How he can be tried for the duty of a prop person or the director who hired that person is beyond ludicrous. The man showed up to do a job. That job was not to keep the props safe. He was handed a tool and told it was ok to use. Fuck this system. Let him go about his life. I’m sure the trauma of having shot someone for real is enough to make him double-check for the rest of his life. That’s enough.
No it doesn’t. If I cut the brakes in your car and it causes you to run into someone, then it’s my fault, not yours.
Edit: you know who else could be found viable? The service person who checked the vehicle before you took it on the road and allowed it through despite nonfunctional breaks.
A gun’s purpose is to kill people, a car’s is not. The analogy is flawed.
Still, assuming you have mandatory regular inspections of cars in the US, imagine you are an experienced mechanic by profession. Someone lends you a car and says it’s safe but you know immediately this rustbucket hasn’t been to an inspection in decades. By experience and papers. But you drive in a public space anyways and kill someone due to a fault that would have been found during an inspection. It is 100% your fault.
As I understand it, following safety procedures would have prevented this death, in the same way nonfunctional brakes would certainly be found during service.
On a side note, as an electrician who has to sign documents that electrical devices are safe to use, if one of those devices kills someone and I can prove that I followed protocol during testing, I am in the clear. Following rules makes the difference between a tragic accident and negligence.
A gun’s purpose is to provide safety and utility to the bearer. “Killing people” that are attempting to harm you is called self-defense and is totally legal.
Umm. No. Sorry gunna pull my union card on this one since this is my Industry and while I am not an armorer or a props person I am emeshed in their understanding of property on a set as an On set dresser.
There is a legal duty of care held by everyone who handles a prop weapon. Furthermore there is a duty of care held by Producers on a show. Baldwin was not just an actor, he was a producer on Rust which means he had hiring and firing power.
Regularly this is how prop weapon safety works.
Prop weapons are only handled by an armorer who must maintain a full supervision of the weapon. It can never be used with live ammunition.
Loading can only ever take place by the props person (non union exception) or a designated armorer who must have an up to date licence.
Any mishandling of the weapon up to this stage leaves the armourer open to criminal liability. If someone steps in to this process at this stage they might take the lions share of liability. If an actor or someone who is not the props person charged with care of the weapon grabs it for instance without a hand off.
During the hand off of the weapon to an actor the props person does a last physical check of all the rounds in the weapon in sight of the actor. IF an actor accepts a weapon without doing this check then they are considered criminally negligent for any harm done with the weapon that would have been reasonably negated by this step. If the actor uses the weapon in a way that is unsafe after this check all liability is shoulded by the actor.
Following the weapon that killed on Rust it was used with live ammunition to shoot cans and abandoned on a cart. This makes the props person negligent by film safety practice. It was picked up by the 1st Assistant Director whom was not entitled to handle the weapon AT ALL which transfers some criminal negligence to him. The 1st AD handed the weapon to Baldwin and claimed it was a safe weapon WITHOUT performing the check. Anyone who saw this trade off on the set should have set off general alarm. But they didn’t. This could have had to do with power imbalances on set. You generally do not tell a Producer that they are doing something wrong unless you are either willing to trust the producer to be reasonable or baring that, are willing to lose your job. Wrongful termination suits are nigh nonexistent in film because chasing one might blacklist you from other productions.
The 1st AD is the main safety officer on set and Baldwin as an experienced actor would have been briefed on weapon safety protocols many times before. Having the 1st AD just hand you a weapon on set EVEN one that is an inert rubber replica would be an instant firing offence for the AD. Accepting the weapon without insisting on a check leaves the liability on the actor. They might have a lesser share depending on how experienced they might be. If they were ignorant of the protocol at the time then the production team would take that share liability for not properly enforcing safety on the set.
Baldwin as a producer in the days leading up to the accident had shown signs of being negligent in other areas of production safety and the people hired into positions that were to enforce safety on set. People left the production citing the unsafe conditions in protest. He may not shoulder the full liability of criminal negligence but he ABSOLUTELY owns a chunk of it. Directors and Producers REGULARLY push the boundaries of crew safety when they think they can get away with it and the bigger the name the more likely these accidents are. Remembering WHY we have these safety protocols and the people injured or killed in the past is something that is well known in the industry. We remember those killed or permanently maimed by production negligence because there but for the grace of God go us. Everyone who has been in this industry more than a decade personally knows someone whose life was permanently impacted by a bigshot throwing their weight around because of the natural power imbalances on set. One of my Co-workers sustained a permanently debilitating brain injury last year for just this reason. You dice with some one else’s death you gotta pay up when you lose.
That’s not how liability works. It’s not a hot potato that stops with the first person in a chain of people who did wrong. Everyone who contributes to a catastrophe of broken rules essentially gets a slice of the consequence pie the only thing that changes is how big a slice of the overall pie you get.
