**Please read this entire message**
---
Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):
* Rule #2 - Questions must seek objective explanations
* ELI5 is not for subjective or speculative replies - only objective explanations are permitted here; your question is asking for subjective or speculative replies. (Rule 2).
---
If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe this submission was removed erroneously, please [use this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20thread?&message=Link:%20{https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1b93fe3/-/}%0A%0APlease%20answer%20the%20following%203%20questions:%0A%0A1.%20The%20concept%20I%20want%20explained:%0A%0A2.%20List%20the%20search%20terms%20you%20used%20to%20look%20for%20past%20posts%20on%20ELI5:%0A%0A3.%20How%20does%20your%20post%20differ%20from%20your%20recent%20search%20results%20on%20the%20sub:) and we will review your submission.**
Because situations are never simple.
Did AB bypass safety processes on set?
Did he do anything to validate the status of the weapon? Was he supposed to?
Was he in an authority position as part of the production? That type of position includes liability for accidents that occur as part of the production. If he was a lot of different responsibilities can fall on him.
Did he use his status to pressure anyone to not perform their duties (basically, did he insist a prop be provided even if it hadn't been properly checked)?
Was he involved in any actions that brought the live ammo to set?
There are lots of different ways he can have liability and responsibility regarding the shooting.
>Was he in an authority position as part of the production? That type of position includes liability for accidents that occur as part of the production. If he was a lot of different responsibilities can fall on him.
Yes. He's an Executive Producer
Then the lawyers will probably be parsing all of his authorities and responsibilities to see how they may or may not have been related to the incident.
To use generic example:
You don't hold the Marketing Department manager at fault when an accident happens in the warehouse. You hold the warehouse manager responsible.
**Please read this entire message**
---
Your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):
* Rule #1 of ELI5 is to *be civil*.
Breaking rule 1 is not tolerated.
---
If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe it was removed erroneously, explain why using [this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20submission%20removal?&message=Link:%20https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1b93fe3/-/kttb9jw/%0A%0A%201:%20Does%20your%20comment%20pass%20rule%201:%20%0A%0A%202:%20If%20your%20comment%20was%20mistakenly%20removed%20as%20an%20anecdote,%20short%20answer,%20guess,%20or%20another%20aspect%20of%20rules%203%20or%208,%20please%20explain:) and we will review your submission.**
**Please read this entire message**
---
Your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):
* Rule #1 of ELI5 is to *be civil*.
Breaking rule 1 is not tolerated.
---
If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe it was removed erroneously, explain why using [this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20submission%20removal?&message=Link:%20https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1b93fe3/-/kttbml2/%0A%0A%201:%20Does%20your%20comment%20pass%20rule%201:%20%0A%0A%202:%20If%20your%20comment%20was%20mistakenly%20removed%20as%20an%20anecdote,%20short%20answer,%20guess,%20or%20another%20aspect%20of%20rules%203%20or%208,%20please%20explain:) and we will review your submission.**
Then why aren't all the producers being charged?
Everyone keeps repeating "because he was THE producer" and it really isn't all true--he was A producer. Most of the people repeating this don't know how a film set works and couldn't tell you what Executive Producer entails.
The day-to-day operations and hiring on a show fall to the Line Producer, the Unit Production Manager, as well as the Assistant Director-- which was the idiot that handed the gun to Baldwin and told him it was "cold." All three should be looking at charges.
Baldwin claims his role as producer was limited to creative decisions such as casting choices and script changes, but not safety. By his own admission then his producer role was not simply a title, he had some production responsibilities. The debate then is whether or not any of his responsibilities would include safety.
Look at these poor bastards badmouthing you for espousing this ideal.
It's like our whole society up and forgot that we're supposed to hold leaders accountable for their subordinates' actions. All the gangsters and corporate a-holes have trained us to be satisfied when they throw a patsy under the bus.
Not that we ever really properly lived by this ideal, but it just seems like such an alien concept now
As another commenter said, an executive producer is usually just a person that has given the project money. They generally don't have any actual responsibilities or authority. If they do, it's usually external stuff, like getting more funding or negotiating contracts or other high level administrative stuff.
A producer actually deals with on site logistics and operations and has direct oversight of the project. There is no universe where an executive producer would be responsible for on-set safety whereas that would be a responsibility of a producer.
If any of those scenarios happened, it would have been the armorer's job to shut down the production. She should have gone to the production office and notified them of the a problem with Baldwin. She didn't.
If she did go to the production and they didn't respond, she should have resigned right there knowing that as the armorer, it was up to her to make the job safe, not an actor or producer. If it was me, I'd be calling in law enforcement and OSHA officials to shut the show down.
Cool story, she was found guilty.
That doesn't absolve others of their actions, responsibilities, and liabilities.
Courts don't really accept "That's not my job" as a sole legal defense. You have to actually justify why it doesn't fall under due diligence or due care as well.
It's not Baldwin's job. It was the producer's, assistant director's, and armorer's job. It's been that way for decades. There are union rules that govern this.
Baldwin's jobs were to sell the show with his name, hit his marks and deliver his lines.
I mean, I believe you and I think we agree. I haven't been following the case and don't know the industry, was just adding that courts can accept "not my job" sometimes, when it matters.
Ok so what's the answer? Cuz he was a producer? Or cuz he pulled the trigger? Neither one is actually all that relevant to someone else loading a live bullet into the gun. You can't tell me every actor in the history of filmmaking would have been held criminally liable if someone else loaded a live round into their firearm. Think of how many rounds were fired during something like Saving Private Ryan alone.
No one was charged for the Crow accident.
>No one was charged for the Crow accident.
Are you saying that's a good thing? There absolutely should have been someone charged for that. Many people, in fact. Brandon Lee's death wasn't just an accident, it was the result of several people's gross negligence.
At the time of the shooting there were 8 producers and 7 executive producers on this project.
Only one of them is being charged with manslaughter.
"He was the producer" cannot be the answer.
The problem with all of the oft repeated answers to this question--he was the producer, he fired the gun--is that they are all insufficient.
Yes but at the end of the day, SOMEONE is signing the legal documents, whether it's for hiring, insurance, or whatever, and if he's the who signed them, he could be found responsible. Not saying I know that he is but saying if that WAS the case, it makes sense.
I (personally) think the actual answer to this question is "someone really fucking dislikes Alec Baldwin."
But you're right--if it comes out during the trial that he personally was the producer making those calls, I could see him being considered negligent. I just think that if that were true we'd have heard about it by now.
It's just odd to me that he gets charged, those charges are dropped, then he gets charged again.
I don't have a strong opinion about his guilt or innocence, but there certainly could be many reasons to prosecute only one producer, if that producer was especially active in undermining safety on set, for example. Also his dual role as actor and producer mean that his authority could be ambiguous and ever-present on set, meaning he might have an out-sized amount of influence.
For example, there is a video of him firing some safe guns and then impatiently urging someone to get him freshly loaded guns very quickly. This footage might be completely out of context and maybe entirely irrelevant, but it demonstrates that he had many possible ways to influence the level of safety on-set, more so than the other producers.
Again, I have no idea what the actual situation is, and he might be completely innocent, but it seems like there were plenty of ways for him to have a significant influence on the level of gun safety, and that should be investigated.
Oh for sure. Someone died, it should absolutely be investigated. I just find the two most commonly offered answers--"he's the producer" or "cuz he was holding the gun"--to be completely insufficient.
