Alec Baldwin

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

I would be surprised if this tragic incident is found to be Alec Baldwin's fault.

I’d be equally surprised if it isn’t. He’s also the producer, and sets the budgets, as well as being somewhat responsible for the safety culture on set if budgetary concerns mean corners were cut and a blind eye taken to that. Reports are that the safety culture was sadly lacking.

 

[Monitor Gold 10]

I’d be equally surprised if it isn’t. He’s also the producer, and sets the budgets, as well as being somewhat responsible for the safety culture on set if budgetary concerns mean corners were cut and a blind eye taken to that. Reports are that the safety culture was sadly lacking.

Bugger. I meant to write I would be surprised to learn it wasn't his fault. Predictive text failure...

 

[Cav]

I have to disagree with your analogy @Rug Doc any pilot about to go off in a chopper, would carry out pre-flight checks - they certainly would not get in to said chopper/plane whatever and turn the thing on a and fly off. Nor should anyone pick up a weapon and press the trigger without knowing what state it's in.

But they would not dismantle the gearbox an engineer has serviced would they?

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

But they would not dismantle the gearbox an engineer has serviced would they?

Not a valid comparison really though. Checking the gun doesn’t require specialist tools or skills.

For reasons I’ve expressed upthread, though, I don’t think the actors should necessarily be expected to check a gun passed to them on a live shoot, and declared safe by the person employed to check that very thing.

 

[Cav]

Not a valid comparison really though. Checking the gun doesn’t require specialist tools or skills.

For reasons I’ve expressed upthread, though, I don’t think the actors should necessarily be expected to check a gun passed to them on a live shoot, and declared safe by the person employed to check that very thing.

You say that it is not a valid comparison but your second para implies it is? Anyone unfamiliar with weapons, or gearboxes, could not know if a weapon, or gearbox, was safe or not.

Analogies do not help anyway. Ultimately this will be a matter for a court.

 

[PaulMB]

As I've said already, an actor cannot be expected to open the gun, take out all the cartridges, check them carefully, and then put them all back in again. It is the responsibility of the armourer, that's what he's there for. You can't compare it to what happens on a firing range.
As for the bus analogy, if a driver is given a bus with a rebuilt engine does he check the valve clearances and the cylinder head torque before driving off? Or, let's make it easier, if the brakes have been overhauled, does he check the brake fluid level and the thickness of the brake pads before he drives off?

 

[Joe Hutch]

I kind of agree, but surely pointing a gun at anyone is a reckless action in itself?

 

[davidsrsb]

A revolver or shotguns are the only weapons easily checked for blanks and a clear barrel by a non-expert. How you recognise a blank shotgun cartridge is another mystery to me.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

On reflection I find myself more in agreement with those who argue it is the actor’s responsibility. If I were the actor, and the part required me to put the gun to my own head and pull the trigger, I’d damn we’ll check it myself, so why wouldn’t I take the same care with another person’s life?

 

[Bart]

I kind of agree, but surely pointing a gun at anyone is a reckless action in itself?

I don’t know where he was pointing the gun, but speaking generally wouldn’t you have to point a gun (assumed ‘cold’) at someone on a film set at some point if the scene required it.

 

[Thorn]

Useful US legal opinion. Likely negligent or possibly reckless, but not an accident.

I can't watch the video, the link is unavailable, so I don't know what the American legal opinion is.
In English law an accident can be caused by negligence or recklessness, as when someone pulls out of a junction into the path of another. In personal injury cases we distinguish between accidents caused by negligence and what we call "pure accident" where there is no-one to blame.
The better distinction is between accidental and intentional.

 

[Guinnless]

I drive buses. Before that bus goes out in the morning, it is checked by me. It is checked throughout the day- where practicable- as some Bus Stands have main roads to the right hand side of the bus.

Sure you can check the lights, make observation checks on the tyres, observe if any of the warning lights on the dash are lit but what else? As a driver this is all you could reasonably do.

 

[paulfromcamden]

I still don't understand why you would have live rounds anywhere near a film set.

It's been reported that there were three guns left out together and the Assistant Director mistakenly picked up one that was loaded and passed it to Baldwin.

 

[gavreid]

I still don't understand why you would have live rounds anywhere near a film set.

Exactly!

 

[Bart]

I still don't understand why you would have live rounds anywhere near a film set.

It's been reported that there were three guns left out together and the Assistant Director mistakenly picked up one that was loaded and passed it to Baldwin.

That was my thought too, but bearing in mind It was in America where live ammunition and guns are far more common than in the UK maybe it is not so surprising, some people have the stuff in their houses and I imagine security staff would often have something handy. How it got into that particular gun is a bit of a mystery though.

 

[robbyd]

No

A lot of the background prop guns are actually just rubber or grp replica castings.

 

[robbyd]

I don’t know where he was pointing the gun, but speaking generally wouldn’t you have to point a gun (assumed ‘cold’) at someone on a film set at some point if the scene required it.

the d.o.p. wouldn't be in front of the camera on a take, only possibly in a rehearsal, and even then more likely to be the director.

 

[Seeker_UK]

You say that it is not a valid comparison but your second para implies it is? Anyone unfamiliar with weapons, or gearboxes, could not know if a weapon, or gearbox, was safe or not.

Maybe, but gun safety is a lot easier to teach than gearbox safety. It's a simple rule for guns that can be taught in about a minute: You *never* consider one to be safe.

 

[Rug Doc]

I kind of agree, but surely pointing a gun at anyone is a reckless action in itself?

it’s a film set. From what I understand of the scene He was asked to point the gun to camera and fire it, he did and it was loaded, hence shooting the director behind the camera and the other person who was crouched behind her… he’s doing what he was asked to do.

I don’t know about firearms, so I if were an actor and was asked to do just that, I wouldn’t check the barrel etc, I would put my trust in the person who handed me the ‘prop’ and said clearly ‘safe gun’

it’s a tragic accident, but it’s the firearms handlers fault, that’s what their paid to do, and their single role on set.

 

[sq225917]

I'm just guessing, as an actor he's probanly not liable, as the producer however, unless they had an armourer on set who was negligent in there duties, he sure as 5hit is.