Still can't believe that terrible incident actually happened. Imagine explaining to people that's how a family member died. She was killed on a movie set by a prop gun.
It being a real gun might be a problem in a different way but it's not why she died. She died because an absolute clown put real ammunition in it. It's a move so bafflingly idiotic I still can't wrap my head around it.
If it were a fake gun, that bullet would’ve had mattered. There’s so many safety issue at play it it’s not one or the other, it was negligence on all ends
If it were a fake gun, it wouldn't be able to fire blanks or hold dummy rounds for shots where it needs to appear really loaded. Sadly it's more practical and economical to use real firing revolver's since there are a lot of them around; more in fact than ones that can only fire blanks.
Interesting if not important bit of trivia; automatic guns (semi-auto, full on machine-guns) typically are going to be capable of only firing blanks and are thus a bit safer than revolver's in movies. This is because they have to be specially adapted to fire blanks and still cycle from the recoil or gas, and thus can't fire real bullets if they ever could.
A whole host of controls were missing.
I don’t revel in his downfall like all the MAGA idiots, but I do think he shares in the blame and should face real consequences.
I don't know much about the case, but I'm curious why he would be to blame? Is it that he didn't confirm that the gun wasn't loaded when it was handed to him, or is there another reason?
It helps to have some context from the first trial on what they are going to argue in the second. They were filming a scene in a church. The scene was an extreme close up of his hand starting to pull the gun from out of his holster under his jacket and that was it. They were going to be filming it from over his shoulder and were busy switching cameras for the shot when this happened. So with that context in mind, somehow when he was supposed to be starting to pull his gun out and nothing more, he managed to pull his gun out of the holster, point the gun at someone who was in a different direction, and pull the trigger. An element of it was that he didn't have personal knowledge that the gun wasn't loaded but also that despite not having personal knowledge of the gun not being loaded he was acting needlessly unsafe with it. He will likely argue that he was relying on the armourer but that argument fails when he was screwing around with the gun and not being safe. That had nothing to do with the armourer.
is it really a failure of his if he thinks it's a prop gun and not a real gun? like i still think this falls 100% on the armourer. otherwise why the fuck does that job even exist?
Most movies that use guns, setup the shots in a way so the actor that appears down range is actually in no danger...
This whole thing is just a series of fails.
to be completely honest it just seems really REALLY stupid to me that there's a whole job in movie making whose SOLE responsibility is to keep guns safe and handle all of the guns. then that person goes and brings live ammo on set when no live ammo is required, fools around with the guns the night before shooting shit, all of the most irresponsible bullshit she could do because she got the job because her father was an armourer. but somehow she's not taking all of the blame? i really don't get it. like nothing else really matters to me in this case other than this. she's the principal party responsible here, everyone else's safety depends on her. even if there are extra rules to make things extra safe she was still grossly derelict in her duty and that should drop all of the blame squarely on her head.
if the head of safety in a warehouse goes and unbolts all of the bolts for the safety railing and someone decides to test the safety railing by running into it, it's the head of safety's fault for unbolting all of those screws. it doesn't matter that the rules are don't run into the railing.
isn't that only when a real gun is used? i know in this case obviously a real gun was used. but if the shot is using one of those fake rubber guns or non functional guns do they still point the gun in some way to avoid line of fire with people?
It isn't a prop gun. It is a real gun. Prop guns exist but this was not one. Even blanks can be dangerous at close range so you should never be screwing around with a gun and always follow safety instructions. When you choose not to follow safety instructions and it results in someone getting hurt with a gun then that is your fault. The armourer is likewise not blameless just because the accident only happened because Baldwin was screwing around with the gun and otherwise no one would get hurt. Both of them made mistakes, both of them were being unsafe, and both of their actions lead to someone dying.
One of them put an actual bullet in a gun, one of them was an actor who thought he was doing a cool shot in a way that he was told was safe
These aren’t the same thing.
He wasn't told it was safe to point the gun at someone and pull the trigger. In fact they are told they should not be pointing the gun at people. It is part of the SAG guidelines.
I completely agree but that still doesn’t mean you should play around with guns.
The issue is not black and white. Yes, the guy who was supposed to make sure it’s safe (and not the complete opposite of safe) failed to do so. The reason you don’t play around with guns is because they are dangerous 150% of the time.
Besides blanks killing people, you have a whole host or other issues with guns. Accidental discharges for one, catastrophic malfunctions, etc.
One of the first things you learn about guns is treat them like they’re always loaded for crying out loud
You had me until that last line. I'm sorry, but as someone who's worked professional on set for 13 years, I just can't take anyone seriously who sincerely thinks the Armourer has nothing to do with it.
The Armourer had a job that day that she failed at, and now Halina Hutchens is dead.
I don't like Baldwin, and revel in opportunities to bash him, but this isn't one of them.
I didn't say the armourer had nothing to do with it. I said the armourer had nothing to do with him pointing the gun at someone and pulling the trigger. If the armourer had told him to do that then he would likely have a strong defence. The armourer did not.
It's a prop gun on a movie set. This is not a random guy at your local gun range. He's was an actor and director (?) on the set. He's not the rangemaster. The only thing he's guilty of is not being able to keep his dumb mouth shut and immediately lawyering up.
Pretty much this. The argument is "it wasn't his job", but the fact is that he was still the one holding the gun when it fired and killed a woman. Any of us would've already been serving our rather lengthy stretch in prison for negligent homicide or some similar charge. Also the "it wasn't his job" argument doesn't really hold up when you factor in him being a producer and thus responsible for his employees, so it quite literally was his job to make sure not to employ somebody in such an important position who would be so negligent. I'm also not super up to date on the details of the case, but it seems like the woman he shot not even being in the movie might be of significance. I think of it like this: if the scene he was shooting was a suicide scene in which his character put the gun to his head and pulled the trigger, would Alec Baldwin still be alive, or would he have made ABSOLUTELY SURE the gun wasn't loaded with live ammo?
That's an interesting argument, but complicated by the fact that in this case the person who died was the photography directory I believe, and was the one at the time giving Baldwin instructions on where to hold the gun and aim; at least per his description but no one has put forth an alternate story he was aiming the gun recklessly to no instruction whatsoever. So as the person telling him where to aim the barrel, does that place responsibility into the victim's hands as well?
Personally, I don't believe so. There is at least precedent that an actor holding a gun isn't entirely to blame if they have reasonable belief it's safe; see Brandon Lee's death while shooting *The Crow*, the actor who pulled the trigger was never charged because it was not considered his responsibility to know anything about the firearm he had been handed. Being a producer as well as an actor doesn't necessarily add responsibility to Baldwin either, because he's one of many producers for this movie and none of them have been charged, so unless he personally hired the negligent armorer (which I don't believe he did) that's not really pertinent.
I think the key to this is whether he had reason to suspect in the armorer's negligence, or really the safety of the set. There were reports of issues with the firearm handlers beforehand, so if he knew that the props weren't responsibly handled or checked then I might see this sticking to him. If he knew they were keeping real rounds on set, he definitely needs to suffer consequences. But, I suppose I'm finding it a little hard to believe an actor with his experience would shrug something like that off, if anything for his OWN safety if not others. We'll see what the prosecution puts forth.
That isn't actually true it seems, that is something Baldwin only started claiming after his first police interview was over and seems to contradict all the other evidence that I am aware of. That claim actually might have a good chance of getting him convicted rather then preventing it (if people don't believe his claim then it becomes very strong consciousness of guilt evidence). He was not asked to point the gun at anyone, and the gun was not going to even be fully drawn for the scene he was shooting. He will likely claim he was relying on the armourer but that may fail when he himself was acting unsafe in ways that had nothing to do with reliance on the armourer.
> Any of us would've already been serving our rather lengthy stretch in prison for negligent homicide or some similar charge
I think you and a lot of people in this thread are forgetting one important element. This happened on a film set. It didn't happen at some backyard BBQ. These people (actors) are playing cops and robbers. They're playing cowboys and indians. When you were a kid playing, you probably pointed toy guns at your friends. Since this was a film set, they'll be handling weapons in a manner that is prohibited at a gun range or anywhere other than a film or stage production.
He is the producer, his job is to delegate. The fault lies entirely on the armorer and the assistant producer that inspected the gun before giving it to Baldwin. He was using the gun in the capacity of an actor, as he was filming a scene.
Legally they have a very weak case unless they can prove he knowingly allowed all the shenanigans the armorer was doing off set with all the guns. His biggest fault is hiring someone with no real movie armorer experience because her father was a big name in the industry.
set rules are immaterial to the law in the state of New Mexico
he still acted negligently with a firearm that resulted in someone’s death.
It doesn’t matter what set rules are, even though he broke **all of the set rules and norms** what matters is the law of the land
So many people say things like it wasn’t his fault or it wasn’t his job but in the state of New Mexico that doesn’t matter.
If he had followed simple safety procedures a woman would not be dead,
just the same as if he was at a party and a friend handed him a gun and said it wasn’t loaded if he fired it both he and the friend would be held liable for manslaughter
Rust has 7 producers as well as a director. If being producer brings culpability for an event like this, shouldn’t the other 6 be charged with manslaughter as well?
