Update: Alec Baldwin case dismissed

Is the NYPost considered a better source for your partisan safe zone? I simply pulled the top link of several results. How about addressing the facts in BOTH sources that he is widely regarded to have broken the #1 rule of gun safety on set.

Alec Baldwin ignored No. 1 rule of gun safety, expert says

How about addressing the fact that he missed the safety training session and ignored the request for it from the first link I posted? To assume that Baldwin is zero percent culpable is laughable on its face.

Rely and trust those that are helping you, sure. But the gun is still in his hands when it discharged. And it was his finger on the trigger (regardless of the somewhat ridiculous claim that he never pulled it). This is a case of trust but verify since it was his ass on the line.

EDIT: How about a fellow actor also saying it was clearly negligent on Alec's part.

Adam Baldwin: Gun Dummy Alec Baldwin Can't Blame Someone Else for Fatal Accident on the 'Rust' Set

 

I suspect the “who’s responsible for making sure guns are unloaded” discussion is missing the point.

If I had to guess, the negligence that’s getting him charged has nothing to do with verifying whether the gun was loaded or not, it is instead the very act of having pointed a gun at someone and pulled the trigger.

This isn’t an instance where “he had to for the scene.” They weren’t even filming at the time it happened - the directors were lining up camera shots and he was “practicing his cross-draw” (aka playing with a gun).

And while he has insisted in interviews that he didn’t pull the trigger, that’s just not a believable statement. Guns don’t just go off on their own while someone is holding them in their hands, and the FBI tested this gun after the shooting and confirmed it was functioning properly. About the only time a gun will ever go off without the trigger being pulled is some defective guns that can go off if they are dropped and happen to hit the ground in just the right way.

 

Nope. Neither is the Federalist. And the Post quotes the same guy as ur last "source".

Want to talk laughable? You're citing, "fellow" actor Adam Baldwin? The deplorable right-wing, conspiracy twitter troll? Talk about political safe-space, all you do is quote slanted garbage from right-wing hellholes and right wing anti-Hollywood, anti-Liberal losers.

How about the fact that Alec Baldwin has had safety training in the past - and has had zero incident on set for 40 years, without incident. If he was so reckless, why haven't countless other DP's and director been shot by him over the years? How was this the first time?

At least TRY to be objective and look at what changed. A reckless and negligent armorer who was shooting live rounds from the gun in the desert - and an AD (whom the armorer answers to) who proclaimed "cold gun" -- meaning it's safe and has been checked before it was handed to Baldwin. He aimed the gun at the camera - as instructed by the DP to find the shot before they rolled. Yet, Baldwin is at fault for at least two professionals around him who didn't follow protocols and failed to do their jobs properly? Enough.

 

Exactly - the case cited for the precise charge was one where the shooter's defense was he did not think it was loaded. It was not during the shooting of the scene

 

That couldn't be more slanted and wrong. Before you roll, you "find" the shot. On every shot in every movie and tv show that's properly filmed (not reality tv crap), the director, the DP and the crew are working out the camera move, the action and the blocking.

So the fact that the camera wasn't rolling - and your claim that he was "playing with a gun" - shows zero understanding of how these things work. Again, more nonsense from the uniformed.

 

It was during the shooting of the scene. Just because the camera wasn't rolling yet doesn't mean they were horsing around. They were working out the shot.

 

Geez, I hope you don't ever have to handle a firearm in your line of work. Is the armorer culpable? Yes. The AD, also a resounding yes. As is Baldwin himself. This is a guy who has been an actor and has handled firearms for over 40 years. It's more than a little stupid to think he hasn't had any training in firearm safety. If he hasn't he's been willfully ignorant for a very long time. And even though you hate the source, the link to the Federalist (which I highly doubt you read) says it best:

Even the most basic firearms safety course will teach you to treat every gun as though it is loaded and to check if it is loaded as soon as you pick it up. For anyone who regularly handles firearms, it becomes a matter of muscle memory to check the chamber when a gun is handed to you — something one shouldn’t even have to think about. Verbal confirmation is not enough.

And to Adam Baldwin’s point, as Albuquerque criminal defense attorney Erlinda Johnson told the Times, “Whoever handles the firearm has a duty to check it for any live rounds.”

That means it was Gutierrez-Reed’s duty, Halls’ duty and Alec Baldwin’s duty to check the gun for live rounds, no matter what anyone told him about its status.

Even one of the defense attorneys in Albuquerque acknowledges there's going to be at the very least a large civil culpability for Baldwin. I chose People magazine as the source to make sure it's in your partisan safe space. That's not a slanted right-wing source too is it?

