We pointed towards this info. Then we linked to it. But cementheads need a 2x4 to properly get their attention. (This magnanimously assumes they can both read, and comprehend. We are generous enough to give them the benefit of the doubt. Once.)
Safety Bulletin #2
SPECIAL USE OF "LIVE AMMUNITION"
THIS BULLETIN SHALL ONLY BE ISSUED IF "LIVE AMMUNITION" WILL BE UTILIZED
These guidelines are intended to give recommendations, special guidelines, and conditions for the safe handling of firearms utilizing "LIVE AMMUNITION."
On controlled second units, there may be a very rare occasion when "LIVE AMMUNITION" must be used to obtain an effect.
In those very special circumstances, "LIVE AMMUNITION" may be used only if the following criteria and special conditions have been met.
The Property Master (or, in his/her absence, the WEAPONS HANDLER and/or other appropriate personnel determined by the locality or the needs of the production) will be the individual acting in the interest of the producer for obtaining, maintaining and handling all firearms for the production. He/she will work in conjunction with the production's designated Safety Representative to assure that the following standards are adhered to.
1. The Director, Producer, Director of Photography, First Assistant Director, Special Effects Technician and the licensed Property Master (or, in his/her absence, the weapons handler and/or other appropriate personnel determined by the locality or the needs of the production) have jointly determined a situation exists in which there is no other practical alternative but to use "LIVE AMMUNITION" to achieve the effect.
2. "LIVE AMMUNITION" should not be used under circumstances where a desired special effect can be achieved by using conventional special effects techniques by a qualified and licensed Special Effects Technician and/or by computer generated means (computer generated images [“CGI”]).
3. This special use of "LIVE AMMUNITION" shall only be performed at a site that is suitable for the use of "LIVE AMMUNITION" (i.e., a military, police, or private gun range, the deck of a vessel, or in an area deemed safe for this procedure).
4. Additionally, the permission and/or a permit shall be obtained from the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) (sheriff, police, county, city, township, military base, or agency having authority to issue this type of permit).
5. The insurance company providing insurance for the production should be notified of the intention to use "LIVE AMMUNITION" and the circumstances surrounding the special use and conditions. Approval must be obtained for the use of "LIVE AMMUNITION."
6. The Studio Safety Department and/or Safety Representative shall be notified prior to the use of any "LIVE AMMUNITION."
7. Notification of this type of activity shall be made on the call-sheet. If the call sheet is not available before the date the "LIVE AMMUNITION" is to be used, advanced notice is to be given.
8. Before any use of a firearm and the loading of "LIVE AMMUNITION" in a rehearsal and/or for an on-camera sequence, all persons involved shall be thoroughly briefed at an on-site SAFETY MEETING where the firearms will be used.
9. The SAFETY MEETING shall include an “on-site walk through” and/or “dry-run” with the Property Master (or, in his/her absence, the weapons handler and/or other appropriate personnel determined by the locality or the needs of the production), Range Master (if applicable), designated production representative, and anyone that will be using and/or handling the firearms. An understanding of the intended action, possible deviations, plans to abort, emergency procedures, and chain of command should be made clear.
10. Cast and crew members shall be limited to those members absolutely required to capture the effect. No minor(s) may be present in any scene or in the vicinity when "LIVE AMMUNITION" is being fired.
11. The Property Master (or, in his/her absence, the WEAPONS HANDLER and/or other appropriate personnel determined by the locality or the needs of the production) with the appropriate licenses required by the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ), shall procure and maintain the proper firearms to achieve the effect and determine that the firearm is in good and safe working condition. The firearms will be kept in the control of only the Property Master (or, in his/her absence, the weapons handler and/or other appropriate personnel determined by the locality or the needs of the production). SUCH FIREARMS WILL NOT BE USED AS PROPS.
12. On days where the production will be utilizing firearms for "LIVE AMMUNITION" firing and have replicas and/or a “prop firearm,” the Property Master (or, in his/her absence, the WEAPONS HANDLER and/or other appropriate personnel determined by the locality or the needs of the production) shall identify the "LIVE AMMUNITION" firearms by color or some other easily recognizable means of identification. These types of firearms shall never be kept together and/or stored together.
