Alec Baldwin to be charged with involuntary manslaughter in 'Rust' movie set shooting
Last edited Thu Jan 19, 2023, 08:54 PM - Edit history (1)
Source: CNBC
Alec Baldwin will be criminally charged by New Mexico prosecutors for the 2021 fatal shooting of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the set of the film “Rust,” authorities said Thursday.
Baldwin, the Emmy-winning star of “30 Rock” and dozens of films including “The Hunt for Red October,” shot the bullet that killed Hutchins. Baldwin said he “didn’t pull the trigger” in an ABC interview. An FBI forensic report obtained by ABC News uncovered that despite Baldwin’s denial, the gun could not have gone off without the trigger being pulled.
Baldwin and the movie’s armorer, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, each will be charged with two counts of involuntary manslaughter. One of the involuntary manslaughter counts is one in which prosecutors will have to prove there is underlying negligence, prosecutors said. This is a fourth-degree felony that carries a sentence of up to 18 months in jail and a $5,000 fine.
The second involuntary manslaughter charge is one for the commission of a lawful act, a more severe charge which requires proof that there was more than simple negligence involved in a death, prosecutors said. This charge includes a firearm enhancement, which adds a mandatory penalty of five years in jail.
Read more: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/19/alec-baldwin-to-be-charged-in-fatal-rust-shooting.html
Article updated.
Previous articles -
An FBI forensic report obtained by ABC News uncovered that despite Baldwin's denial, the gun could not have gone off without the pull of a trigger. Baldwin and the movie's armorer, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, each will be charged with two counts of involuntary manslaughter.
One of the counts is for involuntary manslaughter, in which prosecutors will have to prove there is underlying negligence, prosecutors said. This is a fourth-degree felony that carries a sentence of up to 18 months in jail and a $5,000 fine. The second charge is involuntary manslaughter in the commission of a lawful act, a more severe charge which requires proof that there was more than simple negligence involved in a death, prosecutors said. This charge includes a firearm enhancement, which adds a mandatory penalty of five years in jail.
Baldwin and Gutierrez-Reed will be charged under a standard called "charged in the alternative." If the case ends up going to trial, a jury will determine which of the two charges they're guilty of. "Rust" assistant director David Halls signed a plea deal for the charge of negligent use of a deadly weapon, resulting in a suspended sentence and six months of probation.
Baldwin, the Emmy-winning star of "30 Rock" and dozens of films including "The Hunt for Red October," shot the bullet that killed Hutchins. He and the movie's armorer, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, each will be charged with two counts of involuntary manslaughter.
One of the counts is for involuntary manslaughter, in which prosecutors will have to prove there is underlying negligence, prosecutors said. The charge is a fourth-degree felony and carries a sentence of up to 18 months in jail and a $5,000 fine.
The second charge is involuntary manslaughter in the commission of a lawful act, which requires proof that there was more than simple negligence involved in a death, prosecutors said. This charge includes a firearm enhancement, which adds a mandatory penalty of five years in jail. "Rust" assistant director David Halls signed a plea deal for the charge of negligent use of a deadly weapon, resulting in a suspended sentence and six months of probation.
Original article -
Baldwin, the Emmy-winning star of "30 Rock" and dozens of films including "The Hunt for Red October," shot the bullet that killed Hutchins. He and the movie's armorer, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, each will be charged with two counts of involuntary manslaughter.
"Rust" assistant director David Halls signed a plea deal for the charge of negligent use of a deadly weapon, resulting in a suspended sentence and six months of probation, according to New Mexico First Judicial District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altwies.
Baldwin's attorney didn't immediately comment.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Sneederbunk
(17,492 posts)Response to Sneederbunk (Reply #1)
Rebl2 This message was self-deleted by its author.
NullTuples
(6,017 posts)Like a CEO, the job of a film producer is to be responsible for how the shop is run.
And in Baldwin's case he chose profits over people.
This *should* have consequences.
Farmer-Rick
(12,667 posts)But do we ever put CEOs in jail when their factories, waste, pollution and products kill people?
Effete Snob
(8,387 posts)Former Peanut Company President Receives Largest Criminal Sentence in Food Safety Case; Two Others also Sentenced for Their Roles in Salmonella-Tainted Peanut Product Outbreak
Two former officials of and one broker for the Peanut Corporation of America (PCA) were sentenced to prison today in Albany, Georgia, for their roles in a conspiracy to defraud their customers by shipping salmonella-positive peanut products before the results of microbiological testing were received and falsifying microbiological test results, the Department of Justice announced today.
