Alec Baldwin will face charges in fatal Rust shooting
In October 2021, the actor accidentally discharged a prop weapon on the Western's New Mexico set, fatally wounding cinematographer Halyna Hutchins
Aux News Alec Baldwin
Alec Baldwin will face charges in the death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins, the Santa Fe District Attorney’s Office announced Thursday morning, according to Deadline. In October 2021, Hutchins died after Baldwin accidentally discharged a prop weapon during Rust filming—Hutchins was the project’s director of photography.
In a statement from District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altwies and Special Prosecutor Andrea Reeb, they also shared that “other members of the Rust film crew” will also face charges.
“On my watch, no one is above the law, and everyone deserves justice,” Carmack-Altwie says. Both Baldwin and set armorer Hannah Gutierrez Reed will face charges of involuntary manslaughter. Dave Halls, assistant director on the film, already pled guilty to charges of “negligent use of a deadly weapon,” and will receive six months of probation, according to Variety.
Before the announcement, office spokesperson Heather Brewer said the decision was “made in a manner keeping with the office’s commitment to upholding the integrity of the judicial process and respecting the victim’s family.”
The Santa Fe Sheriff’s office first filed an FBI-assisted report in October of last year— even before that, Carmack-Altwies had sought extra funds for a potential prosecution that could involve Baldwin. As reported by Deadline, her office had sought $635,000 from the state to prosecute as many as four individuals (she was granted $317,750, just over half).
Also in October 2022, Baldwin and Rust’s producers settled a wrongful death lawsuit from Hutchins’ estate under the agreement that the Western period drama would get finished, and Hutchins’ husband Matt Hutchins would become an executive producer. After departing their original New Mexico set amid civil lawsuits, the production was reportedly eyeing locations in and around California to complete filming.
226 Comments
this is complete fucking horseshit.
This is payback from Santa Fe’s republican Sheriff and Disrict Attorney for Baldwin’s trump impression.
and it looks like the DA is a married gay democrat so…I mean still, maybe she really hated that impression.
Which is the perfect cover for a homophobic Trumpster! No one would suspect it!
“An FBI forensics report said the weapon could not be fired during FBI testing of its normal functioning without pulling the trigger while the gun was cocked.The report also noted the gun eventually malfunctioned during testing after internal parts fractured, which caused the gun to go off in the cocked position without pulling the trigger.The prop gun was being held by Baldwin, who has maintained he did not pull the trigger.‘The FBI lab is one of the best in the world,’ Carmack-Altwies told CNN. ‘And we absolutely believe that the trigger had to have been pulled in order for that gun to go off.’”ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME
FBI going after him like he’s a black civil rights leader
Da Root is that way
Sorry to break anyone’s heart, but he pulled the trigger.
Is it just me, or are still a ton of of 30 Rock fans who still love Alec Baldwin for some reason?
He’s a bit obnoxious but jeez…
Halyna Hutchins died in the stupidest circumstances possible. A child is without a mother because of an absolute parade of staggering incompetence. Someone needs to pay for this. Several someones.
Good luck getting any production to ever film in New Mexico now. Absolutely ridiculous. I can only imagine that DA felt pressure to do something from the attention on this and external sources. There is no way a reasonable, impartial person could look at the facts and circumstances and charge Baldwin with a crime here.
The Legal Eagles are looking to get a name for themselves.
Guess it’s easier than being an iron one.
Fan of the Reich?
It seems more like political/social pressure not to appear soft.
Interestingly enough I’ll be interested in seeing what Legal Eagle has to say about this on Youtube.
Good.
Yeah, I too love it when local DA’s waste tax payer money on unwinnable cases so that they can burnish their resumes.
“and Hutchins’ husband Matt Hutchins would become an executive producer.”Hold up…did this dude sabotage the weapon so he could become executive producer on a movie? Anyway, this is tragic all around. I do hope that standards increase and this kind of thing doesn’t happen anymore.
Would guess the dude, who lost his wife, probably just wants a say on how her final project is wrapped up.
What kind of say? He’s a business lawyer. What expertise would he have to offer? I suppose it’s something they could have offered him, rather than something he asked for, as a way to sweeten the settlement to encourage him to take it.
do you genuinely believe he had his wife murdered for an EP credit?
No, I obviously don’t, hence the second paragraph of my original post. But I still don’t think it makes any sense for him to ask to be EP on this production, hence, also, why I suggest it might have been an offer rather than an ask. I think it’s a curious settlement term, that’s all.
I’m going to assume it’s a tax-dodging way for him to get even more money out of the settlement. Kind of like why starring actors make movies with their production company, rather than just sign on as an employee with a high salary.
That makes sense, though would he really get out of that much in taxes because it would still be subject to income tax? But irrelevant–it’s still, yes, likely the case that it was included to provide him additional financial compensation.
As a “business lawyer”, he probably has an LLC that was the entity contracted to be the executive producer. As a business lawyer, he probably knows all kinds of ways for an LLC to reduce its tax burden compared to an individual’s personal income tax.
That’s probably true.
I think it means he gets a financial interest.
This is a serious charge that carries a minimum of years in prison in New Mexico
GOOD
“On my watch, no one is above the law, and everyone deserves justice,” Carmack-Altwie says.
*Carmack-Altwies
The props person is at fault here. Baldwin’s job was to wear a costume, say his lines and get his vanity producer credit. Checking the gun wasn’t loaded with real bullets wasn’t his responsibility.
This. This is what they have an armorer for. It’s THAT PERSON’S job to clear any weapons before they into actors’ hands.
The fact that Baldwin was TOLD the gun was cold by the person responsible for gun safety should be enough to exonerate him. There was no reasonable way he could have suspected that the gun contained a live bullet.
Baldwin was also a producer, which is why he’s being charged.
Yeah but he’s not going to film court, he’s going to real world court where people think you should check a loaded weapon yourself before you point it at someone and pull the trigger. EVEN IF some guy tells you its cool.
*or gal
Lol how does an actor know if the bullet is live, moron
I guess the same way anyone who handles firearms would know. You cretin
This “actors aren’t required to be proficient in firearms” take is so weird. If you’re going to be handling firearms you goddamn well better be proficient: I don’t care where you’re at on the call sheet. Rule #1 of gun safety is making sure the gun isn’t loaded, no matter who told you it wasn’t.
Actually it is, as ANY gun safety class will tell you. Being on a movie set doesn’t make you magically immune from common sense.
To be completely honest, if Alec Baldwin was a more well-liked guy, he would not be charged in this case. We have precedent from other on set shootings that prove that including the shooting of Brandon Lee. Souza’s statements all back up that Baldwin was following procedure in handling the gun, that he was told out loud in front of the crew that it was a cold gun and that he was following instructions. If he’s convicted, this will set a very questionable standard for actors that will likely make sets less safe when actors want to insist on checking weapons themselves when they are not trained in that capacity.Alec Baldwin in his role as producer would be one thing, but then the other producers should be facing charges as well.
