Grand jury in New Mexico charged the actor for a shooting on Rust set that killed cinematographer Halyna Hutchins

Actor Alec Baldwin is facing a new involuntary manslaughter charge over the 2021 fatal shooting of a cinematographer on the set of the movie Rust.

A Santa Fe, New Mexico, grand jury indicted Baldwin on Friday, months after prosecutors had dismissed the same criminal charge against him.

During an October 2021 rehearsal on the set of Rust, a western drama, Baldwin was pointing a gun at cinematographer Halyna Hutchins when it went off, fatally striking her and wounding Joel Souza, the film’s director.

Baldwin, a co-producer and star of the film, has said he did not pull the trigger, but pulled back the hammer of the gun before it fired.

Last April, special prosecutors dismissed the involuntary manslaughter charge against Baldwin, saying the firearm might have been modified prior to the shooting and malfunctioned and that forensic analysis was warranted. But in August, prosecutors said they were considering re-filing the charges after a new analysis of the weapon was completed.

  • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    166
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    I’m like 90% sure now that the absolutely glacial pace this is moving at confirms that the only reason verdicts come down so quickly in most other cases is because most accused can’t afford the court and lawyer’s fees to keep fighting for as long as they realistically could.

  • FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    10 months ago

    Is there a reason they had a gun loaded with actual bullets or even actual bullets on the set? Isn’t like everything in movies done with blanks?

    • maness300@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      It’s my understanding the person in charge of making sure weapons were loaded with blanks had issues with using real rounds in the past.

        • gooble@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          35
          ·
          10 months ago

          It’s armorer Hannah Gutierrez Reed, and she has been charged with two counts of involuntary manslaughter, and tampering with evidence. The trial starts next month and she could face up to three years in prison if convicted.

    • Illuminostro@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      The crew were target shooting with the weapon in their off time. They were also drinking and using cocaine. Someone missed the live round.

      • nutsack@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        You’re supposed to check the chamber that’s how guns work you empty them and you look at them and you look at them and empty them again and that’s what happens and the chamber it’s not in the clip it’s in the chamber that’s where the bullet is that’s why you shoot it

  • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    38
    ·
    10 months ago

    He hired the cheapest firearms manager, tolerated crew playing with real bullets, and so when he’s handed a loaded gun, it’s a direct result of his own mistakes.

    • lennybird@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      130
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Lowest bidder aside, how is this clearly not the armorer’s fault front and center? It was her responsibility to handle the set props. What Baldwin paid them is irrelevant to what she claimed she could provide and was obligated to provide under contract.

      She is literally the one to (a) claim the firearm was safe, but (b) load it with live ammunition.

      ???

      • CptEnder@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        93
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Work in the industry, doc side but this is pretty basic producer stuff. This is 100% on the armorer and the only reason they keep trying to charge Baldwin is the legal grey area of the state they filmed in. Had this happened in a state with more production (Georgia, Louisiana, California) there would be a more direct way for prosecutors to go after the correct person. Georgia and California specifically has legal precedent from deaths on set like this.

        One of the reasons credits are so long is because we hire people to maintain a safe set - think of it like a foreman for safe worksite in construction (which we also hire often). We hire a ton of people for safety from actual police to medics and rescue personnel.

        Hiring an armorer is SPECIFICALLY to avoid situations like this. Because the production company is like “hey you know what? I don’t think me, some producer knows how to use a gun safely, I should hire someone who’s certified to do that.” It’s not some token job, they’re supposed to be trained on how to properly load the powder of the blank rounds, how to mark and flag hot guns and dead props, and pretty fucking much rule #1A is never bring live ammo anywhere near your set.

        Baldwin should not be held criminally liable and any half decent entertainment lawyer will settle that. Now civil liability, that’s certainly more realistic. But even then it should be the production LLC not any 1 person.

        • lennybird@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          In your experience, have you ever seen the responsibility of set prop safety fall on the producer and not be delegated to someone else? Based on what you write here, I assume not which would confirm my initial belief.

        • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          40
          ·
          10 months ago

          This is 100% on the armorer

          … Except for one other guy taking a gun he knew nothing about, pointing it at a person and pulling the trigger.

          No, I think they are both guilty. Obviously not equally.

          If the common judicial practice is different - then maybe some day there’ll be a new precedent.

