No one is going to comment on the video where it appears the FBI agent and the state’s gun expert colluded to get their previously conflicting testimony straight? They apparently tried to concoct some verkakte story maybe the young FBI analyst hammered sideways and caused the odd marking on the firing mechanism
Apparently, the state gun expert noticed odd sideways striations on the firing mechanisms last year when he inspected the gun leading him to believe and report the gun had in fact been altered.
Fast forward to April and the state gun expert makes no mention of his findings to the defense attorneys as that doesn’t fit the case they are putting on. In fact he tells the defense attorney the mechanism was completely normal.
When called on these massive inconsistencies today, the state gun expert has a bad case of amnesia and a suspiciously working (for everyone else) and not working internet connection (for the cross examination attorney).
The hearing blew up at the end. The defense was pissed at what appeared to be shenanigans and the judge was pissed at everybody. The prosecutor Morrissey was her usual petulant self.
It was a real shit show.
Now the hearing is scheduled to continue Monday at 2:30.
> The FBI broke off the sear during testing by hitting the hammer with a mallet, in an effort to show that the gun would not fire even if jolted violently. Subsequently, the prosecution hired an expert, Lucien Haag, who reassembled the gun and concluded that it could only have fired due to a pull of the trigger.
They’re really trying to railroad him for political reasons, shameful.
Ah yes, the real homophobes are the ones out there supporting progressive causes, not the GOP fascists stripping rights from queer people all across the nation, just like how antifa are the *real* fascists!
Can I ask why are you bringing politics into a shooting case of gun negligence? You are definitely reaching out here. Every day under a post, somebody without a doubt finds some way to bring politics into it. Never fails. The republicans and democrats have nothing to do with a misfired gun on the set of a random movie scene. If this was a discussion about an umbrella, you’d be that poster.
So glad you’re perfect with no mistakes in life and can claim that, just because he’s a piece of shit at times doesn’t mean he can’t support liberal policies, dafuq?
baldwin went on live tv and blame halyna for her own death. dude deserves the charges based on how many times his story has changed. oh he also claimed he didn’t pull the trigger which is exactly what the fbi tested, and they broke the gun trying to get it to go off in the way he said it did
I think it’s because Baldwin has claimed multiple times that he never pulled the trigger. I don’t buy it, personally, but I understand why he or anyone else in his situation would want to believe that. Either way I don’t think he’s at fault since he was handed a gun he believed was empty and there shouldn’t have been live ammo on a film set in the first place.
Baldwin was handed the gun and told it was a "Cold gun"--meaning unloaded. The gun was later tested and it was found that it was possible that the gun could fire without the trigger being pulled (releasing the hammer could possibly fire the gun[That's not supposed to happen]) Later, the FBI investigated that same aspect and concluded that that was incorrect, but the gun was destroyed in the testing.
To be clear, I’m playing devils advocate here and don’t think he should be charged either way. I’m also not singling you out I’m just high and need to get this off my chest. I don’t think that any prosecutor could, beyond a reasonable doubt, prove that he was negligent any any criminal way. I think that his role in the whole affair was totally innocent and without any criminal intent whatsoever. I personally can’t stand Alec Baldwin because of his offense and brash personal conduct. That said, It’s very unlikely that the gun would have discharged without some kind of outside force, be that pulling the trigger or something hitting the frame of the weapon with enough force to unseat the cocked hammer/sear from the trigger(these scenarios would work best in an environment where the sear or trigger or both were damaged). There are a lot of examples of how something could have caused the weapon to fail in such a way that the gun could fire without pulling the trigger but, every scenario would require either significant force or damage to the weapon or the combination of some force/damage. I don’t know if the agency that broke the sear first had an expert gunsmith analyze the guns functionality or not beforehand. If not, I don’t think we can ever know for sure what happened that day from Alec Baldwins perspective. But in the end I think the highest probability by a lot is he pulled the trigger, feels guilty and doesn’t want to admit to himself he pulled the trigger. It’s a tragedy either way.
Baldwin was handed the gun from someone who was not the armourer, meaning he knew he was not supposed to accept it.
He was told it was cold, standard practice is to show the actor that it is cold. Which Baldwin knew. He accepted the gun anyway.
He pointed the firearm at the cinematographer, which is against the rules. The actors are not supposed to point the weapons at anyone outside of strict necessity for a scene.
There is no reason to ever point it at staff.
That goes double for rehearsal.
He pulled the trigger, which he was not supposed to do.
There is plenty of blame to go Baldwin's way for this.
When the person handed him the gun, he was not wrong to assume it was the armorer.
Actors and producers in features rarely learn every crew member’s name and face- you meet like 120 people in a week.
Saying he shouldn’t have accepted it from someone who isn’t the armorer is silly- why on earth would he assume the person who is handing him the weapon isn’t the armorer?
Source: I’ve worked on sets for the last 8 years
> When the person handed him the gun, he was not wrong to assume it was the armorer.
He knew who the armorer was, he was told to attend a gun safety lesson with her. He did do that, but he spent it talking on the phone and ignoring her.
The gun was handed to him by the Assistant Director, which he most definitely knew was not the armorer.
> Actors and producers in features rarely learn every crew member’s name and face- you meet like 120 people in a week.
He most definitely knows who the AD is.
> Source: I’ve worked on sets for the last 8 years
And you still can't tell the difference between the armorer and the assistant director?
The armorer okayed them to rehearse with the guns, the AD told him he checked it and it was safe to use. There were two systemic failures that happened before Baldwin even touched the gun that absolves him of guilt. There is no world where baldwin has any liability for anything other than whether or not he pulled the trigger which he denied.
> The armorer okayed them to rehearse with the guns
Seeing as she was not the one who handed him the weapon, no she had not. At least not in any way that Baldwin should have found acceptable.
> the AD told him he checked it and it was safe to use.
And the correct response to that would be "that's nice, but you are not the armorer so no thank you. She can come here and perform the click through in front of me like she is supposed to".
> There were two systemic failures that happened before Baldwin even touched the gun that absolves him of guilt.
Failures before you in the system does not mean you're absolved of guilt.
The entire point of a multiple-point-of-failure safety system is that something can go wrong and it won't be catastrophic.
It stops being a multiple-point-of-failure safety system if everyone late in the chain of safety measures ignore their part because "well if the people in front did their part this won't make a difference".
So no, Baldwin is not free of any guilt. He ignored all his the safety measures that the actor is supposed to do.
The armorer okayed them to rehearse with them meaning she checked them before that rehearsal. Handing the gun to Baldwin does not mean she wasn't also involved. You're clearly just missing part of the story. She was involved, told both Alec and the AD that the gun was safe to use before the AD ALSO checked the gun and handed the gun to Baldwin.
Baldwin didn't IGNORE any safety things, he was told by multiple people the gun was safe to use for a REHEARSAL. If you know anything about the armorers job they are the only one with a key to LOCKED weapons. How on earth did the AD hand the gun to Baldwin without her involved genius??? Systemic failures as I already mentioned. There was no negligence on his part. Any professional actor worth their salt isn't going to overstep their union bounds on a set.
>Later that day, the cast and crew were rehearsing a gunfight scene taking place inside of a church at the Bonanza Creek Ranch. Firearms and ammunition were retrieved from a locked safe and armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed placed three guns to be used in filming on a cart.[15] Among them were a plastic gun that could not shoot live ammunition, a modified weapon that could not fire any type of ammunition, and a solid-frame .45 Colt revolver replica made by Pietta.[15][38][39][40]
>According to a search warrant, the guns were briefly checked by Gutierrez-Reed, before assistant director David Halls took the Pietta revolver from the prop cart and handed it to Baldwin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rust_shooting_incident
Stop spreading misinformation you know nothing about.
