New examination of gun used in Rust shooting suggests Alec Baldwin could be charged again
The prosecutors on the case have determined that the gun could've only been fired by someone pulling the trigger
Aux News Alec Baldwin
Earlier this year, when involuntary manslaughter charges against Alec Baldwin in the shooting of Rust cinematographer Halyna Hutchins were dropped, it was done at least partially on the grounds that the special prosecutors on the case wanted more time to investigate the actual gun that had been used—with the prosecutors noting at the time that the charges could be refiled later. As explained by Variety, the sticking point was that the gun had been modified for its use in the film, which Baldwin’s defense argued could’ve caused it to go off without anyone pulling the trigger.
The argument couldn’t be proven or disproven at the time, because the gun had been taken apart by the FBI as part of its investigation into the shooting, but now Variety says that the gun has been reconstructed and put through a new forensic examination, which apparently determined that it could only have been fired by someone pulling the trigger. Here’s how it’s explained in the study: “The fatal incident was the consequence of the hammer being manually retracted to its fully rearward and cocked position followed, at some point, by the pull or rearward depression of the trigger.”
So, while Baldwin has denied actually pulling the trigger, this study claims that, for the gun to have gone off the way it did, “the trigger had to be pulled or depressed sufficiently to release the fully cocked or retracted hammer.” Variety says that the prosecutors previously indicated that they would refile charges against Baldwin if it turned out that the gun was in regular working condition, but that hasn’t happened (and Variety even notes that it might not happen at all).
Meanwhile, the case against Rust armorer Hanna Gutierrez-Reed, who has been charged with involuntary manslaughter and evidence tampering, is moving forward and will go to trial in December.
117 Comments
Why exactly would he get charged regardless of if he pulled the trigger or not?
So a prosecutor can get press and run for State Senate
Exactly. I’d already assumed it was the case that he pulled the trigger, either accidentally without realizing or as part of the rehearsal process. The prosecution on this case is a shitshow.The only way Baldwin has any moral culpability in this is if, in his role as a ‘producer,’ he was responsible for on-set safety, working practices, or maybe working hours. That notion has always been a stretch, but given that he’s denied it, no-one’s contradicted him, and the prosecution hasn’t been shouting it from the rafters, I’m almost 100% confident at this point that it’s not true.
I agree with you. Baldwin was working as an actor not a producer when this accident occurred. An actor using a gun that is cold relies on the armorer to be doing the job they are paid for. Even if you look at the producer role, he has hired an armorer and paid them to do their job correctly. Everything else is just noise level blabber.
He made a choice to continue filming on set when virtually all the union crew members had walked off. The armorer also wasn’t on the set. It may very well turn out that there’s an argument that he isn’t legally culpable, and I’m not one of those people who rages at the heavens about people getting off on technicalities. Technicalities are laws and legal principles which are designed to protect us from tyranny, not a symptom of creeping socialism. But that doesn’t mean he bears no moral culpability. If I’m the foreman at a nuclear power plant, and I know that the people and equipment necessary for workplace safety are gone and not coming back any time soon, and I defer to the owner and don’t shut it down because “all that safety stuff is just common sense anyway” I am morally responsible if I there’s a catastrophe even if some version of the Nuremberg defense is used to keep me out of jail. Maybe he didn’t know what he was doing, but he knew enough to know it was a bad idea.
Reckless endangerment, possibly manslaughter, if the scene didn’t call for him to pull the trigger.
Neither one is going to go very far.
They have to prove that pulling the trigger of a gun that a professional told him wasn’t loaded on a set which isn’t supposed to have live ammo rises to level of criminal negligence. Good luck.
IIRC it was supposed to be a shot facing Baldwin so the viewer could see down the barrel/see the loaded cylinder. Whether that was supposed to be accompanied by a trigger pull I don’t remember but it seems like a bad idea even with dummy rounds. Sometimes as an artist you need to give up a notion for good, practical reasons. That shot couldn’t have justified the risks involved.
