The controversy over the fatal shooting on the movie set involving Alec Baldwin continues, still rife with misinformation and a circular firing squad of pointed fingers.
As I’ve said here before, Baldwin strikes me as an over-entitled bully and hypocritical anti-gunner, but like anyone else he still deserves a fair trial. That won’t take place in the court of public opinion…nor in the court of “shooter opinion.”
I’ve never even been on a movie set. TV sets, sure, after nine years in the medium. But we were doing shooting shows pioneered by Tom Gresham: for us, there were no blank cartridges at all. As with most shooting shows on TV today, we worked exclusively with live ammunition, using remote cameras if we needed photo angles from downrange. The usual four rules were in play: treat every gun as if it’s loaded, don’t point it at anything we’re not prepared to kill or destroy, keep the finger out of the trigger guard unless and until we are in the very act of intentionally discharging the weapon, and always be certain of the target and what is behind it.
Baldwin, obviously, violated all four of those rules.
However, the rules are different in Hollywood.
Those who do regularly work on movie sets with firearms say their rules are completely different. To us shooters, “Cold gun” means unloaded, not even blanks on board, while “hot gun” means live “this stuff can kill what’s in front of it” ammunition. However, since live ammunition is supposed to be strictly forbidden on the set under “Hollywood Rules,” they don’t have a term for live ammo at all. To them, we are told, “Cold gun” means the same as it does to us, no cartridges of any kind in the gun, blank or otherwise, but “Hot gun” means a gun containing blanks.
This will doubtless be emphasized by Baldwin’s defense lawyers.
Moreover, I’m told that union rules and common custom and practice on action movie sets both forbid the actor to unload, load, or even open or check the gun that sometimes fires blanks. Having supposedly been checked by the designated on-set armorer, the gun might be seen as contaminated by an actor seen “fiddling” with it, and the armorer would have to prep it again, and it would theoretically continue like an endless circle with filming never getting done.
Expect the Baldwin defense to emphasize this, too.
However…
The gun in question was a single action revolver, either a genuine Colt or a close Italian copy thereof, in the classic Single Action Army pattern. If even a blank cartridge is in the chamber, its rim is visible through the gap between the “recoil shield” area of the frame and the rear of the cylinder. Now, because the recoil shield area is quite wide on these “Peacemaker” style single actions, those rims can’t be seen by an eye directly behind the revolver, i.e., aiming it; they aren’t visible from that angle as are cartridges in modern double action revolvers, which have smaller recoil shields. But they are clearly visible from the side, or from above.
A mere glance should have told Baldwin that there was some kind of torpedo in the launch tube, and the gun was not “cold.”
So, in my humble opinion, Alec Baldwin is by no means out of the woods.
Everything I see is coverage of Baldwin as the shooter. Such coverage is appropriate of course, but I hope the investigation is not being centered solely on Baldwin.
By their own highly restrictive rules that live round should not have even existed on the set. Then it should not have even been in the gun. Then it should not have been in the gun when it was handed to Baldwin.
SOMEBODY brought that round on set and SOMEBODY put that fatal round in the gun.
Yes, checks are supposed to be made and yes, Baldwin pulled the trigger, but SOMEBODY needs a day in the spotlight for setting the whole thing in motion and I have seen nothing that indicates interest in that.
I agree. This could totally have been set up by another killer who counted on Baldwin to pull the trigger.
HOWEVER, Baldwin is expected to visually check the gun, which is still congruent with the “no-tampering” rules. ANYONE brandishing and indeed, activating the firing mechanism of a firearm, is responsible for some form of personal inspection before acting. For e.g., no matter what instruction a pilot receives from the tower – HE HAS VETO POWER TOWARD THE SAFETY OF HIS PASSENGERS.
Baldwin exercised no such caution and it resulted in a human death due to his negligence. He must pay – along with the idiot (or mastermind) who prepared the gun.
He needs to have his day. In court.
” This could totally have been set up by another killer who counted on Baldwin to pull the trigger.”
Except he was off-script and “doing a joke” when this shooting happened.
And there has been other similar discharges on the same set a few days before.
I’d go for generalized negligence, people completely out of control bringing live ammo to shoot beer cans between takes, bad safety conditions all around, young armorer that could’t do all the work in those conditions, gun-illiterate actors completely alien to basic gun safety and etiquette, …
My thoughts exactly.