> The armorer okayed them to rehearse with them meaning she checked them before that rehearsal.
So?
Irrelevant.
> Baldwin didn't IGNORE any safety things
So let's go through what happened, and which ways Baldwin failed in HIS personal responsibility.
1-For rehearsals a plastic or otherwise non-functioning firearm is to be used.
They used the real one. Baldwin should not have accepted this firearm being used for rehearsals.
2-He is handed the weapon by someone other than the armorer.
Baldwin takes the firearm.
Baldwin should have refused to accept it.
3-The gun is handed to him and he is told it is a cold gun.
Proper procedure for a revolver is that the armorer opens it, pulls out each dummy round and shows the actor that is is a dummy round.
Then the armorer reloads them into the firearm before the trigger is supposed to be pulled no less than 7 times (one for each dummy bullet +1).
This was obviously not done. Baldwin accepts the firearm without being safety procedures that involve him being done.
Baldwin should have refused to accept the firearm.
So that's 3 points of failure just for him accepting the firearm to begin with.
4-The weapon is not to be pointed at anyone, including other actors, unless special circumstances demand it.
This means that ideally you don't point it at anyone and just use an angle that makes it look like you are.
For shots at the camera you never point the firearm directly at any staff.
Either you set up the camera and do the shot, then check the footage later.
Or you use a remote-controlled camera.
Or you set up a ballistic shield between the camera operator and the actor, so that if something has gone catastrophically wrong then the shield is hit not the camera operator.
Want to make a fucking guess what Baldwin did?
I'll give you a hint, the woman who operated the camera is dead because Baldwin fucking shot her.
>1-For rehearsals a plastic or otherwise non-functioning firearm is to be used.
They used the real one. Baldwin should not have accepted this firearm being used for rehearsals.
Yeah he should have just said no, how stupid of him to feel any pressure or anything in a work environment to keep going amidst a strike. You could maybe not victim blame here that would be cool, I'm sure you don't have any sort of prejudice against him because he's a person with privilege and power.
>2-He is handed the weapon by someone other than the armorer.
Baldwin takes the firearm.
After it was checked by the armorer, and the person who handed it to him, amidst a strike, yes.
Again, he should have just said no right. Just like anyone who's ever been assaulted or a victim of any crime or anyone elses negligence he should have just said no. This is not the take you think it is, you're just trying to shift blame onto him in a toxic way.
>3-The gun is handed to him and he is told it is a cold gun.
Proper procedure for a revolver is that the armorer opens it, pulls out each dummy round and shows the actor that is is a dummy round.
So it's Baldwin's fault the armorer didn't follow proper procedure? Is that what you're saying? If this is some no name actor on another set I somehow doubt you feel as compelled to victim blame as you do with Alec Baldwin, and I don't like Alec Baldwin, he's very easy to not like, but what happened is a tragedy and there are multiple victims beyond the person who died.
For the record someone DID check all of the rounds and did all of that, and it still happened. So Baldwin not saying no is not some crazy irresponsible thing you're trying to make it out to be. You're ludicrously trying to shift blame away from the two people who literally checked the gun and communicated it was okay to use before Baldwin even touches it, and saying he should have known better and said no.
> he's very easy to not like
Up until he negligently shot a woman I barely even knew who he was, but sure, whatever.
> Yeah he should have just said no, how stupid of him to feel any pressure or anything in a work environment to keep going amidst a strike.
We're not talking about an extra or some noname actor trying to make it.
It's Alec Baldwin, he's one of the key producers of the movie.
He had sufficient power that he got to sit and talk on his phone during the armorer's safety brief.
> So it's Baldwin's fault the armorer didn't follow proper procedure?
No, it's Baldwin's fault that he ignored HIS part of the safety regulations.
That means that no, you don't take the firearm, you actually do have a responsibility to insist on the safety rules being followed, especially the ones that involve you.
And you neatly skipped the parts after, where Baldwin was pointing the gun he shouldn't have been holding at people he's not supposed to point it at. Ending him with shooting and killing a woman.
> You're ludicrously trying to shift blame away from the two people who literally checked the gun
I have done no such thing.
The AD signed a plea deal and the armorer was convicted for her part in it.
But them being at fault for their failures does not absolve Baldwin for his failures.
Again, the entire point of a multiple-points-of-failure safety system is to have multiple points of failure.
That stops being a thing if only the first person who made a mistake is held responsible.
EVERYONE involved is at fault. That includes Baldwin.
Your entire argument is based on this weird idea that if someone else fucks up then that means everyone else down the line is free of responsibility.
It's like arguing it's not your fault you killed a kid while you were drunk driving and speeding down a school zone because the mechanic forgot to check your breaks when the car was in the shop last week.
Also. It’s very feasible to place bulletproof glass around the camera. So only the lens is exposed. To protect workers. If the shot absolutely has to be of the actor firing at the camera.
Or just do it remotely.
Or just have the actor not point the gun at the camera. Just point it off angle. Or do a Dutch angle. Idk
I read up on that armorer. She’s really young with her only real claim is that she grew up on sets and daddy was a well known movie armorer owned the company. She really had no business on her own, as the world now knows.
The shot they were rehearsing was a shot aimed directly at the camera, the camera the cinematographer sits behind. I'm sure he didn't mean to be aiming it in a way in which it was pointing at her. The margin of error is low when the thing you are supposed to be pointing at and the person are directly in line with each other.
> The shot they were rehearsing was a shot aimed directly at the camera
Doesn't matter.
That kind of thing is what remote controlled cameras are for.
Failing that, there's supposed to be bulletproof glass.
Failing that, film without someone behind the camera then check footage after the fact.
Bottom line, he's not supposed to point it at her and he's the one responsible for doing that.
Everyone forgets he’s a producer too. So he has a lot of say in this filming (I am guessing bc I’m not a movie worker person). I just think the whole movie was done sloppy by sloppy people on a seriously tiny budget. Budget armorer = shitty outcomes.
Shit take on every front.
An actor in a movie scene using a fake prop should never have to worry about gun safety protocol. It was supposed to be a fake, but it contained a live round.
The guilt in this case is entirely on the person who loaded the live round into what was supposed to be a prop/fake/toy.
Baldwin was in the wrongest possible place at the wrongest possible time for him to get ANY blame for this.
I buy it. The initial investigation said it wasn’t pulled. It wasn’t until this weird FBI investigation where they broke the gun in the process did they decide it was pulled.
I still wonder if the gun was modified with a light trigger pull. Baldwin was practicing a cross-body draw; the mass of the gun pivoting in his hand could have easily applied 2# of force. The only one who knows now would be the gunsmith that worked on the revolver, either before or after it left the factory (I assume it’s a modern replica and not an antique).
I don’t have a lot of experience with revolvers, but as a 1911 guy, if you don’t know what to expect, a good single-action trigger *will* surprise you. The correct way to shoot them is to keep it on target and expect it to go off at any point, so that you don’t try to get ahead of the recoil and end up flinching.
Of course, for practice, Baldwin shouldn’t have had a real gun. A “blue gun” (rubber dummy with proper weight and center of gravity) should have been available.