Because aiming a weapon and pulling a trigger resulting in death equals at least manslaughter
If he was under oath when he said he did not fire the trigger it would be a major issue. Especially as he was the one pushing to cut corners and such.
I don’t think the DA is trying to prosecute him as a producer cutting corners. They’re going for him as an actor that fired the weapon. Which had procedures in place so he won’t be liable.
Sorry I didn’t mean they were going that way I meant that 1) He may have lied to them 2) He had a direct role in the decision making process which led to the outcome so it isn’t the same as if any other actor in the film were to have been in the same scenario. Still going to get in trouble for being the one who pulled the trigger and potentially not telling the truth, the other stuff will just be used to support the claims that he had a vested interest in not telling the truth.
He will never get in trouble for pulling the trigger. That’s just a point blank fact. He might get in trouble for being the producer and therefore responsible for decision making, or maybe for perjury, but that’s unlikely to stick.
I doubt if the prosecutor is required to segregate his two roles as if one doesn’t impinge on the other. If I write a film in which my character murders or assaults someone and I end up beating the crap out of someone I can’t claim that as an actor I was just following direction and got carried away and that as a writer I can’t be held accountable for what people do with my script. I get held accountable as a human being regardless.
What a fucking stupid and nonsensical comparison. Gain some intelligence and try again.
Or maybe you’re just too stupid to understand it. Segregating his roles as an actor and a producer is an arbitrary distinction, just as I don’t have to look at your pathetic response and segregate your role as a crass antagonistic douche from your role as a “writer” of comments. It all comes from the same puckered sphincter and it smells like shit regardless.
I see you ignored my advice and doubled down on the fucking stupid and nonsensical angle. Bold strategy, but I doubt it works.
Not to mention segregating your role as a consumer of popular entertainment from your role as a troll shilling for Baldwin. You think anybody’s dumb enough to believe you just HAPPENED to be pushing the narrative Baldwin is currently leaning into?
Aw, is poor baby butt hurt?
Yeah, your mom really gave me a workout with the strap on last night. I don’t mind a little bit of kink, but I really didn’t get why she kept yelling, “Take THAT, Karl, you pathetic piece of shit!” the whole time, but it’s starting to make sense. I’m not complaining. The money’s good, and I can tell she’s very disappointed with some things in her life. She keeps saying that if she’d only gone to a clinic decades ago and gotten a wart removed, her life would have been better. I think she’s referring to something other than an actual wart, but she refuses to say what it is. Also, I’m gonna have to stop letting her use my toilet after our sessions. Every time she wipes, it’s always “Why couldn’t you have been my son?” to be clear, she’s talking to what’s on the TP, not me. I notice you haven’t a single substantive point to make, so I really can’t be bothered to reply with anything beyond schoolyard taunts. But if you want to try, you could go into why you think his roles as producer and actor should be considered separately when it comes to moral responsibility, and why you seem to have nothing better to do than carry Baldwin’s water and lash out at people who disagree with your flimsy attempts at doing so.
You can only be found guilty of perjury if you say something *you know* is untrue. For instance, if you put an idiot on the stand, and ask them “Is the world round”, and they say “No, the world is flat”, that is only perjury if the prosecution can demonstrate that you actually *do* believe the world is round, but are only saying the world is flat. If you *actually* believe the world is flat, that isn’t perjury.
In this case, the prosecution is going to have a tough time proving that Alec Baldwin both intentionally pulled the trigger and *intentionally* lied to say otherwise (as opposed to accidently or unknowingly pulling the trigger). I’m not saying it can’t be done, but I can’t figure out how they would do it.
75% of everyone who has a negligent discharge will go to their grave denying pulling the trigger. They know they are busted, it’s just somehow a knee jerk response to try and be just a little less busted.
You’re right. I’ve seen it happen in front of me and no one has ever “pulled the trigger” and the weapon is always “defective.” Regardless, even if he did – purely as an actor on a set shooting a weapon he was handed, he has zero responsibility. This prosecutor must really hate him and it’s going to cost his state a lot of wasted resources and money. It’s ridiculous.
