Alec Baldwin charged with involuntary manslaughter in fatal 'Rust' shooting: district attorney

a reply to: IAMTAT
They damn sure did TAT.....I think HGR may try to put it off on Baldwin for that reason and the fact that the crew consistently asked for help and better conditions on the set.

originally posted by: Ravenwatcher
a reply to: face23785

He will never be found guilty it was a accident with no malice . They will have to prove he pulled the trigger and the gun did not go off on it own . It can happen with revolvers Ive had it happen to me closing the chamber barrel . Scared the life out of me had to check my dog and myself for holes .

Yeah, that's not how that works. You don't have to have malice for this charge. An accident doesn't automatically mean there can be no criminal charges. And they don't have to prove he pulled the trigger.

If you believe all this stuff, and handle guns, you're a danger to yourself and everyone around you.

Read a little bit about the case. And get some training.

originally posted by: ATruGod

Not sure why its 2 counts each as only 1 person died

Only thing I can think of is one charge is for creating the unsafe conditions that led to the incident and the other is for the incident itself? I was thinking you could charge them either way, but perhaps you can charge them both ways?

I don't know if NM law works that way though.

a reply to: ATruGod

Reed is going to walk. She was required to put the gun on a stand outside of the set and was denied access to the set. Once that weapon left her control, so did her responsibility.

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: ATruGod

Reed is going to walk. She was required to put the gun on a stand outside of the set and was denied access to the set.

I hadn't heard that. Was that how her contract was set up? Like the producers forced her to work under those conditions? I wouldn't even have taken that job, but yeah if that's the case I'm not sure how she's responsible. Her hands were tied.

a reply to: face23785

I'm not sure about her contract, but, it was stated that she was not allowed on the set because of "COVID restrictions". She placed the gun on a tray out side and I believe an Assistant Director took it into the set. I do have to wonder though, was she paid a different rate when she was on the set? I mentioned last year that I was part of the security for the "Weapons Trailer" for a movie that was being filmed several years ago. I watched the Armorers punch one time card when they came to the trailer and then they would punch out and punch in on a different card when they were called to the set. They did the opposite when they returned. When I asked, I was told that they were paid a different rate while they were on set. The movie was having finance issues and I have to wonder if "COVID" was being used as an excuse to save money by keeping certain people off of the set.

originally posted by: ATruGod

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
From what I'm hearing, a lot of lawyers seem to think the charge for Baldwin is a stretch. Unless there's information we don't know.

If I'm not mistaken... He's the one who pulled the trigger.

He says he didn't...and that the gun just decided to kill her on it's own.
Not sure who he claims aimed the gun at her.

a reply to: JIMC5499

That's interesting. The prosecutor also said they had been cutting corners to save money. Safety was compromised as a result.

That's why from the beginning I have said even if he's somehow not responsible for shooting her, he's responsible for the dangerous conditions on set that led to him shooting her. Either way, it's a pretty clear-cut involuntary manslaughter charge.

originally posted by: face23785
That's why from the beginning I have said even if he's somehow not responsible for shooting her, he's responsible for the dangerous conditions on set that led to him shooting her. Either way, it's a pretty clear-cut involuntary manslaughter charge.

I see it as more of a workplace safety issue. I can see a Civil lawsuit, but, I can't see it being criminal. For full disclosure I'm not one of Baldwin's biggest fans.

originally posted by: JIMC5499

originally posted by: face23785
That's why from the beginning I have said even if he's somehow not responsible for shooting her, he's responsible for the dangerous conditions on set that led to him shooting her. Either way, it's a pretty clear-cut involuntary manslaughter charge.

I see it as more of a workplace safety issue. I can see a Civil lawsuit, but, I can't see it being criminal. For full disclosure I'm not one of Baldwin's biggest fans.

It's for sure a workplace safety issue. Workplace safety failures can become criminal if they cross a certain threshold. From everything I've read about this case, they blew past that threshold.

originally posted by: face23785
From everything I've read about this case, they blew past that threshold.

This is the problem that I have with this. Your statement hits the nail on the head. "From everything I've read".
This is nothing against you.

I don't trust what I've read. Too many people pushing too many agendas. I don't trust any of them.

The reason I don't think that this is criminal, is because of the laws governing the use of weapons on a movie set. THERE AREN'T ANY. Everything there is a Union's guidelines or up to the individual armorer.

