Rust (1 Viewer)

[ScottHM]

...as a actor in this situation he will most likely get a slap on the wrist since it wasn't his job to check the gun,

I don't know why people keep saying it "wasn't his job" to check the gun. If the laws of New Mexico say that anyone who handles a firearm is responsible for doing so in a safe manner then it was his job.

There are also 4-5 other producers of this movie and none of them have been charged yet.

Which implies that Mr. Baldwin's alleged negligence extended beyond just being a producer.
---------------

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I don't know why people keep saying it "wasn't his job" to check the gun. If the laws of New Mexico say that anyone who handles a firearm is responsible for doing so in a safe manner then it was his job.

Because on a movie set it is the one place in the world where there are paid experts that are supposed to be preparing and checking the prop before they give it to an actor and on a movie set no live ammo is allowed to exist. So, it is the one time you should have no concern about being handed a prop and being told it is safe.

In the real world, if you are picking up any weapon, yeah, you have no idea if it is loaded unless you check yourself. We don't walk around in the real world with a team of weapons experts with us at all times that handle all the guns before they give them to us.

 

[Kevin Antonio (Kev)]

Consider on small independent films it is like a small miracle they find the funding and get into production. Then once you are, you are in a race to shoot it, edit it, and complete the picture. You don't have the luxury of time because time is money. So, this film has probably burned through their budget. The delays have cost them. Then there are lawsuits. To a small film trying to get to the finish line these are all major blockades to getting there and they will all cost you.

Then consider this film is a Western, not likely to be a big money maker in the first place, and where was this going to be shown? It seems more a streaming film than one that would get into theaters. So, who is going to want this when it is done? I don't know how large an audience would have been there for this if none of this happened. I don't really think that the death on the set in some gruesome way draws more viewers to this. Baldwin seemed a love him or hate him actor before this occurred so, not sure him being in this made it more likely to draw a crowd big enough for Rust to turn a profit.

I would have seen this because I love Westerns but in this market, no clue what kind of release this would have had.

Probably very little considering the major market for westerns is the mid west and the south these days( and not many down here like Mr. Baldwin). On top of that the only reason anyone may see it now is because of controversy, and even that may not be enough to get it back it's budget ( if it even complete's production). The production having little funds doesn't change much in my eyes. You can have a lot of money or little but you can't be cheap on safety. When you think about how many westerns were made and for " cheap " this situation is truly a head scratcher since they all avoided it when you look at the statistics, and with lesser resources compared to today.

Baldwin isn't the only person responsible for this tragedy.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Which implies that Mr. Baldwin's alleged negligence extended beyond just being a producer.
---------------

Or it implies that Baldwin is the celebrity defendant that's being put on trial.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Probably very little considering the major market for westerns is the mid west and the south these days( and not many down here like Mr. Baldwin). On top of that the only reason anyone may see it now is because of controversy, and even that may not be enough to get it back it's budget ( if it even complete's production). The production having little funds doesn't change much in my eyes. You can have a lot of money or little but you can't be cheap on safety. When you think about how many westerns were made and for " cheap " this situation is truly a head scratcher since they all avoided it when you look at the statistics, and with lesser resources compared to today.

Baldwin isn't the only person responsible for this tragedy.

When you consider how many rounds have been fired in movies over the years, it probably is more than WWII. This is a rare occurrence. Very, very rare. I think that why it happened is because some bad people were hired to work this film. The armorer was obviously not ready to do this job. Hall, by many accounts was a rough person to work with. How the live ammo found its way to the set and literally was loaded into the prop minutes before the shooting remains the most nagging question to me. That part of this seems totally insane.

The fact that there were issues with the handling of prop guns leading up to this shooting, complaints about the armorer and Hall (the two people that handled the prop before Baldwin) is the most damning aspect here. I see it as the biggest case against the film and obviously raises the question why the young armorer and Hall were not replaced. I mean, I know there are a variety of issues that can crop up but I bet after this, if there are incidents like this on a set, you are firing these people on the spot. Not letting them continue to work leading up to a tragedy.

 

[ScottHM]

Because on a movie set it is the one place in the world where there are paid experts that are supposed to be preparing and checking the prop before they give it to an actor and on a movie set no live ammo is allowed to exist. So, it is the one time you should have no concern about being handed a prop and being told it is safe.

In the real world, if you are picking up any weapon, yeah, you have no idea if it is loaded unless you check yourself. We don't walk around in the real world with a team of weapons experts with us at all times that handle all the guns before they give them to us.