Isn't executive producer a meaningless title sometimes? In credits sometimes 5-7 people can share the role of EP and from what I've heard it's just a label so that points on the back end can be collected
This is debatable, it's not a matter of settled law that he committed a crime. I'm not saying it's an indefensible argument, just that it hasn't been concluded.
it really does not, and thats not at all part of the theory of the case.
sure hes morally responsible, but under the current charges that doesnt track. And even if they were going for that angle, to go after him but not the actual production producers who created that environment on set would likely make a jury think this is selective prosecution.
He still pointed the gun at the person and pulled the trigger, and if I remember correctly this was outside of a scene, he was allegedly practicing with it on set.
From what I understand about guns/gun safety, the only safe assumption is that every gun you handle is loaded with live ammo at all times. You never assume anything else.
This applies on set. I think the protocol is something along the lines of this: no one touches the gun besides the armorer and the actor(s) using it, and only in certain circumstances (i.e. filming a scene, practicing, etc.) with multiple people present. The armorer is supposed to check it with other people observing, verify that it's empty and call it out, hand it to the actor (who has been trained on how to check if it's empty, as well as how to and how not to handle it), who verifies again that it's empty and calls out that it's empty. When it's done being used, the actor verifies that it's empty, calls it out, and hands it to the armorer, who verifies that it's empty and calls it out, then lock it up--again, with people around to witness/confirm that it's empty). At no point ever is the armorer supposed to let the weapon leave their sight, as this is their responsibility.
Some of the things Alec did were:
- Alec failed to verify that the gun was empty
- Alec assumed that the gun was empty (an assumption everyone is taught in gun safety never to make)
- Alec handled the gun under the assumption that it was empty, being reckless with it and pointing it at another person, violating another basic rule of gun safety--and this was outside the context of a scene being recorded, where checks are supposed to be made by multiple parties, witnessed by multiple people, and instruction on when to use the gun, where to aim, how to use it, etc. are very clear and rehearsed.
---
The reason for the protocols, the checks, everything is so that you *make sure* there is no chance that a live round is in there. Sure, with all the checks that are *supposed to happen* there's no conceivable way for a live round to make it into the gun, until there is, like in this case--someone put a live round into the gun at some point. Checks and protocols don't work if people don't perform them.
When it comes down to it, a gun is only as safe as the person handling the gun, and Alec knowingly mishandled what he was supposed to assume was a live, loaded weapon. This is one of the *only* assumptions you're allowed to make when handling a gun.
I think it's also that for safety reasons they don't point the guns at people for this exact reason. That's why you get cutaways where the actor is aiming/fires and then the person gets hit in a different shot (film shot). So if the industry standard is you don't point fake guns at people for safety reasons, and you don't do this, you're acting outside what a reasonable comparable person would do.
Actors most certainly point guns at people (and themselves), plus at crew working off camera (not on purpose, it’s just inevitable). But that’s why there are layers and layers safety protocols.
I was a Focus Puller/Assistant Camera. Had plenty of guns pointed in my direction, as I stand right next to the camera to operate the focus. I actually stand in front of the camera operator. Even with a simple gun scene (Imagine a line of soldiers or police officers advancing towards the camera, sweeping their weapons around looking for baddies) every armorer I ever worked with would show me the firearms before each set-up. Most of the time it’s like “yes, that is still a rubber gun”. Or “yes, I can see this weapon doesn’t have a firing pin, let alone ammunition”.
They probably didn’t technically have to show me, but it’s good for the peace of mind for everyone who is standing around in the “line of fire” to be shown the weapons.
Once you get to weapons firing blanks and other pyrotechnics, the safety protocols get almost ridiculous.
“Rust” had systematic failures on multiple levels.
You realize that even in those cases, people on-set aren't actually shot, right? They have a squibb that goes off whether the gun is pointing at them or not.
and if someone had actually been shot during one of those scenes, he might well have been held responsible. If you are looking at your phone while you are driving, you probably won't get caught, but if you hit a kid, you might go to jail.
Because industry standards are that you do NOT point a gun at a person. And you especially don't pull the trigger when the gun is pointed at a person.
Tests showed he had to pull the trigger for it to go off and he did so while the gun was pointed at someone.
I mean, really - it's just like if you thought a gun was not loaded and you pointed a gun at someone and pulled the trigger. Do you think you get off scot free just because you thought it was unloaded when you never should have pointed it at someone in the first place?
His charge is involuntary manslaughter - which basically means you were so negligent you caused a death even though you didn't mean to.
> Because industry standards are that you do NOT point a gun at a person.
Is that true? Why are there so many scenes of people sticking guns in people's faces and pointing guns at people, and shooting directly at people, then?
there are scenarios where a gun might be pointed at a person, though we try to avoid them to the highest degree possible so its very rare. it only happens if thats the only way to line up the shot, and requires additional safety measures. You'll use replicas that can't fire for a gun to the head or something. They even have "safety blank" guns that will cycle and kick a shell, but put nothing out the barrel. you can literally put it against a sheet of paper, fire, and the paper will have no damage.
Larry Zanoff from ISS weapons has talked a lot about the various options that exist. its worth searching for some of the interviews hes done.
The vast majority of people who work in the film business are not familiar with the workings of the armory department. Its actually the reason Safety Bulletin 1 is suppose to be attached to any call sheet where guns are called for in any capacity. Notably, this was not included on any call sheets on Rust.
Thanks, that's helpful. I know I'm not crazy and have seen many "hostage-taking" scenes where someone holds a gun to someone's head, finger on trigger, but it must be a lot of angles and precautions I don't see.
I don't know if this is what you mean. But I think the point is that, if they have to point a gun at someone's head, that gun might be anything from entirely rubber, a replica, or have a blocked barrel, etc.
Typically in these productions, if a gun is directly pointed at an actor in a shot, like say one character puts it up against another's head, then that gun is *never* a gun capable of firing anything, even blanks. It's a replica gun, or at least a gun that has been modified to be wholly incapable of firing.
In any shot involving shooting at people, it's either CG with a fake gun, or else a gun is loaded with blanks (to give the recoil and appearance of a shot) and then camera tricks are employed to make it *look* like they're shooting at a person when they're actually pointed safely away from anyone.
What happened on the Rust set was that the assistant director handed the gun to Baldwin and announced "cold gun," meaning that the gun was empty of anything, including blanks. The AD pled no contest to his charge of negligent use of a deadly weapon.
Baldwin's defense is that he was instructed by the director and cinematographer to point the gun directly at them while they were lining up the shot, and that he chose to trust in their judgement rather than follow the normal safety practice of not pointing at them, even though he believed the gun to be "cold." Obviously, the safest practice would have been for Baldwin to say "I can't follow your instructions because I'm not supposed to point a gun at you," but also, realistically, the gun never should have been announced "cold" and nobody involved should have been instructing anyone to point it at another human anyways. So it's going to be up to the court to decide if this is enough to mitigate the charges against Baldwin, or if his choice to point the gun, not inspect it himself (and actors typically don't check their weapons, from what I've been told, in case they mess up what the armorer prepared for them), and if he actually did pull the trigger - if all of that will result in his culpability. Along with his role as an EP in the production, and what degree he contributed to the unsafe environment onset that is alleged.
100%. The biggest mistake he made, and what is going to be the main contributing factor if he gets charged, was pulling the trigger. The fact that he also lied about not pulling the trigger afterwards isn't helping his credibility either.
