DarkSnowyNight wrote:

Do Not assume someone who has no reason to know these things would or even should. This is a glaring mistake I see the gun people in this thread making, and it raises good questions about the general level of responsibility.

You’re right. And, whenever I take a non-shooter to the range, we go over those rules before that person ever touches a firearm.

But, the Armorer should certainly know the rules.

And, I’m sorry to burst your bubble, but Baldwin has been using firearms, real or fake, his entire career. If he is unaware of the rules, the he is willfully, negligently ignorant.

lightsaber wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

FlapOperator wrote:

The four rules of gun safety still apply.

I'm sure Baldwin had no ill intent to harm either person.

But the four rules apply.

They apply in what sense?

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

1. Treat every gun as loaded until you verify yourself it is unloaded. Obviously this rule wasn't followed.
2. Only point the gun at a target you intend to destroy. Not followed, but the one rule broken that is understandable on a movie set.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until you intend to fire.
4. Be sure of your backstop. The twofer shows this wasn't followed.

I have two friends who are SWAT snipers and I will still check any gun they hand me even when they swear it is unloaded and they do the same to any gun I hand them even if they had handed the gun to me a minute ago. It is such a habit that most people who know firearms check without realizing they started the check.

Lightsaber

Indeed. Same way that when a GA plane has been A-checked first flight of the day and the pilot who hands over the keys after they’ve flown it states all is good and they had X fuel and have flown for Y hours so there’s Z fuel left… you still check the fuel and oil levels yourself before setting off. As an absolute minimum. (Repeat the whole A-check to be sure of all items - is the fire extinguisher charged..?) If it’s something that when used incorrectly can kill (gun, plane)… you check these things.

chimborazo wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

They apply in what sense?

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

1. Treat every gun as loaded until you verify yourself it is unloaded. Obviously this rule wasn't followed.
2. Only point the gun at a target you intend to destroy. Not followed, but the one rule broken that is understandable on a movie set.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until you intend to fire.
4. Be sure of your backstop. The twofer shows this wasn't followed.

I have two friends who are SWAT snipers and I will still check any gun they hand me even when they swear it is unloaded and they do the same to any gun I hand them even if they had handed the gun to me a minute ago. It is such a habit that most people who know firearms check without realizing they started the check.

Lightsaber

Indeed. Same way that when a GA plane has been A-checked first flight of the day and the pilot who hands over the keys after they’ve flown it states all is good and they had X fuel and have flown for Y hours so there’s Z fuel left… you still check the fuel and oil levels yourself before setting off. As an absolute minimum. (Repeat the whole A-check to be sure of all items - is the fire extinguisher charged..?) If it’s something that when used incorrectly can kill (gun, plane)… you check these things.

So we have to assume that everyone must see what is obvious to an enthusiast to be safe? Surely if this was acceptable then we wouldn’t need safety checks on anything, I mean a car enthusiast knows how to operate a safe car so we don’t need vehicle checks right? Or driving licenses? Just make sure we all do the right thing because the enthusiast knows…

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

flipdewaf wrote:

chimborazo wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

1. Treat every gun as loaded until you verify yourself it is unloaded. Obviously this rule wasn't followed.
2. Only point the gun at a target you intend to destroy. Not followed, but the one rule broken that is understandable on a movie set.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until you intend to fire.
4. Be sure of your backstop. The twofer shows this wasn't followed.

I have two friends who are SWAT snipers and I will still check any gun they hand me even when they swear it is unloaded and they do the same to any gun I hand them even if they had handed the gun to me a minute ago. It is such a habit that most people who know firearms check without realizing they started the check.

Lightsaber

Indeed. Same way that when a GA plane has been A-checked first flight of the day and the pilot who hands over the keys after they’ve flown it states all is good and they had X fuel and have flown for Y hours so there’s Z fuel left… you still check the fuel and oil levels yourself before setting off. As an absolute minimum. (Repeat the whole A-check to be sure of all items - is the fire extinguisher charged..?) If it’s something that when used incorrectly can kill (gun, plane)… you check these things.

So we have to assume that everyone must see what is obvious to an enthusiast to be safe? Surely if this was acceptable then we wouldn’t need safety checks on anything, I mean a car enthusiast knows how to operate a safe car so we don’t need vehicle checks right? Or driving licenses? Just make sure we all do the right thing because the enthusiast knows…

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Im not sure if the thrust of your response. The armourer on a flip set is a professional (or should be), not an enthusiast.

Is a pilot on a PPL course training for an airline job an enthusiast?

I’m not talking about Baldwin himself, but the professional responsible for ensuring safe operations.

