Alec Baldwin has once again been charged in Rust shooting
A grand jury indicted Alec Baldwin for involuntary manslaughter in the death of Rust cinematographer Halyna Hutchins
Aux News Alec Baldwin
Alec Baldwin has been indicted by a grand jury in New Mexico over his involvement in the shooting death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the set of the film Rust in 2021. Baldwin was charged with one count of involuntary manslaughter after the grand jury heard evidence from special prosecutors Kari Morrissey and Jason Lewis, according to NBC News. If convicted, the actor could face up to 18 months in prison.
Baldwin was initially charged in connection to Hutchins’ death in January 2023, but the charges were dropped in April of that same year. However, special prosecutors at the time noted that the charges could be refiled, pending further examination of the gun that fired the shot that killed Hutchins. Baldwin long maintained that he had not pulled the trigger, but the prop gun went off regardless; the gun was reportedly damaged in the initial investigation, and prosecutors were therefore unable to ascertain the truth of his claims. (The film’s armorer Hannah Gutierrez Reed is set to stand trial on February 21, having been accused of loading a live round into the prop gun.)
Over the summer, Morrissey and Lewis had further forensic testing done on the gun, including having it reconstructed by experts, and concluded that the prop could only have gone off if the trigger was pulled (per Variety). In October, the prosecutors indicated that they would soon present their new evidence before a grand jury. Baldwin’s lawyer Luke Nikas responded in a statement, saying, “It is unfortunate that a terrible tragedy has been turned into this misguided prosecution. We will answer any charges in court.” After news broke of the indictment on Friday, the actor’s attorneys Nikas and Alex Spiro reiterated the sentiment: “We look forward to our day in court.”
94 Comments
“the gun was reportedly damaged in the initial investigation, and prosecutors were therefore unable to ascertain the truth of his claims.”
Wow. Did anyone involved in any aspect of this situation do their job correctly?
FFS way to make me take Baldwin’s side in something, New Mexico.
Exactly. Baldwin may be a huge tool, but there’s no way this is his fault unless he did something like grab the gun from the armorer prematurely, elbow him in the face and said, “Fuck off, let’s do this!”
I agree with both of these comments. I spent the first five years of my career as a criminal defense attorney, and I truly don’t get this prosecution. Sure you don’t have to have deliberation or criminal intent for involuntary manslaughter, but you do have to have a degree of recklessness or negligence that is much higher than you would need to show in a civil trial. You basically have to show that a person disregarded a risk they created, or should have reasonably known about a risk, or otherwise acted in a highly unreasonable manner. I just don’t see how you get there when you have an armorer who is supposed to ensure the gun is safe, and a member of the crew who actually put the gun in Baldwin’s hand and assured him it was cold. No matter what he did or didn’t do with the gun, he had no reason to think the gun had anything but rounds that couldn’t hurt anyone.You can also have involuntary manslaughter when you fail to perform an act when you have a duty, but it doesn’t appear like they are focusing on his producer duties for this. Further, prosecution is pretty problematic when their testing initially damaged evidence and the initial prosecution was exposed as politically motivated-especially in a case when I think the charges are tenuous.I think there could absolutely be some civil liability for Baldwin, especially concerning his role as a producer on the film (plus, there is a lower standard of proof and negligence in a civil case). But involuntary manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt with these facts? I fully acknowledge that I have not been a criminal attorney for 15 years, so I could be totally wrong. I also don’t know what the norm is on a film set. But I just don’t see it.I grew up in NM, and it is one of my favorite states (hence my username!). But I was really surprised they brought this the first time, and I am even more surprised they are bringing it again after the first case so embarrassingly imploded.
The fact that in all this time the prosecution has never seemed to give even a moment’s consideration to his producer credit makes me think there can’t possibly be any liability there. It’s never been truly made clear to the public whether it was a vanity title or if he had some control in his role as producer, but like you said, it would have to have been a lot easier to prove negligence in that role and they still won’t let go of this trigger bit. Even if they were absolutely insistent on this dumb charge, surely it would make sense to approach it from both angles (or at least change it up after the last attempt) just to see which one sticks.
This is kind of what I think too. We are both making some assumptions, and it may turn out that more evidence will come. But the fact that everyone is focused on the trigger and not his duty as a producer makes me believe that the prosecution has concluded that is a dry well for whatever reason.
