What could happen next for Alec Baldwin following manslaughter charges?
Legal experts discuss the challenges for both prosecutors and Baldwin, who faces prison time for the Rust shooting death of Halyna Hutchins
Aux News Alec Baldwin
Now that involuntary manslaughter charges have been filed against Alec Baldwin and set armorer Hannah Gutierrez Reed in the October 2021 shooting death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the set of the indie film Rust, legal experts are weighing in about what comes next for both the case and the defendants.
The Santa Fe District Attorney’s Office announced two charges of involuntary manslaughter Thursday morning for Gutierrez Reed and Baldwin, who could face an 18-month prison sentence and a $5,000 fine. The actor, who was holding the prop gun that he says misfired and killed Hutchins, will also be charged with “an enhancement for the use of a firearm which carries a mandatory minimum sentence of five years,” per NPR. Meanwhile, Rust’s first assistant director David Halls, who loaded the gun, agreed to plead guilty to “negligent use of a deadly weapon.” Halls will serve no jail time but will be given six months of probation per the plea deal.
While Baldwin is staring down some difficult legal challenges, the prosecution may have even larger ones. James J. Brosnahan, Senior Of Counsel at the law firm of Morrison Foerster, tells The A.V. Club. Brosnahan was retained as lead trial counsel for the defense in the case involving Brandon Lee, who was shot and killed by a gun fired by actor Michael Masse on the set of The Crow in 1993.
In that case, Lee’s mother Linda filed a suit, not against Masse, but against the production company, producers, the directors, and others, per The Chicago Tribune, ultimately settling out of court. Had the case gone to trial, Brosnahan was to defend the studio against indictment based on the idea that corporations are not people.
“A corporation is an artificial entity,” Brosnahan said. “It really is, of course, not a person. And so when you’re going to indict somebody, my theory was there has to be at least one person in the corporation that has the negligent state of mind, which is essential to indict somebody for manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter.”
Baldwin’s state of mind is critical to proving responsibility. For one thing, the prosecution would have to show why Alec Baldwin, an actor hired to fire what he purportedly believed were prop bullets, would do this.
“What you need in any criminal case is you need sort of a wrongful act, but then you also need some sort of mental state associated with it,” Kate Mangels, a criminal defense attorney and partner at the law firm of Kinsella, Weitzman, Iser, Kump, and Holley, told The A.V. Club. “In these sorts of accidental death cases, the defenses usually relate to whether or not the person had the mental state required.”
Proving the mental state of an actor can be tricky; after all, if Baldwin is playing a character that fires a gun in malice, how can that be stripped from his intent? The same could be said of someone under the influence of alcohol, Mangels said. “The awareness of risk and acting without regard for the risk would still be imputed on someone, even if they are acting.”
“He could be responsible if he was aware of some risk or danger. Even though he was aware of that risk, he acted without regard or due caution,” she continued. “Given what the public knows, it seems like this is a high hurdle for the prosecution to show his awareness.”
According to Brosnahan, the motive is another hurdle. “I tried criminal cases, both for the prosecution and for the defense for many years,” he said. “You’ve got to have a motive. For negligence, you can argue a theoretical case that he was negligent. Why would he do it?”
Brosnahan says it would be up to the jury to decide whether or not he acted appropriately. Still, he believes there’s nothing in Baldwin’s background to show that he would purposely point a gun and fire at a person if he knew there were bullets inside the gun. “Therefore, the question is, should it have occurred to him? And the answer would be no if he thought he was holding a gun that only has blanks.”
However, it’s important to remember that Baldwin’s role extended beyond that of an actor. He was also a producer, and that could add complications. “Sometimes the credit is simply a vanity title to boost an actor’s sense of involvement in a project,” writes the Los Angeles Times. “Sometimes it is a way to defer upfront fees to a performer in favor of back-end payments. And sometimes an actor is so deeply involved with a project that the credit is a way to make official their added influence along the way.”
The ambiguity of the title has made the prosecution’s case murkier, as they will have to show the expectations the production had from Baldwin as a producer. If it was a vanity title, that could work toward Baldwin’s defense in court.
In the months following the shooting, safety on the Rust set has been the subject of intense scrutiny. “In the DA’s statement, she said other actors say there are certain precautions they take, like firing off a practice round or checking whether the gun is loaded or isn’t loaded with whatever the dummy bullet is versus the actual bullet,” Mangels said. “It doesn’t appear that he knew there was an actual bullet in this gun.”
