Guns and Shit

[Hardartery]

You want to consider the legal merits, but wait, according to NM Law, exactly what he described in the Stephanopolus interview makes him guilty of a petty misdemeanour (ie. unlawful act) under NM Law 30-7-4. Negligent use of a deadly weapon. specifically: (3) endangering the safety of another by handling or using a firearm or other deadly weapon in a negligent manner As per 30-2-3: Involuntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed in the commission of an unlawful act.

So at least in NM, with a firearm, even if you're an actor on a film set, and even if there are extra precautions taken on that set to help remind you to be safe, the presence of an armorer, or helper (who in this case may have harmed more than helped) doesn't legally give an actor a free pass to "endanger the safety of another by handling or using a firearm in a negligent manner."

I'm interested to see how the prosecution goes forward, considering they haven't pressed charges and might decide to let him go uncharged anyway.

Good luck proving that Baldwin's action constitute a"Negligent manner". All safety protocols were supposedly followed, an there was no intent to harm. No chance of someone trying to prosecute that, nor does it actually meet the definition you quoted. He could not objectively be said to be handling or using it in a negligent manner. Even less possible if the gun is shown to be defective.

res ipsa loquitur

https://dictionary.law.com/default.aspx?selected=1823

You linked to a phrase that is particularly in relation to civil law. Thus, all of the examples given are of civil liability situations, not criminal. We weren't discussing civil liability, the discussion was prosecution which is distinctly criminal law. So, it is entirely possible that he could be found liable in civil court, but to find him guilty in criminal proceedings you need a lot more, including evidence of intent in all but a very small handful of laws (And none of those laws apply to violence related charges, they tend to be Rico Act stuff). So, that's not a valid counterargument. He followed all expected safety protocols, he is not responsible for where the other people choose to stand when the weapon is not being used in a threatening or aggressive manner. Negligent use would be like the idiot FBI agent doing acrobatic dancing while having a loaded weapon inadequately secured so that it falls to the floor and discharges. If the bullet kills someone THAT is negligent homocide or manslaughter (And you have to wonder if he had the safety on or not). In this instance, Baldwin did not do anything that could be proved to be negligent - if accounts so far presented are accurate. He followed procedure, and stuff happened anyway, which is the definition of accidental - not negligent.

[Philbert]

I have to agree with Aurelius' point that since he followed the industry standard he is not criminally negligent. Separately, I think the industry standard is deficient, as evidenced by the fact that at least two people have been killed by industry standard practices. A better standard for revolvers would be that in addition, after receiving a "cold gun" the actor pulls the trigger on all cylinders. If I were acting in a Russian Roulette scene that is what I would do.

[Cellist]

I have to agree with Aurelius' point that since he followed the industry standard he is not criminally negligent. Separately, I think the industry standard is deficient, as evidenced by the fact that at least two people have been killed by industry standard practices. A better standard for revolvers would be that in addition, after receiving a "cold gun" the actor pulls the trigger on all cylinders. If I were acting in a Russian Roulette scene that is what I would do.

Andrew F. Branca makes the point that mere negligence is sufficient for involuntary manslaughter with the use of a firearm. Because of the dangerous nature of guns, there is a lower standard than usual and being an actor on a film set isn't a reason to get off for that, according to him. This would concur with my common sense and I can't see any drawbacks for the greater good, but am willing to be convinced otherwise.

Yes, I realise he's trying to sell seminars, but OTOH and generally related to this thread, I can see that it's probably not a bad idea as someone carrying for self defence or even owning firearms for hunting, plinking or targets to get legal advice from someone having experience.

What matters right now in this case is how district attorney decides to use their prosecutorial discretion. And BTW, @aurelius, what is your source for the Brandon Lee case being in New Mexico?

https://lawofselfdefense.com/alec-baldw ... slaughter/

[aurelius]

Andrew F. Branca makes the point that mere negligence is sufficient for involuntary manslaughter with the use of a firearm. Because of the dangerous nature of guns, there is a lower standard than usual and being an actor on a film set isn't a reason to get off for that, according to him. This would concur with my common sense and I can't see any drawbacks for the greater good, but am willing to be convinced otherwise.

