Alec Baldwin update

[44 AMP]

Baldwin claims he didn't pull the trigger. That pretty much eliminates the 'IF' in your sentence.

And there's the rub. Baldwin says he didn't pull the trigger, HOWEVER, he also said that he was attempting to lower the hammer. And that means pulling the trigger, if the gun is in proper working order.

I cannot think of a way the gun could be broken and allow the hammer to stand at full cock (which it apparently did) and then not fall when the trigger was pulled. Even if the hammer could be pushed off or jarred off and fall, without the trigger being pulled, it still takes an action by the user to do that.

Baldwin doesn't say he did that. I fully believe that he believes he didn't pull the trigger because he doesn't remember pulling the trigger. And I think it should be fairly easy to show, in court that people who undergo severe mental or physical trauma often do not remember ALL the details of the event or what led up to it.

Accidently shooting someone would, I think, for most of us, qualify as severe mental trauma. Therefore I think its a reasonable argument to say that Baldwin did pull the trigger but thinks he didn't, and if the gun is in proper working condition (which leaked info from the FBI report says it was) then the trigger must have been pulled. However, "leaked" information is hardly reliable data. SO, we need to wait until the FBI report (the full report) is made available to the public, which won't be until its either entered into evidence in the court records, or publicly released after the trial is over.

 

[JohnKSa]

And there's the rub. Baldwin says he didn't pull the trigger, HOWEVER, he also said that he was attempting to lower the hammer. And that means pulling the trigger, if the gun is in proper working order.

The point relevant to my comments is bolded. If the gun has been altered by the prosecution since the incident but before the defense had a chance to test it, the prosecution may not be entitled to claim that the gun was in proper working order.

I cannot think of a way the gun could be broken and allow the hammer to stand at full cock (which it apparently did) and then not fall when the trigger was pulled. Even if the hammer could be pushed off or jarred off and fall, without the trigger being pulled, it still takes an action by the user to do that.

The prosecution may be allowed to speculate as you have done, I don't know. But if the gun has been altered, they may be limited to speculation and that won't help their case.

Therefore I think its a reasonable argument to say that Baldwin did pull the trigger but thinks he didn't, and if the gun is in proper working condition (which leaked info from the FBI report says it was) then the trigger must have been pulled.

Again, the bolded portion is what's relevant to my remarks. The prosecution may not be entitled to claim that the gun was in working condition if its function has been altered since the incident and the defense can't test the gun in the condition it was in at the time of the incident.

However, "leaked" information is hardly reliable data. SO, we need to wait until the FBI report (the full report) is made available to the public, which won't be until its either entered into evidence in the court records, or publicly released after the trial is over.

Again, the point is that it may not be able to be entered into evidence if the gun has been altered in a way that could reasonably be expected to affect its function since the incident but before the defense had a chance to examine it.


https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/preservation-evidence-criminal-cases.html

"To do this, property and evidence custodians must keep accurate and complete chain-of-custody records, properly store the evidence, and prevent contamination, damage to, or destruction of the evidence. "

"There are several possible remedies for defendants who learn during the trial that the state violated the duty to preserve evidence. They can ask the court to suppress related evidence, exclude or limit testimony about the missing evidence, or dismiss the case. "

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I have seen reports where his lawyers said the gun was broken (so their client isn't responsible for what happened), and that they said the FBI had to repair the gun in order to test it.

I think I remember reading the exact same thing about the Saturday night special Mrs. McCloskey was waving around in St. Louis when the mob came stampeding through their private, [formerly] gated community.

My memory was only partially correct. It wasn't the FBI that repaired Mrs. McCloskey's handgun to "prove" that it was capable of firing when she waved it around, it was the St. Louis police department's crime lab.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...experts-to-reassemble-patricia-mccloskeys-gun

The principle remains the same. As the McCloskeys' attorney put it,

“It’s disheartening to learn that a law enforcement agency altered evidence in order to prosecute an innocent member of the community,” Joel Schwartz, the McCloskeys' attorney, told KSDK of St. Louis on Wednesday.

Whether it's the local PD armorer or the FBI "experts," when examining a firearm allegedly used in a crime their job -- their ONLY job -- is to examine the firearm as it is given to them and to render an objective report on whether or not the firearm is functional. It is NOT their job to play gunsmith and to repair or attempt to repair the firearm, nor is it teir job to in any way modify any of the parts or assemble the parts in any way other than the way they were assembled when the firearm came through their door.

 

[44 AMP]

Whether it's the local PD armorer or the FBI "experts," when examining a firearm allegedly used in a crime their job -- their ONLY job -- is to examine the firearm as it is given to them and to render an objective report on whether or not the firearm is functional. It is NOT their job to play gunsmith and to repair or attempt to repair the firearm, nor is it teir job to in any way modify any of the parts or assemble the parts in any way other than the way they were assembled when the firearm came through their door.

I agree completely.

However, be careful about mixing apples and ...non-apples...

In the McClosky case, the gun was NOT fired, only displayed. In the Baldwin case, the gun WAS fired! These are very different situations.