It seems unlikely that Baldwin will serve any prison time for the accident. However, Mangels notes that the first assistant director took a plea deal with a reduced sentence, and that sort of deal could be open to Baldwin.
For now, Mangels thinks it’s “unadvisable” (her diplomatic words) for Baldwin to keep making public statements. He already complicated his defense by saying he never actually pulled the trigger on the gun. If he didn’t pull the trigger, the prosecution would not be able to prove causation because “the causation would be a faulty gun,” for which Baldwin isn’t responsible. “If there’s proof that he pulled the trigger,” Mangels said, “then one part of the two-part test for whether he is guilty of manslaughter is satisfied, which is he took some action that caused the death of someone else.”
The trigger question does make things a bit hairier for Baldwin. “I know of no way you can fire a blank without pulling the trigger,” Brosnahan said.
“I don’t see Mr. Baldwin pleading guilty to this,” he added. “Look at it from the defendant’s standpoint; he is a famous man and a movie actor of considerable talent and has been for years. Let’s assume that he would like to have more, more roles and things. The nature of the crime is that there’s no bank robbery here. The atmosphere of the case, and if his lawyer marshals the mood of the case, is this a terrible accident. That’s what I think. Things happen. I can almost hear the good defense lawyer arguing that you know, things happen in the world. Things happen. It doesn’t mean anybody is guilty of anything.”
99 Comments
“That’s what I think. Things happen. I can almost hear the good defense
lawyer arguing that you know, things happen in the world. Things happen.
It doesn’t mean anybody is guilty of anything.”
Dare I say, I hope the good defense lawyer argues a bit more than this.
Even the Chewbacca defence beats the ‘shit happens’ defence.
“I refer to the precedent of crying v. spilt milk.”
Well, that’s the difference between a good defense lawyer and a great defense lawyer.
This smells like a “red meat” prosecution from a Right Wing state against a known “Libburl” actor like Baldwin…….who is, moreover, also known to be kind of an asshole.
“Your honor. Ladies and Gentleman of the jury. Whaddaya gonna do? Thank you the defense rests.”
“We, the jury, unanimously find that it is what it is.”
“Ladies and gentleman of the jury, here’s the rub: It is what it is. You know what I’m saying? That’s lunch, defense rests!”
“Everything that guy just said is bullshit.”
“It happens!”
He was also a producer, and what that means is tricky.I assume this is where the prosecution case rests, and why this is a different precedent from other cases where the actor had no role in the production. And I’m sure the prosecution is prepared to make the case for that distinction.
No producer should be at fault for the armorer and 1st AD’s fuck up, either, other than to fire them after they fuck up.
They would look at causation, so if as a producer you’re at fault for creating an unsafe work environment, then yes you might very well be at fault
Just wanted to say they I really appreciate this well written, thoughtful, and even handed article. This was the highest quality article AV Club 3.0 (or whatever version we’re on now post LA relocation) that I can remember reading. Blissfully minimal unearned snark or hot takes.
How hard is it to make a prop gun that looks like the real thing, makes a loud bang and produces muzzle flare and smoke when you pull the trigger, but doesn’t fire any bullets?(Also, don’t start two consecutive sentences with “however.”)
Not very easy, or they probably would have done it by now. Incidentally, the noise of it isn’t a big deal. Most of the gunshot noises you hear in movies are added in post production. The thing that keeps fake guns from looking realistic isn’t really the smoke or the muzzle flash (those too can now be added in post). It’s the recoil (or lack thereof).
Without the bullet there is not much recoil. There’s no reason a replica wasn’t being used for a shot that would certainly not have a bullet.
There is still some recoil when a blank is shot. Enough that it’s tough to fake it in a realistic way with fake weapons.
If a highly paid actor can’t use his acting skills to act as though there is recoil, how is he even getting this gig?
Weird because I own a CO2 bb gun that is an exact replica of a Glock 17, weight and material and all, and it can produce recoil with the exhaust gas. Surely the brain geniuses in materials science can make an air gun that recoils.