Stewart Parnell, 61, of Lynchburg, Virginia, the former owner and president of PCA, was sentenced by Senior U.S. District Court Judge W. Louis Sands of the Middle District of Georgia to serve 336 months in prison to be followed by three years of supervised release. Michael Parnell, 56, of Midlothian, Virginia, who worked at P.P. Sales and was a food broker who worked on behalf of PCA, and is Stewart Parnell’s brother, was sentenced to serve 240 months in prison to be followed by three years of supervised release. Mary Wilkerson, 41, of Edison, Georgia, who held various positions at PCA’s Blakely, Georgia, plant including receptionist, office manager and quality assurance manager, was sentenced to serve 60 months in prison to be followed by two years of supervised release. Judge Sands will issue a restitution order at a later date.
-----
Next question?
henbuck
(62 posts)Did you read the post to which I responded?
If you don't pay attention then, yep, you never see it happen.
So, let's all just say that the entire thing is a sham, and see how that works out.
But, what's great about your comeback is it is a common form of "invincible ignorance".
By saying "very very rarely" you have set up a completely subjective nebulous target which no amount of examples can overcome. So, I can sit here and give you dozens of examples of corporate leaders going to jail for actual white collar and other crimes which happens every danged day, and the end result is that I have wasted time arguing with someone who is not willing to make any actual investment, intellectual or otherwise, into the discussion and can still say, no matter how many examples they are, that it is "rare" according to an unstated threshold of what would or would not be a sufficient frequency to satisfy the definition.
Farmer-Rick
(12,667 posts)That was back in 2015. And there are a few CEO charged with murder because they murdered people. But mostly they are charged and fined but never to see jail time. And when they do get jail time, it's so lackadaisical as to be ridiculous. Like when Epstein was convicted of sex trafficking and pedophilia in Florida where he got to leave jail every day.
About 90% of the time you get this kind of headline: "DuPont said Monday that it has learned it will not be facing criminal charges arising from allegations that the company hid information about a toxic chemical used to make the non-stick coating Teflon." https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/Business/story%3fid=3734756&page=1
Or this:
"Why didn’t any Wall Street CEO go to jail after the financial crisis? It’s a question we were frequently asked throughout our reporting of the 10-year anniversary of the financial crisis. The financial crisis of 2008 altered so many lives: Millions of people lost their homes, their jobs and their savings. It set off a recession that collectively destroyed over $30 trillion of the world’s wealth. And though the crisis grew out of big banks’ handling of mortgage-backed securities, no Wall Street executive went to jail for it. So what happened?" https://features.marketplace.org/why-no-ceo-went-jail-after-financial-crisis/
This is a really interesting podcast if you are interested in why banker CEOs didn't go to jail for causing the financial crisis.
Or this:
"Jail Time Needed, Not Fines, for CEO of Wells Fargo." https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=8878
Good for you for finding one where a CEO went to jail. Too bad that is an exception rather than the rule.
Has Trump been sent to jail for his corporations' tax fraud yet?
Effete Snob
(8,387 posts)When Parnell killed those people, I wanted to see him go to jail.
It was simply one for which I was aware off the top of my head. But thank you for the insulting personal accusation.
Financial frauds like Madoff get sent to jail all of the time, as do bank executives from time to time.
The ability to refer to cases in which you thought someone should go to jail, but no one did, does not support your overall defeatist attitude expressed in your post to the effect it "never" happens.
I do understand there are people who want to discourage political participation in general on the proposition that it is all 'rigged' and thus pointless, and who believe that spreading general cynicism does some kind of good toward encouraging disengagement.
I am not one of those people, and your "never" statement remains wrong.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/bank-ceo-stephen-m-calk-sentenced-one-year-and-one-day-corruptly-soliciting
Bank CEO Stephen M. Calk Sentenced To One Year And One Day For Corruptly Soliciting A Presidential Administration Position In Exchange For Approving $16 Million In Loans
Damian Williams, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced today that STEPHEN M. CALK was sentenced to one year and one day of imprisonment for corruptly using his position as the head of a federally-insured bank to issue millions of dollars in high-risk loans to Paul Manafort in exchange for personal benefit: CALK’s placement on the Donald J. Trump 2016 presidential campaign and assistance from Manafort in trying to obtain a senior position with the incoming presidential administration.