      • negativeyoda@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        An article I read right after this happened (which very well could have been a hit piece) said she (the armorer) was in her early 20s and would fuck around and go shooting with the prop guns when filming wasn’t happening. So… kind of. Yes

        Sounds like there’s lots of blame to go around

      • thefartographer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        10 months ago

        It’s essentially a question of “who’s in charge around here and whose ass will be on the line?” Nearest example I can think of is if your boss tells you to deliver something and you get into a car accident, your work covers you with their insurance (USA!)

        Even more concisely summed up with an incredibly apropos phrase, “if you give a monkey a gun, you don’t get to blame the monkey when someone gets shot.”

      • Laticauda@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        28
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        One of the biggest rules of gun safety is treat every gun as if it’s loaded even when as far as you know it isn’t. Regardless of how you think the ratio of culpability falls or who should be held legally accountable, he is at least partially responsible because he was the person holding the gun and aiming it at someone.

        • chaogomu@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          36
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          That’s rule number one on the shooting range, It’s not quite the same in film or on stage.

          In those cases, actors have to trust their prop master or armorer.

          Those are the people specifically hired to make sure the gun or the bullets are fake.

          Baldwin was handed a gun, and specifically told that it was cold. The person handing it over even called out for the entire set that it was a cold weapon. The director then immediately called places. Because that’s how it works.

          But the gun was not cold.

          Now, the person whose job it was to maintain those weapons was incompetent. Baldwin didn’t hire her, he didn’t hire anyone. He was one of 10 producers and mostly handled fundraising and script changes.

          But he made fun of Trump a few times, and was involved in a gun death in a Trump friendly area. In California the armorer would be facing these charges, and would have faced them as soon as the initial investigation was over, not several years later.

          • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            17
            ·
            10 months ago

            Baldwin was handed a gun, and specifically told that it was cold.

            Source please? Everywhere I’ve read about this it was said that he took a gun to play with it. Not a part of any procedure.

            Of course if it was like what you are describing, then I’m wrong.

              • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                10 months ago

                The trio behind the monitor began repositioning the camera to remove a shadow, and Baldwin began explaining to the crew how he planned to draw the firearm.[10] He said, “So, I guess I’m gonna take this out, pull it, and go, ‘Bang!’”[12] When he removed it from the holster, the revolver discharged a single time. Baldwin denied pulling the trigger of the gun, while ABC News described a later FBI report stating that the gun could only fire if the trigger was pulled.[41][42] Halls was quoted by his attorney Lisa Torraco as saying that Baldwin did not pull the trigger, and that Baldwin’s finger was never within the trigger guard during the incident.[43] When the gun fired, the projectile traveled towards the three behind the monitor. It struck Hutchins in the chest, traveled through her body, and then hit Souza in the shoulder.[11][37][44] Script supervisor Mamie Mitchell called 9-1-1 at 1:46 p.m. PT and emergency crews appeared three minutes later.[12] Footage of the incident was not recorded.[34]

                My memory changed it a bit, but thanks for your link, as the quoted part is what I was trying to remember.

                • chaogomu@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  Did you miss the part a bit earlier where it said he was handed a gun and told it was cold?

                  The fact that he was asking questions of the director about how he was going to draw and “fire” the gun is pointless, because everyone on set thought it was cold.

                  According to a search warrant, the guns were briefly checked by armorer Gutierrez-Reed, before assistant director Halls took the Pietta revolver from the prop cart and handed it to Baldwin.[38][39] In a subsequent affidavit, Halls said the safety protocol regarding this firearm was such that Halls would open the loading gate of the revolver and rotate the cylinder to expose the chambers so he could inspect them himself. According to the affidavit, Halls said he did not check all cylinder chambers, but he recalled seeing three rounds in the cylinder at the time. (After the shooting, Halls said in the affidavit, Gutierrez-Reed retrieved the weapon and opened it, and Halls said that he saw four rounds which were plainly blanks, and one which could have been the remaining shell of a discharged live round.)[40] In the warrant, it is further stated that Halls announced the term “cold gun”, meaning that it was empty.[38] Halls’s lawyer, Lisa Torraco, later sought to assert that he did not take the gun off the cart and hand it to Baldwin as reported, but when pressed by a reporter to be clear, she refused to repeat that assertion.[41]

            • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              10 months ago

              The conservative media outlets have been spreading bullshit about this. They hate Baldwin for making fun of donnie diapers.

