Protocols for handling real guns with real ammunition are of course different than the protocols for handling prop guns with dummy or blank ammunition.
Normal gun safety protocols are not practical or possible in a movie set, so they have a separate, more stringent set of protocols that do work. Those protocols were apparently ignored to an astonishing degree by the people tasked to follow them.
Are guns the only dangerous prop that actors are expected to verify? There are other props that can be deadly if not used properly, such as breakable chairs and candy glass. When an actor does something like smashes a chair on someone’s head, a bottle on someone’s head, or pushes someone through a plate glass window, it could have a deadly outcome if the real version is used instead of the safe prop. Before shots like those, does the actor do things like verify that the bottles on the bar are all candy glass bottles and not real bottles?
This isn’t a matter of gun safety. It’s a question of prop safety.
However this shakes our I strongly suspect standards of gun safety for regular gun use in civilian society will have no bearing on how this is evaluated. This is theatrical gun use where assumptions are made about safety and fake guns with inert ammo, dummy ammo, wadding etc are regularly used. Guns are regularly intentionally aimed at the camera. Normal gun safety rules matter about as much as the price of beans in China.
That’s not surprising. I expect both of them to retain lawyers and only have the lawyers speak for them.
But you can never know if its loaded or not, without physically checking yourself, that’s why the first thing you learn at a gun range is never to point it anything you don’t want dead, even if you are sure its not loaded, because guns are inherently dangerous.
Obviously when filming a movie you need to point a gun people sometimes but still only when absolutely necessary, wherever possible you use camera angles to fake it. That makes it a dangerous activity. The law does say negligently or unnecessarily dangerous. Just dangerous, and pointing a gun towards people (even one that’s been declared “cold”) is clearly that.
This is what I’d recommend for anyone. Like in any significant situation. Some say even if you are pulled over for speeding you shouldn’t say a word beyond the required, but I talk to the police in that minor situation.
I’ve always told my wife that unless I am calling them myself, I don’t plan to speak or answer any questions to the police without legal representation and even then, I would prefer to just have my lawyer work with me to make a brief paragraph response and then answer nothing further.
Just a note, my film and stage experience is limited. I am not a member of any of their unions. I did get credit for supplying a bunch of weapons for a film,but those were swords and stuff from me and my SCA buddies.
However, trust me,they already have solid safety rules in effect. This tragedy is the result of not following those rules.
Suggesting new rules, based upon ignorance of how guns work, union safety rules or how sets work, is not really helpful.
Depends on the actor, I’d think. Some might shoot guns recreationally, or have a military background, or something else giving them experience. Others, no, not enough knowledge.
Why just military? Plenty of people who grow up in rural areas, or households that hunt, would have some firearms experience. Or perhaps criminal experience - I could name a few actors with a criminal past who might have picked up some firearm experience there. Although most Americans don’t have experience with firearms these days a significant percentage do.
Even so, that doesn’t mean the actor would or should be given sole responsibility for weapons safety on a set.
You’re correct that handling a different type of weapon that what you’re accustomed to can be an issue. Hence the presence of someone - the armorer - who is supposed to be an authority on such things on the set.
From what I’ve been able to ascertain over the days since this incident occurred: apparently yes, Baldwin believing it to be unloaded was reasonable under the circumstances.
I gather it’s like when I had the brakes redone on my pickup recently - it’s reasonable for me to trust that the mechanic did the job, I am not required to use a creeper to inspect underneath my truck to make sure that the job has been done properly. I could do that, if I wanted to, but I am not required to do that. Had the brakes failed three blocks down the road and I wind up in an accident I’d expect that showing a bill from said mechanic that the work had been done would go a long way to getting me off the hook for liability. The whole point of going to a mechanic is that I’m not qualified to do the job myself.
Likewise, I gather that when it comes to handling weapons on a set the armorer is there to provide the expertise, the actors are not expected to be be qualified to do the job. Some few of them might be - but the rules are made for those who aren’t, not those who are.
Sure. That’s why we have courts and judges and juries.
Debatable,
Blanks contain powder and something to hold the powder together. What they are missing is the heavy metal slug. Blanks, however, are not without hazards - there have been instances of people killed with blanks.
On the other hand, if everyone else with a responsibility to make sure the firearm was safe (that’s two other people in this case) had done their job a lapse on the part of the actor would not have mattered. In fact, if any two of the three people had done their part properly then the accident wouldn’t have happened, as the live round in the gun would have been noticed beforehand.
That said - the way I read it the actor has the least amount of responsibility here - it lies most heavily on the armorer and on anyone else handing the gun to the actor.
But if you can’t blame Baldwin, this incident isn’t really any more newsworthy than the other 500 unintentional firearm deaths that occur every year in this country.