Farmer-Rick
(12,667 posts)Doesn't mean I made "insulting personal accusations". I thought I was being quite nice. I only gave a contrary argument to your statement. In my first comment to you, I was actually agreeing with you.
And I ignored your snarky comment at the end of your other post.
But if you won't believe me and the facts of our capitalist society, then maybe you will believe Wharton School of business at the University of Pennsylvania.
"Why Corrupt Executives Are Rarely Prosecuted
Top corporate executives who commit crimes are often not prosecuted. Journalist Jesse Eisinger explains why in his new book."
"History is rife with examples of wrongdoing in the corporate boardroom, from the early days of the Great Depression to the recent Great Recession. Besides a handful of high-profile prosecutions — think Bernie Madoff — why aren’t more wrongdoing executives in prison?"
https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/why-wrongdoing-executives-are-rarely-prosecuted/
But what you seem most upset about is that I wrote that one single word "ever". It was meant as Hyperbole. Like “I’m so hungry I could eat a horse." It is meant to overshoot its target.
Sneederbunk
(17,492 posts)NullTuples
(6,017 posts)AkFemDem
(2,508 posts)We’ve seen Baldwins huge PR blitz version of the case.
The fact so many people walked off that set due to safety concerns including specific concerns about weapons handling ought to have dropped an anvil of a clue on his head though. If he and assistant director Halls hadn’t put profit and shooting schedules ahead of safety this would have had a very different ending, and a child would still have his mother.
Baldwins arrest history doesn’t help him out here either.
forgotmylogin
(7,952 posts)But if you've ever been in theatrical weapons/combat training, you still learn to never point even a fake gun at anyone, and never pull the trigger on a blank-firing gun outside of performance or technical rehearsal until instructed to. He shouldn't have pointed it anywhere toward "civilians" on a set who were not meant to be involved in the gunplay, and everyone on the set needs to be aware exactly when fake or real guns are being fired so they can make sure they are clear.
From what I've read, they were setting up a shot and there was no reason for the trigger to be pulled at the moment it was. It was a replica gun that likely does not have a hair-trigger that could be fired unintentionally.
I agree it was a mistake and a tragic accident and they will hopefully take that into account, but prop gun safety is everyone's responsibility - Baldwin's and everyone in the chain of custody above him - specifically to avoid situations like this.
AkFemDem
(2,508 posts)In the civil case it came out he skipped the training the day before that was specifically for this scene and gun safety 🤦🏻♀️
forgotmylogin
(7,952 posts)Effete Snob
(8,387 posts)After consideration of all of the admissible evidence.
IbogaProject
(5,913 posts)Who cares if he pulled the trigger needlessly? He's a rich white guy so it's the teenage Hispanic's fault? Who was only there as the experienced Armorer quit due to extreme safety concerns. There was no reason for him to have pulled that trigger for a camera test. And with live bullets being all over the set, even if just 5 were found in a mixture of locations points to a very dangerous oversight situation. We don't know how many live rounds were loose before they cleaned up while the authorities were on their way. Sorry I like liberal actors but I'm not going to support this guy after he refused to have enough staff and was running a Non-Union film production, he should be out of the guilds. If he wasn't willing to work for a cheap funder this wouldn't have happened.
John1956PA
(4,964 posts). . . and the hammer slipped from his thumb.
If that was the case, the jury will have to decide if his actions constitute the offense of manslaughter.
IbogaProject
(5,913 posts)There was no need to pull that hammer back for a 'camera test'. The cinematographer doesn't need the gun cocked to see how the shot looks. And your response ignores that the experienced Armorer quit over 'safety concerns. They had a teen, who's only connection to the business was her dad did the armorer job in other productions. Alec is a union buster and that should be considered in the deliberations over his conduct and the conduct of the under experienced non-union staff.
John1956PA
(4,964 posts). . . he may not have pulled the trigger. When interviewed by Stephanopoulos, Baldwin said he did not pull the trigger. If I had been in Stephanopoulos's position, I would have assailed Baldwin with the scenario that he unnecessarily pulled the trigger back with his thumb, but he was not able to hold it back, and it slipped forward from his thumb. We will have to wait for the trial, if there is one, to learn more information as to what happened.
NullTuples
(6,017 posts)"An FBI forensic report obtained by ABC News uncovered that despite Baldwin’s denial, the gun could not have gone off without the trigger being pulled."