Only thing I can think of is because he's also a producer on the film. So he could be responsible for safety on set. Hirings. Etc. That said, just a guess based on having been a producer.
Isn’t every actor over a certain level of fame usually a producer on projects they are involved in?
I doubt many of them deal with the technicalities of running a production and just have it as a line in their contract.
All of that is a moot point, he’s not being tried because he’s a producer. Arguing over whether a producer is culpable is just semantics and has nothing to do with that’s going on. If it was, all the producers would be being prosecuted. People really have NO idea what’s going on with this trial.
Yeah, but producer title varies. Some are just like for bragging rights. Some are legit they're doing the work. It seems like he's a for real producer on this project.
> It seems like he's a for real producer on this project.
According to the OSHA report:
> Alec Baldwin, Actor and Producer, and Joel Souza, Director, negotiated with various producers to
help create and fund the Rust project. Alec Baldwin’s authority on the set included approving script changes
and actor candidates. Alec Baldwin handled the revolver and fired the round that struck and injured Halyna
Hutchins and Joel Souza.
The OSHA report paints a VERY different picture of who was responsible. There is a reason why the DA is trying to focus on Baldwin pulling the trigger rather than him being a producer. They don't have a case and the OSHA report shows that. The only reason why the charges haven't been dropped is because no one wants to be one holding the bag when it happens. They're probably going to try and convince Baldwin to take some plea deal.
Oh I'm not arguing he's responsible. Just that with the title producer he could have been potentially.
The armorer shouldn't have brought live ammo onto the set at all. Certainly not given an actor a gun with live ammo and not told them. It was her entire job. Or if someone told her to use live ammo or have it on set. I could see that person being partially liable.
Everyone says “he’s culpable because he’s a producer” but that’s just flat out not true, and not what he’s being prosecuted for. Anyone saying that is just blowing hot air completely unrelated to what’s going on.
I'm just saying he could be. If he's producer in title only not so much. I dunno his actual role as producer as it means many different things. Just saying he could be. It's logical to look into.
He’s not the producer in charge of hirings. That’s silly. You all actually think Alec Baldwin spent lots of time in an office preparing for this film? That’s absurd. Hollywood stars are THE thing that makes filmmaking like this possible. His job was to show up and act. He was handed a prop. In no way should that prop have been dangerous. Look at who handled it before him in order to ascertain blame. It certainly isn’t HIS fault.
No they don’t, guns get aimed at people during filming all the time. This assertion that you don’t is some bullshit that people who have never set foot on a set keep trying to push.
You’re also not supposed to do flips on motorcycles. You know what they do in movies? They do flips on motorcycles in a heavily monitored and controlled environment. The same thing they do with guns. That’s the point of stunt coordinators and, in this case, competent armorers. The set environment is supposed to be controlled to not have these incidents happen, and it’s news that it failed. There are, however, better ways to mitigate the risks. Guns don’t need to be on sets, several leading action filmmakers have come out for them to be replaced with digital means.
To the extent that he's interacting with them of course. If he was unscrewing random bits of the lighting system and something fails and injures a person that would be his fault. If he's knowingly disturbing the horses and they injure someone he's at fault. He has a duty to follow safety protocols just like everyone else.
It's a real gun in your hand. Don't exaggerate the burden of checking if it's clear and don't downplay the risks involved. In the kind of locations I work at, "safety is everyone's responsibility" is a phrase everyone has heard. It's not as if I made up some outlandish idea just now.
In fact, the risks present on a movie set fit right at home with the kind of work places I am familiar with.
On set, actors are generally not allowed to mess with how a prop is set up. That is the armorer, propmaster, and AD’s job. If an actor starts fiddling with a prop weapon on set, it can make it less safe.
Yes, which is why the only people that can handle the weapons are the armorers and the actors while being directly supervised by the armorers - as per on-set safety standards/protocols. Everyone else’s safety responsibility is to never ever ever touch any/all weapons.
Pulling the trigger is an intentional act, even if he didn’t intend to actually shoot someone. That is an important distinction between murder and lesser offenses. And in my opinion it is still his problem. The two most important rules of gin safety are to not put your finger on the trigger unless you intend to shoot and to not point at anything you don’t intend to shoot. Baldwin both put his finger on the trigger and pointed it at someone which was not necessary for this rehearsal.
All I’m saying is that if an armorer handed me a gun and told me it was safe to point at someone and pull the trigger I wouldn’t believe them. Baldwin he has been working on movie sets with live weapons long enough to know not to believe them as well. He made the intentional decision to disregard proper gun handling and he shot someone. Was the armorer also at fault? Absolutely. But plain and simple, Baldwin knew better.
Sorry, but you’re completely in the wrong here. An armorer hands an actor a gun and tells them it’s safe, that means that it’s safe to pull the trigger. Actors pull the trigger all the time. The idea that an actor can just assume that the armorer is wrong is insane. No gun would ever get fired in a movie if that were the case. Not to mention that your entire argument is predicated on the assumption that Baldwin DID pull the trigger… which the article is alleging he may NOT have. But either way, the armorer is at fault here, NOT Baldwin.
This whole situation is sickeningly tragic, but it’s also tragic for Baldwin. Can you imagine what it must feel like to accidentally kill someone in the course of doing your job?
And in terms of what kind of gun he should have been using for the rehearsal… a) The actor isn’t in charge of that. They get handed what they get handed. b) he was practicing a draw and it may have been practice for a scene that required a real gun (perhaps in the actual scene, the gun would be fired) so the weight would be important for him to get the feel of.
Don’t bother bro, these people don’t understand two things: the law and firearm safety 101. They’re convinced this is politically motivated, even though Santa Fe County is not only one of the most liberal counties in the entire *country.*
The law doesn’t make a distinction for this. Baldwin knew he had a real gun in his hand; if he didn’t know how to make sure the gun was safe he shouldn’t be holding it.
So you think he is responsible? Sorry but precautions were/should have been made to insure the scene was safe. That wasn’t his job. He wasn’t trained to know if the gun was safe. People were hired to ensure safety
Going to be hard to get to murder if he thought the gun was safe. But I do agree that him putting his finger on the trigger would increase what he is held responsible for.
My opinion, not knowing the state’s actual laws, is that if Baldwin put himself in the position to wield a firearm he should have known that no amount of “trust me, it’s not loaded” is enough to justify putting your finger on the trigger and pointing it at someone on set who was not behind safety glass.
/edit and he should have used a prop gun instead of a real gun for a rehearsal anyway.
The law doesn't specify that, at the very least not at the time. The people who set up the guns are responsible for that on a movie set. SAG is very specific about this.
I agree that there's no reason to use a real gun during a rehearsal. The sad reason they did is likely simply it's cheaper to have just a real gun (which you need for the scenes) than a real gun and a dummy gun.
Regardless of any of this, without intent there's no way to get murder. You want homocide? That's a lot easier.
The SAG is not specific about that. The SAG standard is that you don't point real guns at people unless there is specific supervision by an armorer. Otherwise you follow the standard rules (finger off the trigger, assume it's loaded, don't point it at anything you're not willing to destroy and be aware of what's behind what you're pointing at, he broke all of them).
> The SAG is not specific about that
The SAG rules are specific about that. The armourer or 1AD, etc. are responsible for handling the guns and making sure they are safe. Actors are not to check or otherwise play with the guns unless they also have training on this specific set. This training is not required as they are discouraged from doing this since it isn't their responsibility.