"The only legally relevant facts to an analysis of whether Alec Baldwin appears to have committed felony involuntary manslaughter is whether he pointed a loaded gun at Ms. Hutchins, and that gun discharged and killed her without any intervening event between pointing and death that could relieve Alec Baldwin of legal responsibility." That statement might be true in Massachusetts. But everywhere else: not so much. Which is a good thing. This guy is hoot. His legal breakdown is a joke. His drunk driving comparison not even remotely in the ball park of the Rust shooting. And the statement above encapsulates Mr. Branca's 'reasoning'. Come on, man.

People shoot people ALL THE TIME. People accidentally shoot people stating they did not know the gun was loaded. Hunters shoot other hunters because they saw movement when they knew there buddy was ahead of them. Rarely are charges are brought. There has to be other mitigating factors.

Baldwin was given a firearm he had every expectation, to the point of certainty, was not loaded with live ammunition. There was a process in place that had TWO people (one of whom is an expert) check his firearm for live ammunition. His actions that day are 100% within the duty of care set by the movie industry standards. Therefore Baldwin's actions cannot be reckless nor can they be negligent.

To be clear, there are no disputed facts regarding Baldwin's actions. If the DA was going to charge Baldwin, they would have already.

*looks like North Carolina is the correct answer. Was reading an article comparing the two shootings and got my wires crossed.

[Hardartery]

I have to agree with Aurelius' point that since he followed the industry standard he is not criminally negligent. Separately, I think the industry standard is deficient, as evidenced by the fact that at least two people have been killed by industry standard practices. A better standard for revolvers would be that in addition, after receiving a "cold gun" the actor pulls the trigger on all cylinders. If I were acting in a Russian Roulette scene that is what I would do.

Andrew F. Branca makes the point that mere negligence is sufficient for involuntary manslaughter with the use of a firearm. Because of the dangerous nature of guns, there is a lower standard than usual and being an actor on a film set isn't a reason to get off for that, according to him. This would concur with my common sense and I can't see any drawbacks for the greater good, but am willing to be convinced otherwise.

Yes, I realise he's trying to sell seminars, but OTOH and generally related to this thread, I can see that it's probably not a bad idea as someone carrying for self defence or even owning firearms for hunting, plinking or targets to get legal advice from someone having experience.

What matters right now in this case is how district attorney decides to use their prosecutorial discretion. And BTW, @aurelius, what is your source for the Brandon Lee case being in New Mexico?

https://lawofselfdefense.com/alec-baldw ... slaughter/

So, just to be clear, the Giuliani of Self-Defense Law is arguing that Baldwin is Criminally culpable, in spite of quoting the statute:

"30-2-3. Manslaughter.

Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice.

B. Involuntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to felony, or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection."

I would like to know how this was any of those things, given that it followed ALL accepted procedure. And, incidentally, a portion of the set falling on an actor and this resulting in accidental discharge of a weapon would not qualify as a situation devoid of liability. It would be devoid of liability for the actor, just like in this case with Baldwin. It does not mean, on it's face that it is accidental or that NO ONE is liable. Just not the guy that is not responsible for the safety of set construction. Or prop guns. This "Expert" is not too bright. You should stop listening to the talking heads.

[Cellist]

If the DA was going to charge Baldwin, they would have already.

looks like North Carolina is the correct answer. Was reading an article comparing the two shootings and got my wires crossed.

A former Sheriff’s Office insider with direct knowledge of how murder investigations typically play out in Santa Fe County said he expects the case will move slowly.

First, law enforcement has to complete its investigation. He expects that will take at least half a year because even if no one is ever charged with homicide, it is still considered a murder investigation, which is typically a lengthy process.

After that concludes, he said the district attorney’s office will decide how to proceed with the case, most likely bringing it before a grand jury.

“This type of investigation takes a long time, and then it has to go to the D.A.’s office,” the former Sheriff’s Office source said. “It would be six to eight months for this, unless the D.A. wants to fast track it and get it off their plate for some reason.”

