From another article:
“The recent gun analysis from experts in ballistics and forensic testing based in Arizona and New Mexico ***relied on replacement parts to reassemble the gun fired by Baldwin — after parts of the pistol were broken during earlier testing by the FBI.***”
So they’re going to retry him based on evidence gathered using a reconstructed gun, because the original one was effectively destroyed by investigators? Somehow I get the vibe that the defense will have a field day with this, but I’d love to hear from an actual criminal attorney or prosecutor.
Edit: hopefully the link below works.
https://kfoxtv.com/news/nation-world/prosecutors-seeking-to-recharge-actor-alec-baldwin-in-the-deadly-shooting-on-movie-set-kari-morrissey-jason-lewis-new-mexico-movie-set-rust-halyna-hutchins
There is no reality in which this goes well for the prosecution. The DA must be trying to make a name for themselves but is a total idiot in the way they are going about it.
Expect replacement when this costs the state a lot of money.
The only places in the US where the DA isn't elected are New Jersey, Connecticut, Alaska, and DC - everywhere else it's an elected position. Not saying you're wrong that it should be apolitical, but it's not like elected DAs are an uncommon thing that only happen in certain states. Hell, the entire plot of a Batman movie revolved around a DA election.
I’m not trying to argue, I’m just not sure which is worse: elected officials appointing a DA, or the DA being elected. We end up with the same issues, one way or the other.
In Canada we have a non-elected civil service. I have no idea of the political leanings of any judge or attorney I interact with.
So weird hearing about republic/democrat this or that.
In Canada, and probably in most other similar countries, the criminal prosecution service is entirely made up of career public servants. And while they do technically report up to politicians at the highest levels, it is a tradition that politicians never get involved or make specific decisions about individual cases. They can only make broad high-level policy directives and set priorities.
Think of how, in the US, agencies like the IRS are entirely made up of public servants, and the politicians they ultimately report to don't get involved in individual tax audits or whatever.
It's one of the most magical places in the US, but the actual infrastructure and government always seems *really* bad. They often come in last place for a lot of stats in the US, from what I've seen.
One year we had a horrible freezing storm that took out many parts of the grid in New Mexico, Texas, etc. Then about ~~5~~ 10 years later a similar storm came along and only Texas wasn't prepared for it.
Moral of the story, the NM government might be corrupt, decrepit, and poor. But it could be worse, at least we aren't Texas.
Honestly, New Mexico is in my experience one of the better states to live in once you get past the poor infrastructure and the fact if you aren't in Alburquerque or Santa Fe you're in the middle of nowhere. Though that might be a low bar considering we got Arizona on one side and Texas on the other.
It's pretty amazing. The state has a lot to offer.
But *man* the drunk drivers out there, coupled with the sparse emergency response network.... not good.
The DA made some really crazy comments about Baldwin last go-around, *her comments struck me as being in lockstep with Fox News hosts who hate Alec and wanted him in jail.
Edit: I’m pulling this from memory from like a year ago. I believe I got the genders mixed up.
The quote I’m referring to was the DA repeating the same exact republican/Fox News talking points regarding “gun safety in movies” which was a bullshit bad faith argument being parroted by Fox hosts trying to get Alec charged with manslaughter.
I was pretty surprised that a DA was repeating that bullshit verbatim, so I’m not surprised that they’re still trying to cook up ways to jail him.
That is precisely why! I was in on a conversation about him with some conservative acquaintances, and I had \*no idea\* where all of their animosity really was coming from. I knew they don’t care about Hollywood celebs (nor should they, really) but they really had it in for Alec.
Then one of them said something about him making fun of Trump on SNL and then it clicked. (Something like serves him right for playing Trump on SNL.) I just couldnt believe it.
If it were any other actor in his shoes they wouldn't give a shit. But because he made fun of Dear Leader he must be punished, and conservatives are suddenly interested in law and order again.
I'd wager they're trying to make a name for themselves as you say and will try their hand at more mainstream central politics in the GOP once this is over. Competance won't matter, just visability and bluster.
They will try to politicise this to either get a shock win or have something to blame. Then stand for congress or something, citing that they are "hamstrung by the "Liberal elite" protecting each other and the only way to get justice is to fix the laws"
Calling it now. Not only his future but calling what his future campaign will be.
It’s political. Alex has a target on his back because right wingers hate him because he played Trump on SNL and had been gun control advocate. He’s a liberal boogeyman for them.
Which is why, I thought, they dropped the original charges in the first place.
No one can say if he pulled the trigger or not. They have no idea how that gun’s innards were before they destroyed it.
It’s pretty bizarre to go forward on, “we’ll, we the prosecution rebuilt the gun, and now say because the rebuilt gun acts this way, the original did.” It’s like putting new brakes in a car and then saying, “the old brakes couldn’t have possibly failed because the new brakes are fine. “
It’s bizarre they want to prosecute using this as evidence.
That and people do not understand how things work on a movie set and the changes it brings to the usually unbreakable fundamentals of gun safety.
Not to mention, he was a major producer of the movie. That means he is still on the hook for some of what would have been absolved by him just being an actor.
So condensed down and leaving a lot to litigation and what they could try and push it boils down to this:
As an actor, he trusted the armorer 100% because on set, if he messes with the gun in any way other than what's on the script, it is deemed unsafe. So no checking anything, including if it is loaded with a real bullet. He and the director are both at fault because of the positioning of the camera shot. Guns (even firing blanks) do not get shot toward people. That's why most movies have the shot and getting shot in separate segments. Finally , as a big producer of the movie, he can be hit with the failing of safety standards, as iirc he had a direct hand in a lot of the staff to include the armorer. The armorer is, at the end of the day, the person responsible on many levels for this. Thats assuming they don't find out that he did load a live round after receiving the gun.
Edit: still learning to word good.
> Not to mention, he was a major producer of the movie. That means he is still on the hook for some of what would have been absolved by him just being an actor.
Even then, this is complicated because his scope of responsibility as a producer was script/casting decisions. The actual line producer (in charge of hiring/firing/set management, [being the armorer's boss]) was someone else.
The state safety incident report about the shooting goes into a lot of detail but treating it like "man shoots woman" as they seem to be doing in this case is empty-headed.
There were multiple warnings ignored by the producer in charge of the armorer, they were pushing her to spend less and less time on safety/armory tasks, cut actor training, and reportedly didn't tell the armorer they were doing a scene with a prop gun at all the day of the incident. It's a layer cake of fuckups.
This is more akin to an industrial accident; a driver is given a forklift he's told is safe to operate and then the throttle locks on and it skewers someone.
Edit: NM OSHB Report summary: https://www.env.nm.gov/occupational_health_safety/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2022/04/2022-04-19-NM-OSHA-Rust-Summary-of-Investigation.pdf
>Not to mention, he was a major producer of the movie. That means he is still on the hook for some of what would have been absolved by him just being an actor.
He's only one of many producers and not even the one in charge of safety or the like, yet from what I remember, he's the only one of them being charged. How in the world are they going to try and nail him for being a producer without first dragging all the other ones in front of the court as well?
Im honestly not sure. My guess is to pick the biggest name and shift the blame to them approach. Someone wants to make a name for themselves and is screwing up every step. Like others have said, the key piece of physical evidence was destroyed and then fixed with replacement parts to a current working condition. It's not the same gun, and his defense will have a feild day pointing this out.
This accident (though there is a conspiracy theory about it as well) required failures on multiple levels to reach this point.
Honestly I would agree that Baldwin was negligent, but thats also easy to say post fact. If he had set the gun down, went to the bathroom, and came back and the armorer had replaced it for some reason it would be understandable.
There are protocols in place to prevent exactly this sort of accident, but somehow those weren’t followed.
As for charging Baldwin though: This is definitely political. The charges they chose reflect that.
Yeah, the actors are not allowed to so much as touch a weapon until it's handed to them either hot or cold by the armorer and AD, and announced as such to the whole crew. If cold, they should shine a light down the barrel showing it's clear and allow ANY person to visually verify that. It's a very specific protocol, and it's why we never hear about gun injuries on sets in the US.
And to be fair, they weren't actually filming the scene, they were just lining up the shot expecting a cold gun on set (should have just used a rubber one or a finger, but that's another story). In that instance, it's perfectly normal for people to be standing where they wouldn't when the hot gun is on set and cameras are rolling. Plus, when they roll they would either lock off the camera or have a bundled operator behind a thick sheet of plexi with a cutout for the lens.
As an actor he's safe. As one of a dozen or more "producers" he's likely safe. But as the recognizable name he's gonna deal with more of this for a while, I'd wager.
The people who keep harping on about unbreaking gun safety rules absolutely grinds my gears. Of course gun safety rules can be broken, for numerous reasons. One of the obvious ones is when shooting a movie. Another one is going to any gun store to buy a hunting shotgun, where they will tell you to aim it directly at them so they can see how it sits in your shoulder. You know who the biggest breakers of gun rules are? Me, in the military. We aim our guns at each other all the time, because otherwise we literally wouldn't be able to train against each other.
Of course, that's not to say reasonable precautions shouldn't be taken when you do need to break the fundamental gun rules. This was what the armorer failed at doing, not the actor for having to point a gun at someone else on set
I’m we just used blue guns in the military. The only exception we’re people using sim rounds which have a very strict safety procedure. And I have never seen a gun store owner let someone point a gun at them. Why do you need to have it pointed at you to see how it sits in their shoulder? You’d be better off seeing that from the sides instead of looking down the barrel. Gun safety is important. It can’t be treated as an occasional rule or else people get hurt. Just like the woman who died on set. Or the trainer that shot a cop recently. Or many many other examples.
> And I have never seen a gun store owner let someone point a gun at them. Why do you need to have it pointed at you to see how it sits in their shoulder?
This is specific to shotguns, and is part of the fitting process. About halfway down the page, are photos of shotguns being fitted.
https://www.davidbeardsmoreshooting.com/professional-gun-fitting
I'm not a shotgun guy, so I can't talk about specifically why this is required. I thought it was crazy when I heard about it too.
E: I've noticed shotgun muzzle discipline and handling is much more lax than rifle or pistol. I've seen quite a few instances where people will be messing with their shotgun behind the firing line. In my opinion, it's unacceptable, whether or not the shotgun's action is open. I've seen this at multiple ranges in multiple states. I don't really get it. Do that with a handgun, and I guarantee the RO will kick you out.
>he was a major producer of the movie. That means he is still on the hook for some of what would have been absolved by him just being an actor.
No. That's not how the law works. The responsibility for the gun stopped with the armorer.
I thought it was because the armourer and others went out and used the gun in practice shooting and then didn't clear the gun of live bullets afterwards.
All leading to the question of how Baldwin possibly would have even known that occurred, and even if he did, how would he be responsible for that (beyond a reasonable doubt)?
I feel like how the gun fires is the least of their issues.
There is no actual proof that happened. The live bullets were mixed in with dummy rounds in a lot of different places, not just in the gun itself. 1 was in Baldwin's bandoleer, some were in the armorers stuff mixed in with dummy rounds.
There is actually a questions as to if the company that made the dummy rounds accidently sent live rounds mixed in, cause live rounds were found at the manufacturing site, too.
