Alec Baldwin- Charges dropped :-@

[Aguila Blanca]

On the other thread, I felt that Metal god and JohnKSa understood this, but not many others. The gun was pointed at the camera, it went off and hit the cinematographer and the director, who was directly behind the cinematographer. The actor is working at the direction of, get this, the "director". None of the three people involved expected the gun to be functional let alone loaded.

However, of those three, the Screen Actors Guild safety guideline for firearms only required one of those three people to personally verify that the firearm was loaded with blanks -- by watching it be loaded in his presence, and seeing each cartridge be shaken so they could hear the BB rattling around inside. Guess which of the three it was.

 

[ghbucky]

The SAG safety bulletin for use of firearms on set is very good. And if it had been followed, this conversation would not be happening. But, it was not.

Apparently the law carves out exceptions for people performing in their profession that is not offered to us handling firearms outside of a professional setting.

I don't understand why an actor pointing a gun at someone and killing them isn't a criminal offense, but if I do it in a training scenario, it is.

I don't see that as 'blind justice'.

 

[44 AMP]

Is it the actors fault if the brakes fail on the car they are driving and they run over someone because they didn't check the brake fluid before they drove the car ?

Got to thinking about this, and I don't think its a good comparison. I think some thing more similar to fair would be putting an actor who doesn't know how to drive behind the wheel of an actual operating vehicle.

Now, if you want to make the argument that the actor isn't responsible for damages, I'm willing to listen. I can see the argument that it is the person who put the actor in that position who is actually responsible, and, there is logic in that.

OR you can argue that it is the actor's responsibility, because they took the job and didn't know how to do it.

In the Rust shooting, aren't both those roles filled by the same person? Baldwin....

 

[JohnKSa]

Got to thinking about this, and I don't think its a good comparison. I think some thing more similar to fair would be putting an actor who doesn't know how to drive behind the wheel of an actual operating vehicle.

Both are good comparisons. If the movie asks the actor to do something, they are responsible for making sure it can be done safely, for making sure that the equipment required is in good working order, is configured properly, is safe to operate, and for making sure that the actor is capable of doing what is required.

If the person responsible for maintaining the car, or for insuring that the actor knows what to do and is capable of doing it screws up, then they are responsible, not the actor.

The additional layer on top of that is that if someone who is known to be or should reasonably be expected to be incompetent is hired, or if someone who has demonstrated incompetence is kept on after they have demonstrated their incompetence and the incompetent person causes damages/injury/death, the person who did the hiring and/or retained the person may face some civil or criminal liability for that.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Is it the actors fault if the brakes fail on the car they are driving and they run over someone because they didn't check the brake fluid before they drove the car ?

I don't believe the SAG safety protocols require an actor (or stuntman) to personally check the brake fluid, pull the wheels, and check the brake linings on a car before driving it in a film setting. Or to watch while a mechanic on the set does those things in front of him. So this is not an appropriate comparison.

 

[JohnKSa]

I suppose that when they try him in SAG court, that will be important information.

 

[s3779m]

Here is where I do not follow but maybe it is clearing up. Charges were dropped because there was an aftermarket trigger on the gun. If Baldwin was responsible BEFORE the aftermarket trigger was discovered, why would he not be afterward. From the attorney,

In a statement, Special Prosecutor on the Santa Fe, New Mexico case Kari Morrissey told CNN on Thursday, “It is not appropriate for me to make extra judicial comments at this time.”

She continued, “The time will come when I will be able to fully comment but that time is not now. The dismissal against Mr. Baldwin will be temporary pending further investigation.

And from the article

So whether he’s fully clear remains to be seen as the investigators look into the question raised about the gun being modified. Charges of involuntary manslaughter are still pending against the armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed. Assistant director David Halls, who handed Baldwin the gun, already took a deal, pleading to a misdemeanor count of the negligent use of a deadly weapon.

https://redstate.com/nick-arama/202...lf-but-he-shouldnt-celebrate-just-yet-n734723

 

[rickyrick]

This wouldn’t be murder, but this is no different than if I was horseplaying at work with a known hazardous tool and killed a coworker.

 

[ghbucky]

Seems that a very similar incident occurred in NM, and there was a conviction that was upheld by NM supreme court:

And, as it happens, there is indeed New Mexico case law precisely on this point.

That case law is a decision out of the New Mexico Supreme Court itself, State v. Gilliam, 288 P.2d 675 (NM Sup. Ct. 1955). For any of you who may be concerned that Gilliam, a decision handed down in 1955, is “out of date,” be not afraid—case law is perfectly valid law until there is a Constitutional, statutory, or later court decision that modifies or reverses the applied legal standard. Valid case law does not simply “expire”—and I used my office’s professional legal database resource, Lexis, to ensure that Gilliam remains good law in New Mexico.