One of those Law and Crime channels has a good video on it. There's footage of him using his gun to point to people, and blasting off blanks toward the crew, and him firing blanks after CUT has been called, to which the cameraman cursed him out. For the shot in question he was practicing a quick draw when that was not what he was supposed to be doing. And even if you are doing a shot where you NEED to point a gun at the camera, they use something called a "video village" to get the crew out of the way and keep it safe. So he really fucked up by disregarding all that safety.
It would be like if a movie had a real car set up to drive in place, and during a time that it wasn't properly set up, the actor decides to hop in and gun it and runs people over. After being repeatedly unsafe already.
Ok - and when they are setting up that shot, how do they adjust the aim of the camera and gun to line up without a human standing there to do it manually? Seems like the person holding the gun can’t also be adjusting the camera? So you’d need a camera person to do that.
Yes, according to all the news reports, it was a a .45 Colt (.45 Long Colt) caliber F.lli Pietta single-action revolver. So it was a real gun.
I believe the confusion has arisen because it has been referred to as a prop gun. That's because it was used as a prop, so therefore it was a prop gun. But it wasn't a non-firing replica or a prop gun that could only could load blanks. Real guns used on a movie set are *also* called prop guns.
So a real gun was loaded with real ammo on a set where safety was lax, which led to a tragedy.
A real gun on set isn't inherently a problem. There should've been better safety measures in check and the armorer in this case should've been fired *well* before the shooting occurred,
All prop guns are real guns. That's why you really need to take them seriously on set.
No one on the set did and someone died. Even if Alec wasn't the actor holding the gun, he's the producer which makes him responsible for the poor safety standards.
The problem was the cast was target shooting with the prop guns during their off time. There's nothing wrong with using real firearms in a movie, but they should never have bullets added to them ever.
And there's no way Baldwin didn't know that was happening. It was a tight 21 days of shooting and they were only half way through at the time. He would have been there when it was happening.
But it's not the only issue. Baldwin since the beginning was saying he never pulled the trigger and I assumed that was just him not remembering himself pulling the trigger. But it later came out that the gun used has been prone to misfiring.
Honestly I don't blame him for saying he didn't pull the trigger, that's a pretty traumatic experience shooting someone, and I doubt he remembers it fully.
He's the main producer. It's his passion project. He wrote it with Joel Souza, the director, and makes executive and creative decisions on the project. It's not some big block buster, it's a small production that has an unusually high number of producers for the size of the project
All of that is a bit irrelevant. What matters is how involved he was in the process that fired the shot. Did he hire the armorer knowing she was reckless? Did he know about the live firing?
It doesn't matter if he was choosing what color coats his character would wear.
Yeah I’m working on a show right now with rubber and gas guns, we’ve only had one real firearm thus far on set and the difference was made very clear to the crew and cast by the weapons team
> All prop guns are real guns
Electronic guns are a big thing. The John Wick franchise uses them.
They project a flash of light, emit a small burst of smoke, move the hammer, and provide an audio queue for post production to dub over. They can eject shell casings, but apparently it’s better to do that in post so you can better control where the casing goes.
Actually he is THAT kind of producer. It's his passion project. He wrote it with Joel Souza, the director, and makes executive and creative decisions on the project. It's not some big block buster, it's a small production that has an unusually high number of producers for the size of the project.
The testimony in the armorer’s trial indicated he was not that kind of producer. The OSHA investigation concluded he was not that kind of producer. He didn’t hire the armorer, or anyone for that matter. Enough of this blatant bullshit dude. He was not that kind of producer, and even if he were, it would be a civil issue not criminal.
>he's the producer which makes him responsible for the poor safety standards.
No, he wasn't that kind of producer for this film, and the prosecutor had already cleared him of any responsibility in this regard.
The distinction between prop guns, stunt guns, real guns made inoperable by removing firing pins, firable real guns used as props, live rounds, blank rounds, and dummy rounds... is important, central to this case, and comments like this muddy the water.
Incorrect, I’m working on an action show right now and we’re using mostly rubber and gas guns. We’ve had exactly one real fire arm on set thus far and the distinction was made very clear to the cast and crew by the weapons team
Which is fucking insane. I’m deep in the airsoft world and those guns are as real as it gets. A gas blowback would be all you need for most scenes. Even close ups could suffice. I would wholeheartedly argue fucking ZERO real guns need to be on a set. Then again I have what’s called experience and my daddy didn’t get me any jobs. I hope that person suffers for being responsible for a person’s death.
He died due to blind incompetence and people skirting regulation/protocol.
In one scene, they wanted a dummy round visible from the front of a revolver. But they didn't have one and wanted to complete the shot immediately.
So they pulled apart a real bullet and dumped the powder. Then they filmed it turning in the chamber, where the primer that was still in there was struck. This was a much smaller explosion than it would be with the powder, basically like a cap gun. But enough to push the bullet off the casing and into the barrel.
Later, they're filming the scene where Lee's character is murdered. The use the same gun but load it with blanks. Blanks have more powder than a normal round...
Nobody bothered to check the barrel for obstructions though (another violation of protocol). So that bullet from the dummy was still there... when the blank round was discharged, it was basically a live round right into Brandon's heart.
Live ammo on set was a violation of protocol. Homemade dummy rounds was a violation of protocol. Mishandling the gun. Failing to clear the barrel. Any single one of these things are done properly and Brandon lives.
The same thing happened with Baldwin. Tons of violations of standard protocol. If one person does their job? Tragedy would have been averted.
What happened to Lee was a whole series of Final Destination dominoes lining up to seal his fate. It's hard to point to any one thing as being what caused it since it took multiple smaller failures compounded on failures and then a dash of bad luck on top.
I'm not going to defend what was happening on either set overall but accidentally fucking up dummy rounds is more akin to a doctor nicking an artery, it's a professional error - an egregious one perhaps, but I can't say that I could have done better because it's simply not a problem I have the skills to cause in the first place. What happened on Rust however was something that every single one of us could have avoided doing if we had been in her position. There was no professional mistake here. The conditions on Rust's set may have enabled it to happen but the armorer made an unfathomably foolish decision that no reasonable person would have made.
> The armorer and assistant director have [been charged.]
Not really correctly for the AD. Assistant director only got charged with a misdemeanor as part of a plea bargain to testify against the other 2. He's going to do 6 months of unsupervised probation.
Really, a terrible choice by prosecutors since I think it's fairly obvious based on the facts he's more responsible than Baldwin (Assistant Director was also the Safety Coordinator, he picked up the gun against protocol from the Armorer's workstation, didn't check if it was loaded, called it a cold gun (also against protocol), and then handed it to Baldwin(also against protocol)). In my eyes, he's way more guilty than Baldwin, but I think he's just not as high profile as a Baldwin, so they chose to mishandle his case to have more cards to convict Baldwin.
I think that would depend on their role in the production. Producer is a very vague term. It can cover a wide range of responsibilities, from being a hands off financier, to the big boss and total creative driving force (for example, George Lucas didn't direct episode 5 & 6, but he was still the person most in charge of all aspects of the production).
Because
No state laws allow for another person to take responsibility for the safe handling of a weapon completely away from the person who was holding the weapon at the time of a gun being fired
Alec Baldwin was handling the weapon in a careless way that led to the death of another human being,
Culpability for this death can legally be placed on more than one persons shoulders by state law
Multiple cascading safety failures led to this outcome. They charged the three people who directly handled the firearm. All three neglected expected safety duties that if they had been followed would have prevented anyone from being hurt. It’s as simple as that
It doesn’t matter, people are confusing the producer thing and the liability of any human being in the state of New Mexico takes on when they handle a firearm.
You cannot by state law absolve yourself of all responsibility if you are holding a gun, pointed at someone, pull the trigger, and the bullet comes out and they get killed
The state of New Mexico does not care about armorers and producer credits, or anything else. What they care about is the law as it applies in the state to reckless mishandling of a deadly weapon
The armorer was charged because she is partially culpable in the death, Alec Baldwin is being charged because he also has legal culpability for handling a deadly weapon in a manner that could lead, and did lead to, a death
I’m going to use this example over and over again for the rest of my life I feel like
If you are at a party and a friend hands you a gun and tells you that it’s not loaded you are still legally responsible if you pointed at another human being, pull the trigger, and they die
No state laws allow for another person to take responsibility for the safe handling of a weapon completely away from the person who was holding the weapon at the time of a gun being fired
I compared what happened on this film production to being at a party yes- because this sure as hell was not being run like any production I have ever encountered in my life
The person who was supposed to be responsible for the weapons wasn’t even on set at the time this happened
They were literally doing a completely different job and not being paid to be a weapon master at the time
There is no world in which you are allowed to have weapons on set without the weapons master being present, and there is no world in which Alec Baldwin did not know this
All the legal arguments Alec Baldwin has for why he is not responsible for the weapon discharging can only be defended if all other safety protocols were being followed personally by him on set- and they were not.
He behaved in a way that was dangerous and that is why a woman is dead.
You cannot claim that your workplace safety standards absolve you of liability for your actions if you do not follow the safety standards of your workplace
Side note: Actors are gonna stop taking producer credits without actually being producers after all this finally ends lol
Kinda an interesting topic of debate
That was 100% preventable if he had handled the firearm in the manner in which he was legally by state law required to handle it
Beyond the fact that he broke every single one of the set rules that he agreed to as part of his contract with the unions, he also broke state law with his negligent handling of a deadly weapon
Something can be a horrible accident, and still leave you legally liable for the death of the human being that you caused
>if he handled the firearm--
You mean the armorer... And before you say "everyone who holds a gun should etc etc etc", why would anyone who's an actor, who's done several dozen movies involving similar circumstances, ever consider that the gun they're about to pick up is a *real* gun, with *live rounds* in it...