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/19/alec-baldwin-to-be-charged-in-fatal-rust-shooting.html
John1956PA
(4,964 posts)I have always been under the belief that hammer-type pistols can always be fired if the cartridge is in the chamber and if the firing pin (integral to the hammer) strikes the back of the cartridge, regardless of whether the hammer has been cocked back and then released by the trigger, or if the hammer is pulled back (short of cocking) and then suddenly released. I do not think that it makes a difference as to Baldwin's culpability whichever of the two scenarios occurred. It is an academic point. If he goes to trial, New Mexico jurors are familiar with pistols and how they should be safely handled. However, just out of curiosity, I would like to read a detailed report on the weapon in question. I am thinking that there may be some confusion about the media reporting on the FBI analysis.
NullTuples
(6,017 posts)It really comes down to production values. Values & thus procedures & rules to be followed on the set as determined by the on-set executive producer, not the actor Alec Baldwin.
Oh, wait, that's right; Alec Baldwin *was* the on site executive producer.
"Gutierrez-Reed's lawyer, Jason Bowles, told NPR in a statement, "The newly released FBI reports show the revolver was in good working order and that Baldwin had to have pulled the trigger to fire the revolver, directly contradicting his prior statements."
Bowles said Baldwin "ignored" Gutierrez-Reed's request to do cross-draw training, which would have forbade pointing a weapon at anyone or having his finger on the trigger during the cross draw."
https://www.npr.org/2022/08/15/1117577604/alec-baldwin-fbi-report-movie-shooting
sl8
(17,110 posts)Last edited Wed Jan 25, 2023, 10:09 PM - Edit history (2)
The firing pin on old single action revolvers like Colt's 1873 "Peacemaker" (SAA, or Single Action Army) is integral with the hammer, and anything that causes the hammer to fall (or even a hard bump to a resting hammer) may cause the gun to fire. However, the Colt SAA and it's copies have a safety notch and a half-cock notch, which, when working properly, should catch the hammer if it slips while being cocked.
That said, the Colt mechanism isn't the most robust thing in the world and it's been standard practice for a very long time not to rely on it. Rather, the best practice is to carry with the hammer down on an empty chamber.
John1956PA
(4,964 posts)I will leave it at that, since I do not want to cloud the reporting on the facts of the case. I will wait until the case proceeds through the courts before I even think of posting any more of my opinion on it.
sl8
(17,110 posts)To be clear, I was talking only about the Colt SAA and close copies, of which there were many.
If this was a modern design, made to look like a Colt SAA, then it's a whole different story.
John1956PA
(4,964 posts). . . the firearm in question had two partially-cocked positions: one-quarter, and one-half. Again, if the news reporting on the FBI findings is accurate, the weapon was determined to be in good working order and that, if the hammer was set at either the one-fourth or one-half position, the only way the weapon could be fired was with a trigger pull. The news stories reported that the FBI test-fired the weapon several times, but that it eventually experienced breakage of the firing mechanism when the weapon self-fired from a cocked position. I hesitate to post all of this because I have no way to verify how much of it is true, and I am afraid to muddy the waters.
sl8
(17,110 posts)It does sound like a SAA-type revolver.
morty420
(6 posts)There was no other armorer that quit…and Hannah Guiterez Reed was 24 at the time. Infantilizing a fully qualified women who just happened to suck at her job and making up bs about an armorer that quit makes your entire position sus.
ripcord
(5,553 posts)The producers, one of which was Alex Baldwin, decided it was more important to have her working with the prop master rather than being on set when a firearm was being used.
TheRealNorth
(9,647 posts)Because we "can't prove intent", this seems like a smack in the face.
jimfields33
(19,382 posts)I highly doubt it was a political decision.
Zeitghost
(4,557 posts)Is a big part of convicting on involuntary manslaughter.
AkFemDem
(2,508 posts)Because ignoring crimes committed by people who register as democrat is obviously the shoe thing to do. 🙄
You wrote the "shoe" thing to do. I'm just curious; if that was a typo what did you mean to say? If it wasn't a typo, what does that mean?
GenXer47
(1,204 posts)Am I nuts, or didn't movies used to use FAKE GUNS???
What has happened to us? WTF is a film set "armorer"?
I see this as yet another example of how we have slouched into a dangerous state of "casualness" with regard to guns.
Elessar Zappa
(16,385 posts)oldsoftie
(13,538 posts)Real guns shooting blank rounds at pre-loaded targets has been done for years. Can CGI replace them realistically? I dont know.
twodogsbarking
(18,785 posts)
Auggie
(33,150 posts)Involuntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to felony, or in the commission of a lawful act [which] that might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection.
