Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Alec Baldwin charged


Tex Jones, SASS 2263

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Interesting, David Halls ("cold gun") who is almost as guilty as Baldwin, will only serve six months of probation and the armorer who wasn't present may have a mandatory minimum of five years in jail.

I agree with the Special Prosecutor who said that if any of the three "had done their job, Halyna Hutchins would be alive today. It’s that simple.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds right from what I understand of the events.

 

However, if the Hollywood processes had not separated responsibility for firearms safety from the actor (long discussion omitted), only Baldwin would possibly be guilty. Absent my omitted long discussion of how Hollywood implements firearms safety, only Baldwin could be charged.

 

Hollywood should send everyone who handles firearms (and prop guns) to the NRA Basics of Firearms Safety class.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's how I see this working out...

 

Rich actor, Alec Baldwin, gets a token fine, small community service of some type and still is free to make movies involving HIS handling of firearms...even though he just killed someone doing the exact same thing.

 

Not so rich supposed armorer, Reed, will be heavily fined, imprisoned, face many years of probation and be forever banned from handling firearms of any type.

 

I will agree with Reeds punishment, not Baldwin's. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Cypress Sun said:

Rich actor, Alec Baldwin, gets a token fine, small community service of some type ...

 

Not some type, almost for sure "ANTI-GUN" related community service. I can see the TV promos now, "Woe is me, see how evil guns can hurt law-abiding gentlemen like me."

The only reason this has not already been decided (even if not announced) is because it was in New Mexico and not California!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actors are not allowed to "mess" with their guns, that includes checking chambers.  That is why there is an armorer on set.  During trial, if it gets that far, I am sure Baldwin will produce the SAG rules, or contracts etc that define this.

 

What we can hope for is that the industry changes things up a bit.  We cannot depend on an armorer (or asst director) to be solely responsible.  Perhaps they will institute a requirement that the guns be loaded (or shown to be safe) in the presence of the actor, and perhaps a second armorer.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Crazy Gun Barney, SASS #2428 said:

Actors are not allowed to "mess" with their guns, that includes checking chambers.  That is why there is an armorer on set.  During trial, if it gets that far, I am sure Baldwin will produce the SAG rules, or contracts etc that define this.

 

What we can hope for is that the industry changes things up a bit.  We cannot depend on an armorer (or asst director) to be solely responsible.  Perhaps they will institute a requirement that the guns be loaded (or shown to be safe) in the presence of the actor, and perhaps a second armorer.

 

 

Actors are not allowed to check the guns they handle?  I guess you and I would get fired if we were actors on a set and somebody handed me a gun and said "Cold gun."  If ANYBODY hands me a gun, I assume it is loaded with live ammo, and do my own check to see if it is clear, including looking to see if any so-called "blank" ammo had either a crimped front end or if not, if there was no primer in the cartridge.  Besides, I had heard somewhere that actors in shows where guns were involved, the actors were told to "aim off", i.e., point the gun so it was NOT pointed at anyone, and the camera angle be set to make it look like the aim was "true".  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Crazy Gun Barney, SASS #2428 said:

During trial, if it gets that far, I am sure Baldwin will produce the SAG rules, or contracts etc that define this.

 

Baldwin is double screwed. As the Producer he changed the standard definition of the Armorer job to include handling many props that were not firearms as well. This is extremely unusual, and most armorers would have (and I believe that at least one did) refused the job. She took the job because she was young, naive, and wanted to get some credentials for future jobs. Many of the crew had already walked off the job due to "unsafe working conditions," and that was because of decisions made by the producers.

 

She was busy handling other props instead of the firearm at the time of the discharge. I don't know if she even knew that the gun would be used for rehearsal at that time, however nobody else should have had access to the gun if she wasn't there to unsecure it and then observe the handling of the firearm until it was safely secured again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still can't get past the fact that live ammunition was allowed anywhere near the set.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm puzzled. I'm neither a cop nor a lawyer, but this puzzles me.

 

Now if I understand this correctly, Baldwin shot a gun, and the bullet went through one person into a second person. And it killed the first person. The second person did not die.

 

So two people were shot, but there was only one death.

 

"In a news release sent out Thursday morning, District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altweis announced that Baldwin and Gutierrez-Reed will each face two counts of involuntary manslaughter in the death of cinematographer, Halyna Hutchins."