13. All "LIVE AMMUNITION" shall be kept in the control of the licensed Property Master (or, in his/her absence, the WEAPONS HANDLER and/or other appropriate personnel determined by the locality or the needs of the production). Additionally, it shall be stored in a manner to keep it safe and secure and in compliance with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations related to the storage and use of "LIVE AMMUNITION."
14. "LIVE AMMUNITION" will not be kept on the set for any longer than is necessary to complete the scene in which it is being used. "LIVE AMMUNITION" shall be secured in a locked box and clearly marked in a manner to differentiate it from blank ammunition.
15. "LIVE AMMUNITION" will be transported in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations to and from the set on the day of its use.
16. While on a gun range and/or military base, the Range Master shall have overall control and final authority of the range and every person present, including the production cast and crew and the Property Master (or, in his/her absence, the weapons handler and/or other appropriate personnel determined by the locality or the needs of the production).
17. All safety procedures and requirements shall be strictly followed. There shall be no deviation of the intended sequence without the permission of the Range Master or Property Master (or, in his/her absence, the WEAPONS HANDLER and/or other appropriate personnel determined by the locality or the needs of the production) depending on who is in charge of the specific location to be utilized.
18. Immediately prior to the firearm discharge, a rehearsal shall be held to ensure that all who will be present know the assigned location, the safe zones that have been identified, and to ensure that no one is down in the range area. Upon completion of the rehearsal, a formal announcement shall be made to all those present that "LIVE AMMUNITION" will be fired.
19. Particular attention shall be paid to the line of fire. Ensure the area is clear of all personnel and be aware of possible ricochet hazards and/or the ejection of hot shell casings.
So let's see how many specific regulations were violated here, and by whom.
1) Rule 3. The studio lot where the fatal shooting occurred is not a suitable range for live firing.
2) Rule 1. There was no such joint determination that there was any need to be doing live firing.
3) Rule 11. The Weapons handler did not keep firearms capable of live firing in her possession.
4) Rule 11. The Weapons handler used a firearm capable of chambering live ammunition as a prop.
5. Rule 4. No such permit to conduct live firing was issued to this production, for this location.
6. Rule 5. No notification was made, nor approval obtained, from any insurance company for the presence or use of live weapons and live ammunition.
7. Rule 6. No notification was made to the Studio Safety Department nor Safety Representative of the use of live ammunition.
8. Rule 7. No notification was made of the planned use of live ammunition on the call sheet, which is passed out to the entire crew the day before each day's activities.
9. Rule 8. No Safety Meeting concerning the use of live ammunition was made prior to the rehearsal where the live round was fired.
10. Rule 9. No such walk-through briefing nor dry run was held at the non-occurring Safety Meeting, to discuss the particulars of what would take place.
11. Rule 10. Cast and crew members were not limited in any way to capture a live firing effect.
12. Rule 12. Weapons capable of firing live ammunition were not distinctively marked in any way by the Weapons handler.
13. Rule 12. Weapon(s) capable of firing live ammunition were not kept separate from prop guns by the Weapons handler.
14. Rule 9. At the Safety Meeting which never happened, no discussion of emergency procedures ever took place.
15. Rule 13. Live ammunition was not kept in the control of the Weapons handler.
16. Rule 13. Live ammunition was not stored in a manner to keep it safe and secure.
17. Rule 14. Live ammunition was on set despite being completely unnecessary.
18. Rule 14. Live ammunition was not secured in a locked box.
19. Rule 14. Live ammunition was not clearly marked in a manner to differentiate it from blank ammunition.
20. Rule 15. Live ammunition was not transported in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.
21. Rule 16. There was no designated Range Master.
22. Rule 17. All safety procedures were not strictly followed.
23. Rule 18. No rehearsal for live firing was conducted.
24. Rule 18. No formal announcement was made that live ammunition was to be fired.
25. Rule 19. No attention was paid to the line of fire, and multiple personnel were located down range.
Violations 3, 4, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 22 were all violations solely and completely the exact job function of the Weapons handler.
