FGITD wrote:

johns624 wrote:

What some seem to be forgetting is that Baldwin IIRC, was also the producer. In that role, he was more responsible for who was on the set and how they performed their jobs than he would be as just an actor. If the armorer wasn't doing her job, it was up to him to correct her. If there were negligent discharges, he should've found out why. It was HIS movie.

I think that's exactly right. He's being charged not because he pulled the trigger, but because it was his production and it clearly wasn't meeting safety requirements.

All the talk of gun safety is great, but honestly serves minimal purpose on a hollywood set. Of course they're going to point guns at each other and pull the trigger. It's the land of make believe. You're also not supposed to drive cars off bridges, or motorcycles off ramps while blowing stuff up. Or so driver's ed led me to believe back in the day. So giving the basic rules of gun handling just isn't relevant. And the reason for that goes back to the point of why Baldwin is being charged. Because there are supposed to be so many fail safes that they can break the principle runs of gun handling. In this case, the team failed to follow the necessary steps, ergo and accident happened. Hollywood has been handling weapons pretty much since day 1, and have a pretty impressive track record. It's clear this is an outlier

As noted earlier, Baldwin was but one of many producers in the film, and was not in charge of the armorer. Her emails complaining about conditions, referred to Baldwin only in terms of her lack of training time with him and the other cast. Other producers and staff were responsible for her supervision and assignments, not Baldwin.

The only people being charged here, handled the gun directly. So Baldwin is very definitely NOT being charged solely because he is a producer. He's being charged because he accidently discharged the gun.

His role as a producer is still relevant and will be a part of the trial. We'll have to see what part it plays.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

1. Basic firearm safety dictates that you don’t point a gun at someone without verifying it is safe. No matter what someone else assures you.

2. He was a producer of the film. Thus he was responsible for the welfare and safety of the crew. Ensuring and verifying that safety culture and best practice was being followed.

The armorer may be MORE culpable but Baldwin bears a share of the blame.

I suspect, that an actor, using a real gun, in a suicide scene, might go to the trouble to check the gun themselves, regardless if the person handing the gun to them had just said "cold gun."

AB should have checked the gun for the sake of the person(s) who was in front of him. The director wanted a scene filmed from the point of view of AB aiming the gun at the audience, up close. In this case, the camera operator is "the audience."[/quote]

As someone who is not familiar with guns, I think I would trust the armorer's judgement more than my own judgement whether a gun is safe or not. These people are trained experts. Your average actor is not.

victrola wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

1. Basic firearm safety dictates that you don’t point a gun at someone without verifying it is safe. No matter what someone else assures you.

2. He was a producer of the film. Thus he was responsible for the welfare and safety of the crew. Ensuring and verifying that safety culture and best practice was being followed.

The armorer may be MORE culpable but Baldwin bears a share of the blame.

I suspect, that an actor, using a real gun, in a suicide scene, might go to the trouble to check the gun themselves, regardless if the person handing the gun to them had just said "cold gun."

AB should have checked the gun for the sake of the person(s) who was in front of him. The director wanted a scene filmed from the point of view of AB aiming the gun at the audience, up close. In this case, the camera operator is "the audience."

As someone who is not familiar with guns, I think I would trust the armorer's judgement more than my own judgement whether a gun is safe or not. These people are trained experts. Your average actor is not.

As noted earlier, the actor is specifically not supposed to do anything with the gun, but carry out the scene. Those are the union rules. The actors and crew have the right to insist that the armorer demonstrate the safety of the gun in front of them. But not to alter the configuration of the gun themselves.

For a cold gun, the armorer demonstration of safety is to point the gun at the ground, and pull the trigger 7 times to cycle through the 6 rounds in the cylinder. Then hand the gun to the actor as safe.

Most actors are not gun owners and even if they were, would not be familiar with single action revolvers. They also would not be qualified to unload the gun, confirm the dummy status of the rounds, reload the gun, and declare it safe or cold.

None of that is their responsibility. Nor do actors want that responsibility. It is the armorer's sole responsibility. Period.

Actors have a responsibility to handle the gun safely, to expect & receive instruction on how to do so, or to return it to the armorer for safe handling. In this case Baldwin handled the de-cocking of the gun in an unsafe manner. That is why he is being charged.

TriJets wrote:

seb146 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

This wasn't a normal everyday situation. It was a movie set.

I was cleaning my gun, I was showing my prize to my family, I was practicing for my brother, it was only out for a minute, I was just getting a sandwich.....

What happened to Second Amendment Rights? Is Alec Baldwin suspended from that from birth? That 4 year old who took a gun to school is being defended and the Sandy Hook shooter is defended and the Pulse Club shooter is defended and the boy in Virginia is defended. What makes Baldwin different that he is denies 2A rights?