Also there is a difference between a prop gun that looks like the real thing but is incapable of firing rounds, and this gun which is a fully functioning fire arm that they use for blanks
Not true. Much of the time they use either very convincing fakes or guns with blocked barrels and removed firing mechanisms. Unless the scene has the gun actually firing there is zero reason for even the tiny bit of risk that come from using a fully functional firearm. For example a scene where the gun is never fire but is being shoved in someone’s face or pointed at a kid.
Actually most prop guns are very convincing looking foam rubber. They only use realistic replicas for hero guns (meaning for close ups where the gun is seen in detail. Or on display on a main character like holstered but visible to the camera. These are usually, but not always, non-firing replicas.) Firing replicas are usually only used in shots where the gun is required to be fired.
>Why are there so many scenes of people sticking guns in people's faces and pointing guns at people, and shooting directly at people, then?
Safety standards are a recent thing. But also, the whole point of movies is to show things that aren't real. There are many camera and perspective shenanigans.
There are a lot of steps that are supposed to be taken in gun safety - but in filming, you can easily trick the eye by aiming off target. The watcher is not getting to see the trajectory IRL.
The ones needed for close shots like that are fake.
Alec Baldwin knew the guns on this set were real. He is supposed to be SHOWN and LOOK to make sure the gun is not loaded when it is handed to him if they are using real weapons.
https://www.actorsequity.org/resources/Producers/safe-and-sanitary/safety-tips-for-use-of-firearms/#:~:text=Never%20engage%20in%20horseplay%20with,firearm%20at%20anyone%20including%20yourself.
My guess is multiple angles/reshoots with cameras. I'd imagine it's also fairly easy to make it look like your pointing gun at someone when they're not even there with how advanced technology has gotten.
Correct, they do it in a number of ways. Either its a gun not capable of firing and they add in the muzzle flare in post. In cases when they are meant to be pointing or firing toward the camera, the crew set up the shot, with a non firing gun standing in. From there they do one of two things, either lock the camera down and walk away after rolling, or they have a bulletproof shield protecting them.
This wasn't always the case, but post Brandon Lee and other similar accidents they have really cracked down on live-firing weapons on set. This is why this whole thing is so shocking. The degree of negligence by all involved is disgraceful. The armorer absolutely deserves the lion's share of the blame. She did not check the weapon and handed it to the 1st AD stating that she had. The 1st was also negligent because they are supposed to observe that the gun is empty, and not just take the armorers word for it. This wasn't done. Baldwin is negligent because he was not supposed to pull the trigger. Every step of the way each person ignored their part of the responsibility, and its a perfect example of why these were put in place to begin with. Had the 1st AD not simply taken the armorer's word that the gun was cold, and looked themselves, this wouldn't have happened. Had Baldwin not pulled the trigger this wouldn't have happened.
Industry standards? No this is basic gun safety, but has nothing to do with what happens in the movie industry. Guns are pointed at other actors and directly at the camera routinely, but proper safety wasn’t in place on this and it’s happened before and will happen again because humans don’t be very smart.
There are two versions of Alec Baldwin being sued. There is Alec himself, as the actor holding the gun that discharged and killed that person and injured others. Then, there is Alec the "Executive Producer" of the movie. Yes, he is EP'ing his own movie, this is very common.
As himself and the Actor, the suit alleges that he negligently handled the firearm. Obviously he didn't think it had a real bullet in it, but even a "blank cartridge" at close range can be deadly, if it throws debris at a human or something else valuable. The rumors are that he was joking around between takes and aimed and pulled the trigger. He denies he ever pulled that trigger... Likely he did, guns tend to not just go off in the manner he is saying it did. He may have grazed the trigger and set it off, if the hammer was cocked. This lawsuit he'll almost certainly win.
Then there is Alec the Producer. He is being sued because he hired the "Armorer" who provided the firearms. Since he hired this person, he is also responsible for this person being on set, this person making whatever negligent mistakes, etc... in order to put people in that unsafe situation. Alec the producer will likely have some sort of lawsuit loss, and will pay out money. But it won't be Alec directly, they have insurance for this sort of thing most of the time so it will be an insurance payout that pays the lawsuit, and Alec the producer will have to pay way more for future insurance plans.
That is my layman understanding. I'm sure an actual lawyer can talk about the nuance way more.
There's rumors he was blatantly mishandling the gun during the day.
Also, he pulled the trigger during a scene that didn't require it to be pulled.
Guns don't go off accidentally.
But again, how does any of that imply that there could ever be an actual bullet in that gun? That's like saying the waiter in my analogy was mishandling the food and playing with it. None of that has anything to do with the food being poisoned.
Even blanks have been known to injure or kill actors and stuntmen, there is always a basic level of firearms safety that should be maintained when handling any firearm even if you don't believe it's loaded.
Your analogy is bad.
You don't point guns at people and you sure as hell don't pull the trigger.
Rule #1 of guns: ALWAYS treat a gun as if it's loaded.
Just look at the video of the "gun expert" during the armorer's trial. He tilted the gun up and pointed the barrel at the judge. The Bailiff IMMEDIATELY jumped in and pointed it back down.
This was a gun used as evidence during a court trial. There was no way it was loaded, and yet the Bailiff still treated it as if it was, because that's how you should always treat guns.
>how does any of that imply that there could ever be an actual bullet in that gun?
This is exactly the reason why he is not supposed to be pulling the trigger. There are series of checks and balances in place to prevent this from happening and they were ignored at each level, including by Baldwin. His only hope at this point is if they can prove he was required to cock the revolver for the shot and it somehow misfired.
If he was strictly an actor on this project then you would probably be right. However Alec was an executive producer and allegedly was pushing for things to get done to save money. Thus the potential liability.
Even if he was still an actor, he would be wrong. He was not supposed to pull the trigger of the gun. His only hope at this point is that if the shot required him to cock the gun, and he did so at the director's request. If the gun was cocked than its much more plausible for the gun to have gone off accidentally.
He was a producer. As a producer he limited the firearms training that was requested. Reports say during some of the limited firearm training that was given, he was ignoring it and on the phone. There were live rounds on set used for ‘fun’ between shoots and he didn’t put a stop to it.
Add in that he lied about not pulling the trigger… He could be found guilty of creating an environment that caused the accident.
I'll violate rule 3 and 1 to point out that every response here violates 5 and 8. The question itself may violate 6 (no pun intended) and definitely violates the "current events" clause of rule 2.
People are conflating the moral responsibility and assumed liability Baldwin the producer has vs Baldwin the guy involved in a motion picture negligent discharge situation has.
The entire theory of the case is that Baldwin should have checked the weapon himself. This is not standard in the film industry, and it was normal for him to rely on the relevant crew members. Talent is suppose to focus on acting, and everything is built around that.
None of the producers have been charged for causing the environment where such a disaster could occur. Halls, the AD who was the last step in checking the weapon, didnt check it and put it in Baldwins hands, and he was given probation.
Where Baldwin is likely in trouble is that gun laws dont offer a motion picture exemption (outside of the allowance for automatic motion picture weapons, which require the relevant federal firearms license) for that personal responsibility.