Violations 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25 occurred entirely and solely because of Violations 4, 12, 13, and 22 by the Weapons handler.
This led to a situation where no one was aware, nor could be aware, that the designated Weapons handler, the sole firearms expert on that set, and the one person hired and designated as such by the film's Producers, had hijacked a rehearsal with non-firing prop guns, and turned it into a live firing exercise.
And even she didn't know she had done this, because she was so overwhelmingly incompetent, she didn't even know what she didn't even know. And, by the conspicuous lack of mention in the lead up to the fatal incident, was, in all likelihood, not even present when the sabotaged weapon was handed to the actor in question.
This came about because the weapons handler also violated all of the following rules
GENERAL SAFE USE AND HANDLING OF FIREARMS
Specifically:
5. The Weapons handler should inspect the firearm and barrel before and after every firing sequence.
6. UTILIZE all safety devices until the firearm(s) is ready to be used.
7. NEVER lay down a firearm or leave it unattended.
9. Once the firearm has been loaded with the "LIVE AMMUNITION" the firearm is to be considered “hot.”
Additionally, the Weapons handler completely failed to faithfully discharge most of the specific job responsibilities laid out herewith, particularly the ones marked FAIL:
The Weapons handler is responsible for the following:
1. Ensuring the control of and distribution of all firearms on the set. FAIL
2. Ensuring that all firearms which will be used on the production (whether company owned, rented, or privately owned) are given to and are in possession of the Property Master (or, in his/her absence, the weapons handler and/or other appropriate personnel determined by the locality or the needs of the production).
3. The designation of experienced persons working under his or her immediate supervision to assist as necessary. FAIL
4. Their own qualifications for working with the type of firearms being used, the knowledge of their safe handling, use, and safekeeping, and familiarity with the "LIVE AMMUNITION" to be utilized. FAIL
5. Seeking expert advice if he or she is not familiar with the firearm to be used.
6. Ensuring current licenses and permits have been obtained for the possession and use of production firearms.
7. The knowledge of the applicable laws governing transportation, storage, and use of firearms and be in compliance with those laws.
8. The knowledge of and adherence to all manufacturers' warnings, expiration dates, storage, and handling procedures for "LIVE AMMUNITION" and firearms.
9. Ensuring that a sufficient amount of time has been allotted for training and rehearsal.
10. The ability to demonstrate prior knowledge of the safe handling of firearms and "LIVE AMMUNITION."
11. The personal loading of firearms or the personal designation of an experienced person working under his or her immediate supervision to load the firearms. Firearms are to be loaded just before they are used in a scene. FAIL
12. Ensuring that any actor who is required to stand near the line of fire be allowed to witness the loading of the firearms.
13. The possession of all firearms except during actual filming or rehearsal. Afterward, the Property Master (or, in his/her absence, the weapons handler and/or other appropriate personnel determined by the locality or the needs of the production) will immediately unload the "LIVE AMMUNITION" from the firearm. FAIL
14. Ensuring that all firearms are cleaned and checked at the close of each day's shooting.
15. Ensuring that all firearms and "LIVE AMMUNITION" are accounted for before any personnel is allowed to leave the area.
16. Ensuring that an inspection is made of the set (location) and all spent "brass casings" and unspent "live ammunition" have been picked up and disposed of properly
That's just one of the two specific Safety Bulletins applicable to Hannah Gutierrez-Reed's FIVE specific overwhelming failures, ELEVEN specific personal violations of the Safety procedures for live ammunition, and the FIFTEEN resultant production violations, all entirely and solely caused by her gross negligence in bringing at least one operable weapon and one live round onto a set, where they were mistakenly placed into an actor's hands completely beyond the knowledge or suspicion of the actor, director, production staff and crew, production management, the studio lot, the production insurance carrier(s), or any of the local authorities.
Those THIRTY-ONE SPECIFIC PERSONAL FAILURES constitute gross negligence suggesting the total inability of Ms. Gutierrez Reed to even supervise weapons at a Nerf Gun shootout, let alone a low-budget motion picture, and calls into serious question whether she even possesses the ability to walk and chew gum at the same time.