Should probably just get back to discussing why all the cool kids are buying 16 gauge shotguns or watch this:

[Philbert]

I have to agree with Aurelius' point that since he followed the industry standard he is not criminally negligent. Separately, I think the industry standard is deficient, as evidenced by the fact that at least two people have been killed by industry standard practices. A better standard for revolvers would be that in addition, after receiving a "cold gun" the actor pulls the trigger on all cylinders. If I were acting in a Russian Roulette scene that is what I would do.

Andrew F. Branca makes the point that mere negligence is sufficient for involuntary manslaughter with the use of a firearm. Because of the dangerous nature of guns, there is a lower standard than usual and being an actor on a film set isn't a reason to get off for that, according to him. This would concur with my common sense and I can't see any drawbacks for the greater good, but am willing to be convinced otherwise.

Yes, I realise he's trying to sell seminars, but OTOH and generally related to this thread, I can see that it's probably not a bad idea as someone carrying for self defence or even owning firearms for hunting, plinking or targets to get legal advice from someone having experience.

What matters right now in this case is how district attorney decides to use their prosecutorial discretion. And BTW, @aurelius, what is your source for the Brandon Lee case being in New Mexico?

https://lawofselfdefense.com/alec-baldw ... slaughter/

So, just to be clear, the Giuliani of Self-Defense Law is arguing that Baldwin is Criminally culpable, in spite of quoting the statute:

"30-2-3. Manslaughter.

Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice.

B. Involuntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to felony, or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection."

I would like to know how this was any of those things, given that it followed ALL accepted procedure. And, incidentally, a portion of the set falling on an actor and this resulting in accidental discharge of a weapon would not qualify as a situation devoid of liability. It would be devoid of liability for the actor, just like in this case with Baldwin. It does not mean, on it's face that it is accidental or that NO ONE is liable. Just not the guy that is not responsible for the safety of set construction. Or prop guns. This "Expert" is not too bright. You should stop listening to the talking heads.

THe bolded is what Mr. Baldwin did. The difference of opinion arises in the definition of due caution. Under the normal definition of due caution in handling a firearm, personally verifying the condition of every firearm whenever it changes hands is the standard. At issue is whether there is a different standard for firearm handling on movie sets. It appears that there is, but absent such an exception Baldwin would absolutely be guilty of negligent homicide in law and in fact.

[Cellist]

This is just a summary, not political.

The fact is that the shot resulted from a negligent discharge of the Colt replica loaded with live ammo. The armorer assumed that rounds that she loaded were dummies. The actor assumed it was empty and pointed it directly at a person on the set. The camera person who got shot assumed no danger. This has been under investigation by various agencies including the FBI for over a month resulting in no arrests or charges. From the beginning it has been handled as an accident with no intent or malice, but to what degree negligence was a factor is yet to be determined. The DA maintains criminal charges are still on the table. It's not unusual for investigation to go for months.

Against industry standard (see below) the weapon was pointed at a person at a distance of 4 feet and the hammer was cocked. The actor claims he never pulled the trigger, but admits letting go of the hammer and feels no guilt. This model of gun in working order would not fire in this case. It would be necessary for the trigger to be pulled for the hammer to strike and fire the round (see detail in video below). As soon as definitive evidence for intentional tampering or defect would arise, the prosecution would be obliged to release this to the defense and it would be publicly known. It would be trivial to find such a defect in this model of firearm. Another crew member witness, the assistant director, claims the actors finger was never in the trigger guard. His cooperation is lacking to the point that a judge issued a subpoena to bring him in for an interview.

Despite the click-baity titles, the following video discusses this from an objective, technical, gun-safety viewpoint, ie. these guns do not go off by themselves unless they have an obvious defect.



The NM 30-7-4 applies to firearms making negligent handling of a firearm (loaded or not) endangering another person a crime.

“Negligent” in 30-7-4 means the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.

