Crew member killed when shot by prop gun on set of Baldwin movie

[jsharmon7]

As I am not a lawyer nor familiar with NM laws nor privy to the contracts any of these people signed with their start paperwork I would not give any kind of legal opinion, BUT

Baldwin as an actor handling the gun had a responsibility to himself and the rest of the crew to follow the established film gun rules

He had far and away much more film firearm experience than the rest of the crew combined and had been through the proper procedures on numerous other movies and TV.

As executive producer he should have known and made sure all the rules were executed properly, The armor if felt unsafe could called the studio or money people and had gun related filming stopped until she felt proper measures were being followed and Baldwin would have had to follow her gun related shutdown.

Baldwin as actor and executive producer knew the 1st AD was not in the proper chain of custody and should have not allowed him to handle the weapon, he should not have accepted it from him.

There had already been at least one rehearsal without a round going off, was that because some rounds were dummy, there were empty chambers, or because he did not pull the trigger in previous rehearsal just moments before the live round discharge.......or what, this is meant to be rhetorical.

I think the 1st is in almost as deep as Baldwin. He had the 2nd most firearm experience on the set and knew he was not supposed to be in the chain of custody and did not have the authority to touch, hand off, or declare the gun cold. He had many years in his position.

I don't feel that either one of them have any reasonable defense at all, except pointing fingers at each other

I think the girls lawyer can give a lot of excuses for her part in this to try to save her neck blaming everyone else around her and even those who put her in her job because she worked cheap and was given a department head position due to her gender and probably gave them a sweetheart deal on the firearms rentals.


This all stems from money and wokeness. If Tier 1 goes over a predetermined Budget then the crew must get back pay and benefits to tier 2 status. Both Baldwins and the AD's saleries were probably based on the budget numbers. They were behind on schedule, running very late that day and they saw production possibly being stopped for good when they got almost up to the next budget line.

Based on everything I have read I thought that this was a union movie, someone today at work said that some union members from NM were working on it but that was not a union show I do not know the real story.
The camera crew that walked off was union and hired by the DP who was also union. When her crew found the conditions intolerable she should have left with them, she paid a big price.

Some shows no matter the budget are an absolute pleasure to work on, some are angry, ugly, and mean. From what I have heard of Baldwin in the past and read about this AD recently, two of the people most responsible for setting the tone of the show this was probably a tense angry way to spend 14 to 15 hours a day. Probably lots of yelling, threats, dirty looks, intimidation, disorganization, missing proper resources, equipment and staff.
I have been on a handful of shows like that in the past 30 years one of them fired thousands of blank rounds but I don't remember any dummy rounds. No one was injured.

People were late in getting paychecks, missing paychecks, and having their timecards disputed. That must have added another level of anger on the crew.
People were sleeping in their cars because there was not enough time to drive and get enough sleep
Executive producer or his lawyer lol should be asked to answer for it all.



.

I have to admit, I’ve been leaning toward “no charges” on this one. My view is that an actor, especially an anti-gun actor, may not know the 4 rules of gun safety like everyone here. The production company hires experts and he expects them to do their job. There are also a number of people between him and the preparation of the firearm. It seems difficult to prove he was negligent by trusting the processes that have been successful in the past, especially when he was rehearsing the scene as written and directed. It sounds like the deceased was likely involved in setting up that exact scene. But after the expert insider description above, it seems murkier. It sounds like even without any gun knowledge he should have seen numerous red flags from his own substantial experience in the industry. It’s a coin flip for me at this point.

 

[Jaybird1980]

I have to admit, I’ve been leaning toward “no charges” on this one. My view is that an actor, especially an anti-gun actor, may not know the 4 rules of gun safety like everyone here. The production company hires experts and he expects them to do their job. There are also a number of people between him and the preparation of the firearm. It seems difficult to prove he was negligent by trusting the processes that have been successful in the past, especially when he was rehearsing the scene as written and directed. It sounds like the deceased was likely involved in setting up that exact scene. But after the expert insider description above, it seems murkier. It sounds like even without any gun knowledge he should have seen numerous red flags from his own substantial experience in the industry. It’s a coin flip for me at this point.

Ok, now add in the fact that he likely played some part in ignoring the safety complaints of the original crew and likely played a part in replacing them with a different crew.

