Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

"Rust" shooting, Take 3. Baldwin may be charged


Recommended Posts

From Newsmax

Special prosecutors are seeking to recharge actor Alec Baldwin in the fatal shooting of a cinematographer on the set of a Western movie in 2021, describing Tuesday their preparations to present new information to a grand jury.

New Mexico-based prosecutors Kari Morrissey and Jason Lewis said they will present their case to the grand jury within the next two months, noting "additional facts" have come to light in the shooting on the set of the film "Rust" that killed Halyna Hutchins.

Baldwin, a coproducer of the film, was pointing a gun at Hutchins during a rehearsal inside a rustic chapel on a movie-set ranch near Santa Fe when the gun went off Oct. 21, 2021, killing the cinematographer and wounding director Joel Souza.

"Additional facts have come to light that we believe show Mr. Baldwin has criminal culpability in the death of Halyna Hutchins and the shooting of Joel Souza," Morrissey and Lewis said in an email. "We believe the appropriate course of action is to permit a panel of New Mexico citizens to determine from here whether Mr. Baldwin should be held over for criminal trial."

Baldwin has said he pulled back the hammer — but not the trigger — and the gun fired.

Attorneys for Baldwin said the latest move by prosecutors is misguided.

"It is unfortunate that a terrible tragedy has been turned into this misguided prosecution. We will answer any charges in court," Luke Nikas and Alex Spiro said in an email.

Special prosecutors initially dismissed an involuntary manslaughter charge against Baldwin in April, saying they were informed the gun might have been modified before the shooting and malfunctioned. They later pivoted and began weighing whether to refile a charge against Baldwin after receiving a new analysis of the gun.

The recent gun analysis from experts in ballistics and forensic testing based in Arizona and New Mexico relied on replacement parts to reassemble the gun fired by Baldwin — after parts of the pistol were broken during earlier testing by the FBI. The report examined the gun and markings it left on a spent cartridge to conclude that the trigger had to have been pulled or depressed.

The analysis led by Lucien Haag of Forensic Science Services in Arizona stated that although Baldwin repeatedly denies pulling the trigger, "given the tests, findings and observations reported here, the trigger had to be pulled or depressed sufficiently to release the fully cocked or retracted hammer of the evidence revolver."

An earlier FBI report on the agency’s analysis of the gun found that, as is common with firearms of that design, it could go off without pulling the trigger if force was applied to an uncocked hammer — such as by dropping the weapon.

The only way the testers could get it to fire was by striking the gun with a mallet while the hammer was down and resting on the cartridge, or by pulling the trigger while it was fully cocked. The gun eventually broke during testing.

Authorities have not specified exactly how live ammunition found its way on set and into the .45-caliber revolver made by an Italian company that specializes in 19th century reproductions.

The weapons supervisor on the movie set, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, has pleaded not guilty to involuntary manslaughter and evidence tampering in the case. Her trial is scheduled to begin in February.

In March, "Rust" assistant director and safety coordinator David Halls pleaded no contest to unsafe handling of a firearm and received a suspended sentence of six months of probation. He agreed to cooperate in the investigation of the shooting.

In the revived case against Baldwin, first reported by NBC News, a grand jury would "determine whether probable cause exists to bind Baldwin over on criminal charges," special prosecutors said.

The 2021 shooting resulted in a series of civil lawsuits centered on accusations that the defendants were lax with safety standards. The cases have included wrongful death claims filed by members of Hutchins’ family. Baldwin and other defendants have disputed the accusations that they were lax with safety standards.

The company Rust Movie Productions has paid a $100,000 fine to state workplace safety regulators following a scathing narrative of safety failures in violation of standard industry protocols, including testimony that production managers took limited or no action to address two misfires on set before the fatal shooting.

The filming of "Rust" resumed this year in Montana, under an agreement with the cinematographer’s widower, Matthew Hutchins, that made him an executive producer.

 
 
 
 

Copyright 2023 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770 said:

The recent gun analysis from experts in ballistics and forensic testing based in Arizona and New Mexico relied on replacement parts to reassemble the gun fired by Baldwin — after parts of the pistol were broken during earlier testing by the FBI.

 

That right there is his Get Out Of Jail card. "As the jury will note, the firearm was not in the configuration it was in at the scene of the tragic shooting.  Of course new parts will function properly."

 

Quote

The only way the testers could get it to fire was by striking the gun with a mallet while the hammer was down and resting on the cartridge, or by pulling the trigger while it was fully cocked. The gun eventually broke during testing.

 

Part of me wonders if that was intentional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am just sick of seeing this one in the news.  I don't care what you all think of Baldwin personally.  Regardless of charges or convictions he will not serve jail time.  Baldwin is an actor, he was handed a gun and told to act a role.  The fault/fact that a live round ended up in a prop gun is not on Baldwin.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, July Smith said:

I am just sick of seeing this one in the news.  I don't care what you all think of Baldwin personally.  Regardless of charges or convictions he will not serve jail time.  Baldwin is an actor, he was handed a gun and told to act a role.  The fault/fact that a live round ended up in a prop gun is not on Baldwin.  

 

It wasn't a filming session, it was planning and rehearsal, no need for him to have it in his hand.  It wasn't handed to him by the prop master/armorer, but by an assistant director and told the gun was "cold."  That should have set off bells in his head to actually check it since standard procedure was violated.  As the producer he is responsible.

But what gripes most of us is that if any of us had done the same thing we would be doing time not long after the event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

But what gripes most of us is that if any of us had done the same thing we would be doing time not long after the event.

Man, it has been like that for a long time and Baldwin is about the least offense example of this fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the prosecutors or defense could get their hands on the old original parts and check to see if the hammer cocking mechanism, or even maybe the hand spring, had been altered to "slip hammer", instead of cock and lock....it would prove the case one way or another.