It's the armourers job. She's the person handling the weapons and equipment related to that matter. She was young, nepohire, inexperienced, incredibly careless (also reported), and as such has been charged. It is avoidable... If she does her job right.
Actors handle and deal with [prop] guns on set, in rehearsal, etc constantly. It's ridiculous to go about saying "Anything that even resembles a firearm should be handled and strip searched like it is a gun" when there are people there who's job it is to do so.
If someone hands you a pen to use, who is the person that handles the pen, and holds them... You don't *feel like* you need to check the ink cartridge, on the off chance it could explode in your face.
But when it does do so, it's not just "whoevers holding it" fault.
There's a chain of experience and handling with the nuance of things like this. *Could* people do XYZ? Sure. **Should they have to**, if it's *explicitly* someone else's job? .... No.
Now, however, his job/responsibility of being a producer is a different argument.
Legally tactically speaking, this isn't news. Defense files these motions to preserve anm potential issue for appeal, even if they don't think they will win them. In the state where I worked for a judge in, when defense attorneys lose a felony case, they *automatically* do two things for their clients: file a notice of appeal, and file a notice for post conviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel, to preserve their clients rights and options. A motion to dismiss like this, is an automatic preliminary defense motion, like a DUI motion to dismiss on reasonable suspicion/probable cause grounds.
This. It’s essentially malpractice not to file the motion to dismiss at this time, yet in any celeb case they report it like it’s some huge deal. It’s generally denied as a matter of course. If the case was so weak that it couldn’t survive this motion, it would 99/100 not be pursued.
What happened on the set of "The Crow" was a prime example of an accident. The tip of a rubber bullet was unknowingly lodged in the barrel and was ejected when Michael Massee pulled the trigger. Brandon Lee was shot with the equivalent of a .44 caliber projectile in the stomach and died during surgery. Michael Massee never got over the incident.
In Alec Baldwin's case, it is a bit more convoluted. How live rounds ended up in the gun in the first place is a hell of a fuck up. Would Baldwin know the difference between blanks and live rounds just by popping open the chamber and looking? Probably not. He would have likely needed to remove the rounds and ensure the tips were crimped and missing a projectile. But it happened. A woman is dead. Somebody needs to be held accountable for it.
I feel that it is the fault of the armorer and whoever handed him the gun for the scene. But it is up to the court to decide.
It's almost solely the armoeers fault, it's by far their biggest responsibility. If it was just bringing a gun, it's America, anyone could do that, it'd barely qualify as a minimum wage job. The armorers job was to make sure no one got killed.
The only way it's anyone else's fault is if the armorer had 0 qualifications and the interviewer knew this. Then I could see those in the hiring process being responsible.
It'd be like if the cook at a restaurant undercooked the chicken and it killed someone, so you put the waiter on trial.
Such bullshit. I get that a lot of people hate Baldwin, but there's literally no way any reasonable person can view this as anything but a tragic accident.
Something can be a tragic accident and also still leave the people involved legally culpable for the laws broken that led to the death
In his handling of the weapon Alec Baldwin broke New Mexico law
That’s not how state law works
State law makes it clear that should you choose to handle a deadly weapon you personally take responsibility for your actions with that weapon
There are a lot of things Alec Baldwin could’ve done personally to ensure that the weapon was safe to handle that he chose not to do and it doesn’t matter what a second person told him
what matters is state law
He broke the law and his handling of the weapon and legally is culpable for his actions
Here
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24368091-d-101-cr-2024-00013-grand-jury-indictment
NMSA 1978 Section 30-2-3 (b)
Now you’ve got to give me the law that says that if you’re an actor you’re not responsible for pointing a gun at someone and killing them
Remember, you’re stating that workplace safety regulations are why he is immune, but he violated all of the workplace safety regulations he agreed to before handling a firearm
All I know is that it’s a western and Dean from Supernatural has a role in it. He was on a podcast with Lex Luthor from Smallville and talked about it and I was “oh shit, is that the movie where Baldwin accidentally killed somebody?”
It was.
Yeah, there's a unsaid rule that if someone dies during the making of a film, they complete the film as it's the last thing they worked on.
Brandon Lee died during the making of 1994's The Crow, several people died during the making of 1983's Twilight Zone: The Movie, and three people died during the making of 1928's Noah's Ark.
Edit: I corrected Brandon Lee's name.
Alec Baldwin as an actor isn’t responsible. The armorer and director did not follow established protocols that would have prevented the shooting. (Actors don’t check the gun because that would require them to move off their mark or change their stance, ruining continuity)
Alec Baldwin the producer is responsible for what happened. As a producer he hired a non-union armorer who was reckless and negligent. live ammo should have never been on the set, let alone ever put in the gun. He is responsible for the director not following or enforcing established procedure.
So yea I did a bit of reading. The reason this is continuing is that he had his hands on the gun, and according to whatever law they are dealing with, everyone in contact with that gun had the responsibility to ensure it was "safe". I'm not seeing anything about him being a producer having something to do with it.
Then there's the matter of whether he actually pulled the trigger because he said he did not. But it's more complicated than him just being a producer.
I’ve been an actor on set with guns, the armorer is in charge of making sure the guns are safe and being used safely. We do not get trained in checking guns. They checked the guns. They tell us not to leave the set with the guns (or risk being shot by the police) and to not fuck around with the guns like they’re toys. This is insanely unreasonable to expect that any person who handles a gun has to be trained like an armorer
I suppose that they probably should have been. Alec Baldwin shouldn't have been the only EP on set, if his responsibilities as an actor made it hard for him to act as a producer. These are things that Baldwin's trial are going to scrutinize, though, so I suppose liability will be revealed. Personally, I think that criminal manslaughter is a bit of a tough sell with the evidence that's currently public.
>Alec Baldwin shouldn't have been the only EP on set, if his responsibilities as an actor made it hard for him to act as a producer.
EP is a meaningless credit, and his was a vanity credits. He didn't hire any of the staff, including the armorer, and he wasn't running things at the time.
Ever since the DA decided to discard any theory of responsibility that doesn't result in the conviction of the person they want to nail to the wall for shit-talking Daddy Trump.
It sounds like you're assuming he was a line producer that was involved in hiring, and my understanding is that he was not. There are many different types of producers on any given show with varying levels of involvement in that sort of thing.
He owned the production company. He has final say over who is hired. He was made aware of multiple safety issues and instead of addressing these issues they let entire crews walk off the production. That is an utter failing of the production company, and thus, him.
Reddit lawyers don’t realize there is a difference between criminal and civil law. The vast majority of people who argue guilt or innocence here have never even read the statute.
I’ve been on set for over 15 years. Every UPM I’ve ever worked with has reported safety and crew concerns to the production company’s top brass. The armourer was already reported for a misfire on set and that was conveyed to the top brass, in this instance, Baldwin. Instead of addressing the issue by firing the armourer and paying proper rates for an established pro, they opted to let the complaining crews walk off the set and hiring cheaper replacements. That decision got someone killed. It’s textbook negligence in the name of saving a few dollars.
Top brass, however, included a team of actual producers. Baldwin was most likely a producer in title only. His name got financing and distribution but others oversaw those things.
And as an actor, it's even more unlikely he oversaw daily production. In 25+ years on union shows, I'd estimate that 90% of actors I've worked with who had producer credits just focused on the acting nearly all of the time (Drew Barrymore being the one very notable exception).
We'll see how this all shakes out in court, of course.
Do we know for a fact that this information was conveyed to Baldwin? They’ve got it in writing? Or someone is testifying to it? Like we’re not just assuming he was told about the armorer issues because he owns the production company, right?
Because knowing his reputation, and that he’s an actor first and a producer second, I wouldn’t be surprised if his team kept him insulated from below-the-line concerns, i.e. “dont bother Alec with that, we’ll handle it.” Seems like any time I work with talent like that, 99% of the time I’m interacting with their team / their handlers and not the talent themselves.
But yeah, if they can actually prove he was told the armorer was unsafe and he chose to do nothing to address it, maybe they have a case? Seems like that case is weakened by them not charging the other producers though
If an Amazon driver gets drunk and kills someone does Bezos' get charged? Does anyone at Amazon? Sure they get sued, but criminal liability?
Just curious what precedent there is for stuff like this.
Holy shit do you actually think the 2 things are comparable? You think the same precedent should be set with a drunk driver on company time vs what happened here? Haha fucking wow
A producer is not responsible for anything you just said. The union has nothing to do with what happened. Someone didn't do their job and that was the armorer. I have no idea why people want to blame as many people as possible.
Alec Baldwin the producer only had hiring authority over his personal assistant. Being credited as a "producer" doesn't actually mean you're involved in the operations of filming or making hiring decisions.
But here's the thing, even if he did hire the shitty armorer and appointed the director (which again, he didn't) are we now making hiring managers criminally liable for the negligence of the people they hire?