What? Who is defending any of the people you mentioned? You realize that the Second Amendment gives people the right to keep and bear arms, not to randomly murder people, right?

Many have somehow twisted the Second Amendment to mean people have right to commit murder, school killings, mass murder in violation of many long-standing laws. Nothing new.

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with guns being used as props on movie sets. Let’s don’t conflate matters of constitutional rights with what is essentially a workplace safety issue.

As to the latter, why not have the industry ban functional firearms from movie sets entirely? SAG could negotiate it into the next contract. With modern CGI realistic muzzle flashes can easily be added in post-production. No need at all for ammo of any kind, including blanks, to be on movie sets.

The fricking 2nd amendment?? Really? Mr. Baldwin killed someone because he lacked basic common sense. And because he tried to cheap out on a movie and treat the employees like sh*t.

And FWIW he wasn't trying to "carry out a scene". He was practicing and pointed a gun at the director.

For crying out loud.

The people defending him (like Joy Behar today) are doing it because they adore his politics. Has nothing to do with anti or pro "gun".

If Trump or anyone in his family, had done something similar liberals (and the "anti" gun crowd) would be crying for his head. Ms. Behar even said the prosecutor was a Republican- when in fact she's a Democrat and a lesbian.

He treated his employees like sh*t, tried to produce a movie on the cheap and killed his own director out of rank stupidity. Let's see what the jury says.

He should be tried just as fairly as anyone else.

Period.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

SEAorPWM wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Actually, I was in the military but I learned gun safety at the tender age of about 6.

It should be obvious that a gun is dangerous, that pulling the trigger will make it fire, if it’s loaded, and the outcome will be harmful to what it’s pointed at. There is ZERO, NADA excuse to pull the trigger with gun pointed at someone not in the scene AFTER ensuring it’s condition. Why did he pull the trigger with pointed er the cinematographer? There is no reason to do so

Six? The closest thing I had at 6 was a Super Nintendo.

Poor soul. We didn’t have video games back then.

I was referring to the fact my parents would have never let me near a gun at 6, and I can't say I'd want my 6 year old near them either. 12 seems like a good age to start training.

cairns wrote:

The people defending him (like Joy Behar today) are doing it because they adore his politics. Has nothing to do with anti or pro "gun".

If Trump or anyone in his family, had done something similar liberals (and the "anti" gun crowd) would be crying for his head. Ms. Behar even said the prosecutor was a Republican- when in fact she's a Democrat and a lesbian.

He treated his employees like sh*t, tried to produce a movie on the cheap and killed his own director out of rank stupidity. Let's see what the jury says.

He should be tried just as fairly as anyone else.

Period.

Didn’t Dick Chaney shoot his friend in the face with a shotgun? I don’t remember any on the left being anything but sort of confused and bemused

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

TriJets wrote:

seb146 wrote:

I was cleaning my gun, I was showing my prize to my family, I was practicing for my brother, it was only out for a minute, I was just getting a sandwich.....

What happened to Second Amendment Rights? Is Alec Baldwin suspended from that from birth? That 4 year old who took a gun to school is being defended and the Sandy Hook shooter is defended and the Pulse Club shooter is defended and the boy in Virginia is defended. What makes Baldwin different that he is denies 2A rights?

What? Who is defending any of the people you mentioned? You realize that the Second Amendment gives people the right to keep and bear arms, not to randomly murder people, right?

Many have somehow twisted the Second Amendment to mean people have right to commit murder, school killings, mass murder in violation of many long-standing laws. Nothing new.

Many including Alex Jones and Lars Larson and Steve Scalese and MTG and John Cornyn

SL1200MK2 wrote:

cairns wrote:

The people defending him (like Joy Behar today) are doing it because they adore his politics. Has nothing to do with anti or pro "gun".

If Trump or anyone in his family, had done something similar liberals (and the "anti" gun crowd) would be crying for his head. Ms. Behar even said the prosecutor was a Republican- when in fact she's a Democrat and a lesbian.

He treated his employees like sh*t, tried to produce a movie on the cheap and killed his own director out of rank stupidity. Let's see what the jury says.

He should be tried just as fairly as anyone else.

Period.

Didn’t Dick Chaney shoot his friend in the face with a shotgun? I don’t remember any on the left being anything but sort of confused and bemused

Yes, he also got his friend to apologize for his own ‘carelessness’.
Maybe he would be better with guns if he hadn’t, in true GOP chickenhawk style, dodged the draft so only could shoot poor defenseless ducks, not Viet Cong.
No great blowback with him much less charges of, what does the law call it there, ‘reckless endangerment?’

