Probably the most sane take I've read so far.

And this is Alec Baldwin's passion project, so yeah.

Never really thought about it that way. But yeah, whoever hired that lady should share some of the blame.

There’s a few reasons why he was charged, both as an actor and producer. Gun safety just can’t be fucked around with.

In the document, prosecutors accused Baldwin of “many instances of extremely reckless acts” during the film’s production.

They wrote that Baldwin “was not present” for mandatory firearms training before filming began. He was instead provided on-set guidance but prosecutors allege he was “distracted and talking on his cell phone to his family.” The training session was scheduled for an hour but was only 30 minutes long due to Baldwin’s “distraction” on the phone.

… The prosecutor’s statement described several “acts or omissions of recklessness” on the set of Rust. This included foregoing the use of a prop gun during unscheduled rehearsals, willful ignorance toward on-set safety complaints and a lack of armourer-performed safety checks.

https://globalnews.ca/news/9451182/alec-baldwin-rust-manslaughter-charge-phone/amp/

I agree that the only reason he SHOULD have been looked at is his role as a producer but I don't think that was the case at all. The ad got a plea deal iirc. It seemed more like the police wanted to get a famous feather in their cap and focused on him as the shooter which was obviously bullshit. Alec Baldwin is a dickhead at least and his wife is weird but blaming him for that was dumb from the get go

no one expects the 82nd Airborne Division.

Their chief weapon is surprise... Surprise and fear... Fear and surprise. Their two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency...

People are arguing that both are at fault. The armorer is most clearly responsible. However, more than one person can be responsible for something.

A common rule of thumb is to never point a gun at something you don't want to kill. This is pretty clear outside the realm of a movie studio. On a movie set, it also seems pretty clearly 100% on the side of the armorer since pointing a gun at someone is required for acting. But Baldwin pointed the gun for fun, so it's a major gray area for a lot of people.

Army dude gave his take on the topic. Random person replied questioning his qualifications to talk about the subject. Army dude explained why he was qualified; he has indeed taken a weapon safety class, he’s led an entire squadron in armed combat. That’s the “don’t you know who I am”.

Prop can also mean it's a real gun.

You usually want them to be shot, at least with blanks. Nowadays you could probably fake that well with CGI, but using blanks is probably easier (and thus cheaper).

you don’t change the system. letting the actor check the mag/clear the chamber adds an additional point of failure in the process and reduces safety for everyone on set.

if you want to change things you stop filming with hot weapons entirely.

I haven't worked on film sets, but I've worked on theatrical productions which utilized blank-firing guns. The ones we specifically used had been modified to prevent the possibility of live ammunition being loaded into them, but that's not always possible (like in the specific scene being shot for Rust, where the gun was to be pointed straight at the camera).

Generally, as others have said, the actor checking the gun is not part of the process because it adds additional risk, and may mess up the setup the armorer did. When we used blanks, the process was that the armorer would check and verify the gun was in safe and working order and was loaded correctly (i.e, for the productions we did, loaded with exactly two blanks, since the gun would be fired twice, and the revolver set to fire those two blanks in the correct timing). He would then place the gun in the specific spot on-stage where it would be retrieved from by the actor during the show (or directly hand it to the actor as they went on-stage for one of the shows). At that point, crew was not allowed near that spot on stage, and the only people allowed to touch the gun was either the armorer or the actor. Additionally, the armorer stood watch off-stage for the entire time the gun was out of his possession, and ensured nobody came near the gun except for the actor who was supposed to be using it as part of the show. After the gun was used in the show, he would immediately retrieve it, ensure it was rendered safe, and it would immediately be returned to the secure storage location we had for the gun. If we had ever run into an issue where crew would need to access the area that the gun was placed on-stage, the armorer would have removed and made safe the weapon before any of the rest of the crew could access the area.
Crew was made aware through explicit call-outs when each step occurred-- so when the gun was loaded, that was called out to crew via comms. When it was placed, that was called out. A call-out was made when the gun was retrieved by the actor, and again several seconds before it was to be used. And finally, a call-out was made when the armorer retrieved the gun and made it safe.

This is the same process that every stage or screen production is supposed to have. The gun is never, ever, ever to be used with live ammunition for any reason. Live ammunition should never even be on the set, for any reason. The gun should never be passed off to anyone else other than between the armorer and the actor (or on large enough productions, the armoring team under the direct supervision of an armorer). Nobody should be stopping to inspect the guns, because that means people who are not qualified will be handling the guns outside the control of the armorer.

Currently, firearm safety on set isn't everyone's job. But it should be everyone's job. The system should be better, because firearm safety is a demonstrably life-or-death process.

Yes, firearms safety is a life-or-death process, but that's precisely why the rest of the crew and actors don't need to have firearms be their job. All they need to know is that they do not touch any of the weapons, for any reason. If it's out of place, they should ensure nobody comes near it, and call the armorer to retrieve it. The chain of custody for the weapons must be incredibly short, and you don't want anyone who is not specifically authorized to be touching or interacting with the weapons in any way, because that's how mistakes start to happen.

The weapons should only be outside the direct control of the armorer for the minimum time possible, and the armorer should be observing the entire time. As soon as the scene finishes, and between shots, the armorer should take control of the weapon again and do all the steps required to ensure it is safe.

You don't hold the actor Alec Baldwin responsible. You hold the producer Alec Baldwin responsible.

Agreed, along with the rest of the producers. Concerns had been expressed about the armorer previously, and the production team should have responded to those and found another armorer who could safely manage the weapons (or, since some of the articles I've read suggest the armorer didn't feel she could push back on other crewmembers when they wanted to do things incorrectly for the sake of timing, they should have made it clear that when it comes to how weapons are used on set, the armorer is the voice of god and has the final say at all times).

Additionally, the production team should have found other ways to film the scene where the gun was looking down the barrel of the gun, by either using mirrors to ensure the camera and crew were not in the line of fire, or by filming it remotely. Since the cinematographer was shot during a rehearsal, a rubber replica should have been used to set the focus and framing for the shot, and the live weapon should have been swapped in at the latest possible moment before filming commenced.

But, systematically, it shouldn’t be that way.

Entirely wrong. The actor is not a firearms professional. The armorer on the set is. Actors should never touch real firearms unless handed to them directly by an armorer. The moment the scene is finished, the armorer removes the real firearm from the equation entirely.

You have ONE person that is responsible. Their entire job is SOLELY to ensure that every firearm is accounted for at all times. Actors should not EVERY be put in a position where they have to think about anything but their job, just as you wouldn't expect the cinematographer to be over making burgers in craft services.

You have a job, you do your job. As an actor the job is to take the firearm, hold it in a specified way, fire it, then give it back to the armorer that handed it to you. End of story.

These practices are in place because they have proven to work for literal decades. It's only through extreme negligence (which the Rust situation was) or through horrendous circumstance (see: Brandon Lee) that accidents happen, and that's the case only because nobody except one specific professional is allowed to handle firearms outside of filming.

Actors are not expected to be knowledgeable about weapons. If they are required to check their own weapons, they would not do so competently, and may come to incorrect conclusions. This could add incompetent confusion about the weapon safety to the situation, and that’s bad for safety.

I agree, especially if real guns are being used. But what I don't get is why in this case it would be Baldwin's fault. If this is industry-wide practice, why was he charged?

I think the industry needs to change so that for action scenes with real weapons, everyone who touches the weapon gets basic safety and firearms training. Knowing how to hold and operate the weapon, the safety rules, how to check to make sure the weapon is clear, etc.