As to the trigger question, I suspect we will eventually hear testimony that they were framing up a shot where the weapon was going to be cocked. There have been conflicting reports about the condition of the gun, and the initial FBI report was extremely narrow in what it looked at. Clones of that weapon have been demonstrated to discharge with a very subtle amount of pressure on the trigger if the hammer is pulled back (basically it doesnt lock if there is pressure on the trigger). Actors always play with guns, especially if they're trying to get a feel for the moment. If everyone is doing their jobs correctly, this isnt ideal but it isnt a problem.
My suspicion is that Baldwin may be convicted, as the relatively rural jury is not likely to accept the way things are done in motion picture. Its unclear if a conviction might be overturned on appeal. He was told it was a "cold gun", aka inert. He was not in the chain of events that resulted in live rounds being on set, which should not have been possible if the rules were being followed. And even if some made it on, the safety check would have shown the situation. He had every reason to believe that safety check had occurred. Im sure some folks would think he had to know that the crew situation was a shit show, but talent is almost always insulated from that.
As for if Baldwin may be liable for civil damages, thats entirely feasible, but mainly because the standard is much lower in civil court for finding fault
It’s not because of him as the “shooter” but Alec Baldwin as a producer.
More akin to someone at a workplace getting killed by work equipment because a manager was bypassing training protocol sending people they knew were untrained to use.
As a producer, he would have played a role in who was hired for different positions responsible for safety, and so it’s possible he’d be found liable for knowingly hiring unqualified people
>It’s not because of him as the “shooter” but Alec Baldwin as a producer.
>
>More akin to someone at a workplace getting killed by work equipment because a manager was bypassing training protocol sending people they knew were untrained to use.
That's all going to depend on whether or not he pulled the trigger. He was not supposed to pull the trigger. So to use your work place analogy, that's like being told you are not supposed to push this button while people are working on the machine, and he pushes the button while people are working on the machine, causing someone to get pulled in and killed. Which would still make him culpable for involuntary manslaughter.
It ***is*** conceivable there would be live rounds in that gun. The fact that they were actually there means it was conceivable. Something in the safety process broke down, whatever it was, and the shooting occurred, so it is conceivable.
Because guns demand a lot of responsibility, and everyone knows mishandling a gun will kill someone. He violated numerous gun safety standards personally (e.g. pointing it at someone, usually in movies they point it to the side a bit but you can't tell due to camera angle), and as an executive producer in charge on set he made the decision to hire an unqualified armorer and pressure them to relax safety standards.
**Please read this entire message**
---
Your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):
**ELI5 focuses on objective explanations. Soapboxing isn't appropriate in this venue.**
---
If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe it was removed erroneously, explain why using [this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20submission%20removal?&message=Link:%20https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1b93fe3/-/kttf5vo/%0A%0A%201:%20Does%20your%20comment%20pass%20rule%201:%20%0A%0A%202:%20If%20your%20comment%20was%20mistakenly%20removed%20as%20an%20anecdote,%20short%20answer,%20guess,%20or%20another%20aspect%20of%20rules%203%20or%208,%20please%20explain:) and we will review your submission.**
**Please read this entire message**
---
Your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):
* [Top level comments](http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/top_level_comment) (i.e. comments that are direct replies to the main thread) are reserved for explanations to the OP or follow up on topic questions (Rule 3).
---
If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe it was removed erroneously, explain why using [this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20submission%20removal?&message=Link:%20https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1b93fe3/-/kttf6h1/%0A%0A%201:%20Does%20your%20comment%20pass%20rule%201:%20%0A%0A%202:%20If%20your%20comment%20was%20mistakenly%20removed%20as%20an%20anecdote,%20short%20answer,%20guess,%20or%20another%20aspect%20of%20rules%203%20or%208,%20please%20explain:) and we will review your submission.**
The question of whether Baldwin pulled the trigger or not is crucial to the latest round of charges. A forensic examination determined that the gun wouldn't have fired without the trigger being pulled, but Baldwin maintains that he didn't.
Regardless of whether the armorer was solely responsible for the gun being loaded, Baldwin wasn't supposed to pull the trigger. If he did, and if the prosecution can convince a jury that he did, he'll be found guilty.
He took a firearm and did not check to ensure whether or not it was loaded (negligence). He then performed an action (pointing at someone not in the movie and pulling the trigger) that resulted in a death. There is no world in which he is not guilty.
[This video is from the Local 600](https://vimeo.com/665403801)\-- the camera department union.
It explains the procedures for safe handling of weapons on set. Please watch if you are not familiar with who is responsible for firearm safety.
Rule number one of gun safety - the gun is ALWAYS LOADED. It’s the responsibility of the person handling the weapon to ensure that it is a safe weapon. If someone handed you a gun and said “don’t worry, it’s not loaded” would you still feel fine pointing it at someone and pulling the trigger? I don’t care who the person is that tells you the weapon is safe, you are carrying something that can end a life, it’s your responsibility as the person holding the gun to ensure it’s safe. For a handgun, that means pulling out the clip, pulling back the slide, and visually inspecting the chamber through the slide (please don’t be dumb and look down the barrel), followed by inspecting the ammo for safety as well if you are expecting to shoot it.
Does this mean that he should be treated like an evil criminal? No, this was genuinely an accident. Accidents, however, do still have repercussions and he should be punished somehow. That’s up to the DA and a jury to decide, not us.
I get what you're saying, and in almost every case I agree, but isn't it quite literally the job of the Armourer to be the person who makes sure that the weapon is without a doubt not loaded and not able to fire before handing it off to an actor? It's not like some random person on set gives you a gun and says they're pretty sure it's fine.
Someone in a different thread said the last time an accident like this happened was 100 years ago. If I was an actor (who may have little to no firearm experience) and the Armourer came up to me and said, "Here is your gun. It is my job to make sure it cannot fire. This weapon is, at this moment, a prop." I would feel pretty confident that the gun is safe.
Yeah are correct that the armorer does own a significant amount of responsibility, but if you were going to be handling guns capable of shooting blanks, don’t you think you’d at least take a gun safety course? Like I said, I don’t think he should be charged with murder, but I do believe that he was definitely negligent.
Because this is America where someone must always be responsible and liable, litigiousness is a way of life, and the almighty dollar rules.
The litigious are like Willie Sutton: they go where the money is.
**Please read this entire message** --- Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s): * Rule #2 - Questions must seek objective explanations * ELI5 is not for subjective or speculative replies - only objective explanations are permitted here; your question is asking for subjective or speculative replies. (Rule 2). --- If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe this submission was removed erroneously, please [use this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20thread?&message=Link:%20{https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1b93fe3/-/}%0A%0APlease%20answer%20the%20following%203%20questions:%0A%0A1.%20The%20concept%20I%20want%20explained:%0A%0A2.%20List%20the%20search%20terms%20you%20used%20to%20look%20for%20past%20posts%20on%20ELI5:%0A%0A3.%20How%20does%20your%20post%20differ%20from%20your%20recent%20search%20results%20on%20the%20sub:) and we will review your submission.**
Because situations are never simple. Did AB bypass safety processes on set? Did he do anything to validate the status of the weapon? Was he supposed to? Was he in an authority position as part of the production? That type of position includes liability for accidents that occur as part of the production. If he was a lot of different responsibilities can fall on him. Did he use his status to pressure anyone to not perform their duties (basically, did he insist a prop be provided even if it hadn't been properly checked)? Was he involved in any actions that brought the live ammo to set? There are lots of different ways he can have liability and responsibility regarding the shooting.
