Alec Baldwin update

Status
Not open for further replies.
Last edited:
I do love that movie. Especially because that while done in a humorous fashion the movie is full of many valid points about how our legal system works and how evidence can be presented appearing to be one thing but can actually be something else, when looked at completely and with full context.

And full context with all relevant details is something we do not yet have with the Baldwin case. Though we are currently doing a fine job chasing around the "what should have happened" and "who is responsible for what, and how much" ideas. There are many points where the currently available information and our various ideas simply don't match up well, if at all.

SOME of them seem to be contradictory. Baldwin asserts that while he did cock the hammer, he did NOT pull the trigger. The FBI report says the gun could not fire without the trigger being pulled, if it was in proper working order (not broken). Was the gun broken?? We don't know, and so far, no one has said. And, that just one point.

No one has been able to tell us what the other rounds in the gun were. Possibly no one ever will, but I think someone knows. But its also possible that who ever unloaded the gun before the cops got there doesn't know the difference between live rounds and dummies/blanks. Was it the armorer who unloaded the gun? Someone else??

We know the designated armorer was not on the set when the accident happened. Was she summoned to the set afterwards? Did she get there before, or after the police??? or did she even get there at all? Another "tiny" detail not yet mentioned (or if so, I missed it)

The general chain of events is clear, but the details are not, particularly alot of who did (and did not) do what, when. This is understandable, considering that since there was a death and injury involved some people are keeping their mouths shut about it, until/unless they get called to testify.

Baldwin himself doesn't seem to be one of those people...:rolleyes:
 
However, her chain of command may have stretched her too thin,or undermined and disempowered her
Click to expand...
I expect that this was likely the case. It may be that the armorer's biggest mistake is not quitting with the others when safety protocol was not being followed.
 
Someone put the live bullets in that gun. That someone knows who he is and I'd bet that others know who that is as well.
 
Someone put the live bullets in that gun. That someone knows who he is and I'd bet that others know who that is as well.
Click to expand...

I agree. We know at least ONE live round was in the gun, because it fired. The rest is not yet clear. The problem we have is that there is no chain of custody before the deputies took posession of the gun and ammo after the accident.

Lots of things are being said, few are verifiable facts, at this time.

Were there other rounds in the gun at all?? we don't know.
IF there were, what were they? We don't know.
From what I've heard, someone unloaded the gun (for safety, obviously..:rolleyes:) BEFORE the deputies arrived and what they got was an unloaded pistol and a box with both live and dummy/blanks in it.

It is possible someone intentionally put a (or several) live rounds in the gun with the intent of causing an accident on the set. That would be criminal intent. Anyone who did that would almost certainly try and hide that fact.

It is also possible, since we have been told that the guns were often used for plinking that the gun was loaded for that, and somehow got left loaded, and wound up on the set in that condition, and the person who loaded it (and didn't unload it) might have had no idea it would wind up loaded on the set.

We don't know. What we do know is that the armorer has stated that she didn't load the gun, or put it on the set, she wasn't even on the set when it happened.

Which means someone(s) who were not authorized, did it. Maybe they were able to do it because the armorer failed to have them properly secured. Maybe not. Maybe management instructed someone to go get the guns and put them on the set, intentionally choosing to bypass the armorer, to save time. We don't know. Maybe some other combination of things happened. We don't know, YET....

I hope we can find out, but I expect there will be some details we'll never know with certainty.

Virtually every accident is a chain of events, some small some not, building on each other until the very last one triggers the accident.

Until we know, in detail, and with certainty what happened, when, and why, its tough to create a valid "lessons learned" and change things to prevent a repeat of the same accident somewhere else.

It may eventually be decided that some practices need to be changed to increase safety. It may be decided that existing practices are adequate and what needs to be done is to ensure adequate implementation of existing standards. That would be a management responsibility. As I see it, in this case we have both, failure by individuals and failure by management.

How much of the responsibility goes where, in the legal sense, will be determined by a jury, if it goes that far.
 
Perhaps we should take a step back and recap what we do know:

1. Alec Baldwin shot two people with a prop gun that was loaded with live ammunition.

2. The Armorer was not present when this incident occurred.

3. Baldwin very publicly claimed that he did not pull the trigger of the gun

4. The FBI examined the gun and found it to be in perfect working order which mean that, it order for it to fire, the trigger had to be pulled.