Industry standards from the screen actors guild (union) says

"FIREARMS & OTHER WEAPONS
Treat all weapons as though they are loaded and/or ready to use. Do not play with weapons and or point one at anyone, including yourself"

therefore it would follow from 30-2-3 Involuntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to felony..."

Of course this contradicts how a layperson would perceive that " in movies, thus on film sets, guns are pointed at people all the time" but perhaps that is because scenes are filmed to look like that. Actors and other film industry experts say it was an unecessary risk to take. (watch at 6:00)



This might start to get political:
Since politicians and business and citizens in NM may perceive criminal prosecution of a prominent member of the state's non-union film industry as malicious and since this is an extremely rare occurrence it is very likely that even a legally sound case for involuntary manslaughter would not be undertaken. In a similar tragedy in NC in 1993 the DA maintained that while negligence was a factor, there was no evidence of criminal wrongdoing telling the NY Times.

"There is no evidence pointing to the kind of negligence the criminal law seeks to punish. The kind of negligence the law seeks to punish is the kind described as willful and wanton. You just can't find that."

The actor's very public, emotional interview raised the ire of the investigators.

According to reports, investigators have issued subpoenas for phones of the crew. There are no reports of any recorded evidence of the shooting, which would obviously have a large effect on public opinion. Evidence of a cover up could stir outrage. Also, NM has a strong gun culture. There may be people who dislike Baldwin because he supports controls, but the politics of the prosecution will probably end up being the same as for anyone being negligent with a gun when hunting at home with children etc...

Although this kind of accident is unlikely when safety standards are followed, the handling of weapons on set was negligent so even if criminal charges are unlikely for reasons, civil charges loom large. The actor was himself one of the six producers on the roster. The production was hopelessly underinsured. Now, if Baldwin and others in the film industry (deep pockets) want to resolve issues of liability without going to court, they may just settle with the family of the deceased and injured. Crew members indirectly involved could sue for damages due to emotional distress and could make waves in the media to settle or even go to court.

[mikeylikey]

This model of gun in working order would not fire in this case. It would be necessary for the trigger to be pulled for the hammer to strike and fire the round (see detail in video below)

I think some people are looking at this really black and white. There are permutations of events between "the gun went off all by itself" and "he put is finger inside the trigger guard and consciously squeezed." Heck I've shot a couple of guns with trigger so light they would go off if brushed in a sidelong/glancing contact by the meat of your finger, without ever actually inserting it into the guard.

The gun appears to have been twice fired unintentionally during administrative handling by a stunt man. There is contemporaneous documentation, IE complaints written before the shooting of Hutchins. Presumably a stunt man knows his way around a Colt .45.

There are plausible conditions besides catastrophic failure or sabotage which could result in that gun going off without Baldwin doing what he would reasonably perceive as "pulling" the trigger, and thus for his account to be the truth when evaluated from all but the most pedantic point of view.

He could be lying to save his own skin too. After all, he's an AcToR. Halls, the only person who seems to be corroborating the idea that he didn't touch the trigger, has roughly the same incentives as Baldwin vis a vis shifting blame to the armorer for as many individual points of failure (live ammo on set, live ammo IN the gun, gun itself defective) as possible given his place in the chain of custody of Teh Gun. The more things that went wrong outside of Halls and Baldwin's control, the less culpable they look. So, who knows? Not us that's who.

As soon as definitive evidence for intentional tampering or defect would arise, the prosecution would be obliged to release this to the defense

Yeah, no. It might be nice if the criminal justice system gave that kind of consideration to defendants.

There is no "prosecution" or "defense" at this point. There is an ongoing police investigation, which may or may not yet have even determined THAT a crime occurred, let alone by whom. There usually is no discovery until charges are filed or at least an arrest is made. At this point, Baldwin is also a witness in the potential (and IMHO much more likely to happen) criminal case against the armorer. Logically, if you are investigating something with the goal of finding out the truth*, you don't want your witnesses to be tainted by having knowledge of what other evidence you have.

If anybody is a lawyer, poke holes in that but I'm pretty confident there is no obligation right now to give Baldwin's lawyers anything.