Whoever commits involuntary manslaughter is guilty of a fourth degree felony for involuntary manslaughter."
(11) for a fourth degree felony for involuntary manslaughter, three years imprisonment; or (12) for a fourth degree felony, eighteen months imprisonment.
SNIP
The court may, in addition to the imposition of a basic sentence of imprisonment, impose a fine not to exceed:
(10) for a third degree felony, a fourth degree felony for involuntary manslaughter or a fourth degree felony, five thousand dollars ($5,000)
Full bill at the link: https://www.nmlegis.gov/sessions/11%20regular/bills/house/HB0464.html
---------------
How will the prosecution proceed? Imprisonment, fine, or both?
News Junkie
(312 posts)and do little prison time.
RockRaven
(19,373 posts)I guess I don't agree with the people complaining that this is unfair or inappropriate. The bolded sections seem to apply pretty straitforwardly to this incident:
Involuntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to felony, or in the commission of a lawful act [which] that might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection.
From my admittedly limited knowledge of the incident, it seems like those elements could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt without much difficulty.
Auggie
(33,150 posts)that's my guess.
LetMyPeopleVote
(179,869 posts)ripcord
(5,553 posts)Anyone is responsible for a firearm they are holding. It doesn't matter what the armorer or anyone else on the set claims, the person holding the gun is responsible for making sure it is safe according to the law. There are no exceptions for actors because no government agency certifies or licenses armorers for movies, it is no different from a friend handing you a gun and telling you it is unloaded, it is still the responsibility of anyone holding a firearm to assure it is unloaded and safe. Only a total fool would point a gun at someone and pull the trigger even if they knew the gun was unloaded.
EarthFirst
(4,153 posts)The media however; is ravenously salivating…
Rebl2
(17,741 posts)
Ferrets are Cool
(22,957 posts)
OneCrazyDiamond
(2,068 posts)I doubt he will get any time though, because I think I read the family of the victim has cut a deal for her child to get money for their future.
NullTuples
(6,017 posts)OneCrazyDiamond
(2,068 posts)I looked into the DA. She has a wife, so that makes me less suspicious of her intentions.
NullTuples
(6,017 posts)
Hassin Bin Sober
(27,461 posts)NullTuples
(6,017 posts)
greatauntoftriplets
(179,005 posts)It was a tragic accident, with emphasis on the word " accident".
AkFemDem
(2,508 posts)Effete Snob
(8,387 posts)Of course it was an accident.
Nobody believes he intended to shoot anyone.
When the bus with bad brakes and bald tires kills a bunch of people, that too is an accident. And it is precisely the sort of accident which is avoided by paying attention to the brakes and tires on the bus before it happens.
Irish_Dem
(81,266 posts)
William Seger
(12,443 posts)... and said it wasn't loaded, I'd sure as hell check it anyway.
Irish_Dem
(81,266 posts)1. He didn't check to see if it was loaded.
2. Then he lied when he said he didn't pull the trigger?
dem4decades
(14,057 posts)And if you could, could Baldwin?
And if you can't, what would you do?
You'd ask the expert that was hired to be an expert.
William Seger
(12,443 posts)The blanks I've seen are just cartridges crimped closed; nothing that looks like a bullet in them. Anyway, that's something a jury has to consider in a negligent homicide charge, and if they do find him guilty, a judge might also consider that in sentencing. To be clear, I don't hold Baldwin primarily responsible. I'm just saying, I would have checked -- guns are serious business.
NullTuples
(6,017 posts)And in the case of that film set, he made decision after decision to go cheap to increase his own profits.
People walked off the set days early because safety was so lax.
He could've, should've gone union to protect his workers; he chose greed instead.
Lulu KC
(8,893 posts)Bad management overall. Got very serious. Sorry, dude. That's why you get paid the big bucks.
Irish_Dem
(81,266 posts)He cheaped out and hired people who did not take basic safety precautions.
And he himself did not check the gun to see if it was loaded before he fired.
Stuckinthebush
(11,203 posts)He was ultimately responsible.
Effete Snob
(8,387 posts)Guns are inherently dangerous.
There is a heightened responsibility to take extra care in the handling of guns.
If guns are not handled properly within an operation like this, then what happens is that someone gets shot.
