Uh, Alec Baldwin just shot and killed someone

[Cultellus]

Baldwin is the executive producer or producer. The armorer works for him.

So in the above list of culpability, it could be Armorer/Management/Baldwin

[Res Ipsa]

Bold mind.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/26/entertai ... index.html

Cultellus, it looks like you're using a specialized taxonomy that is not universally adopted in classifying firearm discharges. In that scheme of classification, "accidental discharge" is limited to mechanical failure of the weapon, while "negligent discharge" applies to human carelessness. Both are classified as "unintentional discharges," which is the pertinent issue in the Baldwin case.

What does this person mean by "the gun went off"? This doesn't tell us if Baldwin fired it or not. Perhaps no one but Baldwin himself could know that piece of information. We (the virtual grand jury) cannot make a determination without that critical piece.

I'm sick of how the media is presenting this case though I am not at all surprised. The news outlets make their living by clicks after all.

All that said, I agree with your current determination. If there was a mechanical failure of the weapon, it's no one's fault and could be categorized as an accidental discharge. If he fired the gun (this is my perspective) without checking it himself, then I say it's negligent discharge and eligible for a negligent homicide charge based on the outcome of the investigation.

The weapons go through a chain of handling. Manufacturer to set props inventory, to props storage at on site location of the set at any given time during the rehearsal and filming process where they are the firstly, responsibility of the armorer. If I am not mistaken, I read that the crew went on lunch break and returned to rehearse the scene.

Whose responsibility was it to secure the weapons? The armorer.
Whose responsibility was it to check the weapons before making them directly available for the rehearsal? The armorer.
Whose responsibility was it to make available a cold weapon to the crew (including directors/actors)? The armorer.
Whose responsibility was it to check the weapon before handing it to Baldwin? The armorer and then, the AD.
Whose responsibility was it to check the weapon before firing it? Baldwin.

I see this as either a case of accidental discharge or a case of one or more weak links in the chain of custody and responsibility of the weapons.

The final hand in the case, was Baldwins hand. What we need to know is if the weapon malfunctioned or if he fired it while practicing the cross draw. If he fired it without examining it, then he too, is negligent in the case.

Whoever used the gun for "plinking" and failed to make sure it was unloaded when returned was at least negligent. They may have been reckless, and I'm not ready to rule out intent.

The Armorer sounds negligent to me. Either she didn't check them or she didn't make sure they were secured between the time she checked them and the time the gun was handed to Baldwin.

As for Baldwin and the AD, I'm still short some information I think is relevant. First, what was the protocol in place? Did it require the AD (or whoever hands a firearm to an actor) to check it? Did it require the actor to check it?

Also, exactly what activity was Baldwin engaged in? Was he actually rehearsing a scene? (as in, with a director on his mark that he would use for the filmed shot) Or did he just request a firearm so he could practice the cross draw on his own?

At some point, it is reasonable for a person to rely on a safety system intended and designed to prevent the specific kind of harm. When filming or rehearsing a scene, the actor's job is not to react to what is actually around them -- it is to react to what the audience will see around them in the finished production. Given that focus, I think there's a strong argument that an actor or actress can reasonably rely on safety measures put in place to make sure they aren't handed a loaded weapon. That's a very different situation from the experience with firearms that folks here have. If I'm a hunter, I'm the one who handles the weapon and the ammunition. I don't have an armorer and other people whose job it is to make sure the gun is safe.

So if filming or rehearsing a scene, not only can someone be given the responsibility of making sure the gun doesn't contain live ammunition, it can also have someone assigned to make sure there is no one downrange of where the actor is going to be directed to aim the weapon. I did read that the armorer is supposed to be on the scene during both filming and rehearsal of scenes involving firing of weapons. I suspect part of her job is to make sure no one is standing in the line of fire.

If Baldwin were just practicing the cross draw on his own, then, in my opinion, he's assumed the responsibility to make sure no one is in the line of fire.

More details to come, I'm sure.

[Res Ipsa]

Baldwin is the executive producer or producer. The armorer works for him.

So in the above list of culpability, it could be Armorer/Management/Baldwin

So, you think the armorer is employed by Baldwin, personally? There are actually multiple producers on the film. I'm assuming the armorer is an employee as opposed to an independent contractor, but I have no idea who her employer is.

[Res Ipsa]

Baldwin is the executive producer or producer. The armorer works for him.

So in the above list of culpability, it could be Armorer/Management/Baldwin

So, you think the armorer is employed by Baldwin, personally? There are actually multiple producers on the film. I'm assuming the armorer is an employee as opposed to an independent contractor, but I have no idea who her employer is.

ETA:

“Rust” had seven production entities listed as backing the film: Alec Baldwin’s El Dorado Pictures, Thomasville Pictures, Cavalry Media, Brittany House Pictures, Short Porch Pictures and financiers Bondit Media Capital and Streamline Global.

