Alec Baldwin shoots and kills cinematographer.

I think a better analogy is you pay the FBO to fill your tanks, and you take off without checking whether they are full.
That. And you happen to be a CFI and the student said they checked the fuel, then you run out of fuel because only one side got filled and the student happened to only check the one side. Then the plane crashes and the student is killed but you aren’t. Are you guilty of negligent homicide?

Sure feels like a fair amount of people want jail time for an actor not at all intending to have a real, live gun in his hands and who feels horrible about the events. Maybe it could be technically classed as negligent homicide but, just like the grandfather who dropped his grandkid off a cruise ship, that doesn’t mean it should go to trial or result in jail time. In either case, would a guilty finding, let alone jail time, really reduce the likelihood of this happening again? I don’t think so. And if nobody knew the name of this actor would there be such a push for jail time? I don’t think so.
 
This was a rehearsal of a scene! What possible justification is there for using a real gun for a rehearsal?!

Most gun handling classes I know about use rubber training guns wherever possible. Like this: https://www.amazon.com/BladesUSA-Rubber-Training-Gun/dp/B01M5BQOUZ . Why not use something similar for a rehearsal?

I can’t fathom why he needed to be handling an actual firearm in this situation. Sheer idiocy.

Getting the feel/shape/weight of the actual gun was possibly the reason to use it for rehearsing the church pew seated quick-draw that they were reportedly working on. Like simulating an engine out emergency landing- sometimes those are practiced in a real live airplanes, and they've been known to result in real live (and dead) accidents. All avoidable. Similar, yeah- dissimilar, yup. Doesn’t make the movie set actions ok by any means, but it might explain a possible reason for rehearsing with the real gun, especially if they were going to start filming after a bit of practice.
 
Getting the feel/shape/weight of the actual gun was possibly the reason to use it for rehearsing the church pew seated quick-draw that they were reportedly working on. Like simulating an engine out emergency landing- sometimes those are practiced in a real live airplanes, and they've been known to result in real live (and dead) accidents. All avoidable. Similar, yeah- dissimilar, yup. Doesn’t make the movie set actions ok by any means, but it might explain a possible reason for rehearsing with the real gun, especially if they were going to start filming after a bit of practice.


Yeah, I ain't buyin' it.

An inoperative gun can have the same weight and dimensions as a real one. And it's really not that hard to make a real gun into a non-functioning one in order to have a rehearsal piece. Disable a gun so that it cannot fire, spray paint it orange, and it becomes very obvious whether someone is holding the practice weapon or not.
 
Is it just assumption that he aimed at the camera, and people behind the camera, or were they in the line of fire when he swung the weapon around?

Not that it makes any difference to the DP.
 
A lot of information to unpack here. The first question is whether the decedent was an "employee" subject to worker's compensation or an independent contractor. I don't know how the film industry is set up in general, or this production in particular. Maybe someone on here does. If she was an employee entitled to workers compensation, then very likely her estate's exclusive recovery for claims of negligence would be under worker's compensation. Also if so, there very likely is co-worker immunity. Some states are more lenient about permitting claims for intentional or other conduct rising to a level above negligence to be made despite the exclusivity of the worker's compensation recovery.

I don't know what you mean by the term "production underwriter claims department." In all likelihood, the production had liability insurance, and that policy would no doubt cover Baldwin's actions, too. If you are referring to that insurance carrier, you may be correct that they will ultimately offer money to settle in the event there is not some worker's compensation exclusive remedy that bars tort claims. Doubtful that Baldwin's personal liability carrier and umbrella carrier will be making payments.

I don't see subrogation here. That generally happens when there is a property or health insurer that makes a payment. Liability carriers can't generally subrogate because they are paying for their own insured's negligence. Maybe there would an indemnity or contribution claim, but against whom? Not sure who they would have such claims against anyone who was not also their own insured. Similarly I suppose the health insurer of the decedent and the AD who was shot and injured might have a claim medical treatment.
Typically, on a movie production and especially one where workers are working under the IATSE basic agreement, the crew is hired as employees of the production company and are covered by a workers comp policy. The production also carries production insurance which covers liability, equipment rental etc etc. and the insurance company's application requires the production to detail if there are stunts, pyro, firearms, etc etc. before they quote and issue the policy.
 