      • n3m37h@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        42
        ·
        10 months ago

        Rule 1 of gun safety, check the gun you’re handed for any ammunition.

        What else needs to be said?

        Everything else is its own issue to be dealt with.

        He was given a firearm, did not do HIS due dilligence by checking the gun. He killed a fucking human being. . End of story

        • ImFresh3x@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Can’t really expect that any more than you expect that Macaulay Culkin in Home Alone personally made sure the paint buckets he swung at Joe Pesci were actually empty. It’s just not how it works.

          It’s up to the props people, in this case the armorer.

          • n3m37h@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            10 months ago

            Youre forgetting the 50 year age difference, I dont expect anyone under the age of 15 to be responsible for setting anything up on a set. It takes 10 seconds to check a gun for blanks vs bullets. Frankly anyone who handles a gun anywhere be it real or have which blanks should know the difference and should check.

            This particular model you could not see any bullets so how hard would it be to open the cover and rotate the cylinder 6 times?

            Blanks are just as dangerous as real bullets just at different ranges.

            Alec has been around guns for how long? And didnt learn basic gun safety?

            Íve had to follow safety rules in every job ive been on. Ive uses just about every tool including both air and propane nail guns and the first rule is dont point it at anything tou dont plan on nailing and that has safety to prevent it from firing if not against an object.

            So why are actors any different? They get paid a fuckload more then me and dont have to follow safety and often make others do dangerous shit stunts and dont get salaries or recognition the actors do.

        • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          10 months ago

          I honestly would not expect a bunch of Californian actors to know that. You’re often not dealing with a crowd of people who grew up hunting or at the range. You’re dealing with people who hire an armorer to bring that expertise to the set.

          • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            99% of people who incessantly spout out Da Rules on the Internet have never held a gun in their life, and would be more likely to ND than the average youtube shorts guntuber

          • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            10 months ago

            I grew up in fscking Moscow and have never shot one live round, but I know the same rules (because they apply for anything remotely similar, including toy pneumatic guns with which you can leave someone without an eye, construction guns, toy bows and crossbows …).

            The armorer is 100% guilty, but that’s not the same as saying that 100% of guilt is on the armorer.

        • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          The rules of firearm safety apply when your buddy is showing off his new canik, not when you’re a professional on a movie set. A million other actors have ignored those rules on a million other sets, and it’s typically perfectly safe because the armorers know what they’re doing, and the crew isn’t bringing live rounds on set.

        • negativeyoda@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          I mean… by this metric Michael Massee should have done time for shooting Brandon Lee during the filming of The Crow.

          • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            No, there was a rare accident with one blank pushing out a piece of the previous blank stuck or something.

      • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        58
        ·
        10 months ago

        He is the producer.

        Hi hired her. He tolerated crew using real bullets on set for playing target practice during down time.

        The boss created unsafe conditions, and killed his employee through negligence.

        • lennybird@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          50
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          I find that to be a pretty big leap. When she took the role of armorer she assumed all responsibility on set to ensure the safety of the crew, which was the entire point in Baldwin hiring someone to that position in the first place. Her gross negligence if not outright fraud is a result of her own actions and nobody else.

          At most I’d give 20% responsibility to Baldwin for not examining her background more closely.

          • Dkarma@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            17
            ·
            10 months ago

            I completely agree with you that technically the armorer is at fault traditionally in these types of situations and a jury may in fact find that to be true in the eyes of the law eventually, but I find it interesting that in this case the armorer was a younger attractive female on a rough n tumble set and I can only assume there was pressure on her from the other people there shooting if not Baldwin himself to go shooting. Hell she may not have even known the guns were used but that’s not really an excuse.

            What is a meditating factor is what Baldwin said, told her and ordered her to do. Remember he’s her boss. I’m assuming there’s evidence he told her to do blah. If so imo he deserves more than 20%.

            • lennybird@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              18
              ·
              10 months ago

              The way I see it, if your responsibility is the safety of firearms and someone tells you to violate that responsibility, that reflects a lot on you and you’re not cut for the job. If there is a contradiction between what the boss tells you and that which you’re held liable for, you better choose wisely. You’re hired for this role specifically when death is on the line no less.

          • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            17
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            Why do you think the grand jury, which certainly has seen more evidence than you, felt differently?