In cases where a gun is displayed and the charges are some level of "threatening" with a gun, the gun need not be functional for the charge to be upheld. IF the people being "threatened" believed the gun was functional, that's enough. Doesn't matte what the person holding the gun knew about it, what matters is what the people the gun was pointed at believed about it...Since no one was shot, and there was no attempt to shoot anyone, in the McClosky case, I don't see where the capacity of the gun to fire is relevent.

NO, the police should not have tinkered with it, doing so screws the prosecutions case, I think.

 

[stagpanther]

I disagree with this preoccupation with "did he or did he not" pull the trigger as the primary determinant of primary culpable negligence in this accident. My assumption is that he is basically a typical ignoramus when it comes to firearms and probably did pull the trigger, regardless of what he thinks happened. But in the bigger scheme of things I don't think that's overly significant in this particular situation. We are trained to accept totally responsibility through the "golden rules"--but movie casts have traditionally relied on others to remove those constraints through professional supervision of ammo and firearms. This is a situation where a breakdown in the system caused the odds to catch up with that practice IMO. How the live ammo got anywhere near the set is where I see the real cause of the problem--and should be the focus of liability IMO.

 

[JohnKSa]

Yes, IMO it was a mistake for him to try to go that route. But if he wants to pursue that avenue to exonerate himself, he is entitled to do so.

As the defendant, all he has to do is present a story that could be true and that isn't contradicted by the evidence and that indicates he isn't guilty. He could even present multiple stories that contradict each other but that each show he isn't guilty.

The famous (infamous?) Racehorse Haynes said that if he were defending a dog bite case, he would go about it something like this: My client's dog doesn't bite. My client's dog was tied up at the time he was supposed to have bitten the plaintiff. I claim that the plaintiff probably wasn't really bitten by a dog at all. Finally, my client doesn't have a dog.

He would try to prove all those are consistent with the evidence and are reasonable, and if the jury agreed with any one of them, even though some of the stories are mutually contradictory, his client wins.

 

[44 AMP]

On several occasions, Baldwin has apparently not heeded the advice of his lawyers. I think his personal arrogance and ego play a part in that, but that's just a wild guess.

I, for one, am not willing to give him a "pass" on firearms handling and knowledge of how they work. He has, literally, decades of experience handling and being around firearms on movie sets. He's BEEN taught (or self taught) and believes he knows what he's doing, TO THE POINT where it is reported he literally blew off the training and instruction of the people who's job was just that on the set of Rust.

Even the best, most gifted professionals cannot teach a student who thinks they know it all already, have nothing left to learn and refuse to listen. And when the armorer is less than a professional with years of experience and the confidence to stand up to "the boss", it is simply not going to have the intended effect. When those in authority deliberately disregard both basic and movie industry safety rules, accidents happen. In this case a deadly accident.

The condition of the gun at the time of the shooting and its condition now (IF DIFFERNT) MIGHT be an issue, depending one what specific arguments the defense uses. Or, it might not matter. If all the jury is concerned with is "the gun was in his hands when it fired, so he shot and killed someone, therefor we find him guilty" then the condition of the gun might be moot.

The trial will go as it goes, the defense will throw up every argument they can think of, the prosecution will (hopefully) focus on the facts and not the what if's and the jury will rule what they rule.

I believe Baldwin is truly sorry for what happened. But I don't think he really considers himself responsible for it. Or at least not in public....

 

[Aguila Blanca]

However, be careful about mixing apples and ...non-apples...

In the McClosky case, the gun was NOT fired, only displayed. In the Baldwin case, the gun WAS fired! These are very different situations.

Yes, but they wanted to charge Mrs. McCloskey using a law that required the firearm to be operational in order to support the charge. So, despite the fact that her gun was not fired in the incident, whether or not it was functional made a significant difference in the charges the prosecutor was able to apply.

And, of course, the fact that the crime lab "repaired" the firearm so that it became operational was not well-reported by the media.

 

[Tom Servo]

He has, literally, decades of experience handling and being around firearms on movie sets

That'll be part of the "knew or should have known" argument.

To bolster this, here are the SAG safety standards and the CSATF policies on gun safety.

As an actor, he MUST have read these at some point. As a producer, he's expected to have read them. He broke clear rules in both.

 

[44 AMP]

I believe that one of the contributing factors was complacency. I this situation, I believe that Baldwin was doing what he had done many, many times before, without incident. I believe that he ignored the rules and felt safe doing so, because he had done it before, (and often) without any accident happening.

I think it likely that, since it had never happened before, he felt it could not happen. But, it did happen. A person was killed and another injured, because of what he did, and did not do. TO me, that puts the responsibility on him. Not ALL of it, of course, but deadly harm resulted from his actions and lack of actions and for that, I feel he is personally responsible.

We'll see what the court system says in due course...

 

[stagpanther]

That'll be part of the "knew or should have known" argument.

To bolster this, here are the SAG safety standards and the CSATF policies on gun safety.