To be completely honest, if Alec Baldwin was a more well-liked guy, he would not be charged in this case
This has absolutely nothing to do with the decisions of Sante Fe prosecutors.
Based on all previous on-set shootings where the actors were not charge in the case, the fact that the actor is being charged is abnormal. If he was more well-liked *or* less well-known, he would not be charged, in my opinion.
“If he was more well-liked *or* less well-known, he would not be charged, in my opinion.”
Are you honestly this fucking stupid?
He’s also a producer, which is why he’s being charged.
But he isn’t being charged as a producer. The director who was injured isn’t being charged. He’s being charged because he fired the gun.
Naw fam you’re right, there’s nothing at all suspect about famously outspoken liberal Alec Baldwin being criminally charged in a clearly non-criminal matter by the elected DA of a district in New Mexico, nothing at all
Exactly. The Santa Fe Sheriff and prosecutors are republicans still pissed off over his Snl trump impression.
If you think prosecutors don’t consider how a defendant (or witness, for that matter) will potentially play in front of a jury when making charging decisions, you’re out of your mind. It’s doubtful it was the main consideration in charging him (one suspects the guy who pleaded out for a slap on the wrist—the AD who was specifically in charge of safety on the set that day—gave them some sort of damaging information against Baldwin), but the fact that Baldwin has a relatively punchable face, and an infamous audio recording of him being abusive to his own tween daughter probably made the charging decision a lot easier.
It’s amazing to me that so many people in the comments are somehow dumb enough and naive enough to argue that his fame, status, wealth, and reputation have no bearing on the decision to charge him. Just amazingly naive and stupid.
I think this speaks to the fact that Souza isn’t being charged. His own statement indicates that Baldwin was following directions and was verbally given the information that the gun was cold. As the director allowing the rehearsal surely he would be as responsible. But putting the guy who got shot as the bad guy isn’t going to play well.
Not just Souza, but none of the other producers are charged, nor the prop master. Which indicates that Baldwin’s on trial only for his actions as an actor: fumbling a complicated draw and (possibly) pulling the trigger on a gun that was not supposed to have functioning ammunition in it. Unless there is more to the story that hasn’t been made public (like if Baldwin had reason to believe that real ammunition could be in the gun) this looks like a stretch.
You keep telling yourself that, slugger. Let me guess: you also think that his fame and the high profile nature of the case didnt factor in to their decision either, right? (Let’s also just conveniently ignore that she asked for money to prosecute him.before they had even done an investigation, I guess.)
I would bet it does. You ever seen voir dire? Or the grand jury?
I cant overstate how dumb you have to be in order to believe that the public perception of a possible defendant does not factor into the decision to prosecute. Maybe just sit this one out.
It’s pretty absurd. If Baldwin is at fault then so is Hutchins. Afterall, she was directing the scene behind the camera, and instructed Baldwin to aim the gun at her. You’re also right about Baldwin’s lack of likeability. Imagine if it had been Tom Hanks. Hutchins family would probably be apologizing to him, lol.
I think there’s valid criticism of what was happening on this production, and as a producer on the film, he could have some liability there, but as an actor on set, following directions, it’s pretty specious to charge him and not Souza, for example. But charging Souza who was injured wouldn’t look good.
“ it’s pretty specious to charge him and not Souza, for example. But charging Souza who was injured wouldn’t look good.”
Why the fuck would they charge Souza?
Have you EVER had a correct take?
His role as producer was a vanity credit at most. If taking a vanity credit will now mean actors are directly responsible for the lives of everyone on set…uh, that’s quite a big precedent.
I agree, but I would accept it as part of the overall negligence on set that is alleged over going after an actor who was given the okay by multiple people on set.
I also think that would be more of a civil liability anyway, which has already been addressed. He himself was not negligent to his duties as producer. I doubt on-set weapons handling was among his responsibilities.
“His role as producer was a vanity credit at most.”Yeah that’s the part itching at the back of my brain. We know this is how it always works when the big actor on the movie also has a producer credit, and yet we’re really committed to pretending we don’t for this one. But apparently a producer is supposed to recheck or pre-check all the props, so I don’t know.
Right, that’s my question: this seems to be a charge relating to him actually firing the weapon, when the charge I’d find more readily applicable is a charge of negligence as he was a producer and – as tired as I am about the constant arguments about how much involvement a producer at that level would actually have in day-to-day management, he absolutely has to be culpable on that level. I don’t care if the argument is that it’s a vanity title at best.
I don’t think he’ll be convicted here but it does seem to me to be textbook and I don’t think his personality is the reason he’s being charged. Though indeed, he’s an absolute shit, so there’s that.
How do we know Tom Hanks DIDN’T kill someone and get away with it, hmm?
I mean there are all those mysterious death rumors from the set of “Turner & Hooch”.
Beasley, the dog that played Hooch, turned up dead just 3 years after the movie came out. There was never even an investigation, that’s how powerful and well connected Tom Hanks is.
You can’t just drop that in without mentioning that dog had a major gambling habit, and was in deep with the mob.
Are you saying Mare Winningham was secretly replaced with her previously unknown twin, Willa Winningham???!?!??
The only death on that set was Henry Winkler’s directorial career.
Oprah Winfrey will be at your house soon just for even asking that question. And you ain’t getting a free car, let me tell ya’.
Yeah. Wilson “accidentallly” floated away.
At this point, he gets at least one for free. We owe him that much.
woof
“To be completely honest, if Alec Baldwin was a more well-liked guy, he would not be charged in this case.”
I love that you’re being honest about something of which you know N-O-T-H-I-N-G.
Cheers.
Well-liked celebrities have been charged with crimes in the past, so I’m not sure how that would’ve mattered here. But I’d say him quickly settling the civil suit her family brought influenced a lot. And at the end of the day, this is a clear cut case of criminal negligence that led to an unintentional killing which is textbook involuntary manslaughter. He most likely won’t get convicted though.
Arguing it was his criminal negligence is much harder in this context when he was allegedly told by the two victims to practice the scene with the understanding from the armor that the gun was cold.What well-liked celebrity has been charged with an on-set shooting? I’m talking specifically on-set crimes, not crimes in general.
Best and most famous case is John Landis who got charged with manslaughter too for that helicopter crash while filming the Twilight Zone movie. The Brandon Lee case was thoroughly investigated, and while there was negligence, it wasn’t enough to charge anyone. It wasn’t because he was well liked or not. And besides, whether they did a crime on or off set doesn’t really matter. A DA is not going to go: “This celebrity just killed a bunch of people on set in an accident, but we better not charge him because he’s too beloved by the public.” That’s just not how the system works. It’s a bad look on the DA and prosecutors.The reason why they’re charging Baldwin is because of the producer title. And even though it was just a title, the DA thinks that he knows more than he’s letting on, so they want to put him on the stand under oath to talk and see how aware he was of all the negligence and the hiring of the unqualified armorer, and etc. Unless they have more information from their investigation that they haven’t released yet, or he says and does something dumb and admits to being aware of all that, I don’t they’ll convict him.
