How is Alec Baldwin at fault?

[OddBeMe]

Unless he knew the gun had a real bullet in it... Which wouldn't be kept a secret by the DA's.

He expected a prop gun to not be real, and just have blanks. Right? Unless its maybe because he financed the movie and hired bad prop guys? Which did happen.

Updates

+1 y

Interesting article featuring other actors perspectives:
www.yahoo.com/.../...s-check-actors-150859738.html

[susie22]

Yes, both he and the person in charge of the weapons are at fault. My dad's a Navy SEAL, so I know a bit about firearms, and the first rule is to be 100% certain you know the weapon, is it loaded, if so live or blank round, and you NEVER point a loaded weapon at anyone unless you're willing to accept the consequences if you fire. There were numerous mistakes made, and now a woman just doing her job is dead, leaving a husband and child behind. With his influence and money, he will probably get a very small punishment, but he will have to live with this for the rest of his life.

[OddBeMe]

Absolutely agree. But as a guy on film sets, you have people supplying you “cold” guns as in props. Now if Baldwin hired that idiot armorer who brought live rounds to set then good, he should be charged with negligence.

But as an actor, you do what you’re directed. Take the prop pistol. It’s cold (as in blanks). Aim it at the camera. Pull the trigger.

Also, I can’t personally tell the difference between blanks and real bullets. Not.22’s. They’re practically identical.

[EbeneezerGoode]

But yeah he's basically gonna' get away with it unfortunately.

[Msputiton]

We weren't there. A person's life is gone.

Him going to trial doesn't mean he is guilty.

The investigation was done they felt enough evidence was found to say he should go to trial.

The trial will tell us what evidence was found.

Until then anything any of us says is just a guess as to why they felt he should be sent to trial

[OddBeMe]

You know, you’re very true.

[FilmGuy93]

This is a MAJOR gun safety thing. Even if he was reasonable in assuming that the gun had blanks; you never point a weapon at anything you aren't willing to shoot, specifically because blanks hurt people all the time. Besides, it is standard gun operation protocol to ALWAYS independently verify that the gun chamber is empty when you pick it up.

Alec was 10,000% at fault there. There is no reason he should have been pointing that gun at anyone, and certainly not if he checked the weapon, per gun safety protocal.

[msc545]

Would he be expected to know the difference between a live round and a blank just by looking? Is that part of his job as an actor?

[FilmGuy93]

@msc545 not as an actor, no. Film sets with guns have a master of arms, whose entire job it is to handle and ensure the safe use of the weapons on set. Alec's job ended with double checking the gun, and not pointing it anyone until he was 100% certain that the weapon was safe.

Apparently, the crew was firing those weapons with live rounds to blow off steam during off hours, so the fact the weapon might have ammunition in it should have been treated more seriously than it was. The Master of Arms, knowing how the weapons were being used, should have cleared the gun before handing it to Alec.

[msc545]

How would he have checked the gun, and what should he have done to be sure it was safe?

[FilmGuy93]

@msc545 I had to double check the story, just to make sure I had the right gun in mind. The gun in question was a colt revolver. The way to check if anything was in the gun would be to simply pop out the cylinder and look at the chambers. Alec would have to pop the cartidges out to identify the kind of ammunition inside. www.koat.com/.../42578415

[msc545]

Would he be competent to identify the ammunition? He is an actor.

[FilmGuy93]

@msc545 if he popped the rounds out of the gun, I would think so.

[msc545]

why would he know that - it is sort of random knowledge.

[FilmGuy93]

@msc545 Blanks are crimped in on themselves, so it's not hard to tell. And anyway, that's not even a relevant point, because the thing Alec definitely would have known how to do is see whether anything was in the gun at all, at which time he would have known not point the gun at people because blanks have killed people on set before.

[msc545]

Ok I guess we will see

[OddBeMe]

I’ve seen some blank rounds that look pretty identical to.22 rounds. Just saying. And actors are told what to do on set.

If Baldwin hired the shit armorer who brought live rounds to a movie set, that’s a different story.

[msc545]

I'm not sure if he hired or not but assuming he did that raises the question as to whether or not he would be even competent to evaluate her qualifications appropriately. In Hollywood at least it has a lot more to do with who you know as opposed to what you know and that may have been what happened with this armorer.

[FilmGuy93]

@msc545 You guys are getting caught up on the wrong parts of the equation. We don't need to speculate about anything; all we need to know is that Baldwin could be reasonably expected to know that he shouldn't have been pointing and squeezing the trigger of a firearm at another humanbeing without independently verifying that the firearm was empty. THAT is where the crime happened. Once you pick up a gun, you're responsible for what happens to it.

[msc545]

I don't think there's any law that says that anytime you pick up a gun you have to check to see if it's loaded or not. Additionally, if you've hired somebody who is supposedly well qualified to hand you a gun that won't hurt anyone you are entitled to rely on that representation.

[msc545]

I'm going to make a prediction at this point since here is such disagreement about this. I predict that Baldwin will be found not guilty and that the armor will be found guilty.

[FilmGuy93]

@msc545 There is kind of a law that says that, actually. It's not statutory. In torts law, we have something called "abnormally dangerous activities," of which possession of a gun is considered to be one such activity. An abnormally dangerous activity automatically assigns the person doing the activity with responsibility for whatever consequences stem from them doing the activity because of how likely they are to result in harm to bystanders. Strict liability would apply to Baldwin and the Master of Arms.

[msc545]

It seems a bit unclear as to whether or not handling a pistol would be considered an "abnormAlly dangerous activity" -

chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/.../viewcontent.cgi

Do you have any caselaw that supports that it would or would not?

