Disagree. In terms of criminally negligent homicide, Baldwin as a co-producer, is in a negligent hire situation. Both her competency and union status are relevant.BQ78 said:
I don't think even that is an issue, incompetent union member or incompetent non-union member could have caused this mishap. Her age or union status is not the bottom line here.
Alec Baldwin does not look mentally stable in this video, and that isn't me being snarky. https://t.co/9aDNCFx235
— Matthew Kolken (@mkolken) October 25, 2021
Oh no, we know she did a lot wrong, according to the police report, real bullets, which are not even supposed to be on set, along with blanks were kept in the same location for starters. There are also reports she allowed the guns to be fired by crew members with live ammo when not filming. Those guns are her responsibility to keep locked up when not in use for actual filming.BQ78 said:
Is there some regulation or law that does not permit him to use non-Union members?
I agree, whoever hired her if she is incompetent is culpable too. I also understand the prosecution will use the union situation against the defendants but it still boils down to a bottom line of competency of the armorer.
It doesn't sound like she is competent but we don't know that she did anything wrong yet. She may have enforced proper etiquette and the AD is the one who blew right through her good procedures and processes while she was on her lunch break (we know she wasn't present at the rehearsal). I'll be surprised if that is what happened but the post above from the Gaffer who was there, seems to be the first eyewitness gaslighting of the armorer.
then my question is, where did the bullets come from?aggiehawg said:I don't think so. If they are it is very rare and would be a closed set, very restricted access. But I honestly can't think of scene or situation where live bullets would even be needed.ANSC Ag said:
Are real bullets commonly used in movie production? I guess I always assumed they were all blanks.
The other set you are talking about is a movie called "The Old Way" and this could very well be the incident you're talking aboutaggiehawg said:Oh no, we know she did a lot wrong, according to the police report, real bullets, which are not even supposed to be on set, along with blanks were kept in the same location for starters. There are also reports she allowed the guns to be fired by crew members with live ammo when not filming. Those guns are her responsibility to keep locked up when not in use for actual filming.BQ78 said:
Is there some regulation or law that does not permit him to use non-Union members?
I agree, whoever hired her if she is incompetent is culpable too. I also understand the prosecution will use the union situation against the defendants but it still boils down to a bottom line of competency of the armorer.
It doesn't sound like she is competent but we don't know that she did anything wrong yet. She may have enforced proper etiquette and the AD is the one who blew right through her good procedures and processes while she was on her lunch break (we know she wasn't present at the rehearsal). I'll be surprised if that is what happened but the post above from the Gaffer who was there, seems to be the first eyewitness gaslighting of the armorer.
On another set, she loaded a gun on the ground with pebbles all around, didn't check the barrel before handing it off to an 11 year old actress. Production was stopped immediately to check the gun. There was someone present who saw the improper procedure and shouted out to the director in that case. And such a lapse would have been discovered during the hiring process particularly so were she a union member. The unions get copies of the unit production reports on every job.
What was he supposed to see when he looked at it? Was it loaded? Of course it was. It was to be used in a front-on camera shot, so there would have been dummy rounds in the cylinder. If there were blank rounds in the cylinder, then it would have been a "hot gun" which is probably all the AD did to verify it was a "cold gun." After all, there should not have been any live rounds (meaning real bullets) anywhere near the set, so it likely would be assumed the gun was loaded with dummy rounds.agdaddy04 said:
It honestly doesn't matter what she looked like. Unfortunately for the woman that lost her life, she wasn't competent for the job she held.
I still don't understand how Alec fired the gun without first having looked at it. How many movies had he been on before that had a gun?
Wrong.Quote:
What was he supposed to see when he looked at it? Was it loaded? Of course it was. It was to be used in a front-on camera shot, so there would have been dummy rounds in the cylinder. If there were blank rounds in the cylinder, then it would have been a "hot gun" which is probably all the AD did to verify it was a "cold gun." After all, there should not have been any live rounds (meaning real bullets) anywhere near the set, so it likely would be assumed the gun was loaded with dummy rounds.
