Update: Alec Baldwin case dismissed

Except Baldwin's gun was supposed to be loaded....with either blanks or dummy rounds.

To further strengthen Baldwin's defense you have this statement from the person who supplied the .45 caliber revolver and ammunition Baldwin used.:

"The expert, Seth Kenney, told detectives his theory on October 29, eight days after Baldwin, the film's lead, accidentally shot and killed cinematographer Halyna Hutchins and wounded director Joel Souza with a prop gun he believed was "cold" during a rehearsal.

According to an affidavit released by the Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office on Tuesday, Kenney, 51, believed that a friend might have given him "reloaded ammunition" with the same company branding as the blank rounds that he provided to the production.

"Seth described how a couple years back, he received 'reloaded ammunition' from a friend,'" the affidavit read. "Seth described the ammunition stuck out to him due to the suspected live round to have (sic) a cartridge with the Starline Brass logo on it...He described how the company only sells components of ammunition, and not live ammunition, and therefore it had to be a reloaded round."

'Rust' Weapons Expert Says 'Reloaded Rounds' May Have Mixed With Blanks

So you have the person who supplied the ammunition used on the set swear in an affidavit that some reloaded live rounds with IDENTICAL markings may have been mixed in with the prop ammunition he provided to the movie's armorer.

 

I'm surprised no one has brought up Brandon Lee's shooting where no one was charged criminally. During actual filming of The Crow, the prop gun in that case, a .44 Magnum, was first loaded with dummy rounds so as to look more realistic in close-ups. The problem was the crew improperly prepared the dummy rounds. The gunpowder charge was removed, but not the primer, and the projectile was reinserted. When the gun was fired, the energy from the primer was sufficient to separate the projectile and move it part way down the barrel. The gun was then reloaded with blanks for more realistic sound and visual effects and filming recommenced without anyone checking to see if the barrel was clear. The revolver was fired and the blank, with its full gunpowder charge, had enough energy to "fire" the stuck bullet striking and killing Lee.

 

Sure. But people who never handle weapons and are handed one as a prop on a set probably have no clue how to check it and assume the professional did their job.

 

The sad thing is I doubt it’s really necessary for the director or camera operator to be looking down the barrel of the gun to get the shot. They could always use a boom arm or robotic camera and just watch it through a screen, but I guess “old school types” might want to look through the optical viewfinder on the camera, even with the potential for a tragic mistake. But that’s another thing that would hardly be on the actor (but may be partly on the producer, depending on his inputs).

Maybe as a result of this there will be harder regs basically forcing them to not be standing there for safety reasons, although I guess if you are trying to film a “shootout” it’s hard to be 100% clear on the line of sight, and safety of the prop guns would still be paramount.

 

Also, @tilly, what people are glossing over is that this prop gun was supposed to be loaded, just with blanks or dummy rounds. He was not being handed an "empty" weapon. That's far easier to check for. Blank rounds and dummy rounds are largely constructed from parts of real ammunition. Blank rounds have a regular casing, primer and gunpowder charge, they are lacking a conventional projectile. A dummy round, which is supposed to look as realistic as possible, has a regular casing and projectile, the gunpowder charge is removed. The armorer should also either remove the primer or use a spent casing (this was the issue that led to Brandon Lee's shooting.). That spent casing will appear the same other than where the firing pin struck the primer leaving a small dimple. This is all the more reason why the untrained actor relies on the armorer.

I included the statement above from the guy who supplied the ammunition and gun to the movie's armorer. He was given a batch of rounds in which he discovered some of them were actually reloads (live rounds) using the same brand component parts that got mixed in. He provided those to the armorer and is afraid one or more reloads were included as they would be essentially identical in appearance.

 

I stand behind him 100%.

Not because I support him, but because it would be dangerous to stand in front of him.

 

If Baldwin is charged it won’t be for discharging the gun as an actor but for hiring an incompetent armorer as producer.

 

I am not "against" Baldwin as some GOP supporters are for his politics.

Nevertheless, for him to try to absolve himself from any responsibilities is awful.

He says he didn't squeeze the trigger.

Now they say the production of the movie or program will continue.

Sounds like Hollywood business as usual to me.

 

One of the conditions in the settlement of the Hutchins’ family wrongful death suit vs. Baldwin is that her widow be an executive producer on the film, so if it’s ok with the family for the film to proceed, than it should be ok with everyone else.

