Accidental shooting kills one on set of new Alec Baldwin movie

[Pennywise]

‘Rust’ Police Report Handed Over To Santa Fe DA – Deadline

 

[metaphysician]

I'd say there's a lot of people who had no intention to see it before will be going now.

And not just for morbid reasons, to be fair. There's probably a large chunk of people who simply never heard of the movie before the shooting.

 

[Pennywise]

Alec Baldwin Sues ‘Rust’ Crew For Negligence; Wants “To Clear His Name” After Fatal Shooting – Deadline

 

[Dr.]

Alec Baldwin Sues ‘Rust’ Crew For Negligence; Wants “To Clear His Name” After Fatal Shooting – Deadline

Similarities to events on the set of The Crow are obvious. But the differences are interesting too. From the various news stories, the late Michael Massee — the actor who fired the gun that killed Brandon Lee — emerged as a largely sympathetic figure, a victim of circumstance. I.e., he was just an actor doing what he was directed to do. Whereas, the production (generally) and the stunt/armorer crew (specifically) were deemed more immediately responsible.

With Rust, however, Baldwin has garnered far less compassion and commiseration. And it’s not difficult to see why. Baldwin is both more famous and more controversial — prone to previous “self-inflicted” scandals that the tabloids loved to cover. And unlike Massee, who fell into depression and went into seclusion for a year, Baldwin keeps putting himself in the center of this tragedy, inviting further scrutiny. And filing a lawsuit against various film crew is just another example of this. These PR missteps probably won't affect possible criminal charges against Baldwin (which I think are unlikely). But the optics are not good.

 

[Sithborg]

Similarities to events on the set of The Crow are obvious. But the differences are interesting too. From the various news stories, the late Michael Massee — the actor who fired the gun that killed Brandon Lee — emerged as a largely sympathetic figure, a victim of circumstance. I.e., he was just an actor doing what he was directed to do. Whereas, the production (generally) and the stunt/armorer crew (specifically) were deemed more immediately responsible.

With Rust, however, Baldwin has garnered far less compassion and commiseration. And it’s not difficult to see why. Baldwin is both more famous and more controversial — prone to previous “self-inflicted” scandals that the tabloids loved to cover. And unlike Massee, who fell into depression and went into seclusion for a year, Baldwin keeps putting himself in the center of this tragedy, inviting further scrutiny. And filing a lawsuit against various film crew is just another example of this. These PR missteps probably won't affect possible criminal charges against Baldwin (which I think are unlikely). But the optics are not good.

I think if he had only been an actor, then yeah, he would be sympathetic. But he is a producer on this, with his production company. That is where he is getting the heat from.

 

[Pennywise]

Alec Baldwin ‘Rust’ Fatal Shooting Police Report Released: Details Chaos On Indie Western Set – Deadline

 

[Pennywise]

Alec Baldwin’s Fatal Rust Shooting Could See Charges, DA To Unveil Thursday – Deadline

 

[Broseph44]

Live updates: Alec Baldwin to be charged in fatal 'Rust' shooting

Him and the armorer are both being charged with involuntary manslaughter.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Question, and sorry if it's been answered. Is it known what exactly was going on when the shooting occured? Was there any reason for Baldwin to be firing the weapon? Even aiming it in the direction of another person? With the Crow, they were filming a scene where the gun was supposed to be aimed and fired. Was that the case here?

 

[Dr.]

Live updates: Alec Baldwin to be charged in fatal 'Rust' shooting

Him and the armorer are both being charged with involuntary manslaughter.

I could see the armorer being convicted of some criminal offense (if not manslaughter then perhaps reckless endangerment). But I'd be very surprised if Baldwin was convicted.

 

[moviedoors]

I can't see there being a reasonable case against Baldwin in his capacity as an actor, but as a producer? That's much fuzzier.

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

I don’t know why any actor would ever want to use/handle a gun in a role again if they’re held liable for anything that could go wrong with it.

 

[Sithborg]

Question, and sorry if it's been answered. Is it known what exactly was going on when the shooting occured? Was there any reason for Baldwin to be firing the weapon? Even aiming it in the direction of another person? With the Crow, they were filming a scene where the gun was supposed to be aimed and fired. Was that the case here?

From what I remember, no. They weren't shooting, they were merely prepping and practicing.

I can't see there being a reasonable case against Baldwin in his capacity as an actor, but as a producer? That's much fuzzier.