Your take lines up with my understanding of the fact pattern here. Civil? Okay, I can see an opening there on the production side, but even then it would be that he approved the hiring of an unqualified armorer. You have to string a whole lot of shit together to arrive at culpability.It’s my understanding that the prosecutor here is basically headline-grabbing and all of this doesn’t have much to do with the prevailing political attitudes towards crime in NM.
I agree, although I will say that getting to culpability is a whole lot easier when you are talking about preponderance of the evidence rather than reasonable doubt. I really could see civil liability here, but as you say there are a lot of things that need to be established to get there.The first prosecution was def. for political gain-that is shown in the emails around the case. I don’t know if we know anything concrete about the motivations for this prosecution, although if I were defense counsel I would absolutely be looking into that given how the first one turned out.
Bringing me back to my original comment – I can’t believe I’m in a position of feeling sympathy for Alec fucking Baldwin, world-class shithead.
The DAs office at this point is desperate to get something just because of the notoriety despite the fact that it’s costing the area mega bucks just to bring a charge. It’s almost impossible to believe that a jury can convict him based on the evidence produced. He’s a douche, and I only wish bad things to happen to him, but even douches deserve not to be maliciously prosecuted.
If I hand you a gun and tell you it’s not loaded, so go ahead and aim it at a person and pull the trigger, what responsibility do you have? It was a real gun. Baldwin chose to use a real gun. He chose to never talk to anyone who could show him how guns or ammunition work. He did not insist the armorer be on set. The FBI proved he had his finger pulling the trigger to get it out of the holster. They tried endless variations to get the gun to misfire and it simply could not. They got more and more extreme until it broke. As far as I know, even broken, it would not misfire.When he pulled the hammer back the mechanism to release and fire the gun was already held back by the trigger. I believe him when he says he didn’t “pull” the trigger, if he means after he cocked the gun. He had continuously pulled the trigger from getting it out of the holster and cocked and released the hammer. Ever seen someone “fan” the hammer to fire while holding the trigger. That’s what Baldwin did.
A video about filming the Stargate series involved a talk with the armorer, the guy in charge of the P90 machine guns. The armorer said he told and showed every actor how the gun was loaded, how it was cocked/chambering a round. How the trigger functioned. They were trained in all the steps at a facility to fire them. All before he allowed any of them on a set.
When actors say that’s not what happens, they are lying. Instructing the use of a gun does happen and no one should get a gun until the armorer knows the actor, and people around the actor, knows how to see if the weapon and ammunition is safe. Using lethal force with actual guns was part of what Baldwin wanted to depict in the movie. Baldwin left Hollywood for podunk specifically to escape union amorers and other union oversight that would have prevented this from happening. He failed to perform due diligence when he accepted a fully functioning firearm to see what was loaded into it. “Someone told me” isn’t an excuse.
If it was only five years then, yeah, you could be wrong.
I am more concerned about the fact that it has been 15 years since I tried my last criminal case, I don’t practice that kind of law anymore (although I have been a lawyer for 20 years), and I don’t have access to the evidence in the case. There are clear limits to my knowledge here, and I am doing some speculating along with everyone else. But I tried plenty of felony cases over those five years, including involuntary manslaughter. I have not kept up with the criminal laws really since I moved into the non-profit world, so I freely admit my knowledge is outdated.
The actors guild has guidelines including checking the cylinders and test firing it off stage. If he didn’t do that and watch the prop master reload a blank, I could see negligence there
TBH I don’t believe him that he didn’t pull the trigger, but I also think that even if he DID, he had every reason to believe it was not loaded with live ammo.
This is getting ridiculous. It was a tragic accident, that’s it.
…What is it you think “involuntary manslaughter” means?
It seems kinda weird that we prosecute people for things that are involuntary.
Like lethal negligence?
Oh I get it, I’m just saying it sounds weird. When you see it written out like that. And are stoned.
The part that’s “involuntary” is the homicide, not the underlying wrongful act that resulted in the death.
Fair, but Baldwin wasn’t the armorer. They don’t appear to be holding him liable as a producer of the film who (at least nominally) supervised the armorer, since if that were the case, it wouldn’t matter if he pulled the trigger or not. So the theory seems to be that, in his role as an actor in the movie, he was reckless in pulling the trigger of a gun he had been informed wasn’t loaded. That seems like a stretch.
Yeah, and the fact that they’re not holding him liable as producer makes it even weirder, because I sincerely doubt that prosecutors would be this aggressive if Alec Baldwin’s stunt double were the one who pulled the trigger. (I’m also certain that social media users—and AVC writers—would be way more sympathetic if it were just some average Joe, to the extent that they’d care about the story at all.)