OSHA released their investigative report today, and levied the maximum possible fine against the producers. A litany of safety violations. Armorer was only allowed 8 days of labor and was directed not to spend more time in firearm training (including Baldwin). She also worked on props and often was not present for weapon transfers. No inspection of ammunition. There had been a prior accidental discharge of an identical weapon, from a thumb slip on the hammer. That may have been what happened with Baldwin as well.

https://www.env.nm.gov/occupational_hea ... gation.pdf

NM DA requests funds from state to prosecute up to 4 persons on some aspect of the state's homicide law.

https://deadline.com/2022/09/rust-alec- ... 235127289/

https://deadline.com/wp-content/uploads ... t-Rust.pdf

Alec Baldwin’s Attorney Luke Nikas of Quinn Emanuel has responded to the recent news from Santa Fe District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altwies, who in a Aug. 30 letter, requested the New Mexico Board of Finance for $635K to prosecute as many as four individuals with criminal and homicide charges.

The DA said in her letter that “one of the possible defendants is well known movie actor Alec Baldwin.” This has spurred the media to “draw false conclusions,” says the Oscar nominee’s attorney. As previously reported, Carmack-Altwies’ received $317,750 to proceed with her charging in the Rust tragedy.

“During my communications with the DA’s office just a few weeks ago, after the August 30 funding request was submitted, I was told that it would be premature to discuss the case because they had not yet reviewed the file or deliberated about their charging decision,” said Nikas referring to the DA’s note to the finance board.

Avatar2go wrote:

OSHA released their investigative report today, and levied the maximum possible fine against the producers. A litany of safety violations. Armorer was only allowed 8 days of labor and was directed not to spend more time in firearm training (including Baldwin). She also worked on props and often was not present for weapon transfers. No inspection of ammunition. There had been a prior accidental discharge of an identical weapon, from a thumb slip on the hammer. That may have been what happened with Baldwin as well.

https://www.env.nm.gov/occupational_hea ... gation.pdf

Reading from the above seems to me that the Armourer wasn't given the freedom to discharge her responsibilities as the producers wanted to save a buck or two. They should be fined and put behind bars so lessons go to the industry, otherwise, people will continue to behave irresponsibly.

It seems like the DA mentioned Baldwin to make the point that she's going up against high powered defense lawyers, and needs funds. She also said 1 to 4 defendants, and that the charges would involve homicide. Beyond that it's hard to say without knowledge of the evidence.

We do know that the FBI could not force an accidental discharge, without trigger pull, with the gun in the quarter safety-cock, or half loading-cock, positions. Meaning that the gun's safety features were present and working. However it did fire without a trigger pull in two circumstances:

1. At full firing-cock position, when an internal component of the gun broke into pieces. That indicates at least that the gun had worn parts.

2. At resting-cock position, when the hammer was struck from behind. That is a common behavior for this type of gun. It's why users commonly have an empty chamber positioned whenever handling the gun while loaded.

Alec Baldwin has settled the civil suit filed by the family of Halyna Hutchins. As part of the settlement, filming on "Rust" will resume with Hutchins' husband serving as executive producer. Settlement is also acknowledged to be near with the director who was shot along with Hutchins, also continuing his role in the film.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-63149155

Avatar2go wrote:

Alec Baldwin has settled the civil suit filed by the family of Halyna Hutchins. As part of the settlement, filming on "Rust" will resume with Hutchins' husband serving as executive producer. Settlement is also acknowledged to be near with the director who was shot along with Hutchins, also continuing his role in the film.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-63149155

Wow.
I am sure there is financial incentive here, but I guess we have some very forgiving family members.

Sorry if it has been discussed already, but why would it matter whether Baldwin did or did not pull the trigger? Wasn't he expected to do just that for realistic filming purposes, to point the gun and pull the trigger?

PW100 wrote:

Sorry if it has been discussed already, but why would it matter whether Baldwin did or did not pull the trigger? Wasn't he expected to do just that for realistic filming purposes, to point the gun and pull the trigger?

Gun safety rules, whether on or off film sets, prohibit pointing the gun at a person, and doubly so while pulling the trigger. On sets, the procedure is to use camera angles to create the appearance of pointing, but with the gun actually pointed in a safe direction. If it must be pointed at the camera, as in this case, then either the camera is remote controlled, or a transparent shield is provided.

Since this was a rehearsal with a cold gun, the procedure was to aim just to the side of the camera and the two people behind it. Then the gun was to be cocked by Baldwin, as part of the scene.