As to point number one, I think someone will have to answer for the fact that there was live ammunition even present, much less loaded into a gun, while filming was taking place. It is my understanding that the use of functional guns and even blanks is becoming increasingly rare in the film industry in favor of dummy guns (which cannot even be loaded with blanks or live ammunition) and the editing in of report and muzzle flash with CGI due to accidents like the death of Brandon Lee during filming of The Crow. With that becoming the industry norm, the fact that live ammunition was even on the set seems very irregular and irresponsible to me which leads me to point number two.

The armorer not being present while guns are being handled and filming is taking place seems very irregular and irresponsible to me. Considering that it is the armorer's primary purpose on set to ensure safety when guns are being used, why in the heck is anybody even touching a gun when she's not there? Some have suggested that the guns should have been locked up when the armorer was away, but do we know that to be standard and accepted practice on a movie set or are the cast and crew simply expected to act like responsible adults and not touch what they aren't supposed to until the armorer gives them the clear to do so. I work in a hospital and I could easily access all sorts of instruments and equipment that I'm in no way qualified to use, but I'm expected to be intelligent and professional enough to remember what is within my scope of practice. I think that a very important detail will be who made the decision to film a scene in which guns were handled in the absence of the armorer and why, if that decision was not made by Baldwin himself, did Baldwin not exercise his authority as producer to veto such an unsafe practice.

Points three and four kind of roll in together so I'll discuss them together. Why did Baldwin immediately and very publicly claim that he didn't pull the trigger when we now know that, in fact, he did? There are only two explanations for this that I can come up with: either Baldwin pulled the trigger unintentionally and did not realize that he did so or, more likely, he knew damn well that he pulled the trigger and lied to deflect blame from himself. Given the gross deviations from what would seem to be industry standard safety protocols outlined above, Baldwin, in his role as producer, was grossly negligent, horribly incompetent, or both. Given his level of negligence/incompetence as a producer, should it be any surprise that he would also be negligent and/or incompetent in his gun handling as an actor? In light of Baldwin's long career as an actor and his very public character flaws, I'm not very inclined to take him at his word about much of anything.
 
"There are only two explanations for this that I can come up with: either Baldwin pulled the trigger unintentionally and did not realize that he did so or, more likely, he knew damn well that he pulled the trigger and lied to deflect blame from himself."

You make a very interesting point about the unintentional pulling of the trigger. I'm reasonably familiar with the Colt style single action revolver. I have one, a 4.75" gun that some IDIOT decided to set up for fast draw. That gun is a very dangerous piece of equipment. Trigger pull is so light I can't measure it. All my others have pulls measured literally in pounds. One gun is dated to 1908 and it has roughly a 5 pound pull as to the several third generation guns I have The only one that I've never cocked or fired is a third generation in .44 Special. It's NIB and AFAIK, the cylinder has never been turned.All the rest of my Colts are chambered to the .45 Colt round.

I guess none of what I said really answers the question, did he pull the trigger or was it an accidental pull of the trigger that his mind refuses to accept. I can easily make the boogered up Colt misbehave and have the hammer drop with ease but absolutely none of my "unaltered" Colts will do that. They're strictly stock.
Paul B.
 
I generally agree with you Webleymkv, but I think a few of your points should be reworded to reduce the possibility of confusion due to the usual implications of some terms.

1. Alec Baldwin shot two people with a prop gun that was loaded with live ammunition.
Click to expand...

Essentially true, but the gun only fired once. The bullet struck one person (killing her) and then struck a man behind her, wounding him. Baldwin did not "shoot two people" the way that phrase makes one think, the gun fired once, and two people were struck by the bullet.

Second point is "prop gun". Prop gun makes most people think of a realistic looking but non functional item, a movie prop. This was a real functional firearm being used as a movie prop. Small matter to be sure, but there is a difference.

4. The FBI examined the gun and found it to be in perfect working order which mean that, it order for it to fire, the trigger had to be pulled.
Click to expand...

This is not yet 100% clear, as we do not yet have the entire FBI report text available to us. What we have are "details" that were leaked to the press, and we also have somewhat conflicting information from Baldwin's lawyers.

The lawyers claim the gun was broken (or that the FBI broke it during testing) And the FBI had to fix it in order to test it. At this point, we don't know the actual truth or what language is actually in the FBI report.

Certainly I agree that a Colt style SA revolver, in proper working condition and cocked, will not fire without the trigger being pulled. (it will fire if the hammer is struck when down on a live round, but that was not the case on the Rust movie set)

The armorer not being present while guns are being handled and filming is taking place seems very irregular and irresponsible to me.
Click to expand...