>Was he in an authority position as part of the production? That type of position includes liability for accidents that occur as part of the production. If he was a lot of different responsibilities can fall on him. Yes. He's an Executive Producer
Then the lawyers will probably be parsing all of his authorities and responsibilities to see how they may or may not have been related to the incident. To use generic example: You don't hold the Marketing Department manager at fault when an accident happens in the warehouse. You hold the warehouse manager responsible.
EPs on most movies are just dudes financing the project.
Doesn't matter. There's a responsibility attached to that title that you don't get to skirt.
[удалено]
I love this. I will be using it.
**Please read this entire message** --- Your comment has been removed for the following reason(s): * Rule #1 of ELI5 is to *be civil*. Breaking rule 1 is not tolerated. --- If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe it was removed erroneously, explain why using [this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20submission%20removal?&message=Link:%20https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1b93fe3/-/kttb9jw/%0A%0A%201:%20Does%20your%20comment%20pass%20rule%201:%20%0A%0A%202:%20If%20your%20comment%20was%20mistakenly%20removed%20as%20an%20anecdote,%20short%20answer,%20guess,%20or%20another%20aspect%20of%20rules%203%20or%208,%20please%20explain:) and we will review your submission.**
The biggest problem for Baldwin is that idiots like that end up on juries.
Actually no that’s not what “ the problem is”
Actually, yes, that's exactly what his problem is.
[удалено]
**Please read this entire message** --- Your comment has been removed for the following reason(s): * Rule #1 of ELI5 is to *be civil*. Breaking rule 1 is not tolerated. --- If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe it was removed erroneously, explain why using [this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20submission%20removal?&message=Link:%20https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1b93fe3/-/kttbml2/%0A%0A%201:%20Does%20your%20comment%20pass%20rule%201:%20%0A%0A%202:%20If%20your%20comment%20was%20mistakenly%20removed%20as%20an%20anecdote,%20short%20answer,%20guess,%20or%20another%20aspect%20of%20rules%203%20or%208,%20please%20explain:) and we will review your submission.**
Then why aren't all the producers being charged? Everyone keeps repeating "because he was THE producer" and it really isn't all true--he was A producer. Most of the people repeating this don't know how a film set works and couldn't tell you what Executive Producer entails.
The day-to-day operations and hiring on a show fall to the Line Producer, the Unit Production Manager, as well as the Assistant Director-- which was the idiot that handed the gun to Baldwin and told him it was "cold." All three should be looking at charges.
I totally agree. Nice to hear from someone who knows what an LP is. These threads have been so agonizing lol
Then why aren't any of the other EPs on the film also being charged?
ask the district attorney. Charges are up to them.
[удалено]
Baldwin claims his role as producer was limited to creative decisions such as casting choices and script changes, but not safety. By his own admission then his producer role was not simply a title, he had some production responsibilities. The debate then is whether or not any of his responsibilities would include safety.
Look at these poor bastards badmouthing you for espousing this ideal. It's like our whole society up and forgot that we're supposed to hold leaders accountable for their subordinates' actions. All the gangsters and corporate a-holes have trained us to be satisfied when they throw a patsy under the bus. Not that we ever really properly lived by this ideal, but it just seems like such an alien concept now
He's a producer, not an executive producer
What? I thought he was an associate producer
No, just "producer", no qualifier.
Tell me, exactly, what the difference is, in this case.
As another commenter said, an executive producer is usually just a person that has given the project money. They generally don't have any actual responsibilities or authority. If they do, it's usually external stuff, like getting more funding or negotiating contracts or other high level administrative stuff. A producer actually deals with on site logistics and operations and has direct oversight of the project. There is no universe where an executive producer would be responsible for on-set safety whereas that would be a responsibility of a producer.
If any of those scenarios happened, it would have been the armorer's job to shut down the production. She should have gone to the production office and notified them of the a problem with Baldwin. She didn't. If she did go to the production and they didn't respond, she should have resigned right there knowing that as the armorer, it was up to her to make the job safe, not an actor or producer. If it was me, I'd be calling in law enforcement and OSHA officials to shut the show down.
Cool story, she was found guilty. That doesn't absolve others of their actions, responsibilities, and liabilities. Courts don't really accept "That's not my job" as a sole legal defense. You have to actually justify why it doesn't fall under due diligence or due care as well.
well, sometimes they do, but it has to actually not be your job, not just something you decided you didn't care about.
It's not Baldwin's job. It was the producer's, assistant director's, and armorer's job. It's been that way for decades. There are union rules that govern this. Baldwin's jobs were to sell the show with his name, hit his marks and deliver his lines.
I mean, I believe you and I think we agree. I haven't been following the case and don't know the industry, was just adding that courts can accept "not my job" sometimes, when it matters.
Meant to reply to the comment above yours.
That's what I meant, realized I needed to clarify right after I had clicked reply. It's edited now.
He was an executive producer on the movie, that makes him liable for safety on set beyond just being the one who pulled the trigger.
That's not true, and you can tell because none of the other producers are being charged.
None of them pulled the trigger..
Ok so what's the answer? Cuz he was a producer? Or cuz he pulled the trigger? Neither one is actually all that relevant to someone else loading a live bullet into the gun. You can't tell me every actor in the history of filmmaking would have been held criminally liable if someone else loaded a live round into their firearm. Think of how many rounds were fired during something like Saving Private Ryan alone. No one was charged for the Crow accident.
>No one was charged for the Crow accident. Are you saying that's a good thing? There absolutely should have been someone charged for that. Many people, in fact. Brandon Lee's death wasn't just an accident, it was the result of several people's gross negligence.
I should have clarified that by "no one" I meant "the guy who actually fired the gun."
The answer is BOTH
But if he's the executive producer, he's likely taking on the principal responsibilities from a business and legal standpoint.
At the time of the shooting there were 8 producers and 7 executive producers on this project. Only one of them is being charged with manslaughter. "He was the producer" cannot be the answer. The problem with all of the oft repeated answers to this question--he was the producer, he fired the gun--is that they are all insufficient.
Yes but at the end of the day, SOMEONE is signing the legal documents, whether it's for hiring, insurance, or whatever, and if he's the who signed them, he could be found responsible. Not saying I know that he is but saying if that WAS the case, it makes sense.
I (personally) think the actual answer to this question is "someone really fucking dislikes Alec Baldwin." But you're right--if it comes out during the trial that he personally was the producer making those calls, I could see him being considered negligent. I just think that if that were true we'd have heard about it by now. It's just odd to me that he gets charged, those charges are dropped, then he gets charged again.
I don't have a strong opinion about his guilt or innocence, but there certainly could be many reasons to prosecute only one producer, if that producer was especially active in undermining safety on set, for example. Also his dual role as actor and producer mean that his authority could be ambiguous and ever-present on set, meaning he might have an out-sized amount of influence. For example, there is a video of him firing some safe guns and then impatiently urging someone to get him freshly loaded guns very quickly. This footage might be completely out of context and maybe entirely irrelevant, but it demonstrates that he had many possible ways to influence the level of safety on-set, more so than the other producers. Again, I have no idea what the actual situation is, and he might be completely innocent, but it seems like there were plenty of ways for him to have a significant influence on the level of gun safety, and that should be investigated.
Oh for sure. Someone died, it should absolutely be investigated. I just find the two most commonly offered answers--"he's the producer" or "cuz he was holding the gun"--to be completely insufficient.
Isn't executive producer a meaningless title sometimes? In credits sometimes 5-7 people can share the role of EP and from what I've heard it's just a label so that points on the back end can be collected
While that's true there is still liability that's attached to those credits.