QF7 wrote:

1. Basic firearm safety dictates that you don’t point a gun at someone without verifying it is safe. No matter what someone else assures you.

Incorrect. Basic firearm safety dictates you don't direct a weapon towards anyone full stop, period, ever, unless you intend to discharge that lethal force at them.

From the details revealed, the safety culture on the set was atrocious. The armourer was in no way professional and the actor behaved like an absolute cock. As a bare minimum both should have checked the weapons status (either of them doing so would have stopped the swiss cheese of the rest of the negligence). They're both culpable and should be charged accordingly.

cairns wrote:

And FWIW he wasn't trying to "carry out a scene". He was practicing and pointed a gun at the director.

For crying out loud.

This characterization is false. Baldwin was rehearsing a scene which required him to draw the gun, point it at the camera, and cock it. The cinematographer & director were standing behind the camera.

However the discharge did not occur during the scene, it ocurred after it concluded, and Baldwin was de-cocking the gun in order to safe it. He did not follow gun safety rules in pointing the gun down and away while de-cocking.

Important to get the facts straight on this incident.

ChrisKen wrote:

As a bare minimum both should have checked the weapons status (either of them doing so would have stopped the swiss cheese of the rest of the negligence). They're both culpable and should be charged accordingly.

Baldwin had no obligation to check the gun, nor would he be qualified to do so. Checking involves unloading the gun, inspecting the rounds, then reloading again. No actor is expected to do those things.

The armorer loaded the gun with a live round, outside the view of the cast and crew, and further failed to demonstrate that the gun was cold, as is required.

Baldwin failed to follow gun safety rules, in de-cocking the gun while still holding it in the required rehearsal position. In some scenes the actor is required to do that, but not in this case.

Agreed about the swiss cheese model of accidental discharge. Numerous failures and negligence are required, in order for someone to be shot and killed.

Avatar2go wrote:

ChrisKen wrote:

As a bare minimum both should have checked the weapons status (either of them doing so would have stopped the swiss cheese of the rest of the negligence). They're both culpable and should be charged accordingly.

Baldwin had no obligation to check the gun, nor would he be qualified to do so.

It is the responsibility of the person handling a weapon to ensure that they know the state of that weapon, no ifs, no buts.

The armour should have trained him to check the weapon was made safe (~10 mins), lack of professionalism.
Baldwin dismissed the notion weapon safety was his responsibility, cock.
Armourer should have insisted on Baldwin (and whomever else was to handle weapons on the shoot) being taught correct basic firearms handling but handed Baldwin the firearm regardless and still never checked it safe themselves, a very negligent lack of professionalism.

If a weapon is handed over, the person handing over performs a status check AND the person receiving then conducts their own status check. In this case checking that the weapon is made safe.
This is BASIC firearms handling procedure. This most basic firearms procedure would have checked and negated the whole slew of other utterly appalling failures also in the mix.

But hey ho, it's the US of A....thoughts and prayers....thoughts and prayers. But yet again not even a thought because if someone had thought about it, someone would have perform the most basic of checks to ensure a weapon is made safe.


If you wish to argue no actor should be expected to undertake the most basic firearms training if they need to handle firearms on set then you are obliged to use non-functional replicas. Anything else then basic firearms handling training is the BARE MINIMUM expected.

ChrisKen wrote:

It is the responsibility of the person handling a weapon to ensure that they know the state of that weapon, no ifs, no buts.

The armour should have trained him to check the weapon was made safe (~10 mins), lack of professionalism.
Baldwin dismissed the notion weapon safety was his responsibility, cock.
Armourer should have insisted on Baldwin (and whomever else was to handle weapons on the shoot) being taught correct basic firearms handling but handed Baldwin the firearm regardless and still never checked it safe themselves, a very negligent lack of professionalism.

If a weapon is handed over, the person handing over performs a status check AND the person receiving then conducts their own status check. In this case checking that the weapon is made safe.
This is BASIC firearms handling procedure. This most basic firearms procedure would have checked and negated the whole slew of other utterly appalling failures also in the mix.

But hey ho, it's the US of A....thoughts and prayers....thoughts and prayers. But yet again not even a thought because if someone had thought about it, someone would have perform the most basic of checks to ensure a weapon is made safe.


If you wish to argue no actor should be expected to undertake the most basic firearms training if they need to handle firearms on set then you are obliged to use non-functional replicas. Anything else then basic firearms handling training is the BARE MINIMUM expected.

All of that is fine in theory, it's just not the reality of movie and TV sets. The rules are set up to allow for actors who are not facile with weapons to safely use them. Hence the need for armorers who do have those qualifications, skills, and responsibility.

