New Mexico prosecutors on Tuesday said they intended to recharge actor Alec Baldwin with involuntary manslaughter for the fatal shooting of "Rust" cinematographer Halyna Hutchins in 2021.
Morrissey said if new testing of the gun showed it was working, she would recharge Baldwin.
Your gun safety course teaches the basics. But it’s not an exhaustive list of all possible scenarios that someone may find themselves in possession of a firearm.
Your course will go over the rules for your safe handling in the majority of situations you may find yourself, i.e. the range and self defense. A film set is a fundementally different environment with its own ruleset. Many of the rules are similar, but not exact. A production set should have its own firearms safety training before filming with firearms.
The situation does have consequences. It’s not clear if the situation rises to the degree of criminal consequences. There have already been civil consequences that he has had to meet. I know many don’t see civil liabilities equitable to the consequences we’d face when they are applied to someone who is wealthy. The same civil liabilities would be impossible for myself to pay.
However, if you or I were places into the same situation I don’t think we’d be facing criminal charges either.
Was it reckless to point the gun at the camera? I don’t think so, even with someone behind the camera. While working on a film, there are times when you’ll want to record a shot from that angle. It’s pretty unavoidable if you want that shot.
Is it reckless to do so with a loaded gun? Yes, but he was led to believe the gun was safe. And this may not mean unloaded, because particularly when we talk about revolvers, it may have dummy rounds which are designed to give the appearance of the gun being loaded while not having the ability to fire a bullet.
Would an actor be able to differentiate between live and dummy rounds? Maybe. But I’d argue it’s not something they would have the training and experience to do so reliably.
I don’t think the accident rises to the level of criminal charges.
Like I said, they should be having safety trainings already. This will make the actor familiar with the firearm, it’s functions, and the onset procudures to use it and to do so safely. It should include a briefing on the different types of ammo on set but I don’t feel that making an actor aware how to tell every single one apart can be expected. The breadth of knowledge would be too great to reliably expect someone with minimal training to reliably identify a round and to continue to do so throughout an extended production.
Personally, I feel a chain of custody from an expert or experts which can do so makes more sense. If anyone in that chain of custody questions the procedure in which they are handed a firearm it would start over. Additionally, that chain of custody should be witnessed at all times by the expert. It should also include a verbal description of what is being handed over and what it’s load is and that the person receiving it should repeat it back during a verification.
In this case, the armorer didn’t hand him the gun. Which I don’t know what that productions proper procedures. But since it wasn’t the armorer, the actor wouldn’t have had that immediate face to face availability to ask the armorer. I can only assume the armorer was on set and available for questions though.
However, is this policy safe, is this how it should be done, and does having done it this way rise to the level of criminal charges are all independent questions.
I’m sure this shooting will change and has changed how firearms are handled on set. That said, these types of industry activity procedures aren’t regulated through law, and will still largely rely on production companies, studios, and armorers policies and procedures.
My argument isn’t that the safe handling of firearms is already sufficient and doesn’t need to be changed. Very clearly this incident shows a gap in training and procedures.
I’m only saying that my opinion is that this negligent discharge doesn’t meet the requirements to consider criminal charges and that Alec Baldwin isn’t getting special treatment due to his fame or status as a film star.
Exactly. Anyone who handles firearms in any capacity should be able to do so safely. The four rules of safe gun handling are ubiquitous throughout the firearm industry; it is patently absurd to even suspect that Baldwin was ignorant of the risks or rules. As the person actually handling the gun, it was his responsibility to ensure it was handled safely. If he wants to point it at a person and pull the trigger, he better be damn sure it’s not going to discharge, regardless of what the armorer had to say about it.
Was it reckless to point the gun at the camera? I don’t think so, even with someone behind the camera. While working on a film, there are times when you’ll want to record a shot from that angle. It’s pretty unavoidable if you want that shot.
It is certainly possible to point a gun at a camera or a person and it not be an act of recklessness. However, it is also possible to point a gun at a camera in a reckless manner.
The “industry standard” of safe gun handling includes four rules. Breaking any of those rules makes the person handling the gun responsible for any harm arising from their handling of that gun. It’s not necessarily reckless to break the rules: I pull the triggers on my Glocks without intending to fire them, because pulling the trigger is required to field strip them. I point revolver barrels at my eye while cleaning them, because I can’t observe the barrel from the breech. I accept the consequences when I break the rules. If any harm were to occur while I was breaking the standards of safe gun handling, I would be directly and personally responsible. I can only be absolved of responsibility for a firearm accident if I was following the rules at the time of the accident.
The first rule of safe gun handling is “Treat every gun as if it were loaded until proven otherwise.”
“Every gun is loaded” means that if I haven’t personally observed the chamber to be empty, I must assume it is loaded. If I want to treat it as unloaded, I have to positively verify it is unloaded. It is reckless for me to assume that it is unloaded. It is reckless for me to use a random gun in any manner in which it would be reckless to handle a loaded gun.
