Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Tragedy on the Movie Set Rust
I work at an electric utility. My job is IT-related, providing support to our power plant workers and field personnel (linemen and other electrical workers). As a part of that job, I attend safety meetings. Safety is big at our electric utility and again and again is called the first priority for employees, with providing electricity to our consumers as a second priority.
My job is not as hazardous as the electrical workers I support, but my job does take me inside power plants and substations, and my training includes safety protocols to follow while in those facilities. In addition, the technology I am responsible for assists in making those facilities a safer place.
With regards to the recent accidental shooting on the set of the movie Rust, I have some observations working for an employer with a safety culture given the facts (still subject to change at this early date).
Fact one: Before this tragedy, there had been a previous incident involving an accidental live ammunition discharge on set.
Was there a safety stand down? If something equivalent had happened in one of my employer’s power plants, there would have at least been an investigation and preliminary findings would have been shared with all personnel, even office employees not working at the plant. My employer is committed to transparency. While accountability is part of our safety program, actual names would not be shared, just the incident and the findings.
Another tenet of our safety program is that safety is everyone’s responsibility. Our field personnel, usually linemen, are allowed, but not required, to carry firearms in the field, because, bears. But before granted that permission, they are required to attend a firearms safety course, even though the average Alaskan has considerable knowledge about firearms, even the ones that don’t own one.
Was there a firearms safety course that all personnel, especially the actors, had to attend? Were they instructed on how to check any firearm handed to them on whether it was loaded or not? Were firearms handed to them with the safety on? Was there a safety on that firearm? Did all personnel handling firearms on the set, including the actors know how to tell the difference between a blank and actual live ammunition?
Was there a safety briefing before the scene was to be shot? Going back to my electric utility employer, all field personnel are required to have a safety briefing before entering a substation. All plant personnel are required to have such a briefing before starting a task on the floor of the plant.
Those are just some of the questions I expect the investigation of this incident to address.
Published in General
The NRA recently ran an article in one of its magazines that touched on how Hollywood controls firearms on movie sets:
https://www.americas1stfreedom.org/articles/2021/9/6/hollywood-gun-machine
Here’s an excerpt (emphsis mine):
Cutting corners is not a viable option for even low-budget productions. According to DeMartini, an armorer is almost always hired for larger-scale films, while the prop department is in charge of safety on lower-budget productions.
The armorer serves as the ultimate point person responsible for everyone’s safety. They work with all players, from the fire marshal and studio executives, to the stunt coordinator and assistant director—the latter of which is a kind of spokesperson to the producers—to guarantee nobody gets hurt, and to assure that all federal, state and local laws are followed.
“The armorer is responsible for knowing where all the weapons are on set, who has them and that they get them back right away,” said Bobby Chacon, a retired FBI agent and writer/technical advisor for CBS’ “Criminal Minds.” “So when they cut the scene, the armorer is right there to take the weapon and take control.”
This behind-the-scenes role also functions to keep the actors discharging a gun safe.
“Whenever guns come on set, it is announced, and everyone knows it. The armorer or props person will verify that there is no live ammo and will show everyone whether the gun is operable or not operable,” Clemente said. “And if it is going to be firing blanks, they will show the actual loads to ensure there is no projectile.”
I’ve seen that ridiculous language numerous times: “the gun discharged.” No, someone discharged the gun. The gun didn’t do it by its own will. A gun doesn’t shoot itself off.
Other than self defense, under what circumstances could one avoid some type of homicide charge if one kills somebody with a gun? I know there are such exceptional circumstances, such as hunting accidents, but they are rare. And they don’t seem to apply here. I think it’s clear Baldwin is going to be charged with something.
Well, there are accidents. A police fires at a criminal but didn’t see another person behind him. Or the bullet skips. I’m no lawyer but I don’t think those are homicides or manslaughters. There may be legit accidents. But not here.
Baldwin might be found liable in civil court (sympathetic jury and all that), but he didn’t commit a criminal act. If a prosecutor tried to argue he was negligent, the defense could counter that the gun would have killed someone anyway if the scene had gone forward.
I don’t know about that Stad. He certainly had an obligation to check whether the gun was loaded correctly, even if he were told it was. Whether that’s criminal negligence I don’t know.
If he hadn’t been on a movie set, and was doing the same thing with a gun and shot someone in the same way, would there be a crime? Almost certainly. So the question is whether the circumstances of being on a movie set change the legalities. And this ignores the fact that he was a producer as a well as an actor.
The argument would be that he was justified in taking the word of the person who gave him the gun and told him it wasn’t loaded. I’m almost sure that argument wouldn’t float if it wasn’t on a movie set. So why would would that change when it happens on a movie set? Maybe it would. I’m just not sure what the argument would be.
New information keeps turning up as the local sheriff reports on his investigation. Today, a film crew member reported that during a break, Baldwin was “practicing his fast-draw, by drawing the revolver and pointing it at the camera.” Sheer stupidity, if that account is correct.
There are hunting accidents too. Remember the Dick Cheney hunting accident? No one died, and there were no charges filed. Cheny admitted fault. This is normal.