Nah, the case is much stronger for liability as a producer than as the guy who shot the gun. Presumeably, he was trusting the instruction he got from the clearly unqualified armorer. And all the reports on the set conditions is very, very, very much on the production side.

 

[Pennywise]

 

[Shinobi Shaw]

After rereading some of the stories about this movie, and I don't wish bad on anyone, but Baldwin and the armorer had these charges coming. I mean Baldwin was one of the producers and this entire production was plagued by people saying that they were dealing with unsafe working conditions. Then there's still no concrete answer about how live rounds got into the prop guns, this whole thing was just negligence all around.

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

There's many producers and he's the only one being charged so that isn't on those grounds. All producers don't have the same job roles either, you can have a producer credit just from being heavily involved in the creative process whether you're an actor or not or have anything to do with the general on-set running of the production.

LA Times - Alec Baldwin is credited as a producer on 'Rust.' What does that really mean? (2021)

 

[kguillou]

I still to this day dont even understand how there was live ammunition on the set at all to begin with. What, did the armorer pick the thing up at Walmart a half hour before cameras were rolling and failed to even check it? Thats what needs to be investigated.

 

[Iceman]

I can't see there being a reasonable case against Baldwin in his capacity as an actor, but as a producer? That's much fuzzier.

Yeah, an actor uses the props they’re given and relies on those whose job it is to check/those who are responsible in general for safety on set. Baldwin’s role outside of just being an actor discharging a prop that shouldn’t have live rounds in, is much more questionable.

 

[Pennywise]

Could Alec Baldwin Go to Prison for 'Rust' Shooting, and Why? - Variety

 

[Sithborg]

There's many producers and he's the only one being charged so that isn't on those grounds. All producers don't have the same job roles either, you can have a producer credit just from being heavily involved in the creative process whether you're an actor or not or have anything to do with the general on-set running of the production.

LA Times - Alec Baldwin is credited as a producer on 'Rust.' What does that really mean? (2021)

I mean its his production company. This has also been said to be a passion product for Baldwin. That is why I am leaning toward him being a bit more hands on in terms of production details.

 

[Mani-Man]

I still to this day dont even understand how there was live ammunition on the set at all to begin with. What, did the armorer pick the thing up at Walmart a half hour before cameras were rolling and failed to even check it? Thats what needs to be investigated.

Absolutely.
Why was there any need for live ammunition to be even close to the set?
Its insane how something like this can even happen.
Like, its not like a prop didnt work right and caused an accident...this was a woman who got shot by a real bullet with a real gun...why was any of this on set even?

 

[Dr.]

The prosecutor’s view of the case is that the actor is ultimately responsible for the state of the weapon in his/her possession. And, doubtless, the prosecutor will have at least some industry experts who’ll back up this claim. So it’s interesting to see that SAG-AFTRA (also experts in the industry) takes the opposite view.

According to reports, the AD (via the armorer) handed Baldwin the revolver and announced “cold gun” — indicating that it was unloaded. The scene, apparently, was just a rehearsal that involved unholstering the weapon. And since it wouldn’t be fired during the rehearsal, there was no need for the gun to be loaded. However, and as claimed by the prosecution, if only Baldwin had inspected the weapon for himself, he would have noticed bullets/casings in the chambers — and the tragedy would have been averted.

In the particular circumstances at hand, that might well be true. But (IMO) only in the sense that Baldwin was the last link in a causal chain of events. I.e., he missed the opportunity to perhaps catch someone else’s horrific screw-up. But the question is whether he’s criminally liable for not catching that screw-up?

Had this been an actual (filmed scene), presumably Baldwin would have been given a “hot” gun. And this would hardly be cause for particular concern. After all, gunplay and weapons fire happen all the time on movie sets. Moreover, “hot gun” is not a special warning that a gun with live rounds is now on the set. Live rounds are forbidden on set. “Hot” means blank rounds. So a weapons inspection by the actor which confirms that a “hot gun” is, indeed, “hot” would be perfectly normal. Thus, to extrapolate from the prosecutor’s claim, an actor who merely confirms “cold” or “hot” via a quick visual inspection is not being sufficiently diligent and responsible. Rather, an actor should take the time and effort to unload the weapon and confirm that each individual round is a blank and not live. On wonders, therefore, what happens in situations involving automatic pistols or assault rifles. There, the rounds are contained within clips or magazines. Are the actors supposed to unload all clips and magazines and confirm that all the rounds are blank, that no live round got mixed in by mistake? That strikes me as an impractical and onerous responsibility to foist onto actors — who, as SAG-AFTRA points out, are not hired for their expertise in firearms.