 

If only one person was killed, how can they be charged with two counts of manslaughter?

 

Not two counts total - one for him and one for her. Two counts each.

 

To be charged with two counts of manslaughter don't there have to be two dead people?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Alpo said:

I'm puzzled. I'm neither a cop nor a lawyer, but this puzzles me.

 

...

 

To be charged with two counts of manslaughter don't there have to be two dead people?

They are each charged with two different degrees of manslaughter. Alternate theories. One count under each theory.

 

The jury may find each defendant guilty of one or the other charge, or neither charge. The jury does not have to find both defendants guilty of the same charge (but may do so), nor both guilty of any charge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to reports on Fox News, Baldwin's attorney is claiming somebody wanted to sabotage the production by placing a live round in the box labeled "dummy rounds" or something. I don't give a $hi+ about SAG rules or whatever...and regardless of whether the armorer was overloaded with other tasks...Baldwin should have checked the gun himself!  Question: How are "dummy rounds" identified?  The best/safest way would be if there were transverse holes drilled in the brass, such as when inert military rounds are produced!  :angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Cold Lake Kid, SASS # 51474 said:

I still can't get past the fact that live ammunition was allowed anywhere near the set.

Previous stories reported that crew members borrowed guns from the set to shoot beer cans.  One of these guns was the one involved in the fatality.  See https://www.insider.com/gun-killed-rust-halyna-hutchins-target-practice-alec-baldwin-2021-10#:~:text=Several crew members took guns from the movie%2C,to sources cited by The Wrap and TMZ.  Here is a news story regarding the alleged ammo supplier:  https://www.koat.com/article/rust-gun-and-ammo-supplier-denies-supplying-movie-with-box-found-on-set-with-live-rounds/39884036.  This is good reading too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Trailrider #896 said:

I guess you and I would get fired if we were actors on a set and somebody handed me a gun and said "Cold gun."

You got that right.  I think I was taught that before I could walk.  Even when somebody I know and trust checks a gun in front of me before handing it to me, first thing I do is check it myself.  It is practically an involuntary motion.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alec Baldwin has finally been charged with 2 counts of "Involuntary Manslaughter" in New Mexico.  Unfortunately all the media, including Fox and Newsmax, keep calling  the incident an "accidental discharge."  I think all responsible gun owners always call something like this a "Negligent Discharge."   

There are no accidents with firearms, only negligence with handling firearms.  But, the firearms are always blamed for someone doing something stupid with a firearm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Howdy.

I think and it is just my opinion, the movie folks should

not use guns.

They should use something that looks like a gun but

is incapable of chambering anything like a live round.

Or even a blank that can do some real damage.

I heard someone was killed with a blank fired touching his head.

Sound effects and totally fake guns.

Best

CR

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Problem can be resolved with modern CGI.  Unfortunately, it just solves a problem that never existed when people did the job they were being paid to do.

Now, it's "not my fault."  They aren't paying me enough money, they say I have to show up to work on time, I can't answer my phone anytime someone calls me, I can't surph the net on company time, I can't call in sick once a week, I'm special.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Chili Ron said:

Howdy.

I think and it is just my opinion, the movie folks should

not use guns.

They should use something that looks like a gun but

is incapable of chambering anything like a live round.

Or even a blank that can do some real damage.

I heard someone was killed with a blank fired touching his head.

Sound effects and totally fake guns.

Best

CR

 

Many studios use exactly that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think someone from the NRA or GOA or some other gun group should be on set at all times to teach these imbeciles gun safety!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lone Spur Jake SASS #7728 said:

There are no accidents with firearms, only negligence with handling firearms. 

 

"Accidents"  are the opposite of intent, as to the production of injury. The fact that negligence is present doesn't mean it's not an accident, it means the actor fell below the expended standard of care with the result that an unintended injury to somebody occurred.

 

Most automobile accidents involve negligence. They are still accidents. If there can be no accidents with firearms, there can't be accidents with cars or any other instrumentality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WHO brought the LIVE ammo on the set.They should be charged to.