Streamline Global bills itself as an investment vehicle. According to its website, “Streamline buys, sells, and produces qualified feature films that qualify under the provisions of IRS code section 181 and 168(k)…. Similar to acquiring an aircraft, some asset classes afford the owner with tax benefits in the form of bonus depreciation or tax credits.” The company also touts that it has “unparalleled access to prestige independent projects.”

Halveson, according to her company bio, has been active in film production since 2015.


Thomasville Pictures, which according to Georgia state records is based in Thomasville, Ga., about 35 miles northeast of Tallahasee, Fla., is connected to Ryan Donnell Smith, who is also a partner with Halveson in Streamline Global. Smith’s bio for Streamline Global describes him as “a bondable line producer for projects up to $30M” with “more than a decade of expertise in film production and strong relationships with creatives and executives.”

Smith is credited as executive producer of Netflix’s “The Trial of the Chicago 7” and is a producer on a number of upcoming Streamline Global movies including the Alec Baldwin starrer “Supercell.” That movie is also produced by Short Porch Pictures and Thomasville Pictures.

Cavalry Media, headed by industry veteran Dana Brunetti, is the management-production entity that represents Baldwin. Brittany House Pictures is headed by actor-producer Anjul Nigam. Nigam’s banner previously worked with Baldwin and El Dorado Pictures on the 2019 indie “Crown Vic.”

Short Porch Pictures is the banner for producer Ryan Winterstern, who has a number of indie film credits to his name. Winterstern, Smith, Nigam and Baldwin are credited as producers on “Rust.” Halveson, Bondit Media Capital’s Matthew Helderman and Cavalry Media’s Matthew DelPiano are listed as executive producers.

https://variety.com/2021/film/news/rust ... 235096161/

[Jersey Girl]

I'll reply but I think we both accept the fact that this is an active investigation and we can't know anything until we have that completed and in writing. Basically we're all spitting in the wind and supposin' here.

Bold mind.




What does this person mean by "the gun went off"? This doesn't tell us if Baldwin fired it or not. Perhaps no one but Baldwin himself could know that piece of information. We (the virtual grand jury) cannot make a determination without that critical piece.

I'm sick of how the media is presenting this case though I am not at all surprised. The news outlets make their living by clicks after all.

All that said, I agree with your current determination. If there was a mechanical failure of the weapon, it's no one's fault and could be categorized as an accidental discharge. If he fired the gun (this is my perspective) without checking it himself, then I say it's negligent discharge and eligible for a negligent homicide charge based on the outcome of the investigation.

The weapons go through a chain of handling. Manufacturer to set props inventory, to props storage at on site location of the set at any given time during the rehearsal and filming process where they are the firstly, responsibility of the armorer. If I am not mistaken, I read that the crew went on lunch break and returned to rehearse the scene.

Whose responsibility was it to secure the weapons? The armorer.
Whose responsibility was it to check the weapons before making them directly available for the rehearsal? The armorer.
Whose responsibility was it to make available a cold weapon to the crew (including directors/actors)? The armorer.
Whose responsibility was it to check the weapon before handing it to Baldwin? The armorer and then, the AD.
Whose responsibility was it to check the weapon before firing it? Baldwin.

I see this as either a case of accidental discharge or a case of one or more weak links in the chain of custody and responsibility of the weapons.

The final hand in the case, was Baldwins hand. What we need to know is if the weapon malfunctioned or if he fired it while practicing the cross draw. If he fired it without examining it, then he too, is negligent in the case.

Whoever used the gun for "plinking" and failed to make sure it was unloaded when returned was at least negligent. They may have been reckless, and I'm not ready to rule out intent.

The Armorer sounds negligent to me. Either she didn't check them or she didn't make sure they were secured between the time she checked them and the time the gun was handed to Baldwin.

As for Baldwin and the AD, I'm still short some information I think is relevant. First, what was the protocol in place? Did it require the AD (or whoever hands a firearm to an actor) to check it? Did it require the actor to check it?

You have it right there. We don't know if there are established written protocols in the industry. Tons of interviews with armorers and prop's managers. None of them refer to written policies, guidelines, procedures. Without that there really is no starting point to think this through to determine who in the chain of custody screwed up and there seems to be a gap involving the lunch break if I understand it correctly. But we're using critical thinking with what we have at the moment and that practice is never a waste of time in my opinion. We do it every time we go through a case and we learn from it. We refine what we know we know and we learn what we don't know, and apply that to the next case where we think it fits. At least that's what I take from it.

Also, exactly what activity was Baldwin engaged in? Was he actually rehearsing a scene? (as in, with a director on his mark that he would use for the filmed shot) Or did he just request a firearm so he could practice the cross draw on his own?