How long does it take to verify a gun is not loaded with live rounds ?

In reference to my earlier post, there were 28 shootings in Chicago over the weekend...anyone seen news coverage of the victims ? IBTL
It could be nearly impossible without a hammer strike or a dram scale to tell if a round is live or not.

...and since you didn't see any reports of the victims you must not live in Chicago, you just got the fauxnews version of what they want you to be mad about. Did you hear about the shootings within a hundred miles of where you live? Did you get their name?
 
You do know what actors are right? I mean, you do understand that when a guy puts on a batman outfit for a movie, he doesn't actually believe he's batman right? Right?

Or do you assume that anyone who chooses to play the part of a murderer in a movie must therefore be a-ok will actually killing people?

Why would that make a difference…? Dead is dead..negligent is negligent…Irony is Irony…Actor or not…
 
This was a rehearsal of a scene! What possible justification is there for using a real gun for a rehearsal?!

Most gun handling classes I know about use rubber training guns wherever possible. Like this: https://www.amazon.com/BladesUSA-Rubber-Training-Gun/dp/B01M5BQOUZ . Why not use something similar for a rehearsal?

I can’t fathom why he needed to be handling an actual firearm in this situation. Sheer idiocy.

I guess "lighting the scene," muscle memory or "practicing how you play" might be too deep a subject for you to wade into.
 
I guess "lighting the scene," muscle memory or "practicing how you play" might be too deep a subject for you to wade into.


Not at all. As I mentioned in another post, practice weapons can easily be made with the same weight, shape, etc., as real ones.

Or is firearm functionality and safety too deep a subject for you to wade into?
 
The reports of "cold gun" kinda haunts me. I can misconstrue that a few ways and hope they all had a clear understanding of what is meant and were using the phrase consistently.
 
Not at all. As I mentioned in another post, practice weapons can easily be made with the same weight, shape, etc., as real ones.

Or is firearm functionality and safety too deep a subject for you to wade into?
I stuck my toe in, answered your question factually but you deflected it and reversed like a typical... If there can be identical, non-functional guns then the same thing goes for rounds and be impossible to tell the difference, so, how long would it take, right?

A rehearsal session would also need to be run through of the handling AND firing of the gun. They need to get the sound, smoke and reactions practiced at some time or another.
 
Is it just assumption that he aimed at the camera, and people behind the camera, or were they in the line of fire when he swung the weapon around?

Not that it makes any difference to the DP.
...or that he meant to fire, or that it wasn't a worn out gun or that he had his finger on the trigger or that he had it drawn and hammer cocked then slammed it on the back of a pew or that he wasn't like so many drunken cowboys that shot themselves. Just plane un-coordinated.
 
I think a better analogy is you pay the FBO to fill your tanks, and you take off without checking whether they are full.
That would be a good analogy if the person holding the gun has received training comparable to what a pilot receives.
 
That. And you happen to be a CFI and the student said they checked the fuel, then you run out of fuel because only one side got filled and the student happened to only check the one side. Then the plane crashes and the student is killed but you aren’t. Are you guilty of negligent homicide?

Sure feels like a fair amount of people want jail time for an actor not at all intending to have a real, live gun in his hands and who feels horrible about the events. Maybe it could be technically classed as negligent homicide but, just like the grandfather who dropped his grandkid off a cruise ship, that doesn’t mean it should go to trial or result in jail time. In either case, would a guilty finding, let alone jail time, really reduce the likelihood of this happening again? I don’t think so. And if nobody knew the name of this actor would there be such a push for jail time? I don’t think so.
I'm uncertain about whether prosecution would be warranted, but if so, it seems like it could apply to more than just the last link in the accident chain in this case.
 
Last edited:
...or that it wasn't similar to how Brandon Lee died, or that it wasn't part of a Masonic test, or that someone wanted to frame Baldwin, or that it wasn't a mfg'ing packaging flaw of the dum dums, or that the armorer mixed up the rounds, or that the AD didn't pick up the wrong gun, or that it was a rock packed in the barrel, or....
 
