Alec Baldwin CHARGED !

Welcome to ArizonaShooting.org!

Join today!

Welcome! You have been invited by CaptainKelley to join our community. Please click here to register.
I saw an interview with the DA and the special prosecutor this morning. It sounds like they are charging him more as a function of his executive producer position - responsible for all things on the set - noting that there were numerous safety lapses on set, including a couple of NDs, that he did nothing to confront. This makes sense if he, as an "actor" was operating within the construct of the negligently lax safety protocols that he "as the producer" allowed on the set. It makes sense that both he and the weapons master would be charged as their negligence is what allowed the scenario in which the actor (any actor) points what they think is an unloaded gun at the camera and pulls the trigger - to find that they just shot the cameraperson.

I'm glad they are both charged - and it seems the charges are at the appropriate level.
 
kenpoprofessor said:
QuietM4 said:
Anyone know if the prop master is being charged as well? In my mind, she is more criminally liable than Baldwin. He's a stupid actor who just parrots back words written by another person. SHE is the professional responsible for the safety of those firearms. If he is charged, so should she.

If I hand a gun to someone on the range, I'm responsible for them shooting someone??? Regardless of how it came to be, he's the one who pulled the trigger. Part of "the job" you're doing is knowing WTF you're doing. If part of my job is driving, then I should know how to drive, including all the extra stuff like checking the fluids, maintenance, etc.,etc. You can't blame my supervisor if I drink and drive, but, it seems you will.


325882597_2824241178319563_2944288540725439645_n.jpg



Seems some of you are fast to blame someone else.

Clyde

You are comparing apples to oranges. If you are shooting with your buddies on a range, that is VERY different than being in a movie set where IT IS YOUR JOB to ensure the safety of the firearms on set. Of course Baldwin is responsible, but so is the prop master.
 
Where he will catch a pass is when it comes down to sentencing. He'll only get the bare minimum the judge can get away with. If that's house-arrest with an anklet, so be it. If he has to go to the graybar, his team will negotiate a 'country club' facility as close to his home (New York?) as is possible. Easier for family to bring him his favorite snacks.
 
kenpoprofessor said:
QuietM4 said:
Anyone know if the prop master is being charged as well? In my mind, she is more criminally liable than Baldwin. He's a stupid actor who just parrots back words written by another person. SHE is the professional responsible for the safety of those firearms. If he is charged, so should she.

If I hand a gun to someone on the range, I'm responsible for them shooting someone??? Regardless of how it came to be, he's the one who pulled the trigger. Part of "the job" you're doing is knowing WTF you're doing. If part of my job is driving, then I should know how to drive, including all the extra stuff like checking the fluids, maintenance, etc.,etc. You can't blame my supervisor if I drink and drive, but, it seems you will.


325882597_2824241178319563_2944288540725439645_n.jpg



Seems some of you are fast to blame someone else.

Clyde

I drove a truck for a few years in my early 20's. Old manual Diesel Mercedes straight job. I couldnt tell you the first thing about checking fluids. They had a service come in and perform regular checks and maintenance. My job was to drive it and my responsibility ended at bleeding the airbrakes before taking it out.

As far as you Drunk driving.. if it comes to a lawsuit you had better believe they are going after your company as well.

Ultimately it is how it will go down for Baldwin. He was the producer/supervisor and the staff and conditions will be his undoing. I dont think it will be his lack of knowledge about firearms. He was supposed to insure the right systems were in place so that a fatal shooting didnt occur.

In the end its all speculation. We will have to wait for the proceedings to start.
 
Be honest:

If somebody pointed a gun at you, and said "Don't worry; it's not loaded," what would you do?

Would you ever say to somebody, "I want to take a video of you with that gun. My friend over there is a gun expert and she says the gun is unloaded, so I want you to point it at me and cock the hammer while I take a video"?

The victim, Halyna Hutchins, was the director. Her job was to give directions. She directed Baldwin to point the gun at her. She directed him to pull back the hammer. He followed her directions.

This is one of those cases where more than one person is at fault. If a drunk driver crosses the center line and kills a woman and her baby, that drunk driver is guilty. But what if the woman was also drunk, and talking on her phone, and putting on her lipstick, and not wearing a seatbelt, and the baby was not in a child seat? Then she also is partially liable. (Which is not to say that the driver who crossed over is off the hook, just that the liability is shared.)

