Charges dropped against Alec Baldwin in fatal on-set 'Rust' shooting: Sources

[dcsports]

Repeating stuff that you made up doesn't make it true.

Back to throwing poo? What do you think I made up?

I posted the link to the standards several times. Read them yourself.

 

[dcsports]

Second paragraph...these guidelines are intended to give RECOMMENDATIONS....

I've responded to that many times. Let me know if you have a specific question.

and this

ONLY a qualified person shall perform hand loading or altering factory loaded blank ammunition to work on firearms (either licensed or experienced). Check with local, state and federal regulations to see if a specific license is required.

Baldwin wasn't a licensed armorer. So, the only person that would have been qualified to load it would be licensed as an armorer and that same person would be the only person qualified to check the ammo.

You don't have to load the weapon to check it. Noting that Hall did so (poorly). And again, that's one item in a long list.

 

[dcsports]

It clearly says in that stuff you posted when it is acceptable to do so....

Is this what you are talking about? What are the underlined words after "so"? And the instructions that follow that?

 

[ClaraD]

View attachment 67445804
Is this what you are talking about? What are the underlined words after "so"? And the instructions that follow that?

He was on camera...he was practicing a cross draw under instruction from the experts...good grief.

 

[ClaraD]

I've responded to that many times. Let me know if you have a specific question.


You don't have to load the weapon to check it. Noting that Hall did so (poorly). And again, that's one item in a long list.

You do have to be properly licensed...and he is not.

 

[SkyFox76]

lol. You are being silly. We're talking about the industry standard for safety. The guidelines that are used.

Again, the law Baldwin was charged with - that should have been taken to a jury - is that he was careless. How do you decide if someone is careless? By looking at their actions compared to the safety standards. How many rules/standards/recommendations did he break? Did he follow any?

Here is the first line
View attachment 67445799

From the first page
View attachment 67445800

First four rules
View attachment 67445801

Once again for probably the 20th time show us a rule or requirement. NOT a damn recommendation. This isn't that hard to follow.

You once again posted what is titled



You then try to switch it up with "first four rules". So I'll ask you again show us where those "rules" are and stop posting what is stated as recommendations. The two words don't mean the same regardless of how many times you try to suggest they are.

 

[ClaraD]

Once again for probably the 20th time show us a rule or requirement. NOT a damn recommendation. This isn't that hard to follow.

You once again posted what is titled

View attachment 67445805

You then try to switch it up with "first four rules". So I'll ask you again show us where those "rules" are and stop posting what is stated as recommendations. The two words don't mean the same regardless of how many times you try to suggest they are.

he also completely ignored that it gives the responsibility for care of weapons, safety and the loading of a weapon with the licensed person on set.

 

[Atomic Kid]

Anything with any kind of realistic budget, you are likely to witness some rather steep efforts to make your search for qualified personnel more than a bit difficult.
I do not know your experience roster or work profile in this industry, but if you HAVE any significant experience in the business, you can't deny this fact because IATSE has repeatedly demonstrated its ability to grind a production to a halt if they feel it is necessary.
Yes, more so in the L.A. TMZ but anyone in the industry can point to locals all over the country making their presence known in the face of egregious violations of accepted saftey and work condition standards.

We are not talking about five thousand dollar one man band shoots here, we're talking about real movies, with the usual complement of crew, gear, trucks, talent and crafts.
That is why stories about people like Robert Rodriguez pulling off something like "El Mariachi" for seven thousand dollars via maxed out credit cards and second mortgages are so amazing. It could have been filmed stateside but for much more money, hence Rodriguez felt compelled to shoot in a Mexican border town in order to AVOID scuffles with the unions.
God's sake, the man had to shoot on Super16mm in order to avoid the cost of 35mm kit, did a one light workprint transfer in film-to-video so he could do the edit on a cuts only kitchen table linear videotape edit bay instead of cutting film. He used almost NO film crew whatsoever and even opted to use a wheelchair instead of a dolly.
So let's really work on defining "What a movie really IS" as opposed to "What a movie is NOT", because El Mariachi is significant because it was something of a miracle in how he pulled the whole thing off.
And Columbia spent a fortune on both redoing post AND even more on promotion, otherwise it would have wound up in some obscure direct to video bargain bin seen by maybe 2000 people.