This was a rehearsal of a scene! What possible justification is there for using a real gun for a rehearsal?!

Most gun handling classes I know about use rubber training guns wherever possible. Like this: https://www.amazon.com/BladesUSA-Rubber-Training-Gun/dp/B01M5BQOUZ . Why not use something similar for a rehearsal?

I can’t fathom why he needed to be handling an actual firearm in this situation. Sheer idiocy.

If I had to guess, the gun being used didn’t have an off the shelf fake version, the camera shot was probably a closeup of Baldwin (like old Clint Eastwood movies) with him holding the gun towards the camera. A realistic fake gun would cost too much to make since this movie was pinching pennies. Add a careless AD and an egotistical SOB who is used to having everything done by subordinates….and we have an “accident” that was easily preventable.
 
If I had to guess, the gun being used didn’t have an off the shelf fake version, the camera shot was probably a closeup of Baldwin (like old Clint Eastwood movies) with him holding the gun towards the camera. A realistic fake gun would cost too much to make since this movie was pinching pennies. Add a careless AD and an egotistical SOB who is used to having everything done by subordinates….and we have an “accident” that was easily preventable.


Maybe.... But take a look at available non-firing replicas. https://www.bytheswordinc.com/c-1056-americana-and-western-pistol-non-firing-replicas.aspx Lots of period guns available and lots cheaper than what this will cost.

But I doubt the production was buying its own guns anyway. More likely leased.
 
I think a video earlier in the thread showed inserts that prevent insertion of real bullets in a revolver. Are those expensive or difficult to find?
 
I actually like the film, and just watched it (pre-shooting.)
One of my favorite movies from back in the day. I don't think that Alec added much to the film though. I was more into Danny Elfman's score of that movie than anything else.
 
It could be nearly impossible without a hammer strike or a dram scale to tell if a round is live or not.

...and since you didn't see any reports of the victims you must not live in Chicago, you just got the fauxnews version of what they want you to be mad about. Did you hear about the shootings within a hundred miles of where you live? Did you get their name?
foh news. nice touch
 
Sister’s husband or wife’s brother?
Wife's brother. He lives in Culver City. He and his neighbor were both retrieving mail out of a common mailbox when his neighbor, who was working on the movie observed, 'You've great hands! Can we use them for a movie?' He also appeared in Tony Danza's movie 'She's out of control' as one of the characters who Danza slams the door on. At the time he was a drummer in a heavy metal band and looked the part. Same deal. Walking down the street when someone noticed him and said "you'll be perfect...no makeup or wardrobe required...come just as you are!" :)
 
Okay but shouldn't training (or possibly licensing) then be a requirement for anyone who wants to purchase or own a firearm? Or would that be considered "gun control"?
OSHA regulates lots of things that are work related, that has nothing to do with how private citizens do things. If I want to use a chainsaw in my backyard without eye or hearing protection while wearing flip flops and a bathing suit I am free to do so. If I tried to do the same thing on a worksite I am sure OSHA would fine my company for the violations if they found out about it.
 
mandatory safety course for CCW here in NC. had to take a safety course back in NJ when I got my hunting license. no problems with that at all, and I encourage more training than that as well.

I did the hunting course here in Texas with my son years ago (if you're old enough you don't need course - but I didn't want him to have to sit there on his own all day on a Saturday). Holy cow they went into EVERYTHING including muzzle load operation and bow types which was really interesting. Only thing I got hacked at was there was an actual question regarding operation of a CANNON that wasn't covered in the course:confused:
 
A lot of information to unpack here. The first question is whether the decedent was an "employee" subject to worker's compensation or an independent contractor. I don't know how the film industry is set up in general, or this production in particular. Maybe someone on here does. If she was an employee entitled to workers compensation, then very likely her estate's exclusive recovery for claims of negligence would be under worker's compensation. Also if so, there very likely is co-worker immunity. Some states are more lenient about permitting claims for intentional or other conduct rising to a level above negligence to be made despite the exclusivity of the worker's compensation recovery.