There were a lot of people who screwed up in this case: the armorer, the assistant who said "Cold gun," Baldwin the actor, Baldwin the producer -- and yes, also the director, Halyna Hutchins.

Expect Baldwin's lawyers to make a big deal about Hutchins' fault in her own death, and that Baldwin was "just following orders." Maybe that will be enough to get him acquitted, or at least get a lighter sentence.
 
smithers599 said:
Be honest:

If somebody pointed a gun at you, and said "Don't worry; it's not loaded," what would you do?

Would you ever say to somebody, "I want to take a video of you with that gun. My friend over there is a gun expert and she says the gun is unloaded, so I want you to point it at me and cock the hammer while I take a video"?

The victim, Halyna Hutchins, was the director. Her job was to give directions. She directed Baldwin to point the gun at her. She directed him to pull back the hammer. He followed her directions.

This is one of those cases where more than one person is at fault. If a drunk driver crosses the center line and kills a woman and her baby, that drunk driver is guilty. But what if the woman was also drunk, and talking on her phone, and putting on her lipstick, and not wearing a seatbelt, and the baby was not in a child seat? Then she also is partially liable. (Which is not to say that the driver who crossed over is off the hook, just that the liability is shared.)

There were a lot of people who screwed up in this case: the armorer, the assistant who said "Cold gun," Baldwin the actor, Baldwin the producer -- and yes, also the director, Halyna Hutchins.

Expect Baldwin's lawyers to make a big deal about Hutchins' fault in her own death, and that Baldwin was "just following orders." Maybe that will be enough to get him acquitted, or at least get a lighter sentence.


My gawd, the stupid here is overwhelming lately. Maybe I need to do an RJ.


Clyde
 
Could you be more specific, beyond just name-calling?

What part is stupid? That there is such a concept under the law as joint liability?

That Hutchins was stupid to sit in front of a gun because somebody else told her it was unloaded?

That Baldwin's lawyers will try to deflect blame from Baldwin to Hutchins?
 
kenpoprofessor said:
smithers599 said:
Be honest:

If somebody pointed a gun at you, and said "Don't worry; it's not loaded," what would you do?

Would you ever say to somebody, "I want to take a video of you with that gun. My friend over there is a gun expert and she says the gun is unloaded, so I want you to point it at me and cock the hammer while I take a video"?

The victim, Halyna Hutchins, was the director. Her job was to give directions. She directed Baldwin to point the gun at her. She directed him to pull back the hammer. He followed her directions.

This is one of those cases where more than one person is at fault. If a drunk driver crosses the center line and kills a woman and her baby, that drunk driver is guilty. But what if the woman was also drunk, and talking on her phone, and putting on her lipstick, and not wearing a seatbelt, and the baby was not in a child seat? Then she also is partially liable. (Which is not to say that the driver who crossed over is off the hook, just that the liability is shared.)

There were a lot of people who screwed up in this case: the armorer, the assistant who said "Cold gun," Baldwin the actor, Baldwin the producer -- and yes, also the director, Halyna Hutchins.

Expect Baldwin's lawyers to make a big deal about Hutchins' fault in her own death, and that Baldwin was "just following orders." Maybe that will be enough to get him acquitted, or at least get a lighter sentence.


My gawd, the stupid here is overwhelming lately. Maybe I need to do an RJ.


Clyde

Must be extremely difficult for you to be the smartest guy in every room you enter.
 
Boriqua said:
Must be extremely difficult for you to be the smartest guy in every room you enter.

No, not really, but I do try to surround myself with others of equal or better intelligence, and it's extremely difficult to find intelligent people any more. Obviously, this isn't the place to find that intelligence from what I'm seeing and reading.


Clyde
 
smithers599 said:
Could you be more specific, beyond just name-calling?

What part is stupid? That there is such a concept under the law as joint liability?

That Hutchins was stupid to sit in front of a gun because somebody else told her it was unloaded?

That Baldwin's lawyers will try to deflect blame from Baldwin to Hutchins?


So, you're telling me you were on scene, saw and heard what happened, and more importantly, how it all it went wrong??? Dude, you have no idea what you're saying, and how you came to the conclusions you have is beyond me.