*Unless a police is the accused, obvs. Whole different set of rules in that case.

[mbasic]

yeah, I didn't really care before, but even care less now.

Baldwin is not guilty, as the shooter and/or the producer.

I'm taking aurelius' POV in that this was just a workplace accident of sorts and its not that much a biggie.

The lead actor was likely not proficient in handguns of that period; and/or the whole operation deems that people get in the line of fire of a handgun that may or may not be loaded with live ammo. If the film industry requires that real-looking/real-being/real-acting ammo be used (kick, etc) then well ..... you are obviously taking your life into your own hands by being on this uber-authentic Old Western movie set.

They (film industry) does WHAT I WOULD CALL risky stupid shit with guns just by nature of the industry and have put their own safety protocols and procedures in place .... and the actors, director, crew, grips, etc are all assuming the risk by being on set. I'm sure they all signed waivers at the onset of the filming of the movie (errand gunshot; camera-boom crushes you; electrocutions; a good horse-kick to the thoracic = death; etc)

Fuck, the actor's at times get all coked-up to "get into character" (Joker, Apoc.Now, etc) ... and this is accepted by the industry?
..... and then not only handling guns, but also driving cars (ability to kill/maim others), flying around with their legs hanging out of a helicopters, etc. (the lolz x infinity at the idea they do random drug testing on these sets .... because "safety reasons")

Fuck it. "It" hardly happens and/or has hardly happened.

No charges should be filed.
Do a police investigation? sure. Collect some evidence? sure.
If the Family Of The Shot want to take it to civil court, and sue Baldwin Enterprises LLC, then can spend their own money to do so ....

=================

Going forward I'm sure the film industry will concoct some new protocols to avoid this in the future

[mikeylikey]

yeah, I didn't really care before, but even care less now.

Baldwin is not guilty, as the shooter and/or the producer.

I'm taking aurelius' POV in that this was just a workplace accident of sorts and its not that much a biggie.

The lead actor was likely not proficient in handguns of that period; and/or the whole operation deems that people get in the line of fire of a handgun that may or may not be loaded with live ammo. If the film industry requires that real-looking/real-being/real-acting ammo be used (kick, etc) then well ..... you are obviously taking your life into your own hands by being on this uber-authentic Old Western movie set.

They (film industry) does WHAT I WOULD CALL risky stupid shit with guns just by nature of the industry and have put their own safety protocols and procedures in place .... and the actors, director, crew, grips, etc are all assuming the risk by being on set. I'm sure they all signed waivers at the onset of the filming of the movie (errand gunshot; camera-boom crushes you; electrocutions; a good horse-kick to the thoracic = death; etc)

Fuck, the actor's at times get all coked-up to "get into character" (Joker, Apoc.Now, etc) ... and this is accepted by the industry?
..... and then not only handling guns, but also driving cars (ability to kill/maim others), flying around with their legs hanging out of a helicopters, etc. (the lolz x infinity at the idea they do random drug testing on these sets .... because "safety reasons")

Fuck it. "It" hardly happens and/or has hardly happened.

No charges should be filed.
Do a police investigation? sure. Collect some evidence? sure.
If the Family Of The Shot want to take it to civil court, and sue Baldwin Enterprises LLC, then can spend their own money to do so ....

=================

Going forward I'm sure the film industry will concoct some new protocols to avoid this in the future

I don't think Baldwin deserves to go to jail or anything but I also think "him's just a po widdle actow, him didn't know bettow" is BS.

Actors get fat, get thin, get swole, do months of martial arts training, memorize thousands of words of dialog, learn to play musical instruments, scuba dive, skydive, sing, dance, run, jump... etc. in furtherance of a part. Others have pointed out, despite what aurelius and most of the general public perceive because of what they see in the finished product of movies, the industry actually DOES have written protocols reminding ACTORS that Col. Cooper's four rule still apply on movie sets. Part of the reason for that is this has happened before.

[aurelius]

I don't think Baldwin deserves to go to jail or anything but I also think "him's just a po widdle actow, him didn't know bettow" is BS.