                                                                                                                 Largo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In interviews before the filming of this movie Baldwin boasted that when you hire him for a movie one of the skill sets he brings to the table is firearm and firearms handling expertise. Of course he was also a producer and actor on this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

too many things we dont know - im glad charges have been brought [we all know we would have been charged months ago] but i doubt he will serve any time , i will not place bets on the armorer tho , im thinking conviction and time 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NOTE: I am NOT trying to come up with any exculpatory theories in this case, nor a potential defense for Alec Baldwin!

 

My experience in aerospace Failure Modes and Analysis still has me wondering if any sort of dirt or debris between the trigger screw and the trigger itself, or the sides of the trigger and the frame could have caused the trigger, if depressed before he cocked the hammer, and him removing pressure on the trigger before cocking the hammer, might have prevented the trigger sear from contacting the full cock notch?  I wonder if the FBI's inspection of the gun involved disassembly, which could have removed such dirt/fouling, which, of course would allow the trigger to function as intended? :unsure:

 

Regardless... such a failure mode would NOT relieve the gun handler of the responsibility to check the gun himself, and NEVER pointing it in an unsafe direction!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone is focusing on the wrong part of this.  After Brandon Lee’s death, hollywood changed the rules for firearms handling on film sets.

 

All firearm props, including rubber, replica and genuine would never be pointed at anyone else (on screen or off) again.  If they want footage of the gun pointed directly at the camera, they cheat it by using mirrors or locking off the camera (so operator, cinematographer and director can be away from the line of fire) and operating it remotely.  If they are supposed to shoot another actor, they point deliberately to a side and position the camera to cheat that angle.

 

Rust personnel got complacent and people stood in front of a handgun.  Baldwin (big expert that he claims he is) should NEVER HAVE POINTED THE GUN AT ANYONE.  

 

Baldwin gets some relief in that actors don’t check their own weapons, but he should have refused Hutchins’ request to point at her (or the camera she was next to).

 

It didn’t help they kept the armorer away from the set (because of covid precautions). 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, WOLFY said:

Everyone is focusing on the wrong part of this.  After Brandon Lee’s death, hollywood changed the rules for firearms handling on film sets.

 

All firearm props, including rubber, replica and genuine would never be pointed at anyone else (on screen or off) again.  If they want footage of the gun pointed directly at the camera, they cheat it by using mirrors or locking off the camera (so operator, cinematographer and director can be away from the line of fire) and operating it remotely.  If they are supposed to shoot another actor, they point deliberately to a side and position the camera to cheat that angle.

 

Rust personnel got complacent and people stood in front of a handgun.  Baldwin (big expert that he claims he is) should NEVER HAVE POINTED THE GUN AT ANYONE.  

 

Baldwin gets some relief in that actors don’t check their own weapons, but he should have refused Hutchins’ request to point at her (or the camera she was next to).

 

It didn’t help they kept the armorer away from the set (because of covid precautions). 

 

 

 

I don't think you would stop Tom Selleck from checking a firearm before a scene or any other pro-gun actor that knows the gun safety rules!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is information, misinformation, mild to wild speculation and just plain BS out there about what happened.

 

I'll be interested in what the trial reveals.

 

I'll note that Hannah Gutierrez Reed is the daughter of Thell Reed:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thell_Reed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Rye Miles #13621 said:

I don't think you would stop Tom Selleck from checking a firearm before a scene or any other pro-gun actor that knows the gun safety rules!

I believe they can, but they’ll need the Armorer right next to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, WOLFY said:

I believe they can, but they’ll need the Armorer right next to them.

You're probably right!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't seen where the charges went through a grand jury, so there will have to be a preliminary hearing.  The only two ways for charging in NM are through a grand jury (where if a true bill is returned, then it goes directly to a jury trial) or a preliminary hearing before a magistrate court judge after the DA files charges.  The standard for the preliminary hearing is the same as the grand jury, probable cause.  Probable cause means there is evidence that a crime has been committed and that the accused committed the crime.  Probable cause does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  Grand juries are done in secret.  Preliminary hearings are open to the public.  The magistrate court judge conducts a mini-bench trial, and the defense attorney can cross-examine the witnesses.  The DA can present all the evidence in the world of guilt, but the magistrate judge can dismiss the charges as he/she wishes.  Magistrate court is where politically difficult or high profile cases go to die.  Unless Baldwin or Gutierrez-Reed waives the preliminary hearing (which would be stupid), watch for this case to die there.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.