> The SAG standard is that you don't point real guns at people unless there is specific supervision by an armorer
That's another thing, separate from the rules as to who is responsible for setting up the guns.
> don't point it at anything you're not willing to destroy
SAG rules say don't point it any anyone unless instructed to and for filming. The idea is you won't be instructed to unless it is absolutely necessary. This kind of thinking is probably overly hopeful considering you're not supposed to ever point it at anyone (i.e. be asked to) for a rehearsal. The same kind of thinking that doesn't use a dummy gun for a run through is not the kind of thinking that keeps people safe.
SAG rules work on a swiss cheese model. The armorer/1AD is supposed to be safe but the actor handling the firearms is also supposed to be safe. They're going to try to demonstrate that he failed to act with reasonable caution while handling the firearm (there's videos of him basically using it as a pointing stick) and that lead to someone being killed, which is pretty much textbook manslaughter in New Mexico.
This is my take - if it was someone like Pedro Pascal or Tom Hanks, everybody would wave it off as an unfortunate tragedy. They’re going after him because he’s not likable.
A cynical part of me thinks it's a push from the right to demonise him and put out misinformation about him. He has literally been the face of Trump criticisms for years through SNL. It makes sense they have a bone to pick with him and jumped on this.
Baldwin strikes me as some kind of alcoholic, he goes off on tirades on random innocent people over parking spots or his daughter for being overweight and that’s just what has made attention. I find him kind of pretentious and think deep down he’s a jackass who pointed a gun at a person, which is never some that you should do unless you intend to kill. I would like to see him out of the public eye because I think he’s a garbage person.
Yeah and literally all of that shit is from over a decade ago. I'm gay, he used the F-slur once in 2013, I'll speak for all of us and say we forgive him.
Right, and how does this disprove my claim the alt-right is behind a smear campaign against him in any way? Mind you that was my initial point that you responded to.
There probably wouldn’t be video of either of those actors being extremely unsafe with a gun they know is loaded on set, running from set up to set up and yelling at everyone to keep moving while carrying a loaded gun.
This entire prosecution is BS. I think Baldwin is a total twat waffle but he was handed a weapon by an AD and told it was safe. So in his mind the armorer and AD should both have verified that. Not to mention live rounds have no business anywhere on a set, that gun should have been checked for blanks before it was handed to Baldwin as a "cold gun". There is no way he should be charged as the person holding the gun at that point.
The investigation should have focused on the safety protocols and if each person did their job and how on earth live rounds got on that set. Not on Baldwin as an actor.
I have felt for a while that if the investigation had been done well Baldwin might have some exposure (criminal or civil) as a producer instead. It is clear they cut costs and that might have contributed to the failure of the safety protocols but that is VERY different from what they have charged him with.
If you read about the drunken live gun shooting on set… how there were live rounds on set, people knee this… how people complained about safety numerous times, some quitting… his AD who was known for doing anything to save money… the bad hire… how he was undoubtedly the most powerful person on set… im a liberal but Alec deserves some blame for sure. Lots of rules were broken on set. Somebody getting shot was almost inevitable IMO.
He demanded the armorer work outside the scope of her duties, leveraging his fame and importance and her inexperience, youth, and gender. Because he's a f****** sef-important misogynist pig.
Stop with the silliness. Actors point guns at actors and pull the trigger every day. They are often loaded wet fake rounds for the camera. It is NOT the actor's job to clear the weapon.
Also it easy to do with a revolver, but whats an actor with a mag fed weapon supposed to do? Unload the mag and check every round? wtf is an armorer doing on set at that point if the actor has to clear and load the weapon?
And this was a set with 1 actor with a weapon, what happens when you have 5-10 in a scene with weapons shooting blanks? All those guys are going to unload and reload each round for however many takes they shoot to get a scene?
>Actors point guns at actors and pull the trigger every day.
It's weird how many people apply normal gun safety rules to movie sets when everyone should realize that actors on sets point guns at people and pull the trigger literally every single day in this country. It would be like applying normal traffic laws to a car chase scene in a movie.
>It is NOT the actor's job to clear the weapon.
The last thing you'd want on a movie set is untrained actors messing around with the guns. They hire experts for a reason.
Some people hate Alec Baldwin so much and want him to go to prison so badly that they completely throw all logical thinking out the window.
I had heard that because of Brandon Lee they made a rule that you can’t point guns at people on sets anymore but I don’t know if it’s true or, if it is, how serious anyone is about it. Regardless if your waving a gun around on a set someone at some point is gonna be in the line of fire.
I think that’s an unreasonable take dude. Yeah I wouldn’t start walking around set “shooting the gun” At random people but the scene was him shooting towards the screen. He was told it’s blanks in the gun.
Involuntary Manslaughter at the worst imo with no jail time because he did pull the trigger but it was a reasonable expectation from him that the entire situation was safe.
There are also reports that he used the gun to gesture, sometimes towards crew members, before the death occured. Even when used properly they can be remarkably dangerous (Brandon Lee), the additional level of accountability their users must assume isn't unreasonable as lives are actively at risk even when loaded with blanks. But you know, America
"*Movie industry firearms safety guidelines tell actors never to put their finger on the trigger until ready to shoot, treat all firearms as though loaded, and not point a gun at anyone unless absolutely necessary, and then in consultation with a safety expert.*"
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-20/new-evidence-in-alec-baldwin-rust-trial-reckless-with-gun/104001080
"*New video from the trial of Rust armourer Hanna Gutierrez-Reed shows Alec Baldwin using a gun as a 'pointing stick', according to testimony of firearms expert Bryan Carpenter, who took the stand for the prosecution on Thursday.*"
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68377798
They can’t because what they’re doing there is called “libel.” It’s an unfounded lie with no basis in literally any account of this case that I have read.
He thought it was a dummy round, unfireable. Not a blank. A dummy round has no propulsive explosive at all.
If you don't understand the difference between a dummy round and a blank probably lay off the lecture.
No one is going to comment on the video where it appears the FBI agent and the state’s gun expert colluded to get their previously conflicting testimony straight? They apparently tried to concoct some verkakte story maybe the young FBI analyst hammered sideways and caused the odd marking on the firing mechanism Apparently, the state gun expert noticed odd sideways striations on the firing mechanisms last year when he inspected the gun leading him to believe and report the gun had in fact been altered. Fast forward to April and the state gun expert makes no mention of his findings to the defense attorneys as that doesn’t fit the case they are putting on. In fact he tells the defense attorney the mechanism was completely normal. When called on these massive inconsistencies today, the state gun expert has a bad case of amnesia and a suspiciously working (for everyone else) and not working internet connection (for the cross examination attorney). The hearing blew up at the end. The defense was pissed at what appeared to be shenanigans and the judge was pissed at everybody. The prosecutor Morrissey was her usual petulant self. It was a real shit show. Now the hearing is scheduled to continue Monday at 2:30.
> The FBI broke off the sear during testing by hitting the hammer with a mallet, in an effort to show that the gun would not fire even if jolted violently. Subsequently, the prosecution hired an expert, Lucien Haag, who reassembled the gun and concluded that it could only have fired due to a pull of the trigger. They’re really trying to railroad him for political reasons, shameful.
Curious what political faction has is out for him?
He’s fairly prominent in Democratic politics, does that help narrow it down?
He’s a homophobe who has been proven to have violent outbursts.
Ah yes, the real homophobes are the ones out there supporting progressive causes, not the GOP fascists stripping rights from queer people all across the nation, just like how antifa are the *real* fascists!
