I cannot personally imagine living with the burden of responsibility for someone's death. That does not come down to intent or negligence in the strictest terms, but merely responsibility. In an earlier age, we might have believed that such responsibility repercussions might be between someone and her/his/vis creator. But, there are a great many among us that exalt the present and deny any creator. We have become increasingly secular as a nation, and our reliance upon man's laws has undoubtedly increased. I touched on the responsibility for a death decision recently in Who Should Live (January 2023). What a difficult decision to shoulder, and responsibility to bear.
I first wrote about actor Alec Baldwin in Safety First (November 2021). Since then, I returned to the subject of guns in Workplace Gun Safety (August 2022) and More Rust (October 2022). I have been reasonably unequivocal in my views on gun safety. You hold it, you safe it. Such devices are inherently dangerous. They can hurt or kill when used exactly as designed and intended. We Americans hold some fascination for fast cars and guns. Don't believe me? Go to the movies. I won't bore with a litany of recent films featuring each.
Mr. Baldwin is now back in the news. NBC News reports that he and the "armorer" of the movie Rust will be criminally charged in the death of Halyna Hutchins in October 2021. Mr. Baldwin has explained that he undoubtedly pointed a gun at the victim(s). I use the plural because director Joel Souza was also wounded, according to the NY Times. In the most recent news of charges, there has not been mention of the battery upon Mr. Souza or any related criminal charges regarding his injuries. He is, however, a victim.
In 2021, the NY Times reported that the gun held by Mr. Baldwin "suddenly went off." Mr. Baldwin has said that he "did not pull the trigger," which is seemingly consistent with the gun mysteriously or magically going off of its own accord. This is a common theme with some who believe in their core that guns kill people. In point of fact, people kill people, and a variety of tools can be employed in such actions including knives, cars, boards, hands, and more. Yes, people can be violent and they can employ a vast assortment of tools to their ends.
Prosecutors in New Mexico announced that they will pursue Mr. Baldwin on two theories. Both are important in that context but are also worthy of discussion in the context of workplace safety. The actor and the armorer "will each face two counts of involuntary manslaughter," although only Ms. Hutchins was killed. The prosecutors explained that Mr. Baldwin is allegedly "criminally responsible as both the shooter and the “Rust” producer." How the armorer is subject to two counts is less clear.
Those who supervise workplaces and own workplaces are responsible for safety. Failure in that regard can lead to criminal prosecution and conviction. Easy examples include a California construction company owner and foreman; a Virginia company owner; a Washington owner; and a Maine owner. A quick Internet search turned up these examples. There are more.
Whose job is workplace safety? Certainly, there are on-site forepersons. Often there are safety managers. In this shooting, there was an armorer. There has been much in the news about how the responsibility should be solely on that weapons expert. And, a court will ultimately decide if that is true. But, someone hired that expert and may find her/himself responsible for both the hiring and supervision of that on-site expert.
The armorer may have extensive experience and expertise. The Internet Movie Data Base (IMDB) lists her as having been involved with three productions. This includes costume assistant on Millennium Bugs in 2020, "assistant to Mr. Reed" (perhaps her father) on Murder at Yellowstone City in 2022, and head armorer on The Old Way in 2023. Insider says that she is the "daughter of legendary armorer Thell Reed." It says some have labeled her "inexperienced" and she is "25 years old." Some will likely suggest that the Rust producers might have hired an "expert" who had more years or more projects? Perhaps there is more to her experience than meets this cursory review. The prosecution will perhaps flesh this out.
Some will argue that Mr. Baldwin had no control of anything on the set, the workplace. They will assert that his "producer" title was faux, a mere accouterment or courtesy afforded for his fame and name (vanity). Perhaps there will be claims that listing individuals as producers is more attributable to accounting and profit disbursement than to actual management. But, already there are reportedly repercussions. Will this incident alter the practice of "producer" titles? Might this be a consideration for anyone offered the "manager" title on a construction site, restaurant, or project?
ABC News reports that gun safety on movie sets has recently become more respected and expected. People are reportedly checking guns for ammunition or asking others to do so. Perhaps this even includes the actors who some people so adamantly claim should be free of responsibility? Despite that, Mr. Baldwin's attorneys and his union are clear that the safety of a weapon cannot be the responsibility of the person (actor) that holds that gun in her/his hand: "This onus can't be placed on performers."
Would the same hold true for one driving a car? Would anyone argue that the driver of a car cannot be responsible for its operation? Both are tools. Would anyone utter "you can't hold the operator responsible for a crane" or "saw" or "earth mover?" Might we argue that a driver need not inspect her/his rig before entering the highway? In my years of truck driving, it was company policy that a walk-around precede every departure. Tires, lights, and loads were all checked. Every pilot does it. I have seen machine operators in factories do it. Are actors special or different?
The New Mexico prosecutor disagrees with Mr. Baldwin's congregation. She says "It is incumbent on anybody that holds a gun to make sure that it is either not loaded or to know what it is loaded with." Where is the dividing line? Are actors special? Should they be insulated from responsibility when they hold a gun, swing a board, or drive a car? Is their reliance on the instructions and assurances of others an excuse for any and all results or outcomes?
In the broader context, we see that employers can be charged with crimes when workplace safety fails. Those who own companies and supervise can face serious challenges that involve hiring lawyers and defending their personal liberty. That may seem harsh, but it is really far less harsh than the detriment suffered by the employee that dies and her/his family. In the broadest context, each of us is responsible for workplace safety. Some Rust crew walked off the job prior to the killing; their complaints included safety issues. If you are not safe, walk away. That sounds easy, but economic reality may preclude immediate departure. Needing a job can make it tough to make personal safety decisions.
Despite us each being responsible for our safety, and keeping a lookout, those who pick up dangerous tools or take the controls of vehicles have more specific responsibilities. Those who are owners, supervisors, and managers have a responsibility for the hiring of appropriate experts, the establishment of workplace policies, and enforcement of a myriad of rules that come from state and federal sources. Those safety rules are a pain, but they save lives.
Perhaps something like guns (or similarly with vehicles, and other tools) would suggest someone with several years as an assistant armorer? Or perhaps gun skills and movie protocols are genetic and the skills and experience of a parent can be attributed to the child? Would anyone buy that explanation with a 25-year-old safety manager at a production facility? What motivated the producers of Rust to rely upon someone with so little published experience? Perhaps there is more experience that IMDB and others do not reflect? The jury will perhaps clear up any misconceptions.
Will a jury conclude that the man with the magic gun is responsible for the gun spontaneously and magically discharging? Or, will it conclude that the trigger was actually pulled as the FBI seems to indicate? It is possible in our world for a jury to doubt the credibility of either the actor or the FBI. I never dreamed the venerated would face such credibility issues. Will there be consequences for the death of Ms. Hutchins? Will the shooter be responsible? Will the armorer expert, the producers that hired/supervised her, or both be found responsible? Time will tell.
Is there an object lesson here for all employers? Certainly. Safety may be everyone's problem, but ultimately the boss can do much to prevent injury or death.