This all went as planned, but after the scene, Baldwin went to de-cock the gun, and in so doing, the aim shifted slightly and the gun went off.

How exactly that happened is not known. Baldwin said he lowered the hammer and the gun discharged. But for that gun, the hammer cannot be lowered without pulling the trigger. The procedure is to put your thumb on the hammer, pull it back, squeeze the trigger, and lower the hammer.

The truth is for that type of gun, accidental discharges are common during de-cocking. All it takes is a thumb slip on the hammer. In fact that had already happened in an outdoor scene with a similar gun, loaded with blanks. So the procedure is always to point the gun down and away when de-cocking.

When Baldwin says he didn't pull the trigger, I suspect he means he didn't pull the trigger to fire the gun. But he had to have held it to lower the hammer. The other possibility, is that he held the trigger the entire time, and thus did not cock the gun, but instead held the hammer back with his thumb. That again is something gun safety would never allow, because of the high risk of discharge.

Any way you slice it, Baldwin did not follow gun safety rules, and they appear to have been lax overall on the set. Still it was an accident, and not intentional. But it should never have happened. Safety protocols broke down at every level, from the armorer to assistant director to the actor. None of them followed the rules.

PW100 wrote:

Sorry if it has been discussed already, but why would it matter whether Baldwin did or did not pull the trigger? Wasn't he expected to do just that for realistic filming purposes, to point the gun and pull the trigger?

If a commercial film expected such a reckless endangerment to be performed - which ended in death - then the associated film companies will have their assets transferred to the victim’s family.

You almost can’t make this up. Grown adults are claiming they pointed a gun at an employee’s head, shot her, and it’s not their fault. However many years it takes, they need to be taught that it IS their fault. A confession would have been helpful. But these denials need to be dealt with harshly, long prison terms and perhaps $100 million fine.

LCDFlight wrote:

PW100 wrote:

Sorry if it has been discussed already, but why would it matter whether Baldwin did or did not pull the trigger? Wasn't he expected to do just that for realistic filming purposes, to point the gun and pull the trigger?

If a commercial film expected such a reckless endangerment to be performed - which ended in death - then the associated film companies will have their assets transferred to the victim’s family.

You almost can’t make this up. Grown adults are claiming they pointed a gun at an employee’s head, shot her, and it’s not their fault. However many years it takes, they need to be taught that it IS their fault. A confession would have been helpful. But these denials need to be dealt with harshly, long prison terms and perhaps $100 million fine.

As a producer on the project, Baldwin is one of the folks responsible by default. Producers are responsible for the production conditions, including the quality of staff hired for props etc.

LCDFlight wrote:

You almost can’t make this up. Grown adults are claiming they pointed a gun at an employee’s head, shot her, and it’s not their fault. However many years it takes, they need to be taught that it IS their fault. A confession would have been helpful. But these denials need to be dealt with harshly, long prison terms and perhaps $100 million fine.

No one pointed a gun at an employees head and shot. As described, the gun discharged accidently while being de-cocked. The husband and other victim of the shooting have agreed with this description. As did the coroner.

That said, it's still a criminal homicide and is being investigated as such. The laws governing homicide allow for unintentional acts, which this was. So we will see who and what the district attorney ultimately charges.

Baldwin is the obvious participant since he was handling the gun when it discharged. But there is culpability for all 4 people who handled the gun and/or the rounds that were loaded, before the incident. All had a role to play in safety.

There is also civil liability, which is where the production itself comes into play. They already are facing civil OSHA actions & fines, and numerous lawsuits. Also personal lawsuits against the culpable individuals. A few of which are now settled.

Avatar2go wrote:

No one pointed a gun at an employees head and shot. As described, the gun discharged accidently while being de-cocked. The husband and other victim of the shooting have agreed with this description. As did the coroner.

That said, it's still a criminal homicide and is being investigated as such. The laws governing homicide allow for unintentional acts, which this was. .

It was accidental, it was negligent. He pointed the gun and had his finger on the trigger.

johns624 wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

No one pointed a gun at an employees head and shot. As described, the gun discharged accidently while being de-cocked. The husband and other victim of the shooting have agreed with this description. As did the coroner.

That said, it's still a criminal homicide and is being investigated as such. The laws governing homicide allow for unintentional acts, which this was. .

It was accidental, it was negligent. He pointed the gun and had his finger on the trigger.

The pointing of the gun was not intentional, nor was the discharge. Both are lapses in gun safety protocols, which makes them negligent. This case is unusual because the negligence is distributed over multiple individuals who were responsible for the safety of the gun.