Can I ask why are you bringing politics into a shooting case of gun negligence? You are definitely reaching out here. Every day under a post, somebody without a doubt finds some way to bring politics into it. Never fails. The republicans and democrats have nothing to do with a misfired gun on the set of a random movie scene. If this was a discussion about an umbrella, you’d be that poster.
*That colorful, rainbow umbrella is corrupting my kids* - Someone, probably...
You can downvote me but the videos all exist.
Homophobia doesn’t prove guilt for manslaughter tho
True! But it does show you he’s not some left wing darling like people seem to think. We don’t claim him.
So glad you’re perfect with no mistakes in life and can claim that, just because he’s a piece of shit at times doesn’t mean he can’t support liberal policies, dafuq?
Im sure I never called myself perfect, but being a better human and parent than a Baldwin I’ll accept.
Yeah, but where are his donations going, and who was he making fun of on SNL for years? This isn't hard to figure out.
The guy played Trump on SNL (Edit: during his presidency, and it was not a favorable portrayal)
It’s not partisan political reasons. It’s career politics. The Albuquerque DA wants to nail a high profile case.
Santa Fe DA. Different judicial district
baldwin went on live tv and blame halyna for her own death. dude deserves the charges based on how many times his story has changed. oh he also claimed he didn’t pull the trigger which is exactly what the fbi tested, and they broke the gun trying to get it to go off in the way he said it did
Wow awful comment
I don’t understand this. So what if he pulled the trigger? He was rehearsing a gun scene. Not his problem if the gun wasn’t safe
I think it’s because Baldwin has claimed multiple times that he never pulled the trigger. I don’t buy it, personally, but I understand why he or anyone else in his situation would want to believe that. Either way I don’t think he’s at fault since he was handed a gun he believed was empty and there shouldn’t have been live ammo on a film set in the first place.
Baldwin was handed the gun and told it was a "Cold gun"--meaning unloaded. The gun was later tested and it was found that it was possible that the gun could fire without the trigger being pulled (releasing the hammer could possibly fire the gun[That's not supposed to happen]) Later, the FBI investigated that same aspect and concluded that that was incorrect, but the gun was destroyed in the testing.
Fair enough it’s possible he didn’t pull the trigger. But like I said, I don’t think he should be charged either way.
To be clear, I’m playing devils advocate here and don’t think he should be charged either way. I’m also not singling you out I’m just high and need to get this off my chest. I don’t think that any prosecutor could, beyond a reasonable doubt, prove that he was negligent any any criminal way. I think that his role in the whole affair was totally innocent and without any criminal intent whatsoever. I personally can’t stand Alec Baldwin because of his offense and brash personal conduct. That said, It’s very unlikely that the gun would have discharged without some kind of outside force, be that pulling the trigger or something hitting the frame of the weapon with enough force to unseat the cocked hammer/sear from the trigger(these scenarios would work best in an environment where the sear or trigger or both were damaged). There are a lot of examples of how something could have caused the weapon to fail in such a way that the gun could fire without pulling the trigger but, every scenario would require either significant force or damage to the weapon or the combination of some force/damage. I don’t know if the agency that broke the sear first had an expert gunsmith analyze the guns functionality or not beforehand. If not, I don’t think we can ever know for sure what happened that day from Alec Baldwins perspective. But in the end I think the highest probability by a lot is he pulled the trigger, feels guilty and doesn’t want to admit to himself he pulled the trigger. It’s a tragedy either way.
Why not?
Baldwin was handed the gun from someone who was not the armourer, meaning he knew he was not supposed to accept it. He was told it was cold, standard practice is to show the actor that it is cold. Which Baldwin knew. He accepted the gun anyway. He pointed the firearm at the cinematographer, which is against the rules. The actors are not supposed to point the weapons at anyone outside of strict necessity for a scene. There is no reason to ever point it at staff. That goes double for rehearsal. He pulled the trigger, which he was not supposed to do. There is plenty of blame to go Baldwin's way for this.
When the person handed him the gun, he was not wrong to assume it was the armorer. Actors and producers in features rarely learn every crew member’s name and face- you meet like 120 people in a week. Saying he shouldn’t have accepted it from someone who isn’t the armorer is silly- why on earth would he assume the person who is handing him the weapon isn’t the armorer? Source: I’ve worked on sets for the last 8 years
> When the person handed him the gun, he was not wrong to assume it was the armorer. He knew who the armorer was, he was told to attend a gun safety lesson with her. He did do that, but he spent it talking on the phone and ignoring her. The gun was handed to him by the Assistant Director, which he most definitely knew was not the armorer. > Actors and producers in features rarely learn every crew member’s name and face- you meet like 120 people in a week. He most definitely knows who the AD is. > Source: I’ve worked on sets for the last 8 years And you still can't tell the difference between the armorer and the assistant director?
Fair enough, didn’t realize it was the AD that handed it to him, that’s not great.
The armorer okayed them to rehearse with the guns, the AD told him he checked it and it was safe to use. There were two systemic failures that happened before Baldwin even touched the gun that absolves him of guilt. There is no world where baldwin has any liability for anything other than whether or not he pulled the trigger which he denied.
> The armorer okayed them to rehearse with the guns Seeing as she was not the one who handed him the weapon, no she had not. At least not in any way that Baldwin should have found acceptable. > the AD told him he checked it and it was safe to use. And the correct response to that would be "that's nice, but you are not the armorer so no thank you. She can come here and perform the click through in front of me like she is supposed to". > There were two systemic failures that happened before Baldwin even touched the gun that absolves him of guilt. Failures before you in the system does not mean you're absolved of guilt. The entire point of a multiple-point-of-failure safety system is that something can go wrong and it won't be catastrophic. It stops being a multiple-point-of-failure safety system if everyone late in the chain of safety measures ignore their part because "well if the people in front did their part this won't make a difference". So no, Baldwin is not free of any guilt. He ignored all his the safety measures that the actor is supposed to do.
The armorer okayed them to rehearse with them meaning she checked them before that rehearsal. Handing the gun to Baldwin does not mean she wasn't also involved. You're clearly just missing part of the story. She was involved, told both Alec and the AD that the gun was safe to use before the AD ALSO checked the gun and handed the gun to Baldwin. Baldwin didn't IGNORE any safety things, he was told by multiple people the gun was safe to use for a REHEARSAL. If you know anything about the armorers job they are the only one with a key to LOCKED weapons. How on earth did the AD hand the gun to Baldwin without her involved genius??? Systemic failures as I already mentioned. There was no negligence on his part. Any professional actor worth their salt isn't going to overstep their union bounds on a set. >Later that day, the cast and crew were rehearsing a gunfight scene taking place inside of a church at the Bonanza Creek Ranch. Firearms and ammunition were retrieved from a locked safe and armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed placed three guns to be used in filming on a cart.[15] Among them were a plastic gun that could not shoot live ammunition, a modified weapon that could not fire any type of ammunition, and a solid-frame .45 Colt revolver replica made by Pietta.[15][38][39][40] >According to a search warrant, the guns were briefly checked by Gutierrez-Reed, before assistant director David Halls took the Pietta revolver from the prop cart and handed it to Baldwin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rust_shooting_incident Stop spreading misinformation you know nothing about.