The user of any weapon is responsible for its use. It is gun safety 101 to anybody that is not retarded.
It’s an especially weird argument given the scene that was being filmed. He was pointing and “firing” the gun at the camera. It would have clearly shown his finger. It would be odd if it wasn’t intended for him to pull the trigger. I can’t imagine they were planning to do something like digitally add the trigger pull.
This whole “didn’t pull the trigger” thing feels like a legion of lawyers were screaming in his ear, “Deny, deny, deny!!!”
I’m not sure it was filmed. They were setting up the shot, I don’t think they were actually filming. If they had film, this question would already be resolved.
It doesn’t matter if you’re an actor or not, he didn’t do basic fire arm safety. Any time you take possession of a weapon you check to see if it’s loaded. It doesn’t matter if the armorer said it was okay, you still check because someone’s life my depend on it!
Zero Responsibility? Your argument amounts to “With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility – unless you’re an actor.” That’s some real Animal Farm reasoning.Ignorance and/or Arrogance are never good excuses for any adult- especially where weapons are involved.Alec Baldwin is a grown ass man who didn’t train like Keanu did for John Wick and needs to be held accountable for his idiocy.
It never made sense as a defense to me (other than him truly in his heart of hearts believing it), because he had absolutely no reason to believe the gun was loaded. He was on a film set, in front of a camera.
And there was a ‘professional’ whose responsibility was specifically to make sure the gun wouldn’t hurt anyone.
And it fails to even look at why a prop gun would have live rounds to begin with.
That doesn’t change the fact that he didn’t check the gun.
Sure, that’s a fact, but it’s immaterial: The armorer is specifically responsible for the state of every single weapon on that set. If the weapon is loaded with live ammo or has metal shards in it that could fly out and hurt someone, it is their job and responsibility to know that and correct the situation. Failure to do that is entirely the armorer’s responsibility.I’m no huge Baldwin fan here but when someone is hired specifically to make sure weapons are safe to use on set, it’s their fault when an unsafe weapon hurts someone on set.
I think when you’re charged with a serious crime, you go with every defense you have (particularly when you actually believe they’re true). I agree that Baldwin’s best defense is that he didn’t believe the gun was loaded, and wasn’t the one responsible for figuring out that it was. But if he truly didn’t pull the trigger, that would be a defense too, and I don’t think you hold it back.
I can’t imagine the guilt he is living with. Despite it not “technically” being his fault, it must be life-altering to live with that every single day. He may very well believe he didn’t pull the trigger.
Every gun is loaded, until you check to confirm otherwise.
That’s not a legal argument. There are specific procedures in place on film sets – which I believe are legally considered “workplace environments” – to prevent tragedies like this one. This tragedy didn’t happen because there was anything wrong with those procedures; it happened because those procedures weren’t followed.
Yep. The armorer fucked up and the assistant director ALSO fucked up. And both had reputations for being fuckups.
Not to mention that an inexperienced actor “checking” the gun after it’s been cleared by the armorer might not be the best idea.
On the construction jobsites I have worked on workplace safety – all safety involving everyone in every location doing every job – is everyone’s responsibility. If you see someone you are not working with on a part of the job site you are not working on doing something you think might be a safety hazard, you have the authority to shut down further work while the safety issue is addressed. Because you might have noticed something that others missed.Furthermore, despite the presence of mechanics on site ensuring the proper functioning of the construction equipment in use, the operator of that equipment is also responsible for checking to ensure that the equipment is properly functioning by performing a safety check before using the machine.Actors on set are often given props the use (or misuse) of which can be potentially dangerous. Yet they are not responsible for how they use those props?
Ha, in my trial advocacy class in law school the fact pattern for the trial we had to prepare for involved a shooting, and the defendant claimed that a door slamming behind her caused her to tense up her whole body which squeezed the trigger. Tale as old as time!
I had a “de-mil’d” ppsh go into full auto and dump 30 rounds unexpectedly. The firing pin was bulged and stuck in an outward position.Could have easily been a lawsuit.