Reed was a NON union armorer. That union has an agenda, they want Reed and Baldwin found guilty to force future movies to use Union people. Then you have the Liberals. They want Baldwin found innocent because he's one of them. They could care less about Reed. Then you have those on the Right who want Baldwin found guilty BECAUSE he's a Liberal. Again they could care less about Reed.

The "threshold" you mention cannot be crossed because it doesn't exist, therefore it can't be criminal. I can't believe that after the death of Brandon Lee, there is no law or guidelines for this. Unless they can point to a specific New Mexico law that was broken here, this is a "let's throw it to a Jury and let them take the heat one way or another."
If they could point to a specific law, it wouldn't have taken this long to bring charges.

originally posted by: JIMC5499

originally posted by: face23785
From everything I've read about this case, they blew past that threshold.

I don't trust what I've read. Too many people pushing too many agendas. I don't trust any of them.

The reason I don't think that this is criminal, is because of the laws governing the use of weapons on a movie set. THERE AREN'T ANY. Everything there is a Union's guidelines or up to the individual armorer.

I get where you're going, but you're missing a pretty critical consideration here: New Mexico state law. This isn't just a workplace accident. Union guidelines and armorer's policies are not all there is. There is the law of the State of New Mexico. When these production companies go to another state to film, they are subject to that state's laws.

To my knowledge, there are no exemptions in the law for movie sets, so all state laws apply there just like they would any other location in the state that isn't specifically exempted in the law. If this had happened off a movie set, there'd be charges filed. If there's no exemptions for movie sets, there's no exemptions for actors, no exemptions for producers or armorers, on what grounds can you argue the law doesn't apply to them? Union guidelines (or lack thereof) don't negate laws. Nor do company policies, such as whatever policies the production company and the armorer were operating under.

Reed was a NON union armorer. That union has an agenda, they want Reed and Baldwin found guilty to force future movies to use Union people. Then you have the Liberals. They want Baldwin found innocent because he's one of them. They could care less about Reed. Then you have those on the Right who want Baldwin found guilty BECAUSE he's a Liberal. Again they could care less about Reed.

Sure everyone has an agenda. Me, I just want these people treated equally under the law like anyone else would've been. That's why from the beginning I've said the producers (of which Baldwin is one) and directors and armorer should've all been charged because they knowingly ran a production in an unsafe manner that got someone killed. That's pretty much textbook involuntary manslaughter. I don't believe in special treatment for Hollywood, so they should all be charged. I don't know the politics of any of those people besides Baldwin.

The "threshold" you mention cannot be crossed because it doesn't exist, therefore it can't be criminal.

The threshold is the law for involuntary manslaughter in the state of New Mexico. It exists, and it was surpassed in my opinion. There was an apparent clear violation of the law, so the prosecutor charged it. We'll see if a jury agrees, because it looks like Baldwin's attorneys said they're gonna fight it.

I'm going off of what's publicly available because what else is there to go off of? The only additional information I have is that the prosecutor knows a lot more than I do and thought they should bring charges. Prosecutors aren't always right. Maybe there's some exculpatory evidence that will come out in trial. We'll see. From what's publicly available, it looks like a slam dunk case to me.

here's a report from ABC news that i never really understood.

the single action army is known to fire without pulling the trigger due to worn or broken safety and half cocked notches.
that's what the saying going off half cocked comes means, and the gun is recommenced to be carried with a empty chamber under the hammer.

baldwins lawyer claims that the FBI only fired the gun once and they didn't pull the trigger, and that it broke into two pieces and they couldn't test it any more. if true that says to me the gun was a wore out POS and could have fired.

"The FBI report is being misconstrued," the statement continued. "The gun fired in testing only one time -- without having to pull the trigger -- when the hammer was pulled back and the gun broke in two different places. The FBI was unable to fire the gun in any prior test, even when pulling the trigger, because it was in such poor condition."
What forensic testing reveals about revolver in on-set 'Rust' shooting

report from cnn the FBI admitted the gun fired in the cocked position after trying to make it fire without pulling the trigger. the last one.