Possible, but there are a few things that have to be worked out first:The muzzle flash has to come from somewhere, and outside of CGI’ing it practical guns that don’t use bullets use a propane tank attached to the gun (https://www.indiewire.com/2021/11/rust-shooting-gun-bans-set-1234676635/ ), which isn’t always ideal for shooting.While CGI’s gotten better it’s still not perfect, and it’s especially not perfect when it’s cheaply done by an effects house lowballing their bid. Even so, television shows like Nathan Fillion’s THE ROOKIE have started using “Airsoft” guns and adding muzzle flashes and gunshot sounds in post (https://www.vulture.com/2021/10/abcs-the-rookie-bans-live-guns-on-set.html ). Dwayne Johnson has also committed to no using non-practical guns on his production company’s movies (https://www.npr.org/2021/11/05/1052844115/dwayne-johnson-the-rock-firearms-guns-baldwin-rust ).We’ll have to see how audiences react to it—hopefully, they’ll accept that this is a necessary thing to do, especially on shows and movies where gunplay isn’t a major part of the story.
Like others have said, it’s all about the recoil. You need an explosion(triggered by a bullet or a blasting cap) to produce the force needed to replicate the recoil of an actual gun. That explosion also needs to release, so unfortunately, something would be firing outside of the barrel, regardless. I’m sure you can produce it mechanically, but you need a power source that too big to fit inside of a gun. At which point the illusion of an actual gun would be compromised.
The problem is that guns are a business, not an actual self defense tool.
Because of this, any mass produced item is going to be done in bulk and readily available.
In Lord of War, the producers decided that it was cheaper to have an entire warehouse full of real life AK-47’s, instead of making prop ones.
Basically, it’s a Bowling for Columbine situation for Hollywood.
Not hard at all. In fact, several companies specialize in this. A quick google search brings up several resources for non-firing replica weapons.
That’s a gun… firing blanks. Are you serious?
Firing prop guns are mostly actual firearms, converted to fire blanks. The conversions that allow the action to cycle without an actual projectile make the prop gun unable to fire live ammunition (the parts that keep the action locked are ground down and there is a partial bore obstruction at the end of the barrel to generate backpressure to cause the gun to cycle.) Trying to fire live ammo in one of those would cause the gun to explode (though I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of those had little nubbins welded into the chamber to prevent a live round from fully seating). This is not done with manually operated firearms (such as revolvers, leverguns, pump guns or bolt guns), which require no modification to use blanks. (Hence why the Rust crewmembers were able to use them for recreational shooting off hours, and why it had a catastrophic result when the people responsible for their safe use fell down on the job).
There are also ‘non guns’, which use flash paper to simulate firing. You’ve likely seen these before – the prop looks like a gun but off, and the discharge isn’t right either – too much smoke with too little bang.
‘Baldwin as actor’ – Shouldn’t be considered guilty. It’s not in the purview, nor expected skill set, of an actor to be able to tell if a prop weapon is live or not – especially when they’re *not* pursuing manslaughter charges against the person who actually loaded the live rounds into the prop.
‘Baldwin as producer’ – That’s where the guilt should lie if any does. If he had a hand in the hiring of the armorer, prop oversight, or the safety requirements/conditions of the set then, yes, he should be culpable. (As should any other producers who had a hand in those)
‘producer’ – That’s where the guilt should lie if any does.No, it shouldn’t. The guilt lies with the armorer and 1st AD.
Setting aside the “vanity” producer credit issue — Baldwin was almost certainly involved in gathering financing and not the day-to-day production — even if Baldwin had personally hired the armorer, the fault would still lie with the armorer, unless he knowingly hired an armorer who had a history of loading live rounds into prop guns. Producers don’t stare over the shoulder of the armorer to make sure they are loading blanks. The whole reason this is somebody’s entire job on a film set is to ensure there is an expert on hand responsible for everyone’s safety. The armorer is at sole fault (barring some ridiculous conspiracy to frame the armorer). Not the producers or the actors.
I think the family could file a successful civil suit against the producers both for hiring the armorer and the allegedly unsafe atmosphere of the set, but I agree it would be difficult to prosecute her superiors in a criminal trial on the grounds that they shouldn’t have hired her in the first place.
Well yes, the proper way to handle this is with civil litigation. It shouldn’t be a criminal case.Baldwin has already settled with the victim’s family.
‘Baldwin as producer’ – That’s where the guilt should lie if any does.More accurately:‘Baldwin as producer’ – That’s where some of the liability should lie if any does.