I revert back to we don't know anything until the investigation is complete. What's coming out in the press (don't get me started) is that he was practicing his cross draw while sitting in a church pew.

At some point, it is reasonable for a person to rely on a safety system intended and designed to prevent the specific kind of harm. When filming or rehearsing a scene, the actor's job is not to react to what is actually around them -- it is to react to what the audience will see around them in the finished production. Given that focus, I think there's a strong argument that an actor or actress can reasonably rely on safety measures put in place to make sure they aren't handed a loaded weapon. That's a very different situation from the experience with firearms that folks here have. If I'm a hunter, I'm the one who handles the weapon and the ammunition. I don't have an armorer and other people whose job it is to make sure the gun is safe.

We don't know what systems are in place. That said, I'm going to break away from your assumption of reliability and say that in the film industry, actors are trained in a great many disciplines and skills. I think there is no excuse not to train the actor who is going to ultimately fire or at least handle the weapon to check the contents as soon as they come into possession of the weapon regardless how many points the weapon has already cleared in whatever system is in place...if there IS a system in place.

It's not a witches broom or fake wand that's going to get special effects treatment, it's a weapon.

So if filming or rehearsing a scene, not only can someone be given the responsibility of making sure the gun doesn't contain live ammunition, it can also have someone assigned to make sure there is no one downrange of where the actor is going to be directed to aim the weapon. I did read that the armorer is supposed to be on the scene during both filming and rehearsal of scenes involving firing of weapons. I suspect part of her job is to make sure no one is standing in the line of fire.

You know, I'm not at all clear as to when the armorer was present or what action she took. I couldn't possibly agree with you more about clearing the line of fire. As I've mentioned previously on other threads, we have a shooting range here. NO one goes outside when the folks are practicing except those who are handling the weapons. Under NO circumstances is anyone permitted to leave the house during those periods of time. It's a well established house rule here and even the very youngest of family members knows it. The area is supported with a berm with several acres beyond it, and the only persons in that area are one or two people who are target practicing.

If Baldwin were just practicing the cross draw on his own, then, in my opinion, he's assumed the responsibility to make sure no one is in the line of fire.

Indeed, what responsibility does Baldwin himself have for making sure the area was clear? He's the producer of and actor in the film, and in this particular scene. Does the buck literally stop with him?

More details to come, I'm sure.

Yes of course. You know, I know better than to get lost in the first reports. I know better than to watch every so-called expert who comments. I know better not to trust even what LE says in the beginning. I know better but I just don't do better.

[Jersey Girl]

Baldwin is the executive producer or producer. The armorer works for him.

So in the above list of culpability, it could be Armorer/Management/Baldwin

So, you think the armorer is employed by Baldwin, personally? There are actually multiple producers on the film. I'm assuming the armorer is an employee as opposed to an independent contractor, but I have no idea who her employer is.

I'm not entirely sure but if Baldwin is the EP then he's the top of the umbrella, everything that happens under his him is delegated, but he bears the ultimate responsibility. There's no question in my mind that his production company is going to be sued civilly once the dust settles from the potential criminal case.

And now, there's is another consideration. What is the structure of a production company? Who is liable for what in a case like this? Would the family of the deceased have legal recourse in terms of suing both Baldwin and his corporation?

I know we can bring suit for any darn thing we want in this country. But do you think the family could sue both and win damages?

[Jersey Girl]

Baldwin is the executive producer or producer. The armorer works for him.

So in the above list of culpability, it could be Armorer/Management/Baldwin

I think I would draw that list out to include Baldwin as an individual and the production company as a separate entity.

[Res Ipsa]

So, you think the armorer is employed by Baldwin, personally? There are actually multiple producers on the film. I'm assuming the armorer is an employee as opposed to an independent contractor, but I have no idea who her employer is.

I'm not entirely sure but if Baldwin is the EP then he's the top of the umbrella, everything that happens under his him is delegated, but he bears the ultimate responsibility. There's no question in my mind that his production company is going to be sued civilly once the dust settles from the potential criminal case.

And now, there's is another consideration. What is the structure of a production company? Who is liable for what in a case like this? Would the family of the deceased have legal recourse in terms of suing both Baldwin and his corporation?

I know we can bring suit for any darn thing we want in this country. But do you think the family could sue both and win damages?

Baldwin is not the EP. And being an EP doesn't mean in charge of everything. Sometimes it just means bankrolling the project.

Undoubtedly, the different production companies are organized as limited liability entities of some kind, whether they are corporations, limited liability companies, or some other entity. As long as the proper forms and procedures are followed, the owners of the entity are not liable for liabilities of the company. So, if the armorer is employed by Baldwin's company, the estate could get at the company's financial assets, including insurance, but not Baldwin's personal assets.