            • lennybird@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              20
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              The Grand Jury is subject to a narrow perspective of evidence framed solely by the Prosecutors. The bar is pretty low.

              If Grand Juries were fullproof, why even proceed to a trial…?

              And it’s quite possible I’m missing something, sure. I don’t really have a horse in this race either way.

            • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              10 months ago

              A grand jury found him guilty! I guess that settles it!

              Maybe you shouldn’t comment on things that you don’t know the first thing about

          • Poggervania@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            20
            ·
            10 months ago

            I would still say Baldwin is at fault since he wasn’t doing what he could to ensure safety on the set with real guns and live ammunition. The armorer fucked up 100% for sure, but they shouldn’t be the first and last line for following safety policies and SOPs - anybody in a leadership or managerial role should also be enforcing it.

            • lennybird@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              27
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              I find it highly unlikely that a film producer is going around checking weapon props on the vast, vast majority of Hollywood sets. I would be shocked if that ever happens.

              • SpruceBringsteen@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                10 months ago

                People were literally walking off set before the shooting happened because of this exact safety issue. Baldwin knew about the safety issue. He ignored it.

                He’s negligent for not firing the negligent armorer the moment he undoubtedly heard about there being live ammo on set.

              • Poggervania@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                9
                ·
                10 months ago

                He doesn’t need to check them, but he can certainly go “hey, make sure we’re following safety protocols!” so others can actually do that work - or at least, Baldwin can cover himself by saying he was trying to follow safety protocol.

                You say it’s the armorer’s fault (which it is), but Baldwin still could’ve done more to ensure safety on his end without checking every weapon prop like you said. Ask yourself: if the people in charge don’t follow policy and procedure, do you think the people below them would?

                • antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  11
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  if the people in charge don’t follow policy and procedure

                  What policy/procedure did Baldwin not follow exactly?

                • lennybird@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  14
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  10 months ago

                  Ok. I’d hate to have employees who need convenient scapegoats to deflect their basic job responsibilities for which they were, you know, hired to perform.

        • chaogomu@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          10 months ago

          Baldwin was one of 10 producers and was not the hiring director. He, in fact, hire her.

          I’ve heard that there were live fire practices on set, but could never back that up.

          What I did find the last time this came up was a write-up about how there were reloads intermixed with the dummy rounds, re-loads that had been used on a completely different film shoot, where the actors of that film were walked tough some target practice with live rounds, so that they would better understand how a gun firing live rounds would kick.

          Then a coffee can full of mixed live and dummy rounds ended up kicking around for a couple of years before being sent out to the Rust filming location, and the armorer didn’t know how to check the bullets. Or didn’t know that she had to. She was told that everything sent was a dummy round.

          There were a bunch of live rounds found mixed into props, including Baldwin’s ammo belt.

          All of them looked like the standard dummy round.

        • oo1@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          10 months ago

          real bullets. . .
          playing . . .

          That’s fucked up.
          I find it very hard to understand the attitudes some people have towards firearms.

    • chaogomu@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      56
      ·
      10 months ago

      The thing is, he’s not the one who hired her.

      He was one of 10 listed producers on that film, and was not the hiring director.

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        73
        ·
        10 months ago

        He’s the one who just took a gun laying nearby (without asking anyone about it being normal), jokingly pointed it at a person and squeezed the trigger.

        People defending him seem to think that “criminal stupidity” is not a thing.

        • TheFonz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          42
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          This is not accurate. At.all. it’s really funny how much stuff gets repeated online without any evidence. Social media is just one big game of telephone

            • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              28
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              Where exactly in that quote does it say he took a gun laying nearby without asking anyone about it, jokingly pointed it at a person, and squeezed the trigger? Literally none of what you said happened according to that quote. Do you wanna maybe delete the misinformation in your comments?

        • chaogomu@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          10 months ago

          Um no. That’s a blatant lie.

          He was handed a gun, and told it was cold.

