Alec Baldwin- Charges dropped :-@

[stagpanther]

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

People lie often when they are absolutely convinced that lie is the truth--pretty common in the world these days.

At the end of the day, I personally find that Baldwin preemptively vindicating himself and resuming filming strikes me as he really doesn't care that much and budgetary concerns are his biggest priority. Regardless of how this goes he'll forever be tainted by it IMO.

 

[JohnKSa]

...The SAG safety directions came out specifically because of Brandon Lee's death.

People don't get charged based on industry safety directions, they get charged based on the law. There is no court of SAG. The laws now are the same as they were when Brandon Lee was killed. The guy was not charged.

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.

Correct.

On the Rust set, some real guns were being used AS props.

Which is very common. There are companies that make their money renting out real guns and modified real guns for use on movie sets.

The surgeon has the patient's PERMISSION to cut on them.

Excellent observation. That's exactly the case on a movie set when an actor is required to point a gun at another cast member or the camera. They have the permission of the actor or the camera personnel. Context is critical.

The race car driver is not on a public road.

Excellent observation. The same basic situation applies in this case. The actor is not in public, they are on a set which is supposed to be tightly controlled and operates under different rules. Actors don't get arrested for impersonating police officers when they dress up in uniforms and flash badges on set, actors don't get charged for pointing guns at people on set, etc.

 

[Tom Servo]

There is no court of SAG.

Absolutely correct. In terms of a criminal trial, it looks like the DA felt they didn't have enough evidence to overcome reasonable doubt. Our opinions, no matter how grounded they may be on technical grounds, don't matter. Only the opinion of a jury matters.

I get that people find Baldwin irritating, but that's not enough to convict. I get that Baldwin acted unsafely and irresponsibly, but the DA seems to doubt whether she can convince a jury of that.

As for civil suits, this stuff can be much more compelling. Only a preponderance of evidence is necessary to win. In that venue, negligence is easier to establish.

The CSATF and SAG both have clear policies on handling of firearms on set. Baldwin did violate numerous parts of both, as an actor and as a producer. That's probably where this is going to hash out.

 

[s3779m]

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.

I don't think the prosecutor got her information from the times. Where it came from is not my point, why would a different trigger make such a difference in the charges? I'm not a lawyer, but there are some really, really good ones here. Is this a cop out by the prosecutor?

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Where it came from is not my point, why would a different trigger make such a difference in the charges?

It certainly introduces a good case for plausible deniability. If the trigger is prone or potentially prone to malfunction, then maybe Baldwin didn't 'pull' the trigger. If he didn't pull the trigger, involuntary manslaughter becomes a harder case to prove.

 

[Metal god]

The trigger work does introduce an interesting aspect but generally seems irrelevant to me . Even if the trigger was adjusted to be a very light trigger but the FBI report correctly concluded the gun would not fire with out pulling the trigger . In totality it shouldn’t matter if the gun had a 1lb trigger or an 8oz trigger . If someone’s finger had to pull the trigger for it to go off the trigger pull weight should be irrelevant. In my video I showed not only that the hammer is stopped before hitting the chamber/cylinder if the trigger is not pulled . Even if the trigger is pulled while cocking and the hammer slips from your finger before fully cocked. The firing pin will not land on a primer do to the misaligned cylinder chamber . This means two things had to happen, the gun had to be fully cocked and someone had to have pulled the trigger after the hammer was fully cocked .

Although technical , that all seems like an easy thing to prove with the proper expert witness and the right questions. What it sounds like is that the defense is trying to say because it’s a lighter trigger resulting is it being easier to fire means its more likely to misfire . That is simply not true period “if” the gun is in proper working order . It’s just easier to pull the trigger and anytime you pull the trigger intentionally or not . By definition that is not a misfire , its a accidental discharge (AD) or negligent discharge (ND) and at least to me that difference would be easy to show and explain to a jury especially with video evidence of the actor with his finger on the trigger moments before the fatal shot .

 

[Aguila Blanca]

There is no court of SAG.

Absolutely correct. In terms of a criminal trial, it looks like the DA felt they didn't have enough evidence to overcome reasonable doubt. Our opinions, no matter how grounded they may be on technical grounds, don't matter. Only the opinion of a jury matters.

Baldwin has not been charged with violating the SAG safety guidelines. He was charged with involuntary manslaughter. The fundamental bases for that charge are the (a) you did something careless, and (b) someone died as a result.

The SAG guidelines were created after the on-set death of Brandon Lee, which occurred in 1993. So those industry guidelines have been in place for approaching thirty years. Any actor who has appeared in films involving firearms (other than as extras or very minor roles) has certainly encountered them and should (IMHO) be expected to be aware of them and be familiar with them.

The SAG guidelines are intended to serve the same purpose as the NRA three rules of gun safety, and Cooper's four rules of gun safety. Those are guidelines, too, but if any of us were to ignore those and have a negligent discharge that resulted in someone's death, I think we can be fairly certain that those rules would be entered into evidence to show that our actions were unreasonably careless and negligent.