The possibility that conspiracy or a bad actor (so to speak) is how that live round made it onto the set cannot be ruled-out. I believe many recent and current events were “manufactured” as propaganda tools, as was the Reichstag fire of the Third Reich. Many powerful people in the world have learned much from the Nazis!
Elementary (quoting Sherlock Holmes).
Only published standards for movie/tv industry I’ve run across. Bulletin #1 on “Recommendations for Safety with Firearms And Use of “Blank Ammunition”” makes for interesting reading relative to this case. Some excerpts of note:
https://www.csatf.org/production-affairs-safety/safety-bulletins/
No one shall be issued a firearm until he or she is trained in safe handling, safe use, the
safety lock, and proper firing procedures.
Page 2, first 4 items generally repeat the common safety rules.
7. NEVER lay down a firearm or leave it unattended. Unless actively filming or
rehearsing, all firearms should be safely secured.
11. Protective shields, eye, and hearing protection or other appropriate Personal
Protective Equipment (PPE) shall be issued and utilized by all personnel in close
proximity and/or directly in the line of fire.
Under the responsibilities of
“The Property Master (or, in his/her absence, a weapons handler and/or other
appropriate personnel determined by the locality or the needs of the production)
is responsible for the following:” (pg. 3)
12. Ensuring that any actor who is required to stand near the line of fire be allowed to
witness the loading of the firearms.
—
No doubt the large number of safety failures involved will make for interesting litigation in the time to come. So who asked “What could go wrong?” Everything, apparently.
I hear now some of ’em are saying it was a ‘hot gun’…. the narrative changes..
Hot or cold, as Ray Liotta (the actor) said a few weeks ago, all three of them, the armor, assistant director, and himself would examine all the cartridges and load them before the scene to be filmed. That way three of them could all testify in what state the weapon was. Ray said that was SOP for the guild.
Dunno what Baldwin’s sets ‘rules’ were (he was the producer as well as actor.) But the fact they found live as well as blanks… and MAYBE there was an impromptu gun range were live rounds were used, or maybe blanks tested in the guns, well we will see what the Sheriff’s office finds out.
But we do know it was real easy to check the gun for 99.999 percent of the readers here. A simple check that would have saved that woman’s life.
No doubt, I don’t know anyone who has the most basic safety instruction for firearms who would act in the manner of Baldwin. (BTW, still shooting that Lil’ Dan).
I’ve read several versions of how firearms are supposed to be handled on movie sets. Back in one of Mas’s classes decades ago, an attorney advised that Policy (includes training), Procedure and Practice had to be identical. However, then we have the often present real world differences between rules as written and practiced.
There’s apparently a lot of back and forth about “cutting corners” on various aspects of production. Proportedly including safety praceices. Baldwin apparently wore several “hats” in this mess, which may come back to bite him liability wise, both civil and possibly criminal (assuming the DA is inclined to do Justice with a capital “J”. Being in some degree responsible for the lax attitude toward adhereing to “the movie way”.
Assuming for the moment that actors actually are forbidden to check the firearm, or that they’re even competent to do so, it still leaves the, pardon the expression, “smoking gun”. That is, Baldwin pointed a fiream at a human, cocked it and apparently pulled the trigger. Even if somehow the firearm was defective and fired without a digit on the trigger, he still pointed a firearm at a human being and cocked it. Thus making it capable of discharge.
Remotely operated cameras have been around for quite awhile. Hollywood tradition that there should be live carmera operator doesn’t necessarily meen that individual has to actually be behind the camera.
Yeah well, checking to see if the gun has live ammo takes time Mas. Time is money to the Hollyweird elites and so, just deal with it an if there is a boo-boo on the set, the lawyers will take care of it. (spit)
yup. that level of caution does eat up some time. According to the photos Mas shared with usabout three tenths of a second, easiy done as he is retracting his gun hand from wherever he was nahded the pistol back to where he would hold it. THREE TENTHS. some guys are alldgedly able to draw and fire in about that much time, hitting their intended target.
I think Baldwin’s culpability will fall more under his role as a producer rather than that of an actor. Were there decisions made in the name of cost or time savings that contributed to the chain of events that lead to the death? Were there recommendations or procedures made by trained personnel that were ignored or dismissed?
During the news briefing by New Mexico officials, they said that they seized about 500 cartridges as evidence. They further said that these cartridges appeared to be a mix of blanks, dummy rounds and live rounds.