I admit that the presence of live ammunition (if that’s what this was; I haven’t kept up) on or near the set sounds like a terrible mistake on someone’s part. I expect someone to lose his or her job over that.
But I’m not as incensed as others about how actors handle guns on set. Given the number of real guns being handled by people who neither like nor understand guns and who are, by virtue of their star status, disinclined to follow instructions or behave responsibly, it’s almost surprising how few such accidents occur. It really is pretty rare.
Actors and stunt people get killed during shoots by helicopters, cars, motorcycles, suspension failures, falls — and, very occasionally, guns. I suppose some probably overdose in their trailers between scenes, too (and it wouldn’t surprise me if that’s more common than firearms deaths).
Yes, every actor should check the gun that’s handed to him. But then, every driver should walk behind his car before backing out of his driveway, to make sure there isn’t a toddler sitting behind it; I suspect that kills more people every year than on-set gun accidents. But I only do that simple thing sometimes, not all the time.
I know the gun safety rules. Shoot, I used to teach gun safety and self-defense classes. I take this stuff seriously. But I also understand the idea of relative risk. Yes, it would be nice if every actor knew how to check the weapon handed to him, and then how to reload it. It would be nice if he knew how to verify that the realistic dummy round in the gun was in fact inert. He probably just has to assume that it is… just as the set armorer had to assume that it really was a dummy round when he took it out of the box of dummy rounds provided by whoever sells boxes of dummy rounds to movie makers.
This was tragic. It seems very likely that there was real negligence involved; it’s hard to see how it might have happened absent that. But I’m skeptical that Mr. Baldwin was the individual most responsible in the chain of negligence, despite the fact that he is the one who shot the poor woman. I know Eddie Eagle and I are going to differ on this, but I don’t think we should expect the rules on-set to be the same as the rules in real life. I don’t think that’s practical, nor do I think it’s realistic. I’m not even sure it’s appropriate.
Sometimes it sounds like the more extremist gun-safety folks would say that, after you walk behind your car to check for a toddler, and then get in, you need to get back out and check again because a toddler might be there now that wasn’t there before. Ad nauseum. You can never actually go anywhere, because there might be a toddler behind your car. And you can never be absolutely certain that there isn’t.
There is a point where negligence becomes so egregious that it becomes criminal.
Yes, I’ve mentioned that before/elsewhere. It’s usually called culpable negligence.
Yes, isn’t that manslaughter? It seems to me that some gradation of manslaughter is warranted. But he’ll probably get off because he’s a rich celebrity.
Kurt Schlichter has an interesting take on Baldwin. The Alec Baldwin Conundrum.
…
Interesting analysis here:
https://lawofselfdefense.com/alec-baldwin-shoots-woman-dead-innocent-accident-or-involuntary-manslaughter/
Oh, wow! If the account in this article is true — if it is so — this is worse that I ever thought. Not murder but pretend murder, that killed Ms. Hutchins.
Guns don’t kill people, people playing with guns kill people.
Apparently (according to Fox) some of the crew use the guns on the set to do some plinking when things are slow……
Insane.
That was great. Thanks. I think he was reckless, and it should be manslaughter.
Well that was a screw up waiting to happen. Unreal.
I saw that article. I’d rther be decent. But I am not in any way advocating Baldwin get off legal charges.
Yes, mocking him for his gross hypocrisy or perhaps his malicious stupidity is unseemly, taking place within a greater tragic event, taking place within an unseemly public life. I haven’t knowingly mocked him. But the irony in Baldwin’s world is astronomical. Once again, there are proper uses for a gun and improper uses. It seems Baldwin has them reversed.
Holy crap
Totally agree. And I can understand mocking him, but at the moment it’s unseemly with a person dead. Now if he had shot his foot instead, that would have been worthy.
Mocking him in this situation, maybe not. But prosecution is a different story.
And we’re supposed to sit in our virtual courtrooms and only bow and shake our heads at the tragedy.
While the Press will applaud Baldwin’s courage and fortitude to handle the misery he feels at this unforeseeable and senseless accident.
Meanwhile, he’s still alive.
Getting back to my original post, included in our safety procedures is how my employer handles outside contractors who come into our facilities. The contract they sign obliges them to follow our safety rules, and orientation is provided to their employees about our facilities before they are allowed to work there.
Movie stars are essentially private contractors, though some might be getting a standard paycheck as employees.
Regardless, whether they are obliged to follow an employee policy manual or a contract, safety rules should be included, and if firearms are a part of the mix, that should be a part of the safety policy and procedures.
Alex Baldwin has one incident in his past of acting like the rules don’t apply to him when he was kicked off of a plane for refusing to turn off his cell phone. It was ten years ago. I’m sure there are numerous other less public examples in his life. Lots of little things.
If a movie star is trained in firearms safety that includes specific procedures to check the weapon after it is handed to him, and he decides the rules don’t apply to him, and he kills someone, it becomes easy for a jury to convict him of negligent homicide.
Not that that is the point. The point is prevention, not punishment.
And then, we’re back to how safety is everyone’s responsibility.