I don’t know why everyone is so quick to say Baldwin isn’t culpable. The first rule of being handed a gun is to check if it’s loaded. They probably covered that in the safety meetings that he ignored and spoke on the phone throughout.
In most situations that’s true, but film sets have their own rules because they’re doing things a lot differently. You’re also not supposed to point a gun at anything you aren’t willing to kill/destroy, but that rule obviously isn’t going to work on a movie set. That’s why there’s an armourer whose entire job it is to select which prop guns and ammunition (which should NEVER include live rounds) to use and ensure they’re safe. There’s also supposed to be redundancies, like the assistant director double checking it, or doing the checks in front of the actor. The actor isn’t supposed to check the gun themselves, they’re supposed to act, and leave the guns to the people trained for it. The last thing they need is some hotshot actor saying “I’mma check my own gun!” when they can’t tell the difference between a blank and a dummy round, or how to check if a barrel is clear.This situation happened because of multiple failures of responsibilities, but I have yet to read anything that would be Baldwin’s fault. Crew members responsible for the guns handed him one and told him it was was safe, when it wasn’t. That’s on them.
“The actor isn’t supposed to check the gun themselves, they’re supposed to act”
Well, given that he shot a woman to death it sounds like this needs to change, then.
what they’re saying is that an actor can’t be reasonably expected to have expertise in film matters like stunt explosives or firearms to determine if something is safe.Could say the same thing for a car chase scene that goes wrong and someone gets killed. An actor is supposed to have engineering/physics knowledge to sign off on “well yeah- the wheel is supposed to fall off in this scene, but in a very specific way that won’t wreck another car”
No, there’s an armorer on set whose responsibility this is. Actors should be able to trust the people whose job it is to keep them safe.
That’s just not practical, and could actually HARM safety. Untrained actors should not be unloading and reloading their props. The props should be properly handled and loaded by trained armorers, and that’s exactly the rule in place on a set.There are plenty of ways people can get hurt or killed on a movie set, and none of them would be mitigated by asking untrained actors to inspect the work of trained professionals. Actors are not qualified to inspect squibs or other pyrotechnics, harnesses for wire work, stunt safety equipment, or prop guns.
Try to imagine the battle scenes in Saving Private Ryan or any other war film with hundreds of extra firing guns of all kinds. It is irrational to think that every single one of them would stop and double and triple check that the prop gun they were handed was not properly vetted by those responsible. You don’t walk into a cockpit to check everything is working before you get on a plane either. There are protocols that have nothing to do with the actor.
No. Why on earth would the armorer trust the talent to do anything? I’d want them fucking with the gun as little as possible.
Every other Hollywood movie set: a) Actors are not responsible for checking their own prop guns. b) The armorer and other crew members responsible for firearms safety are competent and conscientious professionals.Rust set: a) Actors were not responsible for checking their own prop guns. b) The armorer and other crew members responsible for firearms safety were dangerously negligent and incompetent.Under what ass-backward line of reasoning would one look at the Rust tragedy and conclude that the problem was that a) was handled according to industry standards and not that b) wasn’t?
Don’t worry. This is NOT how it works. Baldwin’s union requires him to check the gun. He just couldn’t be bothered cause he’s a stupid asshole.
There are hundreds of movies made every year where no one is shot to death, but let’s change the protocol that always works because a couple people on one production didn’t follow the protocol that always works.
IKR?
This is why ALL guns should be outlawed in the USA. In America there are NO responsible gun owners and no American is capable of the care for human life required to have one of these deadly weapons and guarantee that they will not end another human life because they cannot be bothered to give a rat’s ass about anyone else. If you cannot promise to go to jail if you have a life-ending “oopsie, my bad” then you should not be allowed to touch a gun (or drive a car, but that’s a rant for another day).