The decision was an appeal of a criminal conviction at a jury trial, in which the defendant had been found guilty of involuntary manslaughter by the act of unsafely handling a gun with the result that it discharged and killed the victim.

The NM Supreme Court ruled in that decision, in relevant part that:

It could have made no difference to the trial of a charge of involuntary manslaughter as to who loaded the gun … . All that it is necessary to establish for involuntary manslaughter by the use of a loaded firearm is that a defendant had in his hands a gun which at some time had been loaded and that he handled it … without due caution and circumspection and that death resulted.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2023/...eath-of-halyna-hutchins-fits-the-known-facts/

 

[44 AMP]

if someone who is known to be or should reasonably be expected to be incompetent is hired,

So, aren't the industry "rules" that don't require competence or even awareness of safety rules and proper operation of an item setting the stage for just that sort of thing to happen?

Charges were dropped because there was an aftermarket trigger on the gun.

well, this is news to me. Who said there was an aftermarket trigger in the gun?? Was that a direct statement in the FBI report?

Or was it one of the many things Baldwin's lawyers have said that did not turn out to be true??

Claims were made that the gun was broken (so Baldwin is not responsible)
Claims were made that the FBI had to repair the gun in order to test it (so Baldwin is not responsible)
Claims were made that the FBI damaged the gun during testing, so the actual condition of the gun at the time of the shooting cannot be determined (and so Baldwin is not responsible)
a claim was made that the gun Baldwin used had been destroyed (so condition of the gun at the time of the shooting could not be...and so Baldwin is not responsible...etc)

This last claim, that the gun was destroyed has been refuted by the State of New Mexico, who said that they have the gun, it was not destroyed and Baldwin's legal people can examine it at any time they wish to make an appointment....

Now, what's the latest? Aftermarket trigger?? (so Baldwin is not responsible??)

The thought occurred to me that since there is a statement from the DA about new information that needs to be investigated, then dropping the charges NOW, is possibly a wise move. Doing this avoids the possibility that a request for delay might not be approved, and avoids the possibility of a judge tossing the case out (for good) because the prosecution was not fully ready.....

This COULD BE a tactic to allow the DA the time needed for full investigation of the "new evidence" without the time pressure of a set court date, and the allegation that delaying the court date would be denying Baldwin his right to a "speedy trial".

I am hopeful that when things are fully investigated charges will be reinstated, the case will go to court and the DA will nail the lid shut on the matter in such a way that it stays shut.

The NM Supreme Court ruled in that decision, in relevant part that:

It could have made no difference to the trial of a charge of involuntary manslaughter as to who loaded the gun … . All that it is necessary to establish for involuntary manslaughter by the use of a loaded firearm is that a defendant had in his hands a gun which at some time had been loaded and that he handled it … without due caution and circumspection and that death resulted.

THIS has been my point of view all along.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

but mostly people were unwilling to hear it because they dislike Baldwin so much as a person.

Bingo boingo! AND the armorer is the daughter of a famous "gun" guy Thell Reed who is defending her. Baldwin is anti-gun as well.

 

[JohnKSa]

So, aren't the industry "rules" that don't require competence or even awareness of safety rules and proper operation of an item setting the stage for just that sort of thing to happen?

The industry won't be put on trial, but yes, as I said earlier, Baldwin/the filmmaker is almost certainly going to take a hit in civil court for hiring and retaining someone who doesn't appear to be competent.

Seems that a very similar incident occurred in NM...

Since it wasn't an actor shooting someone on the set with a prop gun, no, it's absolutely not "very similar".

Is a routine reckless speeding trial "very similar" to a race car driver being put on trial for driving too fast on the track? Is a stabbing trial "very similar" to a surgeon being put on trial for cutting on a patient in the OR? Is a trial for a parent who kills their child with medication by not reading the instructions on the bottle "very similar" to a parent being put on trial for overdosing their child because the pharmacist wrote the wrong instructions on the bottle? Context is really important.

Look, I don't know why this is so hard. (Well, I kinda do--it's not that it's hard, it's that people don't want to accept it.) Actors on set are not held to the same rules as people off set. EVERYONE here absolutely knows that is true because if it weren't, there would be actors being charged right and left for assault with a deadly weapon for pointing guns at other actors on set. Every case would be a slam dunk because the evidence would be captured on video.

Anyone remember when Brandon Lee was killed on set by Michael Massee? Now THAT is a "very similar" case. Massee wasn't even charged for pointing a gun at Lee and pulling the trigger--however the filmmaker was sued and lost the case for not maintaining the proper level of safety on set.