I say this because it's been said many times that the producer makes those decisions. It appears there are multiple producers on this one, so I don't know how that would work. Group decision?

 

[jsharmon7]

Ok, now add in the fact that he likely played some part in ignoring the safety complaints of the original crew and likely played a part in replacing them with a different crew.

I say this because it's been said many times that the producer makes those decisions. It appears there are multiple producers on this one, so I don't know how that would work. Group decision?

My guess is all of those people will end up in the crosshairs of a civil suit. The criminal case is much harder to prove than the civil. I don’t know of too many cases were multiple were criminally charged due to mismanagement.

 

[Jaybird1980]

My guess is all of those people will end up in the crosshairs of a civil suit. The criminal case is much harder to prove than the civil. I don’t know of too many cases were multiple were criminally charged due to mismanagement.

I kind of agree, I said before it will probably be hashed out in civil case. Although we are just guessing, because we don't know the whole picture.

I would like to see people be held accountable for their actions

 

[indykid]

What if this wasn't an accident. Someone knew that Baldwin would be pointing the weapon at the camera. Someone who didn't like the new female firearm specialist, and didn't like having a female director? Knowing that Baldwin didn't know rule 1 from rule 69 how better than load the weapon to fire on the first trigger pull knowing that Baldwin wouldn't check it, would point it at the female director and also take out the firearm handler who "should have been more careful"?

Just one more way to look at this, which could be why the sheriff is not ready to call this an accident. (Or negligence if you don't believe in accidents.)

 

[Twangbanger]

Please don't help me state my own opinion and your snark is out of bounds. Did you miss what Churchmouse said?

If I am incorrect, and you actually do feel Mr. Baldwin shares responsibility in this incident, including as the trigger puller, then I will stand corrected. But I haven't seen that level of clarity from you.

Again, feel free to correct me for the record. Nobody is calling names. Nobody is violating forum rules. We are having a robust debate, which is allowed. But I think you've been less than forthcoming on this point, and am simply, and respectfully, calling you on it.

This is a gun issue, on a gun forum. Fair game.

 

[Twangbanger]

How do you feel about truck guns, shoulder holsters, appendix carry, target bays with no overhead baffling, IWB, nightstand guns, self defense shooting realities, and the myriad other ways guns will be pointed in "unsafe" directions? Not trolling, just curious whether you hold an exacting standard or whether it's more like the PETA posters about drawing the line between food and pets.

Not really sure how to summarize all that, other than to say, bad gunhandling is bad gunhandling. It happens all the time. The Greenwood Mall seems to have been the last high-profile local example.

But if you have time for the non-Cliffnotes version, then because I believe in clarity and saying exactly what you mean, I'll attempt a response, based on your chosen examples.

Truck guns: they are a treasure for thieves, but as long as you're ok with the moral implications of that, and you're not handling the gun and pointing it at someone while in the truck (unless engaged in a defense shooting), have at it, it's a free country. You are ultimately responsible for what you do with the gun when you handle it, meaning if you shoot someone, then like Alec Baldwin you are responsible.

Shoulder holsters: I don't like them, and the matches I attend won't let you on the range with them, because it's impossible to draw it without pointing it in places you cannot see or control. However, it's a free country; do as you please. You are ultimately responsible for what you do with the gun when you handle it, meaning if you shoot someone, then like Alec Baldwin you are responsible.

Appendix carry: It is your appendix. We are adults. Rule #2: don't point the gun at something you are not personally willing to shoot. It's a free country and only you can make this call. You are ultimately accountable for what you do with the gun when you handle it, meaning if you shoot someone (including yourself), then like Alec Baldwin you are responsible.

Target bays with no overhead baffling: My guns are _pointed_ at dirt or targets while being handled. Suggest you do the same, and follow whatever rules your chosen range has in place. You are ultimately accountable for what you do with the gun when you handle it, meaning if you shoot someone, then like Alec Baldwin you are responsible.

IWB: I refer the right honorable gentleman to the comments I gave some moments ago, regarding Appendix carry.

Nightstand guns: I refer the right honorable gentleman to the comments I gave some moments ago, regarding Truck Guns.

