The Uphill Battle of Alec Baldwin's New Charges | LAWYER EXPLAINS
VloĆŸit
- Äas pĆidĂĄn 26. 04. 2024
- Alec Baldwin was charged with involuntary manslaughter late last week in a brand-new grand jury indictment against him. The indictment is for the October 21, 2021 death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins, after a revolver Baldwin was holding on set to prepare for a scene went off, ending Hutchins' life and injuring director Joel Souza. Charges were previously filed against Baldwin, and later dropped. But even with these new charges, the prosecution might have an uphill battle in this case. What do you think? Let us know in the comments below!
TIME STAMPS:
0:00 Introduction
0:34 Background
2:26 The New Charges
5:06 Defense's First Argument
6:39 Defense's Second Argument
12:22 Double Standard for Hollywood?
13:46 What Do YOU Think?
To Become a Member of Byte Club, you can pick between YT, Locals, or Patreon:
YT Members: / @legalbytesmedia
Locals: legalbytes.locals.com
Patreon: / legalbytes
--------------------
đš Our podcast:
Anchor: anchor.fm/legalbytes
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/4i3YLop...
Apple Podcast: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Google Podcast: podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0...
--------------------
đš We have a @LegalBytes Clips channel for clips from our live streams. Subscribe here: / @legalbytesclips4042
--------------------
Follow me here!
Twitter: / legalbytesmedia
Instagram: / legalbytesmedia
Facebook: / legalbytesmedia
--------------------
đ« Dragon's Treasure Teas: Visit www.thedragonstreasure.com/?d... for 10% off some delicious teas and to support this channel!
--------------------
Merch: legal-bytes.creator-spring.com
--------------------
#AlecBaldwin #AlecBaldwinRust #AlecBaldwinRustShooting
Early access to this video is made available exclusively to YT Channel Members and Patreon supporters before the general public! If you want early access, come join Byte Club! (General public will have access at 10 am ET!!)
Thanks Alyte, I am so grateful for your legal insight on this (and all the many other) cases. I feel like his actions are way more suited to civil trials than criminal really, while I've never been much of a fan of his personally it feels like this is a real stretch to me. I know many people are also leaning on the "Producer" angle but I think previous interviews and emails have made it pretty clear he has a Producing credit rather then being an active producer.
Youâre pretty, I donât know if anyones told you that lately. đ€Just wanted to give you an honest compliment.
Alec cant blamed for the safety of the gun when he was being told what to by a gun expert who was the armor
Alec wasnât just a noob day actor who was handed a real fire arm for 5 seconds of screen time and was handed a âHOTâ prop. Wasnât Baldwin also at the very top of the management chain? If so, applying the liability standard ofbother businesses of top management is responsible for enforcing a âsafety cultureâ (often ignored or lessened when $ are tight) wouldnât the prosecution want to introduce those other incidents (if they occurred)? If evidence could show Baldwin was aware that other live round discharges occurred then wouldnât this show recklessness? What ever protocols were in place to exclude live ammo werenât working.
Also, what were the protocols for âRustâ regarding real firearms? Was every real fire arm to be treated like it was loaded? Was Baldwin briefed on these protocols or did he seem to assume he didnât need to be told? There was a tragic incident during the filming of the âCrowâ that reportedly lead to an overhaul of on set safety re: handling of fully functional firearms.
@@christophercripps7639 âBe careful what you shoot at in here, most things in here donât react well to getting shot.â
~Shawn Connery
I stand behind Alec Baldwin, it's too dangerous to stand in front of him.
đźoh. Oh no. Oh Iâm laughing! Iâm going to hell but thatâs okay. Fuck this was too funny đ
đ€Ł
Who loaded the gun? Who was Alec supposed to shoot at? That was meant for that actor who was hated by the person loading the gun
@@SkyBlue-ci1nr Alec Baldwin, the co-producer, and co-author of the script was responsible to never point. A firearm at anyone in a scene as per Course S of Contracts and services.
Unless youâre both in a metal room.
Would love to see coverage of the armorer's prosecution
Yes, this is actually more interesting to me than the case against Alec.
Agreed- Iâm interested where they case will go.
I believe she plead guilty, took a plea deal and is serving her sentence. It was so clear cut she was negligent I wouldn't find it that interesting.
@@petercofrancesco9812just looking at her face I know she is a negligent clown
@@timduncan6750 Hannah Reed wasn't even on the set when the unscheduled rehearsal happened and Hutchins was killed by Alec Baldwin. When the gun, and ammo, was placed on the nearby set table, the gun was not loaded yet. She damn sure didn't load the gun because she was NOT there to load it. David Halls was found guilty of unsafe handling of a firearm and only given a 6 months probation sentence.
We know there were 2 misfires previously on set. Some of the crew walked off because of safety conditions.
So Iâm assuming Baldwin was aware there were some safety concerns.
If the prosecution is going for recklessness it should how the set was ran especially since Baldwin was listed as a producer. I donât think I heard anyone say anything about raising safety issues and the man has a rep for speaking his mind.