 

[s3779m]

So, aren't the industry "rules" that don't require competence or even awareness of safety rules and proper operation of an item setting the stage for just that sort of thing to happen?



well, this is news to me. Who said there was an aftermarket trigger in the gun?? Was that a direct statement in the FBI report?

Or was it one of the many things Baldwin's lawyers have said that did not turn out to be true??

Claims were made that the gun was broken (so Baldwin is not responsible)
Claims were made that the FBI had to repair the gun in order to test it (so Baldwin is not responsible)
Claims were made that the FBI damaged the gun during testing, so the actual condition of the gun at the time of the shooting cannot be determined (and so Baldwin is not responsible)
a claim was made that the gun Baldwin used had been destroyed (so condition of the gun at the time of the shooting could not be...and so Baldwin is not responsible...etc)

This last claim, that the gun was destroyed has been refuted by the State of New Mexico, who said that they have the gun, it was not destroyed and Baldwin's legal people can examine it at any time they wish to make an appointment....

Now, what's the latest? Aftermarket trigger?? (so Baldwin is not responsible??)

The thought occurred to me that since there is a statement from the DA about new information that needs to be investigated, then dropping the charges NOW, is possibly a wise move. Doing this avoids the possibility that a request for delay might not be approved, and avoids the possibility of a judge tossing the case out (for good) because the prosecution was not fully ready.....

This COULD BE a tactic to allow the DA the time needed for full investigation of the "new evidence" without the time pressure of a set court date, and the allegation that delaying the court date would be denying Baldwin his right to a "speedy trial".

I am hopeful that when things are fully investigated charges will be reinstated, the case will go to court and the DA will nail the lid shut on the matter in such a way that it stays shut.



THIS has been my point of view all along.

I posted two articles where they were talking about it in prior posts.
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-65343821

According to the LA Times, prosecutors had recently learned that the gun used in the shooting, a .45 Colt revolver, had been modified with a new trigger in a way that could have made a misfire more likely.

https://redstate.com/nick-arama/202...lf-but-he-shouldnt-celebrate-just-yet-n734723

So whether he’s fully clear remains to be seen as the investigators look into the question raised about the gun being modified.

In a statement, Special Prosecutor on the Santa Fe, New Mexico case Kari Morrissey told CNN on Thursday, “It is not appropriate for me to make extra judicial comments at this time.”

She continued, “The time will come when I will be able to fully comment but that time is not now. The dismissal against Mr. Baldwin will be temporary pending further investigation.”

None of the quotes are from Baldwin's attorneys.

the question I have is if charges were valid before what difference would a different trigger make? The FBI did check the gun out.

 

[HiBC]

It is absolute barn carpet to try to place responsibility for this death on the trigger or the gun.
Its the same thought process that isolates murder and violent crime to "gun crime" . And makes SUV's an animated killer with a soul of evil.

Inanimate objects do not commit crimes or negligence. Whether its Unerti or Pietta or Colt or whoever that made the gun,it was used and abused as a movie prop. Dropping,fanning,pistol whipping,nailing up wanted posters,etc.
Might it require maintenance or repair? Sure!!

NO ONE suggests that Baldwin intended to kill Halyna. Intent can be a factor in charging but its moot. I do not believe Baldwin woke up and thought "Today is the day I off Halyna".

Lines of testimony that shift focus to the gun are BS red herring distractions .A shiny object. "Look over here" A FALSE ARGUEMENT to shift the discussion away from true accountability.

Its lawyer sleight of hand meant to manipulate fools. The gun did not do it.

Critical Factors:

Halyna is dead. SAG protocols ignored. (Show biz equivalent of "The Four Rules") Ammo on set. Yes,there are more. Don't talk to me about the trigger.

I accept that Baldwin as an ACTOR is not accountable for the condition of the gun he is handed. To a point. He SHOULD have been witnessing the Armorer load the gun. But in general,I DON"T want ACTORS opening loading gates, jacking levers,racking slides.... Just do what is in the script. I agree that its WRONG for a gun to fire in an actors hand on set. I'll even agree that the ACTOR is not responsible (generally) for an unintended discharge HOWEVER see the SAG protocols. The ACTOR may well be responsible for where the gun is pointed.As much as I despise Baldwin, its likely I'd give the ACTOR Baldwin an acquittal. Don't forget he is also Producer Baldwin.

In general, I agree the ACTOR may bear a contributing level of responsibility, but not the burden of responsibility.
Joy Bahar could act in a Western with a gun scene.