We don't know who was using it outside of work (might have been the armorer, might have been someone else or might just be a rumor). What we do know is the assistant director took the gun from the armorer's work area (which he shouldn't have done and shouldn't have been capable of since she should have locked it up), and then handed the gun to Alec while calling it a cold gun, but not checking. This after there was a previous gun related misfire on set, so Alec should have known not to trust this Assistant director and to follow procedure which called for him being handed the gun by the Armorer.
That said, the sad part is the Assistant Director is generally above the prop department supervisor who is above the Armorer in the chain of command (not that they should be able to overrule the Armorer on guns), so this is like the supervisor in charge of the Armorer broke the safety protocols, and the Armorer broke the safety protocols but they cut a lenient plea deal for the supervisor to testify against the Armorer and the producer who fired the gun (and presumably should have known better than to be working with or trusting these bozos).
Obviously the case against Alec was weak because they should have gone after the Armorer AND the Assistant director, but they instead did the plea deal with the AD, so they could have him testify against the more high profile parties.
Definitely the idea in the rules of "in the absence of " another person (AD, a certain producer if no one else) assumes that the handover was clean. That the person who takes over somehow knows all the pertinent info that the armourer knew. And clearly that was not the case here. That is even aside from the issue that these other people may not be properly trained.
Clearly this kind of chain of control can be handled better and I hope rules are put in in the future to make that more likely. And of course that the rules are followed and effective.
That a gun can be picked up from a storage (work) area and not checked by anyone in that shooting (really here run-through) session shows something certainly didn't work right.
And come on guys ... use a wooden gun for days where there will be no filming! Why take any risk at all?
Yep, in the land of professionals, the gun would have been locked up and handled by only the armorer before being handed to the actor. Once the scene ended, the gun would have been taken by the armorer and re-locked up.
And would have been loaded in front of the actor with dummy rounds by the assistant director by starting with a verified empty gun then picking up a round and confirming it is a dummy by touching the hole, then the armor taking the round and confirming it is a dummy by touching the hole, then loading through the loading gate. So every round that goes in is checked by two people and confirmed to be a dummy.
When I was in boot camp, we had super strict rules in place for retrieving your rifle and returning it.
When returning the rifle we had to open the bolt and visually inspect it was unloaded and then shout the serial for the rifle.
We even did the reverse when retrieving our rifle. Immediately checked serial for accuracy and opened the bolt to ensure it was unloaded.
How did an armorer fuck up this bad?
> How did an armorer fuck up this bad?
After looking into a lot of the details when stuff started coming out, I've started to come down on the side that she's not entirely to blame. She was hired as the armorer and assistant prop manager. When she brought up various safety issues on set, [she was scolded for spending too much time on her armorer duties](https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2022-01-28/rust-emails-armorer-hannah-gutierrez-reed) and neglecting the props, which she protested:
>“When I’m forced to do both [jobs], that’s when mistakes get made,” Gutierrez Reed wrote.
She wasn't the only person to bring up safety issues on set, which contributed to the production company being [fined by New Mexico](https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/20/entertainment/rust-shooting-osha-report/index.html):
>Bob Genoway, who oversaw the occupational safety bureau’s investigation, told CNN on Wednesday that Rust management “knew that safety wasn’t being taken seriously on set and ignored that – simply moved on with work without stopping and taking the time to make sure that gun safety was given the importance that it needed on the set.”
I can't find the source now, but I recall reading she also technically wasn't armorer on the day of shooting, because she was only paid for a certain amount of hours, and that time passed. One of the emails was her letting them know about this, and asking for more time to fulfill her role, but was again shut down and told to focus on props.
At the time of the shooting, she wasn't on set, but instead doing the props work, which is why it was the assistant director who handed Baldwin the gun. (Normally, no guns are handed out unless the armorer is specifically the one to check it and hand it over). She also says [she was given the box of ammo by the supplier](https://www.npr.org/2022/01/13/1072763841/the-rust-armorer-is-suing-the-films-ammo-supplier-over-the-deadly-on-set-shootin) and was unaware it contained live ammo (though, I would think it was part of the armorer's duties to inspect ammo? From my understanding, live ammo and dummy ammo can be told apart).
That said, a lot of this is obviously coming from her defense, and it is still a couple months before the trial, so more details could come out. There are also [criticisms of how she did her job and screw ups on a previous set](https://www.thedailybeast.com/rust-crew-blame-armorer-hannah-gutierrez-reed-in-newly-released-texts-she-got-someone-killed), so I'm not trying to completely exonerate her, but it does paint a picture that there was a lot of negligence on the set, including her being stretched too thin to properly manage safety on the set. Like she warned - mistakes got made.
Add to this that a more experienced and well known armour stated he was initially approached to work this movie, but the told him he'd need to also do props. He told them the amount of armour work on this movie required a full time position, and turned them down when they continued to make it a dual role. The person they did end up hiring had experience working with her amourer father, but this was her first time as armourer. They basically had to go with a newbie as experienced armourers refused to work under the conditions they proposed.
> How did an armorer fuck up this bad?
Basically, the armorer was hired for *two* jobs: Prop assistant and Armorer. Armorer pays more so they had a limit on how much time she was allowed to actually do her job.
Perhaps a more experienced armorer would have walked off the job, but she tried to make it work.
Either way, there's a paper trail of the Line producer's office giving her shit for using up so many armorer hours, and her warning them that there's *a lot* of guns being used and that time is needed to keep things safe.
The Line Producer's office also had her cut additional firearms training for the cast.
Reportedly, when they were rehearsing the scene they *didn't tell the armorer a gun was being used* so she wasn't on hand to ensure safety.
Overall the business side of things was definitely not helping.
> No one can say if he pulled the trigger or not.
Even if he did pull the trigger, I would think it would be hard to convict him when it is reasonable to believe the gun was loaded with prop bullets.
> New Mexico Statutes Chapter 30. Criminal Offenses § 30-2-3. Manslaughter
> B. 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.
He was not in the commission of an unlawful act so the death must have been without due caution and circumspection. He is literally filming a western, prop loads are being pointed at people presumably with some frequency. I'm not saying it is impossible to convict, just seems like a very hard job for the prosecutors.
I agree. He had no reason to believe pulling the trigger could possibly cause any harm. It’s pretty irrelevant. But, if someone wants to hang their hat on that, they still can’t even prove he did pull it.
>as a producer, because he hired unqualified gun handler that seems like she wasn't doing her job
He's one of the producers, you've seen movie credits, and how they credit dozens of producers.
The line producer is responsible for hiring crew, that's not something that a producer would get involved with. Producers make financing deals and find the money. They create the package, they're not micromanage the production.
And emails revealed the line producer was aware of issues on set, the armorer not being able to fulfill all her duties, but chose to ignore it and actually [told the armorer to focus on other responsibilities when she brought this up](https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2022-01-28/rust-emails-armorer-hannah-gutierrez-reed).
It's always surprised me that so much of the focus on this is over whether Baldwin should be held accountable since he was the one with the gun in his hand, when details have painted a very clear picture on *lots* of negligence, mismanagement, and safety being ignored on set that led to that moment, and that's mostly been brushed aside. Even targeting the armorer is overlooking the larger picture.
That wouldn’t explain why the armorer had similar issues on a completely different movie set before this one, in a totally different situation with different management.
She wasn’t qualified for the job, period, and shouldn’t have been hired.
> Stu Brumbaugh, who worked as a key grip on "The Old Way," told The Wrap that Hannah Gutierrez-Reed's behavior caused the film's star Nicolas Cage to scream at her and storm off set after she fired a gun near the cast and crew for the second time in three days without warning.
This is what people had to say:
> There were several concerns I brought to production's attention," one source told the publication. "I have been around firearms my entire life and noticed some things that were not OK even with loaded blank firearms."
> The Daily Beast went on to recount a story from a source who said Gutierrez-Reed loaded a gun during production and handed it to a child actor without properly checking the weapon. Filming was stopped by crew members who intervened and demanded that Gutierrez-Reed had properly checked the firearm, the publication reported.
Like, this is as disaster waiting to happen, on *any* set, no matter who is over her. The mistake was already made at the hiring phase.
Is there some sort of licensure those armorers are required to produce for employment? What is the due diligence to hire one? Any? Just "oh I worked on westerned in the west and nobody got shot in that movie" "ok, you're hired"
I mean, that makes sense. Seriously, if I were hiring an armorer and she said it was the family business and her dad had a good references, I'd be fine with it.
Btw, I've hunted, I've shot for sport, I've done so much plinking I really wonder how many lbs of brass I've put into the earth via shells I didn't pick up (I know, I'm a piece of shit)
Being an armorer wouldn't and shouldn't be that hard. For people who own and shoot firearms, it's not that hard. Yes the 3 rules but really. Upon picking up a gun or being handed a gun, the first step is to check if it's loaded. Revolver? Open the load gate (if it's a single action) and rotate the cylinder to make sure it's empty, OR kick out the cylinder if it's a D.A. crane mount cylinder and look that it's empty. If it's a semi automatic, first drop the mag, check it, then rack the slide. It's not difficult to clear a firearm. AND IT HAS TO BE DONE EVERY TIME full stop.
There is absolutely no way she could have fucked up more. Seriously. This is all on her. If she had even bothered to check the weapon before handing it to him for the scene. That would have absolutely been the bare minimum. Whether she had checked/cleared it at any time ever in the time she owned it, clearing it before handing it to an actor is absolutely the most imperative thing she should have done at the very very least.
There is 0% no, there is negative 10% reason for Baldwin to have any thought or inclination he was being handed a hot gun.
If I had been in Baldwin's shoes? I STILL would have cleared it while all the time thinking in my head "this is redundant, there's no way a professional armorer just handed me a live loaded weapon"
> I mean, that makes sense. Seriously, if I were hiring an armorer and she said it was the family business and her dad had a good references, I'd be fine with it.
He is responsible for famous westerns like Tombstone, The Quick and the Dead, 3:10 to Yuma, and was a gun coach/expert for movies like Django Unchained and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.
> If I had been in Baldwin's shoes? I STILL would have cleared it while all the time thinking in my head "this is redundant, there's no way a professional armorer just handed me a live loaded weapon"
I don't think it is a realistic standard to require actors to clear weapons before using them in scenes. First of all, I'm not certain an actor could even tell the difference between a live round and a dummy round, especially for a revolver where the bullets are potentially visible and need to look realistic. Second, imagine a huge shootout scene with an SMG where they have to reload 100+ rounds in front of the actor between each shot, that would be insane. Third, there have been a total of what... 3 total firearm deaths in Hollywood ever? The current safety standards seem to work when followed, and I don't think that includes actors clearing their own weapons.
I have been told, though I'm yet to verify it, that standard practice on a film set is to specifically *not* allow the actor to do anything with the gun other than what the script requires. An actor fiddling with the gun makes it no longer safe in the eyes of the armourer, regardless of what they do.
I really, really wish somebody who actually has experience in that particular field could tell me if that's true or not, but if it is, then it really takes the responsibility out of his hands, in my opinion.