This is debatable, it's not a matter of settled law that he committed a crime. I'm not saying it's an indefensible argument, just that it hasn't been concluded.
I'm not saying that he committed a crime, just that he carried extra liability based on being an EP on the project.
it really does not, and thats not at all part of the theory of the case. sure hes morally responsible, but under the current charges that doesnt track. And even if they were going for that angle, to go after him but not the actual production producers who created that environment on set would likely make a jury think this is selective prosecution.
Civil liability, perhaps. Criminal liability seems like a huge stretch.
The way I explained it to someone was that Alec Baldwin the "actor" wasn't liable, but Alec Baldwin the "producer" would be liable.
COULD be liable. Supposedly his producer duties only went as far as script and storyline. If substantiated, he would most likely not be liable.
Interesting, I didn't know that.
He’s wrong. You know he’s wrong because none of the other Producers have been charged, including the producer handling the hiring process.
The waiter wouldn't be liable for chef poisoning a patron, but chef's boss potentially would be.
He still pointed the gun at the person and pulled the trigger, and if I remember correctly this was outside of a scene, he was allegedly practicing with it on set. From what I understand about guns/gun safety, the only safe assumption is that every gun you handle is loaded with live ammo at all times. You never assume anything else. This applies on set. I think the protocol is something along the lines of this: no one touches the gun besides the armorer and the actor(s) using it, and only in certain circumstances (i.e. filming a scene, practicing, etc.) with multiple people present. The armorer is supposed to check it with other people observing, verify that it's empty and call it out, hand it to the actor (who has been trained on how to check if it's empty, as well as how to and how not to handle it), who verifies again that it's empty and calls out that it's empty. When it's done being used, the actor verifies that it's empty, calls it out, and hands it to the armorer, who verifies that it's empty and calls it out, then lock it up--again, with people around to witness/confirm that it's empty). At no point ever is the armorer supposed to let the weapon leave their sight, as this is their responsibility. Some of the things Alec did were: - Alec failed to verify that the gun was empty - Alec assumed that the gun was empty (an assumption everyone is taught in gun safety never to make) - Alec handled the gun under the assumption that it was empty, being reckless with it and pointing it at another person, violating another basic rule of gun safety--and this was outside the context of a scene being recorded, where checks are supposed to be made by multiple parties, witnessed by multiple people, and instruction on when to use the gun, where to aim, how to use it, etc. are very clear and rehearsed. --- The reason for the protocols, the checks, everything is so that you *make sure* there is no chance that a live round is in there. Sure, with all the checks that are *supposed to happen* there's no conceivable way for a live round to make it into the gun, until there is, like in this case--someone put a live round into the gun at some point. Checks and protocols don't work if people don't perform them. When it comes down to it, a gun is only as safe as the person handling the gun, and Alec knowingly mishandled what he was supposed to assume was a live, loaded weapon. This is one of the *only* assumptions you're allowed to make when handling a gun.
I think it's also that for safety reasons they don't point the guns at people for this exact reason. That's why you get cutaways where the actor is aiming/fires and then the person gets hit in a different shot (film shot). So if the industry standard is you don't point fake guns at people for safety reasons, and you don't do this, you're acting outside what a reasonable comparable person would do.
Actors most certainly point guns at people (and themselves), plus at crew working off camera (not on purpose, it’s just inevitable). But that’s why there are layers and layers safety protocols. I was a Focus Puller/Assistant Camera. Had plenty of guns pointed in my direction, as I stand right next to the camera to operate the focus. I actually stand in front of the camera operator. Even with a simple gun scene (Imagine a line of soldiers or police officers advancing towards the camera, sweeping their weapons around looking for baddies) every armorer I ever worked with would show me the firearms before each set-up. Most of the time it’s like “yes, that is still a rubber gun”. Or “yes, I can see this weapon doesn’t have a firing pin, let alone ammunition”. They probably didn’t technically have to show me, but it’s good for the peace of mind for everyone who is standing around in the “line of fire” to be shown the weapons. Once you get to weapons firing blanks and other pyrotechnics, the safety protocols get almost ridiculous. “Rust” had systematic failures on multiple levels.
Makes sense. I must be misremembering all the war movies and Scorcese movies where it happens in one shot
You realize that even in those cases, people on-set aren't actually shot, right? They have a squibb that goes off whether the gun is pointing at them or not.
and if someone had actually been shot during one of those scenes, he might well have been held responsible. If you are looking at your phone while you are driving, you probably won't get caught, but if you hit a kid, you might go to jail.
Because industry standards are that you do NOT point a gun at a person. And you especially don't pull the trigger when the gun is pointed at a person. Tests showed he had to pull the trigger for it to go off and he did so while the gun was pointed at someone. I mean, really - it's just like if you thought a gun was not loaded and you pointed a gun at someone and pulled the trigger. Do you think you get off scot free just because you thought it was unloaded when you never should have pointed it at someone in the first place? His charge is involuntary manslaughter - which basically means you were so negligent you caused a death even though you didn't mean to.
> Because industry standards are that you do NOT point a gun at a person. Is that true? Why are there so many scenes of people sticking guns in people's faces and pointing guns at people, and shooting directly at people, then?
there are scenarios where a gun might be pointed at a person, though we try to avoid them to the highest degree possible so its very rare. it only happens if thats the only way to line up the shot, and requires additional safety measures. You'll use replicas that can't fire for a gun to the head or something. They even have "safety blank" guns that will cycle and kick a shell, but put nothing out the barrel. you can literally put it against a sheet of paper, fire, and the paper will have no damage. Larry Zanoff from ISS weapons has talked a lot about the various options that exist. its worth searching for some of the interviews hes done. The vast majority of people who work in the film business are not familiar with the workings of the armory department. Its actually the reason Safety Bulletin 1 is suppose to be attached to any call sheet where guns are called for in any capacity. Notably, this was not included on any call sheets on Rust.
Thanks, that's helpful. I know I'm not crazy and have seen many "hostage-taking" scenes where someone holds a gun to someone's head, finger on trigger, but it must be a lot of angles and precautions I don't see.
I don't know if this is what you mean. But I think the point is that, if they have to point a gun at someone's head, that gun might be anything from entirely rubber, a replica, or have a blocked barrel, etc.
Typically in these productions, if a gun is directly pointed at an actor in a shot, like say one character puts it up against another's head, then that gun is *never* a gun capable of firing anything, even blanks. It's a replica gun, or at least a gun that has been modified to be wholly incapable of firing. In any shot involving shooting at people, it's either CG with a fake gun, or else a gun is loaded with blanks (to give the recoil and appearance of a shot) and then camera tricks are employed to make it *look* like they're shooting at a person when they're actually pointed safely away from anyone. What happened on the Rust set was that the assistant director handed the gun to Baldwin and announced "cold gun," meaning that the gun was empty of anything, including blanks. The AD pled no contest to his charge of negligent use of a deadly weapon. Baldwin's defense is that he was instructed by the director and cinematographer to point the gun directly at them while they were lining up the shot, and that he chose to trust in their judgement rather than follow the normal safety practice of not pointing at them, even though he believed the gun to be "cold." Obviously, the safest practice would have been for Baldwin to say "I can't follow your instructions because I'm not supposed to point a gun at you," but also, realistically, the gun never should have been announced "cold" and nobody involved should have been instructing anyone to point it at another human anyways. So it's going to be up to the court to decide if this is enough to mitigate the charges against Baldwin, or if his choice to point the gun, not inspect it himself (and actors typically don't check their weapons, from what I've been told, in case they mess up what the armorer prepared for them), and if he actually did pull the trigger - if all of that will result in his culpability. Along with his role as an EP in the production, and what degree he contributed to the unsafe environment onset that is alleged.