Sure, what action did Alec Baldwin take to cause a death other than hitting his mark and firing a prop gun.
Involuntary manslaughter typically applies to cases where a person does something illegal or reckless that ends someone else’s life. Drunk driving is the simple example to give.So guess question is do you think Baldwin firing what he thought was a prop gun on a set of a movie (something that happens frequently) is illegal or reckless that it rises up to a criminal act?
It’s even weirder when you consider that the closest analogue to this case — the 1993 accidental shooting death of Brandon Lee — resulted in the DA declining to press charges even though (and I’m paraphrasing) negligence was factor, there was no evidence of criminal wrongdoing.
So, if they’re not charging him as a producer and thus holding him responsibility in full for the safety of the set, and they’re merely charging him as essentially just another actor, I don’t see this going anywhere legally. Unless they can show that Alec had prior knowledge that the gun was not a prop, the level of negligence needed for a conviction is a bar I don’t think they will be able to cross.
He made light of our orange messiah! Get ‘im!
I don’t know these particular prosecutors’ politics, but the state of New Mexico is institutionally very liberal (at least at the moment), so it seems unlikely that this is the motivation. I’d suspect, instead, that the state has a vested interest in encouraging film production (it’s been a major part of the state’s economy for awhile now) and they want to make sure that the industry in the state is seen as safe.
the gun was reportedly damaged in the initial investigationI’m not a gun expert or a lawyer but good luck with that, prosecution.
Yeah, smooth work there DA’s office.
Man, these prosecutors really have a hate-boner for Baldwin.
He’s a dick, but I think they are FAR bigger dicks for trying to prosecute this case.
He hired the armorer and knew she was over her head . Numerous incidents /complaints about safety other accidental shots going off ,and he did nothing .He did not attend the gun safety class . He claims he never pulled the trigger on a gun the FIB says it will not fire without a trigger pull.
Where was it reported that he hired the armorer?
Hiring people is what the Producer does
Take a random film and watch the credits. Any given movie will have several producers; they can’t (and aren’t) responsible for hiring every crew member. Someone like Alec Baldwin might hire above the line talent, like the director, but an armorer would be hired by the line producer or a unit production manager. If you pulled up her deal memo, I guarantee Baldwin’s signature wouldn’t be on it.On principle, I think a producer credit should come with a level of responsibility, even for someone taking a vanity credit. If this was a civil case, I would understand if Baldwin was named as a co-defendent. But claiming he’s culpable for hiring Gutierrez on nothing more than “hiring people is what the producer does” is some shady shit, man. That’s you coming in with your mind made and grasping at straws to justify your stance.
Shady shit is taking the credit and cash of a producer and not doing the job while you are on site and trying to defend it . There were numerous problems documented on the set ,other accidental discharges ,safety problem ,target practice when not filming using the actual guns being used in the film ,including the “Hero” gun . The Using of actual firearms as props without taking extreme proper caution . A armorer that was clearly in over their head and a star that refused to take the safety class. Stuff a Producer should know about and take steps to fix especially on a small set ,but no one did .It was a recipe for a disaster .The star takes the gun from an AD instead of the armorer?You are using real guns you have to use more caution then with a prop gun .A star that claims he didn’t pull the trigger nor did he point the gun at her ?You can try all you want to defend him but he is responsible .
I’m not defending Baldwin; I asked where it was reported that he hired her and you revealed that you made an assumption based on not knowing that there is a specific producer who hires the crew members. And instead of just admitting that you made a mistake, you moved the goalpost.And given that you don’t even know who is responsible for hiring crew members, why would anyone take anything you say about what should or shouldn’t be done on a set seriously?
Except producers hire people and he is a producer on set ,so no mistake .If you want the check and credit then you have the responsibilities of the position .
And given you have nothing to add or dispute that why should anyone listen to you ?
Why should anyone listen to you, known bigot and troll who doesn’t understand punctuation and somehow misspelled FBI more than once in this thread?
Why should anyone listen to you, am inbred known bigot and moron who doesn’t
understand law ?
classic neville self burn
?
That dumb fuck NX-1700 has an alt account, “Neville” – the identical misspellings & inability to use punctuation correctly give it away.And just to eliminate any doubt, “Neville” can be found at http://www.kinja.com/nx1700 (vs nx-1700 as used in this thread).The useless wankstain stars his own posts, that’s how pathetic he is.