@@SEAZNDragon He's listed as a producer, but that is pretty much meaningless unless he was acting as one. Being listed as a producer can be for any number of reasons including simply writing a significant check to cover the budget to actual running of the project. It can mean having control over the hiring or not. I'd assume that the prosecution will know to what extent he was involved with the actual production activities, but he is a relatively big name and it's entirely possible that he just wrote a check or had the credit as part of his compensation for performing.
@@SEAZNDragon safety concerns were raised to the producers sometime prior to the fatal shooting but the producers ignored that. Alec Baldwin could not fail to know about the safety concerns because the film crew resigned the night before and walked off the set with their equipment hours before Alec Baldwin fatally shot and killed Halyna Hutchins. They were complaints on Twitter from crewmembers about about safety problems some days before the fatality happened. đą
Alec Baldwin was a producer who wrote the script and was on set every day of filming. â@@SmallSpoonBrigade
Baldwin IS the safety issue when hes near females who say no to him, his daughter, ex-wife and coworkers.
Guy has a problem with people in general.
Rule #1 of gun safety - "Assume all firearms are loaded until you have checked they are not"...
Agreed and also is common sense.
Agreed! My son learned that during gun safety training at 5 years old! AB ignored safety training feeling he had extensive experience with guns on sets!
Yes, interested in the coverage of Ms. Gutierrez trial.
The most interesting thing for me were comments Whoopi Goldberg made on The View. She said that isnât typical on set. That guns on the set are typically announced checked by several people including the actor and handed to the actor open so they can see no bullets are in the chamber. As you mentioned, if you have to point at the camera (loaded or not) the camera person stands to the side and is protected by plexiglass. I am sure that the prosecution will argue that as a seasoned actor and as a producer,?it is reasonable for him to have known.
Whoopi is not correct. The guns are only checked and handled by professional or trained staff ! Most or many actors and not trained for explosive or gun use to know what is considered to be blank ammunition in the first place . Armorers are hired and relied upon, not directors or actors or stunt people ! Live ammunition is not allowed on any set for this reason and that is the only reason this happened in the first place ! Whoopi is wrong !
Very much interested in seeing more of the trial of Gutierrez read!
This seems to be a meme circulated by the Alec Baldwin, crisis, PR team; âmore interested in the Armorerâ to distract attention away from the Baldwin indictment. The armor wasnât even allowed to be on the set when Alec Baldwin shot and killed Halyna Hutchins. He didnât check the revolver and he didnât insist she be brought to the set to check it for him. he assumed the revolver was safe, fired the fatal bullet and thatâs either reckless manslaughter or negligent manslaughter. One is as fatal as the other.
5:56 Off topic, but I love your helpful paw school intern making a cameow!
I am way more interested in the armorer's case, I will watch the whole thing if it's streamed. It'd be great to see coverage from you!
+1 vote for HGR coverage.
Baldwin told Stephanopoulos that heâd never point a gun at someone and pull the trigger. That indicates he had awareness of gun safety rules. He canât claim he wasnât aware of that.
And yet⊠he pointed the gun at Helana and pulled the trigger.
Very good point!
I definitely want to see HGR's coverage as well, I'm interested to know why she believes she is not as guilty as Baldwin.
Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, because of COVID-19 restrictions, was not allowed on site at the time Alec Baldwin shot and killed cinematographer Halyna Hutchins. As the lead actor and coproducer, Alec Baldwin could have demanded that Reed be brought onto the set to check the revolver for him if he did not want to do so himself.
Reed specifically instructed Alec Baldwin during safety training to never aim a firearm at anyone in a scene. He also had this as a written instruction in.m Course S of Contracts and services.
As it stated, in the video, the matter of negligence, regarding live ammunition, being on, the set is a separate matter from Alec Baldwin failing to take contractual, obligations to handle a potentially dangerous firearm in a safe fashion.
I work on a movie set. Reasonable expectation of somebody who works on a movie set is to follow the protocols set in place which means you have to have your eyes on the open gun before it is considered safe. Baldwin did not have his eyes on the open gun. He took someoneâs word for it. That is not the way we work with guns, and he knows it. He has done this before heâs been on movie sets before he did not follow the protocol that we all follow.
If so that is absolutely awful, his negligence along with other people's negligence cost a fellow human being her life.
@@nadinewhite993 regardless, of who else was negligent, Alec Baldwin, aimed the revolver, pulled the trigger and killed Halyna Hutchins. He disregarded studio safety measures and his specific instructions; that was a choice, not an accident. If he did not intentionally kill that woman, he also did not intentionally follow the safety rules. Thatâs either reckless, manslaughter or negligent manslaughter, itâs up to the court to decide.
He took the word of assistant director David Halls. A director whose reputation precedes him for safety incidents on set involving firearms, and other unfavorable issues. He's already taken a plea deal, as he admits that when he retrieved the firearm from the cart it was put out on by the armorer, and brought it on set and declared it a cold gun, he never checked it and verified that himself. Despite protests of the Screen Actors Guild etcetera that actors aren't responsible for gun safety on set, if anyone else had committed the same Reckless killing of another they would be charged exactly the same as Alec Baldwin has been. There is no actor exception in the law regarding manslaughter.