 

Thanks North, I was in shock when I saw the production would continue. I'm glad the family is on board.

 

Well …. Mr Baldwin has now proven some folks should never have access to a weapon even in a relatively controlled environment. I don’t know that he should be charged with a crime but I hope all injured parties are successful in civil actions against him. Unfortunately, the lady who died, her family, and her friends can never recover what has been lost.

 

Good he needs to be charged with at the very least felony neglect

 

I am still a bit conflicted on this.


When it first occurred, I thought I had read that he was practicing his draw during a down period, not an organized part of the shoot. In that context, I think you have a strong case for criminal negligence, even though he thought the gun was unloaded.


When I reread the known facts recently, he was actually rehearsing a scene in a structured process. However, in this particular part of the script, the character he was playing was only supposed to draw the gun and brandish it without shooting. It is undisputed that he was told twice that it was a "cold gun" i.e. unloaded. It makes sense that you would ensure the gun did not have live ammunition even if there was no intention to pull the trigger.


In this case, he claims the gun went off without him pulling the trigger. They checked the gun and his account seems to be impossible. But he was actually rehearsing a scene that called for him to draw the weapon and point it where the cinematographer and director were standing, at the direction of the director.

The charges seem to be based upon a ruling in New Mexico law that says any time you point a gun at someone and pull the trigger and the gun fires, you are legally culpable, even if you believed the gun was unloaded. That seemed like a perfectly reasonable rule of law in general. I'm just not sure it applies in a film context.

Within the film context, there will be times when you're supposed to pull the trigger with an individual in the line of fire. If you are told the gun is "cold", is arguably a more careful process than simply your belief that the gun was unloaded, but the gun is in fact loaded, I find it hard to believe that constitutes criminal negligence.


If the scene called for him to pull the trigger, he was told the gun was unloaded, and someone was killed in process, I would feel very strongly that that should never be criminal negligence.


The problem in this case is that he was not supposed to pull the trigger. I don't know if he was improvising, but either way the scene did not call for him to pull the trigger.


So the facts to apply the law to are as follows:


An actor on a set is rehearsing a scene within the script that calls for him to draw his gun and point it, though not to shoot. He is told twice that the gun is "cold", which is apparently movie parlance meaning that it is not loaded with live ammunition. He elects to pull the trigger (I know he denies it but that seems indisputable; actors do improvise often, sometimes in situations like this to show the director what the improvised version looks like), and the gun was not in fact "cold".


Using only those facts, and assuming there is no other mitigating factors, I have a hard time seeing that rise to the level of criminal negligence, even applying the existing rule of law. But it is a close call. I do think the fact that he was not supposed to pull the trigger in the scene does mean there is a case for criminal liability.


One thing I haven't seen that I would be interested in knowing is whether film gun safety protocol requires that even if everyone believes the gun is unloaded, there must be no one in the line of fire if the trigger is pulled. If that is indeed the standard for the industry, then I think there's a very strong case for criminal culpable negligence, because he knew someone was in the line of fire. However, if it is standard film practice to film a gun being fired with someone in the line of fire, believing that the gun is cold, then I have a hard time believing he is criminally negligent.

 

This mishap poses an excellent case for greater gun control. Even in a controlled environment with hired professionals whose job it was to prevent accidental shooting, a deadly weapon became exactly that. But we have people who are adamant that even in situations devoid of such controls, that Americans should have the right to possess firearms.

 

It is not the first time someone was killed during the filming of a movie. Actor Vic Morrow and 2 children were killed during the filming of The Twilight Zone and they went ahead with production.

 

Has anyone thought that how few times these types of incidents happen on set? How many times does a gun get pointed at someone? So many movies use them, but think about the scene and how many times do you actually see the gun pointed at another person? If your answer is plenty, then this makes the case for negligence even stronger. Because if they are pointing guns at each other all the time yet very few incidences, someone knows what they are doing on every other set and every other actor but this one?

 

I remember that 51. Sad for sure. Vic at least had a nice run, the kids did not.

I think Baldwin will get his hand slapped, I doubt he gets time and if he does it will be one of those locked in the house ankle bracelet deals.

I can't believe the guy is saying: 'I didn't pull the trigger" I suspect he is on film depressing the trigger but I don't know.

 

While definitely liable civilly I'm not sure that would rise to the level of criminal negligence.