The DA can’t put him on the stand because the fifth amendment affords him the right to protection against self-incrimination.
Baldwin would have to invoke it himself as Fifth Amendment privilege can be also used against you at trial depending on a lot of things. If he really is innocent, then it wouldn’t make sense for him to do it.
I think it’s important to note that a prosecutor would never file charges against a person solely on the belief that they will be able to coax said person to admit to a crime while under oath. If you think that’s why the district attorney’s office charged Baldwin, you watch too many movies.
I suspect that it has to do with the FBI report saying that the trigger had been pulled, and him stating that he did not pull it.
Maybe you could have actually read and comprehended the part where I said: Unless they have more information from their investigation that they haven’t released yet instead of replying with childish condescension and snark maybe you’d realize how wrong you are. And who said anything about coaxing? That’s not how this works. He can take the fifth if he wants. But that’s also can hurt him too.If this is how you have debates and conversations with people, you spend too much time commenting on AVClub.
I apologize for the tone. It wasn’t my intention to condescend. But the point still remains, prosecution cannot put a defendant on the stand. Not even to make the defendant say “I plead the fifth” to every question. Prosecution also cannot comment or speculate on why the defendant chose not to testify, and the jury is instructed not to consider the defendant’s lack of testimony. This is enshrined as part of the 5th amendment. That was the only thing I was trying to clarify. Source: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/defense/#:~:text=Because%20the%20Fifth%20Amendment%20to,has%20chosen%20not%20to%20testify.
I apologize for the tone. It wasn’t my intention to condescend. Spool through his post history.HE is allowed to be a condescending prick to other people. The inverse? Flatly unacceptable.
His need to be right, and the conflation of that with his pride and sense of self, is so strongly evident that it has a fucking flavor.
In a civil case taking the Fifth can be used against you. Not in a criminal case.
Prosecutors don’t typically bring cases they think they might lose. Whether the defendant is someone a jury is likely to sympathize with or not is a factor in their confidence of being able to win. The fact that a substantial portion of the jury pool might be predisposed to dislike Baldwin because: a) his politics and SNL stint as Trump, b) well-publicized audio of him verbally abusing his daughter, c) his well publicized past use of gay slurs, or d) just because he has resting insincere face, is definitely a factor that makes the case more winnable for them.How a jury might feel about Baldwin is real factor in the charging decision since—based on what is publicly known—this looks like a case that’s fairly technical and winnable for a well-funded defense. The fact that you have multiple defendants turns the case into finger-pointing exercise where both defendants can point fingers at the guy who took a deal, as well numerous other parties who were arguably involved but not charged. In that it’s a lot like the Landis case. Unless there’s evidence we’re not seeing—like if Halls could testify that Baldwin was one of the people who used real ammo in prop guns for fun, or that he smelled alcohol on Baldwin’s breath when he handed him the gun on set, just to imagine a couple of scenarios that would be harmful to Baldwin—this looks like a judgment call where they could have decided not to charge Baldwin, much like they decided not to charge the prop master, the supplier, or any of the other producers.
Sure. But how a jury would feel, or celebrity’s status overall does not mean that a DA would outright not charge a celebrity with a crime period which is what Lindsay seems to be arguing. This is not the court of public opinion. Not doing so sends a message that celebrities are above the law and get special treatment. John Landis, Alec Baldwin, or OJ Simpson, it doesn’t matter. You’ll still get charged with a crime if you break the law and there is evidence out there to convict.
On the margins, it probably does matter. We will have to wait and see what the prosecution has.
Nope. In the Landis case for example, the jurors didn’t care about who he was. They still though that the prosecutors had not proved that anyone could have foreseen the crash of the helicopter. I can see the same thing happening here and Baldwin getting off the hook for that reason.
You are pointing to the outcome, not the pre-trial decision-making. Prosecutors choose to bring cases they believe they can win.
“Prosecutors choose to bring cases they believe they can win.”
Which is not based on whether or not a celebrity is well liked. In fact, the prosecution will try to pick jurors who don’t know or care who Baldwin is.
Sure, but at the margin, the popularity of the suspect will affect the decision to prosecute.
Again and again, only as far as the trial and the outcome. Not whether or not they decide to prosecute in the first place. By the logic being argued here, a celebrity can intentionally kill someone on set and get away with because of likability.
No one is talking about the trial itself. No one has made the argument you claim.
John Landis was not an actor on set. Had Vic Morrow lived, do you think he should have been charged for doing as he was told with the understanding that it was meant to be safe? Why isn’t Souza being charged? From his own statement, he and Huchins were both aware of what Baldwin was going to do and had endorsed the rehearsal. Why aren’t the other producers? Again, the precedent this sets isn’t great, and I do think that if Baldwin was more contrite and less public about the situation, it would have gone the way of the Brandon Lee shooting.
Repeating myself again, the Brandon Lee case was thoroughly investigated, and while there was negligence, it wasn’t enough to charge anyone. It wasn’t because he was well liked or not. Vic Morrow was the victim, so why would he been charged?Why aren’t Souza and the other producers being charged? They weren’t the ones who held the gun and pulled the trigger. Baldwin did. And that’s the thing. If Baldwin wasn’t the one holding the gun, then they wouldn’t have focused on him. One thing you and so many others here are not considering as well that I am repeating again is that the DA probably has more information, a smoking gun of evidence pun intended that Baldwin may have said or done from their investigation that’ll get revealed during the trial. And for that reason, we still don’t know who else may get charged in the next few days.
Vic Morrow was an adult on a film set who knew that they were participating in a dangerous stunt and violating many labor laws. Had he lived, would you expect him to have been charged? Baldwin was following safety protocols on the set according to all released statements. Unless the DA has reason to believe that he loaded a live round into the gun, it’s shocking to have him charged. SAG-AFTRA has backed this concern up.
Vic Morrow was an adult on a film set who knew that they were
participating in a dangerous stunt and violating many labor laws. Had he
lived, would you expect him to have been charged?
No, because repeating again, he was just a passenger and a victim. He did not fly the helicopter, rent it, or plan that whole scene. The pilot who flew the helicopter was the one who got charged with involuntary manslaughter because that’s how manslaughter charges works.
Unless the DA has reason to believe that he loaded a live round into the gun, it’s shocking to have him charged.It’s not shocking. Saying again, he held the gun and pulled the trigger. Again, that’s just how involuntary manslaughter works. Killing of another person without the intent to kill. As bfred explained to you as well, the DA is not going to let an shooting and killing go unpunished in their jurisdiction. Especially since they have the guy who held the gun and pulled the trigger and admitted to it.