Everyone is trying to apply the rules of firearm ownership to actors, but it's not the same thing at all. Nor has it ever been. Nor is it ever likely to be.

The actor rules do work, when they are followed, as evidenced by the rarity of these accidents. But if they are not followed, the consequences are dire.

Baldwin had a reasonable expectation to know enough to point the gun down after the scene. He should have been provided with that instruction, and I have no doubt he was. Or to give it to someone more knowledgeable than himself to de-cock. But he was not responsible for checking the gun, under the rules of the set. That is the simple truth.

It is the same thing no matter where guns are used. And Baldwin has been using them for years. You've run out of excuses for him. Let the jury decide.

"Alec Baldwin’s “recklessness”, and the failure of his production team to follow basic gun safety procedures on the set of the movie Rust, led to the decision to file a criminal charge against the US actor in the death of a cinematographer.
Mary Carmack-Altwies, the Santa Fe district attorney, said Baldwin, and the movie’s armorer, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, violated “all of the standards that we all have to follow if we have a gun in our hands” in the shooting death of Halyna Hutchins with a prop weapon during a rehearsal in New Mexico in 2021.
Carmack-Altwies said the decision to charge the 64-year-old actor, and Rust’s 25-year-old armorer, with involuntary manslaughter, came after a months-long investigation that focused largely on how a loaded gun came to be in Baldwin’s hands, in an interview with NBC News. “It was people acting recklessly, people not doing their jobs, people not following safety protocols, not following safety standards,” she said.
“Because of that, I would say this is not just an accident, this is a criminal accident. Prison is not necessarily the goal. What I want is justice for Halyna Hutchins, and I want people to take responsibility and take accountability for what their actions or inactions led to, and that’s Halyna Hutchins’ death.” Special prosecutor Andrea Reeb, also interviewed by NBC, dismissed Baldwin’s insistence that the gun went off when he pulled back its hammer, and that he had not pulled the trigger, intentionally or otherwise."

SEAorPWM wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

SEAorPWM wrote:

Six? The closest thing I had at 6 was a Super Nintendo.

Poor soul. We didn’t have video games back then.

I was referring to the fact my parents would have never let me near a gun at 6, and I can't say I'd want my 6 year old near them either. 12 seems like a good age to start training.

My parents were with me! It was a supervised range. I was shooting clay targets in the scout camps st 11, probably. To be fair, hunting was out until the teens.

ChrisKen wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

ChrisKen wrote:

As a bare minimum both should have checked the weapons status (either of them doing so would have stopped the swiss cheese of the rest of the negligence). They're both culpable and should be charged accordingly.

Baldwin had no obligation to check the gun, nor would he be qualified to do so.

It is the responsibility of the person handling a weapon to ensure that they know the state of that weapon, no ifs, no buts.

Again, why is Baldwin being treated different from Joe Nobody in middle America who didn't know the gun was loaded and gets a slap on the wrist?

seb146 wrote:

Again, why is Baldwin being treated different from Joe Nobody in middle America who didn't know the gun was loaded and gets a slap on the wrist?

I suspect it's partially because he went on national TV and said he didn't pull the trigger. That didn't sit well with the DA, who saw it as evading responsibility. She's said the goal is not prison, but for the people involved to take responsibility.

He was bending the truth there, whether intentionally or because he's coping with guilt. Being charitable, he was making the point that he didn't intentionally point the gun at people and pull the trigger, which is true. But he did pull the trigger, as a necessary step in the act of safing the gun.

It would have been much better for him if he just explained truthfully what happened. Accidental discharges during de-cocking are common and a known risk, with that gun. It had already happened once on the set, with a duplicate gun.

I think that would have been more acceptable and understandable to most people. But it does also involve admitting culpability and responsibility.

seb146 wrote:

ChrisKen wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

Baldwin had no obligation to check the gun, nor would he be qualified to do so.

It is the responsibility of the person handling a weapon to ensure that they know the state of that weapon, no ifs, no buts.

Again, why is Baldwin being treated different from Joe Nobody in middle America who didn't know the gun was loaded and gets a slap on the wrist?

He isn't as far as I and the rest of the sane world is concerned. The person handling the weapon is responsible for knowing the state of said weapon. The fact the US may not reflect this just shows how warped your gun laws & culture are.

Whataboutism isn't working for the Alec fans either....

seb146 wrote:

Again, why is Baldwin being treated different from Joe Nobody in middle America who didn't know the gun was loaded and gets a slap on the wrist?

Those Joe Nobodys aren't on a movie set where full time people get paid to manage the firearms and ammo.