Agree that the film won't be completed. Insurers will make sure of that.javajaws said:
There are just so many things that seemed to have gone wrong so I started making a list (probably not nearly complete):
Real bullets were on set
Real bullets were stored in close proximity to blanks
Dummy gun not used during practice/setup for the recorded take
Armorer not union affiliated
Armorer not fully qualified (by her own admission)
Gun was (apparently) not inspected by the armorer before being used (was she even on set at the time?)
Gun was (apparently) not inspected or inspected incorrectly before being given to Baldwin by the AD
Baldwin did not inspect the gun
Inappropriate use of studio guns during off hours for shooting real ammo
Gun(s) were not properly locked up and stored.
Lack of corrective action from previous safety incidents on set
No safety walkthroughs (speculation so far)
The total number of failures points to a systemic issue which likely puts the blame on more people than those who actually touched the gun.
Also, FWIW I doubt this production ever resumes given the amount of negligence shown so far and the likely legal and liability issues because of that.
With a single action revolver, you have to cock the hammer prior to pulling the trigger.captkirk said:Would have to cock the hammereric76 said:Clearly, a hair trigger would apply to a single action revolver, not a double action revolver.BusterAg said:There is no such thing as a revolver with a hair trigger.Ulrich said:aggiehawg said:If a gun has that type of trigger, it should be taken out of the props available for use on set. If it can be repaired, fix it before it is available for use again. That would apply to the very first unintended discharge.Ulrich said:
I wonder if they are using a revolver with a very light trigger pull (aka hair trigger) and that's part of what led to multiple accidental discharges.
Reporting is that there was at least one and maybe two other such incidents. If the above did not happen, it is gross negligence on the armorer's part and negligence on her employer's part. The circumstances surrounding her hiring might also constitute a negligent hiring cause of action. How did she get that job?
On the gun, the hair trigger doesn't seem to me to be a complete no-go. People own and use guns like that safely every day. They were common in the old west and behave slightly differently, so they might have done it for verisimilitude. But if they were repeatedly firing it accidentally, the training was at fault. They were probably handling it without the proper care.
So far based on what I've heard, it sounds like mixing ammunition, an inexperienced armorer who may not have felt like she could tell Alec Baldwin and company what to do, and general lack of respect for gun safety were at fault.
When you pull back the trigger on a revolver, the trigger cycles the cylinder in the revolver, putting the next round in the cylinder in position to fire. This takes significant pressure from the shooter, as they have to work against the spring that keeps the round in the correct position after a successful cycle.
This is usually between 12 and 15 pounds of pressure. A hair trigger is anything less than 2 pounds of pressure. HUGE difference.
Now, you could cock the hammer by hand, cycling the cylinder, and the gun could accidently go off with no more than a hard bump or a drop. But, no one should be carrying a revolver around with a cocked hammer. That shouldn't be done until you are pointing the gun at the direction it is going to fire.
So, this excuse is completely bogus in my mind.
LinkQuote:
However, there are several downsides. As with any holster type, it's safer and more responsible to be aware of them before you buy.
The first of these is draw safety. Drawing a firearm from across the body should be done with extra care, as incorrect technique can cause you to sweep other people with the muzzle, especially in a defensive situation in public. There is also the danger of sweeping your own support arm with poor technique. To protect yourself and others, you'll want to get cross-draw specific training and practice often. Always keep your support arm lifted and out of the way as you draw. This will protect your arm while preparing you to quickly get your sights on target.
Draw speed is another place where you may find yourself playing catch-up. You won't see much cross draw technique in mainstream competitive shooting like IPSC and IDPA. It puts a standing marksman at an ever-so-slight time disadvantage that can make all the difference in those sports.
Quote:
On the other hand, perhaps this shooting death is more accurately characterized as negligent, or perhaps even recklessand if reckless, then certainly as involuntary manslaughter, which New Mexico law defines (in the context of this case) as an unlawful killing committed "in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death … without due caution and circumspection."