 

But, that's an amateur gunsmith asking here :mellow:.  I've got a .36 cap and ball with a busted hand spring that'll let the cylinder rotate when cocking the hammer while you have it pointed downward, but the hammer is not locked into position to fire and will fall freely without the trigger being pulled when pointed.

 

I know, just ain't got around to fixing it yet.:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984 said:

Get hands on the original parts is irrelevant if they need to be reinstalled because no one can say they are installed as before.

Didn't the FBI say there was no issue with the gun before they broke it with the mallet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984 said:

Get hands on the original parts is irrelevant if they need to be reinstalled because no one can say they are installed as before.

I was thinking of an examination of the parts outside of the pistol by a qualified professional gunsmith.  Maybe they can determine if the part failed and broke....or if it was intentionally altered.

1 minute ago, Eyesa Horg said:

Didn't the FBI say there was no issue with the gun before they broke it with the mallet?

And that's a very questionable act by the FBI in my opinion.<_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Baldwin still might walk.

 

I don't think he should, but I don't think having an armorer be responsible for a safe gun should let an actor off the hook for having a safe gun. That is the current standard and process... The Armorer has process and procedure responsibility for a firearm being safe or not.

 

But but but you say! The armorer did not hand him the firearm, it was an assistant director. Which as producer, may only expose Baldwin to civil liability.

 

Apparently the armorer cut a plea deal, so something went wrong there perhaps in the range of not locking up the guns before "quitting" to covering up (lying) about what actually happened.

 

I do think Baldwin should face criminal liability for his actions, even if it centers on some spat with the armorer and not the actual firearms handling, therefore as producer and not as actor (but he was holding the gun).

 

I envision a change in philosophy similar to what we have when gun shopping. Ask to see a gun, the counter persons clears it (because he is FULLY  responsible for it) and hands it to me. I then ALSO clear it because I am ALSO fully responsible for it.

 

So Baldwin might walk, but then laws should change to make sure this never happens again. Not the walk, don't let a negligent shooter off the hook in the future. Baldwin was a negligent shooter. Manslaughter. I would likely be dismissed from jury duty on this one. You know, because I have qualifications and certifications in safe firearms handling and no understanding of the nuances of Hollywood passing actual responsibility for safety off to another person who was not present.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, John Kloehr said:

Baldwin still might walk.

 

I don't think he should, but I don't think having an armorer be responsible for a safe gun should let an actor off the hook for having a safe gun. That is the current standard and process... The Armorer has process and procedure responsibility for a firearm being safe or not.

This is the part that confuses me. The gun should NOT have been out of whatever secure storage they have when the Armorer is not on set. It was stated earlier that the crew was "plinking" eariler in the day with this gun. WITH NO ARMORER!

But but but you say! The armorer did not hand him the firearm, it was an assistant director. Which as producer, may only expose Baldwin to civil liability.

Which should not have been able when the Armorer wasn't on set!  

Apparently the armorer cut a plea deal, so something went wrong there perhaps in the range of not locking up the guns before "quitting" to covering up (lying) about what actually happened.

If she allowed the gun to be in use when she wasn't there, then she should be partially liable, but I don't remember that she did.

I do think Baldwin should face criminal liability for his actions, even if it centers on some spat with the armorer and not the actual firearms handling, therefore as producer and not as actor (but he was holding the gun).

I agree, but the way Hollywierd works, it's not the actors responsibility to "be" safe. IIRC, the actor is actually forbidden to do anything EXCEPT hold it and pull the trigger. Which makes me a little nuts to think about.

I envision a change in philosophy similar to what we have when gun shopping. Ask to see a gun, the counter persons clears it (because he is FULLY  responsible for it) and hands it to me. I then ALSO clear it because I am ALSO fully responsible for it.

I'd like to see that too, but I fear that most "actors" are too untrained to do so, and to egotistical to think that they NEED to be trained. Not to mention that except that playing "hero" with them to make more money than most of US will ever see, they HATE guns.

So Baldwin might walk, but then laws should change to make sure this never happens again. Not the walk, don't let a negligent shooter off the hook in the future. Baldwin was a negligent shooter. Manslaughter. I would likely be dismissed from jury duty on this one. You know, because I have qualifications and certifications in safe firearms handling and no understanding of the nuances of Hollywood passing actual responsibility safety off to another person who was not present.

Someone as "important" as an actor responsible!? I don't think so. That's for the "help".

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

But what gripes most of us is that if any of us had done the same thing we would be doing time not long after the event.

 

I doubt it. He was charged. The prosecutor's handling was a botch-up of fiasco proportions. One charge was for a crime that wasn't on the books at the time of the incident. The prosecutor had to withdraw that, tail between the legs. Then the gun testing and the screw-ups there that caused the prosecutor to drop the charges (without prejudice) before trial. Not to mention several other prosecutorial failures along the way.

 

I hold no brief for Baldwin, but for most it would have ended there. Now the prosecutors convene a state grand jury, letting themselves off the hook whatever way it goes. If they don't indict, their office washes their hands of it; if they do indict, there is still a screwed-up case ahead (not to mention the significant defenses).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619 said:

I doubt it. He was charged. The prosecutor's handling was a botch-up of fiasco proportions. One charge was for a crime that wasn't on the books at the time of the incident. The prosecutor had to withdraw that, tail between the legs. Then the gun testing and the screw-ups there that caused the prosecutor to drop the charges (without prejudice) before trial. Not to mention several other prosecutorial failures along the way.

 

I have trouble believing that J.Q. Public would have been given the kid glove treatment this bozo received.  

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.