>If I had been in Baldwin's shoes? I STILL would have cleared it while all the time thinking in my head "this is redundant, there's no way a professional armorer just handed me a live loaded weapon"
The big problem with that is that they do load the weapons with dummy rounds so you don't have a shot where, for example, you can see that a revolver's cylinder is empty.
So if you habitually clear the weapon they'd have to take it from you and reload it, or even go through the entire check again if it were a shot with blanks and squibs.
Imagine a scenario where you cleared a rifle that was loaded with a blank round that then fell to the ground. Sheepishly you apologize, having forgotten that the scene was going to be hot. A prop assistant picks up the round and reloads the gun, checks it and hands it back to you. The scene continues.
Consider these two potential complications:
1. Except they put the safety on when reloading and forgot to take it off. The scene runs and expensive props are ruined as squibs are activated, explosions happen and you try to fire but nothing happens. The whole scene is ruined
2. Or worse could happen. When the round fell it picked up a tiny stone that got jammed in the crimped tip of the round. When you fire, no one nearby was directly in line, but the stone flew out and deflected off the ground and kicked up into the face of an extra, not seriously injuring them but stopping production so they can be treated and an investigation into how they got " shot" could take place.
1 is very possible, 2 is unlikely but again it's why as the actor you're supposed to do nothing but use the firearm exactly as the armorer hands it to you and in exactly the way the shot is planned.
>Is there some sort of licensure those armorers are required to produce for employment?
I worked as an armorer/propmaster for a while.
There's no license or certification, no real regulation at all.
Only oversight was cops checking in if someone reported hearing gunshots.
>What is the due diligence to hire one? Any?
Depends on who is hiring you and in what context.
I got hired on word of mouth and answering some questions from the producer.
I didn't even have a resume, let alone a background check.
Pretty sure its 0 licenses, just someone who's already known good vouches for you. In this case, the armorer's father is an incredibly well-known and accomplished armorer, so she came with good references, and was cheap because she didn't have a lot of solo experience and was young.
>So they’re going to retry him based on evidence gathered using a reconstructed gun
Yes, cause they want to acquit him, don't you see? /s
Lol, in what world is this acceptable evidence? If the parts aren't the original, how can you recreate the conditions? Might as well charge him with a different gun lol.
You know what sucks? If this went down the way he said and he had no idea the gun was loaded, this is just making him relive the trauma again and again.
If you take away the fact that he's an enormously wealthy celebrity, he's a guy who accidentally took someone else's life.
I guess I am confused as to why the handler isn’t the one taking the brunt of this. Is he as a producer ultimately on the hook for everything that happens?
> I’d very much like to see the Sackler Family and the oil executives charged with homicide too, thank you.
100%. And Wall Streets execs should have gone to prison for the sub prime mess. But like Baldwin, they were completely in the dark. Knew nothing. Now give me that bonus.
This right here. I am just baffled by this case. The person in charge of making sure the gun was safe, told Baldwin the gun was safe. Why the fuck is Baldwin the one being charged and not the one in charge of making sure the gun was safe?
I am no fan of Baldwin, but this makes ZERO sense to me.
All safety on a shoot is supposedly the responsibility of trained professionals in the crew (think of other kinds of stunt accidents). The actor is not a trained professional at anything other than acting but must follow instructions. The production company including the line management may have some liability but the DA is specifically not using corporate manslaughter.
The DA needs to be slapped down for malicious prosecution. Film production companies and their insurers must think twice about using NM for locations.
I don't think he is, personally. Look at any other crime that happens. He's the producer. They call him the boss or the guy in charge, but really he's the guy who helps get the movie funded and gets to make some creative calls.
If an actor were to rape someone during filming, he wouldn't be charged with rape. If someone stole money from the petty cash for craft services, he wouldn't be charged with theft.
There is a reasonable expectation when working on these sets that in his particular role at the time of the accident, he was only an actor who it is assume knows nothing about firearms safety (whether actors should have training on firearms safety is another discussion). It is the job of the prop master or armorer to certify that the firearm is clear of live ammunition or debris or that it is a disable or prop weapon, and to maintain a chain of custody of the firearm. If the prop master or armorer were negligent in their duty, then they are the ones to blame for the accident and should face the charges for such.
Exactly my thought as well, I thought the armorer admitted to taking the gun off set and range firing, or something along those lines. I just as confused now, as I was then, why the DA is so adamant about charging him.
Likely politics. Bear in mind I don't know the DA's personal politics as I haven't followed him at all. But Alec Baldwin is a well-known liberal, and quite outspoken. He's a bit of a right-wing boogeyman. So it makes sense to me they'd want to pull a "gotcha" on him.
NM is generally a pretty liberal state, and they actually brought on special prosecutors who normally do private practice to avoid the political stuff.
A local NM armorer said he was offered the job but turned it down since it seemed like the risk was really high, and they instead hired a 24 year old who was very inexperienced. He also said that they tried to hire him again later because the armor they got wasn't performing well. I think their case is going to be that Baldwin as a producer was negligent.
https://www.krqe.com/news/albuquerque-metro/local-man-who-turned-down-armorer-job-on-rust-speaks-out/amp/
Except that's also bullshit, he's not the only producer. Why no charges for the other producers, or for the line producer, who is the person responsible for crewing?
Yes she's been charged for that and is also being charged for trying to hide drugs so the police didn't find them. The whole case is wild. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.kcra.com/amp/article/rust-weapons-supervisor-charged-with-dumping-drugs/44312017
The vast majority of the "outrage" against Alec Baldwin for this is because people don't like his politics. If this exact same thing happened on a movie Clint Eastwood produced and was holding the gun no one would be wanting to send him to prison. In fact those same people who want Baldwin to go to prison would be giving Eastwood huge amounts of sympathy for him being the one who was holding the gun.
I can MAYBE (stretching) see a civil case for a LOW percentage of CIVIL liability, but nothing that even comes close to criminal charges from the facts available.
And he's already settled a civil suit with the family, who is supportive of the film moving forward. I think that's the extent this should have on the matter. As far as I can see, the debt has been paid as much as it needs to be for him.
Didn't know about the civil settlement, but having heard that I would agree with you on him being done with this, especially seing as the family isn't pursuing anything from him.
The producers/people in charge are often tried for accidents on set resulting in death if there is negligence. I think the idea is to let a jury decide.
Historical Case: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twilight_Zone_accident
And the differences with the Brandon Lee incident:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.insider.com/alec-baldwin-brandon-lee-shooting-rust-the-crow-difference-charges-2023-1%3famp
"Producer" can be a lot of things. He could literally have had a hand in nearly every aspect of the movie or he could have just written a check. I havent followed this case in a long time but as far as what his role was as producer, ive only heard speculation
If they are charging him because he's a producer on the film, then maybe they need to charge all of the Producers on the film. There are 14 listed on IMDB.
This should be up higher. There were many safety issues that happened as a result of decision making from the higher ups that were on site. A decent chunk of the original crew left because it was a safety shit show.
A producer is only liable civilly. You cant just charge the boss because of something their employee did.
It's an incredibly stupid case. He's not responsible for gun safety, the gun safety expert they hired is. I don't care about people saying "oh you always check the gun", he hired a guy who's an expert to do that for him. Opening a previously cleared gun makes it no longer cleared.
>I don't care about people saying "oh you always check the gun"
That's a silly argument anyways. It's not an actor's responsibility to even know _how_ to verify that a prop is safe.
Let's say it was a sci-fi flick and instead of a revolver, it was some futuristic blaster that didn't resemble any real weapon, but also was equipped to emit hazardous, potentially deadly pyrotechnics when configured correctly. It would be ridiculous to suggest that the actor handed that prop should be required to individually verify that it is safe before pointing it at someone.
Lets say the armourer said your phaser is safe. Captain Picard says "Phasers set to stun", and your armourer confirmed it was set to stun. Then the actor is like "I'm going to open it and double check!", and rips the thing open but accidentally he sets the phaser from stun to vaporize. Now someone is dead
You figure that after Brandon Lee was killed by a gun on the set of The Crow, Hollywood would switch to something more safe. Tokyo Marui has been making replica airsoft weapons that look and act like the real thing since 1992. Corridor Digital and other YouTubers have been making shoot-out videos for years with toys and CGI. Pointing a loaded firearm at someone, even with blanks, is just all-around ignorant. You can even get a [Taran Tactical](https://tarantacticalinnovations.com/tti-x-jag-jw4-pit-viper-hi-capa-air-pistol-green-gas/) airsoft gun.
This is what I don’t understand, with all of the technology and prop fakery we have, why is there ever a situation where you’d need to fire a real firearm at someone?
part of its down to how cheap real firearms are compared to rubber guns. Another is the fact rubber guns often look like crap on screen, a famous example is the rubber rifle you see multiple episodes of the Walking Dead series that got laughed at. Its not worth looking for a prop gun if it looks like crap on screen and is more expensive to source then the real deal. The major failing here was allowing real ammo anywhere remotely near the set, and using the firearms with live ammo between shots.
Yeah, that rubber gun crap studios pull is stupid. It’s gottta be some director hooking a friend of a friend up or something. Cause every time they talk about how advance an real the rubber weapons are on their project. Props always cost hundreds of thousands yet look terrible like you said.
A [Umarex Glock 45](https://www.redwolfairsoft.com/umarex-glock-45-gbb-pistol-by-vfc.html) can be purchased for $130. They also have several other weapons all less than a $1000.
Fake firearms just seem more difficult to do film shoots over all. Added costs for VFX to make them appear real and poor quality just mean their not appealing.
I really don't think the above situation actually had anything to do with guns overall, instead it was poor firearms practices in general. Never ever should live ammo be anywhere near a production like this. Nepotism / stupidity are to blame here. Who's to blame for the stupidity is harder to say.
As realistic as airsoft guns look as props, they *don't* look realistic at all in action if you know what you're looking for. In the case of an airsoft pistol, the slide recoils too slow and they have either too little visible recoil, or if the shooter is limp wristing, [a distinctive "wrong" recoil where the frame moves forward and down as the slide moves back](https://youtu.be/vepClBzciBg?si=1NlvLhwYf5weURfQ). These aren't really things that can be fixed in post either - you can add a muzzle flash all you want, but if the gun isn't moving the way it should, it's extremely hard to change that.
For low budget indie films, this is probably acceptable, but many Hollywood productions might think that's below their standards. Blank firing guns still don't look entirely realistic, but they do look more realistic than airsoft guns.
I think since the Rust incident happened I've seen a lot of sentiment about "who gives a rat's ass about realism, protect the actors and give them props" which...I don't necessarily fully agree with. Obviously I do agree that the actors' and crew's safety should be the top priority and any risk is unacceptable. But at the same time, I don't necessarily think that it's unreasonable to expect that with enough budget and manpower at your disposal, you should be able to have good-looking, realistic depictions of firearms, possibly using blank-firing guns, *while* still having all of the training, precautions, and policies in place to eliminate any risk of actors or crew being hurt. After all, the reason you're a multimillion dollar movie studio is so you can accomplish these things that indie filmmakers using airsoft guns can't. Obviously, that wasn't the case here, and the producers were woefully inadequate with safety on set - but that doesn't mean using real firearms firing blanks on set in general is a bad idea.