That would actually be a violation of set rules and union rules – Baldwin is not supposed to check the gun. The armorer is supposed to ensure that the gun is safe for use and then no one else is meant to handle it. So no, it was not covered. The opposite was.And the other reasons that his culpability is unlikely is given that all other set accidents including shootings have all been ruled accidents where the actor faced no charges – see the Brandon Lee shooting.
Every time I hear about this story it always blows my mind that Baldwin passed on a Tina Fey/Robert Carlock created 30 Rock spin off and made this little indie western instead. Because the Ted Danson show Mr. Mayor was supposed to be about Jack Donaghy and set in NYC.
Dang, I didn’t know that. That would have been so much better! I didn’t much like the Danson version. But I guess you gotsta…
Ehhhh… I dunno. He did several seasons of this character and unlike certain radio psychologists who don’t know what to do with those tossed salad and scrambled eggs Baldwin has a decent range as an aged character actor. I love Donaghy but I don’t need more of him.
I was honestly surprised to learn that the prop gun could fire a live round, i.e. not a blank, at all. I think there was a mention elsewhere saying crew were firing live rounds at cans between shots. Like I had assumed that prop guns were modified in a way that a live round with a bullet could be loaded at all, and yes I know even planks can be deadly at close range.
Prop, in movie terms, means “property”, not necessarily fake, inoperable, or modified. The guns used in movies/TV shows are generally real, fully functioning firearms that are absolutely capable of accepting regular cartridges (with a metal projectile) and firing them. Sure, you could remove the firing pin, but then you couldn’t fire a blank either. Blanks are real cartridges themselves, just with wax, paper, or cotton in the end instead of a lead or steel bullet. They still are a real casing with gunpowder and a primer (albeit many times a lot less powder than one meant to fire a bullet). The whole safety thing though, and I believe it’s been discussed in some of the stories on the Rust shooting, is that there should never, ever be live rounds on set that could potentially be mixed in with the blanks.
Interesting I never knew that, I always assumed movie guns were modified so as not to be able to even fire an actual live round at all. I mean I knew in the olden times they used live guns and live rounds, but just kind thought they modified them a live round with projectile wouldn’t even load. Knowing this now it makes you think WHY they just didn’t modify movie guns, revolvers at least would seem to be easy, just shorten the chamber so only a blank would fit.
Some semi auto pistols need to be modified so they appear to function properly. A blank won’t expel enough gas to cycle the action otherwise. Not an issue with revolvers.
In this specific case maybe it would’ve made a difference. But freak accidents happen. The Brandon Lee killing was a wad of material from a blank that got stuck. That wadding can still make an impact if it isn’t properly cleared out.
Some guns on some sets might be real, but a lot of the time they are modified firearms that can only fire blanks. I’ve used the latter, and they won’t even accept a normal cartridge.
To me as a non-murrican it seems dangerous and weird that prop guns would not be modified for safety reasons, for example be equipped with a constricted and/or obstructed barrel that would stop a projectile before it leaves the muzzle.I mean, it’s not as if people haven’t died from being shot on film sets before. Brandon Lee being a particularly well known example. Movie companies know this is a thing that has happened, and also that as long as genuine firearms continue to be used, will also always continue to be a risk in the future as well.One can invent as many safety procedures as one likes, it won’t matter because all it takes is someone not following them properly at one single occasion, and bam. Someone will be shot, and potentially killed. Only thing that will truly stop people from being shot is if the guns used physically can’t shoot people.
Constricting or blocking the muzzle sounds dangerous at worst and like it would completely ruin the practical effect of shooting it for real at best. Someone please correct me if I’m wrong, but having said that, you’re right that as long as dangerous weapons are on set, there will always be an inherent risk. I am 100% fine with just using completely nonfunctional firearms and adding the muzzle flare in post. Movies aren’t worth someone’s life.
Lee is a bad example as it was a tragic fluke. A wad of material from a prior blank shot was stuck in the gun. The force of the subsequent blank is what propelled the projectile into him.
Nevertheless, he was shot with a gun on-set and died from the subsequent wound.Tragic, as he was a charismatic movie actor with many years ahead of him.