The result was a homicide, even if accidental. The justice system will have to determine the extent of negligence, and the level to which it rises.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/19/entertai ... index.html

Baldwin and armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed will each be charged with two counts of involuntary manslaughter, prosecutors said.

What gets me is the below.

An FBI forensics report said the weapon could not be fired during FBI testing of its normal functioning without pulling the trigger while the gun was cocked. The report also noted the gun eventually malfunctioned during testing after internal parts fractured, which caused the gun to go off in the cocked position without pulling the trigger.

What pieces failed, and was it already going bad when Baldwin handled it, or did he pull the trigger ?

He pulled the trigger. The charges seem to fit the evidence.

casinterest wrote:

What gets me is the below.

An FBI forensics report said the weapon could not be fired during FBI testing of its normal functioning without pulling the trigger while the gun was cocked. The report also noted the gun eventually malfunctioned during testing after internal parts fractured, which caused the gun to go off in the cocked position without pulling the trigger.

What pieces failed, and was it already going bad when Baldwin handled it, or did he pull the trigger ?

The parts that failed were the internal interlock between trigger and hammer release. Which could indicate that the gun was not well maintained, or was worn. The parts would have to be physically broken to allow the cocked hammer to drop. Whether or not that affected the actual fatal incident, I'm sure it will come up in the trial.

What seems odd to me, but may finally come out in the trial, is how the live rounds (7 from the civil lawsuit) got into a box of dummy ammunition. That seems to be the unresolved piece of the puzzle. I would expect the sheriff and DA to have resolved that before charging anyone.

Avatar2go wrote:

casinterest wrote:

What gets me is the below.

An FBI forensics report said the weapon could not be fired during FBI testing of its normal functioning without pulling the trigger while the gun was cocked. The report also noted the gun eventually malfunctioned during testing after internal parts fractured, which caused the gun to go off in the cocked position without pulling the trigger.

What pieces failed, and was it already going bad when Baldwin handled it, or did he pull the trigger ?

The parts that failed were the internal interlock between trigger and hammer release. Which could indicate that the gun was not well maintained, or was worn. The parts would have to be physically broken to allow the cocked hammer to drop. Whether or not that affected the actual fatal incident, I'm sure it will come up in the trial.

What seems odd to me, but may finally come out in the trial, is how the live rounds (7 from the civil lawsuit) got into a box of dummy ammunition. That seems to be the unresolved piece of the puzzle. I would expect the sheriff and DA to have resolved that before charging anyone.

Not knowing the finer details of US law, could it be that the charges are based on the requirement that both the Armourer and Baldwin should have check the weapon each time they handled it, this would have shown that these live rounds were loaded?
(How the hell did that ever happen? Whose were they and why are they not on trial, unless they have determined where they came from, the Armourer here seems to have prime responsibility, even if they did not belong to them).

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ ... 235303758/

Mary Carmack-Altwies, the district attorney who serves Santa Fe County, will charge star and producer Baldwin and armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed with two counts each of involuntary manslaughter.

Assistant director David Halls also signed a plea agreement for the charge of negligent use of a deadly weapon. The terms include a suspended sentence and six months of probation.

The DA’s office will file charges with New Mexico’s First Judicial District Court before the end of the month.

“If any one of these three people — Alec Baldwin, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed or David Halls — had done their job, Halyna Hutchins would be alive today. It’s that simple,” said special prosecutor Andrea Reeb in a statement Thursday. “The evidence clearly shows a pattern of criminal disregard for safety on the Rust film set. In New Mexico, there is no room for film sets that don’t take our state’s commitment to gun safety and public safety seriously.”

GDB wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

casinterest wrote:

What gets me is the below.


What pieces failed, and was it already going bad when Baldwin handled it, or did he pull the trigger ?

The parts that failed were the internal interlock between trigger and hammer release. Which could indicate that the gun was not well maintained, or was worn. The parts would have to be physically broken to allow the cocked hammer to drop. Whether or not that affected the actual fatal incident, I'm sure it will come up in the trial.

What seems odd to me, but may finally come out in the trial, is how the live rounds (7 from the civil lawsuit) got into a box of dummy ammunition. That seems to be the unresolved piece of the puzzle. I would expect the sheriff and DA to have resolved that before charging anyone.

Not knowing the finer details of US law, could it be that the charges are based on the requirement that both the Armourer and Baldwin should have check the weapon each time they handled it, this would have shown that these live rounds were loaded?
(How the hell did that ever happen? Whose were they and why are they not on trial, unless they have determined where they came from, the Armourer here seems to have prime responsibility, even if they did not belong to them).