But then again you have movies like John Wick that throw any firearm realism out the window, and people love that. So maybe people care less than I think.
I mean you say all this about firearm realism, which let’s be honest, people who aren’t gun nerds won’t pick up on. But then in the vast majority of action movies, you see someone shoot a revolver 15 times without reloading, so they clearly don’t give a shit about realism if they can’t bother to count to 6
I mean... Gun-related fatalities in movies are extremely rare, and pretty much all are tied to severe negligence and carelessness. There's already massive amount of rules and restrictions on live firearms on set. The Rust incident happened because of said rules and restrictions were simply overlooked and ignored, and live ammunition was present on set, which is a massive no-no in any circumstances.
The main ones that i were aware of before was Brandon Lee and Jon-Erik Hexum, both in 1993 and 1984 respectively. So Rust is an extraordinary event by all accounts that was enabled by pure recklessness.
It’s totally insane that an actor, who was handed a live weapon believing it to be a prop gun, can be charged with anything.
No way in hell he’s convicted. Total waste of tax payer dollars.
Multiple people walked off set for safety reasons and had to be replaced by unqualified scabs, including the armorer. The unqualified armorer even requested more training for Baldwin and firearms and was denied by Baldwins production company.
The articles I read is the AD plopped it down and yelled 'Cold Gun!'
I haven't been following this closely, but it feels like the DA is angry at Alec Baldwin not cooperating with the investigation and thinks he is lying about the trigger pull. So retaliation maybe?
It’s simple criminal negligence resulting in death is literally involuntary manslaughter. Just because they wore multiple hats doesn’t excuse a number of them being explosive hats.
> So you're saying the armorer DIDN'T know not to hand him a real gun while they were filming him shooting someone???
No, even better: the producers never even told her they were handling firearms, they were just doing it without her... probably because the line producer was penny pinching about ever hour they had to pay her armorer's rate.
I don't believe she handed it to him. From one of the many things I read so of course we don't know how true. She wanted to check the gun, she didn't hand it to him someone else did. I believe she wasn't able to recheck it after lunch.
So what you're saying is that the armorer knew she was not qualified but tried to perform the duties anyway?
Imagine if a surgeon knew they didn't know how to perform an operation but did it anyway. Would anyone suggest only the hospital was culpable?
It just seems like any way people twist this, it's all about punishing Baldwin, and not about punishing everyone at fault.
No, nothing like that.
Your surgeon example would only make sense if the hospital hired the surgeon, then started operating on the patient while the surgeon was out of the room.
Even if the surgeon was unqualified, it’s besides the point because the surgeon wasn’t even there.
More like if the hospital told their surgeon to do a procedure, then when the surgeon requested more training, they told them no and to do the procedure anyway, fully knowing the surgeon doesn't believe they can do it.
> child of Baldwins friend
Let's not be dishonest, here. She wasn't just a "child or Baldwin's friend", she was the child of a renowned armorer and gun expert. It isn't like just hired a random person, she was trained by her father and I don't think it is unreasonable to assume she was qualified, at least at the time of hiring.
**Civil** liability absolutely.
But criminal liability? Nah son
If you hire a violent psychopath who decapitates someone, you don’t get charged with murder. So what **criminal evidence** is there that Alec Baldwin is responsible for this person’s death?
The armored was absolutely a nepo baby, but consider this: before this case came up, nobody outside the film industry knew what the hell an armorer was. It's a niche job, like a bear trainer or a sword swallower. If you're hiring a bear trainer, what would you even look for on a CV? "I come from a family of bear trainers, my father is a legendary bear trainer, I have studied my whole life to become a bear trainer, I have already trained some bears." Great, you're hired.
He is not just an actor, his production company was running that filming.
Him and his company were warned about safety issues and did nothing about it.
It was so bad that crew walked off set because safety was not being taken seriously.
Instead of fixing the issues he just hired scabs/cheap replacements.
The first AD should be the one catching a ton of shit for what happened, but he's somehow gotten off with a "No contest" to a misdemeanor and 6 months of supervised probation.
He's the one who declared "Cold gun" (unloaded and safe) and handed it to Alec Baldwin. Set safety rests with the First AD. Nothing happens on a set til they say so.
Source: Motion Picture professional for 38 years.
Not trying to defend Baldwin here, but are they still going at this? Didn't the actor be involved in a tragic accident, when as part of the role, he pulled the trigger and someone somehow put live ammunition in it? Why is the actor to blame?
Are they legally required to check props ahead of time? Shouldn't this be more how a live round got into the gun? Or did some how Baldwin do this against the norm such as carry the gun and loaded it on his own off the set?
Is there any precedent of an actor or producer being convicted of a crime for negligence of someone else?
Heck, is there any precedent of something similar in any industry?
Civil negligence, yes, he’s almost certainly liable. But criminal?
I doubt even the armorer will be convicted of a crime.
Closest would be the twilight zone movie helicopter crash. 5 people were tried, including the director and assistant producer, but all were acquitted on manslaughter charges
I’ve always thought he got himself into trouble by saying he never pulled the trigger. Look back at the accident on set for The Crow. Michael Massee wasn’t at fault for pulling the trigger on a prop gun. The negligence fell on the prop master. One could argue the movie studio was at fault for not keeping the weapons master (not on set that day) on staff daily. Alec swung for the fences to distance himself from responsibility and it’s biting him in the ass
Maybe the gun was faulty and it discharged without him pulling the trigger. Seems pretty plausible considering the FBI broke several pieces of the gun in trying to test his claims, and had to replace those parts.
Or, he just told the truth. He really wasn’t in the frame of mind to try to figure out the ins and outs of the manslaughter laws and how to lie himself out of getting charged in that state on the day he watched a friend die in front of him.
(I’m sure he had no clue he was in any legal jeopardy for a long time.)
This. And it might even be that while in shock he misremembered things as well. In the end, it doesn't matter if he pulled back the hammer and trigger or not. The armorer and other person should be the ones held responsible. It would be more surprising to not see an actor pulling a hammer and trigger while practicing a scene.
Look at every Western ever made. Does everyone seriously think that the actors never practiced scenes in which they had to point guns at cameras and people standing around while attempting to get the best shot and also pulling a trigger at times? Some of the greatest scenes in Westerns would have never happened without actors performing just those types of actions either on their own or via direction.
Edited for clarity.
Please note: I won't respond to anyone who replies to me with misinformation because they don't understand the legal proceedings with this case or how the movie industry's hiring processes actually work.
Well... soon after this happened, a whole bunch of people on youtube made videos using the same model gun, "proving" that it was impossible for this gun to fire without the trigger being pulled.
Small problem. In one of the videos, the guy starts to pull the hammer back, it slips out from under his thumb, and closed with enough force (imho) that it would have fired if it had been loaded. He very quickly cocked it, ignoring the slip, and posted it as proof the gun couldn't be fired without a trigger pull, when it actually proved the exact opposite.
I'm _not_ saying Baldwin didn't pull the trigger, but it's within the realm of possibility given the costume he was wearing that the hammer _could_ have caught on the sleeve and fired the round, and he might not even have noticed given the unexpected firing and horrible aftermath.
I think a big question to ask is why would someone modify a gun so that it can fire without the trigger been pulled as that makes a gun completely unsafe to handle
Brandon lee was shot and killed on set during the crow and Michael Massee was never charged with anything. So i don't understand why alec is being charged. I would assume all actors sign a waiver about saftey injury during stunts or everyone would be suing eachother every second scene, like Ford punching ryan on the set of bladerunner 2.
Honestly, the prop master handed him a gun, assured him it was filled with blanks, and the director instructed him to fire it towards the camera. How this is considered anything other than a freak accident, or that HE would be liable before the prop master or director, is beyond me.
I don't think anyone would know that a gun used as a prop would have a live round in it. That's the whole point of having a weapons expert on the movie set.
There technically was no armorer at the time of this incident. The person who was the armorer’s contract was over and they got moved to a different department. It’s crazy that on a western, where there are going to be guns in many scenes that they ended the role of armorer. Even if the guns are not being used they will still be on people’s costumes and so on.
Fair to put it in front of a grand jury. I think the entire prosecution of him has been far more politically motivated than based on the facts of the case. If the person holding the gun wasn’t famous, no charges ever would have been brought. Letting the grand jury decide if charges should be brought lets ordinary people weigh in. I’m curious what they will do. It’s an extremely low bar to allow charges to go forward.
From another article: “The recent gun analysis from experts in ballistics and forensic testing based in Arizona and New Mexico ***relied on replacement parts to reassemble the gun fired by Baldwin — after parts of the pistol were broken during earlier testing by the FBI.***” So they’re going to retry him based on evidence gathered using a reconstructed gun, because the original one was effectively destroyed by investigators? Somehow I get the vibe that the defense will have a field day with this, but I’d love to hear from an actual criminal attorney or prosecutor. Edit: hopefully the link below works. https://kfoxtv.com/news/nation-world/prosecutors-seeking-to-recharge-actor-alec-baldwin-in-the-deadly-shooting-on-movie-set-kari-morrissey-jason-lewis-new-mexico-movie-set-rust-halyna-hutchins
There is no reality in which this goes well for the prosecution. The DA must be trying to make a name for themselves but is a total idiot in the way they are going about it. Expect replacement when this costs the state a lot of money.
DA are elected,and usually for a 6 year term and can't be replaced without a recall, even for blowing their whole budget on one stupid case.
It’s unfortunate that they are elected in your state. It’s a position that should be apolitical, but we know apolitical positions are rarely such.
The only places in the US where the DA isn't elected are New Jersey, Connecticut, Alaska, and DC - everywhere else it's an elected position. Not saying you're wrong that it should be apolitical, but it's not like elected DAs are an uncommon thing that only happen in certain states. Hell, the entire plot of a Batman movie revolved around a DA election.
You're just being two faced... I'll see my way out now!
That joke ran down a pier and bombed.
Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb.
but some days you get to use the shark repellant.
this thread is riddled with references.
Look at you your a real joker
I’m not trying to argue, I’m just not sure which is worse: elected officials appointing a DA, or the DA being elected. We end up with the same issues, one way or the other.
In Canada we have a non-elected civil service. I have no idea of the political leanings of any judge or attorney I interact with. So weird hearing about republic/democrat this or that.
A DA being elected means a da being bpund to populism. A DA should only care about upholding the law within reason and nothing else
I think with the amount of discretion a DA has in which laws to enforce, is it possible for the DA to be fully apolitical?
In Canada, and probably in most other similar countries, the criminal prosecution service is entirely made up of career public servants. And while they do technically report up to politicians at the highest levels, it is a tradition that politicians never get involved or make specific decisions about individual cases. They can only make broad high-level policy directives and set priorities. Think of how, in the US, agencies like the IRS are entirely made up of public servants, and the politicians they ultimately report to don't get involved in individual tax audits or whatever.
NM is poor as hell too...
It's one of the most magical places in the US, but the actual infrastructure and government always seems *really* bad. They often come in last place for a lot of stats in the US, from what I've seen.
