I like Aesop’s, of the Raconteur Report, style; most of the time. I often like what he has to say. But in the matter of Alec Baldwin’s negligent killing of Halyna Hutchins, I must respectfully disagree.
“According to industry wide safety regulations, whose sole and entire JOB is it, on production sets, going back to before anyone of the RUST set was born, to handle, load, supervise, and ensure the total safety and inability of prop weapons to cause death or injury to result on set from the use of any such prop weapon, barring a blatant violation of the safety rules?”
Yes, the armorer is hired for that — supposed — expertise. That’s why almost-armorer Gutierrez-Reed is also facing a manslaughter charge. But…
Screw “industry wide safety safety regulations.” Try basic firearms handling safety rules, upon which those regs should be based.
- ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED
- NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT PREPARED TO DESTROY
- KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER TIL YOUR SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET
- BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET (and what is beyond it, like your director)
Observe that none of those rules is prefaced with “Expect someone else to make sure that…” In the end, the final responsibility rests with the person holding the gun: Baldwin. Those rules aren’t all that hard. I have known six year-old children who successfully learned and faithfully followed them.
Of course, Baldwin’s defense uses Aesop’s argument. His lawyer said:
“Mr. Baldwin had no reason to believe there was a live bullet in the gun — or anywhere on the movie set. He relied on the professionals with whom he worked, who assured him the gun did not have live rounds. We will fight these charges, and we will win.”
When I’m cleaning a firearm, I have “no reason to believe there was a live bullet in the gun,” but I still check.
Imagine for a moment that this was not a firearm-related death. Instead, pretend that Baldwin was framing that shot in preparation for a scene in which he drives a car. Note: not filming an action scene; framing in preparation for a scene to be filmed later.
Hall hands Baldwin the keys and says, “Cold car.”
Baldwin, for some reason not called for in framing, starts the car and puts it in gear. (cocks the hammer, past half cock to full cock)
Baldwin turns the steering wheel towards Hutchins. (points the gun)
Baldwin hits the accelerator and runs down two people, killing one. (pulls the trigger)
Baldwin then exclaims that it’s not his fault because no one told him there was gas in the car.
And for fun, imagine he did this after after years of pontificating about “car safety.” (“gun safety,” gun control)
That last point isn’t even about karma, comeuppence, or irony. It’s a legal point; one I’d raise in court if I were the prosecutor: Over the course of years, Baldwin has presented himself as sufficiently knowledgeable about firearms, safety, and law to lecture me about how to handle my own firearms. Yet now he claims innocence due to an abysmal lack of knowledge and common sense regarding those very things; a lack so great that he needs an entire crew to protect himself — and everyone around him — from his own imbecilic ignorance.
One more time; if I were the prosecutor, I’d present clips from interviews, and social media post of Baldwin telling everyone else how to do it right, and ask him, “Mr. Baldwin, for years you’ve claimed you know better on firearm safety than everyone else. Why are you now claiming to be dumber than a six year-old in need of constant adult supervision?”
Sorry, Aesop. I do see your point. But based on Baldwin’s interviews and disclaimers, police reports, and forensic reports, I have to disagree with you on this one.
Baldwin is responsible for what he did. Not solely, but responsible.
Added: Even if Baldwin is that lethally irresponsible and foolish, another fact remains: He was also a producer for this film, meaning he was one of the people responsible for hiring competent personnel to protect everyone from his own stupidity.
Added, 2: Santa Fe District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altwies:
“It is incumbent on anybody that holds a gun to make sure that it is either not loaded or to know what it is loaded with,” she said in an interview with The Associated Press. “And certainly then to not point it at someone and pull the trigger. That’s where his actor liability, we think, comes in.”
She also emphasized that while Baldwin is to be charged as the man with the gun in his hand, his role as a producer, and at least partial responsibility for the lax conditions that led to his having a loaded gun, were a consideration in deciding to bring the charges.
Gab Pay link (More Tip Jar Options) |
The “camera” apparently had a shield. Baldwin had no reason to point the pistil at any person.
A question will be: Are common sense safety gun rules enforceable at law?
Also, Baldwin was a “producer” and thus partially responsible for safety protocols. He hed to, or should have known that protocols were not being followed. The pistol that he held was then, by definition, unsafe.
The gun was given as “cold”, therefore there should have been no cartridge rims visible in the cylinder to an “experienced” firearm person such as that which Baldwin claimed to be.