Also, if Baldwin is found responsible as an actor, then that would set a precedent that actors are expected to check their prop weapons on set, rather than leaving the ultimate responsibility with the armorers. That seems like a recipe for more deaths and injuries, not fewer.
He is 100% guilty as a human being. Remember folks, actors are people too! Only toddlers are allowed to point the gun at another human, pull the trigger, kill someone and get away with it. Frequently ACTING like a toddler is not exculpatory.
Baldwin’s producer credit is a vanity credit, and any competent defense lawyer will be able to make that clear to a jury. He used his own money to get the project, which he collaborated with Souza on, to get off the ground but beyond that he was an actor. He wasn’t hiring crew or managing crews. Producer is a meaningless credit these days. Shit, there were seven producers on this film.
Such a horrible choice by the prosecutor to go after Baldwin. He had nothing to do with the gun being loaded, and was specifically told it was safe. He has zero liability here. It feels more like a publicity stunt by the prosecutor than anything.
The prosecutor is just trying to get headlines. There’s not a chance in the world they get a conviction on Baldwin, and they shouldn’t. Even if they do buffalo a jury into a conviction, I doubt it survives appeal.
Why shouldn’t Baldwin receive a conviction? First rule of any firearm, fake or otherwise, is when you are handling it you are responsible for ensuring whether it is loaded, etc. He did not check to see if it was loaded. And yes, there is a huge visual difference between blanks and real bullets. Primarily in the fact that blanks do not have a bullet at the end of the casing….while regular rounds do.
1) It’s not a legal requirement to check to see if a gun is loaded, so I don’t know how much weight – if any – that’s going to carry in a court. 2) A prop gun on a film set should never be loaded with real bullets, period. 3) It’s specifically the Assistant Director’s job, not the actor’s, to check if a gun is loaded with blanks or is empty. In this case, at least according to what’s been reported in the news (the police investigation might have found something different), the AD announced that the gun was “cold” before handing it to Baldwin. I’m going to wait and see how the trial shakes out. I’m presuming the prosecution has evidence that hasn’t been publicly released, because solely based on what I’ve read, Baldwin was just following directions with no reason to assume that he was holding a loaded gun. Unless he signs a plea agreement, it’s up to a jury now.
Anybody who handles firearms should be checking it. Firearm safety is everybody’s responsibility.. These “prop” guns are real, they just utilize blanks. I agree they shouldn’t have been used on the set after having real rounds put in them, and this is why they lost so many Armorers prior to the poor woman who was armorer at the time. What it comes down to, if you are accepting a firearm, the instant it is in your hands you are responsible. It isn’t hard or even a timely thing to check to see if it is loaded and if so what is loaded in it. And if you look at blank vs live rounds you can see there is a VERY obvious difference. If you are using firearms on set, you must take EVERY precaution for safety, and as both an actor and a producer Alec Baldwin failed in that responsibility. *edited for a spelling error*
I don’t know what to tell you. Sets, like any other workplace, have safety procedures in place for a reason. Prop guns (anything an actor holds is referred to as a prop; calling them “prop guns” is just faster than saying “guns that are used on film sets”) are never supposed to be loaded to with real bullets, period. It’s then the AD’s job to check to see if a prop gun is loaded and if so, what they are loaded with before handing the gun to the actor. For better or for worse, this is a standard firearm safety procedure on film sets. The AD is the one that failed that responsibility. The armorer and assistant director more than likely signed employment contracts explicitly stating that the legal responsibility for checking whether a firearm is loaded or not falls on them.It would have been best practice for Alec Baldwin to triple-check to make sure the gun wasn’t loaded, but I have a hard time imagining that a courtroom is going to find Baldwin legally culpable as an actor for trusting his workplace’s safety procedure. Going forward, maybe SAG contracts should include language stipulating that they too bear a responsibility for ensuring firearm safety. Personally, I’m a fan of what the Rock said he’s going to do by making all actors use rubber guns and faking the recoil.