BobF is correct, above, in saying that no live rounds should have been on the set at all. So, who ever brought live ammunition to the set bears a big slice of the blame. However, I am not sure that Mas is correct when he says that “Cold Gun” equals an unloaded, empty gun. My thinking is that “Cold Gun” (as used on this movie set, anyway) meant either an empty gun or a gun loaded only with dummy rounds. “Hot Gun” would have meant a revolver loaded with blank ammo.
From news reports (which may or may not be accurate), my impression is that (when the revolver was checked after the incident) the revolver was found to be carrying four (4) dummy rounds plus one (1) casing from a fired live round.
So, “Cold Gun” (as used in this incident) meant a revolver loaded with dummy rounds. Unfortunately, it seems that one live round somehow got inserted along with the dummy rounds. So, the check that Mas indicates (above) would not work since a sideway glance at the revolver would show the rims of the dummy rounds.
I agree that multiple people were negligent in this incident. The people who (1) brought live ammo to the set, (2) who inserted a live round into the revolver, (3) who failed to check the revolver properly to identify that it had a live round and (4) who incorrectly told the Actor that the gun was “Cold” (and therefore safe to use) ALL receive a slice of the blame for this negligent discharge.
However, I will say it again. It was Alec Baldwin that cocked the revolver. It was Alec Baldwin that pointed the revolver at living human-beings. Leaving aside the slim chance of a mechanical fault and a “self-shooting, single action revolver”, it was (in all probability) Alec Baldwin’s finger that pulled the trigger.
According to news reports, this was all done during a rehearsal. No film was being shot and there was NO NEED to be pointing guns at people and pulling triggers. So, in the final analysis, Alec Baldwin meets the conditions, established in New Mexico Law, to be guilty of involuntary manslaughter.
Other people may also be due a slice of the blame. They might even be guilty of acts that rise to a criminal level too. However, their failures and faults DO NOT wash away the reckless, dangerous and negligent actions of the Actor, Alec Baldwin IMHO.
quote: “the check that Mas indicates (above) would not work since a sideway glance at the revolver would show the rims of the dummy rounds.”
All fine and dandy. SO he SHOULD have checked but did not. Still, of there was any doubt remaining AFTER he had checked, he could have easily held the barrel sideways, away from himself, angled such that the actual projectiles or lack thereof would be visible inside the cylinder, he COULD have verified status. Except that if the live round had been hidden by the barrel (never a good idea to have a squiz down THAT bit) he still could have missed it.
I’ve read pieces by other well known armourers and they all seem to hold that Alec was 100% responsible for what followed. Others share in the culpability for the outcome by the roles they played, but had the ONE GUY fully responsible done his bit, tht cinematographer would still be alive.
This is even better. I see your point on visual confirmation being moot if the shells were mixed.
I also see that the onus is on the gun holder and trigger puller. His own freedom depends upon trust in his aids. If they screw up – he suffers legal retribution. HE, BALDWIN, is ultimately responsible. Just as a business owner is responsible for the mal-practices of his employees.
I highly doubt real justice will be brought forth in this case.
Some lower echelon people will be the human sacrifice for the lack of safety and adherence to accepted standards and practices.
Cases like this is what insurance is for in regards to the civil portion of this tragedy.
The outcome will have less to do with social level and more to do with political pull. They brought the PRESIDENT down due to his political affiliation. They will find a way to PRAISE Baldwin for this. Watch and see.
Something tells me that Hollywood “rules” will change quickly. I can train an eight year old basic gun safety. What does that say about actors?
I have believed for many years that there are schools in Hollywood to teach actors the wrong way to shoot guns.
I believe that’s called “artistic/dramatic license”.
I don’t watch all that much TV, but I have lately noticed that, at least on network TV, scenes where “shooting” happens have the camera focused on the shooter. The results of the shot(s) are done as a separate take and spliced-or whatever the term of art for swapping electrons is-in. The very few exceptions I can recall involve very long range for handguns. You really can’t be sure where the gun is pointed.
So far as administrative gun handling, Seal Team, is head, shoulders and chest above all the rest. OK, they’ve still got their share of drama and deliberate misinformation.
Training someone in the physical acts we perform to assure safety is one thing. Training their HEARTS to DO them EVERY TIME is yet another matter.
Something muttered about being the important one, or some such.
In most cases, actors of Baldwin’s fame, cannot be trained to do anything. Because their “fame” is indicative of them knowing everything. Just ask them, they’ll tell you so.