Basic rule: Keep your booger hook off the bang switch. That means Baldwin.
I did some checking. The 24 year old armorer who was hired by producer Baldwin was paid $8,000 for the job of maintaining the guns on set. That out of a budget of some 7.5 million dollars. The gun was handed to Baldwin not by her, but by the assistant director, who has already taken a plea deal.
It is common practice that the only 2 people to have the authority to yell cut, during an actual filming, is the director and the armorer. Meaning that the 24 year old woman was supposed to have quite a bit of power over the entire set. Knowing just how much of a control freak Alec Baldwin is, I doubt that she had the confidence to be able to exert much control over even the part of the film that should have included only her having ultimate control over all weapons, dummy rounds, squibs, etc. on set. That would include handing the actor the gun, showing it safe to the actor, then taking it back when the scene was done and checking it and showing it safe again to the actor and putting it away in the place where only she had the right to access it. That takes time and slows things down, but that is why they have such things in place, to slow things down and ensure that they are done safely, and that actors, often including extras who only are on the scene for less than one minute before being handed the gun, are also aware of just how seriously gun and other safety issues are taken. And that no horseplay or other faulty gun handling is acceptable, or allowed.
I have read that the armorer is often above the action, watching to ensure that there is nothing going on to cause any concern during the filming or staging of each scene. They work closely with the director to set up the scenes to make sure that the shot is not only effective but safe.
I think that is the issue with this film, that Baldwin hired someone and then thought he could just ignore set safety, handing it all over to someone else, but he has been in dozens of movies where he used guns, and no doubt other armorers did not allow the BS that took place on this set. So he as producer should have stopped and either made sure that things got fixed, or fired the current one and hired someone who would make sure that nobody got shot.
I think that the prosecutors got this right, but I still think that they will plea bargain it with both, to avoid going to trial, and will try and make certain that both defendants are treated as evenly as possible, since this is such a public case, with so many people watching for possible favoritism for a rich Hollywood star.
I think you pretty nailed the problem with Gutierrez-Reed; she wasn’t up to the job.
She — wisely — hasn’t been very vocal publicly since the shooting, so I’m speculating based on third party reports. I suspect that on a technical level she’s pretty darned good. But hadn’t developed that toughness needed to tell crew members she wanted to get along with, “No.” And definitely didn’t have the gumption to tell a big name Hollywood star, and one of the producers and her boss, “No, and you have to do this.”
She did train under her father, but he’d been doing it so long that he made it look easy.
And I think Baldwin hired her for that reason. Get an armorer comparatively cheap, to check off the safety box, and ignore her.
Now, when I was her age, I was telling Colonels and Generals, “No.” But everyone’s different, and most aren’t natural assholes like me, or have my sense of self-importance.
When I was 24, I had been pouring steel for 6 years, had a wife and 2 kids, and had broken my back and pelvis in a car accident and so I knew all about pain. Plus all about how to talk as colorfully as a Marine, which I think after all of my life with various military branch members, is about the best possessors of cuss words.
The thing is, even though we like to say that there is no difference between the sexes, women in the position of armorer would have to be even more assertive than a man in that position, in order to get taken seriously. And she would have to be extra assertive, read an asshole, on day one, in order to make an impression of how serious she takes the issue of safety and how she would come down on anyone who did not take it the same way.
Even if there were no “live round” in the chamber, the powder charge in a “blank” round creates quite a concussive explosion; the wad holding the powder (in the absence of a bullet) exits the barrel fast enough to cause serious injury, and the blast alone has been known to cause injury and death at close range.
Which is to say, blanks only “safe” in relation to live rounds. They are still dangerous, and safety protocols are a necessity even without live rounds.
And that’s why Rule #1 is to treat ALL guns as if they are ALWAYS loaded. It’s the only safe assumption.
I think I read or heard somewhere that Baldwin refused the safety briefing meetings. Of course, he’s special,
Blanks, for some reason the name Jon-Erik Hexum is ringing in the back of my mind.
I would have to disagree with Uncle Remus as well.
I think he’s mostly right had Baldwin been only an actor on the set, but as a producer as well, he bears more culpability.
There’s plenty to go around, in any case.
The AD already plead, and the armorer should be taking whatever deal she’s offered, because this isn’t a case where someone did something wrong.
It’s a case where no one did anything right.