Just because it isn’t part of the “normal” checks, doesn’tmean it shouldn’t have been done is my point. Justifying his lax safety behavior by saying it was somebody elses job to make sure the firearm that he handled was not loaded is not acceptable. When you have a firearm in your hand it is your responsibility. All the failures leading to that would have been null if he had just checked. To be clear, I am not saying that others are not at fault as well, there was a chain of issues with those weapons leading to the tragedy and each part of that chain holds responsibility.As for the “prop” nomenclature. I understand calling anything used on set a prop for ease, but when we are talking about a firearm, anything that diminishes it’s capability in somebody’s mind should not be utilized, in my opinion. Firearms can be extremely dangerous, the instant we call it a prop can in many peoples minds diminish what they are capable of. But again, that is just my opinion on them, I didn’t mean to come across as though you were utilizing the incorrect term or anything.I am all for using rubber firearms in movies. As a veteran, and long time firearm user (enthusiast would make it seem more than what I do) I have never once looked at the recoil of a weapon while watching a movie to see how realistic it is. Anything that lessens the danger over something so miniscule as entertainment is a positive.
I guess my point is I’m not sure that it’s fair for a justice system to convict an individual when the individual was told that there is an industry-standard system in place specifically to absolve them from the responsibility of checking whether a firearm is loaded or not. Like I said before though, I’m waiting to see how this criminal case shakes out because more details may emerge. And to your point, Alec Baldwin was not only a producer, but is a veteran actor who has handled firearms on sets before. He should have known better. I’m also in favor of changing that system so that actors legally share the burden of responsibility for ensuring firearm safety.
“Hi kids, I’m Smokey Gunn, and I’m here to tell you that Firearm safety is everybody’s responsibility..!”
What it comes down to, if you are accepting a firearm, the instant it is in your hands you are responsible.No. You keep saying this, but it simply isn’t true from a legal standpoint.
imagine if all the major decisions on a film set were left to the actors on said set?that’d go well
“Has Mr. Leto checked his prop gun?”
It’s not all major decisions. It’s part of a safety verification of a single prop.
I don’t know if he should necessarily receive a charge, but the idea that actors shouldn’t have some sort of responsibility over the weapon they’re firing is crazy to me.
That’s cool. You’re not an intelligent person and have zero insight into this.
That is not a law, it is a safety tip. It had already been through two hands, he had been specifically told it was a cold gun…sure, he should have checked it (if he would have even known what he was looking for), but the liability is on the two people who’s job it was to check it before it was handed to him. I’d bet anything the prosecutor is a right wing republican trying to score points with the base.
Your argument is because somebody else told him it was safe then it must be safe….. When you rent a car and they tell you that the tank is full do you just take their word for it or do you check? If you are handling a firearm, you should know basic safety measures, such as how to tell if it is loaded, and if you are utilizing blanks what they look like. It takes MAYBE 5 minutes to teach somebody that and less than 30 seconds to actually do the check. So let’s say 5.5 minutes to save somebody’s life. I don’t care about the politics. Whether the prosecutor is right wing, left wing, communist, atheist, whatever. It doesn’t matter. What matters is he took possession of a firearm, pointed it at somebody and shot and kill them.
The law does not have a distinction for “somebody else told me it was safe before I pointed the gun at somebody and pulled the trigger”.
I think a better analogy would be if someone told you the car’s brakes were good before you got into it.Also, as has been stated many times by many people, there are at least two other people on set whose job it is to ensure that the gun is safe.
Hannah Gutierrez Reed should get the worst punishment.
This may actually be the best thing to happen to Alec.
He didn’t intentionally mean to shoot her, so there’s no way he can be charged with any severe penalties.
If Caitlyn Jenner can kill someone in the middle of her transition, I’m pretty sure Alec will be ok and is kinda more likable than Jenner.
For one thing, the prosecution would have to show why Alec Baldwin, an actor hired to fire what he purportedly believed were prop bullets, would do this. If only someone knew what evil lurks in the hearts of men.
I hate you. Take your star.
You were just waiting for that, weren’t you.
Who knows what bad joke lurks in the heart of me.
I think he might actually lose this case. What changes my opinion (though if I’m mishearing the standard, I might go back to thinking he’ll beat it) is the supposed standard that you do not aim a gun at anybody on set and pull the trigger. I’m not sure if that’s the actual rule. Obviously somebody working the camera would have to get a shot of the action, though I believe they typically have more safeguards in place than were present here. If that is in fact the standard, I think there’s a good chance that it is manslaughter. Not a lawyer. Not somebody who works on a film set. Pretty ignorant of all the ins and outs, as I assume most people are. But it does seem like a disregard for safety that resulted in a needless death. But we’ll see. All I’m saying is that I’m much less confident about his chances than I was yesterday.