NIKV69 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Again, why is Baldwin being treated different from Joe Nobody in middle America who didn't know the gun was loaded and gets a slap on the wrist?

Those Joe Nobodys aren't on a movie set where full time people get paid to manage the firearms and ammo.

I wouldn’t bet Joe Nobody is getting his wrist slapped, either. Certainly, lots of Joe Nobodys in cities are getting away with felonies by lax DAs who think arresting criminals is poor form. Look at BATF arrest and conviction records.

seb146 wrote:

Again, why is Baldwin being treated different from Joe Nobody in middle America who didn't know the gun was loaded and gets a slap on the wrist?

Interesting. Can you identify a few of these Joe Nobody's?

I did a quick search and found these random cases where Joe Nobody didn't know the gun was loaded:

Missouri man "slapped on the wrist" with involuntary manslaughter: https://www.komu.com/news/midmissourine ... 90ec5.html

Ohio man "slapped on the wrist" with involuntary manslaughter: https://people.com/crime/cleveland-man- ... book-live/

Alaska man "slapped on the wrist" with second degree murder: https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/crime-c ... opers-say/

To clarify, the typical legal standard for pressing charges in accidental shooting deaths, is reckless disregard for human life.

This is why the DA explicitly stated the Rust shooting was reckless. It's somewhat similar to depraved indifference, and has a higher bar than just negligence, which is a factor in all accidental shootings.

As applied, the standard would be, was there a reasonable expectation that the person's action would result in injury or death. Under New Mexico law this is called "due caution and circumspection".

That is what the jury will have to decide. The DA also gave them the option to consider negligence alone, which is a sign that she was not confident of meeting the burden for reckless disregard. That is the part of this that's unusual, that she gave them this second option.

My own view is that these standards have different outcomes for Baldwin and the armorer. It seems clear that Baldwin did not have an expectation of injury in de-cocking the gun, which he believed was cold. However he was still negligent by the manner in which he did so.

For the armorer, I think there was a reasonable expectation that the possibility of a live round would result in injury. So it was incumbent upon her to be absolutely sure that the rounds were dummies, using multiple methods of verification. Any round that could not be verified absolutely, should have been discarded and not loaded. So her actions could be considered both negligent and reckless.

However there are mitigating factors for both of them. Baldwin was a producer and so has some separate responsibility for conditions on the set. The question there will be how much he was involved in the set management.

The armorer had complained multiple times to the producers that she was not allowed sufficient time to do her job adequately. The question there will be the extent to which her failure to detect the live round was caused by those factors.

Then the wildcard, which all 3 sides may use, is that it's still not known how the live rounds got into the box of dummy ammunition. Were they partially marked as dummies? Or as blanks? And why were multiple types of rounds in the same box? There were more than 6 live rounds total, which is more than just a simple unload of the gun into the wrong box.

[url][/url]The jury will decide. And, perhaps, for the first time in his life, Alec Baldwin will have to take responsibility. It's a shame that will have to be for killing someone.

I feel very bad for her and her family. Unlike the Alec defenders. Who would rather whine about Joe blow, whataboutism and other useless ka-ka.

For f's sake already. Have you no shame? She's dead because he f'd up, went cheap, did stupid and treated his employees like sh*t. And you morons want to absolve him of any and all blame- for a death- because you adore his politics?

Beyond sickening and hyper hypocritical. I abhor anyone who defends this animal.

Manslaughter charge for Alec Baldwin in ‘Rust’ set shooting

SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) — Actor Alec Baldwin and a weapons specialist have been formally charged with involuntary manslaughter in the fatal shooting of a cinematographer on a New Mexico movie set, according to court documents filed by prosecutors Tuesday.

Santa Fe District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altwies filed the charging documents naming Baldwin and Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, who supervised weapons on the set of the Western “Rust,” and outlined evidence that they deviated repeatedly from known safety standards.

https://apnews.com/article/alec-baldwin ... 3fdbbd9f68

The Ukrainian parents and sister of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins filed a lawsuit on Thursday against Alec Baldwin and the producers of “Rust” in connection with her death in October 2021.

Attorney Gloria Allred announced the lawsuit at a press conference at her office on Thursday morning.

https://variety.com/2023/film/news/haly ... 235518222/

cairns wrote:

[url][/url]The jury will decide. And, perhaps, for the first time in his life, Alec Baldwin will have to take responsibility. It's a shame that will have to be for killing someone.

I feel very bad for her and her family. Unlike the Alec defenders. Who would rather whine about Joe blow, whataboutism and other useless ka-ka.