To be clear, that is not my position.

Actors get fat, get thin, get swole, do months of martial arts training, memorize thousands of words of dialog, learn to play musical instruments, scuba dive, skydive, sing, dance, run, jump... etc. in furtherance of a part. Others have pointed out, despite what aurelius and most of the general public perceive because of what they see in the finished product of movies, the industry actually DOES have written protocols reminding ACTORS that Col. Cooper's four rule still apply on movie sets. Part of the reason for that is this has happened before.

Yes and no. Close quarter's scenes are impossible to shoot without pointing the weapon at other actors. But then they use a specialized cartridge and CGI. For a variety of reasons CGI is not a great solution (expensive and the firearms do not handle realistically). @Cellist and you are right, in general actors do not point the firearm at other actors. That was a misrepresentation on my part. But as the Brandon Lee incident demonstrates, that rule is not always followed and very hard to enforce in scenes with multiple actors. I'd argue it is more common than Hollywood is willing to acknowledge. Especially as *insert name* are currently getting free press by being sanctimonious. It becomes a moot point if the number 1 safety precaution is followed: no live ammunition on the property. Which is an honest assessment by an armorer I read stated. He essentially was like, "Yeah they didn't blah, blah, blah. None of that was fatal. How did live ammunition make it on the set? That is insane."

That point of actors pointing firearms at one another is irrelevant to the Rust shooting as it is not the case of a one actor shooting another in a scene. Baldwin was standing on his assigned mark performing a directed action. The cinematographer purposely placed herself in the line of fire. This illustrates the safety protocols on set were not being followed by the entire production. While certainly one or more individuals are more culpable than others, the entire production including the cinematographer share blame. It was a systemic failure. Work place accident. I only seeing criminal culpability if an individual knowingly or negligently brought live ammunition on set.

Something you stated regarding the prior accidental discharges by stunt men handling the weapons. 1) Like holy shit! That should be a huge red flag. and 2) was it confirmed it was the same pistol?

[mbasic]

Then Baldwin gets sued, in civil court. .... that's a far cry from "him's just a po widdle actow, him didn't know bettow".

This will be handled with civil lawyers, settlements, and money.

The police and/or The State shouldn't be too concerned with this from a public protection POV.
Maybe if there's hints of some sabotage or something .... THEN that's where the police, FBI, etc, get involved... a crime.

[aurelius]

This will be handled with civil lawyers, settlements, and money.

It will be settled by the production company. Legally important: the cinematographer also did not follow established safety protocols. Her wrongful death suit is not a slam dunk in civil court. Plus there probably isn't any money to be had. Even if the family chose to go through the pain of a civil trial, they'd never see the money.

It is in the interest of both parties to settle.

[mbasic]

This will be handled with civil lawyers, settlements, and money.

It will be settled by the production company. Legally important: the cinematographer also did not follow established safety protocols. Her wrongful death suit is not a slam dunk in civil court. Plus there probably isn't any money to be had. Even if the family chose to go through the pain of a civil trial, they'd never see the money.

It is in the interest of both parties to settle.

Soooo then .... it is distilled down to: Baldwin and the people who got shot/killed mutually did so because none of the parties were following safety protocols? Lady and 2nd guy was fine standing in front of a loaded prop-gun; Baldwin was fine pointing at her.
Insurance companies shouldn't have to pay shit I suppose: "We signed off on none of that".

I guess if they can fault the armorer's .... go after the armorer's insurance for a couple of million?

Case closed; what's to discus?

"hold on darling, I have to take in the vibe on this scene"



*BANG!*

dead person

----------------------------------------

*fucking lolz

[aurelius]

Soooo then .... it is distilled down to: Baldwin and the people who got shot/killed mutually did so because none of the parties were following safety protocols?

Not what I'm saying. It is far more complicated than man shoots lady. And yes, the cinematographer does share blame for not following safety protocols. Both the cinematographer and Baldwin made the same judgement in error: they assumed the safety protcols in place guaranteed a 'safe' firearm.

