Movie set death

Status
Not open for further replies.

Petrol & Powder

Well-Known Member
All the news today is focusing on the aftermath. Let's think about what happened before. Three actions must happen:
  1. The firearm must be loaded.
  2. The firearm must be aimed.
  3. The trigger must be pulled.
Alec Baldwin pulled the trigger.
Baldwin did #2 & #3 from the above list and someone else was designated to make sure that #1 did NOT happen. That person failed.

Theatrical productions are a different arena from the real world.

 
Last edited:

Bret4207

At the casting bench in the sky. RIP Bret.
As I've said before, a guy with a legendary temper and drug habit with money problems and a gun. Bad mix.

And I will freely state I despise the guy, hope he's charged with whatever is provable, found guilty and that the civil suit puts him in the poor house.
 
Last edited:

Petrol & Powder

Well-Known Member
As I've said before, a guy with a legendary temper and drug habit with money problems and a gun. Bad mix.
His temper and past drug use do not appear to be proximate causes of the accident.

And I will freely state I despise the guy, hope he's charged with whatever is provable, found guilty and that the civil suit puts him in the poor house.
He will not be “Charged” with a criminal violation because his actions were not criminal.

As for a potential civil trial, he has a LOT exposure there but probably only in his capacity as a producer.
 

CZ93X62

Official forum enigma
I wouldn't bet the rent or grocery money on any of that, P&P. There is AT LEAST probable cause to believe a public offense has been committed, to enable issuance of a search warrant. I'm not trying to prompt an argument, I'm just looking at the known indicia publicly available.
 
Last edited:

Petrol & Powder

Well-Known Member
There were enough facts to INVESTIGATE the possibility that a criminal offense MAY have occurred. That doesn't mean the evidence seized under the authority of that search warrant will ultimately lead to a criminal prosecution.

Law Enforcement gets to LOOK for evidence of criminal activity when a crime MAY have occurred that doesn't mean they will find that evidence.

The police only get one chance to collect evidence that may be lost with the passage of time. The courts recognize this and will issue a search warrant to allow the police to look for that potential evidence, but the issuance of a search warrant is not proof that a crime occurred.

I'm not trying to be difficult but the courts often err on the side of letting the police investigate possible crimes even when there is no conclusive evidence of an actual crime.
 

popper

Well-Known Member
Lots of problems with the entire setup. Several will be 'tested' by Grand Jury. Yup, shooting tin cans in the desert and then to a movie set is kinda dumb. Biggest problem is chain of possession from the armorer.
 

Rick

Moderator
Staff member
He will not be “Charged” with a criminal violation because his actions were not criminal.

Oh? And just how is it you know this?

Just this afternoon the County Sherriff said that his office and the DA's office are still investigating. Looks like they should have just asked Petrol & Powder and been done with it.
 

Ian

Notorious member
Seems that the set armorer failed SOP by not personally checking the revolver before handing it to the actor in the scene. The actor and everybody else on the set failed to exercise their option to recheck the weapon before the camera was rolled.

The director failed to provide a SAFE and DISTINCT aim point for the actor to "shoot" which was NOT a living thing. It should never be necessary to point and fire a gun directly at anyone (including another actor) in a scene (camera tricks can be used to make the impression, along with other alternatives).

Alleged bumblefluckery involving the set revolver and live ammunition prior to the day of the incident may account for live ammunition being in the pistol for the accident scene. Too many breakdowns in protocol, authority, titled responsibility, and the most basic of common sense to even mention.

It was probably an accident, although I have entertained the notion that a disgruntled crew member, knowing the lax safety protocols and incompetence of the armorer, set Baldwin up in a pure act of hatred. WHY it happened opens up a whole bunch of people involved to a whole lot of litigation. Big money will change hands and names will be smeared. Hopefully, but not likely, the dead victim's estate will be the largest benefactor of settlements.
 
Last edited:

Petrol & Powder

Well-Known Member
Rick, if you have evidence that Baldwin knew the gun was loaded, and maliciously shot his friend, I'd like to hear it.

Ian, the armorer didn't hand the gun the actor. The armorer left the gun on a cart and the assistant director picked up that gun, handed it to Baldwin and yelled "Cold Gun". (Indicating it was safe) Should a loaded gun have been on that cart? NO, but apparently that happened. Maybe the armorer hadn't checked it before the assistant director picked it up. I don't know.
Actors probably should check guns, but they don't. My guess is most of them don't want that responsibility even if you gave it to them.


I would be very happy to see Baldwin in prison, but I don’t see the facts here to support that outcome.
 

