Alec Baldwin shoots and kills a woman, injures a man.

[pmv]

If you take your car in for routine maintenance and the garage says your brakes are fine. A few days later your brakes fail and you hit another car.

Is the driver negligent?

I was thinking of something along the lines of 'you, in your IT job, install a copy of Microsoft Windows, and it later turns out the MS licensed seller had supplied a counterfeit installation disk with malware included on it - was it your responsibility to personally check the contents of the disk?'

Seems to me that such 'norms' could go either way, hence I don't think it's an entirely rhetorical question, but I see no evidence that Baldwin, in not doing a last-moment personal-check of the weapon, violated any existing established norms in the context of the movie industry. One would need to show evidence that it was an establshed practice for actors using firearms to take such extra precautions, over-and-above trusting the professional gun-handling people on the set.

 

[Vic]

If you take your car in for routine maintenance and the garage says your brakes are fine. A few days later your brakes fail and you hit another car.

Is the driver negligent?

Lol... I can actually speak to this. Many years ago, my mother came to me with a problem with her car. When stopped at a light while in gear, the brake pedal would slowly sink to the floor and the car would begin to creep forward unless you pumped the brakes. I looked at it, told her she needed a new master cylinder, and she took it to her mechanic to have that done.
Except that the mechanic, for whatever reason, decided to sell her (without my knowledge) into a 4-wheel brake job without replacing the master cylinder. And a few days after that, the brakes failed (unsurprisingly) and my mother rear-ended another car. Luckily no one was injured.
Fast forward, we told the insurance company what happened, and the mechanic's employer was subsequently found liable for all damages and the mechanic lost his job for incompetence.

 

[Vic]

Most pilots have a checklist. Most drivers i know check tires and brakes before they are needed, but i'm an old fart, i still check my oil.

No one cares that you're an old fart. They just don't like the fact that you never learned any honesty and integrity in all your years.

Unless you can provide any evidence that Baldwin failed to follow whatever gun safety procedure was required of him as an actor on a professional movie set, then you have no case here. Especially for criminal charges. FFS, even airline accidents caused by pilot error rarely if ever result in criminal charges against the pilot.

In the meantime, even the little information released to the public points to egregious error on the part of the armourer for failing to maintain proper custody of the weapons and ammo on the set. Which is literally an armourer's most important job.
Now will she face criminal charges for that? I'm inclined to doubt that. But her career is certainly toast.

 

[conehead433]

I haven't read this thread so this may have already been brought up. Everyone seems to agree that live rounds of ammo in prop guns is a no-no on stage sets. So whoever put the live round(s) in the gun set Baldwin up to kill someone as they knew that the scene entailed Baldwin pointing a gun towards the camera. Fingerprints on the empty casing should reveal who that person was. And if there were no fingerprints on the casing then it was probably most definitely murder. I feel bad for Baldwin as this is not something he will ever get over. But that said, if I were an actor and was supposed to shoot a gun on set then I would empty that gun to check the ammo before ever filming that scene and the director should allow the actor the time to do that. I would really be questioning the relationship between the armorer and the camera person. This shit does not happen by accident.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

If you take your car in for routine maintenance and the garage says your brakes are fine. A few days later your brakes fail and you hit another car.

Is the driver negligent?

No.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

No one cares that you're an old fart. They just don't like the fact that you never learned any honesty and integrity in all your years.

Unless you can provide any evidence that Baldwin failed to follow whatever gun safety procedure was required of him as an actor on a professional movie set, then you have no case here. Especially for criminal charges. FFS, even airline accidents caused by pilot error rarely if ever result in criminal charges against the pilot.

In the meantime, even the little information released to the public points to egregious error on the part of the armourer for failing to maintain proper custody of the weapons and ammo on the set. Which is literally an armourer's most important job.
Now will she face criminal charges for that? I'm inclined to doubt that. But her career is certainly toast.

Yes, egregious negligence on the part of the armorer, negligence on the part of the assistant director. I will continue to say that it was also negligent of the person that pulled the trigger. Would it rise to criminal negligence? Probably not.

 

[Vic]

Yes, egregious negligence on the part of the armorer, negligence on the part of the assistant director. I will continue to say that it was also negligent of the person that pulled the trigger. Would it rise to criminal negligence? Probably not.

Why should it if the person who pulled the trigger did so only in good faith and was doing their actual job? Why should he have assumed that the armourer and the asst director didn't do their jobs? How is that negligent?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Why should it if the person who pulled the trigger did so only in good faith and was doing their actual job? Why should he have assumed that the armourer and the asst director didn't do their jobs? How is that negligent?