I don't see why it should be any different for Baldwin.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

He was charged with involuntary manslaughter. The fundamental bases for that charge are the (a) you did something careless, and (b) someone died as a result.

I think what you are missing from the previous arguments is that while the SAG rules do exist, they don't determine the case. Yes, they are there for safety. Sure, they might have been introduced if there was a criminal trial, but no trial, no SAG rules introduced. That Baldwin may have violated SAG rules is therefore moot since the DA doesn't think they have enough other evidence for a conviction.

 

[44 AMP]

.. had been modified with a new trigger in a way that could have made a misfire more likely.

I kind of focused on this part of the statement. Again, its from the LA Times, not directly from the prosecutor on the case.

"More likely to misfire".....

Either a complete misunderstanding of the definition of what a misfire is, or yet another "red herring"...

Even internet dictionaries define "misfire" as a FAILURE to fire. The gun in Baldwin's hands did not misfire. It FIRED. Result was a tragic death and a second person wounded. So, any argument involving the likelihood of the gun misfiring is due to an aftermarket trigger is specious. Superficially plausible, but WRONG....

Where an uber light trigger pull can have a bearing is that a very light trigger pull can result in the trigger being pulled before the shooter intends for the gun to fire. Absent mechanical failure (and we're relying on "leaks" from the FBI report about that) the trigger MUST be pulled after the hammer is at full cock, or the gun does not fire.

Baldwin says he didn't pull the trigger. I'm sure HE believes that. I think he believes he didn't pull the trigger because he doesn't remember doing it and since he doesn't remember doing it, he must not have done it. As I see it, this is also specious. Or, he could remember doing it, and simply be lying...

Perhaps my opinion is colored by what was reported to be the first thing he said after the shot was fired.

It wasn't, "What happened???" It wasn't "Is she ok?" It wasn't "call 911" (or the medic or first aid,) or anything like that.

It was (reportedly) "I didn't pull the trigger!"

(if true) it kind of shows me where his personal priorities are, his first concern seemed to be not over what happened, or was anyone hurt, but his personal CYA.

That Baldwin may have violated SAG rules is therefore moot since the DA doesn't think they have enough other evidence for a conviction.

I would point out that the DA has not said that, yet. The DA did NOT say charges have been dropped because they believe they do not have enough evidence for a conviction. That may, ultimately, be true, but, its not true YET.

 

[Jim Watson]

"Misfire" is common Media Speak for inadvertent discharge, they don't use Gun Culture English.

 

[Paul B.]

Well, with all the hoopla, MSM misinformation ,and gossip, ad nauseum, there remains two questions unasked and unanswered. Who loaded the live round(s) in the gun and why?


Paul B.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Well, with all the hoopla, MSM misinformation ,and gossip, ad nauseum, there remains two questions unasked and unanswered. Who loaded the live round(s) in the gun and why?

Third, and I think related, question is: How did live rounds find their way onto a movie set where there isn't supposed to be any live ammunition?

I think I know the answer to that question, but it's pure speculation on my part so I won't post it.

 

[44 AMP]

"Misfire" is common Media Speak for inadvertent discharge, they don't use Gun Culture English.

They also seem to suck at using standard (American) English or any other kind.

there remains two questions unasked and unanswered. Who loaded the live round(s) in the gun and why?

they aren't unasked. TO date, they are unanswered. And, I think the answers (IF we ever get them) will be important.

As I see it, there are only two possibilities about why, 1) someone was grossly negligent or 2) someone did it with malicious intent.

As to the "who", the suspect list would have to be anyone with access to the firearms and ammo. And that includes anyone who had access to the key(s).

And for that, the possibilities are HUGE.

 

[stagpanther]

As to the "who", the suspect list would have to be anyone with access to the firearms and ammo. And that includes anyone who had access to the key(s).

And for that, the possibilities are HUGE.

I still think the range of possibilities is rather finite--and the answers to those questions will be rather easy to find--maybe already have. One or more people screwed up, and there is no way passing the buck or "arranging the stories so that they fit" is going to work IMO as people will turn deals to avoid prosecution. All roads lead back to the armorer--or whoever was appointed in her stead to supervise the firearms IMO. My guess, it will end up being a division of criminal responsibility between the armorer not catching (and possibly supplying) the live round and the supervisor who had advised the firearm was cold (I think he already copped a plea).

Baldwin will likely face civil liability charges--but then so might the SAG by extension IMO. The majority of people responding on this tread think he is at least responsible for involuntary manslaughter--and I admit that I initially had the same reaction, but that is because many years of shooting have instinctively ingrained into me [us] to never point a weapon--in any condition--at something I [we] don't intend to destroy. And, in interest of honest transparency, I've had a few accidental discharges in my time and it was only because I was pointing the weapon at the ground or the intended target that I potentially avoided having something like this happen to me. This is directly opposed to film-making tradition where-in time, budgetary constraints and limited actor knowledge in many cases creates a world of "exceptions" to make the use of weapons possible by people who are directed to point weapons at people and pull the trigger--often fast and repeatedly.