Vic Morrow knowingly entered a dangerous situation while two small children were in his care. He was told by those on set that it was safe to do so. It is literally the same thing.The idea that an actor is responsible for others failing to do their job in this situation is a problem and it is shocking – Baldwin was handed a gun and told it was cold. He was then instructed to fire the gun as part of the rehearsal by Souza and Hutchins based on Souza’s statement. So again, the idea that he bears more responsibility than Morrow would have had he lived is ignoring actual facts and safety regulations.
Saying yet again, the helicopter pilot was the one was charged with manslaughter. Vic Morrow dying or not wouldn’t have changed this because Morrow did not rent, maintain, or fly the helicopter. I really don’t understand why it’s so hard for you to grasp this.You also seem to be ignoring and having trouble understanding the concept of how manslaughter works. All and everything you are and have been saying is irrelevant to how involuntary manslughter laws works. Baldwin unintentionally killed someone on accident. Killing someone on accident is a crime. Period. Will he get actually convicted on it? Probably not because he didn’t load the gun and etc.
The responsible parties on a film set differ than someone just firing a gun or crashing a copter on the street. There is no clear difference between Baldwin and Michael Massee. Handed a gun. Told it had no live ammunition in it. Instructed to fire. Every legal expert has said the prosecutor is only filing charges because of Baldwin’s profile. Accidents happen on sets even under the best of circumstances. There has never been a precedent that an accident on set would result in criminal charges against an actor.You want to put the onus only on the helicopter pilot. My point is that under those same ideas the people who handled the gun prior to Baldwin would be at fault, not him. He didn’t rent or maintain it and he only fired it because he was told to. Vic Morrow knowingly broke labor laws when he participated in that scene given the two children weren’t supposed to be there. By your definition, he should have been charged. But when we look at that, we say oh no, of course not.
Umpteeth time i’ve been endlessly repeating to you now for over a week, all is irrelevant in the face of the law. What you especially think and your opinion about it is not how it works. What I am expressing is not opinion, but the law and how manslaughter works. I’m sorry you do not want to accept this. Thankfully, our system does not either.
It’s very far from a clear cut case of criminal negligence. As Lindsay notes, it’s very rare from on set accidents like this to result in the criminal prosecution of the actor, or anyone. Movie sets are a whole different world where things are allowed that would never be allowed in other work settings. Law enforcement has traditionally stayed out of Hollywood and allowed the unions and studios to agree to best practices, and delegation of responsibilities, amongst themselves. In this case, where an actor is handed a gun and told it is cold, by the person responsible for the gun being cold, the actor has the rightful expectation that the gun is cold. Particular to this case, there were supposed to be dummies in the gun, so the actor seeing rounds in the cylinder wouldn’t be something to be questioned.Now, don’t get me wrong, live fucking rounds got onto the set and one was loaded into a gun handed to an actor. That’s some criminal negligence. One of those responsible, Hall, already pleaded out and got a slap on the wrist. I can also see Gutierrez- Reed being held criminally responsible, as one of her primary responsibilities was ammo and firearm control. I can’t see an actor being told everything is safe, and finding out the worst way possible that it wasn’t, being held criminally responsible.
Okay, but none of this is what Lindsay is say or arguing. She said that he’s only being charged because of his unpopularity and that’s just not true at all.
Negligence on who’s part is the key. Michael Masee wasn’t charged in Brandon Lee’s death. It’s av very similar scenario. Really the only difference is that Masee wasn’t aproducer.
I don’t know how much a like/dislike of Baldwin comes into play here, but aside from that I agree. The precedent this sets for actors to check guns themselves, rather than the trained professionals whose sole job it is to do so, could well cause more accidents than it prevents.One other thing I disagree on though: I don’t think Baldwin the producer has any responsibility either. Just because he shares a job title with the person whose role it is to manage on set safety, crew members’ accommodation, wages, hours etc. does not mean that this was his job. The chance that Baldwin-as-producer had any say in the logistics of the production is very small, while there is every chance that his ‘producer’ credit meant ‘gets to tinker with the script once in a while’ and nothing else.
The first rule of gun safety is to assume a gun is loaded until the person holding the weapon can personally verify it’s safe. If someone had a revolver and showed me the cylinder was empty before handing it to me, I would still open the cylinder again and look for myself. Now, this may be trickier on a set if the gun has blanks, but this suggests actors should be fully trained on identifying blanks from live ammo before being allowed to hold a firearm on set.(Sidenote: I once worked on a short film that required a real but unloaded gun as a prop. Even though we shot the scene inside a closed garage, there were multiple signs outside stating that it was a film shoot and prop guns were being used. I assume the local police were also given a heads-up just in case any bystanders happened to look in and call the cops. It was an aspect of gun safety I hadn’t considered.)
The first rule of gun safety is to assume a gun is loaded until the person holding the weapon can personally verify it’s safe.But that’s not the standard being used on film sets. I saw the four(?) primary rules of gun safety being cited a lot in the aftermath of the shooting, and while they’re absolutely valid for real-life situations they are all regularly violated in the production of a film and simply do not transfer to the way things work on a movie set.
I get that some sets have the rule where the AD/armorer will show the actor and everyone else that a gun isn’t loaded, in which case that’s fine. But the one thing that matters here is the safety procedure for firearms on this specific set. If Baldwin violated them by not personally seeing that the gun was empty then perhaps he is somewhat responsible (although even then, he comes way after the Ad/armorer) but if the film’s on-set protocol dictates that only the AD/armorer has to check the gun, then it’s not his fault, period.Like, if I’m an AD/armorer and I’m legally liable if anything happens, the last thing I would want is an untrained actor taking the initiative to check the gun themselves after I’ve already secured it, or basically doing anything with it beyond what they’re supposed to do for the film.
One of the interesting things about industry standards is that they can be really weird and wrongheaded. Even though it’s true, it’s still bizarre to say, “In the film industry, it’s standard practice to hand a real gun to a person who doesn’t know how to handle it safely.” There are plenty of jobs where people operate dangerous machines that require additional safety personnel, but it would be surprising to hear that someone operating a stationary press or a cherry picker wasn’t trained on operating it safely.
One of the interesting things about industry standards is that they can be really weird and wrongheaded. Even though it’s true, it’s still
bizarre to say, “In the film industry, it’s standard practice to hand a
real gun to a person who doesn’t know how to handle it safely.” ‘Weird’ is right, but there’s a question mark over ‘wrongheaded.’ I don’t know the stats offhand but I’d bet good money that Hollywood has a far, far better ratio of ‘accidents had : times guns have been used’ when compared to the general population. We’ve had three deaths – Lee, Hexum and Hutchins – in an industry that discharges about five million blank rounds a year (IDK). Two out of those three times it was a failure of pre-existing protocols. Once was an actor who didn’t handle it properly, although I’m sure even Baldwin knew not to fire blanks at his own head.The fact is that if Souza and Gutierrez-Reed had followed procedure on this set, nothing would’ve happened. Their job was to guarantee nothing could happen no matter how poorly-trained the actor is, and they didn’t do it. Even if Baldwin was a gun expert, this accident could’ve happened anyway given what they were doing.