Rick

Moderator
Staff member
Rick, if you have evidence that Baldwin knew the gun was loaded, and maliciously shot his friend, I'd like to hear it.

I did not say that. I said they are still investigating. Do you understand the difference between maliciously shooting someone and an investigation. Do not put words in my mouth.

Ian, the armorer didn't hand the gun the actor. The armorer left the gun on a cart and the assistant director picked up that gun, handed it to Baldwin and yelled "Cold Gun". (Indicating it was safe) Should a loaded gun have been on that cart? NO, but apparently that happened. Maybe the armorer hadn't checked it before the assistant director picked it up. I don't know.
Actors probably should check guns, but they don't. My guess is most of them don't want that responsibility even if you gave it to them.

Yes, many do. Not all but many. It's part of daily safety classes regarding firearms and many do check the firearm.
 

Petrol & Powder

Well-Known Member
Let me see if I can pull this back from the brink.

When one human kills another human, it is a homicide.

Not all homicides are criminal acts.

A state execution is not a crime. A death that occurs during legitimate self-defense may be a justifiable homicide. A death that occurs during an accident isn’t always manslaughter.

In the case at hand, there is no evidence of malice, so that rules out murder. That leaves manslaughter or some type of justifiable homicide.

If the perpetrator’s actions were grossly reckless, the resulting death could still be a manslaughter. When someone points a gun at someone else, pulls the trigger and the person is killed; it is generally not a defense to claim you didn’t know the gun was loaded. The action of pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger is likely to result in death or serious injury and is therefore not a defense.

HOWEVER, theatrical productions are different. Actors routinely point guns at other people and even fire blanks sometimes. So, an actor operating within that arena isn’t being reckless or showing a wanton disregard for the safety of others. It is one of the few places where pointing a gun at someone else may be acceptable. I previously linked a clip about the filming of a shootout scene in “The Matrix” to show a lot of gun handling on a set. They did it right and no one was hurt. Most of the time, theatrical productions get it right and no one is hurt.

From a criminal point of view, I don’t see a crime given the current facts in the case at hand.

That leaves a civil suit. The facts of this event involve mountains of civil liability. The failures that occurred on that set are obvious and abundant. It appears a loaded gun was on a set, was handed to an actor and the actor was told the gun was safe. At the very least I see a wrongful death civil suit. Baldwin may be able to escape liability as the actor who pulled the trigger, but I don’t think he will be able to escape liability in his role as producer. No amount of money will bring that person back, but I think a lot of money is going to change hands as a settlement, a judgement or maybe a little of both.
 
Last edited:

Charles Graff

Moderator Emeritus
I wouldn't bet the rent or grocery money on any of that, P&P. There is AT LEAST probable cause to believe a public offense has been committed, to enable issuance of a search warrant. I'm not trying to prompt an argument, I'm just looking at the known indicia publicly available.
What is the Sam Hill is a public offense? The only criminal offenses are those contained in the New Mexico Penal Code.
 

358156 hp

At large, whereabouts unknown.
I can hardly wait for Baldwin to be portrayed as the victim in this matter. It all boils down to this: anyone who handles guns is responsible for checking their condition, and His Majesty failed to do so. The man makes "action" movies, and therefore makes a substantial part of his income with guns. He should not be able to plead ignorance on this issue, he was negligent. "Involuntary Manslaughter" or one of the other "manslaughter" categories should be the focus of the trial which will never happen.
 

Charles Graff

Moderator Emeritus
It all boils down to this: anyone who handles guns is responsible for checking their condition, and His Majesty failed to do so.
There is always a difference between opinion and fact. The above is your opinion and not a legal fact. There IS NO LEGAL DUTY to do as you state. The criminal and/or civil liability of Baldwin is be decided by the law and not your opinion, which I share, or the opinion of anybody else. What this matter will boil down to is the law and not some NRA gun safety class or the dogma of Jeff Cooper.

I continue to be somewhat amazed that people think their opinions equals the law on this matter. This will be the last time, I point that out because clearly nobody is reading my posts or giving them any credibility.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 462

Charles Graff

Moderator Emeritus
CA Penal Code Section 15 defines it, Charles.
I finally got around to looking up "public offense", that is just an old, and mostly unused term for a crime. A crime/public offense is a violation of a law that applies to everybody/public vs. a violation of a private agreement such as a contract. Violations of a criminal law/public offense will be sanctioned (punished) by the state, whereas private agreements will not be.

BTW: I didn't look up California law as I consider it to be the same as Martian law, i.e. not applicable to anywhere but California or Mars. :)

Again, any criminal or civil offense that Baldwin may have committed will be determined by New Mexico penal or tort law.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.