orangerunner

That's the thing. Going forward should all actors choose to undermine the opinions, rules and regulations of the experts on the set by conducting their own unqualified analysis of every conceivably dangerous stunt?

What if the particular gun had a clip with 32 rounds? Is it the responsibility of the actors to remove all 32 rounds in the clip, apply their very limited expertise in firearms to determine the rounds and gun are safe for discharge?

The opinion of “Every person that handles a gun has a duty to make sure that if they’re going to handle that gun, point it at someone and pull the trigger, that it is not going to fire a projectile and kill someone,” she said. She added, “An actor does not get a free pass just because they are an actor. That is what is so important. We are saying here in New Mexico, that everyone is equal under the law.” is an interesting one.

This law was written in the context of a firearms user being responsible for their own individual choices. In the unique context of an actor who is instructed by the director under the guidance of a firearms expert, this is certainly a good counter-argument.

Also, in the context of a movie where the firearm is in the care of an onset expert, does the gun become classified as a "prop" rather than a firearm?

GoldenJCJ

So who is the “employer” that the SAG is referring to? Is that the producer? Director? Studio head? CEO of the armorer company?

Decker

Not sure. But the point is that it isn't the responsibility of the actor on set.
And if the fault lies at the feet of the Producers, it should be the responsibility of all of the producers. And really it's the responsibility of the Producers to makes sure they have an armorer on the set, which there was.

dex14

Likely the producers who hired the technicians.

From Wiki:

It sounds like the case that could be made is the producers hired inexperienced people and allowed for unsafe behavior to continue on set.

I remember when this happened, some industry people were saying that because of the amount of content being produced these days, there just aren't enough people to crew for everything. Productions (especially small ones like this) will cut corners and hire people who don't know what they are doing.

Exactly. I don't understand why it is solely Baldwin.

Goonies85

Someone else has probably already said this but I'm of the opinion that this DA is just using this to garner some publicity. Maybe she has some political aspirations or something and feels that by going after a well-known celebrity (and yes, a divisive one at that, even though I like him) will garner some goodwill with voters down the road (NOTE: I have no idea about her political leanings or anything like that, but it just seems like something a DA would do if they wanted to run for something like governor down the road). Like, it was pretty interesting that I think Baldwin's team found out about this from the media, and were notified like 15 minutes later (that's what they say, anyway), and yet the DA was all ready to go with a little sit-down interview with the press like right-away.

I also have to say that I think the case is pretty ridiculous to begin with; it's a tragedy all-around but I do not think you can say that Baldwin committed "involuntary manslaughter". And I wasn't sure what the pundits would say, but watching CNN and MSNBC and hearing various opinions from lawyers, gun experts, weapons safety experts, set weapon advisors (whatever they're called, I can't remember at the moment), and pretty much all of them said that this case really shouldn't go through, and it's hard to actually pin this on Baldwin. They almost all sounded pretty sure the case is going to be almost impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and they question why the DA would even attempt this (although, unlike myself they haven't really speculated on her motives; I will once more: publicity. That's the only way this makes sense to me...even though the whole thing is non-sensical). I probably listened to 12-15 different so-called "experts" yesterday and today, and I can't remember one of them saying these charges are legit...

That said, most do point out about those issues with safety on the set, and how that had been a pretty big issue. In which case, that doesn't justify going after Baldwin personally for this (and I know he's also a "producer", but like many of those pundits pointed out, as everyone knows, just because someone is named a "producer" on a movie doesn't mean they have actual "producing responsibilities"...as most know, almost every popular actor/actress becomes a producer on the movies they star in, and there's been many instances where people will give their spouse or their kid or their f**king nanny a "producer" credit).

dex14

But in this case he actually was. With the director, he conceived and put the project together.

Count Dooku

Always happy to explain a joke.

#1: The presumption of innocence for the purpose of a fair trail is a legal concept, and if you were called as a prospective juror, you would be asked if you could listen to the evidence and enter deliberations with that presumption in mind. However, if you were honest, when questioned, you would admit to have preconceptions about the case. For example, wondering why the director and other producers did not share the responsibility for the shooting that the prosecution is charging to Baldwin. They don't like jurors to come to the trial having already formulated counter-arguments to the prosecution's case.

