My understanding is that would go against how the entire film industry has handled this issue for decades. Were you having dinner with professionals in the entertainment field?
(If you were I’m extremely interested in what they had to say.)
Sets have people whose job it is to check firearms and careful protocols that need to be followed. Thats why incidents like this are so rare.
Being handed a gun anywhere but a film set != how it’s supposed to work when you’re handed a gun on a film set.
Baldwin could have pulled the trigger all day long with no issue if half a dozen people ahead of him had done their jobs.
If only we had a thread of 2000+ posts repeatedly explaining this so we didn’t have to relitigate the question yet again.
Well…Baldwin is going to court so yeah…it is being re-litigated.
A variety of blanks.
Starting gun blanks.
Live rounds.
Problems can occur if dummy rounds (actual case and bullet with an inert substance substituted for the gunpowder) are used. One of the jobs of the armorer is to ensure that no live ammo is anywhere near the set. Dummy rounds should be marked as such and/or constructed to distinguish from real ammo(such as a ball bearing inside that will rattle when shaken).
For a management-based theory that’s true. But for a charging decision, it’s plausible that they’d hold off on announcing the intent to proceed or not on one charge only after they made the call to proceed or not on the other charge as well, especially since they already botched this once. In which case, waiting on the latest round of expert examination results to determine if the trigger must have been polled could have been the long pole in the tent, so to speak.
ETA: I also think the management-based theory might have been a good theory to charge under, as a strategic matter, as it might have allowed the prosecution to introduce a broader array of evidence, more easily, into how poor safety was and how threadbare the production was. Something that might be minimally relevant to Baldwin’s liability as the actor/shooter, but which may nevertheless have had an out-sourced impact on the jury, to the point that even if the jury acquitted on the management-based charged, the evidence that went into laying out that theory would, rightly or wrongly, make it more likely they’d convict on the shooter-based theory of guilt.
…which would have been yet another reason to bring both charges at once, if both charges were going to be levied: because one charge might always have been just a strategic way of getting in more evidence to sway the jury against Baldwin on the other charge.
Without the management-based charge, all that broader context about management decisions and cost-savin and safety on set seems both less relevant (to the remaining charge) and, while not entirely irrelevant, more likely to confuse the issue or be unduly prejudicial (in light of the only charge that is left), and so less likely to be admitted than it otherwise might have. FWIW, I now think it’s less likely that Baldwin will be convicted under the shooter-based theory precisely because all that evidence about the production as a whole seems less likely to come in.
I would actually think it’s the other way around.
So they charge Baldwin as BOTH management and shooter. Lots of evidence is given about the nature of the production and the myriad failures in judgement and procedure that occurred. Much of this evidence could actually be given by the defense to create a “it’s management’s fault” attitude. All the defense has to do in that case is either prove or create doubt that Baldwin had any part of the management breakdown. You’ve now created an easy out on the shooter charge - i.e., well if management was so clearly to blame and Baldwin wasn’t really management, then it’s not his fault the gun went off since it shouldn’t have been capable of doing so.
Maybe it’s both ways: the two theories of criminal liability feed off each other. Each one helps shore up some of the weaknesses in the other. Not as a matter of law, but as a matter of how real life humans like you, me, and the jury are likely to make decisions on guilt or not-guilt in practice.
My feelings on the situation have not changed. I’ve been a professional camera operator for 44 years. I have worked around live gunfire with full load blanks.
He belongs in prison. So does that entitled millennial who was posing as a professional Armor…,
Exactly. Who is the asshole who hired all those idiots? Well - Baldwin!
Not picking on you, but yeah they (your feelings) have changed. Back in October of '21, you said:
This said, I don’t believe for a moment that he’s a murderer. He got handed a hot gun and aimed it and used it to either shoot a scene or rehearse it. I detest guns, and yet I must say he’s not liable for the improper preparation and loading of a live round.
It is not his job.
Let me say that again.
It is not his job.