Here's what I know: Alec Baldwin was handed a gun, he pulled the hammer back, and, from what he says, let it go. There was a real, live round in the cylinder, it discharged, killing the woman and wounding the other guy. Now, how that cylinder for live rounds got in the gun, don't care. If it was a repro, they are black powder, but can be made to fire real, cartridged ammo.

https://kirstkonverter.com/45-colt-navy-revolvers.html


They previously had incidents with negligent discharges before this event even happened. Which means, he was totally aware of the dangers with these sorts of "props". He, as the person holding the gun, pointing the gun, and firing the gun, is totally responsible for that act, period.

The idea you're promoting is what's bad for gun manufacturers, and even yourself. By passing the buck down the line, you're insisting it had to be someone else's fault as well. If the courts start using that logic, we are in big trouble.

Now, go ask mommy for a hot pocket before you spew any more nonsense.

Clyde
 
kenpoprofessor said:
Boriqua said:
Must be extremely difficult for you to be the smartest guy in every room you enter.

No, not really, but I do try to surround myself with others of equal or better intelligence, and it's extremely difficult to find intelligent people any more. Obviously, this isn't the place to find that intelligence from what I'm seeing and reading.


Clyde

Then why did you bother coming back? I was happy to see you come back to these forums at first, but you just suck as a participant now.
 
Boriqua said:
kenpoprofessor said:
My gawd, the stupid here is overwhelming lately. Maybe I need to do an RJ.
Clyde

Must be extremely difficult for you to be the smartest guy in every room you enter.

Well he devotes what little mental horsepower he has to trying to be the smartest guy in the room, he doesn't have enough left to actually be it. That is why he always defaults to the same, predictable, and pointless behavior when he fails to grasp simple concepts and stomps around like a petulant child on here if he doesn't comprehend something or disagrees.

There are more people than Baldwin responsible for what happened. The court system knows this, and has done the right thing by charging both Baldwin and the Armorer. I think the charges are a bit light, but that is a matter of opinion.

Here are some facts - simple google research will show.

The armorer chick (Hannah Gutierrez Reed) has changed her story about why live ammo was on set at least two or three times. The cast/crew stated she brought live ammo so the guns could be shot "for fun" outside of production. She then claimed that since the ammo was left out for several hours, a "disgruntled worker" sabotaged it:

Lawyers for Reed Jason Bowles and Robert Gorence claimed that the bullets their client loaded into the gun on the day of the shooting were taken from a box that was only supposed to contain dummy rounds that were incapable of firing. However, because the ammunition was left unattended from roughly 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. that day, they believe the opportunity was there for a disgruntled crew member to mix a live round into the box. 

She then claimed it was the suppliers fault (yet as an armorer she can't tell the difference between a live round, a blank, and a dummy?)

Gutierrez Reed accuses PDQ Arm and Prop, LLC. and its founder Seth Kenney of violation of trade practices, false and deceptive product labels, and false and material misrepresentations after, Gutierrez Reed alleges, Kenney sold her a cache of dummy ammunition with live rounds mixed in.

But when that didn't really work - she fell back on she had live ammo to show the actors "how it felt to shoot a gun for real."

Reed said that using live ammunition helped the actors get the feel of a firing a gun, so they would know how to do the recoil during a scene.

Keep in mind - this was on a production / set where there was supposed to be zero live ammo.

Gutierrez Reed said that prop master Sarah Zachry removed the guns from the truck and brought them to her. Gutierrez Reed also said she handed the gun to Baldwin multiple times and also handed it to assistant director Dave Halls. Halls handed the gun to Baldwin before the fatal shooting, according to the warrant. 
Handled it multiple times - still didn't check it.

Zachry Davis, costume designer said, “She’s gross. I’m so disugusted [sic] by her right now. She f***ed up. She got someone killed. And rather than take responsibility and face it, she’s trying to take everyone else down with her.”
In a later message, Davis writes that Reed “didn’t do her job properly. And she had plenty of time to do so because we had extra time that morning while camera was f***ing off. So she can say what she wants about training time and all that bullshit but it’s not why she killed Halyna.”
“There are protocols in place that would have prevented Halyna’s death if Hannah had been following them,” Davis adds later. “She broke SO many, by her own admission. That’s willful negligence. She’s liable. She’ll go down for manslaughter.”

The "professional" responsible for firearm safety handled what was supposed to be a "cold" gun (no live ammo, no blanks) multiple times before it ended up in Baldwin's hands and didn't even check it apparently.