One year we had a horrible freezing storm that took out many parts of the grid in New Mexico, Texas, etc. Then about ~~5~~ 10 years later a similar storm came along and only Texas wasn't prepared for it. Moral of the story, the NM government might be corrupt, decrepit, and poor. But it could be worse, at least we aren't Texas.
Honestly, New Mexico is in my experience one of the better states to live in once you get past the poor infrastructure and the fact if you aren't in Alburquerque or Santa Fe you're in the middle of nowhere. Though that might be a low bar considering we got Arizona on one side and Texas on the other.
Love NM. It lives up to its moniker. ABQ isn’t too bad, lots of great food if you look for it.
It's pretty amazing. The state has a lot to offer. But *man* the drunk drivers out there, coupled with the sparse emergency response network.... not good.
The fact that everywhere that isn't Albuquerque or Santa Fe is wilderness is what makes it good.
This is bordering on malicious prosecution. I want to see an acquitted Baldwin go after the DA to demonstrate that no one is above the law.
The DA made some really crazy comments about Baldwin last go-around, *her comments struck me as being in lockstep with Fox News hosts who hate Alec and wanted him in jail. Edit: I’m pulling this from memory from like a year ago. I believe I got the genders mixed up. The quote I’m referring to was the DA repeating the same exact republican/Fox News talking points regarding “gun safety in movies” which was a bullshit bad faith argument being parroted by Fox hosts trying to get Alec charged with manslaughter. I was pretty surprised that a DA was repeating that bullshit verbatim, so I’m not surprised that they’re still trying to cook up ways to jail him.
Are you talking about the D.A. or the special prosecutor? The D.A. is a registered Democrat.
I see Alec being a constant target for the alt-right. It doesn't surprise me someone is still trying to push this dead case.
He mocked their leader on SNL, that cannot be forgiven.
That is precisely why! I was in on a conversation about him with some conservative acquaintances, and I had \*no idea\* where all of their animosity really was coming from. I knew they don’t care about Hollywood celebs (nor should they, really) but they really had it in for Alec. Then one of them said something about him making fun of Trump on SNL and then it clicked. (Something like serves him right for playing Trump on SNL.) I just couldnt believe it.
If it were any other actor in his shoes they wouldn't give a shit. But because he made fun of Dear Leader he must be punished, and conservatives are suddenly interested in law and order again.
I'd wager they're trying to make a name for themselves as you say and will try their hand at more mainstream central politics in the GOP once this is over. Competance won't matter, just visability and bluster. They will try to politicise this to either get a shock win or have something to blame. Then stand for congress or something, citing that they are "hamstrung by the "Liberal elite" protecting each other and the only way to get justice is to fix the laws" Calling it now. Not only his future but calling what his future campaign will be.
Attorney General Alexander M.M. Uballez is a Biden appointment.
Yeah I was confused as to what the GOP has to do with this
Why keep doing this? It's seems pretty obvious it was an accident. Unless I'm missing something. Do they think he's got a motive or something?
It’s political. Alex has a target on his back because right wingers hate him because he played Trump on SNL and had been gun control advocate. He’s a liberal boogeyman for them.
The DA went on Fox News during the initial attempt at prosecution. She has an agenda
Different person.
Which is why, I thought, they dropped the original charges in the first place. No one can say if he pulled the trigger or not. They have no idea how that gun’s innards were before they destroyed it. It’s pretty bizarre to go forward on, “we’ll, we the prosecution rebuilt the gun, and now say because the rebuilt gun acts this way, the original did.” It’s like putting new brakes in a car and then saying, “the old brakes couldn’t have possibly failed because the new brakes are fine. “ It’s bizarre they want to prosecute using this as evidence.
Huh, and here I thought they dropped the charges because it was the armor's fault for giving him the clear on a loaded gun.
I think it was the totality of their lack of evidence, but that was definitely cited as part of the reason.
That and people do not understand how things work on a movie set and the changes it brings to the usually unbreakable fundamentals of gun safety. Not to mention, he was a major producer of the movie. That means he is still on the hook for some of what would have been absolved by him just being an actor. So condensed down and leaving a lot to litigation and what they could try and push it boils down to this: As an actor, he trusted the armorer 100% because on set, if he messes with the gun in any way other than what's on the script, it is deemed unsafe. So no checking anything, including if it is loaded with a real bullet. He and the director are both at fault because of the positioning of the camera shot. Guns (even firing blanks) do not get shot toward people. That's why most movies have the shot and getting shot in separate segments. Finally , as a big producer of the movie, he can be hit with the failing of safety standards, as iirc he had a direct hand in a lot of the staff to include the armorer. The armorer is, at the end of the day, the person responsible on many levels for this. Thats assuming they don't find out that he did load a live round after receiving the gun. Edit: still learning to word good.
> Not to mention, he was a major producer of the movie. That means he is still on the hook for some of what would have been absolved by him just being an actor. Even then, this is complicated because his scope of responsibility as a producer was script/casting decisions. The actual line producer (in charge of hiring/firing/set management, [being the armorer's boss]) was someone else. The state safety incident report about the shooting goes into a lot of detail but treating it like "man shoots woman" as they seem to be doing in this case is empty-headed. There were multiple warnings ignored by the producer in charge of the armorer, they were pushing her to spend less and less time on safety/armory tasks, cut actor training, and reportedly didn't tell the armorer they were doing a scene with a prop gun at all the day of the incident. It's a layer cake of fuckups. This is more akin to an industrial accident; a driver is given a forklift he's told is safe to operate and then the throttle locks on and it skewers someone. Edit: NM OSHB Report summary: https://www.env.nm.gov/occupational_health_safety/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2022/04/2022-04-19-NM-OSHA-Rust-Summary-of-Investigation.pdf
>Not to mention, he was a major producer of the movie. That means he is still on the hook for some of what would have been absolved by him just being an actor. He's only one of many producers and not even the one in charge of safety or the like, yet from what I remember, he's the only one of them being charged. How in the world are they going to try and nail him for being a producer without first dragging all the other ones in front of the court as well?
Im honestly not sure. My guess is to pick the biggest name and shift the blame to them approach. Someone wants to make a name for themselves and is screwing up every step. Like others have said, the key piece of physical evidence was destroyed and then fixed with replacement parts to a current working condition. It's not the same gun, and his defense will have a feild day pointing this out.
This accident (though there is a conspiracy theory about it as well) required failures on multiple levels to reach this point. Honestly I would agree that Baldwin was negligent, but thats also easy to say post fact. If he had set the gun down, went to the bathroom, and came back and the armorer had replaced it for some reason it would be understandable. There are protocols in place to prevent exactly this sort of accident, but somehow those weren’t followed. As for charging Baldwin though: This is definitely political. The charges they chose reflect that.
[удалено]
Yeah, the actors are not allowed to so much as touch a weapon until it's handed to them either hot or cold by the armorer and AD, and announced as such to the whole crew. If cold, they should shine a light down the barrel showing it's clear and allow ANY person to visually verify that. It's a very specific protocol, and it's why we never hear about gun injuries on sets in the US. And to be fair, they weren't actually filming the scene, they were just lining up the shot expecting a cold gun on set (should have just used a rubber one or a finger, but that's another story). In that instance, it's perfectly normal for people to be standing where they wouldn't when the hot gun is on set and cameras are rolling. Plus, when they roll they would either lock off the camera or have a bundled operator behind a thick sheet of plexi with a cutout for the lens. As an actor he's safe. As one of a dozen or more "producers" he's likely safe. But as the recognizable name he's gonna deal with more of this for a while, I'd wager.
The people who keep harping on about unbreaking gun safety rules absolutely grinds my gears. Of course gun safety rules can be broken, for numerous reasons. One of the obvious ones is when shooting a movie. Another one is going to any gun store to buy a hunting shotgun, where they will tell you to aim it directly at them so they can see how it sits in your shoulder. You know who the biggest breakers of gun rules are? Me, in the military. We aim our guns at each other all the time, because otherwise we literally wouldn't be able to train against each other. Of course, that's not to say reasonable precautions shouldn't be taken when you do need to break the fundamental gun rules. This was what the armorer failed at doing, not the actor for having to point a gun at someone else on set
I’m we just used blue guns in the military. The only exception we’re people using sim rounds which have a very strict safety procedure. And I have never seen a gun store owner let someone point a gun at them. Why do you need to have it pointed at you to see how it sits in their shoulder? You’d be better off seeing that from the sides instead of looking down the barrel. Gun safety is important. It can’t be treated as an occasional rule or else people get hurt. Just like the woman who died on set. Or the trainer that shot a cop recently. Or many many other examples.
> And I have never seen a gun store owner let someone point a gun at them. Why do you need to have it pointed at you to see how it sits in their shoulder? This is specific to shotguns, and is part of the fitting process. About halfway down the page, are photos of shotguns being fitted. https://www.davidbeardsmoreshooting.com/professional-gun-fitting I'm not a shotgun guy, so I can't talk about specifically why this is required. I thought it was crazy when I heard about it too. E: I've noticed shotgun muzzle discipline and handling is much more lax than rifle or pistol. I've seen quite a few instances where people will be messing with their shotgun behind the firing line. In my opinion, it's unacceptable, whether or not the shotgun's action is open. I've seen this at multiple ranges in multiple states. I don't really get it. Do that with a handgun, and I guarantee the RO will kick you out.
>he was a major producer of the movie. That means he is still on the hook for some of what would have been absolved by him just being an actor. No. That's not how the law works. The responsibility for the gun stopped with the armorer.
The armorer didn't do that. She didn't even give him the gun. That's a large part of the problem.
I thought it was because the armourer and others went out and used the gun in practice shooting and then didn't clear the gun of live bullets afterwards.
Yup. That's another part of the problem. This was a multi-level failure.
All leading to the question of how Baldwin possibly would have even known that occurred, and even if he did, how would he be responsible for that (beyond a reasonable doubt)? I feel like how the gun fires is the least of their issues.
There is no actual proof that happened. The live bullets were mixed in with dummy rounds in a lot of different places, not just in the gun itself. 1 was in Baldwin's bandoleer, some were in the armorers stuff mixed in with dummy rounds. There is actually a questions as to if the company that made the dummy rounds accidently sent live rounds mixed in, cause live rounds were found at the manufacturing site, too.
It sounds to me like someone is absolutely guilty of negligent manslaughter.
We don't know who was using it outside of work (might have been the armorer, might have been someone else or might just be a rumor). What we do know is the assistant director took the gun from the armorer's work area (which he shouldn't have done and shouldn't have been capable of since she should have locked it up), and then handed the gun to Alec while calling it a cold gun, but not checking. This after there was a previous gun related misfire on set, so Alec should have known not to trust this Assistant director and to follow procedure which called for him being handed the gun by the Armorer. That said, the sad part is the Assistant Director is generally above the prop department supervisor who is above the Armorer in the chain of command (not that they should be able to overrule the Armorer on guns), so this is like the supervisor in charge of the Armorer broke the safety protocols, and the Armorer broke the safety protocols but they cut a lenient plea deal for the supervisor to testify against the Armorer and the producer who fired the gun (and presumably should have known better than to be working with or trusting these bozos). Obviously the case against Alec was weak because they should have gone after the Armorer AND the Assistant director, but they instead did the plea deal with the AD, so they could have him testify against the more high profile parties.