It does, to me as well. Do note, however that the current information available to us at this time says that while the shooting did happen on the set, filming was not taking place. They were not filming a scripted scene, they were, supposedly doing "set up/prep work" to see what actor positions, camera angles and lighting would look best for an upcoming scene.

In other words, they were goofing around on the set, looking for what the Director liked best. Not scripted, so one can only consider it "improv".

and also consider Baldwin's "I didn't pull the trigger" might actually be true. He MIGHT NOT have "pulled" the trigger. He does admit to cocking the hammer. It is possible that he MIGHT have been holding the gun in such a way that he was holding the trigger back the entire time. It IS possible to do that.

IF that is what he did, then he didn't "pull the trigger" to fire the shot, and so would be certain he didn't pull the trigger. But if he was holding the gun so that he was holding the trigger back, then he DID pull the trigger when he picked up the gun, an kept it pulled, and so when he released the hammer, the gun (in proper working order) WOULD FIRE!

Its possible, but I think it more likely that he did pull the trigger and just doesn't have a memory of doing so, and therefore is convinced he didn't.

Accidently shooting someone is a very traumatic event. And the docs will tell you that it is not at all uncommon for someone to misremember or not remember small details due to the trauma of the event.

so, Baldwin may be telling the honest truth as he believes it, OR he may be a lying sack of snake ...skin trying to avoid being held accountable for something he knows he did.

As the saying goes...
"the jury is still out, on that one...."
 
IMO, the entire "Did he pull the trigger?" issue is a red herring.Its a deflection to place responsibility on the gun, and excuse Baldwin. I really don't care if he pulled the trigger. I doubt his finger was outside the trigger guard.

The responsibility will be found in the root cause or causes.

Had the "Rust" production adhered to the Movie Industry Firearm safety guidelines,this never would have happened.

Critical decisions were made to NOT follow safety guidelines.That starts at the top. The chain of negligence flows from there.

Who had the Power to Prevent the shooting?
 
Originally posted by 44 AMP
Quote:
1. Alec Baldwin shot two people with a prop gun that was loaded with live ammunition.
Essentially true, but the gun only fired once. The bullet struck one person (killing her) and then struck a man behind her, wounding him. Baldwin did not "shoot two people" the way that phrase makes one think, the gun fired once, and two people were struck by the bullet.

Second point is "prop gun". Prop gun makes most people think of a realistic looking but non functional item, a movie prop. This was a real functional firearm being used as a movie prop. Small matter to be sure, but there is a difference.
Click to expand...

Fair point, I couldn't remember at the time I posted how many shots Baldwin fired, hence why I worded it the way I did. Thank you for the clarification that he only fired one shot.

I referred to the gun as a prop gun to make light of what its intended purpose was. Perhaps a better way to word it would be "a gun being used as a prop".

Quote:
4. The FBI examined the gun and found it to be in perfect working order which mean that, it order for it to fire, the trigger had to be pulled.
This is not yet 100% clear, as we do not yet have the entire FBI report text available to us. What we have are "details" that were leaked to the press, and we also have somewhat conflicting information from Baldwin's lawyers.

The lawyers claim the gun was broken (or that the FBI broke it during testing) And the FBI had to fix it in order to test it. At this point, we don't know the actual truth or what language is actually in the FBI report.

Certainly I agree that a Colt style SA revolver, in proper working condition and cocked, will not fire without the trigger being pulled. (it will fire if the hammer is struck when down on a live round, but that was not the case on the Rust movie set)
Click to expand...

I didn't realize that the reporting was so vague. That being said, if the gun were in such poor condition that it was capable of firing without the trigger being pulled, someone has a lot to answer for as to why an unsafe piece of equipment was still being used rather than repaired or replaced.

Quote:
The armorer not being present while guns are being handled and filming is taking place seems very irregular and irresponsible to me.
It does, to me as well. Do note, however that the current information available to us at this time says that while the shooting did happen on the set, filming was not taking place. They were not filming a scripted scene, they were, supposedly doing "set up/prep work" to see what actor positions, camera angles and lighting would look best for an upcoming scene.

In other words, they were goofing around on the set, looking for what the Director liked best. Not scripted, so one can only consider it "improv".
Click to expand...