The Armorer charges make sense. The charges against Baldwin are more of a reach into the aiming of the gun at the director I think.

GDB wrote:

Not knowing the finer details of US law, could it be that the charges are based on the requirement that both the Armourer and Baldwin should have check the weapon each time they handled it, this would have shown that these live rounds were loaded?
(How the hell did that ever happen? Whose were they and why are they not on trial, unless they have determined where they came from, the Armourer here seems to have prime responsibility, even if they did not belong to them).

To clarify, the armorer's responsibility is to maintain continuous custody of the gun and ammunition.
Then check & demonstrate the status of the gun in front of the cast and crew, so there is no doubt.

The cast responsibility is to insist on the check and demonstration of the gun, to their satisfaction, before accepting custody the gun from the armorer, then return it immediately after the scene. They should also receive some minimal level of firearm handling safety training from the armorer.

Everyone failed at some level in this case. The armorer had other responsibilities and was not always present during firearm handling. Custody of the gun and ammunition involved at least two other unqualified people besides the armorer. The armorer did not check ammunition before loading. No check or demonstration of the gun was performed by the armorer, or requested by the crew. The producer did a cursory check of the gun before announcing "cold gun", but he was not qualified and did not inspect the individual rounds.

Then once Baldwin was given custody of the gun, he did not request a demonstration or check. He further did not follow safe firearm handling by pointing the gun down and away while de-cocking the hammer after the scene, which is when the gun discharged.

Further there was a prior incident on set with a duplicate gun, where it also accidently discharged during de-cocking. This is a very well known risk with antique single action firearms. That should have been a clear indicator to tighten procedures with those guns.

https://apnews.com/article/alec-baldwin ... 3d24ec3813

Santa Fe District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altwies said charges will be filed by the end of January, and that Baldwin and Gutierrez-Reed will be issued a summons to appear in court. She said prosecutors will forgo a grand jury and rely on a judge to determine if there is probable cause to move toward trial.

Andrea Reeb, a special prosecutor on the case, cited a “pattern of criminal disregard for safety” on the set.

In fairness to the armorer, she did raise objections that her other duties prevented her from devoting the needed time to firearms and training. OSHA agreed with that assessment, but the producers are disputing that finding.

Also as noted, it's still not clear where the live rounds came from. That seems to me to be the most important question to answer, at this point. The rest of the accident chain is pretty well established.

https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/da ... d=92278109

Halyna Hutchins, 42, was working as a cinematographer on the Western when she was shot and killed by the film's star, Baldwin, during an accident while he was practicing using a Colt .45 revolver on set. Director Joel Souza was also injured in the shooting.

Hutchins' family said they support the charges and found them warranted "for the killing of Halyna Hutchins with conscious disregard for human life."

"Our independent investigation also supports that charges are warranted," attorney Brian Panish said in a statement on behalf of the family. "It is a comfort to the family that, in New Mexico, no one is above the law. We support the charges, will fully cooperate with this prosecution, and fervently hope the justice system works to protect the public and hold accountable those who break the law."

DIRECTFLT wrote:

[...]"for the killing of Halyna Hutchins with conscious disregard for human life."
[...]

More like "unconscious" disregard.

Tugg

There have been numerous 'accidents' with loss of life during TV and movie productions. Often as with this movie, they involved violations of labor and gun laws, trying to hold down budgets and poor management of risks. Charging Alec Baldwin is most likely lead to a plea deal with him, even if means a felony on his record. Hopefully from this the State of NM (and other states) will tighten up on regulations as to firearms and explosives use in TV and movie productions

I loathe Baldwin but I don't see how he is culpable. Isn't this on the person handling the firearms?

Law & Crime Channel

Actor Alec Baldwin and armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed are facing involuntary manslaughter charges in connection to the shooting of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins during the filming of "Rust." The Law&Crime Network's Jesse Weber and Angenette Levy break down the story so far with armorer Steve Wolf.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lk-INEODZWE

NIKV69 wrote:

I loathe Baldwin but I don't see how he is culpable. Isn't this on the person handling the firearms?

The prosecutors will use two counts, and allow the jury to decide which is applicable, or none, but not both. Under New Mexico law, there is no misdemeanor version of manslaughter, they are both felony counts. Also in New Mexico there is a statute that requires mandatory 5 years when a firearm is involved.

Baldwin and Gutierrez-Reed will be "charged in the alternative" with two counts of manslaughter, meaning a jury would decide not just whether they are guilty, but under which definition of involuntary manslaughter they are guilty or not guilty.

The first charge can be referred to simply as involuntary manslaughter, prosecutors said, and for this to be proved there must be underlying negligence.