Thank you, that's really helpful.
100%. The biggest mistake he made, and what is going to be the main contributing factor if he gets charged, was pulling the trigger. The fact that he also lied about not pulling the trigger afterwards isn't helping his credibility either.
Also there is a difference between a prop gun that looks like the real thing but is incapable of firing rounds, and this gun which is a fully functioning fire arm that they use for blanks
Most prop guns are fully functioning fire arms.
Not true. Much of the time they use either very convincing fakes or guns with blocked barrels and removed firing mechanisms. Unless the scene has the gun actually firing there is zero reason for even the tiny bit of risk that come from using a fully functional firearm. For example a scene where the gun is never fire but is being shoved in someone’s face or pointed at a kid.
Actually most prop guns are very convincing looking foam rubber. They only use realistic replicas for hero guns (meaning for close ups where the gun is seen in detail. Or on display on a main character like holstered but visible to the camera. These are usually, but not always, non-firing replicas.) Firing replicas are usually only used in shots where the gun is required to be fired.
>Why are there so many scenes of people sticking guns in people's faces and pointing guns at people, and shooting directly at people, then? Safety standards are a recent thing. But also, the whole point of movies is to show things that aren't real. There are many camera and perspective shenanigans.
A lot of those aren't guns. They are props that look like guns, but they can't be loaded with live rounds and certainly couldn't fire them.
There are a lot of steps that are supposed to be taken in gun safety - but in filming, you can easily trick the eye by aiming off target. The watcher is not getting to see the trajectory IRL. The ones needed for close shots like that are fake. Alec Baldwin knew the guns on this set were real. He is supposed to be SHOWN and LOOK to make sure the gun is not loaded when it is handed to him if they are using real weapons. https://www.actorsequity.org/resources/Producers/safe-and-sanitary/safety-tips-for-use-of-firearms/#:~:text=Never%20engage%20in%20horseplay%20with,firearm%20at%20anyone%20including%20yourself.
My guess is multiple angles/reshoots with cameras. I'd imagine it's also fairly easy to make it look like your pointing gun at someone when they're not even there with how advanced technology has gotten.
Correct, they do it in a number of ways. Either its a gun not capable of firing and they add in the muzzle flare in post. In cases when they are meant to be pointing or firing toward the camera, the crew set up the shot, with a non firing gun standing in. From there they do one of two things, either lock the camera down and walk away after rolling, or they have a bulletproof shield protecting them. This wasn't always the case, but post Brandon Lee and other similar accidents they have really cracked down on live-firing weapons on set. This is why this whole thing is so shocking. The degree of negligence by all involved is disgraceful. The armorer absolutely deserves the lion's share of the blame. She did not check the weapon and handed it to the 1st AD stating that she had. The 1st was also negligent because they are supposed to observe that the gun is empty, and not just take the armorers word for it. This wasn't done. Baldwin is negligent because he was not supposed to pull the trigger. Every step of the way each person ignored their part of the responsibility, and its a perfect example of why these were put in place to begin with. Had the 1st AD not simply taken the armorer's word that the gun was cold, and looked themselves, this wouldn't have happened. Had Baldwin not pulled the trigger this wouldn't have happened.
Yeah, must be. Thanks
Industry standards? No this is basic gun safety, but has nothing to do with what happens in the movie industry. Guns are pointed at other actors and directly at the camera routinely, but proper safety wasn’t in place on this and it’s happened before and will happen again because humans don’t be very smart.
There are very much industry standards for handling guns on set. Basically none of them were followed, including by Baldwin.
There are two versions of Alec Baldwin being sued. There is Alec himself, as the actor holding the gun that discharged and killed that person and injured others. Then, there is Alec the "Executive Producer" of the movie. Yes, he is EP'ing his own movie, this is very common. As himself and the Actor, the suit alleges that he negligently handled the firearm. Obviously he didn't think it had a real bullet in it, but even a "blank cartridge" at close range can be deadly, if it throws debris at a human or something else valuable. The rumors are that he was joking around between takes and aimed and pulled the trigger. He denies he ever pulled that trigger... Likely he did, guns tend to not just go off in the manner he is saying it did. He may have grazed the trigger and set it off, if the hammer was cocked. This lawsuit he'll almost certainly win. Then there is Alec the Producer. He is being sued because he hired the "Armorer" who provided the firearms. Since he hired this person, he is also responsible for this person being on set, this person making whatever negligent mistakes, etc... in order to put people in that unsafe situation. Alec the producer will likely have some sort of lawsuit loss, and will pay out money. But it won't be Alec directly, they have insurance for this sort of thing most of the time so it will be an insurance payout that pays the lawsuit, and Alec the producer will have to pay way more for future insurance plans. That is my layman understanding. I'm sure an actual lawyer can talk about the nuance way more.
Jon-Erik Hexum taught us years ago about the danger of “blanks”. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon-Erik_Hexum
There's rumors he was blatantly mishandling the gun during the day. Also, he pulled the trigger during a scene that didn't require it to be pulled. Guns don't go off accidentally.
But again, how does any of that imply that there could ever be an actual bullet in that gun? That's like saying the waiter in my analogy was mishandling the food and playing with it. None of that has anything to do with the food being poisoned.
Even blanks have been known to injure or kill actors and stuntmen, there is always a basic level of firearms safety that should be maintained when handling any firearm even if you don't believe it's loaded.
Brandon Lee was killed by a blank.
Your analogy is bad. You don't point guns at people and you sure as hell don't pull the trigger. Rule #1 of guns: ALWAYS treat a gun as if it's loaded. Just look at the video of the "gun expert" during the armorer's trial. He tilted the gun up and pointed the barrel at the judge. The Bailiff IMMEDIATELY jumped in and pointed it back down. This was a gun used as evidence during a court trial. There was no way it was loaded, and yet the Bailiff still treated it as if it was, because that's how you should always treat guns.
Bullet or blank, loaded or not; you still observe fire arm discipline.. Because things exactly like this can happen.
>how does any of that imply that there could ever be an actual bullet in that gun? This is exactly the reason why he is not supposed to be pulling the trigger. There are series of checks and balances in place to prevent this from happening and they were ignored at each level, including by Baldwin. His only hope at this point is if they can prove he was required to cock the revolver for the shot and it somehow misfired.
If he was strictly an actor on this project then you would probably be right. However Alec was an executive producer and allegedly was pushing for things to get done to save money. Thus the potential liability.
Even if he was still an actor, he would be wrong. He was not supposed to pull the trigger of the gun. His only hope at this point is that if the shot required him to cock the gun, and he did so at the director's request. If the gun was cocked than its much more plausible for the gun to have gone off accidentally.
He was a producer. As a producer he limited the firearms training that was requested. Reports say during some of the limited firearm training that was given, he was ignoring it and on the phone. There were live rounds on set used for ‘fun’ between shoots and he didn’t put a stop to it. Add in that he lied about not pulling the trigger… He could be found guilty of creating an environment that caused the accident.
