Heck…I’d have bid on it for you if I had a gun license (which I do not). That said, not sure what hurdles there would then be sending a gun to Canada (and I would want to be scrupulously legal about the whole thing). I definitely do not want to get on a list as an international gun smuggler. 
Did you mean to say Junior? He was never shot on the Sopranos as far as I know.
What auction site? Gunbroker allows non-licensed individual to bid and buy, but the guns must be sent to a licensed dealer for transfer.
Whatever his culpability may (or may not) be I am not surprised by this. I think most people would be shattered if they were responsible for killing someone like this. I know I would be.
Don’t remember the site. It probably was not “Hollywood Auctions” but it was likely similar. Very, very few of the items had anything to do with weapons. It has been a long time since I watched the series and might have a detail wrong - perhaps the gun was fired at Junior and missed; perhaps it was someone else.
They were clear they would only accept bids from people with a gun license and a copy had to be provided.
Interesting. Thanks. Given that, I’d think Alec is toast, if not criminally, then civilly, and professionally (depending on how forgiving the court of public opinion leans going forward).
IANAL (nor do I play one on TV), but I’m guessing the production LLC may not protect Alec wholly from a likely enormous civil liability suit, given his apparent egregious disregard of the gun safety protocol he was required to learn and adhere to.
Alec is not the only character in this tragedy who has a whole lot of ‘splainin’ to do, but he’s certainly the highest-profile. I feel sorry for him. I think he’s basically a good person who, among others, was flagrantly negligent in this accidental shooting. Most of my sorrow, of course, goes to Halyna, and her family. Cutting a good person’s life short is always sad.
I’d be very surprised if the actor taking firearms training exposes them to liability if primary responsibility for making a gun “safe” is the armorer. Whatever your firearms training, theatrical gun use is very different from any other gun use because there are scenarios where you deliberately do things that would always be wrong behavior in almost any other gun use situation (other than situations where you are intentionally shooting to kill someone.)
It isn’t at all clear to me from the back and forth in this thread that an actor would be expected to substitute their judgment for the AD running set safety that a “cold gun” was safe for use.
The GOP shows as much class as it can muster.
Never mind.
But, don’t prosecutors primarily go for the deepest pockets? I’m guessing Alec’s pockets are deeper than those of the armorer or AD.
Not sure where liability lies given the below. However, it seems clear the actors did not follow this procedure. Is it on them to refuse the scene until the gun is properly delivered or is it on the AD?
I really do not know.
The weapons master is required to be on set whenever a weapon is being used. The Actors’ Equity Association’s guidelines state that, “Before each use, make sure the gun has been test-fired offstage, and then ask to test fire it yourself. Watch the prop master check the cylinders and barrel to be sure no foreign object or dummy bullet has become lodged inside.” Further, “All loading of firearms must be done by the property master, armourer or experienced persons working under their direct supervision.”
“Nowadays, all weapons are checked before your blanks are put into the weapon.… The blanks themselves are never loaded until the very last minute, when all crew is in position, so the armourer knows exactly where every member of the crew is so that no one’s walking through any danger areas the armourer has set up,” said armoury co-ordinator Sam Dormer.
I am absolutely confident that Baldwin won’t face any consequences.
I’d be surprised if he goes to jail. I am willing to bet he will be writing some checks to Halyna’s family (at least). Probably have some steep lawyer bills too.
No, prosecutors generally go for whoever they believe they can secure convictions against. In a conspiracy or a crime with multiple participants, they will often focus prosecutorial efforts against the believed leader of the conspiracy, or the “ringleader” so to speak. In other crimes with multiple participants, they often go with: whoever talks first gets a sweetheart deal, the rest get the shaft.
Most prosecutors won’t actually just pursue criminal charges against someone because they are rich and famous in fact arguably we see the opposite effect, if we see any effect at all based on the defendant’s notoriety–this isn’t always corrupt either, if the prosecutor has an iffy case, and they know the defendant is rich and powerful, they know they’re looking at taking an iffy case to trial against well paid defense attorneys with vast resources–it’s a different calculus when you’re considering spending the public’s money to conduct a trial than when you are prosecuting someone with no assets reliant on a public defender.
For civil liability literally everyone is going to be sued, all of the companies that touched this and a number of the involved parties on an individual level. It is all but certain Baldwin is going to at least lose some money through this, even if he is able to avoid personal liability his production company will almost definitely pay some money. There is likely some insulation to that hit from insurance and the limited liability nature of his production company, but there’s likely to be a hit. I also think you’ll see a lot of settlements. Most likely in the early stages of litigation a number of the named parties (especially the less prominent ones) offer moderate sums and settle separately, which will leave the big fish. I imagine they likely settle quietly as well after a time.
I don’t know either (which I believe I said), because it seems like we’re getting conflicting information. My supposition is that you’d put the burden on the technical person expected to be a firearms expert.
Someone in this massive thread linked to something that said that the gun fired as he removed it from the holster, meaning he didn’t press the trigger. Now I am not a lawyer but is he less guilty in that case?
That is almost certainly a mistake. Pistols just don’t “go off.” The trigger was pulled somewhere along the line. Besides, if the pistol went off as it cleared the holster, the bullet would have missed the crew completely.
Why is the article quoting Actors Equity? That’s the union for stage actors. Film actors would be covered by the Screen Actors Guild (SAGAFTRA)
I have no love for Baldwin. I don’t think he’s a good person from what I have seen of his behiaviour in the past. He has a long history of being kind of a raging asshole.
That said, I don’t know how much blame I would put on him as the actor who pulled the trigger. Yes, he should have inspected the gun or demanded to see it opened. But stuff happens. The set sounds chaotic, with rules being broken everywhere. At some point, sometimes people just go along with it. Pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger without first inspecting that it’s safe is both a violation of basic gun safety, and also against industry rules that he was trained in. But… He’s an actor on a set with a declared ‘cold gun’. I don’t how much of the actual negligence that caused this should be put in him. And for all I know, that ‘actor must check’ rule might be broken all the time, and until now everyone’s gotten away with it.
However, he’s also a producer on the film, and some people are reporting that there was an abusive producer on set driving some of the chaos. If that was Baldwin, then yeah, he could easily be liable. But I wouldn’t make that judgement until we hear exactly who was driving the rush to skip procedures. It may also have been the Assistant Director, who apparently had a history of sneering at safety precautions and criticized people who tried to follow safety rules that slowed down production.
In terms of professional liability, the armorer is toast. I will be shocked if anyone lets her within 500 feet of a movie firearm again. She was apparently on site while this was going down, and let it happen. She apparently knew about the target shooting with prop guns, and let that happen as well.
She sounds like she was in over her head, and surrounded by much older and more powerful people may have simply folded to the pressure and let them do what they wanted. Or worse, maybe she was an active participant in the target shooting and such.
In any event, an armorer who presides over this level of incompetence and poor safety behaviour should never work in the business again. Whether she is legally or civilly liable, I don’t know.
I mentioned before I’m not sure what they use in movie westerns, but 19th century single action revolvers did just go off. The “safe” carry practice in the old days was actually to carry an empty-chamber under the hammer so they wouldn’t accidentally discharge.
I’m not sure–I did not link that article.