I agree with you, it is not reckless to point an unloaded gun at a camera. If you want a picture of the muzzle end of a gun, you need to point that gun at a camera. That’s not a problem.
The problem is that he assumed the gun was unloaded. He made no effort to verify the gun was unloaded. The industry standard for safety gun handling requires him to assume the gun is loaded, and to personally verify a gun is unloaded before treating it as unloaded.
By the time he got around to actually pointing the gun at the camera, he had already committed the acts of recklessness that resulted in her death. He is guilty of criminally negligent homicide due to his mishandling of the firearm.
When you say “industry standard” what industry are you referring to?
The “first rule of safe gun handling” is written in what legal document?
I don’t disagree that this is the first rule I reach anyone when we go to the range. But the crux of this argument is that it is not a written rule in any code of law. It’s an axiom that we follow and we teach but does that make it a legally binding rule where failure to follow it makes the resulting action criminal? I’m just not sure it does.
Would a reasonable person check the firearm in this very unique and specific scenario on a film set where controls are supposed to be put in place and followed?
When working with a revolver specifically it’s common to have dummy rounds which are inert but look real. Even if an actor did check the gun would they be able to reasonably discern between a dummy round and a live round?
If such a distinction cannot be easily done by an actor and if there is a prohibition on live ammunition would a reasonable person assume the gun is “safe” even if they saw ammunition loaded in the firearm?
If such an environment exists where there are dummy rounds and a prohibition on live ammunition is it still reckless?
If an actor personally checks and believes it to be dummy rounds is it reckless?
If this goes to court, it will be interesting to see the arguments made. I’m not convinced it is criminally reckless, but at the same time I am not convinced it isn’t.
All of your arguments tolerate ignorance on the part of the person actually handling the gun. You’ve allowed for the actor to be ignorant of whether the gun is loaded. You’ve allowed for the actor to be ignorant of the distinction between real and dummy ammunition. You’ve allowed for the actor to be ignorant of the safety standards expected of reasonable people.
This is completely and totally unacceptable. The risks associated with firearm use demand a higher standard of care among actors than typical gun users, not the total abdication of reasonable safety standards.
Ignorance of the difference between live and dummy rounds is indicative of negligence and recklessness. That ignorance is a condemnation of the actor, not a mitigation.
Ignorance of whether a gun is loaded or not is a condemnation of the actor, not an exoneration.
Baldwin’s handling of that weapon was well beyond simple negligence. This was extremely reckless behavior.
Your gun safety course teaches the basics. But it’s not an exhaustive list of all possible scenarios that someone may find themselves in possession of a firearm.
Your course will go over the rules for your safe handling in the majority of situations you may find yourself, i.e. the range and self defense. A film set is a fundementally different environment with its own ruleset. Many of the rules are similar, but not exact. A production set should have its own firearms safety training before filming with firearms.
The situation does have consequences. It’s not clear if the situation rises to the degree of criminal consequences. There have already been civil consequences that he has had to meet. I know many don’t see civil liabilities equitable to the consequences we’d face when they are applied to someone who is wealthy. The same civil liabilities would be impossible for myself to pay.
However, if you or I were places into the same situation I don’t think we’d be facing criminal charges either.
Was it reckless to point the gun at the camera? I don’t think so, even with someone behind the camera. While working on a film, there are times when you’ll want to record a shot from that angle. It’s pretty unavoidable if you want that shot.
Is it reckless to do so with a loaded gun? Yes, but he was led to believe the gun was safe. And this may not mean unloaded, because particularly when we talk about revolvers, it may have dummy rounds which are designed to give the appearance of the gun being loaded while not having the ability to fire a bullet.
Would an actor be able to differentiate between live and dummy rounds? Maybe. But I’d argue it’s not something they would have the training and experience to do so reliably.
I don’t think the accident rises to the level of criminal charges.
What’s the problem with “this movie will have firearms, we will teach you how to safely check each gun type and what to look for”
And then an actor, if they forget how when the armorer is handling them, be obligated to ask “how do I check this gun safely?”
People took shortcuts and didn’t ask questions. Iff that’s just the way it’s done on movie sets, the behavior needs to change.
Like I said, they should be having safety trainings already. This will make the actor familiar with the firearm, it’s functions, and the onset procudures to use it and to do so safely. It should include a briefing on the different types of ammo on set but I don’t feel that making an actor aware how to tell every single one apart can be expected. The breadth of knowledge would be too great to reliably expect someone with minimal training to reliably identify a round and to continue to do so throughout an extended production.
Personally, I feel a chain of custody from an expert or experts which can do so makes more sense. If anyone in that chain of custody questions the procedure in which they are handed a firearm it would start over. Additionally, that chain of custody should be witnessed at all times by the expert. It should also include a verbal description of what is being handed over and what it’s load is and that the person receiving it should repeat it back during a verification.