> The armorer okayed them to rehearse with them meaning she checked them before that rehearsal. So? Irrelevant. > Baldwin didn't IGNORE any safety things So let's go through what happened, and which ways Baldwin failed in HIS personal responsibility. 1-For rehearsals a plastic or otherwise non-functioning firearm is to be used. They used the real one. Baldwin should not have accepted this firearm being used for rehearsals. 2-He is handed the weapon by someone other than the armorer. Baldwin takes the firearm. Baldwin should have refused to accept it. 3-The gun is handed to him and he is told it is a cold gun. Proper procedure for a revolver is that the armorer opens it, pulls out each dummy round and shows the actor that is is a dummy round. Then the armorer reloads them into the firearm before the trigger is supposed to be pulled no less than 7 times (one for each dummy bullet +1). This was obviously not done. Baldwin accepts the firearm without being safety procedures that involve him being done. Baldwin should have refused to accept the firearm. So that's 3 points of failure just for him accepting the firearm to begin with. 4-The weapon is not to be pointed at anyone, including other actors, unless special circumstances demand it. This means that ideally you don't point it at anyone and just use an angle that makes it look like you are. For shots at the camera you never point the firearm directly at any staff. Either you set up the camera and do the shot, then check the footage later. Or you use a remote-controlled camera. Or you set up a ballistic shield between the camera operator and the actor, so that if something has gone catastrophically wrong then the shield is hit not the camera operator. Want to make a fucking guess what Baldwin did? I'll give you a hint, the woman who operated the camera is dead because Baldwin fucking shot her.
>1-For rehearsals a plastic or otherwise non-functioning firearm is to be used. They used the real one. Baldwin should not have accepted this firearm being used for rehearsals. Yeah he should have just said no, how stupid of him to feel any pressure or anything in a work environment to keep going amidst a strike. You could maybe not victim blame here that would be cool, I'm sure you don't have any sort of prejudice against him because he's a person with privilege and power. >2-He is handed the weapon by someone other than the armorer. Baldwin takes the firearm. After it was checked by the armorer, and the person who handed it to him, amidst a strike, yes. Again, he should have just said no right. Just like anyone who's ever been assaulted or a victim of any crime or anyone elses negligence he should have just said no. This is not the take you think it is, you're just trying to shift blame onto him in a toxic way. >3-The gun is handed to him and he is told it is a cold gun. Proper procedure for a revolver is that the armorer opens it, pulls out each dummy round and shows the actor that is is a dummy round. So it's Baldwin's fault the armorer didn't follow proper procedure? Is that what you're saying? If this is some no name actor on another set I somehow doubt you feel as compelled to victim blame as you do with Alec Baldwin, and I don't like Alec Baldwin, he's very easy to not like, but what happened is a tragedy and there are multiple victims beyond the person who died. For the record someone DID check all of the rounds and did all of that, and it still happened. So Baldwin not saying no is not some crazy irresponsible thing you're trying to make it out to be. You're ludicrously trying to shift blame away from the two people who literally checked the gun and communicated it was okay to use before Baldwin even touches it, and saying he should have known better and said no.
> he's very easy to not like Up until he negligently shot a woman I barely even knew who he was, but sure, whatever. > Yeah he should have just said no, how stupid of him to feel any pressure or anything in a work environment to keep going amidst a strike. We're not talking about an extra or some noname actor trying to make it. It's Alec Baldwin, he's one of the key producers of the movie. He had sufficient power that he got to sit and talk on his phone during the armorer's safety brief. > So it's Baldwin's fault the armorer didn't follow proper procedure? No, it's Baldwin's fault that he ignored HIS part of the safety regulations. That means that no, you don't take the firearm, you actually do have a responsibility to insist on the safety rules being followed, especially the ones that involve you. And you neatly skipped the parts after, where Baldwin was pointing the gun he shouldn't have been holding at people he's not supposed to point it at. Ending him with shooting and killing a woman. > You're ludicrously trying to shift blame away from the two people who literally checked the gun I have done no such thing. The AD signed a plea deal and the armorer was convicted for her part in it. But them being at fault for their failures does not absolve Baldwin for his failures. Again, the entire point of a multiple-points-of-failure safety system is to have multiple points of failure. That stops being a thing if only the first person who made a mistake is held responsible. EVERYONE involved is at fault. That includes Baldwin. Your entire argument is based on this weird idea that if someone else fucks up then that means everyone else down the line is free of responsibility. It's like arguing it's not your fault you killed a kid while you were drunk driving and speeding down a school zone because the mechanic forgot to check your breaks when the car was in the shop last week.
Also. It’s very feasible to place bulletproof glass around the camera. So only the lens is exposed. To protect workers. If the shot absolutely has to be of the actor firing at the camera. Or just do it remotely. Or just have the actor not point the gun at the camera. Just point it off angle. Or do a Dutch angle. Idk
More importantly there should have been no live ammo within miles.
This is the whole enchilada on this case. Yes.
I read up on that armorer. She’s really young with her only real claim is that she grew up on sets and daddy was a well known movie armorer owned the company. She really had no business on her own, as the world now knows.
Fucking thank you. A lot of people very clearly wants to blame everyone in the world except Baldwin. But he very obviously is partly responsible.
Not responsible in any way, asshat.
The shot they were rehearsing was a shot aimed directly at the camera, the camera the cinematographer sits behind. I'm sure he didn't mean to be aiming it in a way in which it was pointing at her. The margin of error is low when the thing you are supposed to be pointing at and the person are directly in line with each other.
> The shot they were rehearsing was a shot aimed directly at the camera Doesn't matter. That kind of thing is what remote controlled cameras are for. Failing that, there's supposed to be bulletproof glass. Failing that, film without someone behind the camera then check footage after the fact. Bottom line, he's not supposed to point it at her and he's the one responsible for doing that.
Does matter. Your take is shit.
Everyone forgets he’s a producer too. So he has a lot of say in this filming (I am guessing bc I’m not a movie worker person). I just think the whole movie was done sloppy by sloppy people on a seriously tiny budget. Budget armorer = shitty outcomes.
He’s not the ‘producer’ who hires armorers. Shit take.
Shit take on every front. An actor in a movie scene using a fake prop should never have to worry about gun safety protocol. It was supposed to be a fake, but it contained a live round. The guilt in this case is entirely on the person who loaded the live round into what was supposed to be a prop/fake/toy. Baldwin was in the wrongest possible place at the wrongest possible time for him to get ANY blame for this.
I buy it. The initial investigation said it wasn’t pulled. It wasn’t until this weird FBI investigation where they broke the gun in the process did they decide it was pulled.
I still wonder if the gun was modified with a light trigger pull. Baldwin was practicing a cross-body draw; the mass of the gun pivoting in his hand could have easily applied 2# of force. The only one who knows now would be the gunsmith that worked on the revolver, either before or after it left the factory (I assume it’s a modern replica and not an antique). I don’t have a lot of experience with revolvers, but as a 1911 guy, if you don’t know what to expect, a good single-action trigger *will* surprise you. The correct way to shoot them is to keep it on target and expect it to go off at any point, so that you don’t try to get ahead of the recoil and end up flinching. Of course, for practice, Baldwin shouldn’t have had a real gun. A “blue gun” (rubber dummy with proper weight and center of gravity) should have been available.
Only thing I can think of is because he's also a producer on the film. So he could be responsible for safety on set. Hirings. Etc. That said, just a guess based on having been a producer.
Isn’t every actor over a certain level of fame usually a producer on projects they are involved in? I doubt many of them deal with the technicalities of running a production and just have it as a line in their contract.