Modified barrel prop guns are more expensive, and have their own set of safety issues, including many incidents of people putting real bullets in them and trying to shoot stuff only for the bullet to not fit in the barrel. Any production that is trying to be cheap (like Rust) just uses real guns because it is a lot easier and cheaper.Some bigger budget productions (like Rebel Moon) use gas cylinder guns, that do not take any projectiles and simply create muzzle flashes when the trigger is pulled, but those are also very expensive and you need an armorer with specific knowledge to maintain them.The safest option is what they do in the John Wick movies (which is being run by someone who knew Brandon Lee) and all the guns are 100% fake, with all effects added in post. But again, that takes money. Rust was just a quick, cheap production.
What’s a human life worth? Seems that bit isn’t being factored in here.If you have so little money that you can’t produce your movie safely, then maybe you shouldn’t be making a movie with guns in it. Two people got shot, one of them died, and that’s just this one time.How many other movies have had people getting shot with prop guns that were actually capable of firing projectiles of one sort or another?
I’m kind of surprised this issue hasn’t seemed to come up in any sort of union negotiations after this incident. Maybe it would be a good idea to require all guns used on sets to be modified to only fit blanks. Seems like that would be a really smart thing to do going forward.
Yeah as I mentioned I legit thought something like that would have been done ages ago.
I’m all for practical effects over CG where it makes sense but considering all we’re capable of creating out of thin air, it seems silly that we’re still using real guns that have the capability of hurting anyone in 2023. I guarantee that if they were willing to spend a little money to potentially protect people, they could have made it just as realistic with CG than any props.
I can absolutely understand why you’d want to use physical props for guns that fire blanks, because it seems like it would be really hard to get actors to properly sync up a realistic looking trigger pull/recoil. That said, there is no reason they should be using guns on set that have the capability of firing live rounds.
Yeah, it absolutely wouldn’t be easy, but seeing the lengths they go to for, like, the Avengers movies, they can figure it out if they put their minds to it. Maybe the solution involves prop guns without the capability to fire live rounds (like you said), maybe CG plays a part, I don’t know. I just feel like needing multiple armorers to be on set and to do their job all the time or else an actor accidentally kills someone cannot be the optimal solution in 2023.
That’s why we have medium shots and camera blocking. There’s no need to see the actor pull a trigger on a working gun. The narrative loses nothing. The John Wick movies are perfect examples. They use rubber guns in most shots. Yes, some gun fetishists bitch about those films but they can suck eggs.
Yeah, in reading about the incident it sounded to me like a combination of the production and the armorer both being stupidly fetishistic about the practical reality of the revolver. Because as I recall it wasn’t a replica, it was the real deal. (Although I don’t recall if it was an antique from the 1800s or an antique from old western films.) And the shot was intended to be the camera looking down the barrel of the gun/at the chamber. The artistic justification for that shot is really weak, imo. If nothing else I hope the incident really underscores for filmmakers that not every shot you imagine is worth the risks involved.
Sometimes if you need to fire a blank for a scene you will use a prop gun that can be loaded with, and fire, a single round. Think like a 1700s muzzle loader cosplaying as a modern semi-auto, or the replica guns from the car scene in Snatch. That is, I believe, the kind of gun that killed Brandon Lee: the barrel was clogged with a previous casing which the blank used in filming shot out like a flechette. I’m not sure why you would ever do this vs. just putting the number of rounds you need into a real gun – perhaps you can avoid regulatory headaches if you aren’t using a “real” weapon?
Don’t know, like I said I assumed prop guns were modified so a bullet couldn’t be used, and I mean it’s a double edged sword. On one hand ALWAYS err on the side of safety, but on the other airsoft and other “fake guns, even when visually perfect, just feel off, because you are missing that recoil action, like the weight isn’t there. It’s kind of like bullet wounds in movies, back in the day it was blood packs and squibs, now it’s almost all, if not all cg and the look just isn’t there. Take the scene in the OG Robocop where Murphy gets killed, could you do that today with CG sure, but the physicality of it just wouldn’t be there.