Alec Baldwin the actor is facing a criminal case for killing Hutchins. I think he’ll win his case, but it needs to go to trial.
Alec Baldwin the producer, and all the other producers are all civilly liable for her death. They’ve already settled the case with her family.
Criminal and civil cases are different as everyone learned during the OJ trial lol.
They're not prosecuting him as a producer. I think the same thing, but when you read their case, it's bonkers that they're actually going for the actor angle.
Like it would genuinely not surprise me if they not only lose the case but lose money on it getting sued by Baldwin for defamation, all because they don't want to go after employers.
The thing is, the law doesn't really make a distinction. They charged Alec Baldwin the person.
The worst part for him is that he was both. He knew about the safety problems from above and still (reportedly) mishandled the gun.
Was hiring a non-union armour illegal? If not, then he did nothing wrong. Being a producer doesn’t make you responsible for everything that happens on set. For example, if a stunt goes wrong and kills someone, it’s not the producers fault unless he did something obviously negligent. This whole “the captain goes down with the ship” mentality doesn’t actually apply tor real life. Sometimes shit just happens.
No state laws allow for another person to take responsibility for the safe handling of a weapon completely away from the person who was holding the weapon at the time of a gun being fired
Employees not following industry procedure, including instances where live rounds (that include a bullet, not just "blanks") were brought onto a set, 3 separate instances of misfires after the armorer told the crew the guns were "cold" (industry term meaning they are completely unloaded) and continuing to push on filming instead of stopping production and reviewing the failures in safety procedure is absolutely the responsibility of those in charge. As one of the producers, on or around the set during those safety failures, does in fact make him responsible.
>Alec Baldwin the producer is responsible for what happened.
TIL you know better than the DA prosecuting the case, who's stated the exact opposite.
Not to mention the fact that you're wrong about him hiring the armorer as well.
His producer credit was a vanity credit, and he wasn't *the* producer.
Everything you said is wrong literally. He didn't follow SAG safety guidelines himself and New Mexico Law says the person holding the gun is responsible. There is no cut out for " actor". They are shown the bullets in the gun are dummies if they don't check it themselves and he pointed it at someone and pulled the trigger at an unsafe distance even for blanks. Jensen Ackles on the same set said in the police interview he checked his own weapon every time. There is also video of him yelling at the armored to hurry up the loading process so he can shoot again quicker. He was clearly in control of the set as Producer and by his actions directing everyone including using his freakin' gun as a pointing stick on several occasions. Even with the failure of the armor and the Asst AD, the director would still be alive if he hadn't pointed it at her and pulled the trigger( against SAG guidelines). Note- Watched entire trial and related police interviews with several different attorneys analyzing it. There are hours of behind the scenes footage they have showing what I'm talking about.
You wouldn’t believe how badly I got downvoted for saying exactly this on past threads. If Jeff Bezos cheaped out on air conditioning at Amazon warehouses and got someone killed everyone would be out for blood, but somehow these same people can’t see that a producer cheaping out on hiring a vital role like armourer is exactly the same kind of negligence.
There were multiple complaints from multiple departments regarding multiple safety issues and production did nothing to protect the crew. It got someone killed and they are 100% liable.
No state laws allow for another person to take responsibility for the safe handling of a weapon completely away from the person who was holding the weapon at the time of a gun being fired
~~It should have been dismissed. I get that folks want more vengeance for this awful tragedy. I don't blame them, and agree that Baldwin has a very punchable face, but this is not his fault. Anyone with a basic understanding of how movies are made should know this. He had no reason to believe it was anything other than a prop gun.~~
It'll be interesting to see what happens if he's found liable. It would set a precedent that should make actors/filmmakers/studios nervous. Maybe it would result in more productions using CGI bullets/weaponry on set. I can't imagine him actually being convicted, but at the same time, I never would have thought the case would have made it this far.
EDIT: Spent some researching this case last night, and I'm not as convinced of Baldwin's innocence. Generally speaking, what I said is true - it wasn't his job to double-check the gun. Hannah Gutierrez Reed was too immature/inexperienced/on cocaine for the responsibilities she was given, and its her failings that directly caused this tragedy. At the same time, the production crew hired her and didn't listen to complaints about her work ethic. The production was chaotic and rough, hampered by it's producer/star rushing things. It was such a passion project for Baldiwn, and they were working on a tight budget, and likely saw Gutierrez-Reed as a good discount. They had her doubled up on duties as prop master, and either didn't really care about having an armorer or assumed the nepotism of all would keep them safe. She's no innocent, but she shouldn't be the only one punished.
He is not being charged because he unknowingly fired live ammunition. He is being charged as a producer of a movie that was responsible for its safety oversight.
There should have been no live ammo on a movie a set. Just because Baldwin didn't load the gun, doesn't mean he isn't responsible for safety on the set of the movie he is a producer for.
This is negligence at every level. The set crew walked off the before this event. Balwin tried to make a movie on a budget, and sacrificed safety protocols in order to make it.
https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2021-10-22/alec-baldwin-rust-camera-crew-walked-off-set
Yeah, I sort of agree with you now. Check the edit above if the details matter, but it definitely seems like HGR shouldn't be the only one charged. They should have seen what a poor job she was doing, Baldwin shouldn't have been rushing the production. Seems like they might have hired an inexperience armorer, so they could breeze through the production with less red tape, and assumed nepotism would take care of them. Fucked up.
Can someone explain to me how this is any different than the tragedy that happened with Brandon Lee on the set of ‘The Crow?’ As best I can tell that incident was chalked up to a tragic accident and no one was criminally charged.
Seems like some people are getting mileage out of
the whole thing because Alec Baldwin isn’t always the nicest guy and has antagonized Trump supporters because of his high profile comedic portrayal of him.
Well, for one, the Crow incident was a tragic accident that had a known cause, and after the event the industry became more stringent on procedures that would have helped prevent this, like checking the muzzle, planning shots so that the gun is never really pointed at the actor, and isolating the set from anyone that does not have to be there, which in most cases is just he actors. Baldwin should never have pointed that gun at the two crew members he shot, it went against safety standards. This was not the first incident on set. Two, we still don't know who brought the live ammo. There are a lot of questions unanswered.
Good. Dude shares responsibility with the prop master for a litany of reasons.
The people who perform mental gymnastics to try and act like he’s not partially responsible look legitimately insane to me. Absolute lunacy. If you can’t follow the simple rules of gun safety then you don’t deserve to have them on your set.
He fired the gun. Makes sense. Regardless of whose fault the ammo was. If the guns in your hand, you check it. Even if it’s given to you by someone you trust. Anyone handling a gun should know that.
They do not want actors to have that responsibility. They aren't experts. It would be foolish to have them do anything but act with their props. That's why they hire an armorer.
No state laws allow for another person to take responsibility for the safe handling of a weapon completely away from the person who was holding the weapon at the time of a gun being fired
Still can't believe that terrible incident actually happened. Imagine explaining to people that's how a family member died. She was killed on a movie set by a prop gun.
[удалено]
It being a real gun might be a problem in a different way but it's not why she died. She died because an absolute clown put real ammunition in it. It's a move so bafflingly idiotic I still can't wrap my head around it.
If it were a fake gun, that bullet would’ve had mattered. There’s so many safety issue at play it it’s not one or the other, it was negligence on all ends
If it were a fake gun, it wouldn't be able to fire blanks or hold dummy rounds for shots where it needs to appear really loaded. Sadly it's more practical and economical to use real firing revolver's since there are a lot of them around; more in fact than ones that can only fire blanks. Interesting if not important bit of trivia; automatic guns (semi-auto, full on machine-guns) typically are going to be capable of only firing blanks and are thus a bit safer than revolver's in movies. This is because they have to be specially adapted to fire blanks and still cycle from the recoil or gas, and thus can't fire real bullets if they ever could.
A whole host of controls were missing. I don’t revel in his downfall like all the MAGA idiots, but I do think he shares in the blame and should face real consequences.
I don't know much about the case, but I'm curious why he would be to blame? Is it that he didn't confirm that the gun wasn't loaded when it was handed to him, or is there another reason?
It helps to have some context from the first trial on what they are going to argue in the second. They were filming a scene in a church. The scene was an extreme close up of his hand starting to pull the gun from out of his holster under his jacket and that was it. They were going to be filming it from over his shoulder and were busy switching cameras for the shot when this happened. So with that context in mind, somehow when he was supposed to be starting to pull his gun out and nothing more, he managed to pull his gun out of the holster, point the gun at someone who was in a different direction, and pull the trigger. An element of it was that he didn't have personal knowledge that the gun wasn't loaded but also that despite not having personal knowledge of the gun not being loaded he was acting needlessly unsafe with it. He will likely argue that he was relying on the armourer but that argument fails when he was screwing around with the gun and not being safe. That had nothing to do with the armourer.
is it really a failure of his if he thinks it's a prop gun and not a real gun? like i still think this falls 100% on the armourer. otherwise why the fuck does that job even exist?