Which is why they’re ALL only too willing to tell the rest of us peons how we should live our lives.
One other possibility that would prevent him from visually checking – if completely empty cartrigres were supposed to be in the gun to prevent damage to the action from dry-firing a single action revolver? That way, it could be “cold”, but not with empty chambers. Not sure if that would be a thing or not.
The craziest part to me is that there were live rounds on set. Because it’s an environment where people point guns at other people and pull the trigger, live rounds really ought to be completely verboten. Makeshift range isn’t a good idea, even in the desert. Too much potential for trouble. If you want to go train for target shooting, do it at a different location with different guns. Never mix the two. Never have filming and target practice on the same day.
Baldwin deserves a fair trial, followed by a first class hangin’. (“Silverado”)
As much as I dislike him, I can’t see any proof that would support a murder conviction. But definitely Manslaughter.
I have read conflicting reports on “standard” filming procedures: one authority says actor and armorer together confirm the gun’s status as the armorer hands the actor the gun for the scene. Mas’ expert says actors are not involved in that safety check. This latter “policy” would be to Baldwin’s legal advantage, if true for his production set.
Further complicating the picture is the presence or absence of dummy rounds, which would show at the rear of the cylinder from the side, but which are inert and are used to “show” bullets in the cylinder face on camera closeups. At issue here, as a couple of people apparently said there were “3 dummy rounds” in the gun, is the competence of the individuals to recognize the presence or absence of primers which are generally absent from dummy rounds. A second “safety” feature is the inclusion of a BB in the case of dummy rounds to produce a rattling noise if shaken–indicating the absence of gunpowder. I suppose some dummy rounds, made for scenes where the actor is loading the gun, might have fake primers (like those in snap-caps), to make the cartridges appear real if the camera shows the rear of the shell as it is loaded. These would require individual inspection and shaking to distinguish them from live rounds.
As unsympathetic as I might be tempted to be towards Mr. Baldwin based on his obnoxious qualities and political stances, I must agree with Mas that we shooters must be circumspect in judging Mr. Baldwin based on shooter’s rules. The rules in Hollywood are different for a reason: They routinely do point guns at other actors and, ideally with appropriate safety measures, sometimes do fire blanks in the general direction of live people. In other words, they routinely violate all of Cooper’s 4 rules. They are supposed to replace those rules with other meticulous processes to prevent injury. Mr. Baldwin may escape being charged with involuntary manslaughter if the DA determines that he reasonably relied upon the armorer to ensure the gun was not loaded with live rounds, and therefore his pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger was not criminal negligence. However, as a producer, he might bear criminal and/or civil liability for his role in fostering/allowing an unsafe environment. This is especially true in light of the two prior accidental discharges–clearly there was insufficient attention being paid to the actual state of the firearms. Indeed, this fact may loop back to undermine Mr. Baldwin’s reasonable expectation that he was being handed an unloaded gun, since clearly two others had been handed guns that unexpectedly discharged blanks. And if the distance of the fatal shot was only a few feet as reportedly described by one witness, even a blank would have been dangerous to the cameraman and the two people who were struck by the round.
But, clearly he did not intend harm. Also, he is rich, famous and progressive. It will be interesting to see if he is charged. I won’t be surprised either way.
I still do not have a clear picture of where was the armorer when all this happened.
Did she play any role in the rumored “plinking party” in the desert the night before? Were I a detective on the case, I’d want a toxicology screen on everyone who handled the gun that day, plus the armorer. If live target shooting was done with prop guns, that speaks to such poor judgement that I would suspect drugs and/or alcohol were involved–especially if the plinking participants were so careless as to leave live rounds in the gun.
It is a reminder to us all to put safety first–and not take shortcuts.
Gallows Humor Anyone?
As Abraham Lincoln might have said: “Never trust an actor with a gun, unless he’s a Republican.”
As is almost always true, there are exceptions. Back in my Cowboy Action days, I owned a pair of Hawes SAA that had recessed chambers. I marked one chamber so I could count them off and only loaded 5. However, that gun was never, and I mean never, pointed at anything that violated the rules you listed. If a mirror in front of the camera would not suffice, then the scene should not be shot
Mas
The revolver, pictured in your blog above, is not really the same as was used in Baldwin’s Rust Movie. The New Mexico officials said that the functional Rust Movie revolver was an Italian clone of the Single Action Colt design, made by Pietta, and chambered for .45 LC.
