this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2024
248 points (97.7% liked)

Movies and TV Shows

2114 readers
31 users here now

A community for entertainment industry news and general discussion about movies and TV shows.

Rules:

  1. Be civil.
  2. Please do not link to pirated content.
  3. No spoilers in the title of submissions. And please use spoiler MarkDown in the body of discussions. This is a courtesy to other users.
  4. Comments solely criticizing headlines and/or journalism will be removed for being off-topic.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 130 points 8 months ago (5 children)

I think its more fair to put the blame on the Armourer than to blame the actor. Still 3 years in American prison is to much to put on someone with no criminal intent. She should be put on home detention or community service for 3 years.

[–] [email protected] 73 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Baldwin was the primary producer on the film and the set conditions had had numerous safety issues up until this point including 3 other firearm misfires. There was a documented safety issue on this set and while Gutierrez-Reed was part of it, the showrunners clearly were too by not taking steps to address it before the tragedy happened.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (4 children)

I don't disagree that he may be civilly liable for the safety conditions in general on the set. I just don't think that his role in this particular case amounts to criminal negligence. From what I have heard, he had every reason to think that his weapon was safe to handle and use. In order to be guilty of manslaughter, you have to act with gross negligence, meaning that you know the risk of harm to another due to your action is real and significant and yet you choose to do the action anyway. In this particular case, he would have reasonably believed that the risk in his actions was essentially none at all.

The negligence was primarily on the armourer and secondarily on the guy who was meant to confirm the armourer (the assistant director? I can't recall), both of whom failed in their basic due diligence and assured the crew and cast that the firearm was safe when it was not.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 8 months ago (1 children)

They had 3 other firearm misfires on this set. That alone is unacceptable, but to assume any weapon on set is safe at this point would be insane.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 8 months ago

So what matters for a manslaughter case is proving with evidence that the defendant was aware of the risk and ignored it. That is simple enough with an armourer who mismanaged rounds and didn't do her due diligence. The very nature of her role, why she was hired, was to be aware of and minimize/eliminate the risks.

In Baldwin's case, you would have to prove that, at the time, he understood that the armourer's work (and the guy checking her work) was untrustworthy, and yet he pulled the trigger anyway. You can argue that he should have known that until you're blue in the face. But a prosecutor would have to prove that he did know that, beyond reasonable doubt. The mental state of the individual determines whether the death they caused was murder, manslaughter, or just an accident beyond their control.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 8 months ago

From what I have heard, he had every reason to think that his weapon was safe to handle and use.

Several members of the crew walked off set earlier that day because safety protocols were not being strictly followed.

Hours before actor Alec Baldwin fatally shot a cinematographer on the New Mexico set of “Rust” with a prop gun, a half-dozen camera crew workers walked off the set to protest working conditions.
...
Safety protocols standard in the industry, including gun inspections, were not strictly followed on the “Rust” set near Santa Fe, the sources said. They said at least one of the camera operators complained last weekend to a production manager about gun safety on the set.

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2021-10-22/alec-baldwin-rust-camera-crew-walked-off-set

[–] [email protected] 11 points 8 months ago

If he were a greenhorn actor on his first day on a non-union set I might give him the benefit of the doubt... But do you know how often an actor handling a firearm gets the full run down on weapon safety procedure in our industry? Every. Single. Production.

Here's what happened in Baldwin's case. He, a seasoned veteran, accepted a weapon from not just an unauthorized person, but a highly visible person on the set. The 1st AD, the guy who handed him the weapon is responsible for enforcing safety on the set in a general sense to protect a production from liability. Everyone on that set who saw that handoff would have known instantly that was an unauthorized handoff because as regular crew the FIRST rule a newbie learns is you NEVER touch other departments stuff EVER. Someone leaves a box of lenses in your way you call someone from camera to pick it up and move it the nessisary three feet out of your way or else you risk being skinned alive.

But here's the thing. Baldwin is a Producer. There is an implicit power balance on set. What happens when the guy with instant hiring and firing power, funding the project and given control of the creative and business aspects of production breaks a rule FLAGRANTLY on the set that even the GREENEST of greenhorns would know. A rule that every one knows because of the high profile deaths that caused those rules to come into being... And the chief onset safety officer charged by the production is the one that is the other half of the transaction? What the absolute fuck do you do?