Here’s what the situation says to me. You have a 1st AD and a Principle and senior Actor/ Producer who were breaking the most basic of rules. For context on a film set say a camera person sets a case of lenses on something I as a set dresser need to move. It is largely unacceptable for me to even touch that box until I have tried everything viable to hail the correct department to move it. If somebody tries to hand me something I am not supposed to be handed I go talk to their supervisor. Some things even if I have explicit permission to handle from a props person, like a gun, I am liable if I handle it anyway because there is no circumstances where me putting my hand on that item is acceptable. First rule on a set you learn day one “Don’t touch ANYTHING that belongs to someone outside your department”.
If this incredibly basic rule was SO flagrantly violated on so many levels by THE CHEIF SAFETY OFFICER ON SET that tells me that the safety problems and the culture of improper protocol were endemic on the set. This very obviously wasn’t one bad day of lax protocols. This was an unsafe set and an everyday unsafe crew culture. Lots of times you don’t get burned when something isn’t safe so people try their luck which is all fine and dandy until tragedy hits.
This AD had a previous incident where a gun he handled fired a live round went off on a set and just didn’t hit anybody. At that point people should have fucking hung drawn and quarted him and busted him back down to Trainee. He was a demonstratilably consistent danger to the crews he was on but Rust STILL HIRED him as their primary safety officer anyway.
When something goes this desperately wrong that pie gets so big there’s a slice for everyone. The other Producers on this show had a duty to hire people who do the job properly. The 1st AD is a major hire. Ist ADs arguably do more to protect production liability than a Director does and production has their eye on the pick. If something a director wants is unsafe it is a 1st AD who has veto power. They set the culture of the set to make provisions for safety. If you rent a peice of equipment that has a record of dangerously failure and one of your workers gets hurt by it you as an employer get burned. The same goes for personnel. The producers absolutely should find some liability pie on their plates too. Are they gunna get prison time? Probably not but they are still negligent and there are consequences that scale to fit.
Baldwin could very well be the armorer’s direct supervisor and father and it still would be her and the ADs fuck-up the gun shot a live round.
She was hired for the sole purpose of making sure all guns on set are handled safely and she simply failed: the shooting is her fault and I’m sure despite all of us getting riled up in the comments this in fact will be the final verdict
How he can be tried for the duty of a prop person or the director who hired that person is beyond ludicrous. The man showed up to do a job. That job was not to keep the props safe. He was handed a tool and told it was ok to use. Fuck this system. Let him go about his life. I’m sure the trauma of having shot someone for real is enough to make him double-check for the rest of his life. That’s enough.
Baldwin didn’t “show up to do a job.” He was a producer on the film, not just an actor.
Exactly. It happened on his set by his hand. Makes a bit more of a tough situation
No it doesn’t. If I cut the brakes in your car and it causes you to run into someone, then it’s my fault, not yours.
Edit: you know who else could be found viable? The service person who checked the vehicle before you took it on the road and allowed it through despite nonfunctional breaks.
A gun’s purpose is to kill people, a car’s is not. The analogy is flawed.
Still, assuming you have mandatory regular inspections of cars in the US, imagine you are an experienced mechanic by profession. Someone lends you a car and says it’s safe but you know immediately this rustbucket hasn’t been to an inspection in decades. By experience and papers. But you drive in a public space anyways and kill someone due to a fault that would have been found during an inspection. It is 100% your fault.
As I understand it, following safety procedures would have prevented this death, in the same way nonfunctional brakes would certainly be found during service.
On a side note, as an electrician who has to sign documents that electrical devices are safe to use, if one of those devices kills someone and I can prove that I followed protocol during testing, I am in the clear. Following rules makes the difference between a tragic accident and negligence.
Spoken like a true psychopath.
A gun’s purpose is to provide safety and utility to the bearer. “Killing people” that are attempting to harm you is called self-defense and is totally legal.
Umm. No. Sorry gunna pull my union card on this one since this is my Industry and while I am not an armorer or a props person I am emeshed in their understanding of property on a set as an On set dresser.
There is a legal duty of care held by everyone who handles a prop weapon. Furthermore there is a duty of care held by Producers on a show. Baldwin was not just an actor, he was a producer on Rust which means he had hiring and firing power.
Regularly this is how prop weapon safety works.
Prop weapons are only handled by an armorer who must maintain a full supervision of the weapon. It can never be used with live ammunition.
Loading can only ever take place by the props person (non union exception) or a designated armorer who must have an up to date licence.
Any mishandling of the weapon up to this stage leaves the armourer open to criminal liability. If someone steps in to this process at this stage they might take the lions share of liability. If an actor or someone who is not the props person charged with care of the weapon grabs it for instance without a hand off.
During the hand off of the weapon to an actor the props person does a last physical check of all the rounds in the weapon in sight of the actor. IF an actor accepts a weapon without doing this check then they are considered criminally negligent for any harm done with the weapon that would have been reasonably negated by this step. If the actor uses the weapon in a way that is unsafe after this check all liability is shoulded by the actor.