There are plenty of jobs where people operate dangerous machines that require additional safety personnel, but it would be surprising to hear that someone operating a stationary press or a cherry picker wasn’t trained on operating it safely.I get your point, but a more apt comparison would be: the operator of the hydraulic press can’t see what’s in it, and relies exclusively on the safety personnel to know when to hit the switch. The safety guy says: ‘You’re good to go!’ without even checking, but actually, someone’s just gone ahead and put their head right under it.
One more point that I forgot to mention: there is also a question of legal liability here. You don’t want your final failsafe to be an actor who (while trained) may or may not competent with guns – you want it to be the person who is unambiguously qualified and whose sole job it is to take responsibility for it.
Like, if I’m an AD/armorer and I’m legally liable if anything happens, the last thing I would want is an untrained actor taking the initiative to check the gun themselves after I’ve already secured it…That’s the hitch though—why let an untrained actor hold a firearm, even one cleared by an AD/armorer? It’s hardly an effort to teach someone proper gun safety—an hour is more than enough time to teach them the basics and reinforce it. Basically, anybody on a set who holds a gun, regardless if it’s loaded with dummy rounds or not, needs to learn to fear and respect that escalator weapon.
I’d wager Baldwin probably has been through an hour of gun safety, to be honest. He might not be an expert, but I would expect that much even from someone wielding guns with blanks. But then again, the point is that he was never supposed to be holding something that might be dangerous in the first place – ‘Cold gun’ meant ‘completely harmless. The accident didn’t happen because Baldwin didn’t fear/respect his weapon, it happened because the two people in charge of ensuring there was nothing in it didn’t check. Even if Baldwin had Keanu Reeves-levels of expertise, he might still have killed someone because those two didn’t do their jobs.
Every comment you’ve made on this article is somehow progressively dumber and more uninformed than the last…
Yeah it seems like the last think you’d want is some actor jacking with it.
A revolver is never going to be actually empty in a film, though. Because the front of the chambers are open and visible, in non-shooting scenes they’re always loaded with dummy rounds so that the gun appears to be properly loaded when viewed from the barrel end. Dummy rounds deliberately look almost exactly like real bullets, in order to hold up on screen during closeups, etc. Identifying a dummy round from an actual live round (which should *never* be on set) is not something you can necessarily do at a glance, so it needs to be the responsibility of an armor who knows exactly what the differences are. Incidentally, a revolver with a dummy round malfunction is what led to the death of Brandon Lee. The requirement of being able to see that a revolver is loaded seems to make them inherently less safe in a filmmaking environment.Here’s a good overview of the issue: https://medium.com/@LE.Montoya/dummies-in-the-movies-3f1a48d9ed7
THANK YOU for being one of the few on this thread to have any sense. Actors are people and as people they have the same responsibilities for gun safety as anyone else. Also, since Baldwin killed the cinematographer during a rehearsal when the camera was not even recording anything, the gun should NOT have contained any kind of round whatsoever. So, if Baldwin had done what George Clooney always does on set and checked and emptied the gun Hutchins would be alive today. There was no need for Baldwin to know the difference between dummy and live rounds. He only needed to know and perform the MOST BASIC GUN SAFETY PRACTICES. If other, more popular actors have gotten away with involuntary manslaughter, they should not have and should not in future.
You can put signs up all you want, but when I see 5 weirdos dressed in toast stabbing a guy, I shoot the bastards
Yes, that’s the rule of gun safety. But I’m not sure why you think that is relevant, considering that it is absolutely not the rule on film sets, where certain people are paid for the explicit role of monitoring, handling, and preparing the gun for the cast and crew, and where actors are explicitly instructed to NOT check the guns themselves. In other words: your comment is very stupid. Dumbass.
“If he’s convicted, this will set a very questionable standard for actors that will likely make sets less safe when actors want to insist on checking weapons themselves when they are not trained in that capacity.”I’d argue that this whole incident has already changed the whole industry/craft that we’re never gonna see real guns on screen again, aside from small films that don’t have the money to afford a CG budget that can make props look real in post.
It’s actually pretty easy to have real looking guns on set that are no more dangerous than a small crowbar. Real guns should never be anywhere near any film set but that’s just my opinion man
That’s not true. Big action directors like Ridley Scott, Michael Bay, Justin Lin, Chad Stahelski and David Leitch, Matthew Vaughn, etc. still use real guns.
If only there was some kind of place in which we could work towards a consensus on the public record of what were the actual events and circumstance of the accident, and why it is the opinion of the DA that Baldwin is guilty of something.Sarcasm aside, sure, we could speculate that his likability had something to do with things, but I prefer the much more likely possibility (imho of course) that we have incomplete information.
Yes, incomplete information. Because we definitely didnt hear every single detail of what happened for months on end. And by all means: what info could even suggest that Baldwin is at fault? Do you think he may have secretly loaded ammo into the gun himself? Because short of that, it’s almost impossible for him to be at fault when the person whose explicit job was to handle and monitor the firearms told him that the gun was safe and ready to use.
Nah. He may have behaved like a self-involved ass after this incident but this feels more like a local DA deciding that someone was shot and killed in their jurisdiction so surely SOMETHING has to be done. I honestly can’t imagine he’ll be convicted of anything.
This is not the court of public opinion, the decision to prosecute him has nothing to do with how much he is or isn’t liked. Also, Brandon Lee died 30 years ago, the standard for handling real guns on a movie set has changed since then.
It wasn’t that long ago. It was just in 199…ohhhhhh
Yes, prosecutors never ever take things like fame, wealth, or the high profile nature of a case into consideration. You cant actually be this dumb and naive, can you?
The commentary I’m seeing from current and former prosecutors in news articles pretty much universally disagree with the charges and don’t think there’s much, if any chance he’ll be found guilty. I’ve seen a few note that it’s particularly egregious because the same prosecutor let the AD walk away with a slap on the wrist while adding NM gun enhancements to Baldwin’s charge that mandate a minimum 5 year sentence. Pretty much any competent lawyer should be able to get Baldwin off. The one way it could go bad for Baldwin is if he gets on the stand and comes off as haughty, arrogant or in some way turns the jury against him.
“Pretty much any competent lawyer should be able to get Baldwin off. The one way it could go bad for Baldwin is if he gets on the stand and comes off as haughty, arrogant or in some way turns the jury against him.”
If he has a competent lawyer, he will 100% absolutely not take the stand.
True, but Baldwin has already said too much publicly since the incident, despite what I’m sure his current legal council was telling him. He couldn’t help himself at times and I think they were alluding to him specifically hiring a lawyer that agrees to put him on the stand. Which would obviously be a very bad idea.
If he had a competent lawyer, he would have had his mouth sewn shut the moment that woman died. Baldwin’s big fucking mouth post-shooting absolutely got him charged.