Regardless as to whether they were shooting a scripted scene or "goofing around on set" as you put it, I still this it irregular and irresponsible that functional firearms were being handled without the armorer present. It really doesn't make any difference what they were doing with the guns, they shouldn't have been messed with without the armorer present and whoever made the decision to do so was, IMHO, negligent.

IF that is what he did, then he didn't "pull the trigger" to fire the shot, and so would be certain he didn't pull the trigger. But if he was holding the gun so that he was holding the trigger back, then he DID pull the trigger when he picked up the gun, an kept it pulled, and so when he released the hammer, the gun (in proper working order) WOULD FIRE!

Its possible, but I think it more likely that he did pull the trigger and just doesn't have a memory of doing so, and therefore is convinced he didn't.

Accidently shooting someone is a very traumatic event. And the docs will tell you that it is not at all uncommon for someone to misremember or not remember small details due to the trauma of the event.
Click to expand...

I guess it depends on what your definition of "pulling the trigger" is. Regardless of whether Baldwin pulled the trigger before or after he cocked the hammer, the gun would still fire either way if in proper working order. To me, the significance of the "did he or didn't he pull the trigger" issue is one of whether the gun fired because it was defective/worn/broken or because Baldwin handled it unsafely.

so, Baldwin may be telling the honest truth as he believes it, OR he may be a lying sack of snake ...skin trying to avoid being held accountable for something he knows he did.

As the saying goes...
"the jury is still out, on that one...."
Click to expand...

I agree it's possible that Baldwin didn't pull the trigger or doesn't remember pulling the trigger, but his very quick, public, and adamant denial of doing so seems suspicious to me, kind of like the the lady who screams "I'm not a whore" every time someone looks at her sideways. Given Baldwin's very deep and public character flaws in the past, his TV interview claiming that he "absolutely did not pull the trigger" seems more a case of trying to get out ahead of things and shift the blame off himself, classic CYA maneuver.

Really though, it's all a moot point because where I see Baldwin's real culpability here is not in his role as an actor or even in his gun safety skills (or lack thereof), but rather in his role as the producer. The fact of the matter is that live ammunition was on set where it should not have been and guns were being handled by people who, in hindsight, were unqualified to do so without the armorer present. As the producer, it is Baldwin's responsibility to maintain safe working conditions on set and he allowed multiple conditions that he knew or reasonably should have known were unsafe and not consistent with accepted industry standards to proceed.
 
mehavey, I get it. I understand YOUR point of view. Generally,I agree with you on this matter in most contexts.
For myself.in my world ,I accept that I am responsible for any gun in my hand,any bullet I launch, and beyond that,safe storage of my firearms. I can be 10 miles away from ANY firearm and if an 9 year old shoots someone with my gun,who is responsible?
Will you say the 9 year old? Does that get me,the gun owner off the hook?

After all,the 9 year old was the last person to hold the gun,Period!

What? Are you sputtering? Now,what if I am teaching a 9 year old to shoot and we are on the firing line,
The 9 year old swings the muzzle and shoots me. Who is 100% responsible,Period!! The kid? Or me,the coach?

I get it,you are apparently either a real lawyer or a you tube lawyer. Who else is 100% responsible,Period, for twisting our legal system into a mess?

Now.my apologies in advance to the cast of Gilligan's Island. Maybe they were all firearms competent. For illustrative purposes, lets assume thet were as firearms competent as an untrained 9 year old kid.

And lets assume the writers came up with a script that required everyone on the cast of Gilligans Island to fend off Pirates with guns.

Or,dream up a script where Alan Alda and Hot Lips are repelling a North Korean attack on MASH using guns.

It would be negligent and stupid to abdicate responsibility for safety to whoever is holding a gun. These are not "Gun Culture" people. The Movie Industry situationally puts the gun in their hand,and the Movie Industry is responsible for assuring safe practices.

If some wannabe producer/director chooses to ignore safe practices, does that make Hot Lips or Gilligan or a 9 year old kid responsible if sloppy management hands them a loaded gun and tells them to shoot the cinematographer?

If an Actor indepenently opened the loading gate and started monkeying with the dummu or blank rounds, Its time to blow the whistle and stop everything. While the actors,directors,and anyone else on set can WITNESS the Armorer doing their job, ONLY the Armorer inserts the rounds into the cylinder. Then it is "Do Not Tamper" Period.

Its been said by a few moderators,Mehavey. You are wrong,Period!

But,you can go ahead and be wrong.