She is the sole, direct, proximate, and entire cause of the subsequent fatal and non-fatal injuries to two members of the crew, where the only action contemplated for the moment was rehearsal of a scene utilizing only prop guns incapable of firing anything but blanks, which rehearsal was only to be accomplished with a completely unloaded prop gun.
Anyone looking at the totality of those deliberate and flagrant failures to perform the most basic and minimal due diligence and competence in her job, and suggesting that anyone else bears any legal or moral culpability whatsoever in the fatal shooting that followed, has to have their head shoved so far up their ass as to be able to describe what they had for lunch by watching it splash into their own stomach.
Alec Baldwin absolutely killed the DP and shot the producer, because the weapon was in his hands when he fired it.
That is not what constitutes legal nor moral guilt, in this incident.
That blame appends solely to the person who put a live weapon, loaded with a live round, in contravention of every rule, act, utterance, and behavior of the person entirely entrusted with ensuring such could and would never happen, into his hand.
Empty prop guns don't kill anyone, nor ever can.
Criminally negligent weapons handlers manage to kill people with just one round, in just one attempt.
Alec Baldwin never injured or killed anyone with firearms in a film career spanning 41 years.
Trained and proficient actual Hollywood armorers have managed to not kill anyone with firearms accidentally for 28+ years.
One untrained incompetent jackhole masquerading as a competent armorer managed to kill someone in just 12 days.
See if you can figure out where the fault lies in this incident.
Her Homicidal Fucktard Batting Average stands at 1.500. Which is over 4 times better than Ted Williams' lifetime major league batting average of .344. Gutierrez-Reed doesn't deserve a Darwin Award. She deserves to be inducted into the Order Of Darwin, for spectacular contributions to Darwinian Culling, Above and Beyond The Call.
Argument along the line that Alec Baldwin, or anyone else, was going to undo this dipshit's homicidal incompetence, simply by violating every rule of cinematic safety, and hurdling the exact system that made such an event impossible for nearly three decades, by clairvoyantly and heroically wrestling her tools and entire job out of her hands, because reasons, constitutes admission of severe mental retardation, or overwhelming and profound psychosis.
And BTW, Producers don't hire weapons handlers.
Their hiring (and firing) are solely the province of the Unit Production Manager, sometimes with and sometimes without the advice of the Property Master for the production.
So you can't pin anything to do with that on Baldwin either.
And unless her contract specifies breaking every single industry safety rule regarding her job performance, he's pretty much untouchable on that account too.
As at least one of this ill-fated movie's producers, his sole point of responsibility is going to be when the movie's insurance company pays out the settlement on this colossal clusterfuck.
The overwhelming likelihood is that this piece of low-budget shite was conducted as an LLC, like even multi-million dollar blockbusters are, and the only asset they have is the ownership rights to a script and a half-finished movie, an empty bank account, and a bushel basket of ghost turds. Good luck getting so much as a penny beyond what the maximum insurance coverage is, most of which would be eaten up by lawyer's bills long before a settlement is reached. If the victims want a sure-thing payout, which they absolutely deserve, they should take the first offer they get, and run to cash it while the check is still good.
Personal civil liability on Baldwin's part, in light of the overwhelming collection of calamitous catastrophe Ms. Gutierrez-Reed brings to the table?
Pfft.
Shit in one hand, and wish for a civil judgement in the other, and see which hand fills up first.
Try to Andrew Branca your way out of that predicament, soopergeniusii.
And realize that every day you try to push the "Get Baldwin" narrative, you make him into a bigger martyr to everyone sane, in every way. Way to pull defeat from the jaws of victory!
Take some advice from Will Rogers instead:
16 comments:
"And BTW, Producers don't hire weapons handlers.
Their hiring (and firing) are solely the province of the Unit Production Manager, sometimes with and sometimes without the advice of the Property Master for the production."
I didn't know, that's why I asked in comments to the previous post. Obviously someone hired a weapons handler/armorer/whatever you wish to call her whose resume was short in the experience department, and also failed to take that shortness into account, causing a tragic accident. I'd submit that THAT person DOES bear some responsibility for what happened, in a "The buck stops here" kind of way.