There is potential civil liability for both Baldwin's production company and Baldwin personally. The personal liability depends on whether he is found to have been personally negligent resulting in discharge of the firearm. Baldwin's production company could be held liable for damages based on the negligence of its employees, as long as they were in the course and scope of their duties. For example, if Baldwin's company employed the armorer and she were found to be negligent, the company would likely be vicariously liable for the negligence of its employee. However, if the guy who took the gun to plinking and returned it loaded is found to be negligent, it is unlikely his employer would be vicariously liable, as "plinking" is likely outside the scope of his duties. However, as long as the employer is the company, it is unlikely that Baldwin personally would be held liable for the employee's negligence.

Clear as mud?

From what I've read, the actual legal structure around the making of this movie is a nightmare of rats' nests. I wouldn't be surprised to see suits against all the production companies, all the producers, all the executive producers, Baldwin, the Assistant Director, the armorer, the plinker and others we haven't even heard of yet.

But there are other potential complications. Was the Cinematographer and employee or an independent contractor. Did she sign any kind of waiver or release? If so, which states law applies and is that part of the contract enforceable? If she's an employee, then she may not be able to sue the company that employed her because of workers' comp laws.

And will there be insurance? Was compliance with a specific safety protocol included as a condition of issuing liability insurance? Did the companies misrepresent the protocol to the insurance company when applying for insurance?

Unless the insurance companies get in and settle with the estate and the injured AD early, this is going to keep lots of lawyers busy for a long time.

[Lem]

A couple of excerpts from an article published today that seem relevant:

Alec Baldwin the actor, who pulled the trigger on a prop gun while filming Rust in New Mexico and unwittingly killed a cinematographer and injured a director, likely won’t be held criminally or civilly liable for the tragedy. But Alec Baldwin the producer might be, along with several others in leadership positions for the Western.

Experts predict a tremendous legal fallout from the tragedy, definitely in civil lawsuits and potentially in criminal charges. In addition to Baldwin, a call sheet for the day of the shooting obtained by The Associated Press lists five producers, four executive producers, a line producer and a co-producer. They, as well as assistant director Dave Halls and armorer Hannah Gutierrez, could all face some sort of liability even if they weren’t on location Thursday....

“There was clearly negligence on the set,” said Adam Winkler, a professor at the UCLA School of Law and a gun policy expert. “The producers had a duty to preserve the safety of the crew. There were obvious hazards on the set.”

Santa Fe-based District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altwies told the AP on Tuesday that the investigation remains in the preliminary phase and her office was far from making any decisions about whether any charges would be filed. She added that those involved in the production were cooperating with law enforcement....

Authorities said Friday that Halls, the assistant director, had handed the weapon to Baldwin and announced “cold gun,” indicating it was safe to use. But it was loaded with live rounds. Cinematographer Halyna Hutchins was fatally shot, and director Joel Souza, who was standing behind her, was wounded.

https://indianexpress.com/article/enter ... t-7592765/

[Res Ipsa]

A couple of excerpts from an article published today that seem relevant:

Alec Baldwin the actor, who pulled the trigger on a prop gun while filming Rust in New Mexico and unwittingly killed a cinematographer and injured a director, likely won’t be held criminally or civilly liable for the tragedy. But Alec Baldwin the producer might be, along with several others in leadership positions for the Western.

Experts predict a tremendous legal fallout from the tragedy, definitely in civil lawsuits and potentially in criminal charges. In addition to Baldwin, a call sheet for the day of the shooting obtained by The Associated Press lists five producers, four executive producers, a line producer and a co-producer. They, as well as assistant director Dave Halls and armorer Hannah Gutierrez, could all face some sort of liability even if they weren’t on location Thursday....

“There was clearly negligence on the set,” said Adam Winkler, a professor at the UCLA School of Law and a gun policy expert. “The producers had a duty to preserve the safety of the crew. There were obvious hazards on the set.”

Santa Fe-based District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altwies told the AP on Tuesday that the investigation remains in the preliminary phase and her office was far from making any decisions about whether any charges would be filed. She added that those involved in the production were cooperating with law enforcement....

Authorities said Friday that Halls, the assistant director, had handed the weapon to Baldwin and announced “cold gun,” indicating it was safe to use. But it was loaded with live rounds. Cinematographer Halyna Hutchins was fatally shot, and director Joel Souza, who was standing behind her, was wounded.

https://indianexpress.com/article/enter ... t-7592765/

Yeah, the whole producer/production company relationship to the film is part of the rat's nest. Individuals are identified as producers in the film credits, for the purposes of awards, and in promotional stuff, but it's not clear at all that Alec Baldwin "producer" is legally distinct from Alec Baldwin, owner of his "production company." Legally, it appears to be a complete mess.

I think anyone predicting no individual civil liability for Baldwin is way out on a limb. Negligence is highly dependent on the factual circumstances: what would a reasonable person do in the specific situation Baldwin was in? And, typically, the jury gets to decide that question.