Self defense shooting realities: Doctors prescribe medications because the consequences of doing nothing are worse than the side effects of the drug. A similar situation exists with self-defense shootings. Use your judgement. You are ultimately accountable for what you do with the gun when you handle it, meaning if you shoot someone wrongfully, then like Alec Baldwin you are responsible.

The myriad of other ways guns will be pointed in unsafe directions: Since it's somewhat hypothetical, I'm going to turn this question around on you: based on my foregoing answers, a certain "trend" emerges. Can you see what it is?

If you do, then you understand what I'm saying about the Alec Baldwin situation, and why he's responsible for what happened. And why the postings of people like Ark and Alpo, who seem to be cutting him a break, are so puzzling to me.

This isn't just about rules. It's about where responsibility lies. One system has been advocated here by some, like Ark, who think Baldwin was blameless as the trigger-puller. I am advocating a different system of rules be employed, which makes it crystal clear where responsibility lies.

Now it's your turn. My answers are based on the libertarian concept of responsibility for one's actions, and not trying to avoid them, nor abet others in trying to do so. Did I answer your questions? What has been left unaddressed? We are having a robust discussion, and you've now entered it. What are _your_ thoughts?

 

[actaeon277]

Not really sure how to encompass the universe you're pulling in, other than to say, bad gunhandling is bad gunhandling. It happens all the time. The Greenwood Mall seems to have been the last high-profile local example.

Truck guns: they are a treasure for thieves, but as long as you're ok with the moral implications of that, and you're not handling the gun and pointing it somewhere while in the truck (unless engaged in a defense shooting), have at it, it's a free country. YOU ARE ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT YOU DO WITH THE GUN WHEN YOU HANDLE IT, MEANING IF YOU SHOOT SOMEONE, YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE.

Shoulder holsters: I don't like them, and the matches I attend won't let you on the range with them, because it's impossible to draw it without pointing it in places you cannot see or control. However, it's a free country; do as you please. You are ultimately responsible for what you do with the gun when you handle it, meaning if you shoot someone, then like Alec Baldwin you are responsible.

Appendix carry: Rule #2: don't point the gun at something you are not personally willing to shoot. It's a free country and only you can make this call. You are ultimately accountable for what you do with the gun when you handle it, meaning if you shoot someone, then like Alec Baldwin you are responsible.

Target bays with no overhead baffling: My guns are _pointed_ at dirt or targets while being handled. Suggest you do the same, and follow whatever rules your chosen range has in place. You are ultimately accountable for what you do with the gun when you handle it, meaning if you shoot someone, then like Alec Baldwin you are responsible.

IWB: I refer the right honorable gentleman to the comments I gave some moments ago, regarding Appendix carry.

Nightstand guns: I refer the right honorable gentleman to the comments I gave some moments ago, regarding Truck Guns.

Self defense shooting realities: Doctors prescribe medications because the consequences of doing nothing are worse than the side effects of the drug. A similar situation exists with self-defense shootings. Use your judgement. You are ultimately accountable for what you do with the gun when you handle it, meaning if you shoot someone wrongfully, then like Alec Baldwin you are responsible.

The myriad of other ways guns will be pointed in unsafe directions: Since it's somewhat hypothetical, I'm going to turn this question around on you: based on my foregoing answers, a certain "trend" emerges. Can you see what it is?

If you do, then you understand what I'm saying about the Alec Baldwin situation, and why he's responsible for what happened. And why the postings of people like Ark and Alpo, who seem to be cutting him a break, are so puzzling.

I want to make sure I understand...
You are ultimately accountable for what you do with the gun when you handle it, meaning if you shoot someone wrongfully, then like Alec Baldwin you are responsible.

Well, that's just plain CRAZY talk.
responsible.. accountable.. those are just made up words.

 

[Bigtanker]

Ok. Shutting this down for a while. In thread warnings evidently have not been followed.

Time for everybody to calm down realize there are differences of opinion and stop attacking others. When this opens back up, if this continues, further action including bans will be handed out

 

[churchmouse]

Ok. Shutting this down for a while. In thread warnings evidently have not been followed.

Time for everybody to calm down realize there are differences of opinion and stop attacking others. When this opens back up, if this continues, further action including bans will be handed out

Fellas I would have dropped the hammer as I stated. BT is a kind and gentle man.

Well.........for the most part anyway.