Thanks for the education Aesop.
Mark D
Okay, this was funny at first, but now it's just stupid. Can we all agree that Baldwin a) is a complete ***hole who deserves to have his name dragged through the mud, and b) doesn't appear to actually be guilty of anything criminal in this case? Honestly, with the Biden junta continuing to act in an openly tyrannical manner, it feels like we've got bigger fish to fry.
Great Writeup
FAR more knowledge than anything -I- have/had/will have. Lern't sumthin' new which is always fun. (Besides that apparently muh Diversity! reeeetards are more valued than a high-functioning Whypeepo, see my house for that shyttepyle) But nicely done. I can totally see now, and having seen the Gutierrezgoon's Instaslore Vidyas (i'gnint slore, type TOO many each), it was just a matter of not 'when' but 'how many' was she going to get kil't.
I can -only- imagine if'n this'd been a 'John Wick' style shoot'em up with say a belt fed M249... is there a Oscar for "Most Crew Shot Accidentally in a Single Take?" Jes' Sayin'. Right now, she's definitely going to win the award for this year...
@ Mark D,
You weren't the only one to ask or imply and some of them were simply efforts to justify a backdoor lynching as well.
There are people like you who ask something when they don't know, and then there are people who use not knowing as an excuse to try silly shit.
@T-Rav,
Some folks would rather die on a hill of their own stupidity rather than admit they were on a butthurt revenge binge without any merit. The vehemence of some people's stupidity, and the digging in of heels and piling un additional stupidity with front end loaders, by those who are nominally "on the same side", leaves me with little expectation that they can grasp, let alone accomplish, much of anything more important in life.
YMMV
The initial post was simply an exploration of what I suspected, based on what I know firsthand about the industry in question.
I turned out to be spot-on right, in hours.
The rest was simply a commensurate returning of fire from people with more wind than wit, out of continued astonishment at the level of thick-headedness encountered.
It's beyond any but wild optimism to conclude that the left end of the IQ bell curve is as huge as the last four days of give-and-take here would suggest.
But I now know exactly how Nuñez felt after leaving The Country Of the Blind.
Folks, when the horse has been beaten so severely that it's just a puddle of goo, its time to move on.
I'll pile on with T-Rav; we've far more important things to concern ourselves with. This is now turning into a distraction. While I stand behind no-one in my disdain for all Baldwin's except Adam (no relation) in the movie biz it's long past time to leave this topic and move on. Smartly, if possible.
Boat Guy
@Boat Guy,
Sadly, we don't.
I can count on the toes of one centipede the number of self-appointed jet-fuel genuises (in their own minds) who've had their rhetorical arms legs, and heads hacked off, with every point they attempt, who nonetheless simply retreat to their fortress of solitude until they think up another recockulous "Yahbut..."
And at this point, I've gotten beyond caring whether they'll ever rise up off their knuckles and walk erect, let alone grow a brain.
Dissection is always good practice for surgery, but even more vital, and simultaneously fun is playing "Flush out the hypocrites and lunatics", because the guy that'll set his own house on fire to have his own way is worth identifying from a distance.
Is Biden doing anything today different from yesterday? No.
Is he still a fraudlent president who stole an election, with less legitimacy than a $3 bill? Yes.
Is he printing $3 bills by the metric fuckton, which is going to have prices hereabouts at Zimbabwean levels in 3,2,...? Of course.
Is it all going to explode in a flaming nuclear 40 megaton ball of flaming shit? Yes.
When? No fucking idea.
That's every pressing issue of the day covered, in a minute and change.
I figured, originally that the OP Friday would illuminate the whole story, and nothing we wrote in it has proven to be anything but gold-plated truth.
But we've struck an abscess, and uncovered a festering sewer of hypocrisy, stupidity, and total inability to reason, from people who ought to now better, and on a topic so ancillary to everything it's seriously barely worth even knowing about.
Nobody likes a root canal, let alone having a rectal abscess drained, but the number of pustules exposed to the bright light of reality in the last two days is vast and disgusting, but yet whose incision and drainage is obviously long overdue.
