'Rust' armorer found guilty of involuntary manslaughter?

[gunsandgunsmithing]

This is only my opinion. The film company hired another company to train the actors and manage the firearms and ammunition. That company failed in its duty to do so and should be held accountable without question. However, as I understand it, the firearms company handed a loaded firearm to the actor and told him it was a "cold" firearm. I don't care who the actor was. He did use the firearm in a negligent manner but only after being told it was benign. In my mind it is the same as giving a vehicle to an actor. It would be inspected to be a safe vehicle but the actor can't drive it into a group of people. However, it is the responsibility of the management of the film company to ensure that the firearms company is doing its job properly and from what I understand that wasn't done. There were several other incidents prior to the fatal one that if the incidents had been investigated and acted on would have prevented the fatal.
As an actor, I don't hold Baldwin that responsible for the fatal. A minor charge if anything. However, as the owner and managing person I hold him totally responsible for the death and should face severe penalty up to and including long time jail time.

I just can't agree either. If I hand you a gun and tell you it's unloaded, would you point it at your head and pull the trigger? I mean, that's pretty much what happened here.

Every single gun that has ever come into my shop, I visually check...no exceptions, even if I watch the owner check it first. And, rule number 1 was completely ignored for entertainment purposes, err, money.

That's why I made my last comment about this going either way for AB. Yes, the company in charge of this ALSO holds responsibility for this but I do not feel it's limited to them. Furthermore, he hired them and was responsible for those critical decisions. Ultimately, I do not feel that ignorance is a legit defense for pointing any gun at anything and not being responsible for damages done. Particularly when handling guns is part of his job and as producer.

Unfortunate...of course. But preventable if only he had followed the single most basic rule of gun handling. The absolute minimum was disregarded.

As 7br said, I respect your opinion and it's ok to disagree.

Bottom line, does a jury find the other girl 100% responsible or that she and Baldwin share responsibility for a tragic but preventable outcome from THEIR actions.

 

[One Eye Pete]

I can somewhat agree with Steveb above. Just as the actor who actually fired the gun (although a totally careless and stupid act) a jury could possibly let him slide BUT (that’s a big but) when you couple that with the fact that as the executive producer who was ultimately responsible for the entire production the fact that he had to know safety problems existed and chose to do nothing because he wanted to be on time & low budget, the fact that he blatantly ignored safety rules in another scene by discharging a firearm after the command CUT was given, the fact that in another scene he rushed the armorer to quickly reload his gun just so they could save time, as well as, several other aspects of his behavior show a pattern of reckless disregard for safety. OSHA inspectors in their testimony pointed out that poor safety performance on the set was attributable to blatant disregard and inaction by the production management and they fined the production company for it. The other thing that I believe the jury will weigh heavily against him is when he ran his mouth about not pulling the trigger. The FBI (in a feat of stupidity) broke the actual murder weapon in an attempt to get it to fire without pulling the trigger and were unable to do so until it finally broke. If he had any credibility before he ran his mouth he has none now. I wouldn’t want to be in his shoes I believe that prosecutor has him firmly in her sights.

 

[paperpuncher]

Expert starts right out of the gate with his buggerhook on the trigger. Cmon man.

 

[Eagle Six]

All parties involved are culpable for the death and injury and should be viewed equally as a negligent conspiracy to do harm and charged, at minimum, with negligent homicide. This should be a simple straight forward case for a jury presented the facts and educated on the function and safety of firearms.

 

[jdh47]

This entire debacle is a fiasco f the first magnitude. The star actor is a veteran that's handled many firearms of differing types in many movies yet managed to point and shoot his director with a loaded gun. The person in charge of arms and ammo was not on site at the time of the discharge I believe. Who is responsible? It seems to me that everybody associated with the movie crew including the actors are culpable in the death. Ultimately Baldwin is responsible for knowing what he's doing with a gun and whether it's safely aimed.
In contrast The "John Wick' movies have fired many thousands of blank rounds from many differing weapons in each episode apparently safely for the crew and actors. There's no telling how many bad guys John Wayne shot over the years that lived. It's not like this was the first movie to ever use a firearm in a movie. It is rather ironic that Baldwin is one of if not the most radical leftist jackass's in Hollywood though.

 

[ChrisNZ]

Well, much as many of you here will not like it, here is what many of us Kiwis think looking from afar.

The context is a movie set, not a shooting gallery. The props are provided by a specialist company and used by actors who cannot be expected to have a working knowledge of firearms. Actors need to be assumed to be clueless with firearms.To totally distort the picture, live ammunition was allowed on site and used casually on occasion for crew entertainment.