Your revolver has adjustable sights. It appears to be a Ruger Blackhawk Revolver chambered in .44 Remington Magnum and manufactured in 2006.
I know that it would likely not make any difference as to the point you are illustrating. I am sure that the rims of loaded cartridges would be equally visible in a Colt SAA or clone thereof. Still, it might have been a more accurate demonstration to use a true Colt-style revolver for these pictures.
Sorry if I seem to be nitpicky. 🙂
One thing about a .45 Colt Single Action Revolver that may be incidental, or not, is that the point of bullet impact can vary quite a bit among different loads. My Ruger Blackhawk with 7 & 1/2 inch barrel oddly generally strikes about a foot higher at a fairly moderate range with standard Winchester 225-grain Silvertip bullets, compared with 300-grain and 335-grain extremely heavy powder loads. Barrel flip is probably the main factor. When Mr. Baldwin fired his revolver, he may have been attempting to aim at a certain point in space for one or more reasons. Wondering how an intended aim may have related to the actual point of impact.
There are several differences between a .45 LC Colt SAA revolver and the Ruger Blackhawk in .44 magnum. The Ruger has:
1) Adjustable sights whereas the Colt’s sights are fixed.
2) The Ruger has a thicker top strap and larger diameter cylinder.
3) The Ruger has different springs and lockwork. Even the loading sequence is, somewhat, different.
4) The Ruger has enhanced safety features. Modern Blackhawks can be carried with all chambers loaded whereas a Colt should have an empty chamber placed under the hammer.
Finally, the .45 LC cartridge has a rather small rim. When Colt designed the 1873 SAA revolver, they wanted to use as small of a cylinder as possible while still chambering it for a large .45 caliber cartridge. A large rim would have caused rim interference given the rather small diameter of the cylinder. Since the rim was not needed for extraction (the empty cases are punched out with the ejector rod), Colt designed the case with a minimal rim. Note that the .45 LC cartridge was designed for this specific Model 1873 revolver.
This is unlike the .44 Magnum which has a good size rim since it was designed, initially, for use in a double-action revolver equipped with a star extractor.
I don’t own a Colt-type SAA revolver chambered for .45 LC. I would expect that the smaller rim can still be seen when looking at the revolver from the side. Still, there are differences between the Ruger Blackhawk and a true Colt Type SAA revolver.
I know! It is still a nitpick! 🙂
The “plow handle” shape of the Colt-type SAA revolvers and the Ruger Blackhawks brings similar handling characteristics to the two models. The plow handle design dates back to horseback days and “cavalry carry,” with holsters often at a reverse grip to enable both a quick, sure grasp, and with either hand. Not exactly the best grip for target-accurate shooting without substantial practice by most shooters. I like it partly because the upturn of the muzzle flip helps to torque felt recoil while retarding possible crimp jump.
It seems to me that, as the finger that pulled the trigger, Baldwin is guilty of manslaughter, albeit accidental. The person who loaded the gun is guilty of at the least 3rd degree murder, probably worse.
Yes
And it would also set a proper example for the future safety of the film industry. Anything less is corruption at the highest level.
Ed – “The person who loaded the gun is guilty of at the least 3rd degree murder, probably worse.”
That would depend upon the circumstances under which the revolver was loaded with the live round. To get to a murder charge, one generally needs the act to be performed “with malice”.
So, if it could be proved that the person loaded the revolver deliberately with the live round. Perhaps, with the malicious intent of causing a negligent discharge pursuant to whipping up the labor dispute on the set, then, Yes, it could be murder because of the underlying malicious intent.
However, if the live round was loaded without malicious intent. If it was simply an act of human error and was unintentional, then a murder charge would not be appropriate. At most, that person would, also, be guilty of manslaughter and could stand in the dock alongside Alec Baldwin, himself.
As I recall, the work was to verify camera position and lighting. There was no need for Baldwin to cock the single action revolver, let alone pull the trigger. And curiosly, although the scene was to include an “at the camera” shot, Baldwin’s shot missed the camera shield and hit the uppity woman who had been grieving him about safety on the set. There is more here than a simple “Oops!”. Baldwin looked “upset” about the shooting, but, he is, after all, something of an actor.
Even if the revolver was called “hot”, there is more going on than is covered in the narrative.