Actually, they make airsoft guns with recoil. With gas powered ASGs, CO2 or some other gas basically does all the work of gunpowder but much less intensely so the BB goes at a safe-ish speed (still tooth chipping and eye putting out-ing) but also the recoil is much less severe. Still, enough felt recoil that an actor can oversell it and make it look good. All that and they can fire empty. Only problem is that for anything bigger than a pistol, there’s an external tank like on a paintball gun. Still, that could be solved by hiding a smaller tank somewhere as it only needs to be fired ~10 times on set as opposed to hundreds of times in an airsoft game.
There are also companies that make recoil simulation rigs for non-live-fire training. They typically take the form of replacement magazines with integrated solenoids. These would be a good choice for convincing recoil in movies to go with your CG muzzle emissions.
It’s idiotic that he claimed he never pulled the trigger, but unless he said that under oath, you can’t prosecute people for stupid lies.Of course he pulled the trigger. Maybe it was an accident, maybe he was supposed to as part of the shot… in the end, it doesn’t really matter.
The problem is, and always has been, that there was a REAL BULLET in the gun. That responsibility falls squarely on the armorer, and no one else.
You can split hairs about other responsibility (the AD who handed the gun over claiming it was clear, producers- possibly including Baldwin- who ignored complaints of safety leading up to this), but it’s always going to come down to the fact that there is absolutely no reason that real bullets are ever in the same room as a prop gun, let alone actually loaded into it.
And people on other productions had already complained about her behavior. She never should have been on that set. She’s a gun nut asshole amateur who coasts on nepotism.
Her interview on some podcast was looney af.
The arrogant leftist, Baldwin, has handled guns on set without the most basic knowledge of firearms. Of course he’s responsible for the negligent discharge. One MUST always consider the firearm to be loaded. Whenever handing a gun, even after seeing someone else check it, you must check it yourself. All experienced shooters know this. He is a fool and a liar. He pulled the trigger on a loaded gun, killing one person and wounding another, because he didn’t check it himself. GUILTY!
On a film set, you have a person hired to check the gun every time it’s handed to an actor. They failed to have a proper armorer on-set. There should not have been a real live round anywhere near that gun, but that’s not Baldwin’s fault.
I’m not sure it’s reasonable to require any actor to be an expert on the mechanics behind whatever “stunt” (i.e. controlled, not real) is being performed. This could extend to underwater action, explosives, cars, aircraft, et al.Political opinions aside, would you feel the same if james woods killed someone in a car chase scene gone wrong or would it fall on the set’s automotive expert(s)?
Open gun. See bullet. No touchie gun. If your IQ reaches room temperature you can handle this much if you are not an irresponsible, thoughtless, malignant jerk.
james woods can kill whoever the fuck he wants.
What difference does it make in this case what political leanings Baldwin has?Answer: none. Just you being a toxic git. GUILTY!
Ah, the “if they can’t do a three-gun course like Keanu then they have no place in Hollywood” argument.
Open gun. See bullet. No touchie gun. If your IQ reaches room temperature you can handle this much if you are not an irresponsible, thoughtless, malignant jerk.
Which is hilarious given that most of the guns Keanu handles on movie sets are rubber or plastic. Yes, he CAN handle real guns. But they don’t make him do that on set because, you know. On set. I appreciate his dedication but it’s not actually necessary.
There’s plenty of roles in Hollywood for people who know nothing about firearms.Action movies probably shouldn’t be among them, though.
This is all true. Though I’ve know more irresponsible Republican gun owners than Democrats. But maybe that’s cause I live in Massachusetts?
“The arrogant leftist, Baldwin,” There’s the impotent little conservative freak we’ve been expecting, knowing as much about the world around them here as they do anywhere else. Just make like the prosecutors: Keep trying until something sticks.
The arrogant leftistYour bias is showing.Whenever handing a gun, even after seeing someone else check it, you must check it yourself. All experienced shooters know this.He is an actor. Just because he plays experienced shooters doesn’t mean he IS an experienced shooter.