All of that is a moot point, he’s not being tried because he’s a producer. Arguing over whether a producer is culpable is just semantics and has nothing to do with that’s going on. If it was, all the producers would be being prosecuted. People really have NO idea what’s going on with this trial.
Yeah, but producer title varies. Some are just like for bragging rights. Some are legit they're doing the work. It seems like he's a for real producer on this project.
> It seems like he's a for real producer on this project. According to the OSHA report: > Alec Baldwin, Actor and Producer, and Joel Souza, Director, negotiated with various producers to help create and fund the Rust project. Alec Baldwin’s authority on the set included approving script changes and actor candidates. Alec Baldwin handled the revolver and fired the round that struck and injured Halyna Hutchins and Joel Souza. The OSHA report paints a VERY different picture of who was responsible. There is a reason why the DA is trying to focus on Baldwin pulling the trigger rather than him being a producer. They don't have a case and the OSHA report shows that. The only reason why the charges haven't been dropped is because no one wants to be one holding the bag when it happens. They're probably going to try and convince Baldwin to take some plea deal.
Oh I'm not arguing he's responsible. Just that with the title producer he could have been potentially. The armorer shouldn't have brought live ammo onto the set at all. Certainly not given an actor a gun with live ammo and not told them. It was her entire job. Or if someone told her to use live ammo or have it on set. I could see that person being partially liable.
Everyone says “he’s culpable because he’s a producer” but that’s just flat out not true, and not what he’s being prosecuted for. Anyone saying that is just blowing hot air completely unrelated to what’s going on.
I'm just saying he could be. If he's producer in title only not so much. I dunno his actual role as producer as it means many different things. Just saying he could be. It's logical to look into.
He’s not the producer in charge of hirings. That’s silly. You all actually think Alec Baldwin spent lots of time in an office preparing for this film? That’s absurd. Hollywood stars are THE thing that makes filmmaking like this possible. His job was to show up and act. He was handed a prop. In no way should that prop have been dangerous. Look at who handled it before him in order to ascertain blame. It certainly isn’t HIS fault.
Gross negligence and didn't follow gun safety protocols. You don't aim the gun at another person, they make it look that way with editing.
No they don’t, guns get aimed at people during filming all the time. This assertion that you don’t is some bullshit that people who have never set foot on a set keep trying to push.
Gun safety 101 don't fucking aim a gun at something you don't intend to shoot.
You’re also not supposed to do flips on motorcycles. You know what they do in movies? They do flips on motorcycles in a heavily monitored and controlled environment. The same thing they do with guns. That’s the point of stunt coordinators and, in this case, competent armorers. The set environment is supposed to be controlled to not have these incidents happen, and it’s news that it failed. There are, however, better ways to mitigate the risks. Guns don’t need to be on sets, several leading action filmmakers have come out for them to be replaced with digital means.
Motorcycles aren't meant to kill...
Stupidest comment yet by yet another non-filmmaker.
Safety is everyone's responsibility.
So he should make sure the lighting won’t fall and the horses are safe and the buildings won’t fall down. Where does a person’s responsibility end?
To the extent that he's interacting with them of course. If he was unscrewing random bits of the lighting system and something fails and injures a person that would be his fault. If he's knowingly disturbing the horses and they injure someone he's at fault. He has a duty to follow safety protocols just like everyone else.
It's a real gun in your hand. Don't exaggerate the burden of checking if it's clear and don't downplay the risks involved. In the kind of locations I work at, "safety is everyone's responsibility" is a phrase everyone has heard. It's not as if I made up some outlandish idea just now. In fact, the risks present on a movie set fit right at home with the kind of work places I am familiar with.
On set, actors are generally not allowed to mess with how a prop is set up. That is the armorer, propmaster, and AD’s job. If an actor starts fiddling with a prop weapon on set, it can make it less safe.
Yes, which is why the only people that can handle the weapons are the armorers and the actors while being directly supervised by the armorers - as per on-set safety standards/protocols. Everyone else’s safety responsibility is to never ever ever touch any/all weapons.
Pulling the trigger is an intentional act, even if he didn’t intend to actually shoot someone. That is an important distinction between murder and lesser offenses. And in my opinion it is still his problem. The two most important rules of gin safety are to not put your finger on the trigger unless you intend to shoot and to not point at anything you don’t intend to shoot. Baldwin both put his finger on the trigger and pointed it at someone which was not necessary for this rehearsal.
Yeah I agree for responsible gun owner…. But this is an actor, on a movie set rehearsing a scene. That’s why they hire an armorer for the set.
All I’m saying is that if an armorer handed me a gun and told me it was safe to point at someone and pull the trigger I wouldn’t believe them. Baldwin he has been working on movie sets with live weapons long enough to know not to believe them as well. He made the intentional decision to disregard proper gun handling and he shot someone. Was the armorer also at fault? Absolutely. But plain and simple, Baldwin knew better.
Sorry, but you’re completely in the wrong here. An armorer hands an actor a gun and tells them it’s safe, that means that it’s safe to pull the trigger. Actors pull the trigger all the time. The idea that an actor can just assume that the armorer is wrong is insane. No gun would ever get fired in a movie if that were the case. Not to mention that your entire argument is predicated on the assumption that Baldwin DID pull the trigger… which the article is alleging he may NOT have. But either way, the armorer is at fault here, NOT Baldwin. This whole situation is sickeningly tragic, but it’s also tragic for Baldwin. Can you imagine what it must feel like to accidentally kill someone in the course of doing your job? And in terms of what kind of gun he should have been using for the rehearsal… a) The actor isn’t in charge of that. They get handed what they get handed. b) he was practicing a draw and it may have been practice for a scene that required a real gun (perhaps in the actual scene, the gun would be fired) so the weight would be important for him to get the feel of.
Don’t bother bro, these people don’t understand two things: the law and firearm safety 101. They’re convinced this is politically motivated, even though Santa Fe County is not only one of the most liberal counties in the entire *country.*
The law doesn’t make a distinction for this. Baldwin knew he had a real gun in his hand; if he didn’t know how to make sure the gun was safe he shouldn’t be holding it.
So you think he is responsible? Sorry but precautions were/should have been made to insure the scene was safe. That wasn’t his job. He wasn’t trained to know if the gun was safe. People were hired to ensure safety
Going to be hard to get to murder if he thought the gun was safe. But I do agree that him putting his finger on the trigger would increase what he is held responsible for.
There's zero chance of murder. The standard he'd meet would be recklessness which would be manslaughter in New Mexico.
My opinion, not knowing the state’s actual laws, is that if Baldwin put himself in the position to wield a firearm he should have known that no amount of “trust me, it’s not loaded” is enough to justify putting your finger on the trigger and pointing it at someone on set who was not behind safety glass. /edit and he should have used a prop gun instead of a real gun for a rehearsal anyway.
The law doesn't specify that, at the very least not at the time. The people who set up the guns are responsible for that on a movie set. SAG is very specific about this. I agree that there's no reason to use a real gun during a rehearsal. The sad reason they did is likely simply it's cheaper to have just a real gun (which you need for the scenes) than a real gun and a dummy gun. Regardless of any of this, without intent there's no way to get murder. You want homocide? That's a lot easier.
The SAG is not specific about that. The SAG standard is that you don't point real guns at people unless there is specific supervision by an armorer. Otherwise you follow the standard rules (finger off the trigger, assume it's loaded, don't point it at anything you're not willing to destroy and be aware of what's behind what you're pointing at, he broke all of them).