Under New Mexico law involuntary manslaughter is a fourth-degree felony normally punishable by up to 18 months in prison and a $5,000 fine.
This where all of the other incidents of unintended discharges, having real bullets on the set, failure to follow safety protocols come into play, in my view.Quote:
Criminal liability requires recklessness.
Recklessness occurs when you not only violate a legal duty to not cause harm, but you explicitly know you are doing so, and you intentionally disregard that risk.
To put it another way, you are creating a risk of death or serious bodily injury, are aware that you are doing so, but choose to disregard the risk and continue with your conduct regardless. And the bad outcome occurs.
Quote:
The gun did not go off for unforeseeable reasons, such as a hidden defect. The gun discharged because it operated as designedto fire when the trigger is depressed. Of course, the gun must be loaded when the trigger is depressed in order to cause harmbut as the tragic consequences here amply demonstrate, the gun was loaded. It would be the duty of the person wielding the gun to ensure it was unloaded if they wished to cause no harm when they depressed the triggerand clearly that duty was not met.
Second, anyone handling an inherently dangerous object such as a firearm would be presumed to possess the safety knowledge needed to handle that firearm safely around othersa claim of ignorance is no defense when one is handling inherently dangerous objects.
That guns are inherently dangerous is common knowledge presumed to be known to everyone. That the rounds fired come out of the muzzle and travel with lethal force and distance is also common knowledge presumed to be known to everyone. That guns discharge when their triggers are depressed is also common knowledge presumed to be known to everyone.
Because the various common knowledge just described would be presumed to be known to everyone, including Alec Baldwin handling the firearm, when he pointed the weapon at Ms. Hutchins and pressed the trigger (again, speaking solely within the context of our hypothetical, not as a claim of what actually happened), then he was necessarily aware of the risk of death he was creating, and deliberately disregarding that risk, with the result being the death of Ms. Hutchins. (The same would apply, of course, to Alec Baldwin's violation of the gun handling safety rule of presuming at all times that a gun is loaded.
LinkQuote:
so, Alec Baldwin was both the actor handling the firearm when it dischargedand an actor might argue that he is at the "bottom" of the safety responsibility ladder for something like a movie setbut he was also a co-producer for the filmwhich would place him at the "top" of the safety responsibility ladder.
In theory, an actor at the "bottom" and the producer at the "top" might each point their finger at each other in the case of a tragic event like this. That is, the actor might argue that the producer ought to have had better safety protocols in place, and the producer might argue that the actor had the ultimately responsibility for safe handling of the firearm.
In this case, however, Alec Baldwin occupies both seats. So he can point his finger in this manner if he wishes, but ultimately he'll be pointing it at himself.
And this implication could well apply not merely in the civil law context, within the scope of negligence, but also within the criminal law context, within the scope of recklessness and involuntary manslaughter.
Ah..., reading comprehension issues.aggiehawg said:Wrong.Quote:
What was he supposed to see when he looked at it? Was it loaded? Of course it was. It was to be used in a front-on camera shot, so there would have been dummy rounds in the cylinder. If there were blank rounds in the cylinder, then it would have been a "hot gun" which is probably all the AD did to verify it was a "cold gun." After all, there should not have been any live rounds (meaning real bullets) anywhere near the set, so it likely would be assumed the gun was loaded with dummy rounds.
We know he didn't check it because afterwards he was heard complaining about someone handing him a hot gun.
They were not filming, they were still setting up the camera angle, it was rehearsal. He's not even supposed to have a cold gun during rehearsal, just a fake one. Cold gun means nothing is in it. Not blanks and certainly not bullets.