Why exactly are you offering an opinion if you think you may be mishearing the standard, you’re not sure “that’s the rule,” you’re not a lawyer, you’re not somebody who works on a film set, and you’re pretty ignorant of all the ins and outs?
I’m going to venture a guess that the majority of people on this forum have neither of the qualifications I’d mentioned and are also popping off without the prerequisite expertise to offer a sound legal judgement, but I’m at least willing to put that out front. I’m willing to be swayed by any experts, which is why I included that, as I’m merely trying to better understand. But thanks for your contribution.
I just had to chuckle at the size of the [I think X]-to-[but I might be wrong because Y] ratio. Sometimes people are like “Well, I’m a lawyer although not in this state, but my reading of the case law quoted in the article is blah blah blah,” and I was just amused by how this was sort of the Mirror Universe version of that.
I agree none of us are experts, and I do actually appreciate epistemic humility in people’s commentary about things like this.
I think a lot of people go into these discussions looking to convince people of why their instincts are correct, but that’s definitely not what I’m doing here. In this case I am literally just asking questions. Not in the obnoxious “I’m just asking questions (so I can put wild shit out there and muddy up be conversation)” but in a genuine way. I’m just trying to disclose “here’s where I’m at right now, and here are my limitations on the subject matter.”I mean just yesterday I was sure it was bs, and this morning I wasn’t so sure. I wanted to get some clarification on things I hadn’t previously considered.
social media gave everyone a voice. Unfortunately it did not also give them anything interesting to say.
I am never going to take a video with “screencap” like that seriously.
I might go back to thinking he’ll beat it) is the supposed standard that you do not aim a gun at anybody on set and pull the trigger.Standard gun practice is to never aim at someone/something unless you’re prepared to fire, but on a set things are a little different, as prop weapons are usually pointed directly at people during scenes.
So is that more of a “Hey, don’t fuck around with that unless we’re specifically shooting a scene” thing? Like during down time?
During downtime, I imagine not, but IIRC, this was a rehearsal which necessitated pointing it at someone.
So my next question would be, if it were determined that he had to have pulled the trigger for it to have fired, is he back on the hook.I do not know if that is provable or not, but if it were, given that this was a rehearsal and not a shoot, would that change things?
I think that question is ultimately what this is about. I’m not a lawyer, so I can’t say for certain, but there is precedence here where actors or people on set were injured or killed, but charges weren’t brought against the people directly involved. Brandon Lee comes to mind, as he was shot and killed on set, but the person who physically shot him was never charged with his death as it was deemed an accident. In this case, the actor was handed a firearm that was prepared by a professional armorer, they were told it was a cold gun despite someone leaving live ammunition loaded. I don’t see how Baldwin can be charged, regardless if he pulled the trigger or not, as there are people on set dedicated to the safety and handling of weapons, so it would be their responsibility to make sure the props are safe.
Thanks
Wait you guys still, like, interview people & do journalism here? Fascinating.Still need a copyeditor tho
Horrible tragedy with several people responsible, but at least get the facts straight. The AD did NOT load the gun. He DID pick it up from a pop table, announced that it was “cold” (safe), and handed it to Baldwin.
Yeah, this is the equivalent of someone sending their spouse to pick their car up from the mechanic, their spouse being told that everything checked out, and then that person being charged with involuntary vehicular manslaughter when the brakes fail and they kill someone.
ETA: It’s not relevant if the spouse is a trained mechanic. It’s not relevant if the driver is a trained mechanic. What’s relevant is that someone is being charged for a failure after being told it was safe by someone else, who was also not responsible for the safety of the thing in question.
This is so fucking ridiculous. Do people not understand the difference between someone loading a gun with the intent to kill and an actor being handed a guy and asked to shoot in a direction on the job? Why in christs name is he being charged for manslaughter????? Jesus Christ people don’t understand how movies work.
This highlights how severely people can’t tell the difference between movies and real life.
Next thing you’ll be telling me is Tom Hanks isn’t a neuro-atypical person who saved Matt Damon from the all-girl softball team on the moon!
Those Amazon women on the moon are outstanding softball players.
“people can’t tell the difference between movies and real life”This IS real life. Except for the woman who isn’t living anymore because she’s dead. It’s all real.