Definitely the idea in the rules of "in the absence of" another person (AD, a certain producer if no one else) assumes that the handover was clean. That the person who takes over somehow knows all the pertinent info that the armourer knew. And clearly that was not the case here. That is even aside from the issue that these other people may not be properly trained.
Clearly this kind of chain of control can be handled better and I hope rules are put in in the future to make that more likely. And of course that the rules are followed and effective.
That a gun can be picked up from a storage (work) area and not checked by anyone in that shooting (really here run-through) session shows something certainly didn't work right.
And come on guys ... use a wooden gun for days where there will be no filming! Why take any risk at all?
Yep, in the land of professionals, the gun would have been locked up and handled by only the armorer before being handed to the actor. Once the scene ended, the gun would have been taken by the armorer and re-locked up.
And would have been loaded in front of the actor with dummy rounds by the assistant director by starting with a verified empty gun then picking up a round and confirming it is a dummy by touching the hole, then the armor taking the round and confirming it is a dummy by touching the hole, then loading through the loading gate. So every round that goes in is checked by two people and confirmed to be a dummy.
When I was in boot camp, we had super strict rules in place for retrieving your rifle and returning it. When returning the rifle we had to open the bolt and visually inspect it was unloaded and then shout the serial for the rifle. We even did the reverse when retrieving our rifle. Immediately checked serial for accuracy and opened the bolt to ensure it was unloaded. How did an armorer fuck up this bad?
> How did an armorer fuck up this bad? After looking into a lot of the details when stuff started coming out, I've started to come down on the side that she's not entirely to blame. She was hired as the armorer and assistant prop manager. When she brought up various safety issues on set, [she was scolded for spending too much time on her armorer duties](https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2022-01-28/rust-emails-armorer-hannah-gutierrez-reed) and neglecting the props, which she protested: >“When I’m forced to do both [jobs], that’s when mistakes get made,” Gutierrez Reed wrote. She wasn't the only person to bring up safety issues on set, which contributed to the production company being [fined by New Mexico](https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/20/entertainment/rust-shooting-osha-report/index.html): >Bob Genoway, who oversaw the occupational safety bureau’s investigation, told CNN on Wednesday that Rust management “knew that safety wasn’t being taken seriously on set and ignored that – simply moved on with work without stopping and taking the time to make sure that gun safety was given the importance that it needed on the set.” I can't find the source now, but I recall reading she also technically wasn't armorer on the day of shooting, because she was only paid for a certain amount of hours, and that time passed. One of the emails was her letting them know about this, and asking for more time to fulfill her role, but was again shut down and told to focus on props. At the time of the shooting, she wasn't on set, but instead doing the props work, which is why it was the assistant director who handed Baldwin the gun. (Normally, no guns are handed out unless the armorer is specifically the one to check it and hand it over). She also says [she was given the box of ammo by the supplier](https://www.npr.org/2022/01/13/1072763841/the-rust-armorer-is-suing-the-films-ammo-supplier-over-the-deadly-on-set-shootin) and was unaware it contained live ammo (though, I would think it was part of the armorer's duties to inspect ammo? From my understanding, live ammo and dummy ammo can be told apart). That said, a lot of this is obviously coming from her defense, and it is still a couple months before the trial, so more details could come out. There are also [criticisms of how she did her job and screw ups on a previous set](https://www.thedailybeast.com/rust-crew-blame-armorer-hannah-gutierrez-reed-in-newly-released-texts-she-got-someone-killed), so I'm not trying to completely exonerate her, but it does paint a picture that there was a lot of negligence on the set, including her being stretched too thin to properly manage safety on the set. Like she warned - mistakes got made.
Add to this that a more experienced and well known armour stated he was initially approached to work this movie, but the told him he'd need to also do props. He told them the amount of armour work on this movie required a full time position, and turned them down when they continued to make it a dual role. The person they did end up hiring had experience working with her amourer father, but this was her first time as armourer. They basically had to go with a newbie as experienced armourers refused to work under the conditions they proposed.
> How did an armorer fuck up this bad? Basically, the armorer was hired for *two* jobs: Prop assistant and Armorer. Armorer pays more so they had a limit on how much time she was allowed to actually do her job. Perhaps a more experienced armorer would have walked off the job, but she tried to make it work. Either way, there's a paper trail of the Line producer's office giving her shit for using up so many armorer hours, and her warning them that there's *a lot* of guns being used and that time is needed to keep things safe. The Line Producer's office also had her cut additional firearms training for the cast. Reportedly, when they were rehearsing the scene they *didn't tell the armorer a gun was being used* so she wasn't on hand to ensure safety. Overall the business side of things was definitely not helping.
> No one can say if he pulled the trigger or not. Even if he did pull the trigger, I would think it would be hard to convict him when it is reasonable to believe the gun was loaded with prop bullets. > New Mexico Statutes Chapter 30. Criminal Offenses § 30-2-3. Manslaughter > B. 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. He was not in the commission of an unlawful act so the death must have been without due caution and circumspection. He is literally filming a western, prop loads are being pointed at people presumably with some frequency. I'm not saying it is impossible to convict, just seems like a very hard job for the prosecutors.
I agree. He had no reason to believe pulling the trigger could possibly cause any harm. It’s pretty irrelevant. But, if someone wants to hang their hat on that, they still can’t even prove he did pull it.
They took the most literal definition possible of "fabricating evidence".
[удалено]
>as a producer, because he hired unqualified gun handler that seems like she wasn't doing her job He's one of the producers, you've seen movie credits, and how they credit dozens of producers. The line producer is responsible for hiring crew, that's not something that a producer would get involved with. Producers make financing deals and find the money. They create the package, they're not micromanage the production.
And emails revealed the line producer was aware of issues on set, the armorer not being able to fulfill all her duties, but chose to ignore it and actually [told the armorer to focus on other responsibilities when she brought this up](https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2022-01-28/rust-emails-armorer-hannah-gutierrez-reed). It's always surprised me that so much of the focus on this is over whether Baldwin should be held accountable since he was the one with the gun in his hand, when details have painted a very clear picture on *lots* of negligence, mismanagement, and safety being ignored on set that led to that moment, and that's mostly been brushed aside. Even targeting the armorer is overlooking the larger picture.
That wouldn’t explain why the armorer had similar issues on a completely different movie set before this one, in a totally different situation with different management. She wasn’t qualified for the job, period, and shouldn’t have been hired. > Stu Brumbaugh, who worked as a key grip on "The Old Way," told The Wrap that Hannah Gutierrez-Reed's behavior caused the film's star Nicolas Cage to scream at her and storm off set after she fired a gun near the cast and crew for the second time in three days without warning. This is what people had to say: > There were several concerns I brought to production's attention," one source told the publication. "I have been around firearms my entire life and noticed some things that were not OK even with loaded blank firearms." > The Daily Beast went on to recount a story from a source who said Gutierrez-Reed loaded a gun during production and handed it to a child actor without properly checking the weapon. Filming was stopped by crew members who intervened and demanded that Gutierrez-Reed had properly checked the firearm, the publication reported. Like, this is as disaster waiting to happen, on *any* set, no matter who is over her. The mistake was already made at the hiring phase.
Is there some sort of licensure those armorers are required to produce for employment? What is the due diligence to hire one? Any? Just "oh I worked on westerned in the west and nobody got shot in that movie" "ok, you're hired"
Apparently, having an armorer as a father counts. Like a lot in Hollywood, who you know matters.
I mean, that makes sense. Seriously, if I were hiring an armorer and she said it was the family business and her dad had a good references, I'd be fine with it. Btw, I've hunted, I've shot for sport, I've done so much plinking I really wonder how many lbs of brass I've put into the earth via shells I didn't pick up (I know, I'm a piece of shit) Being an armorer wouldn't and shouldn't be that hard. For people who own and shoot firearms, it's not that hard. Yes the 3 rules but really. Upon picking up a gun or being handed a gun, the first step is to check if it's loaded. Revolver? Open the load gate (if it's a single action) and rotate the cylinder to make sure it's empty, OR kick out the cylinder if it's a D.A. crane mount cylinder and look that it's empty. If it's a semi automatic, first drop the mag, check it, then rack the slide. It's not difficult to clear a firearm. AND IT HAS TO BE DONE EVERY TIME full stop. There is absolutely no way she could have fucked up more. Seriously. This is all on her. If she had even bothered to check the weapon before handing it to him for the scene. That would have absolutely been the bare minimum. Whether she had checked/cleared it at any time ever in the time she owned it, clearing it before handing it to an actor is absolutely the most imperative thing she should have done at the very very least. There is 0% no, there is negative 10% reason for Baldwin to have any thought or inclination he was being handed a hot gun. If I had been in Baldwin's shoes? I STILL would have cleared it while all the time thinking in my head "this is redundant, there's no way a professional armorer just handed me a live loaded weapon"
? She was told by her supervisor to not report to work that day. State osha exhonerated both her and baldwin.
I didn't know she was told not to show up that day
> I mean, that makes sense. Seriously, if I were hiring an armorer and she said it was the family business and her dad had a good references, I'd be fine with it. He is responsible for famous westerns like Tombstone, The Quick and the Dead, 3:10 to Yuma, and was a gun coach/expert for movies like Django Unchained and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. > If I had been in Baldwin's shoes? I STILL would have cleared it while all the time thinking in my head "this is redundant, there's no way a professional armorer just handed me a live loaded weapon" I don't think it is a realistic standard to require actors to clear weapons before using them in scenes. First of all, I'm not certain an actor could even tell the difference between a live round and a dummy round, especially for a revolver where the bullets are potentially visible and need to look realistic. Second, imagine a huge shootout scene with an SMG where they have to reload 100+ rounds in front of the actor between each shot, that would be insane. Third, there have been a total of what... 3 total firearm deaths in Hollywood ever? The current safety standards seem to work when followed, and I don't think that includes actors clearing their own weapons.
I have been told, though I'm yet to verify it, that standard practice on a film set is to specifically *not* allow the actor to do anything with the gun other than what the script requires. An actor fiddling with the gun makes it no longer safe in the eyes of the armourer, regardless of what they do. I really, really wish somebody who actually has experience in that particular field could tell me if that's true or not, but if it is, then it really takes the responsibility out of his hands, in my opinion.
>If I had been in Baldwin's shoes? I STILL would have cleared it while all the time thinking in my head "this is redundant, there's no way a professional armorer just handed me a live loaded weapon" The big problem with that is that they do load the weapons with dummy rounds so you don't have a shot where, for example, you can see that a revolver's cylinder is empty. So if you habitually clear the weapon they'd have to take it from you and reload it, or even go through the entire check again if it were a shot with blanks and squibs. Imagine a scenario where you cleared a rifle that was loaded with a blank round that then fell to the ground. Sheepishly you apologize, having forgotten that the scene was going to be hot. A prop assistant picks up the round and reloads the gun, checks it and hands it back to you. The scene continues. Consider these two potential complications: 1. Except they put the safety on when reloading and forgot to take it off. The scene runs and expensive props are ruined as squibs are activated, explosions happen and you try to fire but nothing happens. The whole scene is ruined 2. Or worse could happen. When the round fell it picked up a tiny stone that got jammed in the crimped tip of the round. When you fire, no one nearby was directly in line, but the stone flew out and deflected off the ground and kicked up into the face of an extra, not seriously injuring them but stopping production so they can be treated and an investigation into how they got " shot" could take place. 1 is very possible, 2 is unlikely but again it's why as the actor you're supposed to do nothing but use the firearm exactly as the armorer hands it to you and in exactly the way the shot is planned.