That right there could be the problem.
I actually agree he really shouldn’t be criminally liable for pulling the trigger (given just the facts in the public domain). but this discussion was triggered by the article which mentioned New Mexico’s manslaughter law:
“All the state needs to demonstrate is that he was engaged in a lawful, but dangerous act and did not act with due caution,” she said. “That’s what the state has to prove for involuntary manslaughter, which is a fourth-degree felony with a maximum penalty of up to 18 months in prison.”
There’s no need to show that he is solely responsible, just he didn’t show due caution.
But see, the DA couldn’t do that. In the sets I’ve been on the actor isn’t allowed to inspect the gun after the armorer hands it over. If the actor opens the breech or removes the magazine the armorer will inpect it again afterwards, because the actor is not the expert in gun handling, the armorer is.
I mentioned it up above, but I had just had a .45 automatic pointed at my head on set Thursday night. The armorer showed both me and the shooter the weapon, chamber open, shined a flashlight down the barrel, nothing in the pipe, and removed the magazine to show the dummy rounds.
If, after the actor had the gun I had seen the actor remove the magazine I would have insisted on a recheck. Did that actor have a magazine of unknown provenance in his pocket? Probably not, but I’m sure not taking the chance. The armorer is the ultimate arbiter of whether the gun is safe.
Bill, that comports with my experiences as well.
To my knowledge, it has not been established that he actually pulled the trigger. Some reports seem to be trying to imply that it was an accidental discharge during the act of drawing the gun, not him intentionally squeezing the trigger.
So you’d be a good example of someone who could be called up to testify. You could show that the expectation is that before pointing a gun at someone, you have it demonstrated to you that it does not have a real bullet. And that by not doing so (even if it was someone else’s decision) he was not showing “due caution”
Again I think this is a super low bar for finding someone criminally liable for someone’s death. But it is, according to that lawyer (who is a NM lawyer with experience of the statute in question) all that is needed.
I also don’t think it’s been established that he aimed it at anyone.
Are you sure about that? I think set safety is supposed to be all the regular legal safety stuff PLUS additional protocols because of the riskier use of the weapons. You don’t get to cut safety protocols on real weapons just because you are on a movie set. If you don’t want to go through enhanced safety protocols, use a rubber gun.
But it wasn’t. I’ve been reading actor’s comments all day about how they would NEVER accept a gun without going through the inspection process with the armorer. In fact, some have said that they have never seen any actor do that on set, and that it’s such an expected ritual that everyone would notice something amiss if it wasn’t done. Some have said that they routinely see others on set who might be near the gun also request see that it’s empty, including camera people.
This request is always complied with without complaint. I have posted numerous cites already saying that the actor has final resppnsibility to confirm the weapon is safe. They may or may not handle it themselves, but will be shown by the armorer to their satisfaction. And everyone on set who handles a gun, including the actors, has to take gun safety training. If Baldwin took the training, and the training says to nevermaccept a gun without checking, then he could be in trouble regardless of the specific SAG rules. Especially if it’s shown that it’s an industry standard practice.
Someone mentioned aviation accidents. Here’s an analogy: I can tell a professional to put 20 gallons of gas in my plane. It’s his job to check, and I expect him to do his job. However, it’s also my responsibility as pilot in command to make sure I have enough fuel. If I don’t bother to check the tanks or gauges and crash because I ran out of fuel, the ultimate responsibility falls on me - not the guy who screwed up the fill.
From what I have read, if a gun has ‘dummy’ rounds in it, the actor is expected to be shown that they are dummies (the primer will be punched, and they should be full of BB’s that will rattle when you shake the cartridge). Then the armorer will have the actor point the gun at the ground and dry-fire it through the whole cylinder to verify that none of the rounds are live.
Which is why they all get training.
Yeah, this is probably correct because they were the ones whose professional responsibility was for on-set safety.
That doesn’t necessarily let Baldwin off the hook though. He could be in trouble as a producer, and as the guy who pulled the trigger for anything from involuntary manslaugher to negligent discharge of a firearm or other lesser charges.
An interesting side issue is whether their insurer also made them sign off on safety rules, and if they violated those rules and invalidated their insurance. The liability for the lifetime earnings of an up-and-coming cinematographer could be massive. As a producer on the movie Baldwin could be on the hook there as well.
BTW, I’m having a hard time understanding how the gun just ‘went off’. A single-action revolver requires the hammer to be manually thumbed back before the gun will fire.
Out of curiosity, how many times have you seen a gun be handed to an actor, declared ‘cold’ without showing the state of the gun to the actor, and subsequently used? The question is if this is standard industry practice.