Someone got shot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res_ipsa_loquitur
Res ipsa loquitur (Latin: "the thing speaks for itself" ) is a doctrine in the common law and Roman-Dutch law jurisdictions under which a court can infer negligence from the very nature of an accident or injury in the absence of direct evidence on how any defendant behaved in the context of tort litigation. Although specific criteria differ by jurisdiction, an action typically must satisfy the following elements of negligence: the existence of a duty of care, breach of appropriate standard of care, causation, and injury. In res ipsa loquitur, the existence of the first three elements is inferred from the existence of injury that does not ordinarily occur without negligence.
twodogsbarking
(18,785 posts)actors ever check for live ammunition after being handed a gun on set.
Bengus81
(10,165 posts)Those armorers are the ones 100% responsible for SAFE weapons on a set. Those clowns brought live ammo to the set to shoot cans and bottles in their time off.
Gee...now how could a live round get in that gun??
And now Baldwin will take the hit for this 💩 storm.
I’m so pissed off over this. And my tinfoil protected head thinks this could have been a set up cause “librl” Baldwin played Trump on SNL. I don’t put it passed a bunch of rednecks to make this situation a reality. And we’ll NEVER get the full story EVER. Like most everything of import in this country. Example: supreme court can’t determine the Roe case leak. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤬 yea, sure.
Actors on a movie/TV set are not in charge of checking the weapon. The armorer is responsible.
So what if Baldwin was the producer? He was being an actor at the time of the incident.
friend of a friend
(367 posts)NullTuples
(6,017 posts)
wnylib
(26,014 posts)In fact, I'd bet most sets will use fake guns after this.
RAB910
(4,030 posts)Actors are not required to be experts on firearm safety, that is a fact. The people hired to ensure safety are the only ones that should have been charged.
Bengus81
(10,165 posts)Oh wait the guy lived with a face full of buckshot.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(24,681 posts)I mean, other than a million Iraqis. But other than that ...?
Bengus81
(10,165 posts)Didn't know that.
NullTuples
(6,017 posts)
Kennah
(14,578 posts)wnylib
(26,014 posts)some reports about a gun that misfired withot pulling the trigger.
But as producer, it was Baldwin's job to ensure safety on the set. It was an accident that could have been prevented with better safety standards. Experienced people had already walked off the set due to lax safety. I think that I read somewhere that the armorer was either inexperienced or did not have a good reputation. Baldwin allowed her to be hired.
Too many risks taken unnecessarily and now someone is dead. I like Balwin as an actor and love his films. But he has some responsibility in this.
AkFemDem
(2,508 posts)This didn’t happen in a vacuum. This happened within the context of an ongoing culture of poor safety conditions and dangerous working conditions.
https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2021-10-22/alec-baldwin-rust-camera-crew-walked-off-set
frogmarch
(12,251 posts)ZonkerHarris
(25,577 posts)
Talitha
(7,988 posts)Period.
Kennah
(14,578 posts)Actors do stunts, but professional stunt people are in charge. Handling guns is no different. A responsible, professional armorer handles the guns.
Talitha
(7,988 posts)But the victim was a cinematographer.
Baldwin never should have pointed the gun at them.
Kennah
(14,578 posts)NullTuples
(6,017 posts)Kennah
(14,578 posts)
FBaggins
(28,706 posts)It doesn’t.
Moreover… there is no way for a company to avoid responsibility by hiring someone they call “armorer”.
If they hire someone who is incompetent and/or there is evidence (as was the case here) that prior similar mistakes had been made and the practices weren’t changed… then the producer is also responsible for an unsafe environment that resulted in a death.
Baldwin is on both ends of that chain of responsibility.
Kennah
(14,578 posts)
Marthe48
(23,175 posts)On the day when the top story is r politicians ratting out the country by refusing to take care of our debts, the lead story is Alec Baldwin getting charged.
I feel so bad about the way his story is going. Any other gun death would be treated so differently.
BWdem4life
(3,003 posts)The gun still exists. They can test it thousands of times and show that it physically will not do what Baldwin says it did.
RAB910
(4,030 posts)
Deminpenn
(17,506 posts)twodogsbarking
(18,785 posts)They can then make a movie about the trial.
Will do better than the original movie for sure.
Strelnikov_
(8,170 posts)Shanti Shanti Shanti
(12,047 posts)Involuntary manslaughter in New Mexico is a 4th degree felony with up to 18 months in prison and $5000 in fines.
tonekat
(2,529 posts)CBS Sunday Morning did a segment on him, discussing his new series which is apparently a prequel to Yellostone called 1923, about the US West after WWI.
There were a lot of scenes with pistols and rifles. I thought "I hope everyone is being very careful".