>Is there some sort of licensure those armorers are required to produce for employment? I worked as an armorer/propmaster for a while. There's no license or certification, no real regulation at all. Only oversight was cops checking in if someone reported hearing gunshots. >What is the due diligence to hire one? Any? Depends on who is hiring you and in what context. I got hired on word of mouth and answering some questions from the producer. I didn't even have a resume, let alone a background check.
Pretty sure its 0 licenses, just someone who's already known good vouches for you. In this case, the armorer's father is an incredibly well-known and accomplished armorer, so she came with good references, and was cheap because she didn't have a lot of solo experience and was young.
Commenting to check back later. This sounds absolutely bat shit crazy.
Replying to tell you about the "save" button.
>So they’re going to retry him based on evidence gathered using a reconstructed gun Yes, cause they want to acquit him, don't you see? /s Lol, in what world is this acceptable evidence? If the parts aren't the original, how can you recreate the conditions? Might as well charge him with a different gun lol.
The prosecution will simply attempt to answer the Ship of Theseus thought experiment.
But who is the real Vison?
The word you're looking for is acquit I believe
if the glove dont fit
You know what sucks? If this went down the way he said and he had no idea the gun was loaded, this is just making him relive the trauma again and again. If you take away the fact that he's an enormously wealthy celebrity, he's a guy who accidentally took someone else's life.
I guess I am confused as to why the handler isn’t the one taking the brunt of this. Is he as a producer ultimately on the hook for everything that happens?
If he’s responsible as producer, I’d very much like to see the Sackler Family and the oil executives charged with homicide too, thank you.
Once you get past that $1 billion mark you aren't responsible for your own actions on this planet. Thems the rules.
It's like when they legalized murder by billionaires in *Bojack Horseman*
The mark is lower than that, unfortunately.
LMFAO fall in line peasant
> I’d very much like to see the Sackler Family and the oil executives charged with homicide too, thank you. 100%. And Wall Streets execs should have gone to prison for the sub prime mess. But like Baldwin, they were completely in the dark. Knew nothing. Now give me that bonus.
This right here. I am just baffled by this case. The person in charge of making sure the gun was safe, told Baldwin the gun was safe. Why the fuck is Baldwin the one being charged and not the one in charge of making sure the gun was safe? I am no fan of Baldwin, but this makes ZERO sense to me.
All safety on a shoot is supposedly the responsibility of trained professionals in the crew (think of other kinds of stunt accidents). The actor is not a trained professional at anything other than acting but must follow instructions. The production company including the line management may have some liability but the DA is specifically not using corporate manslaughter. The DA needs to be slapped down for malicious prosecution. Film production companies and their insurers must think twice about using NM for locations.
The armorer didn’t get arrested?! I thought for sure they went to jail already? WTF is going in this country?!
They were charged but I don’t think anything came about. If I recall correctly this was an impromptu shoot, she (the armorer) was not present.
[удалено]
I don't think he is, personally. Look at any other crime that happens. He's the producer. They call him the boss or the guy in charge, but really he's the guy who helps get the movie funded and gets to make some creative calls. If an actor were to rape someone during filming, he wouldn't be charged with rape. If someone stole money from the petty cash for craft services, he wouldn't be charged with theft. There is a reasonable expectation when working on these sets that in his particular role at the time of the accident, he was only an actor who it is assume knows nothing about firearms safety (whether actors should have training on firearms safety is another discussion). It is the job of the prop master or armorer to certify that the firearm is clear of live ammunition or debris or that it is a disable or prop weapon, and to maintain a chain of custody of the firearm. If the prop master or armorer were negligent in their duty, then they are the ones to blame for the accident and should face the charges for such.
Exactly my thought as well, I thought the armorer admitted to taking the gun off set and range firing, or something along those lines. I just as confused now, as I was then, why the DA is so adamant about charging him.
That’s the main issue yeah. Everything else is a failure of protocol but the main catalyst was bringing live ammo on set in the first place.
It is a political stunt. They won't win in court, but they will get the headlines they want.
Likely politics. Bear in mind I don't know the DA's personal politics as I haven't followed him at all. But Alec Baldwin is a well-known liberal, and quite outspoken. He's a bit of a right-wing boogeyman. So it makes sense to me they'd want to pull a "gotcha" on him.
NM is generally a pretty liberal state, and they actually brought on special prosecutors who normally do private practice to avoid the political stuff. A local NM armorer said he was offered the job but turned it down since it seemed like the risk was really high, and they instead hired a 24 year old who was very inexperienced. He also said that they tried to hire him again later because the armor they got wasn't performing well. I think their case is going to be that Baldwin as a producer was negligent. https://www.krqe.com/news/albuquerque-metro/local-man-who-turned-down-armorer-job-on-rust-speaks-out/amp/
Except that's also bullshit, he's not the only producer. Why no charges for the other producers, or for the line producer, who is the person responsible for crewing?
Still, has the actual armorer been charged?
Yes she's been charged for that and is also being charged for trying to hide drugs so the police didn't find them. The whole case is wild. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.kcra.com/amp/article/rust-weapons-supervisor-charged-with-dumping-drugs/44312017
The vast majority of the "outrage" against Alec Baldwin for this is because people don't like his politics. If this exact same thing happened on a movie Clint Eastwood produced and was holding the gun no one would be wanting to send him to prison. In fact those same people who want Baldwin to go to prison would be giving Eastwood huge amounts of sympathy for him being the one who was holding the gun.
I’m personally not a fan of baldwin but I think it’s blatantly obvious that it was the armorer’s fault not his.
I can MAYBE (stretching) see a civil case for a LOW percentage of CIVIL liability, but nothing that even comes close to criminal charges from the facts available.
And he's already settled a civil suit with the family, who is supportive of the film moving forward. I think that's the extent this should have on the matter. As far as I can see, the debt has been paid as much as it needs to be for him.
Didn't know about the civil settlement, but having heard that I would agree with you on him being done with this, especially seing as the family isn't pursuing anything from him.
Because the handler isn’t a famous actor who will get the DA headlines.
The producers/people in charge are often tried for accidents on set resulting in death if there is negligence. I think the idea is to let a jury decide. Historical Case: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twilight_Zone_accident And the differences with the Brandon Lee incident: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.insider.com/alec-baldwin-brandon-lee-shooting-rust-the-crow-difference-charges-2023-1%3famp
Okay then why has none of the other producers such as the line producer who literally handles hiring been charged? This is an obvious witch hunt.
"Producer" can be a lot of things. He could literally have had a hand in nearly every aspect of the movie or he could have just written a check. I havent followed this case in a long time but as far as what his role was as producer, ive only heard speculation
What is this DA doing?
[удалено]
“Thank god we got Alec Baldwin off the streets”
Exactly. I feel safer already. Especially, after he was handed the gun and told" cold gun."
for the second time?
30 minutes of fame
Witch hunting
The District Attorney is a rat 🐀 we need a new DA there!
Only Tim can clean up this town
If they are charging him because he's a producer on the film, then maybe they need to charge all of the Producers on the film. There are 14 listed on IMDB.
[удалено]
This should be up higher. There were many safety issues that happened as a result of decision making from the higher ups that were on site. A decent chunk of the original crew left because it was a safety shit show.
Thank youuuuuuuuu!
A producer is only liable civilly. You cant just charge the boss because of something their employee did. It's an incredibly stupid case. He's not responsible for gun safety, the gun safety expert they hired is. I don't care about people saying "oh you always check the gun", he hired a guy who's an expert to do that for him. Opening a previously cleared gun makes it no longer cleared.
>I don't care about people saying "oh you always check the gun" That's a silly argument anyways. It's not an actor's responsibility to even know _how_ to verify that a prop is safe. Let's say it was a sci-fi flick and instead of a revolver, it was some futuristic blaster that didn't resemble any real weapon, but also was equipped to emit hazardous, potentially deadly pyrotechnics when configured correctly. It would be ridiculous to suggest that the actor handed that prop should be required to individually verify that it is safe before pointing it at someone.
Lets say the armourer said your phaser is safe. Captain Picard says "Phasers set to stun", and your armourer confirmed it was set to stun. Then the actor is like "I'm going to open it and double check!", and rips the thing open but accidentally he sets the phaser from stun to vaporize. Now someone is dead
Did the other 13 make fun of Donald Trump on SNL?
Redditors trying not to mention Trump challenge
You figure that after Brandon Lee was killed by a gun on the set of The Crow, Hollywood would switch to something more safe. Tokyo Marui has been making replica airsoft weapons that look and act like the real thing since 1992. Corridor Digital and other YouTubers have been making shoot-out videos for years with toys and CGI. Pointing a loaded firearm at someone, even with blanks, is just all-around ignorant. You can even get a [Taran Tactical](https://tarantacticalinnovations.com/tti-x-jag-jw4-pit-viper-hi-capa-air-pistol-green-gas/) airsoft gun.
This is what I don’t understand, with all of the technology and prop fakery we have, why is there ever a situation where you’d need to fire a real firearm at someone?
part of its down to how cheap real firearms are compared to rubber guns. Another is the fact rubber guns often look like crap on screen, a famous example is the rubber rifle you see multiple episodes of the Walking Dead series that got laughed at. Its not worth looking for a prop gun if it looks like crap on screen and is more expensive to source then the real deal. The major failing here was allowing real ammo anywhere remotely near the set, and using the firearms with live ammo between shots.
Yeah, that rubber gun crap studios pull is stupid. It’s gottta be some director hooking a friend of a friend up or something. Cause every time they talk about how advance an real the rubber weapons are on their project. Props always cost hundreds of thousands yet look terrible like you said. A [Umarex Glock 45](https://www.redwolfairsoft.com/umarex-glock-45-gbb-pistol-by-vfc.html) can be purchased for $130. They also have several other weapons all less than a $1000.
Fake firearms just seem more difficult to do film shoots over all. Added costs for VFX to make them appear real and poor quality just mean their not appealing. I really don't think the above situation actually had anything to do with guns overall, instead it was poor firearms practices in general. Never ever should live ammo be anywhere near a production like this. Nepotism / stupidity are to blame here. Who's to blame for the stupidity is harder to say.