An FBI forensics report said the weapon could not be fired during FBI testing of its normal functioning without pulling the trigger while the gun was cocked. The report also noted the gun eventually malfunctioned during testing after internal parts fractured, which caused the gun to go off in the cocked position without pulling the trigger.
Decision expected on criminal charges in "Rust" shooting, according to prosecutors

now as far as checking the gun, even if he did and if he is isn't a experienced shooter or know what a dummy round or a live round looked like how could that have been his fault. two paid people whose job it is to ensure it was safe in the chain said the gun was cold,.

originally posted by: BernnieJGato
here's a report from ABC news that i never really understood.

the single action army is known to fire without pulling the trigger due to worn or broken safety and half cocked notches.

And this just goes to the responsibility of the producers, of which Baldwin is one. She had a reputation for shoddy practices as an armorer. They hired her because she was cheap. Baldwin is responsible for that decision. You could argue he didn't know, but they had several gun incidents on set prior to the fatal one. People walked off the job because it was unsafe. Baldwin, the producer, who was on set and knew about all of this, not sitting back in an office, took no steps to correct that. The FBI tests do not help him in that regard, if anything they hurt his case. They prove the conditions were unsafe.

now as far as checking the gun, even if he did and if he is isn't a experienced shooter or know what a dummy round or a live round looked like how could that have been his fault. two paid people whose job it is to ensure it was safe in the chain said the gun was cold,.

He is an experienced shooter. He's trained. And other actors have said the actor is supposed to verify the gun is safe. You don't rely on someone else. Refer to this post for more explanation on why it's still his responsibility.

If you think it's okay to point a gun at someone because someone else told you it's safe, please don't ever, EVER handle a gun.

a reply to: face23785

I still believe that if a New Mexico law had been broken it wouldn't have taken this long to file charges.

a reply to: face23785

That was fast.
SAG-AFTRA Calls Alec Baldwin’s ‘Rust’ Charges ‘Wrong and Uninformed’
variety.com...

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: face23785

That was fast.
SAG-AFTRA Calls Alec Baldwin’s ‘Rust’ Charges ‘Wrong and Uninformed’
variety.com...

From your source:

Industry experts have noted that it is common practice for actors handling firearms to follow general safety practices that Baldwin allegedly did not on the “Rust” set, according to on-set video, including keeping one’s finger off the trigger during rehearsals and never pointing a firearm directly at other individuals. Baldwin has repeatedly said he is not at fault for Hutchins’ death, and his lawyers have pointed to a series of alleged errors by Halls, Gutierrez Reed and others for the shooting.

How could there be no laws regulating commercial or residential gun handling safety? Did you check?

Also, video evidence and testimony of negligent gun handling on a set where a person was later killed by an actor should result in the prosecution to the fullest extent, as is the case.

Here is the Santa Fe District Attorney talking about the charges.



These charges seem legit and it appears to be an attempt to get justice for the victim.

One thing mentioned is that Accident does not equal no culpability. Seems like people (not just on ATS) have the mistaken belief that accidents cannot be criminal. If person A points a gun at person B and the gun discharges and Person B dies, there is no armorer defense in the criminal code, there is no actor defense in criminal code, there is no whoops I didn't mean to defense. Person A's actions directly led to the death of Person B. There should be charges and a trial and these defenses can be tested legally (and not just in the court of public opinion.)

Charge 1 involuntary manslaughter for reckless disregard of safety (will require proof of negligence)
Premise: They acted without due caution and circumspection (whey should have checked gun / bullets)

Charge 2 Involuntary Manslaughter negligent use of a deadly weapon carries a higher threshold of wrongdoing and includes a "firearm enhancement" that could result in a mandatory five years in prison because the offense was committed with a gun.
Premise: If the above is true (carelessness) then they can proceed to the second part, negligence.

originally posted by: DirtWasher
How could there be no laws regulating commercial or residential gun handling safety? Did you check?

Also, video evidence and testimony of negligent gun handling on a set where a person was later killed by an actor should result in the prosecution to the fullest extent, as is the case.

Yes I checked. Do you even watch movies and television shows? You could find something in almost any one of them involving guns. Ever watch the opening of Dirty Harry?

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be penalties for Baldwin, I just don't believe that it is a criminal issue.

at least for once it doesnt look like they are trying to over charge, thats a nice change.

Not sure (cause I havent read to deeply) they will get baldwin but the jury (if it gets there) will have a hard time looking past he pointed it at the lady and it went off he is culpable to some degree. 9point it at he sky, the ground, a wall a target anywhere but a person and even if it goes off on its own, its just a scary moment.

If they didnt allow the armorer on set to maintain positive control not sure how they can nail her.