For f's sake already. Have you no shame? She's dead because he f'd up, went cheap, did stupid and treated his employees like sh*t. And you morons want to absolve him of any and all blame- for a death- because you adore his politics?

Beyond sickening and hyper hypocritical. I abhor anyone who defends this animal.

I had some friends who were seriously in doubt that Baldwin was culpable, but once the investigation was complete and charges are now against him backed up by other examples of production negligence, they are not 'defending' him. In our crazy modern discourse, even not being totally convinced of something now equates to 'defense', btw. But I digress, I simply do not know/see many 'Alec defenders' - where are these people, other than Hollywood fanboy shills on Twitter?

Aaron747 wrote:

cairns wrote:

[url][/url]The jury will decide. And, perhaps, for the first time in his life, Alec Baldwin will have to take responsibility. It's a shame that will have to be for killing someone.

I feel very bad for her and her family. Unlike the Alec defenders. Who would rather whine about Joe blow, whataboutism and other useless ka-ka.

For f's sake already. Have you no shame? She's dead because he f'd up, went cheap, did stupid and treated his employees like sh*t. And you morons want to absolve him of any and all blame- for a death- because you adore his politics?

Beyond sickening and hyper hypocritical. I abhor anyone who defends this animal.

I had some friends who were seriously in doubt that Baldwin was culpable, but once the investigation was complete and charges are now against him backed up by other examples of production negligence, they are not 'defending' him. In our crazy modern discourse, even not being totally convinced of something now equates to 'defense', btw. But I digress, I simply do not know/see many 'Alec defenders' - where are these people, other than Hollywood fanboy shills on Twitter?

This whole thing has spun out of control. Hannah Gutierrez lives in my area and the media followed her to the local Safeway where I shop. She was in disguise but they found her anyway and followed her to her car. I hear she is blaming the director now for rushing and not allowing her time to check gun. What a terrible situation all around.

This is simply unbelievable

The shooting was a tragic accident, looks like charges against Baldwin are politically motivated

They should be dropped and everyone should move on

If they adore his politics the charges are "politically motivated". If they hated his politics they'd be screaming for his head. It doesn't matter if someone died, it's all about their politics.

Hypocrisy is so obvious.

BTW "negligent gun operation" is frequently another term for manslaughter. Hoisted by his own petard so to speak.

I don't think the charges are politically motivated, but I think the prosecutor is acutely aware of the publicity surrounding this case.

I also think she is looking for an admission of responsibility, more than criminal punishment or prison time, which I think are unlikely in this case.

Both Baldwin and Gutierrez have pointed elsewhere to assign blame. Both could likely plea to a misdeamenor, as Halls did, if they admit responsibility.

Thus it's somewhat a game of brinkmanship, for both sides.

johns624 wrote:

cairns wrote:

BTW "negligent gun operation" is frequently another term for manslaughter. Hoisted by his own petard so to speak.

I used that word intentionally. It wasn't an "accident", it was "negligent". An example of an accident is if the gun slipped out of your hand and fired when it hit the ground. When you intentionally point a gun at someone, with your finger pulling the trigger, bad things happen.

Understood and agreed......thanks.

johns624 wrote:

Max Q wrote:

This is simply unbelievable

The shooting was a tragic accident, looks like charges against Baldwin are politically motivated

They should be dropped and everyone should move on

A person died because of negligent gun operation and you think the charges are politically motivated? If he wasn't Alec Baldwin, charges would've been laid a long time ago.

Absolutely, your own obvious political bias highlights the reason charges have been filed


The right dislikes Alec Baldwin intensely and this is a perfect excuse to get back at him

Using a tragic accident for revenge, this was a tragic accident, simple as that, actors have been pointing guns at each other on movie sets for decades, he was told it was safe, no reason to believe it wasn’t and especially that a live round, not a blank was loaded


It’s completely ridiculous to blame him, the real question is how a live round was in that gun to begin with, why isn’t that being investigated ?

Max Q wrote:

... he was told it was safe, no reason to believe it wasn’t and especially that a live round, not a blank was loaded

Just to clarify, dummy rounds were supposed to be loaded, but at least one live round was mixed in.

The culpability Baldwin has, is first that he should reasonably have asked for a demonstration from the armorer, that the gun was incapable of firing. And second that after the scene rehearsal had ended, he should reasonably have known to point the gun down while de-cocking. His training and familiarity with a single action revolver will be a key issue at trial.

Then there is a third issue with his role as producer, which will also be a key issue at trial, as to whether he was involved in decisions regarding safety or the duties of the armorer.

I personally doubt that he will be convicted since the coroner determined it was an accidental death, and there is no precedent for charges under those circumstances. But we'll have to see.