Maybe we all share some responsibility? I mean, who doesn't love a good old western movie where the some retread of good guy vs bad guy/vengeance plot drives a never-ending stream of films? I was just thinking the other day we're long overdue for yet another Robinhood or King Arthur remake by the Brits.

 

[Tom Servo]

As to the "who", the suspect list would have to be anyone with access to the firearms and ammo.

It might be shortened by the knowledge that armorer Gutierrez-Reed admitted to taking some of the firearms off site for live-fire practice shortly before the incident.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

As to the "who", the suspect list would have to be anyone with access to the firearms and ammo.

It might be shortened by the knowledge that armorer Gutierrez-Reed admitted to taking some of the firearms off site for live-fire practice shortly before the incident.

I don't think we know that.

I remember reading at least one article that reported Ms. Gutierrez-Reed asked the firearms supplier if she could use the guns for plinking when they weren't being used on the set, and that the answer was a definitive "No!" The report said she was told that if she wanted to do any recreational shooting, she would have to use her own guns. The same report said she asked if the supplier would provide some live ammo, and the answer again was "No."

There have been multiple reports that some members of the crew engaged in plinking on or near the set, but I don't think any of those reports have established that the guns used were the prop guns. Clearly someone was shooting live ammo, and someone had to have brought that to the set. It strongly appears that the someone was Ms. Guttierez-Reed ... but I don't think that has been established with certainty. If it has, the supporting facts haven't been publicized.

 

[44 AMP]

Since the state of NM has decided the incident was an accident, their investigation has been focused along those lines. This is an entirely sensible approach and use of resources.

IF it were an accident.

I think it is possible that Baldwin's lawyers might bring up the possibility that putting (at least one) live round into the gun was a deliberate and intentional act.

I know the idea was brought up and discarded shortly after the shooting happened. What if the "new evidence" the DA has isn't some BS about the gun's trigger, but something else, entirely, something that suggests the possibility that the live rounds were intentionally introduced in order to cause an accident? I would think that is something the DA would want to have checked out backwards, frontwards and sideways, to be as certain as possible they are proceeding on the right path.

WE are extremely hampered trying to judge what happened, because WE simply don't have more than a handful of verifiable facts. One fact, that we should not ignore or "work around" is that what Baldwin did meets the legal standard for manslaughter.

 

[DaleA]

Heee'sss Baaaaack!

Couldn't resist the 'He's Back'.

The newspaper (today-10/18/2023) says the New Mexico prosecutors are going to try again to charge Alec Baldwin with involuntary manslaughter. The article says the New Mexico prosecutors will present their case to a grand jury November 16, 2023.

An earlier manslaughter charge [was] dropped after prosecutors received new evidence suggesting that the gun might have been modified in a way that made it easier to inadvertently fire. Prosecutors decided to reopen the case after submitting the gun for further analysis which they said contradicted Baldwin's assertion that he had not pulled the trigger. "The forensic testing of the gun concluded with certainty that the trigger of the gun had to be pulled for the gun to go off," said Karl T. Morrissey, one of the prosecutors.

(Bold emphasis is mine.)

The article identified the gun as "a Pietta replica of an 1873 revolver...that required about 2 pounds of pressure on the trigger to discharge."

The original Alec Baldwin thread, that is closed, can be found here:
https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=615332&highlight=baldwin

My info comes from a New York Times article printed in the St. Paul Pioneer Press.
https://www.twincities.com/2023/10/...-fatal-shooting-on-set-of-western-movie-rust/

 

[Aguila Blanca]

We all knew that Baldwin had to have pulled the trigger. He may not have consciously pulled it, but it's a replica of a Colt Single Action Army -- once cocked, the only way to lower the hammer is to pull the trigger. He had to have pulled the trigger.

And we also know that Baldwin has displayed extremely poor trigger finger discipline in previous films. Baldwin's default is to put his finger inside the trigger guard when he picks up a firearm. That combined with a 2-pound trigger is a recipe for disaster.

 

[44 AMP]

That combined with a 2-pound trigger is a recipe for disaster.

I think it's also important to include the fact that he pointed the gun at a person, AND, OPERATED the gun that he had not personally inspected the gun to see if it was loaded, (or with what).

He admits to cocking the hammer, but denies pulling the trigger. I think a court should determine if expert testimony or Baldwin's memory is the deciding factor describing what really happened.

My vote is not on his memory...

If I am understanding the linked article correctly, NM now believes there is enough evidence to charge and send the case to a Grand Jury. Period.

No claims (other then "new evidence") or explanation what the new evidence is, or might be, and I'm fine with that. They don't have to tell the press what it is, or how they are making their decision process, only what the decision is.

The rest of the information will come out, if the case goes to trial, and my personal opinion is that it should go to trial.