The whole world isn't Hollywood. This is something we will never agree on. I find it negligent that Alec Baldwin pointed a weapon, even a prop weapon, at a person. You disagree. OK, i'm fine with that.

 

[Vic]

The whole world isn't Hollywood. This is something we will never agree on. I find it negligent that Alec Baldwin pointed a weapon, even a prop weapon, at a person. You disagree. OK, i'm fine with that.

I didn't "disagree," I provided a conclusive legal argument as to why your politically motivated argument is wrong.
Prop weapons are pointed at people on movie sets all the time, and have been since they first started making movies. It's hard to believe that you actually feel so strongly about the subject when you've never brought it up before this.
But on the subject of your seemingly endless dishonesty, I never said the whole world was Hollywood, and unless you're saying that it is, we don't disagree on that. Where we do disagree is on how your whole life seems to be an obsession with sticking it to your perceived political enemies, regardless of anyone's freedoms, rights, or even the law.
Case in point: you claim Baldwin needs to go to jail for a workplace accident, while at the same time support an active shooter because he was shooting likely Democratic voters.
That's not a good thing.

 

[cytg111]

Am also thinking that maybe especially a place like the US, with ALL those guns… proper gun etiquette should be a mandatory class… in high school?

 

[HomerJS]

Yes, egregious negligence on the part of the armorer, negligence on the part of the assistant director. I will continue to say that it was also negligent of the person that pulled the trigger. Would it rise to criminal negligence? Probably not.

But not negligent of a driver who's brakes failed and ran into someone? In both cases the end user relied on the expert to asses equipment.

From what I've seen Baldwin is not likely negligent but responsible only because he was operating the equipment. Just like a driver who just had their brakes checked. He won't be legally responsible absent other evidence.

 

[pmv]

The whole world isn't Hollywood. This is something we will never agree on. I find it negligent that Alec Baldwin pointed a weapon, even a prop weapon, at a person. You disagree. OK, i'm fine with that.

Just seems as if you have a pathological pre-existing animus towards Baldwin - I assume because he mocked Trump, or because he's a "liberal" (whatever that means).

I would only consider it 'negligent' if it were established that in that industry, in his line-of-work, it was a well-established norm to check weapons in that situation, and that he violated that norm. I don't really see how it could be, because that would imply the same norm applying to _any_ use of potentially hazardous equipment, which would slow all workplaces to a crawl, but _maybe_ it could be the case to a very limited basic degree.

Personally I have no feelings about Baldwin either way. I don't regard rich Hollywood liberals as being on 'my team' politically, and I've barely been aware of his work output. He's just a vaguely-familiar name, is all. Just seems to me you are engaging in motivated-reasoning - arguing for a conclusion you already reached for reasons unrelated to the event.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

I didn't "disagree," I provided a conclusive legal argument as to why your politically motivated argument is wrong.
Prop weapons are pointed at people on movie sets all the time, and have been since they first started making movies. It's hard to believe that you actually feel so strongly about the subject when you've never brought it up before this.
But on the subject of your seemingly endless dishonesty, I never said the whole world was Hollywood, and unless you're saying that it is, we don't disagree on that. Where we do disagree is on how your whole life seems to be an obsession with sticking it to your perceived political enemies, regardless of anyone's freedoms, rights, or even the law.
Case in point: you claim Baldwin needs to go to jail for a workplace accident, while at the same time support an active shooter because he was shooting likely Democratic voters.
That's not a good thing.

Bull fucking shit. You did not provide "a conclusive legal argument" you 3rd grader. Try again or let the District Attorney and prosecutor from the legal jurisdiction make the legal argument.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Am also thinking that maybe especially a place like the US, with ALL those guns… proper gun etiquette should be a mandatory class… in high school?

Sounds good, Eddie the Eagle anyone? We used to have ROTC and shooting teams in High School in some areas.

High School Shooting Teams Are Getting Wildly Popular — And the NRA Is Helping

Participation is highest in Minnesota, where the sport is on par with tennis and swimming

time.com

High School Shooting Teams | Logan County Shooting Sports Complex

Beginning in the spring of 2018, Caliche High School and Sterling High School formed high school trapshooting teams participating through the Colorado State High School Clay Target League. The League is open to students 6th grade to 12th grade.

lcssc.colorado.gov

High school gun clubs and teams in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Home - Kansas State High School Clay Target League

ksclaytarget.com

Home - SSSF - Scholastic Shooting Sports Foundation

The leader in youth development shooting sports programs. Our Mission Youth Development Through Shooting Sports The SSSF manages clay target and action

sssfonline.org

 

[Fenixgoon]

Imagine if taj had a hardon for all gun deaths across the US, not just this one..