Regardless of what you believe should be the case, the fact is that the state of New Mexico apparently believes that the bearer of a firearm holds some responsibility for it's use. And regarding your suggestion that a movie set is not the "real world", a death on set puts an end to that idea.
---------------

 

[Robert Crawford]

Regardless of what you believe should be the case, the fact is that the state of New Mexico apparently believes that the bearer of a firearm holds some responsibility for it's use. And regarding your suggestion that a movie set is not the "real world", a death on set puts an end to that idea.
---------------

They still have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Regardless of what you believe should be the case, the fact is that the state of New Mexico apparently believes that the bearer of a firearm holds some responsibility for it's use. And regarding your suggestion that a movie set is not the "real world", a death on set puts an end to that idea.
---------------

It's not about what I believe, it is only about the facts. There are normally several individuals paid to make sure the props are safe. They are not being handed a gun, they are being handed a prop. Guns with live ammo do not exist on a movie set. That is not like picking up a gun somewhere else. So, the point is, it would be idiotic to have an actor inspect a gun for safety. I don't really care who the actor is, Baldwin, Keanu Reeves, Mel Gibson, it does not matter. They are actors, paid to act. Nothing they do is reality. It is a performance.

There are people paid to make sure before anything gets put in an actor's hand, it is safe. Why would you be paying them to do this job if you were going to have actors check the props. That makes no sense. In a big scene where a whole bunch of actors have guns and they are shooting a war scene, are you going to take half a day to have actors check the weapons? That would be nuts, and dangerous. Laws are guidelines and they have exceptions. The law is meant to apply to handling handguns outside of a movie set, not a prop on a movie set. That distinction will be made.

So, the issue here will have nothing to do with what Baldwin did once he was told he was holding a safe prop. It will be primarily how an unsafe prop ended up in his hand and who made that prop unsafe. The thing here is, this is much more a workplace safety issue than it is a handgun issue.

 

[JoeStemme]

If I'm Baldwin's defense attorney and the Prosecutor uses the line that 'Every actor is responsible to make sure every bullet in a prop gun isn't a live round...." I show this clip, and say: Inspect ALL of these Prosecutor!

 

[ScottHM]

They still have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

What, that he fired the gun, or that he acted without exercising due caution and circumspection?

Guns with live ammo do not exist on a movie set.

Obviously untrue. Accidents can happen anywhere, which is why a person holding a prop gun should exercise due caution and circumspection.
---------------

 

[Robert Crawford]

What, that he fired the gun, or that he acted without exercising due caution and circumspection?

IMO, based on multiple movie productions over the course of decades of film making, the prosecution is going to have a difficult time convincing a jury to convict Baldwin without a reasonable doubt in regard to that particular criminal charge.

 

[TravisR]

IMO, based on multiple movie productions over the course of decades of film making, the prosecution is going to have a difficult time convincing a jury to convict Baldwin without a reasonable doubt in regard to that particular criminal charge.

Yep and it won't have anything to do with Baldwin's celebrity or that he has high-priced downtown lawyers. It'll be because this is a case that shouldn't have been brought.

 

[ScottHM]

the prosecution is going to have a difficult time convincing a jury to convict Baldwin without a reasonable doubt in regard to that particular criminal charge.

Perhaps. Even O.J. got off, so who can tell?
---------------

 

[Edwin-S]

So many barnyard lawyers, who think they have a better understanding of the case against Baldwin than prosecutors that have dealt with the ins and outs and vagaries of the law for years.

If they didn't think they had a reasonable expectation of a conviction then they wouldn't have proceeded with the case in the first place.

 

[Robert Crawford]

So many barnyard lawyers, who think they have a better understanding of the case against Baldwin than prosecutors that have dealt with the ins and outs and vagaries of the law for years.

If they didn't think they had a reasonable expectation of a conviction then they wouldn't have proceeded with the case in the first place.

Sorry for expressing my opinion. On second thought, I'm not sorry so take a hike because you're not bashful for expressing your opinion on a number of subject matters. That's what this forum is all about.

 

[GeorgeHolland]

It's not about what I believe, it is only about the facts. There are normally several individuals paid to make sure the props are safe. They are not being handed a gun, they are being handed a prop. Guns with live ammo do not exist on a movie set. That is not like picking up a gun somewhere else. So, the point is, it would be idiotic to have an actor inspect a gun for safety. I don't really care who the actor is, Baldwin, Keanu Reeves, Mel Gibson, it does not matter. They are actors, paid to act. Nothing they do is reality. It is a performance.

