BBC News - Alec Baldwin may be recharged with Rust gun death because of ‘additional facts’ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67141319
I really don’t understand how they can get him for anything in relation to handling the gun. None of the safety stuff is the actor’s job.
Now since he was one of the head honchos on the picture they could go after him for negligence there, but the whole “pull the trigger” thing is weird to me. Actors do that on set all the time while pointing weapons they’ve been given at crew. It’s part of making movies.
It seems like there are a lot of people who took a course and now consider themselves experts on gun safety. They don’t seem to understand that movies use completely different safety rules, because when they make a movie they have to break all the normal rules. Or maybe they’re just being deliberately obtuse because they hate Baldwin for his politics.
The actor said at the time that he drew back the hammer on the pistol, but did not pull the trigger.
Charges were dropped […] after it was reported that the .45 Colt revolver had been modified with a new trigger in a way that could have made a misfire more likely.
Experts […] concluded there was no way for the gun to have been fired without the trigger being pulled.
Prosecutors then had the replica gun forensically tested and had some parts of the weapon replaced after it was broken during the FBI’s testing.
This is pretty much a mistrial right here, if it even gets that far. It would take barely more than zero effort to make the case that altering the firearm after the FBI’s testing was enough to invalidate any results the prosecutors came up with.
I do not know why this is even a point that matters. He was on a set, in his capacity as an actor, blocking a scene with the cinematographer. This was a scene in which the gun was fired close to the camera. Him pulling the trigger was his job. The fact that the armorer did not do their fucking job and control live weapons on set is where the culpability actually is.
On the mistrial, maybe, I think that would come down to what all was known about the weapon before it broke, and chain of custody, and a ton of stuff. Probably there’d be a whole investigation of the investigation of the gun.
As far as culpability, my gut reaction is to agree 100% with you. But I don’t know all the details, and I’m not sure why a prosecutor would press charges if its so clearly not Baldwin’s fault. Maybe there’s some legal/financial/political benefit of putting it before a grand jury.
There is some speculation that the special prosecutors are right-wingers prosecuting known left-winger Baldwin. I find this stupid, and there’s a much simple explanation.
The special prosecutors are two middling private attorneys who are now looking at being responsible for the prosecution of a very well known celebrity and getting a win on this means they look good in front of the DA. They will absolutely fight tooth and nail to get him convicted no matter how fucking flimsy the case is because it’s politically expedient for them to win.
If you ever watched The Wire… winning this case gives them MAJOR suction with the DA.
Makes sense.
And yeah, watched it twice. Once on my own, and once again after my wife saw enough bits and pieces to want to watch the whole thing. Tangent, that’s basically the story of my TV-viewing life. Wife won’t start a show with me, but once I’m watching it, she’ll inevitably end up seeing parts and idk… 75% of the time lately, she ends up wanting to watch the shows too.
Wouldn’t that be double jeopardy? Or no because he wasn’t tried? Genuine question… I don’t know a lot of the details.
I think what you’re saying is correct in terms of him not being tried. You can’t be tried for the same crime twice.
He hasn’t been tried yet. The initial charges were dismissed before trial started. Those details were in the article.
Additional - alternative facts.