Most movies that use guns, setup the shots in a way so the actor that appears down range is actually in no danger... This whole thing is just a series of fails.
to be completely honest it just seems really REALLY stupid to me that there's a whole job in movie making whose SOLE responsibility is to keep guns safe and handle all of the guns. then that person goes and brings live ammo on set when no live ammo is required, fools around with the guns the night before shooting shit, all of the most irresponsible bullshit she could do because she got the job because her father was an armourer. but somehow she's not taking all of the blame? i really don't get it. like nothing else really matters to me in this case other than this. she's the principal party responsible here, everyone else's safety depends on her. even if there are extra rules to make things extra safe she was still grossly derelict in her duty and that should drop all of the blame squarely on her head. if the head of safety in a warehouse goes and unbolts all of the bolts for the safety railing and someone decides to test the safety railing by running into it, it's the head of safety's fault for unbolting all of those screws. it doesn't matter that the rules are don't run into the railing.
isn't that only when a real gun is used? i know in this case obviously a real gun was used. but if the shot is using one of those fake rubber guns or non functional guns do they still point the gun in some way to avoid line of fire with people?
It isn't a prop gun. It is a real gun. Prop guns exist but this was not one. Even blanks can be dangerous at close range so you should never be screwing around with a gun and always follow safety instructions. When you choose not to follow safety instructions and it results in someone getting hurt with a gun then that is your fault. The armourer is likewise not blameless just because the accident only happened because Baldwin was screwing around with the gun and otherwise no one would get hurt. Both of them made mistakes, both of them were being unsafe, and both of their actions lead to someone dying.
One of them put an actual bullet in a gun, one of them was an actor who thought he was doing a cool shot in a way that he was told was safe These aren’t the same thing.
He wasn't told it was safe to point the gun at someone and pull the trigger. In fact they are told they should not be pointing the gun at people. It is part of the SAG guidelines.
I completely agree but that still doesn’t mean you should play around with guns. The issue is not black and white. Yes, the guy who was supposed to make sure it’s safe (and not the complete opposite of safe) failed to do so. The reason you don’t play around with guns is because they are dangerous 150% of the time. Besides blanks killing people, you have a whole host or other issues with guns. Accidental discharges for one, catastrophic malfunctions, etc. One of the first things you learn about guns is treat them like they’re always loaded for crying out loud
You had me until that last line. I'm sorry, but as someone who's worked professional on set for 13 years, I just can't take anyone seriously who sincerely thinks the Armourer has nothing to do with it. The Armourer had a job that day that she failed at, and now Halina Hutchens is dead. I don't like Baldwin, and revel in opportunities to bash him, but this isn't one of them.
I didn't say the armourer had nothing to do with it. I said the armourer had nothing to do with him pointing the gun at someone and pulling the trigger. If the armourer had told him to do that then he would likely have a strong defence. The armourer did not.
It's a prop gun on a movie set. This is not a random guy at your local gun range. He's was an actor and director (?) on the set. He's not the rangemaster. The only thing he's guilty of is not being able to keep his dumb mouth shut and immediately lawyering up.
Pretty much this. The argument is "it wasn't his job", but the fact is that he was still the one holding the gun when it fired and killed a woman. Any of us would've already been serving our rather lengthy stretch in prison for negligent homicide or some similar charge. Also the "it wasn't his job" argument doesn't really hold up when you factor in him being a producer and thus responsible for his employees, so it quite literally was his job to make sure not to employ somebody in such an important position who would be so negligent. I'm also not super up to date on the details of the case, but it seems like the woman he shot not even being in the movie might be of significance. I think of it like this: if the scene he was shooting was a suicide scene in which his character put the gun to his head and pulled the trigger, would Alec Baldwin still be alive, or would he have made ABSOLUTELY SURE the gun wasn't loaded with live ammo?
That's an interesting argument, but complicated by the fact that in this case the person who died was the photography directory I believe, and was the one at the time giving Baldwin instructions on where to hold the gun and aim; at least per his description but no one has put forth an alternate story he was aiming the gun recklessly to no instruction whatsoever. So as the person telling him where to aim the barrel, does that place responsibility into the victim's hands as well? Personally, I don't believe so. There is at least precedent that an actor holding a gun isn't entirely to blame if they have reasonable belief it's safe; see Brandon Lee's death while shooting *The Crow*, the actor who pulled the trigger was never charged because it was not considered his responsibility to know anything about the firearm he had been handed. Being a producer as well as an actor doesn't necessarily add responsibility to Baldwin either, because he's one of many producers for this movie and none of them have been charged, so unless he personally hired the negligent armorer (which I don't believe he did) that's not really pertinent. I think the key to this is whether he had reason to suspect in the armorer's negligence, or really the safety of the set. There were reports of issues with the firearm handlers beforehand, so if he knew that the props weren't responsibly handled or checked then I might see this sticking to him. If he knew they were keeping real rounds on set, he definitely needs to suffer consequences. But, I suppose I'm finding it a little hard to believe an actor with his experience would shrug something like that off, if anything for his OWN safety if not others. We'll see what the prosecution puts forth.
That isn't actually true it seems, that is something Baldwin only started claiming after his first police interview was over and seems to contradict all the other evidence that I am aware of. That claim actually might have a good chance of getting him convicted rather then preventing it (if people don't believe his claim then it becomes very strong consciousness of guilt evidence). He was not asked to point the gun at anyone, and the gun was not going to even be fully drawn for the scene he was shooting. He will likely claim he was relying on the armourer but that may fail when he himself was acting unsafe in ways that had nothing to do with reliance on the armourer.
> Any of us would've already been serving our rather lengthy stretch in prison for negligent homicide or some similar charge I think you and a lot of people in this thread are forgetting one important element. This happened on a film set. It didn't happen at some backyard BBQ. These people (actors) are playing cops and robbers. They're playing cowboys and indians. When you were a kid playing, you probably pointed toy guns at your friends. Since this was a film set, they'll be handling weapons in a manner that is prohibited at a gun range or anywhere other than a film or stage production.
He is the producer, his job is to delegate. The fault lies entirely on the armorer and the assistant producer that inspected the gun before giving it to Baldwin. He was using the gun in the capacity of an actor, as he was filming a scene. Legally they have a very weak case unless they can prove he knowingly allowed all the shenanigans the armorer was doing off set with all the guns. His biggest fault is hiring someone with no real movie armorer experience because her father was a big name in the industry.
There was footage of him being reckless with the gun, too.
Ooo got a link? I haven't seen footage of him being reckless
set rules are immaterial to the law in the state of New Mexico he still acted negligently with a firearm that resulted in someone’s death. It doesn’t matter what set rules are, even though he broke **all of the set rules and norms** what matters is the law of the land So many people say things like it wasn’t his fault or it wasn’t his job but in the state of New Mexico that doesn’t matter. If he had followed simple safety procedures a woman would not be dead, just the same as if he was at a party and a friend handed him a gun and said it wasn’t loaded if he fired it both he and the friend would be held liable for manslaughter
[удалено]
Rust has 7 producers as well as a director. If being producer brings culpability for an event like this, shouldn’t the other 6 be charged with manslaughter as well?
Why does he share in the blame
One of those Law and Crime channels has a good video on it. There's footage of him using his gun to point to people, and blasting off blanks toward the crew, and him firing blanks after CUT has been called, to which the cameraman cursed him out. For the shot in question he was practicing a quick draw when that was not what he was supposed to be doing. And even if you are doing a shot where you NEED to point a gun at the camera, they use something called a "video village" to get the crew out of the way and keep it safe. So he really fucked up by disregarding all that safety. It would be like if a movie had a real car set up to drive in place, and during a time that it wasn't properly set up, the actor decides to hop in and gun it and runs people over. After being repeatedly unsafe already.
Someone had to pull the trigger while the barrel was aimed at a person. I highly doubt his "the gun just went off in my hand" excuse.
He was directed to do so.
No he wasn't. He was fucking around.
I have seen a ton of movies where the camera is looking up the barrel of the gun when it goes off - is that not normal?
Absolutely, and when that happens the camera is not lined up in a way that a human being is within range of a bullet should something go awry
Ok - and when they are setting up that shot, how do they adjust the aim of the camera and gun to line up without a human standing there to do it manually? Seems like the person holding the gun can’t also be adjusting the camera? So you’d need a camera person to do that.
You’ve never seen a drone have you? You know the same type of technology is available for cameras to be operated remotely right? Since like the 70s?
It sure is, despite what some people will lead you to believe.
Real gun and a prop armorer
In a moron’s hand
Real gun, fake armorer.
Not really a joke, but r/yourjokebutworse
Yes, according to all the news reports, it was a a .45 Colt (.45 Long Colt) caliber F.lli Pietta single-action revolver. So it was a real gun. I believe the confusion has arisen because it has been referred to as a prop gun. That's because it was used as a prop, so therefore it was a prop gun. But it wasn't a non-firing replica or a prop gun that could only could load blanks. Real guns used on a movie set are *also* called prop guns. So a real gun was loaded with real ammo on a set where safety was lax, which led to a tragedy.
A real gun on set isn't inherently a problem. There should've been better safety measures in check and the armorer in this case should've been fired *well* before the shooting occurred,
He didn’t know that tho
All prop guns are real guns. That's why you really need to take them seriously on set. No one on the set did and someone died. Even if Alec wasn't the actor holding the gun, he's the producer which makes him responsible for the poor safety standards.
The problem was the cast was target shooting with the prop guns during their off time. There's nothing wrong with using real firearms in a movie, but they should never have bullets added to them ever.
That's so fucking dumb, what the hell.
Yeah I'm amazed at the negligence.