There are people paid to make sure before anything gets put in an actor's hand, it is safe. Why would you be paying them to do this job if you were going to have actors check the props. That makes no sense. In a big scene where a whole bunch of actors have guns and they are shooting a war scene, are you going to take half a day to have actors check the weapons? That would be nuts, and dangerous. Laws are guidelines and they have exceptions. The law is meant to apply to handling handguns outside of a movie set, not a prop on a movie set. That distinction will be made.

So, the issue here will have nothing to do with what Baldwin did once he was told he was holding a safe prop. It will be primarily how an unsafe prop ended up in his hand and who made that prop unsafe. The thing here is, this is much more a workplace safety issue than it is a handgun issue.

Correct, it isn't what you believe. It is the industry, the unions, insurance, OSHA etc. that establish the rules for gun safety. The actor is included with specified safety steps and responsibilities, doesn't matter if you or I feel they are reasonable, it is required in the rules the industry, unions, insurance, OSHA and others have agreed to follow. It is the fact each party in the chain has specific safety steps they are required to take, regardless of how any before or after them performed their job. Each is independent of the other, redundancy is required by the industry itself to demand each person touching a firearm follow the steps outlined and documented. If any one of them had, a life would not have been lost. Each is accountable independently of the others.

It isn't relevant what anyone on this or other threads think are reasonable safety steps on a set for actors to follow. The industry requires their own regulations are followed and Baldwin broke all of them. The charges against Baldwin does not mean others are not at fault for not following the safety regulations they are required to follow. Three were charged and each has individual responsibilities and none are released of them after others perform their safety steps.

Below are some examples.

"State and federal workplace safety regulations apply to the industry just as they do to all other workplace'. This includes The U.S. Occupational Health and Safety Administration.

Required Insurance for the film production most certainly has regulations for gun safety and should have a separate retainer.

the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees union and every other Union associated with the Film and Movie Industry has documented gun safety regulations.

The Actors' Equity Association's guidelines state that, "Before each use, make sure the gun has been test-fired offstage, and then ask to test fire it yourself. Watch the prop master check the cylinders and barrel to be sure no foreign object or dummy bullet has become lodged inside."


INDUSTRY WIDE LABOR-MANAGEMENT SAFETY COMMITTEE - Its advice includes:

Blanks can kill. Treat all firearms as though they are loaded

Refrain from pointing a firearm at yourself or anyone else

NEVER place your finger on the trigger until you're ready to shoot. Keep your finger alongside the firearm and off the trigger. Anyone involved in using a firearm must be thoroughly briefed at an on-set safety meeting

Only a qualified person should load a firearm

Protective shields, eye and hearing protection should be used by anyone in close proximity or the line of fire

Any actor who is required to stand near the line of fire should be allowed to witness the loading of the firearms.

The regulations have redundancy built in by design. Everyone is equally and individually responsible. If others earlier in the chain do their job every person after them is still required to follow the safety regulations. The actor isn't absolved of their required safety steps just because they were told the gun was cold. Baldwin was still required to at a minimum observe a physical demonstration the gun was safe, never pull back and **** the hammer, never put his finger on the trigger, never point the gun at anyone, and never pull the trigger. If he had paid attention in the required safety meetings and follow his own industries required safety precautions he would not have shot and killed someone. It would have just taken a few seconds to do what his Industry requires and this tragic event wouldn't have happened. Each are responsible independent of the others, that is the purpose of redundant safety requirements.


Summary of the charging documents.

"Baldwin's deviation from known standards, practice and protocol directly caused the fatal death of Hutchins," the documents state.

"By not receiving the required training on firearms, not checking the firearm with the armorer, letting the armorer leave the firearms in the church without being present, deviating from the practice of only accepting the firearm from the armorer, not dealing with the safety complaints on set and/or making sure safety meetings were held, putting his finger on the trigger of a real firearm when a replica or rubber gun should have been used, pointing the firearms at Hutchins and Souza, and the overall handling of the firearms in a negligent manner, Baldwin acted with willful disregard for the safety of others and in a manner which endangered other people, specifically Hutchins and Souza.

According to the documents, Baldwin did not attend firearms training ahead of the filming for "Rust" and spent time "distracted" during a 30-minute session that was supposed to last for an "hour or more."

"Statements and evidence show Baldwin was not present for required firearms training prior to the commencement of filming," the documents allege. "Statements, depositions from OSHA and evidence show Baldwin was provided only minimal training on firearms, even after Reed requested more training for Baldwin.

"A training session for at least an hour or more in length was scheduled, but the actual training consisted of only approximately 30 minutes as, according to Reed, Baldwin was distracted and talking on his cell phone to his family during the training," the documents claim.