          According to a search warrant, the guns were briefly checked by armorer Gutierrez-Reed, before assistant director Halls took the Pietta revolver from the prop cart and handed it to Baldwin.[38][39] In a subsequent affidavit, Halls said the safety protocol regarding this firearm was such that Halls would open the loading gate of the revolver and rotate the cylinder to expose the chambers so he could inspect them himself. According to the affidavit, Halls said he did not check all cylinder chambers, but he recalled seeing three rounds in the cylinder at the time. (After the shooting, Halls said in the affidavit, Gutierrez-Reed retrieved the weapon and opened it, and Halls said that he saw four rounds which were plainly blanks, and one which could have been the remaining shell of a discharged live round.)[40] In the warrant, it is further stated that Halls announced the term “cold gun”, meaning that it was empty.[38] Halls’s lawyer, Lisa Torraco, later sought to assert that he did not take the gun off the cart and hand it to Baldwin as reported, but when pressed by a reporter to be clear, she refused to repeat that assertion.[41]

          People attacking him just make shit up left and right.

          • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            10 months ago

            Maybe we do, it’s confusing that when somebody points a gun at another person which he hasn’t personally checked and pretends that somebody had to check it instead of him and that absolves him, some people think he’s right.

            • chaogomu@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              So, you admit you’re just making shit up to paint Baldwin in a worse light?

              You also admit you have no fucking clue how stage and film work?

              Because pointing a gun at someone for a film is allowed, because the production hires actual experts who are legally responsible for making sure that any weapon handed to an actor is safe. The armorer in this case was incompetent, and got the job because her father was a damn fine armorer and had connections.

              Do note, that while Baldwin was a producer on the film, he was one of 10 producers, and never handled hiring. His main duties were fundraising and minor script changes.

              • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                I started with recalling that the accident happened when he was waving the gun for expressiveness. Then my memory went off track, like it often happens, because the general idea of somebody using a real weapon for expressiveness for me is very irresponsible.

                That core part turns out to still be correct. The rest not.

                Also you are making it sound as if having a real shooting gun on a set at all was so bloody necessary and unavoidable that it doesn’t make sense to teach people holding it basic rules.

                • chaogomu@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  waving the gun for expressiveness

                  See, that’s the first place your memory was wrong. Because that core part is in fact wrong.

                  He was rehearsing a scene with the director. Asking questions about where to stand and how to draw and aim the gun.

                  The real gun on set was because it would usually be loaded with blanks.

                  Period accurate guns didn’t have smokeless powder. So the blanks would be loaded with that same powder.

                  You also want a real gun for closeup work. There was not supposed to be any live ammo on set, so it should have been safe.

                  Unfortunately, the armorer was incompetent, and the prop supplier sent dummy rounds that had been co-mingled with live rounds that were produced for a previous film.

    • fidodo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Do you know his involvement in her being hired? Being a producer can mean anything from total involvement to it just being a name on paper.

    • OhFudgeBars@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      22
      ·
      10 months ago

      If he’s not lying about not pulling the trigger, then he, or the firearms manager, also bought a dangerously cheap gun.

      The whole thing was a cascading failure, imho, with Baldwin at the end of it, making him no less culpable than anyone before him. Ultimately, “I didn’t know the gun was loaded” is never an excuse.

  • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    The brigading on the comments on this story is quite telling. Why do conservatives love Alec Baldwin so much? He’s a Democrat.

    • Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      I am a lefty and I think it is a shame he gets indicted for this. The gun wasnt his responsibility and it was an accident.

      • ef9357@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        I respectfully disagree. If you touch a gun, you are responsible. If you mishandle a gun, you are responsible. If the gun fires while in your hand, you are responsible. That’s firearms 101.

        • thechadwick@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          10 months ago

          Unless of course, you’re on a movie set and the armorer has called it a cold gun and pointing it towards people is part of the movie.

          Then it might be the fault of the person who knowingly co-mingled live and blank ammo in gross disregard for any kind of safety procedures.

          Yes if you are handling a firearm, you have a responsibility to know safety procedures. But in film, obviously you have different familiarity levels with weapon handling. That’s why you hire an armorer who enforces safety procedures. So non-shooter actors handle prop weapons with blanks.

          Now, arguably as a co-producer Alec may have had some culpability in hiring an unqualified armorer? Somehow I doubt he was heavily involved in those kind of nitty gritty hiring decisions. Seems significantly more plausible that those decisions were made by the actual producers who work for a living and not the a-lister who gets titled co-producer for SAGAFTRA billing purposes…

          Call me crazy, I know.

          • ef9357@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            All valid points and I agree. But that gun didn’t point itself at another person. And it sure didn’t pull its own trigger.