A crew - small medium or large- is an army where each person does their job. If they all do it incredibly well, you have small films that are emeralds, diamonds, rubies, take your pick. Projects where everyone made it shine, including actors.
What made you change your mind, if you don’t mind me asking?
He was an actor in the production = Not his job.
He was producer in the production = His job.
Not that I am choosing sides or anything, simply the notion he was somehow just an unfortunate spectator in this incident is a bit of a stretch.
One thing I’ve seen talked about other places recently (but not here – unless I’ve missed something) is whether Baldwin was a “real” producer or not. Apparently giving a lead actor a producer credit is something that is just done sometimes to let the actor be paid on the backend or something like that, rather than giving them the actual control/responsibility that the title normally implies. If Baldwin was only a “fake producer” with no real management responsibility that could have played into why he was not charged based on that legal theory.
To the extent that he hired the armorer, yes.
However, he doesn’t have the expertise to hire anyone based on personal knowledge of that job, he has to depend on reputation, certifications, licenses and training to make a decision.
It’s entirely the armorer’s fault there was live ammo anywhere near the filming location.
He was listed as A producer on the movie. Why weren’t the other 6 or 7 people who had the producer title also charged?
It seems to me based on a surface knowledge of the industry that he was not actually performing any of the traditional duties of a producer. He was named that as part of his financial deal and/or he’s building towards P.G.A. membership and needed the credits. From a producer stand-point, he was a “no work” union job.
I think it’s telling that this time they’re withholding the other charge and charging him solely as the shooter. They’ll have to prove that he, in his role as actor, did something so unexpected, forbidden, or unnecessarily dangerous and that was the proximate cause of the shooting. Given the safety breakdowns that occurred before he ever touched the gun, I expect it to be an uphill battle.
I think this suggestion is the product of people with gun fetish fantasies who like to see themselves as firearms experts. As I’ve said before in this thread, if I were an actor on a set with firearms and another actor started fiddling with the gun that the armorer provided and “checking it himself” I’m walking off the set and calling my union rep. Just as I’d do if I saw any actor messing around with a lighting rig or anything else critical for safety on set.
It is absolutely not a good idea for actors to be taking upon themselves any responsibility whatsoever for ensuring that prop guns are safe beyond strictly following established formal safety protocols or the specific instructions of the armorer.
Well…
Whenever you handle a firearm or hand it to someone, always open the action immediately, and visually check the chamber, receiver and magazine to be certain they do not contain any ammunition. Always keep actions open when not in use. Never assume a gun is unloaded — check for yourself! This is considered a mark of an experienced gun handler! - SOURCE
Check for yourself to make sure a gun isn’t loaded; never take another person’s word for it - SOURCE
You’re proving my point with those cites. These are the fantasies of people who like to imagine themselves to be gun “pros”.
Does it really need to be stated for the umpteenth time in this thread that safety protocols on a movie set where the purpose is often to simulate the use of a gun in anger are quite different from everyday gun handling?
Well…someone was shot and killed on set. So yeah, maybe they should review safety protocols. There is a reason they hire an armorer. An hour in pre-production to get the armorer and actors in a room and go over the basics of safely handling a gun does not seem onerous. Heck, it is probably more important to give that safety lesson since these are (probably) people not experienced in handling weapons. All the more reason to give them a quick refresher on what to do (and not to do).
You’ve probably flown dozens of times and every time you have been given a safety speech. Do you object to that?
That’s not what you suggested at all. Of course there are formally established safety protocols on set. If that includes (say) the actor or armorer opening the gun for a final check inspection at handover, that’s exactly what should happen in the manner specified at the time specified, nothing less and nothing more.
That’s a formal safety protocol. That’s the exact opposite of an amateur interfering with the protocol.
How would you feel about a random passenger who claims to be an aviation expert fiddling with a door handle just before takeoff to “double check” that it’s closed?
The first cite is from the Firearm Industry Trade Association. If you can find something more professional than that…
Cite 2 is a police department. Please see my above.
Cooper’s Rules are absolute and inviolable. (PS. Cooper was a pro, too.)