I have no experience or work profile in the film industry. Pretty all of what I know about it comes from what I read about it. And from what I have read is really kind of disconcerting as to the seeming lack of universal regulatory standards. So I defer to your wealth of experience and knowledge. I understand that the industry has come under a lots of pressures with the impacts Covid had, and probably continues to have on it, and the rise of new entertainment venues such as streaming services etc., and a culture that evolved which fostered or encouraged high work loads for low pay under substandard working conditions as something of a norm. Which I'm sure has strongly impacted smaller and startup productions. Especially when it comes to getting financial backing. So the 'budget', and the immense pressure to produce within the budget, begins to overrule every other concern, such as safety and getting qualified personnel. I think it would be probably safe to assume that there have been many other sets that were afflicted with same kind of problems that occurred the Rust set. But we're only hearing about it now because a famous actor, who has had a notable role in our ongoing culture wars, was involved in a very tragic accident that shouldn't have happened. It would appear that the film industry has to undergo some serious reforms to make safety paramount again.

 

[SkyFox76]

he also completely ignored that it gives the responsibility for care of weapons, safety and the loading of a weapon with the licensed person on set.

IMO there will be no refiled charges toward Baldwin and Gutierrez-Reed will be found responsible for the failure to make sure the weapons on the set were safe, just as she was hired to do. There's really no longer much of an argument that Baldwin was at fault when the prosecution has dropped the charges and OSHA also neglected to find Baldwin responsible. So I'm once again going to step out of this topic until the next bit of news which atm is the Gutierrez-Reed hearing scheduled for May 3rd, unless that's been changed.

 

[Atomic Kid]

lol. You are being silly. We're talking about the industry standard for safety. The guidelines that are used.

Again, the law Baldwin was charged with - that should have been taken to a jury - is that he was careless. How do you decide if someone is careless? By looking at their actions compared to the safety standards. How many rules/standards/recommendations did he break? Did he follow any?

Here is the first line
View attachment 67445799

From the first page
View attachment 67445800

First four rules
View attachment 67445801

And here what appears at the end of the document that you so conveniently left out.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I have no experience or work profile in the film industry. Pretty all of what I know about it comes from what I read about it. And from what I have read is really kind of disconcerting as to the seeming lack of universal regulatory standards. So I defer to your wealth of experience and knowledge. I understand that the industry has come under a lots of pressures with the impacts Covid had, and probably continues to have on it, and the rise new entertainment venues such as streaming services etc., and a culture that evolved which fostered or encouraged high work loads for low pay under substandard working conditions as something of a norm. Which I'm sure has strongly impacted smaller and startup productions. Especially when it comes to getting financial backing. So the 'budget', and the immense pressure to produce within the budget, begins to overrule every other concern, such as safety and getting qualified personnel. I think it would be probably safe to assume that there have been many other sets that were afflicted with same kind of problems that occurred the Rust set. But we're only hearing about it now because a famous actor, who has had a notable role in our ongoing culture wars, was involved in a very tragic accident that shouldn't have happened. It would appear that the film industry has to undergo some serious reforms to make safety paramount again.

Look, there are more rogue non-permitted non-union shoots happening always and everywhere than anybody can count.
Using a very loose definition of the term, you could call them a "movie".
Typically however, a "movie" is something that is shot with a relatively full complement of crew divided up into the various crafts and disciplines and, under nominal conditions, those personnel are union members.
It is entirely possible to produce an entire movie with non-union personnel however the paperwork quadruples, it will cause scheduling problems and there are limits to what you can do. Your choice of talent also narrows considerably.

The unions are not there to make life suck for people in the business, they're there because they were created as a response to what used to amount to work conditions that almost resembled human trafficking and sweatshop slavery. One of the common paths TO getting INTO the unions is to show a minimum number of consecutive days working ON non-union productions to prove that there is a demonstrable need for you to be IN said union.

"Jeff H aka 'Checkers' worked on "xxxxxx" non-union for over 110 days consecutively, thus proving he needs to be IN IATSE Local 700 as a motion picture editor.
Jeff has submitted pay stubs and contracts proving his continued employment in non-union shows and is therefore encouraged to pay the initiation fee and monthly dues in exchange for all the benefits of union membership and his name is now on the Experience Roster."

Now, suppose "xxxxx" is forcing crew and talent to work under massively excess hours, crap pay, dangerous conditions, no job security, and largely unenforceable contracts.
The union seeks to correct these.
What happens is, gravity, or "water seeking its own level"....workers would much rather BE IN the unions because their work conditions and pay improve.
If "xxxxxx" continues to seek non-union cast and crew, it's going to become more and more difficult.
Not impossible, but difficult.

The "Rust" incident need not have happened at all.
My point is, if you DO work in this business, when you SEE large numbers of union people walk off, you KNOW it's a very very bad sign that you're probably looking at a chain of events that may well doom the production.
Walkoffs are no joke...they're taken seriously.