The punctuation thing is really what gets me. It’s like he’s posting using an old T9 keyboard or something.
It’s the bigotry & MAGAtude that gets me; his inability to spell or punctuate is the just the shit cherry on the garbage sundae.
The producer on set does not hire people. Line producers work in the production office, and don’t have time to also act in the film. I already said that I think the producer credit should come with responsibility two replies ago, but it does not make Baldwin the person who hired Gutierrez. So yes, yes mistake.I’ve added facts and disputed your claim that he hired her.
The one set producer is responsible for the Shooting of the film .
Ok, nevermind. You’re actually mentally disabled. Please return to wasting taxpayer money producing shit, piss and farts until you die. It’s the closest thing you’ve got to productivity. But in the future please do so in a toilet rather than putting your excretions on the internet.
When you take Balwins cock out your mouth go fuck yourself
The on set producer does not hire armorers.
You’re a dipshit; there were EIGHT producers on the project.
You are a fuckin moron he took the credit and the check and was on set .
“He claims he never pulled the trigger on a gun the FIB says it will not fire without a trigger pull.”This question has always seemed entirely beside the point to me. It’s the last thing you list. So, what, if it turns out he really hadn’t pulled the trigger you’d think he wasn’t responsible? If that’s not the case, why bother harping on it?
This is such a weird case. There’s this weird union of right wingers and vociferous gun control advocates. The sooner they dismiss again the better.
The gun only fires if the trigger is pulled . The FIB confirmed that in tests . He says he never pointed it at her and did not pull the trigger . Why do you not understand how important these facts are in this case ?
It is not going to be dismissed .It is going to trial .
And then go nowhere.
We will see ,how good his lawyers are .
His lawyers don’t have to be that good to win this. Because it doesn’t matter if he pulled the trigger or not.
It will be on its way to actual trial and a plea deal will pop up at the last minute . He is looking at a fine ,community service ,probation probably no jail time .A juicy smollet special
I highly doubt any of that will happen.
We will see
A case can be dismissed during a trial.
It can odds are it won’t .
The cops broke the gun when they first tried to examine it, then sent it off to their super cop buddies who said “Yeah they were right even though they’re incompetent to disassemble a weapon”. Nice how that works. I’m glad you trust cops and their buddies, I’m sure that’ll work out for you if you end up on the wrong side of the law doing your job.
As the lawyer for Balwin claims
Well, you didn’t engage with my question about whether you would think he’s not responsible if he didn’t pull the trigger. But no, I don’t think it matters if he pulled the trigger in an accidental shooting where he had every reason to believe he was rehearsing a scene without a live weapon on a movie set.You’ve also misunderstood whatever you’ve read: no, he has not claimed that he did not point the gun at her. (How does this not trip your “this doesn’t make sense” meter? It’s not possible for her to be shot without the gun pointing at her, and everyone with a brain is well aware of this. That’s not a claim anyone would make.) He said he would never “point a gun at someone and pull the trigger,” i.e. that if he were pointing the gun at someone he would not also pull the trigger. But again, I think this is entirely besides the point.Finally, I’m sorry, but this is driving me crazy: spaces go after punctuation marks, not before.
Question was senseless.
If he didn’t pull the trigger she would not be dead ,so he would be guilty of nothing .Yes he has claimed he didn’t point the gun at her see his interview with Steaphanapolis “ I Would never point a gun at anyone”Oh no the punctuation police are out ,with run on sentences.
You cut the quote off. “I would never point a gun at anyone and pull the trigger at them, never.” He’s saying he wouldn’t do both things at once.
I guess you also didn’t understand my question, or you don’t understand hypotheticals, but that’s okay. Have a good one.
Hopefully someone will shoot you in the face soon.
You are the expert on loads to the face
You are the expert on loads to the faceDon’t confuse me with your mother, asshole.
I didn’t your mother’s asshole is where everyone shoots their 1st load , your face gets sloppy round two….which is only fair you love licking clean
I’m not even remotely educated in the legal system, but could winning this case open the door to a civil suit? Because with this one he’d likely get probation, and a $5k fine isn’t going to Halyna’s family. Are they simply looking to exploit a rich celebrity for mountain of cash here?
The result of the criminal case has no bearing on any civil litigation. He’s much more exposed in the civil suit because there is a lower burden of proof and baldwin was a producer, who has a degree of control over the production which includes prop guns (as opposed to a situation like brandon lee where it was another actor with no authority who shot him with a prop gun for a scene that resulted in death)
Makes sense. Thank you for the explanation!