Despite what I am stating above, it is difficult for me to see an outcome that a jury does not hold the production company at fault. But the production is just a shell company. Any monetary damages awarded beyond what the insurance limit (probably 1 million) will never be payed. The production company will just go into bankruptcy. There is winning a civil trial then there getting paid the judgement.

Smartest thing for all involved is to settle out of court. Both parties settle for a 'reasonable' number. Both parties avoid uncertainty. The production company (the financers behind it) mainly want to avoid the bad press. The family gets a guaranteed pay out and quick resolution.

*doubtful the armorer has a couple million or insurance to speak of. Most likely a direct employee of the production company. Which means she (and Baldwin) is covered under the production company's liability shield.

[mikeylikey]

Yes and no. Close quarter's scenes are impossible to shoot without pointing the weapon at other actors.

Are you sure? Serious question. Since the Baldwin thing I have paid closer attention to shootings in movies, and this happens way less than I would have thought. Editing, sound effects, and body language go a long way to convincing your brain you saw something you didn't.

[Cellist]

Despite what I am stating above, it is difficult for me to see an outcome that a jury does not hold the production company at fault. But the production is just a shell company. Any monetary damages awarded beyond what the insurance limit (probably 1 million) will never be payed. The production company will just go into bankruptcy. There is winning a civil trial then there getting paid the judgement.

Smartest thing for all involved is to settle out of court. Both parties settle for a 'reasonable' number. Both parties avoid uncertainty. The production company (the financers behind it) mainly want to avoid the bad press. The family gets a guaranteed pay out and quick resolution.

*doubtful the armorer has a couple million or insurance to speak of. Most likely a direct employee of the production company. Which means she (and Baldwin) is covered under the production company's liability shield.

Are you saying if the armorer and assistant director are hired help, a lawsuit against the production company runs into the void? In addition to sabotage rumours, she has claimed ammo got mixed in from the supplier and that proper safety instruction was given but ignored. I believe the firearms were not her property, but rented by the production company.

No big ones yet, but the first "emotional distress" lawsuits brought by crew members naming some 20 defendants, were filed over a month ago, so yeah, the allocation of liability could take years and they'll still end up having to file workman's comp, correct?

It seems obvious the actor wants to present himself as completely washed up from the bad press already as if he'd retire and use his fame for community service.

[aurelius]

Are you sure? Serious question. Since the Baldwin thing I have paid closer attention to shootings in movies, and this happens way less than I would have thought. Editing, sound effects, and body language go a long way to convincing your brain you saw something you didn't.

Close quarters being John Wick (less than 2') gun-fu stuff. The guy interviewed stated they used a plugged gun and a powderless self injecting cartridge. Used CGI to add gun effects later.

Same article the guy stated he preferred real guns and blanks for most applications. It can look stupid to have actors simulate recoil or not react at all to firing a gun. He said go watch Heat to see how real guns with full power blanks and all practical effects can make a huge difference to the 'realism' and impact of a gun fight scene.

[aurelius]

a lawsuit against the production company runs into the void?

In many industries it is common to create shell or one-off companies as a 'hard' liability shield for the investors. It ensures the investors can only lose what they invest. The name of the production company for Rust movies is Rust Movie Productions, LLC. Which will simply declare bankruptcy and become a non-entity as soon as it can. Can't get blood from a stone.

In short, yes. Rust Movie Productions, LLC will shield the investors from any civil judgement. The same liability shield protects the employees of Rust Movie Productions, LLC from individual suits. The only way I know corporate liability shields can be breached is gross negligence.

No big ones yet, but the first "emotional distress" lawsuits brought by crew members naming some 20 defendants, were filed over a month ago, so yeah, the allocation of liability could take years and they'll still end up having to file workman's comp, correct?

Absent gross negligence, Rust Movie Productions, LLC is liable for negligence on the Rust set.
Emotional Distress of crew members GTFOH. Fucking vultures.
No clue on workman's comp. Doubt they are even eligible. Labor laws vary greatly from State to State.