By the way, one of the reasons why "the force of law" does not apply as much as it should is thanks to Taft-Hartley, a curse on American labor since 1947.

 

[jaeger19]

yet there was one live round in with the dummy rounds and the armorer missed it.

Which is WHY clara the person actually handling the firearm is responsible for ensuring that the firearm is safe.
Why would there need to be dummy rounds in the firearm at all?

 

[jaeger19]

and as soon as the evidence was shown about the gun being faulty the jury would have acquitted him.

Only if it was a biased jury.

 

[Atomic Kid]

Yes I posted that earlier today. The way she ended that exchange with "thanks for the information but "I'm still going to shoot mine" gives me the impression she was hoping for a "it's no big deal, go for it" but when she didn't get that then she just disregarded him with okay whatever, I'm still going to do it.

Idk, maybe she felt that being the daughter of an accomplished armorer she fell into the category of "the bosses daughter" that happens all the time. I've worked with that type and fortunately it wasn't a situation where it was dangerous, but it did cost the company a nice amount.

The other thing I wonder about when she used the term "hot loads". That is very often a term used to describe cartridges that have been loaded up to the near maximum amount of propellant. Which can induce very high levels of pressure, recoil and shock upon the weapon itself. Go a little too far and the weapon could blow up in your face. Repeated firings of such high pressure rounds could indeed be detrimental to the structural integrity and internal components of the firearm. Especially if it is some sort of cheap knockoff replica.

 

[Atomic Kid]

and as soon as the evidence was shown about the gun being faulty the jury would have acquitted him.

Which apparently they no longer had to present as evidence.

 

[jaeger19]

Nope, you haven't....teaching someone how to not pull the trigger isn't saying they are required to check the ammo...if that were true, there would be no need for an armorer at all...and there would be no need to tell the actor that the gun is 'cold' in fact, why would the armorer or anyone else but the actor load the gun?...so, no you haven't proven what you think you have.

Look. Clara. Stop talking like you know anything about firearms ..their safe operation or their ammunition.

Checking to see if a firearm is loaded and with what is basic..common sense gun handling. We expect 10 year olds to do it.

 

[ClaraD]

Look. Clara. Stop talking like you know anything about firearms ..their safe operation or their ammunition.

Checking to see if a firearm is loaded and with what is basic..common sense gun handling. We expect 10 year olds to do it.

I know quite a bit about firearms. I also understand that there is a huge difference in a movie set and common use.

 

[ClaraD]

Only if it was a biased jury.

Nope...a faulty gun would bring into doubt whether he actually fired the gun or not...

 

[ClaraD]

Which is WHY clara the person actually handling the firearm is responsible for ensuring that the firearm is safe.
Why would there need to be dummy rounds in the firearm at all?

Nope, in those recommendations that your friend dcs posted...it specifically says that a person who is not licensed is not allowed to load the gun or unload it.

 

[jaeger19]

@jaeger19 well what do you know....the police version of events isn't quite true...why am I not surprised


Citing footage from a Ring camera at the home, Northam and fellow attorney Mark Reichel say the officers were “laughing, smirking, and joking” about being at the wrong house before the front door opened.

With Dotson “immediately blinded” by flashlights, the attorneys say the officers did not identify themselves and instead expressed surprise before opening fire.

Ummm so?.
Gee they expressed surprise when the door opened and a man was pointing a gun at them..
..
I guess when this happens officers in the future should what?.

Never knock on a door at night?
Never use a flashlight to identify what's in a person's hands but simply assume?
Wait for people pointing guns at them to shoot and kill them before defending themselves. ??

What makes sense to you?

 

[ClaraD]

Ummm so?.
Gee they expressed surprise when the door opened and a man was pointing a gun at them..
..
I guess when this happens officers in the future should what?.

Never knock on a door at night?
Never use a flashlight to identify what's in a person's hands but simply assume?
Wait for people pointing guns at them to shoot and kill them before defending themselves. ??

What makes sense to you?

they did not identify themselves as police....and they pretty much knew they were at the wrong house...also, cannot seem to find where the Ring shows him pointing a gun at them...

 

[jaeger19]

they did not identify themselves as police....and they pretty much knew they were at the wrong house...also, cannot seem to find where the Ring shows him pointing a gun at them...

The body camera shows him pointing the firearm at the police officer

 

[ClaraD]

The body camera shows him pointing the firearm at the police officer

post the link to the body camera....

 

[jaeger19]

post the link to the body camera....

Wrong thread.

 

[jaeger19]

Nope, in those recommendations that your friend dcs posted...it specifically says that a person who is not licensed is not allowed to load the gun or unload it.

Checking it is not loading or unloading it.