Under New Mexico law, involuntary manslaughter is a fourth-degree felony punishable by up to 18 months in jail and a $5,000 fine (about £4,040). This charge also includes the misdemeanour charge of negligent use of a firearm.

The other charge is involuntary manslaughter in the commission of a lawful act, which requires proof that there was more than simple negligence involved.

This is also a fourth-degree felony punishable by up to 18 months in jail and up to a $5,000 fine.

Prosecutors said the charge includes an added penalty - because a firearm was involved - which makes the crime punishable by a mandatory five years in jail.

https://news.sky.com/story/alec-baldwin ... e-12790627

Just my own view, but I would think the second count involving a lawful act, would be the most applicable to both the armorer and Baldwin. Both undertook their activities as part of their lawful employment. The legal standard for the second count is "without due caution and circumspection".

How the jury would apply that standard is hard to predict. As well as sentencing. But given the penalties, both parties will make a strong defense. And perhaps a plea deal to the lesser misdemeanor charge of negligent use of a firearm, would be on the table for Baldwin.

I wonder how many "but he didn't know the gun was loaded" and walked white men are out there?

seb146 wrote:

I wonder how many "but he didn't know the gun was loaded" and walked white men are out there?

This wasn't a normal everyday situation. It was a movie set. So if you take your car to a mechanic and he tells you your car is safe for highway travel and you kill someone on the highway because of his negligence you will be ok with getting charged with manslaughter?

NBC News’ Miguel Almaguer speaks to Santa Fe District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altwies

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVeSgZE8JMc

NIKV69 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

I wonder how many "but he didn't know the gun was loaded" and walked white men are out there?

This wasn't a normal everyday situation. It was a movie set.

I was cleaning my gun, I was showing my prize to my family, I was practicing for my brother, it was only out for a minute, I was just getting a sandwich.....

What happened to Second Amendment Rights? Is Alec Baldwin suspended from that from birth? That 4 year old who took a gun to school is being defended and the Sandy Hook shooter is defended and the Pulse Club shooter is defended and the boy in Virginia is defended. What makes Baldwin different that he is denies 2A rights?

NIKV69 wrote:

I loathe Baldwin but I don't see how he is culpable. Isn't this on the person handling the firearms?

1. Basic firearm safety dictates that you don’t point a gun at someone without verifying it is safe. No matter what someone else assures you.

2. He was a producer of the film. Thus he was responsible for the welfare and safety of the crew. Ensuring and verifying that safety culture and best practice was being followed.

The armorer may be MORE culpable but Baldwin bears a share of the blame.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Aesma wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Hand me an open gun and verify its status, hand me closed one, be it a derringer or a howitzer, I’m gonna instinctively open it and check. What are they these amateurs?

You're in the military.

He's an actor.

Actually, I was in the military but I learned gun safety at the tender age of about 6.

It should be obvious that a gun is dangerous, that pulling the trigger will make it fire, if it’s loaded, and the outcome will be harmful to what it’s pointed at. There is ZERO, NADA excuse to pull the trigger with gun pointed at someone not in the scene AFTER ensuring it’s condition. Why did he pull the trigger with pointed er the cinematographer? There is no reason to do so

Six? The closest thing I had at 6 was an Super Nintendo.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

NBC News’ Miguel Almaguer speaks to Santa Fe District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altwies

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVeSgZE8JMc

Interesting that the sheriff and DA still have not learned how the live rounds got onto the set. That's a major piece of liability that is missing, but they are apparently prepared to move forward without it.

Also I cringe every time someone repeats that Baldwin pulled the trigger, as without context, that sounds like he intended to fire the gun, which he did not. In actuality, the trigger must be pulled with your thumb on the hammer, in order to de-cock the gun.

Thus what Baldwin did was a necessary step in the process of safing the gun. But it's known to have risk, as if your thumb slips or if you lower the hammer too quickly, there could be an accidental discharge (which is what happened). Therefore he should have followed gun safety rules and pointed the gun down and away while de-cocking. A gun must always be treated as if it's loaded.

Baldwin did himself no favors by claiming he didn't pull the trigger. He likely meant that he didn't pull the trigger with the intention of firing the gun, but rather to safe it. But he created the impression that he wasn't being truthful, and that will no doubt be raised as an issue in the trial.

Lastly as noted above, this exact sequence had already ocurred on set with a duplicate gun, that accidently discharged a blank during de-cocking.

To those here who are claiming Baldwin should have checked the gun himself, that is not the established union procedure for actors.