As an actor, he MUST have read these at some point. As a producer, he's expected to have read them. He broke clear rules in both.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe

Thank you for posting that; it makes it pretty clear that anyone handling the firearm should be familiar with the "golden rules." BUT--and this is a huge but--the CSATF introduces some "round about ambiguity" in the language that says "or, in his/her absence, a weapons handler and/or other appropriate personnel determined by the locality or the needs of the production." That is going to be a huge can of worms I predict in trying to nail down ultimate responsibility. Just my opinion--but that probably had a big hand in creating the slip-shod management on the set. That has to go IMO.

 

[Skans]

So, has anyone determined who actually put the live rounds in the gun?

 

[Metal god]

No , I don’t think we will or at least not definitively we won’t . I can’t believe anyone actually believes they put a live round in the gun . I’m sure the investigation only turned up the most probable way it could have happened . Until someone admits it not sure we will ever know .

 

[Aguila Blanca]

So, has anyone determined who actually put the live rounds in the gun?

I don't think so.

If I remember correctly, the investigators recovered five or six live rounds and the fired case from the round that killed the cinematographer. Some of the live rounds they recovered were reportedly found in the cartridge loops on the belt that Baldwin was wearing. From this it appears that there may actually have been only one live round in the gun, not a cylinder full of them.

 

[stagpanther]

The documents above--while not legally binding, are not ambiguous about live ammo and say under no circumstances should it be on a set. They have a tough choice 1) "I was aware of the guidelines but decided to blow them off because I knew better;" or 2) I ignored them altogether and/or was completely unaware of them. I think this will sort it itself out in a straightforward manner eventually simply because there will be a mad dash blame game to avoid serious charges.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

It is obvious that the guidelines were ignored. What has not been established is who ignored them, and how the live rounds made it from "on the set" to "in the gun that was pointing at live people when the hammer was cocked and the trigger was pulled."

An entire box of live rounds in the prop room or prop trailer would be a violation of the industry protocol, but would not kill anyone.

 

[RobAndrew]

So, has anyone determined who actually put the live rounds in the gun?

That will be attributed to Hanna, she was very inexperienced and very sloppy in her job. If you watch the interviews with the Sheriffs, it's obvious how disorganized she is in her duties as armorer. The live ammo got mixed in with dummy rounds due to her incompetence.

The "live ammo making it onto set" part of the trial will come down directly on Hanna also. A lot came out in the interviews with the Sheriffs about her plinking in the desert with other movie set people. One plinking trip story even involved drinking at the same time. There are also live ammo stories from the previous movie she worked on with Nick Cage.

Seth Kenney, the company that supplied the movie guns, actually showed text messages to the Sheriff Detectives where Hanna asked to use the prop Colt 45 for target shooting. He texted her back "absolutely not". Her reply to that was "no problem, I'll bring my own". Hard evidence and it will bury her.

 

[44 AMP]

An entire box of live rounds in the prop room or prop trailer would be a violation of the industry protocol, but would not kill anyone.

This is a very valid point. And one that is blurred by the reporting and conversations over what has been reported.

"On the set" is a term that needs clear definition in context. The entire town, and the support structures for props, cast and crew accommodations could be referred to as "the set" though USUALLY "on the set" refers to the specific scene set in use at a given time.

As the Armorer, she had the official responsibility, when it comes to live ammo "on the set". The fact that live ammo was present anywhere at the movie location will be on her. The fact that it was present at the actual accident site might not be all on her.

SO much conflicting information has been "reported" that until we get sworn testimony to who did what, where, and when, its really a matter of which "journalist" you choose to believe, at this point.

I have seen a report that flatly stated that Hannah loaded the gun and handed it to Baldwin on the set where the shooting happened.

I have seen other reports stating Hannah was not physically present on that portion of the set, was performing other duties at a different place, and was not there to load the gun or hand it to anyone, that it was someone else who did that. The fact that someone else has admitted to handing Baldwin the gun, and taken a plea deal with the DA over it, to me, supports the idea Hannah didn't do it. Failing in her responsibility to exercise adequate control over the guns and ammo, and being the one who put live ammo into the gun and being the person who gave it to Baldwin and told him it was a "cold gun" are different matters. Very different matters.

This situation is very nearly a "perfect storm" of multiple people failing their responsibilities at several levels. Both the armorer and the actor failed to a degree that formal charges have been brought against them.

Until the trial and sworn testimony, all speculation of who did and didn't do what is useful only for its entertainment value. Information about industry rules and practices is useful as background, giving us a framework about what should have been done, to compare with what actually was done.

As a bit of an update on the ongoing process, I saw some news last night with a headline claiming a victory for Baldwin's team, because the primary prosecutor on the case has stepped down from it.

The implication in the press was that the prosecutor stepped down because of something wrong with the case, though of course they didn't say that, directly.

The prosecutor stated she stepped down so that her also being a member of the legislature would not be an issue at the trial.

keep your popcorn handy, the show, continues...

 

[Tom Servo]

Without seeing the actual evidence presented, we can only speculate. And we've all been speculating for several pages now.

Feel free to open a new thread when the trial starts, but the issue has run its course for now.