#2: The director was one of the people shot. It seems like it would be very difficult to convince a jury that the director shared responsibility for the criminal negligence that led to his own shooting. I'm not saying it is not so, but that charging him does seem like a waste of time. But again, my mildly humorous observation was that by having already thought enough about the DA's charges to ask your question, you disqualified yourself from the jury.

Allow me to add, that I once helped out on the set of an independent movie shot here in Austin, and a responsibility of one of the producers was to make runs to Walmart for water and snacks, and to do the lunch runs. Some producers just write checks and others are hands on during production.

Decker

I seriously don't think George Clooney was running around the Argo set, making sure everything was safe and running smoothly on a day-to-day basis. Same for Brad Pitt for 12 Days a Slave, though both won Oscars for their participation.
I suspect that a lot of the work that credited producers do actually gets handled by production assistants on set.

Count Dooku

Because he is the guy who was holding the gun, and folding his "producing responsibility" into the mix is an attempt to deflect from exactly what immediately happened when the charges were announced: SAG/AFTRA defending Baldwin by saying that actor's are not responsible for checking their prop firearms.

Decker

That's kind of a circular argument isn't it? : He's not responsible as an actor because actors can't be expected to be in charge of gun safety, but it's his job as a producer to ensure set safety. But the other producers aren't responsible because he was the guy with the gun. Do you see the flaw in that logic? I don't think the DA does.

TomOpus

Since all the actors eat at craft services, is each one going to be responsible for checking to ensure correct food preparation was observed? Or just turn it into a daily potluck or BYOB. One less union to worry about. Next is getting rid of grips.

Ash Ketchum

Hey, during jury selection it's the quickest way to get the judge to say, "Mr. Ketchum, you're dismissed." Works every time.

dsa_shea

Charges are often announced against accused on shaky grounds and then dropped before it ever goes to trial. I bet this DA will let these charges simmer for a bit for publicity and then ultimately drop them with some kind of bullshit reasoning.

tanman

I know the incompetent head armorer was also listed as being charged, as she should be, but would she have been charged if they weren't going after Baldwin? IMO if there's anyone that should be held criminally liable it would be her. But why wait until now and charge them at the same time?

rw2516

Could be DA is feeling pressure to file charges from some faction. Her ass is covered when judge dismisses case. It won't be her fault.

Decker

The case is garbage but why would a judge dismiss it before trial?
Do they ever do that in a criminal case besides when a defendant's Civil rights are violated or when someone else confesses to or is convicted of the crime?

Decker

Great article published yesterday in Slate :

The Manslaughter Charges Against Alec Baldwin Truly Make No Sense

northeast11

Maybe Baldwin pleas guilty to a lesser charge. Perhaps negligent homicide. As for why the DA pressed these charges, maybe she felt people would think Baldwin was given special treatment because of his fame if no charges had been brought against him.

Nick Danger

That would suck. The state government has been working for over twenty years to make New Mexico good location for making TV and movies.

Count Dooku

Maybe she thinks his Trump on SNL was just a repetitive, one-note caricature, and that Baldwin was stealing focus from the regular SNL cast members, in order to play out his personal beef with the president on national TV.

Count Dooku

Imagine when the defense has Cranston and Paul on the stand to testify that they never double-checked their guns on the set fo Breaking Bad.

Nick Danger

Steve Martin, Martin Short, and Chevy Chase!

GoldenJCJ

I don’t know. If they had followed proper gun safety protocols on the set, the Invisible Swordsman would still be alive.

Decker

You can see from that Slate article that not all producers are responsible for the day to day running of the set, that it is a function of the production agreement and often it is little more than a vanity title for above the line lead actors.
Also the production did "pony up the dough" to ensure things were being done safely. They had an armorer on set whose main responsibility was to make sure that the prop guns were unloaded. She is also charged, and should face charges. The fact that no other producers face charges really weakens the argument that it's the producer's job to maintain safety on set. The director who instructed Baldwin to pick up a gun and point it at or near the camera should bear some responsibility as well, since nobody is debating that Baldwin was doing what the director told him to do.
Why nobody is being charged for bringing live ammo on the set, let alone shooting the prop gun during a lunch break (which was the initial story I read) just demonstrates what a terribly weak case this is.

dsa_shea

I feel some in here have a personal beef with Baldwin and it obscures how much he is responsible, he really isn't, in this unfortunate tragedy.