  • Vytle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    33
    ·
    10 months ago

    This was homicide IMO, on the part of whichever dipshit brought live rounds onto the set Baldwin should still get manslaughter for pointing a gun at someone

  • mctoasterson@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    36
    ·
    10 months ago

    It is somewhat ironic that a vocal antigunner ended up having a larger negligent body count than 99.99999% of US gun owners.

  • mctoasterson@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    36
    ·
    10 months ago

    It is somewhat ironic that a vocal antigunner ended up having a larger negligent body count than 99.99999% of US gun owners.

  • Dangdoggo@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    60
    ·
    10 months ago

    I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again, if you’re holding a weapon it is your responsibility to know if that weapon is live, I don’t care who hands it to you or under what context. Children learn this in rifle safety.

    Does the armorer share responsibility? Definitely. But you can’t just say “someone else got hired to do that so Baldwin is off the hook.” Even pointing a gun around, live ammo or not, with the hammer cocked is plainly asinine and unsafe behavior. All Baldwin needed to do was take 5 seconds to open the chamber and look at the bullets to prevent someone losing their life, if that’s not negligence then what exactly is?

    • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      41
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again, the rules of firearm safety apply in common situations, not on professional movie sets. I’m reminded of a video of a parked car causing a massive pile up in a bicycle race, because even though it wasn’t moving, the people in the middle of the pack can’t see past the cyclists in front of them, and can’t dodge the car in time. That post got comment after comment about how stupid the cyclists were, how you should always be prepared to stop at a moment’s notice, how you should never cycle anywhere without at least six miles of visibility, but the thing is, in bicycle races, common sense doesn’t apply. The roads are supposed to be clear because cyclists aren’t going to be able to see far enough ahead of them to properly react to obstacles, because that’s what bicycle races are like.

      Similarly, when you’re at your friend’s house and he’s showing off his new carbine, you absolutely treat it like they’re a moron who left it chambered, and even after you make sure it’s clear, you don’t put your finger on the trigger and you don’t point it at anyone. This isn’t because it might still shoot, it’s because you need to practice that muscle memory in case your idiot friend doesn’t clear it next time. But when you’re on a movie set, the norm switches. You’re working with professionals, and when they tell you it’s cold, it’s supposed to be safe to assume that it is in fact cold. A million other actors have made that assumption a million times each, and it’s been a safe assumption virtually every time. The people at fault when the gun isn’t cold aren’t the actors who trusted the professionals, it’s the professionals who brought live ammo to a movie set.

    • Dr. Dabbles@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      10 months ago

      I’d flip the share of liability, personally. The primary liable party is the armorer since it’s their actual job to handle these things. But Baldwin shares in liability IMO because of the negligence of not verifying the state of the firearm. Especially after he knew others had used it for firing real rounds.

      The whole thing is just sloppy as hell and highlights to me why regulations need to be in place, or movies need to let go of the gun firing bullshit. Every god damned thing is done in CG now, they can’t afford muzzle flash suddenly?

        • chaogomu@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          it’s called a camera test.

          Baldwin, the cinematographer and the director were all working through blocking (the movements needed for when the camera would be actually rolling).

          The camera was in position, and the cinematographer and director were both looking through the monitors to adjust lighting and such.

          This is all very standard stuff, and if one of the dummy rounds hadn’t actually been a reload of live ammo, it would have remained standard.

          This talks about how the live ammo made it onto the set.

          https://variety.com/2021/film/news/rust-investigators-live-rounds-alec-baldwin-1235122384/

          Baldwin could have looked at the logos on the bullets, seen the Starline Brass, and assumed that they were all dummy rounds. Only 5 of the 6 were.

        • Dr. Dabbles@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Who the hell knows. He claims he was rehearsing the scene, which seems plausible. The scene being filmed would have resulted in the same injury and death, so cameras rolling doesn’t seem to be an important aspect.

          A better questions would be why TF the industry as a whole allows people in the path of the barrel, why they insist on using firearms with blanks, and why acting staff aren’t given training on any weapon they will handle so they know how to properly inspect them.

      • Dangdoggo@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        Yeah I do agree it is primarily her fault (though why she was hired in the first place is a whole other thing, I suspect Baldwin had little to do with that anyway though). I just think he needs to take his part of the blame and not just be let off because he’s a celebrity boy.

      • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        27
        ·
        10 months ago

        As both the one holding the gun and the one who had a say in hiring the armorer Baldwin absolutely deserves the majority of the blame.