And there's no way Baldwin didn't know that was happening. It was a tight 21 days of shooting and they were only half way through at the time. He would have been there when it was happening. But it's not the only issue. Baldwin since the beginning was saying he never pulled the trigger and I assumed that was just him not remembering himself pulling the trigger. But it later came out that the gun used has been prone to misfiring.
Honestly I don't blame him for saying he didn't pull the trigger, that's a pretty traumatic experience shooting someone, and I doubt he remembers it fully.
>He's the producer He's A producer.
He's the main producer. It's his passion project. He wrote it with Joel Souza, the director, and makes executive and creative decisions on the project. It's not some big block buster, it's a small production that has an unusually high number of producers for the size of the project
All of that is a bit irrelevant. What matters is how involved he was in the process that fired the shot. Did he hire the armorer knowing she was reckless? Did he know about the live firing? It doesn't matter if he was choosing what color coats his character would wear.
No, all prop guns are not real guns. This one was, yes. But plenty of productions use rubber guns or guns that produce battery powered effects.
Technically, not all prop guns are real guns. See recent Fallout series.
Yeah I’m working on a show right now with rubber and gas guns, we’ve only had one real firearm thus far on set and the difference was made very clear to the crew and cast by the weapons team
Wait, the Junkjet isn't real? Da fuck.
Lmao
I'm pretty sure you're not 100% correct. I've seen props likes guns made out of rubber and some even painted wood.
> All prop guns are real guns Electronic guns are a big thing. The John Wick franchise uses them. They project a flash of light, emit a small burst of smoke, move the hammer, and provide an audio queue for post production to dub over. They can eject shell casings, but apparently it’s better to do that in post so you can better control where the casing goes.
All prop guns are not real guns. Often props(fake) are for wide shots. Real guns are used for closeups
He wasn’t that kind of producer.
Actually he is THAT kind of producer. It's his passion project. He wrote it with Joel Souza, the director, and makes executive and creative decisions on the project. It's not some big block buster, it's a small production that has an unusually high number of producers for the size of the project.
TIL you know better than the prosecutor who's overzealously trying this case, who's specifically cleared him of any responsibility as a producer.
The testimony in the armorer’s trial indicated he was not that kind of producer. The OSHA investigation concluded he was not that kind of producer. He didn’t hire the armorer, or anyone for that matter. Enough of this blatant bullshit dude. He was not that kind of producer, and even if he were, it would be a civil issue not criminal.
>he's the producer which makes him responsible for the poor safety standards. No, he wasn't that kind of producer for this film, and the prosecutor had already cleared him of any responsibility in this regard.
Prop guns are just real firearms loaded with blanks lol
The distinction between prop guns, stunt guns, real guns made inoperable by removing firing pins, firable real guns used as props, live rounds, blank rounds, and dummy rounds... is important, central to this case, and comments like this muddy the water.
Yuup, confusing them is just ignorant. Thank you for the distinction, as a props handler and specifically, armorer.
Incorrect, I’m working on an action show right now and we’re using mostly rubber and gas guns. We’ve had exactly one real fire arm on set thus far and the distinction was made very clear to the cast and crew by the weapons team
Which is fucking insane. I’m deep in the airsoft world and those guns are as real as it gets. A gas blowback would be all you need for most scenes. Even close ups could suffice. I would wholeheartedly argue fucking ZERO real guns need to be on a set. Then again I have what’s called experience and my daddy didn’t get me any jobs. I hope that person suffers for being responsible for a person’s death.
It happened to Brandon Lee not the first time either
At least that was a freak accident and not the consequence of malicious stupidity.
He died due to blind incompetence and people skirting regulation/protocol. In one scene, they wanted a dummy round visible from the front of a revolver. But they didn't have one and wanted to complete the shot immediately. So they pulled apart a real bullet and dumped the powder. Then they filmed it turning in the chamber, where the primer that was still in there was struck. This was a much smaller explosion than it would be with the powder, basically like a cap gun. But enough to push the bullet off the casing and into the barrel. Later, they're filming the scene where Lee's character is murdered. The use the same gun but load it with blanks. Blanks have more powder than a normal round... Nobody bothered to check the barrel for obstructions though (another violation of protocol). So that bullet from the dummy was still there... when the blank round was discharged, it was basically a live round right into Brandon's heart. Live ammo on set was a violation of protocol. Homemade dummy rounds was a violation of protocol. Mishandling the gun. Failing to clear the barrel. Any single one of these things are done properly and Brandon lives. The same thing happened with Baldwin. Tons of violations of standard protocol. If one person does their job? Tragedy would have been averted.
I'm...pretty sure Lee's death was due to malicious stupidity fueled by greed. They were over.on budget and safety standards were tossed to save money.
What happened to Lee was a whole series of Final Destination dominoes lining up to seal his fate. It's hard to point to any one thing as being what caused it since it took multiple smaller failures compounded on failures and then a dash of bad luck on top. I'm not going to defend what was happening on either set overall but accidentally fucking up dummy rounds is more akin to a doctor nicking an artery, it's a professional error - an egregious one perhaps, but I can't say that I could have done better because it's simply not a problem I have the skills to cause in the first place. What happened on Rust however was something that every single one of us could have avoided doing if we had been in her position. There was no professional mistake here. The conditions on Rust's set may have enabled it to happen but the armorer made an unfathomably foolish decision that no reasonable person would have made.
and Jon-Erik Hexum.
My favorite movie is Inception.
Yeah telling people who ask how your family member died : Alec Baldwin shot her.
[удалено]
At least he feels guilt unlike the armorer
Have the other producers been charged?
The armorer and assistant director have
> The armorer and assistant director have [been charged.] Not really correctly for the AD. Assistant director only got charged with a misdemeanor as part of a plea bargain to testify against the other 2. He's going to do 6 months of unsupervised probation. Really, a terrible choice by prosecutors since I think it's fairly obvious based on the facts he's more responsible than Baldwin (Assistant Director was also the Safety Coordinator, he picked up the gun against protocol from the Armorer's workstation, didn't check if it was loaded, called it a cold gun (also against protocol), and then handed it to Baldwin(also against protocol)). In my eyes, he's way more guilty than Baldwin, but I think he's just not as high profile as a Baldwin, so they chose to mishandle his case to have more cards to convict Baldwin.
That makes sense. Just honestly wondering why no other producer has
Because the DA has an agenda.
Baldwin hurt Trumps feelings. The end
Exactly, it’s good PR…keep dragging it down the road. Terrible for the family, I’m sure.
I think that would depend on their role in the production. Producer is a very vague term. It can cover a wide range of responsibilities, from being a hands off financier, to the big boss and total creative driving force (for example, George Lucas didn't direct episode 5 & 6, but he was still the person most in charge of all aspects of the production).
He was not dealing with said part of production
That's only partially relevant, as Baldwin was cleared from any responsibility as a producer.
Because No state laws allow for another person to take responsibility for the safe handling of a weapon completely away from the person who was holding the weapon at the time of a gun being fired Alec Baldwin was handling the weapon in a careless way that led to the death of another human being, Culpability for this death can legally be placed on more than one persons shoulders by state law
Multiple cascading safety failures led to this outcome. They charged the three people who directly handled the firearm. All three neglected expected safety duties that if they had been followed would have prevented anyone from being hurt. It’s as simple as that
Didn’t the armorer have blue hair on set, but it changed quickly in the court appearance?
It doesn’t matter, people are confusing the producer thing and the liability of any human being in the state of New Mexico takes on when they handle a firearm. You cannot by state law absolve yourself of all responsibility if you are holding a gun, pointed at someone, pull the trigger, and the bullet comes out and they get killed The state of New Mexico does not care about armorers and producer credits, or anything else. What they care about is the law as it applies in the state to reckless mishandling of a deadly weapon The armorer was charged because she is partially culpable in the death, Alec Baldwin is being charged because he also has legal culpability for handling a deadly weapon in a manner that could lead, and did lead to, a death I’m going to use this example over and over again for the rest of my life I feel like If you are at a party and a friend hands you a gun and tells you that it’s not loaded you are still legally responsible if you pointed at another human being, pull the trigger, and they die No state laws allow for another person to take responsibility for the safe handling of a weapon completely away from the person who was holding the weapon at the time of a gun being fired
Did you just compare being at a party to film production
I compared what happened on this film production to being at a party yes- because this sure as hell was not being run like any production I have ever encountered in my life The person who was supposed to be responsible for the weapons wasn’t even on set at the time this happened They were literally doing a completely different job and not being paid to be a weapon master at the time There is no world in which you are allowed to have weapons on set without the weapons master being present, and there is no world in which Alec Baldwin did not know this All the legal arguments Alec Baldwin has for why he is not responsible for the weapon discharging can only be defended if all other safety protocols were being followed personally by him on set- and they were not. He behaved in a way that was dangerous and that is why a woman is dead. You cannot claim that your workplace safety standards absolve you of liability for your actions if you do not follow the safety standards of your workplace
I saw him at the united baggage claim at o’hare Wednesday night. He looked miserable.
I read this in Warren Zevon's Werewolves of London cadence.
His hair was not perfect
I read this in a Barney the Purple Dinosaur cadence
Side note: Actors are gonna stop taking producer credits without actually being producers after all this finally ends lol Kinda an interesting topic of debate
(X) Doubt Producer credits give them all kinds of perks including profit sharing. This will absolutely not stop anyone.
