Tell that to Jon-Erik Hexum and Brandon Lee.
I understand the DA’s office wanting to be sure someone in authority is held responsible and that they don’t want to seem like they’re going easy on a famous person, but at this point it really does feel like they’re going overboard.
Industry norms don’t make law.
Sometimes they do. When the law includes words like “reasonable” as in “exercise reasonable safety measures” or something of that sort, then industry standards are used to define what “reasonable” means.
I’m confused about what they could possibly have found at this late date to cause another change. The only thing I can think of having to do with the gun itself is that perhaps they found a fingerprint or bit of DNA inside the gun. That would seem to indicate that he had loaded it himself.
If they already have him swearing that he did not open the gun for any reason, then that would be damning.
But again, I’m just trying to think of a possibility here.
I said what I said.
Industry norms may be evidence of what is reasonable, but they are not definitive. That is a fine, but very important point of law. It’s entirely possible for an industry to be engaged wholesale in negligence (or worse) as a matter of course. The courts can serve a course-correcting function when industry deviates too far from reasonable behavior and people start ending up dead in incredibly stupid ways (as the Rust incident very much was an example of—lots of stupidity at play).
But to the extent industry customs may be relevant, it is also still very much up for question whether pointing a real gun being used as a prop at a person is even an acceptable custom within the film industry. And if it is, well, again, that might just be industry-wide negligence or worse.
Thousands and thousands of blank rounds being expended every year on dozens and dozens of movie and television sets, resulting a single death on one set, means trying to draw equivalence between the industry at large and this one atypically negligent set is a laughable non-starter.
Industry practices in this area, properly followed, are firmly established by the record as being entirely adequate. No larger conclusions can or should be drawn from the Rust anomaly. If you want to try to make that argument, you’ll need to bring a whole lot more dead and injured cast and crew members.
They seem to be twisting themselves in order to charge a famous person simply because they are a celebrity.
I certainly agree with that. There’s just no reason for it. Actors need to be trained on the physical skill of using a prop gun in a way that looks authentic. Looking at that linked footage, the blanks were in no way helping Baldwin look like he was in an actual shooting situation.
Better yet, Hollywood could stop using guns as the deus ex machina in every plotline they produce.
I completely disagree. Even if an adverse outcome has a vanishingly small (but on-zero) chance of occurring, that by itself does not justify ignoring the risk posed. Risk is justified not only in terms of probability and severity (that is, the measurement of risk) alone, but also by comparison to alternatives and their relative costs, be it in dollars and cents, or even human lives.
What happened on the Rust set was a woman and mother was gunned down, however accidentally, because apparently some people in the film industry think it’s totally cool to point a real gun at someone just so long as it’s for a movie (but not even being actively filmed, just a rehearsal!) and the Assistant Director pinky-swears the gun ain’t loaded. And that’s even ignoring the broader question of whether real guns have any place as movie “props” at all.
Intent does.
and as said below-
This is such a wild misrepresentation of industry practices that there’s no point in responding.
Yes, and a not-so sympathetic celebrity, to boot. If it had been someone more popular, this would never have been an issue.
I concur.
Now the armorer- that is different. Manslaughter.
And you should read my reply below that.
You have no response. Got it. Surprisingly, I’m not persuaded by your form of argument.
I think so. I saw the behind the scenes video and he was being, I think, quite careful.
No, that’s not up for question. It is standard practice. How many times has this occurred? Once in about 140 years. Let’s not get all rewriting everything and sending good men to prison over such a rare once in several lifetimes occurrence.
In any case, criminal law hinges heavily on intent.
Not when the charge is involuntary manslaughter, which can turn on recklessness.
What kind of sentence does that come with? I can see something like this at most. Mistakes were made, possibly even by Baldwin, and a life was lost.
Laura Bush ran a stop sign as a teen and killed a boy at school. No evil intent, just like Baldwin. No charges in her case, but similar.
I don’t think Baldwin was egregiously irresponsible. I think the armorer bears real blame. Even there, it’s gross negligence leading to Involuntary Manslaughter.
You are begging the question. I am telling you, as a matter of law, industry custom is evidence of what is reasonable (and therefore not negligent) but it is not definitive. What is “standard practice” is not inherently lawful.
Also, as in this case, negligence, where even subjective awareness of the danger is not required for criminal liability.
The film industry does not ignore the risk. They have lots of procedures in place to mitigate it, and even have a person on set whose (supposedly) only job is make sure procedures are followed to minimize the risk. Historically those procedures have been successful at avoiding the consequences of playing with guns.
In this case there was an incident. It is reasonable failure analysis to ask were the death and injury due to flaws in the rules, unfortunate mistakes made by people, negligently ignoring the rules, or purposely breaking the rules. The answer to that question is going to determine culpability and what changes need to be made in the future.
And the above linked footage clearly shows that he was fully aware of the danger. It’s kind of creepy, actually. He asks someone to move to the other side of the camera because he doesn’t want to aim directly at them. Yikes!!
One wonders how/why he later decided it was OK to do so.