- cross-posted to:
- moviesandtv@lemm.ee
- cross-posted to:
- moviesandtv@lemm.ee
Grand jury in New Mexico charged the actor for a shooting on Rust set that killed cinematographer Halyna Hutchins
Actor Alec Baldwin is facing a new involuntary manslaughter charge over the 2021 fatal shooting of a cinematographer on the set of the movie Rust.
A Santa Fe, New Mexico, grand jury indicted Baldwin on Friday, months after prosecutors had dismissed the same criminal charge against him.
During an October 2021 rehearsal on the set of Rust, a western drama, Baldwin was pointing a gun at cinematographer Halyna Hutchins when it went off, fatally striking her and wounding Joel Souza, the film’s director.
Baldwin, a co-producer and star of the film, has said he did not pull the trigger, but pulled back the hammer of the gun before it fired.
Last April, special prosecutors dismissed the involuntary manslaughter charge against Baldwin, saying the firearm might have been modified prior to the shooting and malfunctioned and that forensic analysis was warranted. But in August, prosecutors said they were considering re-filing the charges after a new analysis of the weapon was completed.
Lowest bidder aside, how is this clearly not the armorer’s fault front and center? It was her responsibility to handle the set props. What Baldwin paid them is irrelevant to what she claimed she could provide and was obligated to provide under contract.
She is literally the one to (a) claim the firearm was safe, but (b) load it with live ammunition.
???
Work in the industry, doc side but this is pretty basic producer stuff. This is 100% on the armorer and the only reason they keep trying to charge Baldwin is the legal grey area of the state they filmed in. Had this happened in a state with more production (Georgia, Louisiana, California) there would be a more direct way for prosecutors to go after the correct person. Georgia and California specifically has legal precedent from deaths on set like this.
One of the reasons credits are so long is because we hire people to maintain a safe set - think of it like a foreman for safe worksite in construction (which we also hire often). We hire a ton of people for safety from actual police to medics and rescue personnel.
Hiring an armorer is SPECIFICALLY to avoid situations like this. Because the production company is like “hey you know what? I don’t think me, some producer knows how to use a gun safely, I should hire someone who’s certified to do that.” It’s not some token job, they’re supposed to be trained on how to properly load the powder of the blank rounds, how to mark and flag hot guns and dead props, and pretty fucking much rule #1A is never bring live ammo anywhere near your set.
Baldwin should not be held criminally liable and any half decent entertainment lawyer will settle that. Now civil liability, that’s certainly more realistic. But even then it should be the production LLC not any 1 person.
In your experience, have you ever seen the responsibility of set prop safety fall on the producer and not be delegated to someone else? Based on what you write here, I assume not which would confirm my initial belief.
… Except for one other guy taking a gun he knew nothing about, pointing it at a person and pulling the trigger.
No, I think they are both guilty. Obviously not equally.
If the common judicial practice is different - then maybe some day there’ll be a new precedent.
Sure, it’s a responsible viewpoint to assume that any gun is loaded and dangerous, even until the moment you yourself have cleared it… but the case is lacking mens rea, because who in their right mind would put a hot gun as a prop on a film set? While Baldwin killed Hutchins, I find it hard to draw any criminal negligence from it.
There’s one nuance there, they weren’t filming or something. They were playing with that gun. While the armorer is to blame, if they’d show a little respect, one person would be alive.
They weren’t playing. They were blocking a scene.
https://lemmy.zip/comment/6483250 - same thing if you are waving a gun as a means of expression
You’ve been corrected on this. Will you correct your statement or double down? I’m placing bets already
Fuck off with that tone, every piss stain is so pretentious on the web.
Bet that you are not a useless ape.
“You’ve been corrected” is your judgement and your opinion.
Too bad that’s not what happened. What do you get out of making up stories like this?
An article I read right after this happened (which very well could have been a hit piece) said she (the armorer) was in her early 20s and would fuck around and go shooting with the prop guns when filming wasn’t happening. So… kind of. Yes
Sounds like there’s lots of blame to go around
She’s guilty, he probably has some liability being the producer.
He was far from the only producer. Quite frankly I doubt very much he did any real work besides acting.
The liability belongs to the company as a whole, absent some slam dunk of a memo where Baldwin personally said “Hire this lady, she’s my cousin’s kid, also I personally know she falsified her credentials but fuck it.”
It’s essentially a question of “who’s in charge around here and whose ass will be on the line?” Nearest example I can think of is if your boss tells you to deliver something and you get into a car accident, your work covers you with their insurance (USA!)
Even more concisely summed up with an incredibly apropos phrase, “if you give a monkey a gun, you don’t get to blame the monkey when someone gets shot.”
It is, but groveling, weak sycophants hate Baldwin for mocking their traitor god.
One of the biggest rules of gun safety is treat every gun as if it’s loaded even when as far as you know it isn’t. Regardless of how you think the ratio of culpability falls or who should be held legally accountable, he is at least partially responsible because he was the person holding the gun and aiming it at someone.
Rule 1 of gun safety, check the gun you’re handed for any ammunition.
What else needs to be said?
Everything else is its own issue to be dealt with.
He was given a firearm, did not do HIS due dilligence by checking the gun. He killed a fucking human being. . End of story
Can’t really expect that any more than you expect that Macaulay Culkin in Home Alone personally made sure the paint buckets he swung at Joe Pesci were actually empty. It’s just not how it works.