Do you trust the Production Manager with your complaints? They are the one technically above the 1st AD in charge of Production liability and safety concerns but they are still beholden to the producers. Maybe you could call the Union hotline and get the entire thing shut down? Oh...But this wasn't a union show? Well shit. Well I guess you got to consider taking the hit and quitting because that's basically your only option. This particular production already had union numbers dropping and leaving production to unaddressed and flagrantly ignored safety concerns. Union members are allowed to work for non-union shows but the union safety training is hardcore and union guys know transgressions when they occur. They renew the main bullet points in safety talks every show start of every day of shooting where those safety concerns are likely to come up. After awhile there's some you know by heart. Animals on the set, pyrotechnic safety, spfx weather, car stunts, process car guns... Basic basic shit.

No. Everything about this situation screams to me that this show, this Production team specifically, was fucking dirty. People love to forget that Producers are employers. They focus on all the creative stuff they do forgetting that end of day someone is in charge of providing a safe working environment. The big studios have safety committees and oversight to take the weight off producers, the unions can shut you down for bad practice instantly... On union shows.

But not every show has these mitigating checks to producer power and liability. Particularly non-union gigs. That's the implicit risk of them. Baldwin and every other producer on Rust deserves a slice of the penalty for negligence. They had multiple warning signs and people who took personal financial hits by leaving to protest the culture of safety on their show before this incident because there was no other authority to petition. When there's no other authority to petition congrats, you are liable when you are found guilty of running a worksite that is flagrantly ignoring well trod industry wide safety standards.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago

Yeah, it was an AD. Armourer handed the gun to AD, AD shouted "cold gun" and handed it to Baldwin. Baldwin treated it like a cold gun and got someone killed. AD pleaded guilty.

[–] [email protected] 53 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

I agree. The entire situation is bad, and it's gone on for years. I imagine anyone would have been going through hell all this time if they had any connection to the chain of events. Time in prison is pretty harsh at this point.

Edit. I think blaming Baldwin like they are (her lawyers) is also pretty disgusting. Which actually might have determined the harsh sentence for this lady.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 8 months ago (4 children)

Baldwin is responsible as an executive producer (along with whomever else was producing). It's obvious the armourer was out of her depth and should've never been hired. Not saying she doesn't bear any responsibility, but if you as an employer cut corners to save money, and someone dies because of that, there should be consequences.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 8 months ago (1 children)

That's not what they're arguing though. Read the article. They're arguing he physically pulled the trigger.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I tend to assume an actor's idea of executive producer is doing coke in his trailer and making a phone call before filming.

To be fair, I also assume that's what real executive producers do, minus the filming.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

She learned how to be an armourer from her dad and it seems like he was the one who provided her a live round. She had no idea what she was doing, he's a bad armourer and a bad parent who raised and taught another bad armourer.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I don't disagree that he may be civilly liable for the safety conditions in general on the set. I just don't think that his role in this particular case amounts to criminal negligence. From what I have heard, he had every reason to think that his weapon was safe to handle and use. In order to be guilty of manslaughter, you have to act with gross negligence, meaning that you know the risk of harm to another due to your action is real and significant and yet you choose to do the action anyway. In this particular case, he would have reasonably believed that the risk in his actions was essentially none at all.

The negligence was primarily on the armourer and secondarily on the guy who was meant to confirm the armourer (the assistant director? I can't recall), both of whom failed in their basic due diligence and assured the crew and cast that the firearm was safe when it was not.

[–] [email protected] 52 points 8 months ago

Sentencing hasn't happened yet, three years is the maximum sentence possible.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 8 months ago

Actors literally get paid to point guns at each other, handle them unsafely, and click the trigger.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Could be mistaken, but I think people were going after Baldwin for this because he was a producer? As in, he funded and hired the armourer so ultimately it was his fault.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

No, they're blaming him for physically pointing the gun.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 8 months ago

Average Joe because he pulled the trigger.
The prosecutor because he was the one on site, in charge, and allowed unsafe conditions to persist even after many employees walked out due to the dangerous conditions.