One is too many.
No, it’s not. “One death is too many” is not the way anything works.
Do you want to shut down movie production altogether, to the extent that involves anything other than filming two people chatting in armchairs?
Just backing up @Riemann ’s position over the last day (and please correct me if I’m mis-stating you here). Policies and procedures for safety in an organization or group need to be understandable, consistent, and repeatable in order to be effective.
Someone coming into a process saying “I know better” and changing the agreed-upon process without consensus and communication makes everything less safe for everyone. Because now the process is different, and unpredictable. It doesn’t matter if the person making the change is an expert. They have unilaterally decided that the process should be: “Do A, unless I am involved, in which case the process is now B.” And the more significant the consequences, the more important it is that no one disrupt the process in that way.
If you are in a situation where you have lost faith in the process, the right and safe thing to do is to stop the work until the process can be fixed. Coming up with your own safety procedure that works for you is not.
As @Broomstick ultimately said: the crux of the question should be “what were the policies for actors and guns on set, and was Baldwin following them?”
Thanks for saying that so clearly.
I think everyone accepts the sense of this with every other aspect of organizational/group safety. There seems to be a strange “gun exceptionalism” going on here (I don’t just mean in this thread, but from wider commentary on the Rust incident) that I can’t help but think relates to some degree to the individualism inherent in 2A psychology.
You’re not getting the concept of safety in the workplace. The basic idea of gun safety is not some literal word-for-word application. Applying your example of pointing a weapon at someone the overriding critical requirement is that people are properly trained and the weapon is verified empty or functionally incapable of firing a projectile.
This is what the court is going to address. Were there procedures in place to verify the gun was safe and were they followed. The answer is no.
Filmmakers make films. They do not make law. Industry standards may be evidence of what is or is not considered negligent behavior within the industry, but the law on negligence is not beholden to such pronouncements.
For sure. And I’m not intending to take a position here about the law, beyond the fact that I assume (though might be wrong) that existing documented procedures went through some sort of legal vetting and that there is likely some kind of indemnification for actors written into such procedures (or it’s implied by moving responsibility to others whose literal job it is to keep things safe). Whether those are meaningful in the eyes of a judge or jury I have no idea or opinion.
This brings up an interesting point of discussion. How much risk is too much risk?
Very few things in life are completely risk-free. To be free of risk we’d have to live in a padded room, with delivered food checked by food-poison tasters with piped-in sterilized air and water. And even then, we may die from lack of exercise, or boredom. Do you really want to live a risk-free life if that life is not worth living? The best we can strive for is to outlaw activities with too high risk, activities with moderate risk but minimal benefit, and minimal risk, but no benefit.
Individually, we all have different opinions on how much risk we’re willing to take for any given activity. For example, I would never base jump, even though it looks like fun. Too risky for me. But, if someone else is willing to accept the risk, more power to them. I will, however, get in my car and drive to the supermarket, even though there is relatively high risk in doing that because the benefit to me is worth the risk.
As a society, I believe we do a pretty good job of assessing risk, instituting risk-reducing protocols, and outlawing activities that are just too risky. There’s always room for improvement, and that must always be a priority.
We, as a society, enjoy seeing realistic gun fights in films and TV, even though some people die as a result of that enjoyment. But, the number of people who die is very small. We and the actors and film crews accept this high benefit/minimal risk activity. But, there’s room for improvement, and I’m confident improvement will continue.
The same can be said of eating poison puffer fish, or raw oysters (or many other things). Some people will die as a result of eating those things. We don’t need to eat puffer fish, or oysters, but dying from doing so is statistically minuscule.
We don’t outlaw automobiles even though the risk is relatively high, because the benefit to society is very, very high—necessary, in fact. I’m confident cars will continue to be designed to ever safer standards over time.
The best we can do is reduce the risks of activities to as low as we can, given our current ability. Bring mortality and morbidity rates to as close to zero as we can. In most cases, this is exactly what we do. There are certainly exceptions, and offenders pay the price.
It may sound cold, but I don’t want to see realistic gun scenes outlawed from films, even though some actors will die (so long as the actors and crew are willing to accept the risk, without coercion). I would, however, like to see a day when CGI advances to the point that it can depict realistic gun handling by actors, bringing the mortality rate to zero.
By the same token, I’m not going to stop eating raw oysters, even though I may destroy my liver and potentially die as a result (I draw the line at poison puffer fish though). I’m willing to take the risk because I like raw oysters. I’d like to see the day when raw oysters can be decontaminated of the offending bacteria (Vibrio vulnificus), bringing the mortality rate to zero. But, until that day, pass the melted butter and lemon juice, please.
In that situation, yes. But Baldwin, et. al. were in a very different situation. Cool anecdote, but it speaks to next to nothing that occurs on a film set.
C’mon… you have to be getting this by now.
The protocols are the same, it’s true. That is, if we are talking about a real firearm near the set belonging to a security guard or something.
For handling prop guns the protocol is different.
Still sounds dangerous. Suppose one actor picked up their armchair and bludgeoned the other actor?
“Never use a chair, not any kind of chair, without first checking if it’s well-cushioned.”
First rule of chair safety.