It’s up to the props people, in this case the armorer.
Youre forgetting the 50 year age difference, I dont expect anyone under the age of 15 to be responsible for setting anything up on a set. It takes 10 seconds to check a gun for blanks vs bullets. Frankly anyone who handles a gun anywhere be it real or have which blanks should know the difference and should check.
This particular model you could not see any bullets so how hard would it be to open the cover and rotate the cylinder 6 times?
Blanks are just as dangerous as real bullets just at different ranges.
Alec has been around guns for how long? And didnt learn basic gun safety?
Íve had to follow safety rules in every job ive been on. Ive uses just about every tool including both air and propane nail guns and the first rule is dont point it at anything tou dont plan on nailing and that has safety to prevent it from firing if not against an object.
So why are actors any different? They get paid a fuckload more then me and dont have to follow safety and often make others do
dangerous shitstunts and dont get salaries or recognition the actors do.I fell asleep. Prop people can handle it
I honestly would not expect a bunch of Californian actors to know that. You’re often not dealing with a crowd of people who grew up hunting or at the range. You’re dealing with people who hire an armorer to bring that expertise to the set.
99% of people who incessantly spout out Da Rules on the Internet have never held a gun in their life, and would be more likely to ND than the average youtube shorts guntuber
Guns arent hard to learn , watch forgotten weapons.
I grew up in fscking Moscow and have never shot one live round, but I know the same rules (because they apply for anything remotely similar, including toy pneumatic guns with which you can leave someone without an eye, construction guns, toy bows and crossbows …).
The armorer is 100% guilty, but that’s not the same as saying that 100% of guilt is on the armorer.
The rules of firearm safety apply when your buddy is showing off his new canik, not when you’re a professional on a movie set. A million other actors have ignored those rules on a million other sets, and it’s typically perfectly safe because the armorers know what they’re doing, and the crew isn’t bringing live rounds on set.
Then the actors shoulnt handle guns
I mean… by this metric Michael Massee should have done time for shooting Brandon Lee during the filming of The Crow.
I thought they were using blanks with Brandon Lee, but there was something with either the distance that it was fired or something messed up with the gun which became a projectile and fatally shot him? The two instances do seem similar but my memory of the events surrounding Brandon Lee’s death was that the blame fell on the prop department and unless the actors were experts, they wouldn’t have known the risk involved.
There’s two types of fake rounds they were using: one that had the bullet but no gunpowder or primer (to look like a realistic bullet in close-ups, since it was a revolver) and the opposite with no bullet but with powder and primer, for scenes with shooting.
They didn’t do the first ones properly and left the primers on. This round was fired, which set off the cap and fired the bullet with just enough force for it to get stuck in the barrel (which is similar diameter as the bullet for rifling). Then, the same gun was loaded with a blank round to use in a scene. It was aimed at Brandon Lee and fired, the force of the powder was enough to dislodge the bullet from the barrel and hit Brandon fatally.
With this particular issue, you can’t just look at the bullets to tell if it’s safe (plus half of the fake rounds looked like real ones anyways), you need to also clear the barrel.
No, there was a rare accident with one blank pushing out a piece of the previous blank stuck or something.
Yeah, the director and editors are gonna love you making sure your props are cleared every single shoot.
“Sure, we’re 15% over budget and two weeks behind schedule, time is tight as hell, but I have to check this firearm that the armorer already verified is cold just in case we’re the third ever fatal ND on a movie set”
If he had, rust would have been in theatres last year…
He is the producer.
Hi hired her. He tolerated crew using real bullets on set for playing target practice during down time.
The boss created unsafe conditions, and killed his employee through negligence.
I find that to be a pretty big leap. When she took the role of armorer she assumed all responsibility on set to ensure the safety of the crew, which was the entire point in Baldwin hiring someone to that position in the first place. Her gross negligence if not outright fraud is a result of her own actions and nobody else.
At most I’d give 20% responsibility to Baldwin for not examining her background more closely.
I completely agree with you that technically the armorer is at fault traditionally in these types of situations and a jury may in fact find that to be true in the eyes of the law eventually, but I find it interesting that in this case the armorer was a younger attractive female on a rough n tumble set and I can only assume there was pressure on her from the other people there shooting if not Baldwin himself to go shooting. Hell she may not have even known the guns were used but that’s not really an excuse.
What is a meditating factor is what Baldwin said, told her and ordered her to do. Remember he’s her boss. I’m assuming there’s evidence he told her to do blah. If so imo he deserves more than 20%.
The way I see it, if your responsibility is the safety of firearms and someone tells you to violate that responsibility, that reflects a lot on you and you’re not cut for the job. If there is a contradiction between what the boss tells you and that which you’re held liable for, you better choose wisely. You’re hired for this role specifically when death is on the line no less.
Why do you think the grand jury, which certainly has seen more evidence than you, felt differently?
The Grand Jury is subject to a narrow perspective of evidence framed solely by the Prosecutors. The bar is pretty low.
If Grand Juries were fullproof, why even proceed to a trial…?
And it’s quite possible I’m missing something, sure. I don’t really have a horse in this race either way.
A grand jury found him guilty! I guess that settles it!
Maybe you shouldn’t comment on things that you don’t know the first thing about