 

[Frodo]

The prosecutor’s view of the case is that the actor is ultimately responsible for the state of the weapon in his/her possession. And, doubtless, the prosecutor will have at least some industry experts who’ll back up this claim. So it’s interesting to see that SAG-AFTRA (also experts in the industry) takes the opposite view.

According to reports, the AD (via the armorer) handed Baldwin the revolver and announced “cold gun” — indicating that it was unloaded. The scene, apparently, was just a rehearsal that involved unholstering the weapon. And since it wouldn’t be fired during the rehearsal, there was no need for the gun to be loaded. However, and as claimed by the prosecution, if only Baldwin had inspected the weapon for himself, he would have noticed bullets/casings in the chambers — and the tragedy would have been averted.

In the particular circumstances at hand, that might well be true. But (IMO) only in the sense that Baldwin was the last link in a causal chain of events. I.e., he missed the opportunity to perhaps catch someone else’s horrific screw-up. But the question is whether he’s criminally liable for not catching that screw-up?

Had this been an actual (filmed scene), presumably Baldwin would have been given a “hot” gun. And this would hardly be cause for particular concern. After all, gunplay and weapons fire happen all the time on movie sets. Moreover, “hot gun” is not a special warning that a gun with live rounds is now on the set. Live rounds are forbidden on set. “Hot” means blank rounds. So a weapons inspection by the actor which confirms that a “hot gun” is, indeed, “hot” would be perfectly normal. Thus, to extrapolate from the prosecutor’s claim, an actor who merely confirms “cold” or “hot” via a quick visual inspection is not being sufficiently diligent and responsible. Rather, an actor should take the time and effort to unload the weapon and confirm that each individual round is a blank and not live. On wonders, therefore, what happens in situations involving automatic pistols or assault rifles. There, the rounds are contained within clips or magazines. Are the actors supposed to unload all clips and magazines and confirm that all the rounds are blank, that no live round got mixed in by mistake? That strikes me as an impractical and onerous responsibility to foist onto actors — who, as SAG-AFTRA points out, are not hired for the expertise in firearms.

Good points.

 

[KillerMcQueen]

The prosecutor’s view of the case is that the actor is ultimately responsible for the state of the weapon in his/her possession. And, doubtless, the prosecutor will have at least some industry experts who’ll back up this claim. So it’s interesting to see that SAG-AFTRA (also experts in the industry) takes the opposite view.

According to reports, the AD (via the armorer) handed Baldwin the revolver and announced “cold gun” — indicating that it was unloaded. The scene, apparently, was just a rehearsal that involved unholstering the weapon. And since it wouldn’t be fired during the rehearsal, there was no need for the gun to be loaded. However, and as claimed by the prosecution, if only Baldwin had inspected the weapon for himself, he would have noticed bullets/casings in the chambers — and the tragedy would have been averted.

In the particular circumstances at hand, that might well be true. But (IMO) only in the sense that Baldwin was the last link in a causal chain of events. I.e., he missed the opportunity to perhaps catch someone else’s horrific screw-up. But the question is whether he’s criminally liable for not catching that screw-up?

Had this been an actual (filmed scene), presumably Baldwin would have been given a “hot” gun. And this would hardly be cause for particular concern. After all, gunplay and weapons fire happen all the time on movie sets. Moreover, “hot gun” is not a special warning that a gun with live rounds is now on the set. Live rounds are forbidden on set. “Hot” means blank rounds. So a weapons inspection by the actor which confirms that a “hot gun” is, indeed, “hot” would be perfectly normal. Thus, to extrapolate from the prosecutor’s claim, an actor who merely confirms “cold” or “hot” via a quick visual inspection is not being sufficiently diligent and responsible. Rather, an actor should take the time and effort to unload the weapon and confirm that each individual round is a blank and not live. On wonders, therefore, what happens in situations involving automatic pistols or assault rifles. There, the rounds are contained within clips or magazines. Are the actors supposed to unload all clips and magazines and confirm that all the rounds are blank, that no live round got mixed in by mistake? That strikes me as an impractical and onerous responsibility to foist onto actors — who, as SAG-AFTRA points out, are not hired for their expertise in firearms.

Do you know if a dummy round(no propellent) would still be considered cold?

 

[Sawyer]

It’s not political, and yet… her first stop was Hannity?

Uh-huh.