Imagine Gilligan with an M-3 Grease gun! Budda-Budda-Budda! OOps! Skipper! I didn't mean to!!
 
you are apparently either a real lawyer or a you tube lawyer.
Who else is 100% responsible,Period, for twisting our legal
system into a mess?
Click to expand...
That is the single dumbest thing yet said,

And adult male picks up a gun
Does not check it for ammunition.
Points it at two human beings...
and fires it.

But Oh nooooo.... he's not responsible.
Instead we go into comparisons to a 9-year old

It's everyone else's fault.

Absolutely Classic.






My apologies to all those offended by my simple-minded engineering cause & effect logic of first & last man
in the chain/64-year old adult male being responsible -- from literal start (as producer/actor) to actual shooter.

post script: `Don't think I'd pass voir dire on this
 
Last edited:
If this discussion continues to include snide personal comments, it will be closed. Please don't make me regret that I opened this discussion.
 
Before we get too far off into the weeds (if we aren't already :rolleyes:)..

The facts we have, that are NOT in dispute, are fairly simple. Proper safe gun handling rules were NOT followed. INDUSTRY standard safe gun handling rules for firearms on set WERE NOT FOLLOWED.

The gun was in Baldwin's hands when it fired. He, and only he was responsible for where it was pointed.

I don't think he's the ONLY person responsible, but he was the last link in the chain of events that could possibly have prevented death and injury.

Does he get absolution from all responsibility, because "I didn't pull the trigger" or because he's an actor who get to WORK under different rules than the rest of us? Because he didn't believe the gun was loaded?? or any other reason??

Not in my book.

The press is saying the shooting has been ruled an accident. We'll see where it goes from here...
 
As to the condition of the gun, I think I could assemble a committee from this board more knowledgeable on the single action Revolver than the FBI.
 
You probably could, after all, many of us here are enthusiasts with decades of experience.

The thing, at this point, is, that we don't actually KNOW what the FBI said in their report. All we have is what some news people SAY the FBI said in their report. And the accuracy of the news reports and "leaks" are, and should always be suspect.

Personally, I'm pretty sure that even the FBI can figure out if a single action revolver is in proper working condition, or not. Whether they state that, in language that cannot be misconstrued, is a different matter....:rolleyes:

It is rather rare, these days to find any lab/technical expert, etc. who will state flatly and categorically what something they tested is, or isn't.

The usual language used is the "wiggle" where they state that their results "are consistent with".... and not an actual statement of what is, or isn't.

a small thing, it might seem, but in court, small things and phrases of language can take on huge meaning that they don't have outside of the courtroom.

one example is the common use of the word "minute" to mean a brief moment of time. IF, for example, you tell the court that you "waited a minute" meaning a short time, what the court "hears" is that you just testified that you waited 60 seconds (a minute) and if it turns out that you did NOT wait a full 60 seconds, then you have just lied to the court, and that can put ALL your testimony in the suspect category.

so, even the experts will couch their reports in language that gives them some 'wiggle room" as a matter of course.

Again, go watch My Cousin Vinny for an entertaining example of how this can be done...;)
 
Originally posted by 44 AMP
The facts we have, that are NOT in dispute, are fairly simple. Proper safe gun handling rules were NOT followed. INDUSTRY standard safe gun handling rules for firearms on set WERE NOT FOLLOWED.
Click to expand...

There is, I think, the real story here. In order for this to happen, proper safe gun handling and industry standards were violated/ignored/disregarded and someone is responsible for that. Now, while I'm sure there's probably blame aplenty to go around, the fact is that Alec Baldwin was the producer and, as producer, not only had the authority and responsibility to ensure that all industry standard safety rules were followed but also knew or should have known that they were not.

Given his decades long career in Hollywood and the many, many projects he's been involved with in which firearms were used, I have a difficult time believing that he's not at least passingly familiar with the industry standards for safe handling of firearms during a production. Not only that, but as a producer, he has a responsibility to ensure that the people he hires to maintain those industry standards are competent in doing so. Given that there had already been people walking off the set of Rust due to safety concerns, Baldwin should have addressed these deficiencies before continuing production but it would appear that he failed to do so.

I think Alec Baldwin is trying desperately to deflect blame and squirm his way out of being held accountable for what happened. As I've said before, if his role in the production of Rust was "just" that of an actor he might have a shot at deflecting the blame away. However, as the producer he's effectively the final word in how the production was run so, barring something very unusual like someone intentionally causing an accident, the buck ultimately stops with Alec Baldwin.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top