Prosecutors also brought up Baldwin's role as a producer on the film. "In his producer's position, the evidence indicates Baldwin also did not act to address the lack of daily safety meetings that are required to be conducted by the 1st assistant director," the docs read.

"…. always assume a gun is loaded. Had Baldwin performed the required safety checks with the armorer, Reed, this tragedy would not have occurred. In addition, if Baldwin had not pointed the gun at Hutchins and Souza, this tragedy would not have occurred."


I was surprised charges were brought though my opinion has been they should be. I will be equally surprised if the judge moves it to trial. I hope it does. Let the case be heard and see what the jury hears and decides. I think the summary misses other standards Baldwin negligently ignored causing an unnecessary death. Perhaps they will come out if it does actually go to trial. Interested to see how the legal system works in this highly charged case. Others will be judged as well.

 

[Kevin Antonio (Kev)]

I'm not a barnyard lawyer but someone with a opinion on the things I read and see. This is a complicated case based on the reports that have been made surrounding it. If we look at the definition of manslaughter, there is no way you can tell me he isn't guilty. But with that you have to add context and it wasn't his job to load the gun. Reed and Hall not doing their job is the catalyst for this tragedy unfolding. As a producer Baldwin and his partners are liable ( and their names should be talked about just as much), but since baldwin is so popular and controversial he is the scapegoat. I feel sorry for him honestly. You wake-up to make a movie and trust your crew and this happens. I pray the industry puts into play even harder rules regarding the hiring of crews.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

My opinion is that there were a lot of rushed and shady practices going on that set.

Baldwin himself was, by law, supposed to take a course on gun safety. He spent most of it on the phone with family.

He is credited as a "producer" of that film. As such, I am assuming he has a level of responsibility toward everything that occurred on set.

I am in agreement that Baldwin should have been charged. I have no opinion as to whether he should be convicted. There are many laws and practices that need to be examined here and the final decision lies with a jury.

 

[Edwin-S]

Sorry for expressing my opinion. On second thought, I'm not sorry so take a hike because you're not bashful for expressing your opinion on a number of subject matters. That's what this forum is all about.

Touche. It was rude of me to use the term barnyard lawyers. Also, it wasn't anything in particular that you said. It was an unequivocal statement that celebrity and high-priced lawyers would have nothing to do with it if Baldwin was acquitted, but due to the fact the case shouldn't even have been advanced.

Unless someone is a lawyer, who had actually looked deeply into the case, making a statement like that basically says the prosecutors in this case are incompetent and have no idea what they are doing. Prosecutors analyze and determine the viability of cases for a living. If they don't think they have a viable case then they don't go to trial.

Obviously, in this one, they think there is enough evidence to go to trial. If Baldwin is found not guilty it is going to be due to the work of his high-priced lawyers, not because there was never enough evidence to go to trial in the first place.

Also, do.people really believe that celebrity and highly paid lawyers have no bearing on the outcome of a case? Do people really think a poor nobody in the same circumstances as OJ Simpson wouldn't have ended up getting a life sentence while he got acquitted?

 

[TravisR]

Touche. It was rude of me to use the term barnyard lawyers. Also, it wasn't anything in particular that you said. It was an unequivocal statement that celebrity and high-priced lawyers would have nothing to do with it if Baldwin was acquitted, but due to the fact the case shouldn't even have been advanced.

Unless someone is a lawyer, who had actually looked deeply into the case, making a statement like that basically says the prosecutors in this case are incompetent and have no idea what they are doing. Prosecutors analyze and determine the viability of cases for a living. If they don't think they have a viable case then they don't go to trial.

Obviously, in this one, they think there is enough evidence to go to trial. If Baldwin is found not guilty it is going to be due to the work of his high-priced lawyers, not because there was never enough evidence to go to trial in the first place.

Also, do.people really believe that celebrity and highly paid lawyers have no bearing on the outcome of a case? Do people really think a poor nobody in the same circumstances as OJ Simpson wouldn't have ended up getting a life sentence while he got acquitted?

In this case, I actually think that Baldwin's celebrity is working against him. If this was just some unknown character actor, I don't think they'd be up on charges right now. I think the DA is using Baldwin as a way to further their future political aspirations. Even when they lose the case, they can still say that they're so tough that they take on the "Hollywood elite". And you're clearly a cynical guy (and I say that as a fellow cynic) so I'm surprised that you don't think that the DA might have ulterior motives in charging a famous and divisive person like Alec Baldwin.