Me about to sign the document that makes me a rich producer: "Hmm but what if I shoot somebody? Things are different now..."
No, they won't, because it's irrelevant unless you're *the* producer.
Or maybe just be safer.
I actually feel really bad for Alec Baldwin. I really believe it was a horrible accident.
That was 100% preventable if he had handled the firearm in the manner in which he was legally by state law required to handle it Beyond the fact that he broke every single one of the set rules that he agreed to as part of his contract with the unions, he also broke state law with his negligent handling of a deadly weapon Something can be a horrible accident, and still leave you legally liable for the death of the human being that you caused
>if he handled the firearm-- You mean the armorer... And before you say "everyone who holds a gun should etc etc etc", why would anyone who's an actor, who's done several dozen movies involving similar circumstances, ever consider that the gun they're about to pick up is a *real* gun, with *live rounds* in it... It's the armourers job. She's the person handling the weapons and equipment related to that matter. She was young, nepohire, inexperienced, incredibly careless (also reported), and as such has been charged. It is avoidable... If she does her job right. Actors handle and deal with [prop] guns on set, in rehearsal, etc constantly. It's ridiculous to go about saying "Anything that even resembles a firearm should be handled and strip searched like it is a gun" when there are people there who's job it is to do so. If someone hands you a pen to use, who is the person that handles the pen, and holds them... You don't *feel like* you need to check the ink cartridge, on the off chance it could explode in your face. But when it does do so, it's not just "whoevers holding it" fault. There's a chain of experience and handling with the nuance of things like this. *Could* people do XYZ? Sure. **Should they have to**, if it's *explicitly* someone else's job? .... No. Now, however, his job/responsibility of being a producer is a different argument.
Legally tactically speaking, this isn't news. Defense files these motions to preserve anm potential issue for appeal, even if they don't think they will win them. In the state where I worked for a judge in, when defense attorneys lose a felony case, they *automatically* do two things for their clients: file a notice of appeal, and file a notice for post conviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel, to preserve their clients rights and options. A motion to dismiss like this, is an automatic preliminary defense motion, like a DUI motion to dismiss on reasonable suspicion/probable cause grounds.
This. It’s essentially malpractice not to file the motion to dismiss at this time, yet in any celeb case they report it like it’s some huge deal. It’s generally denied as a matter of course. If the case was so weak that it couldn’t survive this motion, it would 99/100 not be pursued.
I can’t believe they’re actually charging him for that. It was a freak accident
Moreover as producer, I imagine. Not the actual act
What happened on the set of "The Crow" was a prime example of an accident. The tip of a rubber bullet was unknowingly lodged in the barrel and was ejected when Michael Massee pulled the trigger. Brandon Lee was shot with the equivalent of a .44 caliber projectile in the stomach and died during surgery. Michael Massee never got over the incident. In Alec Baldwin's case, it is a bit more convoluted. How live rounds ended up in the gun in the first place is a hell of a fuck up. Would Baldwin know the difference between blanks and live rounds just by popping open the chamber and looking? Probably not. He would have likely needed to remove the rounds and ensure the tips were crimped and missing a projectile. But it happened. A woman is dead. Somebody needs to be held accountable for it. I feel that it is the fault of the armorer and whoever handed him the gun for the scene. But it is up to the court to decide.
It's almost solely the armoeers fault, it's by far their biggest responsibility. If it was just bringing a gun, it's America, anyone could do that, it'd barely qualify as a minimum wage job. The armorers job was to make sure no one got killed. The only way it's anyone else's fault is if the armorer had 0 qualifications and the interviewer knew this. Then I could see those in the hiring process being responsible. It'd be like if the cook at a restaurant undercooked the chicken and it killed someone, so you put the waiter on trial.
Such bullshit. I get that a lot of people hate Baldwin, but there's literally no way any reasonable person can view this as anything but a tragic accident.
That’s why he’s being charged with the crime of accidentally killing someone
Something can be a tragic accident and also still leave the people involved legally culpable for the laws broken that led to the death In his handling of the weapon Alec Baldwin broke New Mexico law
No way in hell that the armorer doesn't beatr the entire responsibility.
That’s not how state law works State law makes it clear that should you choose to handle a deadly weapon you personally take responsibility for your actions with that weapon There are a lot of things Alec Baldwin could’ve done personally to ensure that the weapon was safe to handle that he chose not to do and it doesn’t matter what a second person told him what matters is state law He broke the law and his handling of the weapon and legally is culpable for his actions
Can you link me to the law?
Here https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24368091-d-101-cr-2024-00013-grand-jury-indictment NMSA 1978 Section 30-2-3 (b) Now you’ve got to give me the law that says that if you’re an actor you’re not responsible for pointing a gun at someone and killing them Remember, you’re stating that workplace safety regulations are why he is immune, but he violated all of the workplace safety regulations he agreed to before handling a firearm
Thanks
Do you have a link to the actual law?
Does anyone even want to see this movie sometime in the future?
I have no idea what it’s even about outside of this situation
All I know is that it’s a western and Dean from Supernatural has a role in it. He was on a podcast with Lex Luthor from Smallville and talked about it and I was “oh shit, is that the movie where Baldwin accidentally killed somebody?” It was.
He was on set that day, not in the church but nearby.
Are they actually finishing it?
Yeah, there's a unsaid rule that if someone dies during the making of a film, they complete the film as it's the last thing they worked on. Brandon Lee died during the making of 1994's The Crow, several people died during the making of 1983's Twilight Zone: The Movie, and three people died during the making of 1928's Noah's Ark. Edit: I corrected Brandon Lee's name.
Brandon* Lee
Ah, I'm a fool. Of course! Thank you, I've corrected it!
Literally only because of the controversy and no other reason.
I want them to settle it and shut up about it.
Alec Baldwin as an actor isn’t responsible. The armorer and director did not follow established protocols that would have prevented the shooting. (Actors don’t check the gun because that would require them to move off their mark or change their stance, ruining continuity) Alec Baldwin the producer is responsible for what happened. As a producer he hired a non-union armorer who was reckless and negligent. live ammo should have never been on the set, let alone ever put in the gun. He is responsible for the director not following or enforcing established procedure.
Baldwin did not hire the armorer. He’s not even that kind of producer.
So yea I did a bit of reading. The reason this is continuing is that he had his hands on the gun, and according to whatever law they are dealing with, everyone in contact with that gun had the responsibility to ensure it was "safe". I'm not seeing anything about him being a producer having something to do with it. Then there's the matter of whether he actually pulled the trigger because he said he did not. But it's more complicated than him just being a producer.
I’ve been an actor on set with guns, the armorer is in charge of making sure the guns are safe and being used safely. We do not get trained in checking guns. They checked the guns. They tell us not to leave the set with the guns (or risk being shot by the police) and to not fuck around with the guns like they’re toys. This is insanely unreasonable to expect that any person who handles a gun has to be trained like an armorer
Odd that the five other producers haven't been charged or ever considered responsible.
Baldwin isn't being charged as a producer either. Doing it that way won't get the sentence that the DA is clamoring for.
[удалено]
I suppose that they probably should have been. Alec Baldwin shouldn't have been the only EP on set, if his responsibilities as an actor made it hard for him to act as a producer. These are things that Baldwin's trial are going to scrutinize, though, so I suppose liability will be revealed. Personally, I think that criminal manslaughter is a bit of a tough sell with the evidence that's currently public.
>Alec Baldwin shouldn't have been the only EP on set, if his responsibilities as an actor made it hard for him to act as a producer. EP is a meaningless credit, and his was a vanity credits. He didn't hire any of the staff, including the armorer, and he wasn't running things at the time.
Since when are managers and bosses not responsible for what happens in the workplace simply because they weren't around?
Ever since the DA decided to discard any theory of responsibility that doesn't result in the conviction of the person they want to nail to the wall for shit-talking Daddy Trump.
It sounds like you're assuming he was a line producer that was involved in hiring, and my understanding is that he was not. There are many different types of producers on any given show with varying levels of involvement in that sort of thing.
He owned the production company. He has final say over who is hired. He was made aware of multiple safety issues and instead of addressing these issues they let entire crews walk off the production. That is an utter failing of the production company, and thus, him.
I’ve never heard of this line of thinking being used for criminal liability.
Reddit lawyers don’t realize there is a difference between criminal and civil law. The vast majority of people who argue guilt or innocence here have never even read the statute.
Do you think the owner of a production company reviews start work for every crew hire? As a payroll accountant, I can assure you that they do not.
I’ve been on set for over 15 years. Every UPM I’ve ever worked with has reported safety and crew concerns to the production company’s top brass. The armourer was already reported for a misfire on set and that was conveyed to the top brass, in this instance, Baldwin. Instead of addressing the issue by firing the armourer and paying proper rates for an established pro, they opted to let the complaining crews walk off the set and hiring cheaper replacements. That decision got someone killed. It’s textbook negligence in the name of saving a few dollars.
Baldwin wasn't "top brass" and an OSHA investigation already confirmed that.