Presumably, industry standards were developed over many years and also in response to prior accidents. Think of them as a floor - this is what is required for acceptable risk and safety, there is no bar to doing more. Going to court and saying “we adhered to these accepted standards” indicates a certain level of effort and care. That may not be entirely adequate for the law, but could serve as a mitigating circumstance, especially when a jury is involved and asked to determine what a reasonable person would/should do in similar circumstances. Certainly, failure to meet industry standards will work against a defendant.
Well, yes, but.
This article was published a couple of days ago.
https://news.yahoo.com/lights-camera-weapons-check-actors-150859738.html
It includes quotes from a number of well-known performers which are relevant to various points argued throughout the thread up to this point. For example, Michael Chiklis (The Shield) opines that there’s no compelling reason for the use of real firearms to continue, and Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson goes further, saying that this will be the official policy of his own production company.
But relevant to the point above, here’s the citation I want to isolate.
Ah-hah! the proponents of the generic one-size-fits-all firearms-safety rulebook will shout. Of course the actor should be responsible for checking his own prop weapons!
Unfortunately for them, Ackles then immediately continues:
In short, the actor may perform his or her personal verification for his or her own reassurance. But this is not the official expectation, and anything the actor does will not supplant the expertise of the armorer or shift responsibility to the actor. There is “no bar to doing more,” but while the actor’s personal procedure may supplement the production’s safety rules, that procedure must never contradict or replace those rules, and such a procedure does not raise the expectation for anyone else. Even for an actor who takes additional steps, the armorer is still the ultimate authority and responsible party. This is for everyone’s safety.
Another quote, from a different actor — emphasis added:
(My own firsthand knowledge and experience have apparently not been sufficiently compelling for some posters here to accept this reality of the entertainment industry, so maybe some quotes from famous people will gain the necessary traction.)
As far as why state officials have chosen to pursue charges against Baldwin as the actor and as the only producer out of several on the film to warrant criminal accusation, well … I wonder if it’s significant that the special prosecutor has gone grandstanding on Fox News.
(Re-reading my post, it inadvertently feels like a direct rebuttal that goes beyond things you didn’t say. To clarify, I’m just taking off from your specific comment and then responding generally to the discussion and commonly expressed sentiments. Not intended as a pointed reply. Sorry if this wasn’t clear.)
So, what you’re saying is, it is acceptable safety practice to point an empty gun at another person and pull the trigger, as long as you have personally verified it as empty, as a layperson who has taken some gun training courses.
Would you do that? Take a gun that was verified as empty, point it at another person and pull the trigger. I don’t think you would, and you shouldn’t, but it’s standard practice on a movie set.
Apparently, wounding the director is not actually a crime in New Mexico.
Alec Baldwin will not be charged with the shooting of “Rust” Director Joel Souza, despite the fact he was hit by the same bullet the D.A. says was fired recklessly and killed cinematographer Halyna Hutchins … and now we know why.
The Santa Fe District Attorney’s Office tells TMZ … there’s just no crime when it comes to the Souza incident.
The D.A. says the only way to characterize the shooting of Souza is an “unintentional battery,” and no such thing exists. A battery requires intent, and even the D.A. says Baldwin had no intention to hurt anyone. The case against Baldwin is rooted in alleged recklessness.
As I said above, this is why the producer thing doesn’t matter, it’s simply a cash grab with no responsibilities.
There’s also criticism the D.A. will be charging Baldwin because of his Executive Producer role in the movie. Stewart says Baldwin was not running the show – his E.P. credit was really just so he could get back-end profits.
I’ve witnessed safety regulators boot stomp a major corporation because of what you described. The company’s attitude was the same as yours. They new better, their requirements were unique to the industry and this is how they needed to work in order to get things done. Guess what, they were fined and monitored until their corporate noses started to bleed.
You act like a film set is somehow different than any other industry and they’re exempt from establishing and following safety procedures. They’re not. Every business is different and movie sets are no exception. Each business has to establish safety procedures unique to their operations and they must follow them.
This was such a basic failure of safety protocol that it boggles the mind. Dumping all the blame on the Armorer ignores the depth of issue.
“Normal” gun safety procedures are also not law.
[ My bold ]
An interesting shift to a new straw man there.
Correct, but, when it comes to negligence, the standard, in general, for the level of caution or care owed to another is set to what a “reasonable person” would do, and “normal” gun safety procedures, by virtue of their broad adoption by so many presumably “reasonable” people will necessarily have some weight to them when the charge is premised on negligence.
What you and others are arguing is that Baldwin’s status as an actor should be considered among the relevant circumstances to be considered in the totality of the circumstances in evaluating how a “reasonable person” would act. In essence, you’re arguing that the true standard for negligence here should be a “reasonable actor” standard. What would a reasonable (presumably normal) actor do under these circumstances.
And to be fair, I think that should be considered.
BUT!
Even there, industry standards are not controlling. This is where other circumstances might be relevant. For instance, would a “reasonable” actor be so reliant on the armorer and AD after two prior firearms incidents during the course of the production (that we know of)? Would a “reasonable” actor want to have the gun verified incapable of firing in their presence and/or perform an independent check irrespective of whether industry standards say such a direct verification by the actor is required? Would a “reasonable” actor point the gun at the cinematographer during a rehearsal, not even the actual scene rather than demonstrate with an empty hand or by pointing offset so as not to unnecessarily hazard the cinematographer for no gain?
And so on. Nothing about this case is obvious or easy, for either the prosecution or defense. Each side will, for public relations purposes, want to make it seem obvious/easy, but it is not.