The procedure is for the armorer to demonstrate the status of the gun in front of the actors and crew, so that everyone agrees the gun is in the necessary configuration for the scene. Anyone can object if they have doubts or concerns.

Once the gun is handed to the actor by the armorer, they are not to do anything with it but carry out the scene, and then hand it back. That's why you have professional armorers on set. Only they configure the gun.

Those rules are established to be certain the actors don't contribute to an accident from unfamiliarity with firearms. But they should also be given a review by the armorer, of basic gun safety.

In this case, had the rules been followed, the armorer would have been present to do those things, but she was given other duties. So she prepared the gun in the morning and put it in a safe during lunch. After lunch, the prop master retrieved the gun and put it on a table. The producer picked it up and did a brief inspection, opening the cylinder and checking that the visible rounds were marked as dummies.

But he did not remove the rounds for inspection or check the round in the chamber, which as it turned out, was live. Or demonstrate the status of the gun, as is required. He then announced "cold gun" to the crew, which was accepted without question.

But obviously he was not the armorer and did not follow the rules. And the cast & crew should not have accepted his declaration without demonstration, particularly Baldwin. But that's how these things happen, people trust each other instead of the procedures meant to ensure safety.

SEAorPWM wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Aesma wrote:

You're in the military.

He's an actor.

Actually, I was in the military but I learned gun safety at the tender age of about 6.

It should be obvious that a gun is dangerous, that pulling the trigger will make it fire, if it’s loaded, and the outcome will be harmful to what it’s pointed at. There is ZERO, NADA excuse to pull the trigger with gun pointed at someone not in the scene AFTER ensuring it’s condition. Why did he pull the trigger with pointed er the cinematographer? There is no reason to do so

Six? The closest thing I had at 6 was an Super Nintendo.

If only there was some way of establishing who has such skills and knowledge for handling a device capable of killing. Maybe some sort of license and testing capability. I guess people never be able to sort out something so utterly complicated and weird.

On a totally unrelated note I’m just going to have a go in my automobile

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Avatar2go wrote:

To those here who are claiming Baldwin should have checked the gun himself, that is not the established union procedure for actors.

The procedure is for the armorer to demonstrate the status of the gun in front of the actors and crew, so that everyone agrees the gun is in the necessary configuration for the scene. Anyone can object if they have doubts or concerns.

Once the gun is handed to the actor by the armorer, they are not to do anything with it but carry out the scene, and then hand it back. That's why you have professional armorers on set. Only they configure the gun.

Those rules are established to be certain the actors don't contribute to an accident from unfamiliarity with firearms. But they should also be given a review by the armorer, of basic gun safety.

In this case, had the rules been followed, the armorer would have been present to do those things, but she was given other duties. So she prepared the gun in the morning and put it in a safe during lunch. After lunch, the prop master retrieved the gun and put it on a table. The producer picked it up and did a brief inspection, opening the cylinder and checking that the visible rounds were marked as dummies.

But he did not remove the rounds for inspection or check the round in the chamber, which as it turned out, was live. Or demonstrate the status of the gun, as is required. He then announced "cold gun" to the crew, which was accepted without question.

But obviously he was not the armorer and did not follow the rules. And the cast & crew should not have accepted his declaration without demonstration, particularly Baldwin. But that's how these things happen, people trust each other instead of the procedures meant to ensure safety.

The caveat here is that Baldwin was not only the actor here, but the employer/producer, and was "in charge" of all things on the set from that perspective. If this goes to trial, then all of this was will sorted out by the defense and the prosecution.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

The caveat here is that Baldwin was not only the actor here, but the employer/producer, and was "in charge" of all things on the set from that perspective. If this goes to trial, then all of this was will sorted out by the defense and the prosecution.

Yes, as a producer Baldwin has additional culpability. But only the people who handled the gun have been charged, not the producers.

So as you say, that will need to be sorted out by the jury. It makes things somewhat uncertain. The prosecution may emphasize his role as a producer, whereas the defense may emphasize his role as an actor.

fr8mech wrote:

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

Do Not assume someone who has no reason to know these things would or even should. This is a glaring mistake I see the gun people in this thread making, and it raises good questions about the general level of responsibility.

You’re right. And, whenever I take a non-shooter to the range, we go over those rules before that person ever touches a firearm.

But, the Armorer should certainly know the rules.

And, I’m sorry to burst your bubble, but Baldwin has been using firearms, real or fake, his entire career. If he is unaware of the rules, the he is willfully, negligently ignorant.