 

[Aikouka]

Last week, LegalEagle posted a video looking at this case (based upon what was known at the time) while citing New Mexico state law. It might be an interesting watch for those wondering how the law applies to this situation.

(I skimmed through the past week's posts in this thread to ensure that this wasn't already posted, but I might have missed it.)

 

[igor_kavinski]

'Rust' Crew Member Facing Amputation After Spider Bite, $10K Raised on GoFundMe (newsweek.com)

Such an accursed movie set

 

[interchange]

Last week, LegalEagle posted a video looking at this case (based upon what was known at the time) while citing New Mexico state law. It might be an interesting watch for those wondering how the law applies to this situation.

(I skimmed through the past week's posts in this thread to ensure that this wasn't already posted, but I might have missed it.)

Love LegalEagle. For those that didn't watch, ultimately this is what he concluded RE: Baldwin based on what is presumed to be the facts of the case from what is reported on now.
1. The criminal offense that might apply is involuntary manslaughter which requires that, since the act was legal, Baldwin acted in a negligent or inherently dangerous way in performing the act
2. Industry standard appears to be that the checking of the firearm is not the responsibility of the actor
3. Baldwin was rehearsing a quick draw for the film, and this was at least the 2nd time he performed the motion which was intended for the film at the direction of the film crew; i.e. he was not playing around with the gun outside the scope of his work

Therefore, Baldwin should not be criminally liable based on what is the presumed understanding of the facts here.

This doesn't excuse him from civil liability as a producer of the film.

Edit: Hadn't watched the whole thing, still watching but there is possible liability under negligent use of a deadly weapon. There is some question about whether a prop gun would be considered a deadly weapon in the first place given the protocols designed to keep it safe, but it is certainly reasonable to think it would be considered a deadly weapon. The next part requires negligence for which, again, current facts don't really support that Baldwin himself was acting negligently here regardless of what we think the protocols should be.

Regarding the AD and Armorer, there is more plausibility to a manslaughter charge or negligent use of a deadly weapon charge. In particular, repeated incidents of safety concerns from the AD and accidental misfirings during the shooting would be within the knowledge of these individuals, which is very powerful in establishing negligence or outright recklessness. It is theoretically possible that murder would be on the table here, but that's a pretty high bar for the requisite mental state and degree of reckless and knowingly dangerous behavior.

 

[igor_kavinski]

'Rust' Crew Member Sues Alec Baldwin, Gun Handlers and Producers - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

Defendants in the lawsuit include Rust Movie Productions LLC, the company created to produce the western; its star, Mr. Baldwin, who was also a producer on the film; Ms. Gutierrez-Reed; Ms. Zachry; Mr. Halls; and several producers with the project.
Mr. Svetnoy said in the lawsuit that the movie’s producers had “declined requests for weapons training days, failed to allow proper time to prepare for gunfire, failed to send out safety bulletins with call sheets, spread staff too thin, failed to ensure that industry safety standards were strictly observed when preparing and filming with firearms and engaged in other cost-cutting moves.”
The suit seeks damages on Mr. Svetnoy’s behalf, noting that he was injured by the discharge materials that struck him and traumatized by seeing his friend die, leaving him unable to work.

Is he going to risk everything to sue the Rust production team? That's some serious trauma.

 

[JEDI]

'Rust' Crew Member Sues Alec Baldwin, Gun Handlers and Producers - The New York Times (nytimes.com)


Is he going to risk everything to sue the Rust production team? That's some serious trauma.

gaffer?
how does he have cause to sue?

 

[igor_kavinski]

gaffer?
how does he have cause to sue?

The suit seeks damages on Mr. Svetnoy’s behalf, noting that he was injured by the discharge materials that struck him and traumatized by seeing his friend die, leaving him unable to work.

 

[JEDI]

Duplicate

 

[JEDI]

Lol..Discharge materials?
Wtf is that?

Sounds like a cash grab

 

[iRONic]

'Rust' Crew Member Sues Alec Baldwin, Gun Handlers and Producers - The New York Times (nytimes.com)


Is he going to risk everything to sue the Rust production team? That's some serious trauma.

"risk everything"?!

What do you mean? He hired a law firm. This happens frequently in the US.

 

[igor_kavinski]

"risk everything"?!

What do you mean? He hired a law firm. This happens frequently in the US.

He can't be a millionaire. The producers have deeper pockets than him.