The charges will continue until convictions ensue
Not enjoying this at all, however – “toldya so.”
I don’t understand the hate boner for Baldwin, and I hope you’ll post a snarky mea culpa after they dismiss the charges for the second time.
I don’t feel any kind of way about him. “Baldwin long maintained that he had not pulled the trigger, but the prop gun went off regardless; the gun was reportedly damaged in the initial investigation, and prosecutors were therefore unable to ascertain the truth of his claims.” But this is very suspect. Also, someone was injured and someone died.
If someone you care about dies this way would you be satisfied with an “Oops. Not my fault?”
If a family member of mine died because an actor shot them with a gun they had been told was a prop filled with blanks, I believe I would not hold the actor responsible. I believe I would blame the person whose job on set it had been to safeguard and load the gun.But who knows? I hope I never have cause to find out one way or another.
I’m not sure what’s suspect in what you italicized. It doesn’t really matter if the prosecutors can prove the truth of his claims. It matters whether they can prove their claim beyond a reasonable doubt.I also don’t see why it matters if he pulled the trigger or not. If guns are so unsafe that the AD telling him it’s full of blanks isn’t sufficient to remove his liability, then surely pointing it at someone would also be reckless. (To be clear, I think this is absurd.)
You don’t have to persuade me. I’m not the prosecutor or the judge. My initial comment was simply that I had anticipated this.
It kind of sounded like you’re relishing it. Perhaps not though. As unpleasant as Baldwin is I don’t understand how some people’s dislike for him is so strong they’d look away from what sure appears to be actual persecution by the legal system. If they’ll do that to rich famous people us common folk can get thrown in a dungeon and when our families show up the cops will say “Never heard of him”.
She is relishing it. She’s a bitter, shallow misandrist.
As I wrote, I don’t feel any kind of way about the guy. To me the circumstances aren’t as cut and dried as they seem to be for some other commenters. None of us were there, as far as I know, so all we can do is speculate.
I think he is getting shafted significantly. That said, his behavior over the years has made me dislike him intensely. I wish I didn’t feel conflicted, but still fuck the DA.
So stupid. This isn’t going anywhere.
Is this like the reverse of those clubs who give celebrities awards just so they’ll show and they’ll get to hang out with them?
Anyone who’s ever worked on a movie set containing firearms knows that the armorer and the assistant director who hands the gun to the actor are responsible for making sure it’s not going to hurt anyone. It probably happened today, if someone’s out there filming an action movie. Actors will often check on their own to make sure there are blanks in the gun before the cameras start rolling, but they’re just being more cautious, and not everyone does it. The ENTIRE POINT of having an armorer is to make sure something like this doesn’t happen. Baldwin’s job was to play the scene and fire the weapon. It doesn’t matter whether the scene was actually being filmed or not when he pulled the trigger. He had every right to assume that gun was not going to have live ammo in it at the point it was handed to him. Simple as that. I’m pretty amazed that they’re charging him again, and if I thought he deserved to go to jail, I’d be rooting for him to go. But it wasn’t his fault.
yup, Baldwin is the big name and the one who pulled the trigger,but in Baldwin position, all he know was that he was given a blank gun by the armorer for him shoot in the scene.
It should be the failing armorer who suppose to be sued.
If the gun is always cold when the armorer says so, the actor should dry fire at the armorer. Why would the armorer disagree?
These prosecutors must have hated The Shadow even more than I did!
Honestly, the confusing part is Alec denying that he pulled the trigger. He was playing a character that was shooting a gun. Acting required him to pull the trigger and common sense dictates that it was 100% the prop master’s fault for putting a live bullet in a prop gun.
Why would Alec even need to deny pulling the trigger?
I can’t recall if the script actually calls for the trigger to be pulled, but I know that they were rehearsing the scene, not filming it, which is why there’s no video. The way I remember it going, Alec was actually talking through the scene as he went along, so he drew the gun and pointed it toward the camera. Even if the scene did call for a trigger pull, it’s possible he only intended to point it as he was just going through the motions.I do agree that there should be no liability on him if he did so, which makes his repeated denials seem like at the very least, he believes he’s telling the truth. There’s certainly no benefit to saying he did pull it, but the proper response was always to say nothing, and he never managed to do that. But it’s easy to imagine that if the gun did go off on its own, pretty much anyone would be desperate to convince everyone of just that, not just for legal reasons, but for their own emotional well being.