And you've got to get all the ticks, otherwise you might as well not even bother with the first one.
I have a question... and an observation:
Question: In a scenario where many of the facts seem to be public speculation (at least to this point), does anyone know for certain that the current culpability target (armorer Hannah Gutierrez Reed) was actually working on-set when this event transpired?
Observation: Despite an enviable industry safety record (across many decades) and all those well-explained procedural fail-safes normally adhered to...
I'm pretty damn sure there is not a thing on the State of New Mexico's book of statutes granting immunity to the film industry for crimes like manslaughter or reckless endangerment.
When someone screws up like this... the film industry has zero legal authority to try a case. The State does.
It's laudable that the film industry is overwhelmingly successful at self-policing with prop weaponry procedures. 99.99% of the time. I even believe that A. Baldwin was truly stunned when that firearm discharged (due to his lifetime trust in those meticulous procedural norms). But...
The industry doesn't get to decide this case or legally punish the guilty. The State of New Mexico (or the appropriate NM County) does.
One human being shot two other human beings. With a loaded firearm. The law doesn't state that dumb-as-a-box-of-rocks actors get special legal immunity in the event of a firearm tragedy. Just because theoretically professional armorers or assistant directors should have ensured safe conditions. Nor because union regulations were ignored.
As a juror in a criminal or civil trial, I'd be sympathetic to defense claims of mitigating circumstances during a cascade of failure. But I'd treat it the same way I would if any other random citizen shot somebody negligently or recklessly.
The Defendant pulled the trigger. The Victims paid the price. And not all the debate in the world over "industry procedure" removes the onus from the one who was ultimately responsible. In this case... A. Baldwin.
Because the law does not state that if you shoot people by mistake...it's someone else's fault (due to their particular employment).
While it may be standard industry procedure that ill-trained actors don't check their own weapons for safety condition... that's industry policy; not statute.
Cascading Failure & Normalcy Bias. Nobody properly checked the firearm to be sure of its condition. Nobody thought to demand anyone else physically prove those safety assumptions true.
Fear of or deference to authority (even when those in authority are obviously screwing up). Subordinate folks watch as the unthinkable occurs without attempting to intercede or offer on-the-spot correction. Because they are too intimidated to do so. The origin of "Cockpit Resource Management" procedures in aviation circles.
I don't think for a moment that Alec Baldwin screwed up deliberately. But he did screw up. By failing to mitigate risk by being sure. Instead, he just complacently went with the flow.
From an Industry perspective, I agree that Baldwin is "blameless", but...
From a Legal perspective, they are going to primarily pin the tail on Baldwin's donkey.
Anonymous,
Yes, the director has already been quoted as saying Reed was on-set when the incident happened.
One of multiple problems is that she wasn't the one to maintain control of the weapon, issue the weapon, and beyond any doubt never fucking CHECKED the weapon, which is not only her entire reason for having the job in the first place, it's the eact way you prevent killing people on set, every day for 28 years, until she screwed that particular pooch.
Nobody's asking for a grant of cinematic immunity.
Pay attention: to have involuntary manslaughter, you have to have
1) a DEFENDANT with a duty to perform
2) which DEFENDANT then failed to perform that duty
3) which resulted in a VICTIM dying.
We know who the victim is.
So:
1) Whose duty was it to inspect weapons on set prior to issuing them?
2) Who didn't do that?
That's your defendant.
There's no cinematic immunity: Book her, Dano.
QED
Industry procedure defines who does what, because employers get to control safety in their own shop, none of which procedures violate any state law, in any state of the union.
Baldwin failed in exactly zero duties. He was doing what he was supposed to do, at the place and time specified, exactly as his employer required.
Gutierrez-Reed did nothing her employer required, except suck oxygen and draw a paycheck.
She performed no weapons custody. No weapons check. No double-check verification.
And on and on.
Every single element (of DOZENS such) of the fatal mishap occurred directly and solely because of dereliction of an affirmative duty to perform the job functions for which Gutierrez-Reed was expressly hired, according to the regulations for safe weapons and ammunition handling, in place since before she was born.