Also, was he aware that other crew members were using the guns for plinking? If he did, he knew full well real bullets were on the set. And BTW, such a breach of safety procedures should have been written up in the production reports. Again as co-producer, he would have those reports.
annie88 said:Alec Baldwin does not look mentally stable in this video, and that isn't me being snarky. https://t.co/9aDNCFx235
— Matthew Kolken (@mkolken) October 25, 2021
When have I ever said that? What I have been doing is looking at the facts as reported and seeing how the law could apply to those facts. Same as any prosecutor reviewing this case is doing. There has been a death by a gunshot wound. Of course there will be a criminal review.Watermelon Man said:Ah..., reading comprehension issues.aggiehawg said:Wrong.Quote:
What was he supposed to see when he looked at it? Was it loaded? Of course it was. It was to be used in a front-on camera shot, so there would have been dummy rounds in the cylinder. If there were blank rounds in the cylinder, then it would have been a "hot gun" which is probably all the AD did to verify it was a "cold gun." After all, there should not have been any live rounds (meaning real bullets) anywhere near the set, so it likely would be assumed the gun was loaded with dummy rounds.
We know he didn't check it because afterwards he was heard complaining about someone handing him a hot gun.
They were not filming, they were still setting up the camera angle, it was rehearsal. He's not even supposed to have a cold gun during rehearsal, just a fake one. Cold gun means nothing is in it. Not blanks and certainly not bullets.
Also, was he aware that other crew members were using the guns for plinking? If he did, he knew full well real bullets were on the set. And BTW, such a breach of safety procedures should have been written up in the production reports. Again as co-producer, he would have those reports.
Dummy rounds are not blanks, they are not bullets. A gun loaded with dummy rounds is a "cold gun" because it will not fire. It was the gun the AD gave him for the rehearsal. Do you know as fact that dummy rounds would not be used for this rehearsal? Someone is wrong, and it may be me, but I suspect it is one of us who would never admit to being wrong.
And, we do not know if Baldwin was aware that the other crew members were using the guns for plinking. That means that we do not know. That does not mean that Baldwin was fully aware of what the guns had been used for when off-set. You have to make a pretty big assumption or have information that doesn't seem to have been released to believe that he was aware.
And, the title Producer may not mean what you seem to think it means. I don't think Baldwin was calling the shots for this movie. If he did not have hiring/firing authority, I don't see how he can be held accountable for who was hired. In every organization, there is only one boss, and everyone involved knows who that is. It doesn't matter how many Producers are involved with a project, they all have different responsibilities and is it is not clear to me what Baldwin's responsibilities. I would not make the assumption that he was the big boss.
Certainly, it appears that if the guns were used off-set for plinking during the off-hours, then this is likely what set the wheels in motion for this accident to happen. That never should have happened. However, we do not know if the armorer was even aware that they were being used in this manner. Perhaps the guns were locked up as they were supposed to be and the people who used them for plinking picked the lock? We don't know. We can assume that she not only knew about it, but also joined in the fun, but that would be just guessing.
How about we wait for the facts before we start deciding who is guilty of what?
I posted earlier about using a cross draw technique is something people need to practice often to become proficient at it.swampstander said:
Alec Baldwin picked up or was given a firearm, whichever it was is irrelevant. What someone else told him about the condition of that firearm is also irrelevant. Then without verifying the condition of the firearm he proceeded to point the weapon in the direction of people and either on purpose or by accident pulled the trigger killing one person and injuring another. If all the facts above are correct, Alec Baldwin is guilty of negligent homicide.
In my opinion of course.
True story time. The Hubs and I had a very very close friend living in NW Arkansas. His son was a Sheriff, long term Sheriff. He was doing a tailgate shoot for practice with other people and someone handed him gun awkwardly and when he went o grab it before it fell to the ground, it fired.Ulrich said:
If you're practicing your draw, you definitely clear the weapon entirely. There should be nothing in it. Blanks, live rounds, dummy rounds, nothing. If you need to simulate all the way through firing, you dry fire. Even Baldwin should be able to see daylight through the cylinder.
If you're practicing an unfamiliar draw from an unfamiliar position with an unfamiliar weapon, it's fairly likely that you'll goof something up. Some of those goofups can lead to the gun going off in an unpredictable direction.
