In the recent and tragic death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins and wounding of director Joel Souza at the hands of hyper-liberal actor Alec Baldwin, renown high-finance attorney Andrew Stoltmann voiced some rather sage advice.
The Chicago lawyer openly stated that the actor needs to start conducting himself like a “potential defendant” rather that someone who was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
But before we get into what lawyer Stoltmann gave as his educated opinion, I have to ask one question: Why does everyone in the press keep calling this a “prop gun”?
There’s simply no such thing as a “prop gun.” After all, there are only three types of firearms:
-
Fully functional weapons that can shoot both live and blank rounds. Note: Even blank ammunition can still be VERY dangerous,
-
“De-mil’ed” (de-militarized) weapons, sometimes called “de-activated” or “museum pieces”. Once functional weapons that usually have the throats of the barrels welded closed, thus making it impossible to even chamber a round. Technically, no longer a firearm.
-
A true training pistol. Made from hard rubber/plasticized polymer molds. Normally used in martial arts and/or guard dog training. The only way to hurt someone with a training pistol is if you hit them across the bridge of the nose with it. Only the truly stupid consider this a firearm.
Anyhow, as reported by Fox News via Yahoo!News.com; (emphasis mine);
“He [Baldwin] needs to start thinking like a potential defendant instead of just somebody who made a tragic mistake,” the attorney warned. “There are crimes that cover this sort of situation depending on his level of culpability.”
“The prop master would know that this is dangerous and would have to take extreme precautions to make sure that the gun was handled correctly, that the actor was instructed how to use it, to verify that there weren’t bullets in the gun – that they were blanks, to make sure that there was a safe distance between the actor and [anyone] who was anywhere near the gun,” he explained.
“All of those precautions would be drilled into the actor, anyone handling the gun. They would go through these procedures backward and forwards each time,” Melcher continued. “The failure to do so would certainly lead to a civil suit for money damages by anyone injured here and then also the possible criminal prosecution for being so reckless to allow it.”
Furthermore, Melcher said, if Baldwin was using the gun as instructed, he has “no liability” for the incident, but if he was handed the gun without verifying whether it was loaded, that “would be reckless” and would potentially make Baldwin “responsible,.”
Any proof that Baldwin was “playing around” with the firearm also could potentially get him in legal trouble, the attorney said.
“If somebody just handed [Baldwin] the gun and said, ‘This is a prop gun,’ then obviously he has no criminal liability,” the attorney continued. “But the $64,000 question is: What role did he have with respect to preparing this gun? Were there any testing processes or procedures that he skipped or didn’t partake in? At this point, of course, it’s just too early to say since we don’t know answers to questions like that.”
But it doesn’t end with Stoltmann.
Enter San Fernando Valley’s lawyer-to-the-stars, Christopher Melcher of the Los Angeles-based law firm of Walzer Melcher LLP.
Melcher stated that it’s the prop master’s primary responsibility for firearm safety. Or as Melcher puts it, the props honcho “bears most of the blame”;
He said the props team would know whether any firearms on a movie set “present a danger” to those nearby because of other incidents of actors being killed or injured by prop guns, not to mention “common sense.”
“The prop master would know that this is dangerous and would have to take extreme precautions to make sure that the gun was handled correctly, that the actor was instructed how to use it, to verify that there weren’t bullets in the gun – that they were blanks, to make sure that there was a safe distance between the actor and [anyone] who was anywhere near the gun,” he explained.
In a separate article, Fox News also posted audio of the 911 calls that went out from the movie set(video below). Color me jaded, but the callers seem rather on the calm side, especially in light that two people were just shot;
Interestingly enough, one of the callers just happened to make sure that the AD (assistant director) was blamed for the shooting. It’s almost as if they were given a firm talking-to before the calls were made;
The caller, who identified herself as the script supervisor, confirmed that it was the movie’s “director” and “camerawoman” who were shot and said she wasn’t aware whether the gun was loaded with a real bullet.
“We have two injuries from a movie gun shot,” she echoed. The caller then seemingly became very frustrated, but it is unclear who the frustration was directed toward.
“They just f–king AD yelled at me at lunch talking about revisions,” she said. “These motherf–kers … Did you see him come up to my desk and yell at me? He’s supposed to check the guns. He’s responsible for what happened.”