In this case, the armorer didn’t hand him the gun. Which I don’t know what that productions proper procedures. But since it wasn’t the armorer, the actor wouldn’t have had that immediate face to face availability to ask the armorer. I can only assume the armorer was on set and available for questions though.
However, is this policy safe, is this how it should be done, and does having done it this way rise to the level of criminal charges are all independent questions.
I’m sure this shooting will change and has changed how firearms are handled on set. That said, these types of industry activity procedures aren’t regulated through law, and will still largely rely on production companies, studios, and armorers policies and procedures.
My argument isn’t that the safe handling of firearms is already sufficient and doesn’t need to be changed. Very clearly this incident shows a gap in training and procedures.
I’m only saying that my opinion is that this negligent discharge doesn’t meet the requirements to consider criminal charges and that Alec Baldwin isn’t getting special treatment due to his fame or status as a film star.
Exactly. Anyone who handles firearms in any capacity should be able to do so safely. The four rules of safe gun handling are ubiquitous throughout the firearm industry; it is patently absurd to even suspect that Baldwin was ignorant of the risks or rules. As the person actually handling the gun, it was his responsibility to ensure it was handled safely. If he wants to point it at a person and pull the trigger, he better be damn sure it’s not going to discharge, regardless of what the armorer had to say about it.
Moreover, why would you want to hold a gun unless you knew you were able to verify you weren’t putting anyone or anything at risk?
It is certainly possible to point a gun at a camera or a person and it not be an act of recklessness. However, it is also possible to point a gun at a camera in a reckless manner.
The “industry standard” of safe gun handling includes four rules. Breaking any of those rules makes the person handling the gun responsible for any harm arising from their handling of that gun. It’s not necessarily reckless to break the rules: I pull the triggers on my Glocks without intending to fire them, because pulling the trigger is required to field strip them. I point revolver barrels at my eye while cleaning them, because I can’t observe the barrel from the breech. I accept the consequences when I break the rules. If any harm were to occur while I was breaking the standards of safe gun handling, I would be directly and personally responsible. I can only be absolved of responsibility for a firearm accident if I was following the rules at the time of the accident.
The first rule of safe gun handling is “Treat every gun as if it were loaded until proven otherwise.”
“Every gun is loaded” means that if I haven’t personally observed the chamber to be empty, I must assume it is loaded. If I want to treat it as unloaded, I have to positively verify it is unloaded. It is reckless for me to assume that it is unloaded. It is reckless for me to use a random gun in any manner in which it would be reckless to handle a loaded gun.
I agree with you, it is not reckless to point an unloaded gun at a camera. If you want a picture of the muzzle end of a gun, you need to point that gun at a camera. That’s not a problem.
The problem is that he assumed the gun was unloaded. He made no effort to verify the gun was unloaded. The industry standard for safety gun handling requires him to assume the gun is loaded, and to personally verify a gun is unloaded before treating it as unloaded.
By the time he got around to actually pointing the gun at the camera, he had already committed the acts of recklessness that resulted in her death. He is guilty of criminally negligent homicide due to his mishandling of the firearm.
When you say “industry standard” what industry are you referring to?
The “first rule of safe gun handling” is written in what legal document?
I don’t disagree that this is the first rule I reach anyone when we go to the range. But the crux of this argument is that it is not a written rule in any code of law. It’s an axiom that we follow and we teach but does that make it a legally binding rule where failure to follow it makes the resulting action criminal? I’m just not sure it does.
Would a reasonable person check the firearm in this very unique and specific scenario on a film set where controls are supposed to be put in place and followed?
When working with a revolver specifically it’s common to have dummy rounds which are inert but look real. Even if an actor did check the gun would they be able to reasonably discern between a dummy round and a live round?
If such a distinction cannot be easily done by an actor and if there is a prohibition on live ammunition would a reasonable person assume the gun is “safe” even if they saw ammunition loaded in the firearm?
If such an environment exists where there are dummy rounds and a prohibition on live ammunition is it still reckless?
If an actor personally checks and believes it to be dummy rounds is it reckless?
If this goes to court, it will be interesting to see the arguments made. I’m not convinced it is criminally reckless, but at the same time I am not convinced it isn’t.
All of your arguments tolerate ignorance on the part of the person actually handling the gun. You’ve allowed for the actor to be ignorant of whether the gun is loaded. You’ve allowed for the actor to be ignorant of the distinction between real and dummy ammunition. You’ve allowed for the actor to be ignorant of the safety standards expected of reasonable people.
This is completely and totally unacceptable. The risks associated with firearm use demand a higher standard of care among actors than typical gun users, not the total abdication of reasonable safety standards.
Ignorance of the difference between live and dummy rounds is indicative of negligence and recklessness. That ignorance is a condemnation of the actor, not a mitigation.
Ignorance of whether a gun is loaded or not is a condemnation of the actor, not an exoneration.
Baldwin’s handling of that weapon was well beyond simple negligence. This was extremely reckless behavior.
I