Following the weapon that killed on Rust it was used with live ammunition to shoot cans and abandoned on a cart. This makes the props person negligent by film safety practice. It was picked up by the 1st Assistant Director whom was not entitled to handle the weapon AT ALL which transfers some criminal negligence to him. The 1st AD handed the weapon to Baldwin and claimed it was a safe weapon WITHOUT performing the check. Anyone who saw this trade off on the set should have set off general alarm. But they didn’t. This could have had to do with power imbalances on set. You generally do not tell a Producer that they are doing something wrong unless you are either willing to trust the producer to be reasonable or baring that, are willing to lose your job. Wrongful termination suits are nigh nonexistent in film because chasing one might blacklist you from other productions.
The 1st AD is the main safety officer on set and Baldwin as an experienced actor would have been briefed on weapon safety protocols many times before. Having the 1st AD just hand you a weapon on set EVEN one that is an inert rubber replica would be an instant firing offence for the AD. Accepting the weapon without insisting on a check leaves the liability on the actor. They might have a lesser share depending on how experienced they might be. If they were ignorant of the protocol at the time then the production team would take that share liability for not properly enforcing safety on the set.
Baldwin as a producer in the days leading up to the accident had shown signs of being negligent in other areas of production safety and the people hired into positions that were to enforce safety on set. People left the production citing the unsafe conditions in protest. He may not shoulder the full liability of criminal negligence but he ABSOLUTELY owns a chunk of it. Directors and Producers REGULARLY push the boundaries of crew safety when they think they can get away with it and the bigger the name the more likely these accidents are. Remembering WHY we have these safety protocols and the people injured or killed in the past is something that is well known in the industry. We remember those killed or permanently maimed by production negligence because there but for the grace of God go us. Everyone who has been in this industry more than a decade personally knows someone whose life was permanently impacted by a bigshot throwing their weight around because of the natural power imbalances on set. One of my Co-workers sustained a permanently debilitating brain injury last year for just this reason. You dice with some one else’s death you gotta pay up when you lose.
Your comment, if anything, proves it’s the AD who’s responsible
That’s not how liability works. It’s not a hot potato that stops with the first person in a chain of people who did wrong. Everyone who contributes to a catastrophe of broken rules essentially gets a slice of the consequence pie the only thing that changes is how big a slice of the overall pie you get.
Here’s what the situation says to me. You have a 1st AD and a Principle and senior Actor/ Producer who were breaking the most basic of rules. For context on a film set say a camera person sets a case of lenses on something I as a set dresser need to move. It is largely unacceptable for me to even touch that box until I have tried everything viable to hail the correct department to move it. If somebody tries to hand me something I am not supposed to be handed I go talk to their supervisor. Some things even if I have explicit permission to handle from a props person, like a gun, I am liable if I handle it anyway because there is no circumstances where me putting my hand on that item is acceptable. First rule on a set you learn day one “Don’t touch ANYTHING that belongs to someone outside your department”.
If this incredibly basic rule was SO flagrantly violated on so many levels by THE CHEIF SAFETY OFFICER ON SET that tells me that the safety problems and the culture of improper protocol were endemic on the set. This very obviously wasn’t one bad day of lax protocols. This was an unsafe set and an everyday unsafe crew culture. Lots of times you don’t get burned when something isn’t safe so people try their luck which is all fine and dandy until tragedy hits.
This AD had a previous incident where a gun he handled fired a live round went off on a set and just didn’t hit anybody. At that point people should have fucking hung drawn and quarted him and busted him back down to Trainee. He was a demonstratilably consistent danger to the crews he was on but Rust STILL HIRED him as their primary safety officer anyway.
When something goes this desperately wrong that pie gets so big there’s a slice for everyone. The other Producers on this show had a duty to hire people who do the job properly. The 1st AD is a major hire. Ist ADs arguably do more to protect production liability than a Director does and production has their eye on the pick. If something a director wants is unsafe it is a 1st AD who has veto power. They set the culture of the set to make provisions for safety. If you rent a peice of equipment that has a record of dangerously failure and one of your workers gets hurt by it you as an employer get burned. The same goes for personnel. The producers absolutely should find some liability pie on their plates too. Are they gunna get prison time? Probably not but they are still negligent and there are consequences that scale to fit.
Baldwin could very well be the armorer’s direct supervisor and father and it still would be her and the ADs fuck-up the gun shot a live round.
She was hired for the sole purpose of making sure all guns on set are handled safely and she simply failed: the shooting is her fault and I’m sure despite all of us getting riled up in the comments this in fact will be the final verdict
No lol, this is the same thing as saying “the gun seller is responsible for the school shooting”
This is new info to me (producer). Thanks for enlightening me.