Who manages the overall production of the film? Who is accountable if there are no Port_O_Lets? Handwashing? Who is accountable if a stage hand is electrocuted? Falls from height?
Yes,appropriate trades people, but who is responsible for managing them,hiring,firing,and setting standards if safety? IMO,that person is severely responsible for Halyna's death.

Now we come to the Armorer. We as gun folks may Respect Thell Reed. Thats OK. It might be sad Thell Reed's Daughter is involved.

I think we have to set that aside. Wear the Blindfold of Lady Justice. That does not mean scapegoat or lynch her, but be objective.

Her Job Description gives her the responsibility. OK,there may be "Yeah,but's,,," Granted. And those may be good reason to hold Management partly responsible.
But fundamentally the Armorer has a Job #1 . Make sure no one gets shot. Safety. There may well be mitigation, but she had one job and failed.

Sometimes when we have a Life or Death job.....The Boss may put us in a position where corners are being cut. The Boss may use you for a scapegoat to cover his buns.

I knew a guy who was a helicopter crew chief/ mechanic logging with a Skycrane. As I recall, he confided the Boss said "Keep it flying" with used parts that had not been FAA inspected. And there was something about cracks in the structure. The Boss said "Keep it flying". He quit.

Not long after, the Skycrane fell out of the Sky. People died. You don't just buy a new Skycrane. It takes time to build one. That Skycrane fed logs to the Mill which was the heart of a town's economy. The mill shut down.

Some jobs put Life and Death responsibility on a person. That is also the responsibility to say "No!" and shut it down.

There has been no trial. "Innocent till proven guilty" I'll say my impression is,she was not a perfect match for the job.

With all due Respect to Thell.

 

[44 AMP]

According to the LA Times, prosecutors had recently learned that the gun used in the shooting, a .45 Colt revolver, had been modified with a new trigger in a way that could have made a misfire more likely.

Thank you for the information.

Well, there you have it, a complete explanation from the LA Times, which, if taken at face value indicates they don't know what they are talking about.

 

[Metal god]

This all is exactly what I mean . 44 is correct:-@ … lol there has already been tones of wrong info already discussed in the media . Likely do to Baldwins lawyers and there is only going to be more . I’m barely hearing of these things but what you want to bet its a nightly or weekly thing on the NM news feeds . Jury pool has already been tainted and its only going to get worse . I still think at best you get a hung jury now .

I did hear new evidence had been obtained and the DA felt they did not have enough time to vet it before some clock ran out ????? Requiring them to drop the charges ??? Maybe Baldwin is forcing the speedy trial aspect and they don’t have enough time before???? Don’t know how that all works ??? Could it be a dropping of charges to gain more time with out needing to disclose evidence??? Then file again later ?

 

[ghbucky]

Since it wasn't an actor shooting someone on the set with a prop gun, no, it's absolutely not "very similar".

Is a routine reckless speeding trial "very similar" to a race car driver being put on trial for driving too fast on the track? Is a stabbing trial "very similar" to a surgeon being put on trial for cutting on a patient in the OR? Is a trial for a parent who kills their child with medication by not reading the instructions on the bottle "very similar" to a parent being put on trial for overdosing their child because the pharmacist wrote the wrong instructions on the bottle? Context is really important.

Look, I don't know why this is so hard. (Well, I kinda do--it's not that it's hard, it's that people don't want to accept it.) Actors on set are not held to the same rules as people off set. EVERYONE here absolutely knows that is true because if it weren't, there would be actors being charged right and left for assault with a deadly weapon for pointing guns at other actors on set. Every case would be a slam dunk because the evidence would be captured on video.

Anyone remember when Brandon Lee was killed on set by Michael Massee? Now THAT is a "very similar" case. Massee wasn't even charged for pointing a gun at Lee and pulling the trigger--however the filmmaker was sued and lost the case for not maintaining the proper level of safety on set.

This, I do not understand. Unless I'm mistaken, the law makes no special carve outs for people acting within the bounds of their profession.

The example of a surgeon or race car driver has been provided.

OK, surgeons don't have 'free rein' on how they perform surgery. There are very specific guidelines that they are supposed to work within. If a surgeon just decided on the fly to try an alternate method of accomplishing his goal and that resulted in the death of the patient, he woulndn't be criminally negligent, if there was an alternate method that wouldn't have exposed the patient to the risk?

A race car driver that ignored the track rules and as a result negligently ran down pit row and killed someone working in a pit crew wouldn't be criminally negligent if he had just followed the track rules that would have kept his victime safe?

An actor/producer that ignored industry guidelines that clearly state guns should NEVER be pointed at people without special precautions being taken (such as bullet proof shield between actor and crew, or remote cameras) isn't criminally negligent for the death that results?