You nailed it. I think people are defending Alec based on his politics. The first rule I learned about gun safety is NEVER point a weapon- loaded or unloaded- at anyone unless you intend to kill them. And that's exactly what Mr. Baldwin did.

cairns wrote:

fr8mech wrote:

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

Do Not assume someone who has no reason to know these things would or even should. This is a glaring mistake I see the gun people in this thread making, and it raises good questions about the general level of responsibility.

You’re right. And, whenever I take a non-shooter to the range, we go over those rules before that person ever touches a firearm.

But, the Armorer should certainly know the rules.

And, I’m sorry to burst your bubble, but Baldwin has been using firearms, real or fake, his entire career. If he is unaware of the rules, the he is willfully, negligently ignorant.

You nailed it. I think people are defending Alec based on his politics. The first rule I learned about gun safety is NEVER point a weapon- loaded or unloaded- at anyone unless you intend to kill them. And that's exactly what Mr. Baldwin did.

That’s mostly true, but there are exceptions for the case of gun fitting of the stock, especially for shotguns. Shotguns vary because the “rear sight” is the shooter’s eye which must be exactly aligned with rib. The fitter and owner will both verify the gun’s empty status, the fitter will stand in front of the owner to check mount and fit. I’ve done this numerous times with highly experienced instructors/stockers.

SEAorPWM wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Aesma wrote:

You're in the military.

He's an actor.

Actually, I was in the military but I learned gun safety at the tender age of about 6.

It should be obvious that a gun is dangerous, that pulling the trigger will make it fire, if it’s loaded, and the outcome will be harmful to what it’s pointed at. There is ZERO, NADA excuse to pull the trigger with gun pointed at someone not in the scene AFTER ensuring it’s condition. Why did he pull the trigger with pointed er the cinematographer? There is no reason to do so

Six? The closest thing I had at 6 was a Super Nintendo.

Poor soul. We didn’t have video games back then.

What some seem to be forgetting is that Baldwin IIRC, was also the producer. In that role, he was more responsible for who was on the set and how they performed their jobs than he would be as just an actor. If the armorer wasn't doing her job, it was up to him to correct her. If there were negligent discharges, he should've found out why. It was HIS movie.

johns624 wrote:

What some seem to be forgetting is that Baldwin IIRC, was also the producer. In that role, he was more responsible for who was on the set and how they performed their jobs than he would be as just an actor. If the armorer wasn't doing her job, it was up to him to correct her. If there were negligent discharges, he should've found out why. It was HIS movie.

I think that's exactly right. He's being charged not because he pulled the trigger, but because it was his production and it clearly wasn't meeting safety requirements.

All the talk of gun safety is great, but honestly serves minimal purpose on a hollywood set. Of course they're going to point guns at each other and pull the trigger. It's the land of make believe. You're also not supposed to drive cars off bridges, or motorcycles off ramps while blowing stuff up. Or so driver's ed led me to believe back in the day. So giving the basic rules of gun handling just isn't relevant. And the reason for that goes back to the point of why Baldwin is being charged. Because there are supposed to be so many fail safes that they can break the principle runs of gun handling. In this case, the team failed to follow the necessary steps, ergo and accident happened. Hollywood has been handling weapons pretty much since day 1, and have a pretty impressive track record. It's clear this is an outlier

seb146 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

I wonder how many "but he didn't know the gun was loaded" and walked white men are out there?

This wasn't a normal everyday situation. It was a movie set.

I was cleaning my gun, I was showing my prize to my family, I was practicing for my brother, it was only out for a minute, I was just getting a sandwich.....

What happened to Second Amendment Rights? Is Alec Baldwin suspended from that from birth? That 4 year old who took a gun to school is being defended and the Sandy Hook shooter is defended and the Pulse Club shooter is defended and the boy in Virginia is defended. What makes Baldwin different that he is denies 2A rights?

What? Who is defending any of the people you mentioned? You realize that the Second Amendment gives people the right to keep and bear arms, not to randomly murder people, right?

1. Basic firearm safety dictates that you don’t point a gun at someone without verifying it is safe. No matter what someone else assures you.

2. He was a producer of the film. Thus he was responsible for the welfare and safety of the crew. Ensuring and verifying that safety culture and best practice was being followed.

The armorer may be MORE culpable but Baldwin bears a share of the blame.[/quote]

I suspect, that an actor, using a real gun, in a suicide scene, might go to the trouble to check the gun themselves, regardless if the person handing the gun to them had just said "cold gun."

AB should have checked the gun for the sake of the person(s) who was in front of him. The director wanted a scene filmed from the point of view of AB aiming the gun at the audience, up close. In this case, the camera operator is "the audience."