Could Alec Baldwin Be Charged Over Rust Shooting? Legal Expert Weighs In

 

For anyone who regularly handles firearms, it becomes a matter of muscle memory to check the chamber when a gun is handed to you - something one shouldn't even have to think about. Verbal confirmation is not enough.

So we're talking about here are people who "regularly handles firearms". In other words, LEO, military, gun enthusiasts, hunters, folks at the shooting range, etc.

No way you can lump actors into the same boat. Yes, they may have used prop guns in various roles, but they don't "regularly handle firearms" like those who use it for work or constantly for sport. It's not like every role is a western or shoot 'em up. This is precisely why an armorer exists on set, because (most) actors are not trained like those I mentioned earlier. There would be no "muscle memory to check the chamber" - so yes, verbal confirmation is what Baldwin and other actors rely on - because the armorer IS THAT GUY who regularly handles firearms. His responsibility is weapon safety.

Not apples to apples.

 

I was pretty sure I read that it was during blocking, but I may be wrong. Why would the cinematographer (Hayla Hutchins) be in the frame of a live shot?

 

How long until we become politically correct and start calling it personslaughter?

 

From my understanding she wasn't. They were rehearsing the shot, and he was pointing (as asked) the revolver at the lens. So I gather the Hutchins (DP) was behind the camera, or just off to the side, with the Souza the director looking at the monitor who was hit in the shoulder.

 

Why does working out the shot require him pulling the trigger?

His own testimony was that he was “practicing his cross-draw” - if that’s actually what he was doing, he’s lucky he didn’t shoot himself. They make dummy guns that are specifically made to be the same dimensions as real guns precisely for things like practicing drawing - they’re typically blue rubber.

If they’re not rolling and he’s just practicing drawing a gun (or, even being generous, lining up camera angles), there was no reason for him to be futzing around with a real gun at all, much less pulling the trigger on it.

 

This is the piece I read way back when

Alec Baldwin was practicing a stunt when a prop gun he was holding fired and killed 42-year-old cinematographer Halyna Hutchins and injured Director Joel Souza on the set of the movie Rust, according to affidavits for search warrants released by the Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office.

According to the documents, Baldwin was sitting in a church pew on the set of the film while rehearsing a scene that involved drawing a revolver and pointing it at the camera. Hutchins and Souza were viewing the camera angle, Souza told detectives. Souza, who was shot in the shoulder, was standing behind Hutchins.

If this is true, it does seem harder to sustain charges

Souza said he remembered hearing someone yell, "Cold gun," which means the gun was not supposed to have any live ammunition.

Halls, according to documents, was the one who yelled, "Cold gun" before handing the weapon to Baldwin. Halls told a detective investigating that he was not aware the weapon had live ammunition.

https://www.npr.org/2021/10/25/1048958712/alec-baldwin-halyna-hutchins-shooting

 

Another article with strategic use of the passive voice


The actor was preparing to film a scene in which he pulls a gun out of a holster, according to a source close to the production. Crew members had already shouted “cold gun” on the set. The filmmaking team was lining up its camera angles and had yet to retreat to the video village, an on-set area where the crew gathers to watch filming from a distance via a monitor.

Instead, the B-camera operator was on a dolly with a monitor, checking out the potential shots. Hutchins was also looking at the monitor from over the operator’s shoulder, as was the movie’s director, Joel Souza, who was crouching just behind her.

Baldwin removed the gun from its holster once without incident, but the second time he did so, ammunition flew toward the trio around the monitor. The projectile whizzed by the camera operator but penetrated Hutchins near her shoulder, then continued through to Souza. Hutchins immediately fell to the ground as crew members applied pressure to her wound in an attempt to stop the bleeding.
'Rust' crew describes on-set gun safety issues and misfires days before fatal shooting

 

That I couldn't tell you. Perhaps for realism for when they shoot. I don't know. I do know there was never supposed to be any live rounds any where near the set, let alone the gun, in the first place. Again, imo, this is no fault of the actor but certainly the fault of the armourer, and certainly Baldwin the producer.

 

I think that’s a generous reading of what was going on based on what I’ve seen.

And his insistence that he didn’t pull the trigger isn’t doing himself any favors in that instance - one, it’s demonstrably untrue, and two, insisting he didn’t pull the trigger isn’t consistent with the theory that he did pull the trigger because that’s what he was supposed to do.

 

I can understand the various arguments, but I seem to recall watching a friend check a gun, handing it to me, and I just naturally checked it again for myself. It should just be a routine every single time. I think it'd be different if I saw rounds that were supposed to be blanks but were actually live rounds. I wouldn't know how to tell the difference there.

 

He was the producer and the director. Not sure about the legalities but the buck stopped with him.