And this is still baffling shit out of people, despite being explained at a level a smart third grader can follow and understand, like ten or more times, to date.
And you're still trying to invent mythical tasks out of thin air for Baldwin that don't exist, to draw an imaginary chain of responsibility to do a job for which he was expressly not hired, and for which Gutierrez-Reed expressly was!
You're literally trying to pin the plane crash on the flight attendant, or the fat guy sleeping in 27C.
"It's like playing poker with my sister's kids!"
FFS, stop taking drugs, sober the fuck up, and figure this out without any more bong hits.
Didn't think producers hired armorers. But with two on-set NDs before the fatal day, should there not have been a diktat along the lines of "you fire her or I fire you"
Hadn't occurred to me about the LLC shield. D'oh. ::blush:: Thanks for that insight.
1) a DEFENDANT with a duty to perform
It is the duty of EVERYONE handling a firearm to ensure it is incapable of killing someone. Being an actor does not get you out of this responsibility. It may apply even more when you fully intend to be in a situation where you will point it at someone and pull the trigger.
2) which DEFENDANT then failed to perform that duty
Yes.
3) which resulted in a VICTIM dying.
Yes.
It seems clear.
I will no doubt be proven wrong simply because some lefty prosecutor won't press charges. They would in a hot minute if I was making a gansta rap video and shot someone with a gun I was told was unloaded.
The media is already in Baldwin Protection Mode.
"The prop gun went off."
"A live round found it's way onto the set."
"He pointed the gun at the camera and it shot two people."
Etc.
> 7) You asked "But why did that procedure fail on the set of "Rust?"
And you know the answer before you asked that spring-loaded rhetorical question:
That procedure didn't "fail", rather obviously it was never even followed.
---
To the bureaucratic mind, the answer to a failure of procedure is *more* procedure! More checks! More paperwork!
When your only tool is the procedural handbook, every problem looks like an administrative problem.
--TRX
Pt 1 comment:
Defending the actor's innocence for physical actions undertaken with a deadly weapon comes across as an appeal to authority (i.e., "industry rules & standard procedures").
I agree that multiple folks ALL fucked up. But A. Baldwin pulled the trigger... and the State/county AG will have their pound of flesh in the matter (if the case isn't waved away by coat tails, money, & political connections).
If the armorer failed in her job... she's to blame.
If the AD failed in his job... he's to blame.
And if Baldwin failed in his job... he's also to blame.
Apparently he did... as both Producer & Star. Not because he didn't personally inspect the weapon... but because he failed to ensure that contractually responsible employees correctly did so. In the midst of an on-going film effort beset by shoddy practices (noticed by others), a union walk-out, and an evident recent history of weapon safety violations and handling improprieties.
He was more than an actor in this little enterprise and it's disingenuous to pretend otherwise. He was a Boss... who failed to exercise his influence & authority. Failed to run a tight ship. Who allowed corners to be cut.
I served as a military Jump Master for 34 years. Assuming command delegated legal responsibility/authority for the lives and safety of all personnel, equipment, and aircraft during the conduct of airborne (parachute) operations. If I screwed up and someone died... I could have gone to prison (under UCMJ). If my subordinate JMs screwed up (even on another aircraft... far from my physical control), I was still potentially/partially culpable and punishable.
Because Bosses [Commanders & their delegated command authority wielders (like Jump masters) don't get to blame others for events]. They own the whole ball of wax. Just like sleeping Captains of naval vessels when some watch stander runs the ship aground.
No matter how professionally a parachute delivery operation was run, no matter that I personally checked the safety status of each jumper or cargo bundle... the least experienced Private could call an immediate halt to procedures if he observed something manifestly un-safe. At any point in the endeavor.
That didn't happen on this make-believe movie set. Leaders/Bosses abrogated their responsibilities. They got lazy, complacent, and fucked up.
Which (ipso facto) indicates that existing industry prop procedures actually have a hole big enough to drive a dump truck through. Because they didn't account properly for the Human Factors shit show on full display at this particular film set. I'm sure that OSHA or the like will require future mitigation changes on that account.