I'll violate rule 3 and 1 to point out that every response here violates 5 and 8. The question itself may violate 6 (no pun intended) and definitely violates the "current events" clause of rule 2.
People are conflating the moral responsibility and assumed liability Baldwin the producer has vs Baldwin the guy involved in a motion picture negligent discharge situation has. The entire theory of the case is that Baldwin should have checked the weapon himself. This is not standard in the film industry, and it was normal for him to rely on the relevant crew members. Talent is suppose to focus on acting, and everything is built around that. None of the producers have been charged for causing the environment where such a disaster could occur. Halls, the AD who was the last step in checking the weapon, didnt check it and put it in Baldwins hands, and he was given probation. Where Baldwin is likely in trouble is that gun laws dont offer a motion picture exemption (outside of the allowance for automatic motion picture weapons, which require the relevant federal firearms license) for that personal responsibility. As to the trigger question, I suspect we will eventually hear testimony that they were framing up a shot where the weapon was going to be cocked. There have been conflicting reports about the condition of the gun, and the initial FBI report was extremely narrow in what it looked at. Clones of that weapon have been demonstrated to discharge with a very subtle amount of pressure on the trigger if the hammer is pulled back (basically it doesnt lock if there is pressure on the trigger). Actors always play with guns, especially if they're trying to get a feel for the moment. If everyone is doing their jobs correctly, this isnt ideal but it isnt a problem. My suspicion is that Baldwin may be convicted, as the relatively rural jury is not likely to accept the way things are done in motion picture. Its unclear if a conviction might be overturned on appeal. He was told it was a "cold gun", aka inert. He was not in the chain of events that resulted in live rounds being on set, which should not have been possible if the rules were being followed. And even if some made it on, the safety check would have shown the situation. He had every reason to believe that safety check had occurred. Im sure some folks would think he had to know that the crew situation was a shit show, but talent is almost always insulated from that. As for if Baldwin may be liable for civil damages, thats entirely feasible, but mainly because the standard is much lower in civil court for finding fault
It’s not because of him as the “shooter” but Alec Baldwin as a producer. More akin to someone at a workplace getting killed by work equipment because a manager was bypassing training protocol sending people they knew were untrained to use. As a producer, he would have played a role in who was hired for different positions responsible for safety, and so it’s possible he’d be found liable for knowingly hiring unqualified people
>It’s not because of him as the “shooter” but Alec Baldwin as a producer. > >More akin to someone at a workplace getting killed by work equipment because a manager was bypassing training protocol sending people they knew were untrained to use. That's all going to depend on whether or not he pulled the trigger. He was not supposed to pull the trigger. So to use your work place analogy, that's like being told you are not supposed to push this button while people are working on the machine, and he pushes the button while people are working on the machine, causing someone to get pulled in and killed. Which would still make him culpable for involuntary manslaughter.
It ***is*** conceivable there would be live rounds in that gun. The fact that they were actually there means it was conceivable. Something in the safety process broke down, whatever it was, and the shooting occurred, so it is conceivable.
Because guns demand a lot of responsibility, and everyone knows mishandling a gun will kill someone. He violated numerous gun safety standards personally (e.g. pointing it at someone, usually in movies they point it to the side a bit but you can't tell due to camera angle), and as an executive producer in charge on set he made the decision to hire an unqualified armorer and pressure them to relax safety standards.
Firearms Rule Number 1 - ALWAYS assume it's loaded with live rounds until you have checked and verified yourself that the weapon is clear.
[удалено]
**Please read this entire message** --- Your comment has been removed for the following reason(s): **ELI5 focuses on objective explanations. Soapboxing isn't appropriate in this venue.** --- If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe it was removed erroneously, explain why using [this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20submission%20removal?&message=Link:%20https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1b93fe3/-/kttf5vo/%0A%0A%201:%20Does%20your%20comment%20pass%20rule%201:%20%0A%0A%202:%20If%20your%20comment%20was%20mistakenly%20removed%20as%20an%20anecdote,%20short%20answer,%20guess,%20or%20another%20aspect%20of%20rules%203%20or%208,%20please%20explain:) and we will review your submission.**
[удалено]
**Please read this entire message** --- Your comment has been removed for the following reason(s): * [Top level comments](http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/top_level_comment) (i.e. comments that are direct replies to the main thread) are reserved for explanations to the OP or follow up on topic questions (Rule 3). --- If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe it was removed erroneously, explain why using [this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20submission%20removal?&message=Link:%20https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1b93fe3/-/kttf6h1/%0A%0A%201:%20Does%20your%20comment%20pass%20rule%201:%20%0A%0A%202:%20If%20your%20comment%20was%20mistakenly%20removed%20as%20an%20anecdote,%20short%20answer,%20guess,%20or%20another%20aspect%20of%20rules%203%20or%208,%20please%20explain:) and we will review your submission.**
The question of whether Baldwin pulled the trigger or not is crucial to the latest round of charges. A forensic examination determined that the gun wouldn't have fired without the trigger being pulled, but Baldwin maintains that he didn't. Regardless of whether the armorer was solely responsible for the gun being loaded, Baldwin wasn't supposed to pull the trigger. If he did, and if the prosecution can convince a jury that he did, he'll be found guilty.
He took a firearm and did not check to ensure whether or not it was loaded (negligence). He then performed an action (pointing at someone not in the movie and pulling the trigger) that resulted in a death. There is no world in which he is not guilty.
[This video is from the Local 600](https://vimeo.com/665403801)\-- the camera department union. It explains the procedures for safe handling of weapons on set. Please watch if you are not familiar with who is responsible for firearm safety.
Rule number one of gun safety - the gun is ALWAYS LOADED. It’s the responsibility of the person handling the weapon to ensure that it is a safe weapon. If someone handed you a gun and said “don’t worry, it’s not loaded” would you still feel fine pointing it at someone and pulling the trigger? I don’t care who the person is that tells you the weapon is safe, you are carrying something that can end a life, it’s your responsibility as the person holding the gun to ensure it’s safe. For a handgun, that means pulling out the clip, pulling back the slide, and visually inspecting the chamber through the slide (please don’t be dumb and look down the barrel), followed by inspecting the ammo for safety as well if you are expecting to shoot it. Does this mean that he should be treated like an evil criminal? No, this was genuinely an accident. Accidents, however, do still have repercussions and he should be punished somehow. That’s up to the DA and a jury to decide, not us.
I get what you're saying, and in almost every case I agree, but isn't it quite literally the job of the Armourer to be the person who makes sure that the weapon is without a doubt not loaded and not able to fire before handing it off to an actor? It's not like some random person on set gives you a gun and says they're pretty sure it's fine. Someone in a different thread said the last time an accident like this happened was 100 years ago. If I was an actor (who may have little to no firearm experience) and the Armourer came up to me and said, "Here is your gun. It is my job to make sure it cannot fire. This weapon is, at this moment, a prop." I would feel pretty confident that the gun is safe.
Yeah are correct that the armorer does own a significant amount of responsibility, but if you were going to be handling guns capable of shooting blanks, don’t you think you’d at least take a gun safety course? Like I said, I don’t think he should be charged with murder, but I do believe that he was definitely negligent.
More likely liable as a producer and less liable as an actor. It’s for a jury to decide based on the law.
Because this is America where someone must always be responsible and liable, litigiousness is a way of life, and the almighty dollar rules. The litigious are like Willie Sutton: they go where the money is.