training during actor education, because he personally does not like guns and does not want any more knowledge about guns other than the absolute bare minimum required to physically hold it and point it where the director and fight director tell him to.  Does that make him liable for the safety failure on this set.  Not necessarily, but it sure doesn't help, and honestly there's a good old-fashioned dose of schadenfreude going around right now as a direct result of his own choices and campaigns.

Fourth, the Assistant Director almost certainly has criminal negligence. He has been fired from previous productions for critical firearm safety failures, and he is the one who COULD HAVE checked the gun prior to handing it to Baldwin, and he is the one who falsely told Baldwin it was a cold gun (ie, a weapon not capable, though process of manufacture or by virtue of being unloaded, of firing at that time).  One of the AD's responsibilities is set safety, and it is extremely clear that those responsibilities were not fulfilled.  About the only thing that could save him at this point is if he was following a direct order from someone higher on the film food chain to not to take the time to check the gun, but to just get it and get it in Baldwin's hands ASAP.  If that happened, it's possible he skates, but I personally don't think that's what happened.

Fifth, the production company will share a burden of liability for clearly running an unsafe set. The fact that the set was unsafe in multiple incidents is well-documented and I won't go into it further here.

Sixth and finally, the armorer MAY have incurred criminal negligence.  She also may not have.  The affidavits are painting one picture, social media statements from people who were on-set during the incident say another.  The degree to which she was involved in the process failure to render the weapon safe is still unknown, and  the specific ways in which she interacts prior and during the process failure are ALSO unknown, and they tremendously matter.  At a minimum, her career is basically over.  But civil or criminal negligence depend on so many specific details in her case that it's impossible to say.  As an example, it's universally agreed right now that the AD went to the props table with the guns on it and grabbed one (which was loaded).  OK, but who set the props table with the guns on it?  Was it the armorer?  Was it the AD? Was it someone else? Who set that table and failed to check the weapons?  Why was a weapon taken without the armorer checking it (you check the weapon when it comes off the table as standard practice)?  When the weapon was handed to Mr Baldwin, she should have made a check of the weapon then...but everyone agrees the AD handed over the weapon (and failed to check it), which implies the absence of the armorer, since if she was there she would have performed the check.  There's just too many details which are missing right now to paint a clear picture of whether or not she was clearly negligent, or whether or not she was deliberately pushed out of the picture by industry veterans and not allowed to do her job, or whether or not she was even there on the set when this happened.
 
2021-10-27 12:35:49 PM  

thefatbasturd: that even most trained gun handlers couldn't tell from live ones visually. Unless they used a dimpled primer cap, they would look exactly the same.


Standard practice is to mark or paint the primers, so that when you run a cylinder check you can instantly tell if they're a live round or a dummy round.
 
2021-10-27 12:40:11 PM  
The fact that this was the third negligent discharge is pretty damning.  I'm not sure who is responsible, because I haven't been following the story very closely.  Someone is responsible for not handling the weapon correctly, and someone else is responsible for not fixing the issue after the first negligent discharge.
 
2021-10-27 12:40:43 PM  
 
2021-10-27 12:41:39 PM  

FightDirector: thefatbasturd: that even most trained gun handlers couldn't tell from live ones visually. Unless they used a dimpled primer cap, they would look exactly the same.

Standard practice is to mark or paint the primers, so that when you run a cylinder check you can instantly tell if they're a live round or a dummy round.


I know I would. I would also put BBs in the dummy round to make it even more obvious by sound and feel.
 
Displayed 50 of 81 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.