I find it interesting that many folks out in internet land are dog-piling the Armorer (already tried and convicted in the court of public opinion) in the same manner that an equivalent number of folks have dog piled the Actor/Producer for the same reasons. All without benefit of incontestable facts or any first hand insight into the law enforcement investigation.
Alec Baldwin was experienced & competent enough to read the tea leaves on his own shaky enterprise... and re-enforce cautionary procedures that he (as a professional) knew were a requirement. He's the star & producer of his own movie for Chrissake... not some hourly new-hire.
Contd. -
Contd 2 -
From my layman's read of this situation, no less than three key employees (Star/Producer, AD, & Armorer) failed to tighten up the shot group on-set. Despite days of ample warning and specific Red flags.
People tend to die when other people screw up. People screw up when improperly lead, managed, supervised. What Bosses doesn't check or enforce gets short thrift.
Baldwin may ultimately escape formal State assignation of legal blame, but he's still not blameless. Because he allowed an atmosphere of sub-standard performance to fester. With those kinds of problems evidently rampant, failed to exercise enough common sense to ask his responsible crew members to get their asses over to his location and do their job in front of his eyes.
I don't do drugs or drink. But I've been balls deep in major accident/death investigations as a result of amazingly complex misadventures. Parachute operations, underwater diving deaths, NDs/ADs with live weapons, fatal vehicular accidents, aircraft crashes, fratricide deaths, demolitions or UXO misadventures, collateral deaths of civilians, industrial accidents/fatalities, violent crime investigation, etc.
This type of catastrophic or fatal scenario is nothing new to me. Neither is the ensuing early finger pointing. Pretty typical actually...
On a side note, I enjoy visiting your site and have lurked for years. This being the first time I've felt compelled to comment on anything. otherwise, on a wide range of posts & topics, I routinely appreciate your writing, your logic, your point of view, and your masterful fluidity with profanity. Like reading my own internal narrative voice. LOL.
As usual, your genius and on point logic has stood the test of time. I wish folks would realize that the actors are not the most important part of the movie. Yes, we all oh and awe at some damned fine impersonations, but in the end- the credits are there for a reason. And no, it isn't for the 2nd gaffer's mommy to see his name in lights. This is a reminder of who IS IMPORTANT, when it comes to money needed and money spent and money made. Actors can twist in a movie into Oscar stratosphere, but it's "the little people" who make it all come together.
I was wondering the same thing, Anonymous, because Hollywood is weird.
How much of a boss is The Producer in Hollyweirdland? Not much of one, it turns out. Yes, the old French adage applies: the fish rots at the head. But another fellow further up pointed out, that even if everyone, from Producer, to whoever bankrolled the film, to whatever the site and hiring managers are called, to everyone on set*, agreed to work cheap, and cut corners...The local legal yokels can grab their pound of flesh, or give a free pass if they want . It is not as if the law matters anymore.
So the only thing I'm curious about is the moral dimension and the behind-the-scenes stuff Mr. Aesop is sharing.
And Mr. Anon, based on what we've learned so far, it appears the model isn't a team of break-things-and-kill-people, it is team working to build an office building. A cut-rate building, and "oh yeah, we need to clear part of that land we got cheap. Someone get that done, okay?" In Hollywood is that like having an independent contractor? Or is responsibility even more diffuse?
And on a related note (NOT to pile on the Baldwin-criminal thing**) how does Hollywood self-police? Reading Jackie Chan's bio, it is a wonder he is still alive, the stuff he and his crew did in Hong Kong.
because of dereliction of an affirmative duty to perform the job functions for which Gutierrez-Reed was expressly hired,
How did they keep the Gutierrez-Reeds from killing people for three decades? Is this a black swan? Nepotism? Stronk Wahmen diversity hire? Misplaced priorities: there's only so much time and attention going around: If it's all on climate stasis, Branch Covidia, and pronouns; basic safety comes 14th?
(*Except the Union guys who walked off, of course. But why did they walk? Is it relevant?)
**Though meming him viz his misfortune is on. He's earned it.
Post a Comment