Baldwin’s stunt double accidentally fired two rounds Saturday after being told that the gun was “cold” — lingo for a weapon that doesn’t have any ammunition, including blanks — two crew members who witnessed the episode told the Los Angeles Times.

“There should have been an investigation into what happened,” a crew member said. “There were no safety meetings. There was no assurance that it wouldn’t happen again. All they wanted to do was rush, rush, rush.”

Safety protocols standard in the industry, including gun inspections, were not strictly followed on the “Rust” set near Santa Fe, the sources said. They said at least one of the camera operators complained last weekend to a production manager about gun safety on the set.

On April 20, it was announced that the New Mexico Occupational Health and Safety Bureau had fined Rust Movie Productions $136,793 for a lack of firearms safety — reportedly the maximum fine allowed.

Over the course of their investigation, the bureau reportedly found that there was no on-set protocol to ensure that no live rounds were on the film set, and that multiple complains from crew members about gun safety were ignored. “What we had, based on our investigators’ findings, was a set of obvious hazards to employees regarding the use of firearms and management’s failure to act upon those obvious hazards,” said bureau chief Bob Genoway of the investigation.

She worked on "The Old Way" before Rust - and the crew on that film wanted her fired because she was incompetent. Nic Cage himself reportedly went off on her for unsafe practices on that movie.

This was a perfect cocktail of gross negligence. The person responsible for the firearms, ammo, and safety was negligent. The production team (including Baldwin) was negligent in their duties to ensure safety, and reasonable working conditions. I hope the two of them (especially the Armorer) get the book thrown at them. Placing the blame 100% on Baldwin (as much as I despise him and his ilk) isn't right. He shares it with others - as the courts agree. Given we aren't "pros" working in this industry - it is hard to understand how it is logical that the entirety of firearms safety was basically placed on one person for a movie production (because it is production - and more "efficient" to have one "expert" in charge instead of training up everyone....) - but at least we now know what happens when that person is really, really bad at their job. People die. It is pretty obvious what happened with all this.
 
Cut Clyde some slack. The lever for his lazyboy broke, so he has to shit post being uncomfortable sitting up. Tough to have that warm loving feeling if you can't spill your soup down your chest...
 
This is my take,

Forget that it was a firearm. Disregard everything you know about firearms safety. It's not actually relevant. Baldwin killed someone through gross negligence.

When dangerous things are used on set, there is a safety brief. Doesn't matter if it was a gun, or a fork lift. Baldwin violated the safety brief. The safety brief says you never point the prop gun directly at someone. It's always done with shallow angles, and if you need the camera to look down the barrel of a firearm, it's done with a mirror.

On the armorer, I'm a bit conflicted. My understanding is that she wasn't on set that day, and the director was acting as assistant-armorer, which generally means that liability passes on to him. If she was actually on set, then, yeah, she is absolutely liable.
 
nvgdude said:
This is my take,

Forget that it was a firearm. Disregard everything you know about firearms safety. It's not actually relevant. Baldwin killed someone through gross negligence.

When dangerous things are used on set, there is a safety brief. Doesn't matter if it was a gun, or a fork lift. Baldwin violated the safety brief. The safety brief says you never point the prop gun directly at someone. It's always done with shallow angles, and if you need the camera to look down the barrel of a firearm, it's done with a mirror.

On the armorer, I'm a bit conflicted. She wasn't on set that day, and the director was acting as assistant-armorer, which generally means that liability passes on to him.


Now that was a very reasoned argument, thank you.

Have a great, gun carryin', Kenpo day

Clyde
 
Charges dropped

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/charges-alec-baldwin-dropped-fatal-rust-shooting-attorneys-say-rcna80722

Charges against Alec Baldwin dropped in fatal ‘Rust’ shooting, attorneys say
Prosecutors had blamed the Oscar-nominated actor for the death of Halyna Hutchins on the New Mexico set of the Western movie "Rust."
 
"The charges against Baldwin's co-defendant, "Rust" armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, were still in play, her lawyers said Thursday."
Looks like they have their sacrificial lamb here.

"Baldwin was rehearsing with a pistol for a scene when the gun went off, killing Hutchins and wounding director Joel Souza."

Single action pistols don't just "go off" :roll:
 
Back
Top