I don't know what you mean by the term "production underwriter claims department." In all likelihood, the production had liability insurance, and that policy would no doubt cover Baldwin's actions, too. If you are referring to that insurance carrier, you may be correct that they will ultimately offer money to settle in the event there is not some worker's compensation exclusive remedy that bars tort claims. Doubtful that Baldwin's personal liability carrier and umbrella carrier will be making payments.

I don't see subrogation here. That generally happens when there is a property or health insurer that makes a payment. Liability carriers can't generally subrogate because they are paying for their own insured's negligence. Maybe there would an indemnity or contribution claim, but against whom? Not sure who they would have such claims against anyone who was not also their own insured. Similarly I suppose the health insurer of the decedent and the AD who was shot and injured might have a claim medical treatment.

I would argue that the estate would certainly pursue a wrongful death suit, which seems clear in this case: negligence and harm to the family. Such suits don't have the caps of workers comp claims and the production company's liability insurer would certainly be on the hook to defend. I also have no doubt Baldwin would be named if for no other reason he's a deep pocket. As such, his personal liability insurer would be called on to defend..and may just prefer to settle the case given the facts so far.

Liability insurers subrogate all the time. For example, you crash your airplane into a school bus full of kids, your insurer will pay for more than just the damages to the bus, you are also subject to liability claims. If further accident investigation reveals the root cause of the accident was negligent design and manufacture of a critical widget, the widget manufacturer will be subrogated against for the total value of the claim, liability as well as property damage.

I agree with you that in this case a subro is unlikely, but all the facts aren't in. I also agree insurers don't subro against their insureds. Totally off topic, but that's one of the lesser known benefits of having low-limit non-owned aircraft insurance. If the owners coverage and your policy are the same underwriter, they won't generally come after you for the excess loss.
 
Last edited:
I would argue that the estate would certainly pursue a wrongful death suit, which seems clear in this case: negligence and harm to the family. Such suits don't have the caps of workers comp claims and the production company's liability insurer would certainly be on the hook to defend.

It's not about a cap. It's a question of the exclusivity of the remedy of worker's compensation.

I also have no doubt Baldwin would be named if for no other reason he's a deep pocket. As such, his personal liability insurer would be called on to defend..and may just prefer to settle the case given the facts so far.
If there is co-worker immunity, again it won't matter. You can't sue him. In my state, the court would even lack subject matter jurisdiction over the claim. If there is no such immunity in this case, no doubt you are correct-- they would sue him. But again, doubtful his personal insurance would pay. It will almost certainly be resolved within the limits of the production company's insurance.

Liability insurers subrogate all the time. For example, you crash your airplane into a school bus full of kids, your insurer will pay for more than just the damages to the bus, you are also subject to liability claims. If further accident investigation reveals the root cause of the accident was negligent design and manufacture of a critical widget, the widget manufacturer will be subrogated against for the total value of the claim, liability as well as property damage.
Ok, I have been a litigator for over 25 years, all of them in the insurance defense industry defending claims exactly like that, as well bringing subrogation claims on behalf of the insurance carriers. I have never once seen a liability carrier subrogate for payments on behalf of their insured. Not saying it has never happened. But I am saying it isn't common. One problem is that the carrier steps into the shoes of it's insured, and would therefore be barred by the fault of its own insured.

I also agree insurers don't subro against their insureds.
In most states, it is not even permitted to subrogate against your own insured.
 
I don't think any cast or crew was hurt like this during the filming of star wars. I guess they were a little more careful.
 
I don't think any cast or crew was hurt like this during the filming of star wars. I guess they were a little more careful.

I think I read someplace someone never reappeared after they went into the Transporter on Starship Enterprise. Scotty was a person of interest but since the body was never found, he wasn’t charged.

Cheers
 
I think I read someplace someone never reappeared after they went into the Transporter on Starship Enterprise. Scotty was a person of interest but since the body was never found, he wasn’t charged.

Cheers

Musta been the one in the red shirt ... :D
 
Back
Top