Don, you forgot to work “MAGA” into this screed. Low-T small hand energy here.
Lol at calling Alec Baldwin a leftist. Everyone to your left is not left-wing.
I’m surprised this is still ongoing. The armorer has full responsibility to make sure the guns are safe; that was her job. The fact that there was live ammo anywhere near the set is a huge fail on her part. The facts here make her sound hugely incompetent, and it makes me wonder how she got the job.
“and it makes me wonder how she got the job.” Nepo baby, as the yoots say. Like seriously, it was literally because her dad was also a Hollywood armorer (much more successfully).
What does it mean to be a successful Hollywood armorer? That nobody gets killed on your set? Pretty low bar to cross.
Whether you like Baldwin or not, it is not fair to hold him or any actor accountable for an error by the armorer who is paid to ensure guns on a movie set are safe. Once Baldwin is told a gun is cold, he is free to do whatever the director wants. Pulling the trigger or not is just an obfuscation. If there is proof an actor deliberately shoots someone on a movie set, then that is different, but certainly that’s not the case here. Can you imagine if every actor on set had to be concerned that any weapon they are told to use on set makes them accountable for murder if the armorer makes a mistake.
I mean, the issue is still and will forever be that a mother fucking live round was in the gun. Not about whether or not the trigger actually needed to be pulled. I don’t give a shit about Alec Baldwin but this doesn’t change a damn thing.
The huge problem with all this is the precedent being set. If Baldwin is held criminally liable, the state is setting a legal precedent that every actor on a film set has a personal legal duty to verify that every prop is fully safe to use. The actor has to personally check every round of ammo to make sure it’s a blank, personally test every pane of fake sugar glass, personally check every breakaway door, every collapsing chair, every squib, and on and on. Failure to do so, even one time, could conceivably result in jail time if it turns out the prop isn’t safe and someone gets injured.It isn’t the actor’s duty to be a munitions expert, any more than it’s the duty of a DoorDash driver to make sure the food isn’t poisoned.
There’s also existing precedent from the Brandon Lee shooting that says he should not be found liable.
It’s ridiculous and over-exhausted. Alec didn’t load the gun. You don’t hand anyone a loaded weapon.
“The prosecutors on the case have determined that the gun could’ve only been fired by someone pulling the trigger“Welcome to how firearms work.
Baldwin should have been charged with manslaughter. But the way this has been handled has led me to conclude that they should just let it go. His being charged, let go, and possibly charged again would almost guarantee a non guilty verdict by this point. You screwed it up, DA. Let it go.
Perfectly understandable how Baldwin might be in “denial” about pulling the trigger. The burden of knowing you killed someone must be overwhelming. But so what? In denial, or outright lying, it doesn’t matter. He was an actor in a movie, handed a gun he was told was ‘safe’ and his part called for him to shoot it. Isn’t he supposed to pull the trigger? Where is the “negligence”? On the cokehead armorer, maybe. I agree, it’s a publicity-hungry prosecutor trying to grab a headline. Suppose someone handed him a remote and asked him to press the button, but the remote was actually set to detonate a REAL bomb? Is he still guilty of a crime?
Lmao, these guys are deranged.
Not for nothing, but the FBI disassembling the gun and putting it back together could have fixed whatever problem the gun had, if there was one to begin with. I’ve broken down many rifles and handguns with issues and they were fixed when I put them back together.
Sometimes there are freak accidents that can’t be reproduced. I’m not defending Baldwin, but there are things to consider.
Baldwin was also doing a job where he was supposed to listen to others who were supposed to check the gun. Unless someone is trying to prove that Baldwin purposely broke the gun to make it fire or put the live bullets in himself, rebuilding the gun is likely a fool’s errand in the long run.
That’s what I was thinking – the gun is obviously no longer in the same state as when the shooting occurred.
The prosecutors on the case have determined that the gun could’ve only been fired by someone pulling the triggerYes. That is how guns work. Congratulations on discovering the obvious.