My Italian replica revolvers have the firing pin in the hammer like the originals so there is no transfer bar. When you cock the revolver and line up the shot you can clearly see the primer through the firing pin hole in the recoil shield. You can see that the gun is loaded from the back as well as from the side.
But you’d have to LOOK. Did Baldwin? That’s part of the point. Thanks for bringing it up.
I see that Baldwin has now called for the mandatory presence of a police officer on all sets that involve weapons. How the presence of a police officer that likely never handled a revolver, automatic weapon, etc… would help anything is beyond me, although they could be blamed for any problems that arise. It’s funny how these idiots who blame cops for societies problems always want them around to use as props or foils for whatever political games they are playing at.
What Alec Baldwin should look for is a good brain containing common sense to replace the defective one he was born with, then get Steve Martin to do the transplant.
One thing I have yet to see mentioned is that, in consideration of only four chambers having anything in them, and due to the manner of loading those chambers, there should have been an empty chamber under the hammer the first time the trigger was pulled, unless somehow the cylinder got indexed to place the live round as the next chamber to fire before the gun was handed to baldwin. Even if the live round was the first of the four cartridges, it still should have taken TWO cock and fire sequences to get to it.
We have never been told what the cartridge sequence was in the cylinder, but it would be real unusual, under normal circumstances, for the four “loaded” chambers not to be sequential, and if they were not, it makes me even more suspicious.
The standard method of loading original style single action revolvers is to load one chamber, skip one chamber and then load 4 more chambers. At that point the hammer is cocked and lowered to rest on the empty chamber. This insures that a dropped gun won’t fire.
IIRC, the revolver in question was found to be loaded with 4 dummy/inert rounds and one empty cartridge case after the shooting.
If Baldwin was handed a gun he was told and thought was loaded with dummy rounds there would have been no way for him to verify the dummy rounds (or at least one of them) were really dummy rounds and not live rounds. Dummy rounds by their design look just like live ammunition. They have bullets inserted into the casings just like live ammunition. Their purpose is to look like live ammunition. By the long standing rules of both the movie industry and the actors’ Union Baldwin was expected to trust his “professional” armorer – as actors have done for longer than any of us have been alive. Unless Baldwin was personally aware that someone brought live ammunition to that set, I don’t see how he can be held culpable for any wrong doing by any reasonable person.
Furthermore, I find the idea that one live round just happened to not only end up in that revolver, but also happened to end up in the exact spot in the cylinder of that revolver that it would be the one to be in battery when the trigger was pulled, to be very suspicious.
Note that as far as the type of person I think Baldwin is, well, let’s just say Mas typed the words write off of my fingertips.
Pardon the unintentional pun above. 😀
“I don’t see how he can be held culpable for any wrong doing by any reasonable person.”
I disagree. Your argument implies that the only culpability for this negligent discharge comes from the loading and/or checking of the revolver. Since Baldwin was not responsible for either loading or checking the revolver, then he has no culpability for the death and injury that it caused.
The error in your reasoning come from your basic assumption. The assumption that culpability only arises from the mechanical loading and checking of the revolver.
Wrong! Culpability also arises from the way the revolver was handled and used. This is in addition to the way it was loaded and checked. In addition, the people who oversaw this movie and who failed to maintain overall safety standards also come in for a share of the blame.
So, the culpability for the death and injury arising from this incident is split into at least there (3) parts.
1) The people, who mistakenly loaded the revolver with a live round and failed to check it so as to catch the mistake, share one part of the blame for these deaths and injuries.
2) The person who mishandled the revolver; Who cocked it, pointed it at other people and then pulled the trigger, shares another part of the blame.
3) The Producers and overall management share the third part of the blame for their cost-cutting and slack measures that fostered an unsafe work environment.
Baldwin may be clear of blame for Part (1) above, but he is 100% at fault under Part (2) and is probably at least partly at fault under Part (3).
So, I do think that he is culpable for this death and injury. I do not regard myself as being unreasonable for thinking so but I will grant that there are other people on this set that also have a share of the blame.
I agree with your points 1) and 3). If you believe you are correct with your assertion 2), then you must think that every single time an actor pointed a gun with dummy rounds in it at another actor and pulled the trigger in every such movie or TV scene for the past 100 years, that actor was acting recklessly.