“Movies” are a series of sequential images that when passed before light create the illusion of motion. That’s how movies work.
That’s a really outdated definition; it applies to the film medium but certainly not digital.
Do you not understand the difference between murder (loading a gun with the intent to kill) and involuntary manslaughter (accidentally killing a person)?AV Club should really put the statute in their articles. They’re linking everything except the relevant law, which, again, is pretty specifically this.
I’m an actor and to be honest this makes me never want to lift a prop-weapon on a set again. We’ve been told as professionals this is not a real weapon we’ve been told to never point the prop at another person unless directed to because it is an actors job to treat it as though it is a real weapon. That changes when the director asks the actor to point the weapon during a scene.
So if ur telling me actors aren’t protected under those circumstances than fuck that I’m never picking up a sword on stage again if I can be punished for real as a murderer for a freak prop accident. Do people not see how fucking ridiculous this is. Do you like action-violence in films? Get ready to never see that again if actors are being treated this way for doing their fucking jobs. It’s an actors choice to pick up that weapon get ready for actors refusing to work. Fuck this bullshit.
Honest question: why do you always leave like four comments on these articles regardless of whether someone has responded to you?
Are we going to accuse Evan Peters of being a cannibal just because he did that on make believe TV too? Do people understand that Peters isn’t Dahmer? One looks at the Baldwin ruling and has to wonder if anyone understands what they see on TV is something fake performed on a set cuz it sure fucking seems like everyone thinks Baldwin is a straight up murderer. Fucking ridiculous how stupid people are. She was literally his friend.
who brought you out of the greys, dumb ass.
As someone who has worked many times as a professional actor this ruling has me seething mad to be quite honest. BALDWIN WAS PERFORMING HIS JOB. To anyone who still doesn’t fucking get that. He’s also not an outlaw cowboy in the Rust belt. Are any further explanations required?
Before you go arresting Draco Malfoy I gotta tell you he’s actually a normal guy!
I don’t care if people generally dislike baldwin, this ruling shits hard on all actors.
Do people not understand how silly it is to hold an actor to the consequences of the character they’re playing’s actions. That sounds hell of a lot like “no thank you Ill find another line of work” to me.
“What you need in any criminal case is you need sort of a wrongful act, but then you also need some sort of mental state associated with it,” Kate Mangels, a criminal defense attorney and partner at the law firm of Kinsella, Weitzman, Iser, Kump, and Holly, told The A.V. Club. “In these sorts of accidental death cases, the defenses usually relate to whether or not the person had the mental state required.”IANAL, but the actual statute being charged doesn’t seem to require either of those things. Like at all. 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.Whoever commits involuntary manslaughter is guilty of a fourth degree felony.https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/2019/chapter-30/article-2/section-30-2-3/We know this was an act which might produce death, de facto, because it did so. I don’t think anyone is alleging foul play that would make it an unlawful act, ergo, the first section is satisfied. The only question is, was “due caution and circumspection” applied. Doesn’t even necessarily mean that due caution would have prevented the death, which means Baldwin can still argue that he did enough and exonerate himself.
Not a fucking thing. That’s how it works.
He’ll keep on working on his beard so he looks even more like a rabbinical student?
“The actor, who was holding the prop gun that he says misfired and killed Hutchins,”
The actor was holding a real gun. A real actual gun with real actual ammo that was really actually fired and really actually killed. If you are going to describe that as a prop gun then you should also start identifying yourself as a prop writer.
He better call Snoop Dogg’s lawyer.
Just to note as I did on the other story: during FBI testing the gun malfunctioned and went off with out the trigger being pulled
I have two .357 revolvers that can easily be made to fire without pulling the triggers. They are Dan Wesson models 15-2 (Blued), and a 715 (Stainless steel). All you need to do is tighten up the screw that holds the grip onto the frame too far, and the gun goes from as safe as any revolver ever made to either a gun that goes off with almost the slightest touch after it’s cocked, or, if the screw is tightened further, the gun cannot be cocked at all, it turns into a double action only gun. How did I discover this? While shooting at an indoor range about 40 years ago. I blew a hole in the roof after changing grips. The screw, if overtightened, blocks the plunger from moving down far enough to allow the gun to fully and safely cock. https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS94nD517m5_fnQYd7Scdvzh-6tLlUpT9MP7w&usqp=CAU