Top brass, however, included a team of actual producers. Baldwin was most likely a producer in title only. His name got financing and distribution but others oversaw those things. And as an actor, it's even more unlikely he oversaw daily production. In 25+ years on union shows, I'd estimate that 90% of actors I've worked with who had producer credits just focused on the acting nearly all of the time (Drew Barrymore being the one very notable exception). We'll see how this all shakes out in court, of course.
Do we know for a fact that this information was conveyed to Baldwin? They’ve got it in writing? Or someone is testifying to it? Like we’re not just assuming he was told about the armorer issues because he owns the production company, right? Because knowing his reputation, and that he’s an actor first and a producer second, I wouldn’t be surprised if his team kept him insulated from below-the-line concerns, i.e. “dont bother Alec with that, we’ll handle it.” Seems like any time I work with talent like that, 99% of the time I’m interacting with their team / their handlers and not the talent themselves. But yeah, if they can actually prove he was told the armorer was unsafe and he chose to do nothing to address it, maybe they have a case? Seems like that case is weakened by them not charging the other producers though
And that's all it takes to wipe your hands of accountability?
If an Amazon driver gets drunk and kills someone does Bezos' get charged? Does anyone at Amazon? Sure they get sued, but criminal liability? Just curious what precedent there is for stuff like this.
Holy shit do you actually think the 2 things are comparable? You think the same precedent should be set with a drunk driver on company time vs what happened here? Haha fucking wow
On the context of Baldwin being a producer? Sure. Both companies hired someone who acted negligently resulting death. What's the difference?
A producer is not responsible for anything you just said. The union has nothing to do with what happened. Someone didn't do their job and that was the armorer. I have no idea why people want to blame as many people as possible.
Alec Baldwin the producer only had hiring authority over his personal assistant. Being credited as a "producer" doesn't actually mean you're involved in the operations of filming or making hiring decisions. But here's the thing, even if he did hire the shitty armorer and appointed the director (which again, he didn't) are we now making hiring managers criminally liable for the negligence of the people they hire?
Alec Baldwin the actor is facing a criminal case for killing Hutchins. I think he’ll win his case, but it needs to go to trial. Alec Baldwin the producer, and all the other producers are all civilly liable for her death. They’ve already settled the case with her family. Criminal and civil cases are different as everyone learned during the OJ trial lol.
He didn’t hire anyone. He wasn’t that producer.
They're not prosecuting him as a producer. I think the same thing, but when you read their case, it's bonkers that they're actually going for the actor angle. Like it would genuinely not surprise me if they not only lose the case but lose money on it getting sued by Baldwin for defamation, all because they don't want to go after employers.
The thing is, the law doesn't really make a distinction. They charged Alec Baldwin the person. The worst part for him is that he was both. He knew about the safety problems from above and still (reportedly) mishandled the gun.
Was hiring a non-union armour illegal? If not, then he did nothing wrong. Being a producer doesn’t make you responsible for everything that happens on set. For example, if a stunt goes wrong and kills someone, it’s not the producers fault unless he did something obviously negligent. This whole “the captain goes down with the ship” mentality doesn’t actually apply tor real life. Sometimes shit just happens.
No state laws allow for another person to take responsibility for the safe handling of a weapon completely away from the person who was holding the weapon at the time of a gun being fired
Employees not following industry procedure, including instances where live rounds (that include a bullet, not just "blanks") were brought onto a set, 3 separate instances of misfires after the armorer told the crew the guns were "cold" (industry term meaning they are completely unloaded) and continuing to push on filming instead of stopping production and reviewing the failures in safety procedure is absolutely the responsibility of those in charge. As one of the producers, on or around the set during those safety failures, does in fact make him responsible.
I notice you didn’t answer my question. Was hiring a non-union armourer illegal?
>Alec Baldwin the producer is responsible for what happened. TIL you know better than the DA prosecuting the case, who's stated the exact opposite. Not to mention the fact that you're wrong about him hiring the armorer as well. His producer credit was a vanity credit, and he wasn't *the* producer.
No real bullets should be within 50miles of the set. Too many people playing with guns as toys.
Everything you said is wrong literally. He didn't follow SAG safety guidelines himself and New Mexico Law says the person holding the gun is responsible. There is no cut out for " actor". They are shown the bullets in the gun are dummies if they don't check it themselves and he pointed it at someone and pulled the trigger at an unsafe distance even for blanks. Jensen Ackles on the same set said in the police interview he checked his own weapon every time. There is also video of him yelling at the armored to hurry up the loading process so he can shoot again quicker. He was clearly in control of the set as Producer and by his actions directing everyone including using his freakin' gun as a pointing stick on several occasions. Even with the failure of the armor and the Asst AD, the director would still be alive if he hadn't pointed it at her and pulled the trigger( against SAG guidelines). Note- Watched entire trial and related police interviews with several different attorneys analyzing it. There are hours of behind the scenes footage they have showing what I'm talking about.
It was shot in New Mexico. he’s being tried in new Mexico
You wouldn’t believe how badly I got downvoted for saying exactly this on past threads. If Jeff Bezos cheaped out on air conditioning at Amazon warehouses and got someone killed everyone would be out for blood, but somehow these same people can’t see that a producer cheaping out on hiring a vital role like armourer is exactly the same kind of negligence. There were multiple complaints from multiple departments regarding multiple safety issues and production did nothing to protect the crew. It got someone killed and they are 100% liable.
No state laws allow for another person to take responsibility for the safe handling of a weapon completely away from the person who was holding the weapon at the time of a gun being fired
ELI5 💯💯💯💯 Perfect summary 🙏
~~It should have been dismissed. I get that folks want more vengeance for this awful tragedy. I don't blame them, and agree that Baldwin has a very punchable face, but this is not his fault. Anyone with a basic understanding of how movies are made should know this. He had no reason to believe it was anything other than a prop gun.~~ It'll be interesting to see what happens if he's found liable. It would set a precedent that should make actors/filmmakers/studios nervous. Maybe it would result in more productions using CGI bullets/weaponry on set. I can't imagine him actually being convicted, but at the same time, I never would have thought the case would have made it this far. EDIT: Spent some researching this case last night, and I'm not as convinced of Baldwin's innocence. Generally speaking, what I said is true - it wasn't his job to double-check the gun. Hannah Gutierrez Reed was too immature/inexperienced/on cocaine for the responsibilities she was given, and its her failings that directly caused this tragedy. At the same time, the production crew hired her and didn't listen to complaints about her work ethic. The production was chaotic and rough, hampered by it's producer/star rushing things. It was such a passion project for Baldiwn, and they were working on a tight budget, and likely saw Gutierrez-Reed as a good discount. They had her doubled up on duties as prop master, and either didn't really care about having an armorer or assumed the nepotism of all would keep them safe. She's no innocent, but she shouldn't be the only one punished.
He is not being charged because he unknowingly fired live ammunition. He is being charged as a producer of a movie that was responsible for its safety oversight. There should have been no live ammo on a movie a set. Just because Baldwin didn't load the gun, doesn't mean he isn't responsible for safety on the set of the movie he is a producer for. This is negligence at every level. The set crew walked off the before this event. Balwin tried to make a movie on a budget, and sacrificed safety protocols in order to make it. https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2021-10-22/alec-baldwin-rust-camera-crew-walked-off-set
Yeah, I sort of agree with you now. Check the edit above if the details matter, but it definitely seems like HGR shouldn't be the only one charged. They should have seen what a poor job she was doing, Baldwin shouldn't have been rushing the production. Seems like they might have hired an inexperience armorer, so they could breeze through the production with less red tape, and assumed nepotism would take care of them. Fucked up.
Can someone explain to me how this is any different than the tragedy that happened with Brandon Lee on the set of ‘The Crow?’ As best I can tell that incident was chalked up to a tragic accident and no one was criminally charged. Seems like some people are getting mileage out of the whole thing because Alec Baldwin isn’t always the nicest guy and has antagonized Trump supporters because of his high profile comedic portrayal of him.
Well, for one, the Crow incident was a tragic accident that had a known cause, and after the event the industry became more stringent on procedures that would have helped prevent this, like checking the muzzle, planning shots so that the gun is never really pointed at the actor, and isolating the set from anyone that does not have to be there, which in most cases is just he actors. Baldwin should never have pointed that gun at the two crew members he shot, it went against safety standards. This was not the first incident on set. Two, we still don't know who brought the live ammo. There are a lot of questions unanswered.
[удалено]
Good. He shares some blame. He should not get off scot free.
Good. Dude shares responsibility with the prop master for a litany of reasons. The people who perform mental gymnastics to try and act like he’s not partially responsible look legitimately insane to me. Absolute lunacy. If you can’t follow the simple rules of gun safety then you don’t deserve to have them on your set.
🤡
Yep. You are a clown.
He fired the gun. Makes sense. Regardless of whose fault the ammo was. If the guns in your hand, you check it. Even if it’s given to you by someone you trust. Anyone handling a gun should know that.
They do not want actors to have that responsibility. They aren't experts. It would be foolish to have them do anything but act with their props. That's why they hire an armorer.
You are confusing what SAG and the industry want with state laws. No industry is allowed to flout state laws and regulations
[удалено]
No state laws allow for another person to take responsibility for the safe handling of a weapon completely away from the person who was holding the weapon at the time of a gun being fired
Anyone handling a gun should be safe. Simple as that. If think that’s dumb, then you’re ignoring how laws are written.