> The SAG is not specific about that The SAG rules are specific about that. The armourer or 1AD, etc. are responsible for handling the guns and making sure they are safe. Actors are not to check or otherwise play with the guns unless they also have training on this specific set. This training is not required as they are discouraged from doing this since it isn't their responsibility. > The SAG standard is that you don't point real guns at people unless there is specific supervision by an armorer That's another thing, separate from the rules as to who is responsible for setting up the guns. > don't point it at anything you're not willing to destroy SAG rules say don't point it any anyone unless instructed to and for filming. The idea is you won't be instructed to unless it is absolutely necessary. This kind of thinking is probably overly hopeful considering you're not supposed to ever point it at anyone (i.e. be asked to) for a rehearsal. The same kind of thinking that doesn't use a dummy gun for a run through is not the kind of thinking that keeps people safe.
SAG rules work on a swiss cheese model. The armorer/1AD is supposed to be safe but the actor handling the firearms is also supposed to be safe. They're going to try to demonstrate that he failed to act with reasonable caution while handling the firearm (there's videos of him basically using it as a pointing stick) and that lead to someone being killed, which is pretty much textbook manslaughter in New Mexico.
This is my take - if it was someone like Pedro Pascal or Tom Hanks, everybody would wave it off as an unfortunate tragedy. They’re going after him because he’s not likable.
A cynical part of me thinks it's a push from the right to demonise him and put out misinformation about him. He has literally been the face of Trump criticisms for years through SNL. It makes sense they have a bone to pick with him and jumped on this.
Baldwin strikes me as some kind of alcoholic, he goes off on tirades on random innocent people over parking spots or his daughter for being overweight and that’s just what has made attention. I find him kind of pretentious and think deep down he’s a jackass who pointed a gun at a person, which is never some that you should do unless you intend to kill. I would like to see him out of the public eye because I think he’s a garbage person.
Yeah and literally all of that shit is from over a decade ago. I'm gay, he used the F-slur once in 2013, I'll speak for all of us and say we forgive him.
No one should talk to their daughter like that. I don’t care how long ago it was.
Right, and how does this disprove my claim the alt-right is behind a smear campaign against him in any way? Mind you that was my initial point that you responded to.
There probably wouldn’t be video of either of those actors being extremely unsafe with a gun they know is loaded on set, running from set up to set up and yelling at everyone to keep moving while carrying a loaded gun.
Then there’s [Will Smith and gun safety.](https://youtu.be/UELwDUEl1Po?si=mmvrF41Ps4s5JiPq)
Lolwut
I don’t know why I got downvoted so hard. There is video of Baldwin on the Rust set doing all those things.
This entire prosecution is BS. I think Baldwin is a total twat waffle but he was handed a weapon by an AD and told it was safe. So in his mind the armorer and AD should both have verified that. Not to mention live rounds have no business anywhere on a set, that gun should have been checked for blanks before it was handed to Baldwin as a "cold gun". There is no way he should be charged as the person holding the gun at that point. The investigation should have focused on the safety protocols and if each person did their job and how on earth live rounds got on that set. Not on Baldwin as an actor. I have felt for a while that if the investigation had been done well Baldwin might have some exposure (criminal or civil) as a producer instead. It is clear they cut costs and that might have contributed to the failure of the safety protocols but that is VERY different from what they have charged him with.
...Did he not point a firearm at someone and pull the trigger?
If you read about the drunken live gun shooting on set… how there were live rounds on set, people knee this… how people complained about safety numerous times, some quitting… his AD who was known for doing anything to save money… the bad hire… how he was undoubtedly the most powerful person on set… im a liberal but Alec deserves some blame for sure. Lots of rules were broken on set. Somebody getting shot was almost inevitable IMO.
Even if the gun was broken, he still cocked the hammer and pointed it at her.
He demanded the armorer work outside the scope of her duties, leveraging his fame and importance and her inexperience, youth, and gender. Because he's a f****** sef-important misogynist pig.
[удалено]
As a former prosecutor: no. No. Really, super, no. God no. Please. No.
This is a perfect example why I never what to be judged by a jury of my peers
Redditor tries to understand nuance and context challenge impossible
Stop with the silliness. Actors point guns at actors and pull the trigger every day. They are often loaded wet fake rounds for the camera. It is NOT the actor's job to clear the weapon.
Also it easy to do with a revolver, but whats an actor with a mag fed weapon supposed to do? Unload the mag and check every round? wtf is an armorer doing on set at that point if the actor has to clear and load the weapon? And this was a set with 1 actor with a weapon, what happens when you have 5-10 in a scene with weapons shooting blanks? All those guys are going to unload and reload each round for however many takes they shoot to get a scene?
>Actors point guns at actors and pull the trigger every day. It's weird how many people apply normal gun safety rules to movie sets when everyone should realize that actors on sets point guns at people and pull the trigger literally every single day in this country. It would be like applying normal traffic laws to a car chase scene in a movie. >It is NOT the actor's job to clear the weapon. The last thing you'd want on a movie set is untrained actors messing around with the guns. They hire experts for a reason. Some people hate Alec Baldwin so much and want him to go to prison so badly that they completely throw all logical thinking out the window.
No they don't, you do not aim the gun at other actors, that is literally all editing. Its basic gun safety that was not followed.
If that’s true how do you explain Brandon Lee’s death on the set of *The Crow*?
I had heard that because of Brandon Lee they made a rule that you can’t point guns at people on sets anymore but I don’t know if it’s true or, if it is, how serious anyone is about it. Regardless if your waving a gun around on a set someone at some point is gonna be in the line of fire.
As an actor: It happens all the time. You don't think guns are used on stage, too?
I think that’s an unreasonable take dude. Yeah I wouldn’t start walking around set “shooting the gun” At random people but the scene was him shooting towards the screen. He was told it’s blanks in the gun. Involuntary Manslaughter at the worst imo with no jail time because he did pull the trigger but it was a reasonable expectation from him that the entire situation was safe.
There are also reports that he used the gun to gesture, sometimes towards crew members, before the death occured. Even when used properly they can be remarkably dangerous (Brandon Lee), the additional level of accountability their users must assume isn't unreasonable as lives are actively at risk even when loaded with blanks. But you know, America "*Movie industry firearms safety guidelines tell actors never to put their finger on the trigger until ready to shoot, treat all firearms as though loaded, and not point a gun at anyone unless absolutely necessary, and then in consultation with a safety expert.*" https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-20/new-evidence-in-alec-baldwin-rust-trial-reckless-with-gun/104001080 "*New video from the trial of Rust armourer Hanna Gutierrez-Reed shows Alec Baldwin using a gun as a 'pointing stick', according to testimony of firearms expert Bryan Carpenter, who took the stand for the prosecution on Thursday.*" https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68377798
[удалено]
That’s a pretty stiff allegation without citing anything.
Is there a link you can share that shows the evidence of your statement? I haven’t heard this before.
They can’t because what they’re doing there is called “libel.” It’s an unfounded lie with no basis in literally any account of this case that I have read.
He thought it was a dummy round, unfireable. Not a blank. A dummy round has no propulsive explosive at all. If you don't understand the difference between a dummy round and a blank probably lay off the lecture.
As a practicing criminal attorney who has been both a prosecutor and defense attorney, please never go to law school
This guy gets it! From now on, actors should only fire finger guns when shooting a scene. Problem solved, no more murders! /S
The man who points the gun and pulls the trigger is guilty.
Here come the gun owners who’ve never looked into or worked on a film set…