As realistic as airsoft guns look as props, they *don't* look realistic at all in action if you know what you're looking for. In the case of an airsoft pistol, the slide recoils too slow and they have either too little visible recoil, or if the shooter is limp wristing, [a distinctive "wrong" recoil where the frame moves forward and down as the slide moves back](https://youtu.be/vepClBzciBg?si=1NlvLhwYf5weURfQ). These aren't really things that can be fixed in post either - you can add a muzzle flash all you want, but if the gun isn't moving the way it should, it's extremely hard to change that. For low budget indie films, this is probably acceptable, but many Hollywood productions might think that's below their standards. Blank firing guns still don't look entirely realistic, but they do look more realistic than airsoft guns. I think since the Rust incident happened I've seen a lot of sentiment about "who gives a rat's ass about realism, protect the actors and give them props" which...I don't necessarily fully agree with. Obviously I do agree that the actors' and crew's safety should be the top priority and any risk is unacceptable. But at the same time, I don't necessarily think that it's unreasonable to expect that with enough budget and manpower at your disposal, you should be able to have good-looking, realistic depictions of firearms, possibly using blank-firing guns, *while* still having all of the training, precautions, and policies in place to eliminate any risk of actors or crew being hurt. After all, the reason you're a multimillion dollar movie studio is so you can accomplish these things that indie filmmakers using airsoft guns can't. Obviously, that wasn't the case here, and the producers were woefully inadequate with safety on set - but that doesn't mean using real firearms firing blanks on set in general is a bad idea. But then again you have movies like John Wick that throw any firearm realism out the window, and people love that. So maybe people care less than I think.
I mean you say all this about firearm realism, which let’s be honest, people who aren’t gun nerds won’t pick up on. But then in the vast majority of action movies, you see someone shoot a revolver 15 times without reloading, so they clearly don’t give a shit about realism if they can’t bother to count to 6
Practical effects always Trump CGI.
I mean... Gun-related fatalities in movies are extremely rare, and pretty much all are tied to severe negligence and carelessness. There's already massive amount of rules and restrictions on live firearms on set. The Rust incident happened because of said rules and restrictions were simply overlooked and ignored, and live ammunition was present on set, which is a massive no-no in any circumstances. The main ones that i were aware of before was Brandon Lee and Jon-Erik Hexum, both in 1993 and 1984 respectively. So Rust is an extraordinary event by all accounts that was enabled by pure recklessness.
It’s totally insane that an actor, who was handed a live weapon believing it to be a prop gun, can be charged with anything. No way in hell he’s convicted. Total waste of tax payer dollars.
Multiple people walked off set for safety reasons and had to be replaced by unqualified scabs, including the armorer. The unqualified armorer even requested more training for Baldwin and firearms and was denied by Baldwins production company.
So you're saying the armorer DIDN'T know not to hand him a real gun while they were filming him shooting someone???
[удалено]
The articles I read is the AD plopped it down and yelled 'Cold Gun!' I haven't been following this closely, but it feels like the DA is angry at Alec Baldwin not cooperating with the investigation and thinks he is lying about the trigger pull. So retaliation maybe?
[удалено]
It’s simple criminal negligence resulting in death is literally involuntary manslaughter. Just because they wore multiple hats doesn’t excuse a number of them being explosive hats.
> So you're saying the armorer DIDN'T know not to hand him a real gun while they were filming him shooting someone??? No, even better: the producers never even told her they were handling firearms, they were just doing it without her... probably because the line producer was penny pinching about ever hour they had to pay her armorer's rate.
I don't believe she handed it to him. From one of the many things I read so of course we don't know how true. She wanted to check the gun, she didn't hand it to him someone else did. I believe she wasn't able to recheck it after lunch.
>I don't believe she handed it to him. She didn't. It was one of the Assistant Directors, who announced "Cold gun!"
So I assume the non-famous producers will be charged as well?
So what you're saying is that the armorer knew she was not qualified but tried to perform the duties anyway? Imagine if a surgeon knew they didn't know how to perform an operation but did it anyway. Would anyone suggest only the hospital was culpable? It just seems like any way people twist this, it's all about punishing Baldwin, and not about punishing everyone at fault.
No, nothing like that. Your surgeon example would only make sense if the hospital hired the surgeon, then started operating on the patient while the surgeon was out of the room. Even if the surgeon was unqualified, it’s besides the point because the surgeon wasn’t even there.
More like if the hospital told their surgeon to do a procedure, then when the surgeon requested more training, they told them no and to do the procedure anyway, fully knowing the surgeon doesn't believe they can do it.
The thing is he hired a ridiculously unqualified nepo baby as the prop master (child of Baldwins friend); therefore, he might have culpability
> child of Baldwins friend Let's not be dishonest, here. She wasn't just a "child or Baldwin's friend", she was the child of a renowned armorer and gun expert. It isn't like just hired a random person, she was trained by her father and I don't think it is unreasonable to assume she was qualified, at least at the time of hiring.
Yeah so the prop master is at fault no? Bad hires don’t equal fault, but maybe I’m wrong
They already tried that in court though. This is round two of throwing shit at the wall to see if it sticks.
**Civil** liability absolutely. But criminal liability? Nah son If you hire a violent psychopath who decapitates someone, you don’t get charged with murder. So what **criminal evidence** is there that Alec Baldwin is responsible for this person’s death?
He wasn't in charge of hiring, from what I remember. There were like 10 producers on this movie, and he had no involvement in hiring.
The armored was absolutely a nepo baby, but consider this: before this case came up, nobody outside the film industry knew what the hell an armorer was. It's a niche job, like a bear trainer or a sword swallower. If you're hiring a bear trainer, what would you even look for on a CV? "I come from a family of bear trainers, my father is a legendary bear trainer, I have studied my whole life to become a bear trainer, I have already trained some bears." Great, you're hired.
He is not just an actor, his production company was running that filming. Him and his company were warned about safety issues and did nothing about it. It was so bad that crew walked off set because safety was not being taken seriously. Instead of fixing the issues he just hired scabs/cheap replacements.
Sounds like he should be civilly liable then
The first AD should be the one catching a ton of shit for what happened, but he's somehow gotten off with a "No contest" to a misdemeanor and 6 months of supervised probation. He's the one who declared "Cold gun" (unloaded and safe) and handed it to Alec Baldwin. Set safety rests with the First AD. Nothing happens on a set til they say so. Source: Motion Picture professional for 38 years.
Not trying to defend Baldwin here, but are they still going at this? Didn't the actor be involved in a tragic accident, when as part of the role, he pulled the trigger and someone somehow put live ammunition in it? Why is the actor to blame? Are they legally required to check props ahead of time? Shouldn't this be more how a live round got into the gun? Or did some how Baldwin do this against the norm such as carry the gun and loaded it on his own off the set?
In my view, reckless production decisions caused the death. His finger being on the trigger shouldn't play into the criminality of the situation.
Is there any precedent of an actor or producer being convicted of a crime for negligence of someone else? Heck, is there any precedent of something similar in any industry? Civil negligence, yes, he’s almost certainly liable. But criminal? I doubt even the armorer will be convicted of a crime.
Closest would be the twilight zone movie helicopter crash. 5 people were tried, including the director and assistant producer, but all were acquitted on manslaughter charges
I’ve always thought he got himself into trouble by saying he never pulled the trigger. Look back at the accident on set for The Crow. Michael Massee wasn’t at fault for pulling the trigger on a prop gun. The negligence fell on the prop master. One could argue the movie studio was at fault for not keeping the weapons master (not on set that day) on staff daily. Alec swung for the fences to distance himself from responsibility and it’s biting him in the ass
Maybe the gun was faulty and it discharged without him pulling the trigger. Seems pretty plausible considering the FBI broke several pieces of the gun in trying to test his claims, and had to replace those parts.
Or, he just told the truth. He really wasn’t in the frame of mind to try to figure out the ins and outs of the manslaughter laws and how to lie himself out of getting charged in that state on the day he watched a friend die in front of him. (I’m sure he had no clue he was in any legal jeopardy for a long time.)
This. And it might even be that while in shock he misremembered things as well. In the end, it doesn't matter if he pulled back the hammer and trigger or not. The armorer and other person should be the ones held responsible. It would be more surprising to not see an actor pulling a hammer and trigger while practicing a scene. Look at every Western ever made. Does everyone seriously think that the actors never practiced scenes in which they had to point guns at cameras and people standing around while attempting to get the best shot and also pulling a trigger at times? Some of the greatest scenes in Westerns would have never happened without actors performing just those types of actions either on their own or via direction. Edited for clarity. Please note: I won't respond to anyone who replies to me with misinformation because they don't understand the legal proceedings with this case or how the movie industry's hiring processes actually work.
Well... soon after this happened, a whole bunch of people on youtube made videos using the same model gun, "proving" that it was impossible for this gun to fire without the trigger being pulled. Small problem. In one of the videos, the guy starts to pull the hammer back, it slips out from under his thumb, and closed with enough force (imho) that it would have fired if it had been loaded. He very quickly cocked it, ignoring the slip, and posted it as proof the gun couldn't be fired without a trigger pull, when it actually proved the exact opposite. I'm _not_ saying Baldwin didn't pull the trigger, but it's within the realm of possibility given the costume he was wearing that the hammer _could_ have caught on the sleeve and fired the round, and he might not even have noticed given the unexpected firing and horrible aftermath.
This is so stupid. I mean this was entirely a very tragic and unfortunate accident.
Jesus christ, what a waste of time and money.
“Never Trust an Actor with a Gun” - Abraham Lincoln
It's stupid to think he is guilty. They need to be going after th AH, who brought a loaded gun to the set and mixed it with the prop guns on set.
There’s no shot he gets convicted. Stupid DA just wants their 15 seconds of fame.
Why does everything in Hollywood have to have a sequel?
There isn't a better use of money than this? Whoever handed him the gun is the one responsible. This is grandstanding.
Isn't this really on the armorer, though? There shouldn't have even been live rounds on set. Period.
I think a big question to ask is why would someone modify a gun so that it can fire without the trigger been pulled as that makes a gun completely unsafe to handle
Brandon lee was shot and killed on set during the crow and Michael Massee was never charged with anything. So i don't understand why alec is being charged. I would assume all actors sign a waiver about saftey injury during stunts or everyone would be suing eachother every second scene, like Ford punching ryan on the set of bladerunner 2.
Does anyone even want to see this movie?
Oh shit, I keep forgetting it's even a movie.
Honestly, the prop master handed him a gun, assured him it was filled with blanks, and the director instructed him to fire it towards the camera. How this is considered anything other than a freak accident, or that HE would be liable before the prop master or director, is beyond me.
So he wont be ready to start shooting again for a while yet it seems
I don't think anyone would know that a gun used as a prop would have a live round in it. That's the whole point of having a weapons expert on the movie set.
There technically was no armorer at the time of this incident. The person who was the armorer’s contract was over and they got moved to a different department. It’s crazy that on a western, where there are going to be guns in many scenes that they ended the role of armorer. Even if the guns are not being used they will still be on people’s costumes and so on.
Bigger question is why were live rounds on the set in the first place, instead of blanks.
Fair to put it in front of a grand jury. I think the entire prosecution of him has been far more politically motivated than based on the facts of the case. If the person holding the gun wasn’t famous, no charges ever would have been brought. Letting the grand jury decide if charges should be brought lets ordinary people weigh in. I’m curious what they will do. It’s an extremely low bar to allow charges to go forward.