Perhaps you missed the part of Mas’s essay where he stated:
“Moreover, I’m told that union rules and common custom and practice on action movie sets both forbid the actor to unload, load, or even open or check the gun that sometimes fires blanks. Having supposedly been checked by the designated on-set armorer, the gun might be seen as contaminated by an actor seen “fiddling” with it, and the armorer would have to prep it again, and it would theoretically continue like an endless circle with filming never getting done.”
“If you believe you are correct with your assertion 2), then you must think that every single time an actor pointed a gun with dummy rounds in it at another actor and pulled the trigger in every such movie or TV scene for the past 100 years, that actor was acting recklessly.”
During actual filming, there are certain safety measures that can be taken. Ballistic shields for people and cameras. Arranging camera angles so that, while it appears that the gun is pointed at another actor, it is slightly off-target, splicing the scenes of the shot being fired with a separate one of the shot being received, etc.
However, you are making a disingenuous argument. We are not taking about the general practice of actors playing at shooting at other actors here in this Rust Movie incident. Lest you forget, Baldwin WAS NOT shooting a scene with other actors. The cameras were not rolling.
Rather, Baldwin was REHEARSING a pending scene. He was working out the details about how the scene would be staged. Under these conditions, of a rehearsal, there is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON for Baldwin to be cocking revolvers, pointing them at people (who are not even actors) and then pulling the trigger. What actors do during “Business as Usual” is beside the point. In this specific case, Actor Baldwin was being negligent and careless and dangerous.
In this specific case, he was performing a lawful but dangerous act “without due caution and circumspection”. That makes it involuntary manslaughter under New Mexico Law. So, again, he is 100% at fault under Part (2) culpability due to his dangerous and negligent handling of the revolver.
As for your point about Mas’ comment on “union rules and common custom”, that is disingenuous as well. Mas’ comment only applies to Part (1) culpability regarding the loading and checking of the revolver. I have already conceded that Baldwin is clear as far as Part (1) culpability is concerned. So, Mas’ comment is non-applicable to the other points under discussion.
Way too suspicious. The probability of an “accident” seems to be 20% or less. The whole thing reminds me of something like a Lee Child/Jack Reacher plot in “The Sentinel,” where anti-US Communist agents play Nazis to cover for Communist espionage. With too many to blame, how do we blame anybody?
Lot’s of questions, not many answers here. At least not many satisfying answers. When I first learned about the armorer on the set, a memory of an image came back to me. Many of you have seen it. The image is from the early days of the South West Combat Pistol League. The camera angle is looking up at five men with sidearms drawn and pointed at the camera lens. Their fingers are obviously in the trigger guards. This image has always given me pause as it is seemingly out of synch with accepted safety practices. The five in the picture are, from left to right, Ray Chapman, Elden Carl, Thell Reed, Jeff Cooper and Jack Weaver. Of note here (and the impetus of my memory of the pic) is the subject in the middle of the picture – Thell Reed, father of Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, the armorer on the set of Rust. I’ve heard it reported that he, understandably, taught his daughter about firearms use.
Was the behavior pictured here acceptable at the time the photo was made? This was the dawn of the “modern technique” so perhaps the canon of firearm safety we know today had not yet been established. Should there be different firearm safety rules depending on the circumstances? We have the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration – should we establish a National Firearm Safety Administration with similar responsibilities and capabilities? I’m certain these ideas will make some cringe but I believe these are all legitimate questions and have no doubts there are more to follow.
It’s my hope that this occurrence will spur progressive discussion. It’s regrettable that so many lives were adversely affected by this incident, but it will be even more regrettable if it doesn’t result in something positive for the firearms community.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Chapman_(marksman)#/media/File:Combat_masters_A1.jpg
The late Elden Carl wrote about that picture in a 2015 post on his eldencarl.com blog. Although not explicitly stated, the camera setup and staging implies remote triggering of the shutter.
“He [the photographer] placed his camera close enough to the ground to ensure a somewhat dramatic upward view of the shooters looking down at the camera.”
Oh, gee. The blog site is not responding. I hope it hasn’t gone away.
Adam Baldwin was an actor on a set. He was handed a prop which trained professionals assured him was safe. Would he have known to look? And even if he had wouldn’t he have just thought, “Cool, They’ve put dummy prop rounds in this to make it look like it’s loaded.”
At this stage the dust is still settling. Still waiting for all the facts to come in.
Though, it was interesting that in one of the cases Mas mentioned in a previous post on this subject: the death of Brandon Lee. There is still no definitive explanation of what happened there, and that was over twenty years ago.
Comments are closed.