Well, he does specialize in those things, so the chances are >0%.
Or if he gets some crazy Trumper judge
I don’t blame him for not checking the gun, because that shouldn’t be the actors role. I’m pretty sure its the role of the armorer to make sure the gun is safe to shoot, there is no live round, and that it in no way will be a danger to others. But I’m sure he is liable as producer for hiring the armorer and not making sure safe conditions were met. I don’t know him personally, I don’t know what regulations are, but I have a feeling this is the standard rules of gun safety on a TV or Movie set.
The ones who should be most at fault for this lack of safety procedures is the producer (which probably includes Baldwin) or the person giving him the weapon and the armorer for allowing live rounds on set. I have to bet live rounds should be nowhere near the set. She is the one to bring the guns and the ammo. I bet she broke some kind of regulations to allow live rounds on set. Just what the fuck are live rounds doing on a set? That is the most irresponsible thing of all in this case to me.
You are correct that Baldwin is a dick
He should have checked the gun himself.
Involuntary manslaughter is defined as an unintentional killing that results either from recklessness or criminal negligence or from the commission of a low-level criminal act such as a misdemeanor. Involuntary manslaughter is distinguished from other forms of homicide because it does not require deliberation or premeditation, or even intent. Since these mental states are not required, involuntary manslaughter is the lowest category of homicide. Well, by that definition………..Alec Baldwin is right on the edge.
How, though? If it wasn’t his responsibility to check the gun, how does it amount to criminal negligence or reckless on his part? The only thing I can think of is that he might’ve pulled the trigger when he wasn’t required to, so they’d be arguing that even though it wasn’t his responsibility to check the gun, if he hadn’t done that things would’ve been OK? I can see from a certain angle how that would count as recklessness, but it still seems incredibly harsh given the circumstances and the blatant, obvious negligence that was a far more decisive factor.
I can see Baldwin’s culpability in a civil sense but criminally? Not so much.
How, though? If it wasn’t his responsibility to check the gun, how does it amount to criminal negligence or reckless on his part?If handed a firearm that has the ability to shoot live rounds, it absolutely is the responsibility of the holder to ensure they are aware of the firearm’s condition personally, regardless of whether or not their (workplace) environment has policies/rules in place to prevent live ammunition from being discharged.If Baldwin didn’t personally ensure the prop gun was not loaded with live ammunition, including whether or not he was told it’s cold, he still pulled the trigger. That’s why it is involuntary (he had no intention to shoot her with a live round, but was negligent in confirming the status of the gun personally) manslaughter (she still died).
Lol that is not an actor’s job. An actor does not have that expertise and it would be absurd to expect them to. You guys quoting firearm safety 101 do not understand context. Acting with prop guns is not a real life firearm scenario. The onus of gun safety is on crew members whose whole job is specifically that.
That’s not the way it works on movie sets. Hell, by that criteria, Hutchins and Souza are just as culpable for instructing Baldwin to repeatedly rehearse unholstering the gun and pointing it at them. The actor does what the director tells them to do. Don’t get me wrong, there were a lot of industry typical norms not followed here, but that falls on the the prop master and armorer, who are depended on to maintain a safe set when firearms are involved. The same applies to the stunt crew when stunts are involved, etc. Actors, directors, and the rest of the film side crew depend on the expertise these crews to keep them safe. They themselves aren’t experts in any of these things.In this case, what should be an utter impossibility happened. Live rounds made it on set and, at least one, was loaded into a gun given to an actor. Where supposed to be dummies. The Prop Master, armorer, and in the case, the AD (who already pleaded for a slap on the wrist) are responsible for that. It’s not different than if actors in an action sequence are shooting blanks at each other, but somehow the armorer loaded a live round in the mag, and the actor actually shoots someone while playing out the scene. The responsibility lies with the persons whose job it is to make that an impossibility.
Sure, that’s not how it’s supposed to work, but if the court interprets that the way the rules were set up were not consistent or sufficient to comply with the law, either in intent or explicitly called out, it’s still the responsibility of the gun holder to ensure they are handling the firearm safety.In other words, rules and responsibilities can be clearly laid out with owners and instructions and still run afoul of the law.
No doubt it will be debated in wokester court long after the courts rule on it
Probably should use the New Mexico statute definition rather than a generic one.
Fairly sure bro used Dictionary-dot-com for his legal research.
Recklessness seems like the operative word here, and I still struggle to see his actions that way. Should he possibly have opened and checked the gun himself? That’s standard gun-handling protocol out in the world. But on a set, when it’s been handed to you by the person professionally responsible for the safety of the weapon? And with no idea whatsoever that there had been a live round anywhere near the gun? Careless at most. Not reckless.
I assume that will be his argument in court. But seeing so many people write this same concept out makes it seems more weird, not less weird. Like, if a gun is handed to an actor they can/have to take it on faith that the gun isn’t loaded, but if a gun is handed to literally anyone else it’s the opposite? I understand that this is the case, but if this situation leads to a change in industry practices it would be the best possible outcome.
It’s essentially the difference between basic gun safety as you’re taught if you take a class, and your legal responsibility (especially in a supervised environment like this).
Alec Baldwin is right on the edge.Indeed.
Estates don’t bring wrongful death lawsuits. Pet peeve of mine…
This seems fucking dumb. Alec Baldwin had been a real shitheel about this entire thing but charging him is just stupid.
It’s really dumb. If successful, it would set a precedent that every actor weilding a gun on screen is directly responsible for it being “safe” despite not being gun safety experts.
“On my watch, no one is above the law, and everyone deserves justice,” Carmack-Altwie says. Both Baldwin and set armorer Hannah Gutierrez Reed will face charges of involuntary manslaughter.Think what you will of Baldwin, but this is bullshit. The set armorer deserves nearly all the blame. It doesn’t matter if he pulled the trigger or not, he was told it was cold gun and it was her job to confirm that. Actors aren’t required to be firearm proficient. They certainly don’t check the ammunition themselves (okay, maybe Keanu does lol). This was a rehearsal, if they had been filming the actual scene Baldwin would have unknowingly shot someone else instead while acting it out. I doubt he’d be charged if that were the case.
If the charges relate to his role as an actor in the movie, I agree with you.
(okay, maybe Keanu does lol)
If you mean John Wick, the guns in those movies are rubber and all gunshots are added in post. It’s almost as though there’s no need for real guns in movie making anymore.
I wasn’t being serious or talking about a specific movie/series. I was mostly joking about Keanu’s extensive firearms training over the years and his attention to detail.
They probably actually mean Keanu. There are videos of him doing firearms training and he is extremely proficient.
Yep, that’s it.
rubber guns and cgi muzzle flashes are a scourge upon movies and any director willing to bring back blanks and squibs can have all of my money.
Practical is always better
That’s not true at all. All the guns are real.