It’s completely ridiculous to blame him, the real question is how a live round was in that gun to begin with, why isn’t that being investigated ?

The sheriff was unable to determine the source of the live round, or how it got onto the set, or into the box of ammunition. That box contained a mixture of dummy, blank, and live rounds. Gutierrez obstensiby loaded the gun, but did not detect the live round at that time. She said she pulled some rounds from her pocket, and some from the box.

Thus her culpability is greater than Baldwin's. Her testimony is that she is not certain how the live round got into the gun. She has alleged the arms supplier improperly mixed and mismarked rounds delivered to the set, in the ammunition box.

I personally think her case will come down to the jury, and how they perceive interference with her armorer duties on the set. If she wasn't allowed the time to do things properly, that will weigh in her favor. But again we'll have to see.

Seems like the person who loaded the gun and didn’t notice a live round was substituted has far more responsibility than Baldwin


It’s quite unbelievable the sheriff can’t determine why a live round was even accessible to be loaded and has given up on determining its origin, I mean, this is a big deal, sounds like a set up


In typical law enforcement spiteful reaction as they can’t determine this most important detail and the real cause of the tragedy they find someone else to blame, namely Alec Baldwin who right leaning sheriff departments have nothing but antipathy for

Max Q wrote:

Seems like the person who loaded the gun and didn’t notice a live round was substituted has far more responsibility than Baldwin


It’s quite unbelievable the sheriff can’t determine why a live round was even accessible to be loaded and has given up on determining its origin, I mean, this is a big deal, sounds like a set up


In typical law enforcement spiteful reaction as they can’t determine this most important detail and the real cause of the tragedy they find someone else to blame, namely Alec Baldwin who right leaning sheriff departments have nothing but antipathy for

Ultimately though, production officials signing off on budget and staffing are responsible for ensuring on-set safety is shipshape. The insurance people meet with the producers, not low level staff like grips and armorers.

Max Q wrote:

Seems like the person who loaded the gun and didn’t notice a live round was substituted has far more responsibility than Baldwin

Yes, I mentioned that, and legal experts agree that her case is less defensible than Baldwin's.

It’s quite unbelievable the sheriff can’t determine why a live round was even accessible to be loaded and has given up on determining its origin, I mean, this is a big deal, sounds like a set up

I would say they have multiple stories but no way to establish which might be true. No one has been willing to acknowledge any verifiable method for the live rounds to be there. Gutierrez says there were none to her knowledge, and that either someone planted them, or they were supplied by the arms vendor.

Her father who is also a well-known armorer, claims the arms vendor mixed up live rounds that belonged to him, that the vendor had borrowed and was supposed to return to him. He thinks the vendor returned them to his daughter instead, without informing her.

The arms vendor claims he provided no live rounds to Gutierrez, that they were all clearly marked as either blanks or dummies, so someone added the live rounds to the box after it was in her possession.

Gutierrez and the prop master have admitted that while they kept the guns locked up in a safe, they did not lock up the ammunition box. So literally anyone on the set could have put the live rounds in the box. Also Gutierrez admitted she carried some rounds around with her during that day, in her pockets.

The bottom line is that Gutierrez loaded the gun, then opened and spun the cylinder for Hall, before putting it on a table and leaving to perform other duties. This is what prompted Hall to announce "cold gun" to the crew and Baldwin. Hall admitted he did not see or check every round, and Gutierrez said she didn't check that closely since she thought she only had dummy rounds.

The rounds are supposed to be marked as dummies, and furthermore they are supposed to have a BB rattler in the powder casing, and an inoperable firing pin. Therefore there should be confirmable visual and audible indications that they are dummies. Apart from that, they look just like live rounds, which is the idea on camera.

Aaron747 wrote:

cairns wrote:

[url][/url]The jury will decide. And, perhaps, for the first time in his life, Alec Baldwin will have to take responsibility. It's a shame that will have to be for killing someone.

I feel very bad for her and her family. Unlike the Alec defenders. Who would rather whine about Joe blow, whataboutism and other useless ka-ka.

For f's sake already. Have you no shame? She's dead because he f'd up, went cheap, did stupid and treated his employees like sh*t. And you morons want to absolve him of any and all blame- for a death- because you adore his politics?

Beyond sickening and hyper hypocritical. I abhor anyone who defends this animal.

I had some friends who were seriously in doubt that Baldwin was culpable, but once the investigation was complete and charges are now against him backed up by other examples of production negligence, they are not 'defending' him. In our crazy modern discourse, even not being totally convinced of something now equates to 'defense', btw. But I digress, I simply do not know/see many 'Alec defenders' - where are these people, other than Hollywood fanboy shills on Twitter?