So how the hell is Baldwin responsible? All the responsibility points to the company employing the girl who was clearly out of her depth. Tell me why we are wrong in this conclusion.

 

[dgeesaman]

Looks like they found their scape goat (fall girl). WHO pulled the trigger?

They are both responsible.

Given that she was head armorer, I’d place more blame on her than Baldwin.

 

[M-61]

head armorer

?

 

[dgeesaman]

?

I thought I read there were others there that she oversaw in the handling of firearms. Maybe not, so her title is ‘Armorer’

 

[rwj]

Well, much as many of you here will not like it, here is what many of us Kiwis think looking from afar.

The context is a movie set, not a shooting gallery. The props are provided by a specialist company and used by actors who cannot be expected to have a working knowledge of firearms. To totally distort the picture, live ammunition was allowed on site and used casually on occasion for crew entertainment.

So how the hell is Baldwin responsible? All the responsibility points to the company employing the girl who was clearly out of her depth.

What firearm safety protocols are used in New Zealand?

 

[Eagle Six]

Baldwin is a liar which makes him a thief and he stole that ladies life and injured another. At least he deserves to give up his own.

As for guns on movie sets, with todays technology there is absolutely NO reason to have real guns and/or real ammunition on set, NONE. As @jdh47 pointed out about the many times guns have been used safely in the past, they are not needed now. Only greed and stupidity would put real guns on a set.

As for @ChrisNZ post, it's not a like or dislike, it's a disagreement. I respect your right to your opinion.

 

[ChrisNZ]

For the general population, same as the US from my experience over there. As for movie sets here where I think there have only been a handful of western films made, I have no clue other than hearing the set firearms can only fire blanks. Handguns can only be used on ranges so you can't just go have a blast-up during the lunch break.

 

[ChrisNZ]

..

As for guns on movie sets, with todays technology there is absolutely NO reason to have real guns and/or real ammunition on set, NONE. As @jdh47 pointed out about the many times guns have been used safely in the past, they are not needed now. Only greed and stupidity would put real guns on a set.
..

Well we are both in total agreement on that aspect.

 

[Murray Brook]

@ChrisNZ
I respect your opinion but certainly disagree. How you feel that Baldwin, who is basically the CEO ( in the end responsible for everything) of this set, who pointed a loaded weapon at someone and shot and killed someone is not responsible for the end result is had to compute.

 

[rwj]

For the general population, same as the US from my experience over there. As for movie sets here where I think there have only been a handful of western films made, I have no clue other than hearing the set firearms can only fire blanks. Handguns can only be used on ranges so you can't just go have a blast-up during the lunch break.

Why would there be any reason to change safety protocols on a movie set?

 

[M-61]

I thought I read there were others there that she oversaw in the handling of firearms. Maybe not, so her title is ‘Armorer’

Ok
She is as far from an armorer as one can be.
Can’t imagine trying to control a nut job like Baldwin under any circumstances.

 

[ChrisNZ]

Why would there be any reason to change safety protocols on a movie set?

I now see the question you originally asked. In general terms, the firearms laws here obviously apply everywhere and at all times. The safety "rule" of never pointing a loaded firearm at someone is the main contextual consideration here.

That is why you need only blank-capable firearms on movie sets so there is zero possibility of an accident. Clearly US law allows real guns on movie sets though I can see that possibly changing after this fiasco.

 

[rwj]

I now see the question you originally asked. In general terms, the firearms laws here obviously apply everywhere and at all times. The safety "rule" of never pointing a loaded firearm at someone is the main contextual consideration here.

That is why you need only blank-capable firearms on movie sets so there is zero possibility of an accident. Clearly US law allows real guns on movie sets though I can see that possibly changing after this fiasco.

If the same safety protocols are always used, it would not matter if the firearm was loaded with live rounds or blanks. That being the universal approach that prevents such events. Failure to follow this protocol is not contextually dependent and why I believe he is accountable.

 

[M-61]

I can see that possibly changing after this fiasco.

Competent personnel, not even more gun laws are what’s needed.
That competent part can be a hard search in Hollywood.

 

[Eagle Six]

That is why you need only blank-capable firearms on movie sets so there is zero possibility of an accident.

There is zero reason to have blank-capable firearms on a movie set, NONE. They are not needed and they are lethal when mishandled.

The US doesn't and will not have a law prohibiting firearms on movie sets. If the actors guild is worth anything they will follow the procedure to prohibit firearm use.