[FilmGuy93]

@msc545 Yeah! The cases I would point you to are Great Am. Insurance v. Heneghan plus.lexis.com/.../?context=1530671 and Miller v. Civil Constructors plus.lexis.com/.../?context=1530671 .

Anytime you're assigning tortious liability, you have to do an analysis of the full circumstances in which an accident happened. P-22 of the first link gives you a breakdown of the factors the court uses to identify when a behvior would require strict liability.

[msc545]

Hm. I don't have a login for Lexus sadly. is there another way to view those cases?

[bamesjond0069]

Well he's supposed to check the gun. If I hand you a loaded gun and say it's not loaded and you shoot someone, it's your fault. If I hand you a knife and I say it's dull and you stab someone it's your fault. I mean if you're going to use it on someone it's your responsibility.

That being said to everyone saying he's a dumb actor. 1. I'm sure he's not because he's had gun training for using guns on set before. 2. He hired the person supposed to check it for him.

He is responsible one way or another 100%

[OddBeMe]

Responsible in knowing the difference between live rounds and blanks?

[msc545]

No he is not had gun training as you put it. Just because he's an actor and he's used prop guns on sets does not mean anybody paid for gun training for him or he took the time to get gun training. You don't need gun training to use guns in a movie.

[bamesjond0069]

@msc545 he wasn't using a prop gun. He was using a real gun no different than purchased from a local gun shop.

[msc545]

It was not supposed to have live rounds in it, and it was not part of his job to load it or to check it. that is what an armorer is for.

[bamesjond0069]

@msc545 so I can hire Joe to hand me a loaded gun and say it's not loaded from the gun shop and shoot my neighbor and kill him... and it's not my fault? Using fancy words and having a camera record the situation doesn't make it not my fault anymore than this situation.

[msc545]

No, you would need to hire a qualified expert in a commercial situation like this one. The armorer they hired was qualified but inexperienced apparently.

[bamesjond0069]

@msc545 how could someone with no experience be qualified? Smh.

[bamesjond0069]

The guy at the gun range seems experienced. But surely he's totally unqualified.

[msc545]

How do you know he's had any gun training?

[bamesjond0069]

@msc545 because how does he even know how to properly hold a gun? Someone showed him a few things. He is playing with a real gun. And is that an excuse if a 18 year old shot your family member and said "well I was never trained so how do I know these are real bullets?"

[OddBeMe]

If he was told it was a gun with blanks and the director told him to fire at the camera…id say that’s not responsible.

[bamesjond0069]

So if a man shoots your family member dead its not his fault if someone said the gun on the wall is unloaded and he just pulls it down, aims it at your mama and shoots. Totally innocent?

[OddBeMe]

You’re missing some details. An “expert” armorer told him the gun was cold…as in blanks or unloaded, and the director said to shoot toward the camera.

If I told you the gun on the wall was unloaded. Shoot it at my grandma and you did and she was shot…I don’t see how that’s your fault.

[bamesjond0069]

Well then you should petition for a change of the law. Currently the person pulling the trigger is always responsible for the outcome. Therefore according to the law as it's existed for a long time and all people in jail in accordance with the law, Baldwin is clearly at fault.

Even if you change the law. He would civilly be at fault for significant monetary damages since it's his production and he hired the armorer and he pulled the trigger... there is nobody more responsible for the outcome other than himself. You can't hire yourself out of responsibility. If I'm legally responsible to whatever move a pile of dirt and you pay me to do it... now I hire Joe's dirt moving company and they make a mess of it, don't move it, knock it into your house, I'm responsible for the outcome still and can be sued and should be held accountable.

[msc545]

inexperienced is not the same as "no experience". READ before posting.

[bamesjond0069]

@msc545 wrong post. Nobody said this here.

[msc545]

So I see. this whole post is a mess!

[dustybiker]

Rather a big mistake to pass by too many people.. and straight through another. That can’t be repeated. Everyone who played a part in this needs to be held responsible in some way.

[OddBeMe]

Sure, but we’re not the gestapo. We need to analyze each persons role. I don’t know the ins and outs. But I’ve been on sets and actors are told what to do. Take this prop gun, aim it at the camera, pull trigger when I say “action”.

[dustybiker]

In reality.. wouldn’t you ask questions about the prop? There is a helluva lot of down time in between takes

[dustybiker]

A gun seems like entertainment to me. Seen them turn men into boys.

[OddBeMe]

I guess when I’ve been the errand boy so much is happening. Actors are focused on what the director or cinematopgher says. But again, he’s Alec Baldwin. Maybe the DA has sometching more than I know.

[dustybiker]

Good point.

[Sevenpointfive]

real guns and bullets are on sets all of the time. it's up to the set guys to ensure that they are used correctly.

i don't know why real ammo is used on sets. it makes zero sense

[OddBeMe]

Actually they’re not. NEVER are live rounds to be a mile near blanks as they look similar. They’re supposed to since they’re sometimes filmed in close up.

[exitseven]

He was the one that pulled the trigger without first inspecting the gun. Everybody knows that nobody does their job anymore. He has been around long enough to know thst.

[OddBeMe]

Can you tell the difference between blanks and live rounds? I have both in my house right now and they look similar.

[exitseven]

I have just started training with firearms. I guess I need to get some blanks and try them out. there has to be a way that visual inspection will tell you which one is a live round.

[OddBeMe]

I'm sure experts could. I'm not one. I'm just not dumb enough to bring live rounds to a movie shoot. Thats idiotic beyond belief. But Baldwin will have the best lawyers to argue this I'm sure.

[exitseven]

yes, he will get off with no jail time.

[msc545]

I would be curious to know under what legal theory or logic he is deemed responsible. Maybe one of the lawyers on here can explain this?

[ChefPapiChulo]

reckless homicide.