Chad Stahelski talking about John Wick 3:
“There are at least a half a dozen times in the movie where Keanu’s actual gun jams. 90% of films would cut. It happens at the beginning of the Riyadh fight. It happens in the hotel lobby fight. He just clears his own gun and keeps going. He’s doing real clearing, real reloads. That’s the fun thing. So reality sometimes gives you the diversity you need.” Stahelski has talked about how they had issues filming in Morocco because the government was questioning why they were bringing so many guns into the country. They were modified to shoot blanks but still real guns.When scenes called for shooting at people up close they used what are called solid plug loads. It’s a real gun but the barrel is plugged. They are loaded with very low power blanks that create just enough gas pressure to cycle the firearm and eject the cartridge. In those cases the muzzle flash is added in post production.
Don’t forget the AD. He was to blame as well. But yeah, this seems completely unjust, unless the prosecutors are sitting on some hitherto-unreleased information (which is possible, I suppose).
Oh yeah, but the AD was already charged so I was just commenting on this specific update.
Tom Hanks demands that every cast he works with be fully proficient in firearms, as well as complete basic infantry training and astronaut training. And that was for A League Of Their Own.
The DVD extras of Madonna and Rosie O’Donnell on the Vomit Comet were the best.
Madonna: “What comet?”
I assume Geena Davis said a bow and arrow would be more than enough
Good to see Hanks is a big fan of the 2nd amendment
“Is prop gun this safe to use?”“Yes, I am the gun expert, it is safe to use. Go ahead.” “Bang”“Oopsies, guess I made a mistake! You’re going to jail as a murderer now!”
Baldwin’s probably not being charged for the actual act of shooting the gun.Basically, split him up into two people: Actor!Baldwin and Producer!Baldwin. Actor!Baldwin should largely be in the clear, for all the reasons that you pointed out.However, Producer!Baldwin, if he didn’t take the steps required from his position in order to ensure a safe set (such as keeping the armorer and AD on board despite reports of firearms being mishandled and bringing in scabs to work the set when the union members protested), that’d be a different story…
They (prosecutors) specifically referred to his actions while acting and make it clear they’re going after him for the bullet discharge. “Baldwin and Gutierrez Reed each face two counts of involuntary manslaughter, which each carry a maximum sentence of 18 months in jail. They also will be charged with an enhancement for use of a firearm which carries a mandatory minimum sentence of five years.”His producer credit means nothing if he had zero say in the safety practices on set. Based on what other comments have said, it appears to be an honorary producer title with little power.
He did point a gun at someone and squeeze the trigger, did he not? I could compare it to him being told to drive somewhere and hitting someone with his car. He was following direction, but he was at the controls. It’s involuntary manslaughter no matter which way I slice it.
Okay. Dude ain’t getting convicted, but okay.
Probably not, but he has to shell out legal fees, go to court, and overall deal with a very stressful situation. Like many frivolous or doomed-to-fail lawsuits: the process is mean to be the punishment.
but he has to shell out legal feesI’ll do it so everyone doesn’t have to: “But he rich. *raspberries*”
Or like the First AD, he’ll plead to a lesser non-felony charge and get probation.
So from here on out every actor handed a “safe” weapon will be doing their own check to make sure nothing tragic occurs? That’s why you have an armorer/weapon safety expert. ffs
Presumably only if the actor is the one that hired the armorer/weapon expert who turned out to be clearly incompetent.
Don’t think he did that, either. Producers hire the people who hire the people who hire the people.
YES
To be fair, when it comes to cold guns, pretty much every prop master or armorer will insist the actor watch as the gun is demonstrated to be cold and check have them inspect it themselves if applicable. This is standard procedure. Procedure is also to load dummies in front of the actor. So for instance, how the exchange of the weapon between the armorer and Baldwin should have gone following basic safety procedure (this can vary based on the gun, here it’s a revolver):1. The armorer holding the revolver tells the actor that it is not loaded. To confirm this to the actor the cylinder would be swung open so they can see that all the chambers are empty. The armorer then puts a small flashlight on the tip of the barrel so the actor can see there is nothing obstructing the barrel (this has become standard procedure since the Brandon Lee tragedy).2. The armorer informs the actor they are now loading dummy rounds and shows them how to identify dummy rounds. There are multiple norms to mark dummies, such as BB inside that rattles when shaken, a hole drilled in the cartridge, a false primer that’s marked, or a completely different color cartridge. It depends on what portion of the dummy will be seen on camera. 3. The armorer loads the rounds while the actor watches and then finally hands it to them.It is not industry norm for an AD to just hand a loaded gun to an actor and just declare “cold gun.” This set was pretty much an overall shitshow. There was a lot done wrong by everybody. Anytime a gun needs to be pointed towards a camera, and consequently crew people, there should be a sheet of bonded acrylic between them, whether it’s and empty gun, dummies, blanks, whatever. A gun is always treated as hot and crew is never in the line of fire without protection. In this case, multiple crew members, including the director, were telling the actor to draw a gun and point it at them for rehearsal. Not good. In this case though, there was a MASSIVE mitigating factor. Real live fucking rounds made it onto a set and at least one was loaded into a gun handed to an actor. That is simply something that doesn’t happen. No actor, director, cinematographer or other set crew would even consider that was possible. Even being rushed and sloppy, it’s not something that would enter their minds. They would never conceive that the Prop Master and/or armorer crew could fuck up that badly. There’s plenty of blame to go around but the only people I see so far that could be criminally negligent are the Prop Master, the Armorer and the AD (who already pleaded for a slap on the wrist.)
That’s what I always assumed happened in any case up until this one went south. Thanks for all the detail.
I see a lot of comments here saying he shouldn’t be charged because as an actor, it wasn’t his job to check the gun. But it is my understanding he’s being charged due to his being a producer, not an actor. It seems like as a producer he is more responsible for what happens on set than if he was just an actor.
(this is my understanding, so if I’m getting something wrong, I’m sure someone here will correct me!)
The Deadline article linked has more info that makes this seem unlikely to me. For one, the prosecutor had previously requested case funding against several individuals “including the well-known actor Alec Baldwin.” For another, there were several producers, so if that was the capacity he was being charged in, you’d think they’d all have been charged.
Thanks, I’ll check out the Deadspin article.
Important note: “Deadline,” not “Deadspin.”
D’oh! Thanks!
I mentioned this in a thread above, but him being a producer =/= him being responsible for things like on-set safety, production schedules, crew members’ working conditions etc. It’s WAY likely that he was a producer in the sense that he gets to give a bit of creative input here and there (basically a vanity credit). The key thing there is what his role as producer was defined as – if that includes managing the logistics of the production, then maybe he has some level of responsibility. But even then I feel like it’s a stretch, given what happened with the armorer and AD.
Thanks, that makes sense!
No, criminal charges have nothing do with with “role as an actor vs role as a producer”. That doesn’t exist in criminal law.
Is the producer required to double check the work of every person under them? Are they even qualified to do that? Do they even have the time to do that? That’s no way to run a movie set or any other operation, frankly. This is why you have hierarchies and delegation.