People shoot themselves in the foot or leg all the time because they screw up on the draw… old west gunfighters are literally where the phrase "shoot yourself in the foot" comes from.
Have to be honest here. Movie crews give a heads up when they are firing so when the inevitable calls come in, they can say it is a movie set and not real gunfire.Ulrich said:
Also, for all the people calling BS on the crew plinking with a .45… what would you do if you were hanging out in the desert with a .45 colt and free ammunition? That's the most believable part of the whole story.
What I don't understand is why it was aimed at another person at all, blank rounds or not?Watermelon Man said:What was he supposed to see when he looked at it? Was it loaded? Of course it was. It was to be used in a front-on camera shot, so there would have been dummy rounds in the cylinder. If there were blank rounds in the cylinder, then it would have been a "hot gun" which is probably all the AD did to verify it was a "cold gun." After all, there should not have been any live rounds (meaning real bullets) anywhere near the set, so it likely would be assumed the gun was loaded with dummy rounds.agdaddy04 said:
It honestly doesn't matter what she looked like. Unfortunately for the woman that lost her life, she wasn't competent for the job she held.
I still don't understand how Alec fired the gun without first having looked at it. How many movies had he been on before that had a gun?
So, for all we know, Baldwin did check to make sure the gun was safe. It did not have blanks (which can be deadly) in it and he was told it was a "cold gun." Again, since there was absolutely no reason for any live rounds to be present, unless Baldwin had specific knowledge that live rounds were on location, he would have no reason to doubt what he had been told.
I agree, the man is a jerk. He is full of himself and his attitudes. He goes out of his way to piss people off. For someone who has been so vocal about guns and gun violence, it is truly ironic that this has happened to him. But, I don't see any criminal charges being filed against him. I could be wrong, we'll just have to wait and see.
No ****, Sherlock. Thats my point. Why would you do this if you were practicing drawing the pistol?eric76 said:With a single action revolver, you have to cock the hammer prior to pulling the trigger.captkirk said:Would have to cock the hammereric76 said:Clearly, a hair trigger would apply to a single action revolver, not a double action revolver.BusterAg said:There is no such thing as a revolver with a hair trigger.Ulrich said:aggiehawg said:If a gun has that type of trigger, it should be taken out of the props available for use on set. If it can be repaired, fix it before it is available for use again. That would apply to the very first unintended discharge.Ulrich said:
I wonder if they are using a revolver with a very light trigger pull (aka hair trigger) and that's part of what led to multiple accidental discharges.
Reporting is that there was at least one and maybe two other such incidents. If the above did not happen, it is gross negligence on the armorer's part and negligence on her employer's part. The circumstances surrounding her hiring might also constitute a negligent hiring cause of action. How did she get that job?
On the gun, the hair trigger doesn't seem to me to be a complete no-go. People own and use guns like that safely every day. They were common in the old west and behave slightly differently, so they might have done it for verisimilitude. But if they were repeatedly firing it accidentally, the training was at fault. They were probably handling it without the proper care.
So far based on what I've heard, it sounds like mixing ammunition, an inexperienced armorer who may not have felt like she could tell Alec Baldwin and company what to do, and general lack of respect for gun safety were at fault.
When you pull back the trigger on a revolver, the trigger cycles the cylinder in the revolver, putting the next round in the cylinder in position to fire. This takes significant pressure from the shooter, as they have to work against the spring that keeps the round in the correct position after a successful cycle.
This is usually between 12 and 15 pounds of pressure. A hair trigger is anything less than 2 pounds of pressure. HUGE difference.
Now, you could cock the hammer by hand, cycling the cylinder, and the gun could accidently go off with no more than a hard bump or a drop. But, no one should be carrying a revolver around with a cocked hammer. That shouldn't be done until you are pointing the gun at the direction it is going to fire.
So, this excuse is completely bogus in my mind.