You don't know where they are? Have you even read this thread? Those stating the case should be dropped, defending Alec by stating Joe Blow would never be charged and calling this a "tragic accident" and that everyone should move on, get over or just ignore the death of Ms. Hutchins are here aplenty. Try reading.

Just to clarify, this shooting was declared an accidental death by the coroner, and Hutchins' husband has agreed with that assessment. So it's not just crazies who have that view.

Also, there has been only one instance of a criminal charge for a movie set accidental death, and that was the director in the "Midnight Rider" train accident. In that case, the director had been refused permission to film on the trestle, but obtained a train schedule and was trying to do the take between trains, when an unscheduled train crossed the trestle. He was also charged with criminal trespass.

Thus the charge against Baldwin is highly unusual, if not unprecedented. But if it were solely politically motivated, Gutierrez and Halls would not also have been charged, so that claim is also not valid.

As mentioned earlier, the prosecutor has stated publicly that her goal is not necessarily prison time, but acceptance of responsibility. Halls admitted fault and plead to a misdeamenor charge of firearms handling. That option is probably open to the others as well.

Baldwin is going to defend rather than plead, and legal experts say he has a defensible case. Gutierrez may do the same, but her case is less strong.

The two are intertwined because each will try to assign fault to the other. Baldwin will say he did not handle the ammunition and trusted the armorer. Gutierrez will say she wasn't allowed to do her job properly, for which Baldwin as producer is partly responsible. And also that he was distracted and inattentive during his firearm training, and skipped at least one session with her.

The jury will have to sort all this out. Obviously there are a lot of factors involved, it's not a simple case.

Avatar2go wrote:

Just to clarify, this shooting was declared an accidental death by the coroner, and Hutchins' husband has agreed with that assessment. So it's not just crazies who have that view.

Also, there has been only one instance of a criminal charge for a movie set accidental death, and that was the director in the "Midnight Rider" train accident. In that case, the director had been refused permission to film on the trestle, but obtained a train schedule and was trying to do the take between trains, when an unscheduled train crossed the trestle. He was also charged with criminal trespass.

Thus the charge against Baldwin is highly unusual, if not unprecedented. But if it were solely politically motivated, Gutierrez and Halls would not also have been charged, so that claim is also not valid.

As mentioned earlier, the prosecutor has stated publicly that her goal is not necessarily prison time, but acceptance of responsibility. Halls admitted fault and plead to a misdeamenor charge of firearms handling. That option is probably open to the others as well.

Baldwin is going to defend rather than plead, and legal experts say he has a defensible case. Gutierrez may do the same, but her case is less strong.

The two are intertwined because each will try to assign fault to the other. Baldwin will say he did not handle the ammunition and trusted the armorer. Gutierrez will say she wasn't allowed to do her job properly, for which Baldwin as producer is partly responsible. And also that he was distracted and inattentive during his firearm training, and skipped at least one session with her.

The jury will have to sort all this out. Obviously there are a lot of factors involved, it's not a simple case.

Very well said. The jury will decide......I suspect he'll get off with a slapped wrist but we'll see.

cairns wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

cairns wrote:

[url][/url]The jury will decide. And, perhaps, for the first time in his life, Alec Baldwin will have to take responsibility. It's a shame that will have to be for killing someone.

I feel very bad for her and her family. Unlike the Alec defenders. Who would rather whine about Joe blow, whataboutism and other useless ka-ka.

For f's sake already. Have you no shame? She's dead because he f'd up, went cheap, did stupid and treated his employees like sh*t. And you morons want to absolve him of any and all blame- for a death- because you adore his politics?

Beyond sickening and hyper hypocritical. I abhor anyone who defends this animal.

I had some friends who were seriously in doubt that Baldwin was culpable, but once the investigation was complete and charges are now against him backed up by other examples of production negligence, they are not 'defending' him. In our crazy modern discourse, even not being totally convinced of something now equates to 'defense', btw. But I digress, I simply do not know/see many 'Alec defenders' - where are these people, other than Hollywood fanboy shills on Twitter?

You don't know where they are? Have you even read this thread? Those stating the case should be dropped, defending Alec by stating Joe Blow would never be charged and calling this a "tragic accident" and that everyone should move on, get over or just ignore the death of Ms. Hutchins are here aplenty. Try reading.

Yes yes, rah rah rah. But as I said, those comments were largely before charges were levied officially. Much less so now. Try reading...or something.

Some people can admit it when they're wrong....some people can't. Kind of like Alec.

cairns wrote:

Some people can admit it when they're wrong....some people can't. Kind of like Alec.

I'll take 'self-ownage for $500, Alex'...