It makes sense for him to get sued but to be criminally charged? That’s malarky. And you know it’s malarky when you hear what the prosecutor said in the NY Times – “you don’t point a gun at someone unless you feel good about shooting them.”
That’s firearms safety 101 – not dummy bullet movie making safety 101. Good idea, not relevant.
I think the biggest mark against him as a producer would be that the movie seemed to be both undervaluing the role the armorer would have in the production and that the previous instances of gun misfired were not appropriately addressed. Gutierrez was not only underqualified for the position, she had issues on a previous set with gun safety. She was also supposedly doing too much work with too little time. Another armorer was either hired initially and quit or declined the position up front and stated his reasons as almost exactly those problems. If a substandard armorer was hired because they didn’t want to pay a better one to do the amount of work necessary or if they didn’t want to hire two to split the load, then there’s some case for negligence there. There’s certainly an argument for negligence based on two other gun misfire events in the week prior that seemingly weren’t addressed.All of this is contingent of course on what kind of producer Baldwin was, which doesn’t seem to be public knowledge. A lot of people in this thread seem to be speculating that it was a vanity credit, but I’ve never seen that publicly confirmed anywhere. An equal amount of people on previous threads and elsewhere seem just as sure that he had a very real stake in the production and was actively involved in hiring and firing, but that is just as much speculation as the other belief.
A lot of people in this thread seem to be speculating that it was a
vanity credit, but I’ve never seen that publicly confirmed anywhere. Calling it ‘speculation’ is a bit of an understatement. Baldwin himself stated it in his interview, and though I haven’t seen it confirmed elsewhere there is very little chance we wouldn’t have heard about it if he’d lied on this particular point.
There’s also the fact that Baldwin came out publicly in support of the protesting crew members, who seemed (at least back then) grateful for his support. If Baldwin was the one responsible for their shitty working conditions, that’s a pretty impressive Machiavellian/psychopathic feat right there. But I don’t see Baldwin, who is also acting in this film, getting involved with the crew members’ shift rotation/hours/filming logistics etc. It’s not inconceivable but it’s pretty unusual.
And finally there’s the fact that the other producers haven’t been charged. All the available info (which may not paint the entire picture) suggests that he wasn’t responsible for on-set safety. So it’s a little more than speculation, even if it’s ultimately wrong.
In real life, if you are holding a gun and shoot it and hit someone, you’re in the shit, bro.
On a movie set, where the real and valid expectation is that all prop guns are 100% safe and firing blanks, having an actual bullet leave a gun is a stunning and devastating occurrence. One that multiple people should have been working to ensure was IMPOSSIBLE.
Is it the actor’s responsibility to check the work of the armorer – and anyone else in that chain of custody – before firing a prop gun? Of course not.
No reasonable group of people should expect that. We’ll see if the jury Baldwin draws is, indeed, reasonable.
He is being charged as a human. Fun fact: if you are a janitor, CEO or even an actor and you point a gun at someone and pull the trigger you are criminally responsible. Only toddlers get away with this shite in the USA (I know, Baldwin ACTS like a toddler, doesn’t count).
Isn’t involuntary manslaughter that charge exists so they have something to reduce it to after someone guilty of a higher crime gets a good lawyer and takes a plea deal?
About time . He should be facing Criminal Negligent Homicide
Fly on the wall in an AV Club staff meeting:“And do you think we could find a picture of Alec Baldwin where he looks like Ted Cruz?”
Maybe don’t union bust and then hire a inexperienced armorer.
Damn, this day will become a new AV Club HOLIDAY!
a prop is a fake imitation gun or an unfire able disabled real oneThis was not a prop .It was a real gun and real guns are ALWAYS ASSUMED TO BE LOADED and you take extra precautionsTraining HE DID NOT TAKE , And extra security which WAS NOT DONE to check it . He took the real gun from someone who should not touch it ,did not check it and killed a woman .I didn’t know it was loaded is not a defense ,neither is it just went off
if your foolish enough to use a REAL gun on a set you are playing with Lives
It makes zero sense to charge him…
The author of this article couldn’t even be bothered to look up the sentencing guidelines for this crime if Baldwin was found guilty.
The statute defining “involuntary manslaughter” in New Mexico pretty specifically applies to this exact scenario. 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.Emphasis mine. The courts will decide if “due caution and circumspection” was exercised. Basic firearm safety principles say this was a textbook charge.
Actors should just hold and point walkie talkies. They can CGI the guns in post.
OK, I’ll bite: it’s been a year and a half. Why did it take so incredibly long to bring charges?
No!
All the MAGA people reveling in this, saying he need to be put away, are all in love with boy Kyle R and his killing of protestors. Damn hypocrites.
You mean the child molester and woman abuser? Way to pick sides, retard.
The armorer deserves being charged. 1st AD, too. Baldwin should only be charged with being an annoying narcissistic asshole.
New Mexico, no less.
Alec Baldwin was directed to aim the revolver and squeeze the trigger. In the end, he shares responsibility. Since he probably won’t do any prison time, I wish he would do the right thing and plead guilty. A lot more pain is coming with the civil suits, the eventual divorce, and who knows what else. Own it Alec. You asshole.
http://www.modifiedlimitedhangout.com/blog/tag/Alec+Baldwin
person in charge of the weapons on the set should also be charged. that person did not do their job.
I read a whole list of comments and no one came out and said the plain truth, Baldwin was mean to Trump therefore in some areas it will be good for a DA’s career to charge him. If this was Clint Eastwood who held the gun there would never be any charges against him. (If it were a famous rapper they wouldn’t be allowed to post bail.) This is banana republic justice, pure tribalism.
sometimes you simply have to take responsibility. Contribute to his GoFundMe if you feel sorry for Baldwin.
Looks like this case may take out two birds with one bullet
Wokester Baldwin fans should just relax. Sure the drama is fun but end of the day Baldwin is a rich, white man in America. No way he’s doing time for killing some poor bitch. He’s only getting charged because she was white too, and we do have laws about that kinda thing. So chillax and be grateful the justice system works
My hot take is: Why isn’t Matt Gaetz in jail?
Sad. It was a clean shoot. His life was clearly in danger and his hand was forced
In real life, if you are holding a gun and shoot it and hit someone, you’re in the shit, bro.
On a movie set, where the real and valid expectation is that all prop guns are 100% safe and firing blanks, having an actual bullet leave a gun is a stunning and devastating occurrence. One that multiple people should have been working to ensure was IMPOSSIBLE.
Is it the actor’s responsibility to check the work of the armorer – and anyone else in that chain of custody – before firing a prop gun? Of course not.
No reasonable group of people should expect that. We’ll see if the jury Baldwin draws is, indeed, reasonable.
Has this New Mexico DA ever faced white shoe law firm defense lawyers? They are going to tear him up so bad he will resign his post and become a monk…..