As a lawyer, it may seem simple and clear. But to me, as a layperson, this looks very much like special treatment. You may want to lay that on me as prejudice against the accused, but that is on you, not me.

 

[JohnKSa]

Unless I'm mistaken, the law makes no special carve outs for people acting within the bounds of their profession.

So where are all the charges against actors for pointing guns at other actors on set? Pointing a gun at another person is a crime--the evidence is right there on video. Why aren't the courts full of these cases?

OK, surgeons don't have 'free rein' on how they perform surgery.

Nobody said they did they have "free reign". In fact, I've explicitly stated that they don't. Twice. Three times now.

"That doesn't mean there's no responsibility on the part of surgeons at all..."

"As I said, it does not absolve them of total responsibility. If they do something that is, in the context, criminal or negligent they can certainly be charged. The point is that context is critical. "

The point is they don't get charged with stabbing someone or assault when they perform surgery. You go out and try to cut someone and see what happens. The context is extremely important.

A race car driver that ignored the track rules and as a result negligently ran down pit row and killed someone working in a pit crew wouldn't be criminally negligent if he had just followed the track rules that would have kept his victime safe?

Nobody said race car drivers can do anything they want. In fact I've said so explicitly.

" That doesn't mean there's no responsibility at all on the part of racecar drivers, but it's not the same as if they were speeding under normal circumstances."

The point is that they can definitely do things (i.e. drive very fast) that would be against the law in another context. You go out and drive 200mph and see what happens. The context is critical.

As a lawyer, it may seem simple and clear. But to me, as a layperson, this looks very much like special treatment. You may want to lay that on me as prejudice against the accused, but that is on you, not me.

Again, look at the case of Brandon Lee's death. The person who pointed a gun at Brandon Lee and pulled the trigger, killing him, was not even charged. How do you explain that? It certainly wasn't any sort of special privilege, the guy was hardly even known as an actor before that.

 

[ghbucky]

Again, look at the case of Brandon Lee's death. The person who pointed a gun at Brandon Lee and pulled the trigger, killing him, was not even charged. How do you explain that? It certainly wasn't any sort of special privilege, the guy was hardly even known as an actor before that.

The SAG safety directions came out specifically because of Brandon Lee's death. I take it that the union saw that this was a problem, so they put out guidelines to avoid that ever happening again.

Those professional guidelines were ignored in this case, and a death resulted. How is this any different from the examples of a race car driver or a surgeon?

I'm not trying to argue with you, I really don't understand why there are special exceptions. Why can an actor ignore the industry standard safety guidelines and get an exemption?

 

[44 AMP]

an actor shooting someone on the set with a prop gun,

Something I think bears pointing out, the term "prop gun". There are two types of "props" in film and the stage. One is real items, used AS props, and the other are "prop items" made specifically for the theater/film with some special function in mind.

The rubber gun, used to reduce injury during stunts. The breakaway chair or table, or the "spun sugar glass" window the stunt guy gets tossed through. Those are props, and important for safety.

Stage swords (particularly for theater), are made special, for repeated "banging together" use in the play. Not just edgeless, but also with extra thick tangs and even blades, for durability.

On the Rust set, some real guns were being used AS props. That alone removes a layer of safety, requiring specific diligence to avoid the kind of accident that happened.

I think an argument can be made that other than to save money, there is no use for actual functioning firearms (and ammo ) to be on a movie set at all these days. Between fully realistic replica guns (made of metal, wood & plastic with functioning actions but incapable of firing or even chambering live ammunition) and the current state of CGI editing, the result on film will be realistic.

Also been thinking about the surgeon cutting people, and noticed there is something left out of the description. The surgeon has the patient's PERMISSION to cut on them.

The race car driver is not on a public road. SO the applicable rules are situational, TO A POINT.

Baldwin has consistently maintained that when the gun fired he did not pull the trigger. He has admitted to cocking the hammer, and I seem to recall a report where he said the gun fired as he was attempting to lower the hammer (its not impossible the report is false).

We have not seen the FBI report on the gun, all we have is "leaks" about/from the report which could also be so much fabrication.
I am hoping this matter does go to trial. I don't personally care if they find him legally liable or not, I want to see sworn testimony, on the record of who did what, where, and when, and I'd like to see the FBI report as well.

All the mis and dis information that has been flung about since the shooting happened really makes me want to see the "official" truth as sworn testimony.

I look at this through the lens of accident investigation and 'lessons learned" so that we can change what we do, so the same kind of thing won't happen in the future. In order to do that with any degree of accuracy we have to know the reality of what happened. And why.

Crashed airplanes don't lie. People, however, do.