I would argue, and I think Baldwinâs lawyers will argue, that his previous experience with firearms on set is that when someone says cold gun, cold gun can be trusted.-Toby
Thatâs not going to help Baldwinâs case for several reasons: (1) Course S of Contracts and services states the person in charge of firearm safety should announce in a loud voice to the cast and crew that the firearm is âhotââ and notify everyone present - including the sound mixer, first AD, and stage manager - âprior to any firing of blank ammunition. Unless it is authorized by the property master, â _a firearm âshould never be aimed directly at another individual._ â If it is necessary to do so in a sequence, the shot can be âcheatedâ by aiming the weapon slightly to the side of the other person.â Notice that the AD is one of the people to be notified, the as is not the one to give the notification.
(2) Assistant Director, Dave Hallâs was been fired from a previous movie because he had called âcold gunâ when the firearm actually contained a blank, was discharged, they were minor injuries, and he was fired on the spot. This is not the guy you would trust when he says âcold gunâ.
(3) as noted above, Alec Baldwin was required to not aim a firearm directly at another person in the scene. He was also verbally instructed concerning this in a safety training session by the Armorer.
Just because someone hands me a gun and says you can shoot it, it's empty, doesn't absolve me from being responsible if that person lied to me. Lets be honest, there is no law against lying to other people but there is a law against shooting other people.
Alec's biggest problem is that a firearms expert will testify that the weapon does not function the way he claims.
He would have had to have been pulling the trigger as he was pulling the hammer back or one of the 4 click stops would have prevented it from happening.
Alec's best defense would be to reference the Brandon Lee incident. But the Hollywood standards were changed specifically because of that incident.
Beyond that several other negligent discharges had happened previously as the majority of the crew left specifically for safety concerns.
đđđ Thanks so much for this explanation.
Baldwin's biggest problem is everything he said after the incident. Some of these are pretty arrogant.
There were so many signs that the safety conditions on set were being mismanaged that it might have been a question of when, rather than if, someone got hurt. Nobody can tell me the assistant director wasnât aware.
He skipped a safety training he was supposed to attend, then HGR scheduled a porivate on set session with him (to make up for the fact he skipped the first session) that he then spent on his phone and cut short- surely that's reckless disregard?? Like if he was managing any other dangerous machinery and had skipped the training it would be a problem
Hannah Gutierrez was responsible for the bullets, and there's testimony that Hannah sent an email requesting to use the guns for target practice with live bullets on her time off. She was denied, but Sarah the prop master texted Seth who supplied the film bullets that Hannah was black out drunk & brought live bullets on set!
wow the ABC clip - ominous music, dramatic jump cuts...they really crafted that with a stong feeling of menace and danger.
Omg a paw school intern lol that's the cutest thing I've ever heard
This is an interesting case to keep and eye on. The armorer's case seems more straight forward but I could see the trial going either way. Alec Baldwin is a lot more iffy for me, only because his lawyers can probably convince to jury to set the blame on pretty much everyone else who could have touched that gun
He still was the LAST person that held it, and it was IN HIS HANDS when it went off. He should have checked for bullets when it was handed to him.
He did not understand that this antique single action revolver had NO safety devices. So if you let the hammer fall with your finger on the trigger, thereâs a high probability it would fire. The fact that he was surprised by this entirely normal operation of the weapon shows he hadnât learned how it worked. Or so it appears.
Anyone handling that kind of weapon should have been alert to the danger of releasing the hammer with your finger on the trigger. When your thumb pulls back the hammer, it actually takes a conscious effort to insure your index finger on the trigger does not also pull in the same direction. Itâs also unlikely his antique weapon had a transfer bar or any other safety mechanism. He should have known this.
@@pamelac.3241 I definitely think he is at fault, I just think that his lawyers have a chance of convincing the jury otherwise
@theophrastus3.056 I'm not sure what was said during the gun safety meeting before they started filming. But even if that was never said about the hammer being able to set off the gun, he still shpuld have practiced basic gun safety. Never point a gun at someone, and always check for ammo. If he did either of those things or better, both things, their would not have been a tragic death on set.
@@ilovepie I would have to defend Baldwin on just that particular issue alone, but no other. Some camera angles are going to be done with people in front of the barrel. Thatâs why she correctly says there are special exceptions for movie & TV sets. However, that also imposes a much greater responsibility for proper training of those actually handling those weapons. It appears Baldwin had a very fuzzy notion of how that particular firearm functions. And there are reports he was inattentive during classes that should have covered it. Taken together, that indicates a gross negligence, in my opinion. But Iâm not a lawyer, a firearms expert, or a movie set professional. I have served in the military. We were required to know our firearms thoroughly, including any inherently dangerous characteristics a particular firearm might have.
Antique firearms are very obviously not going to have the same safety improvements of modern versions of the same type. How did he miss this fact? My guess is he didnât pay attention when he should have: thatâs negligence. And his history of past use of firearms in movies makes him more culpable, as that should have increased his desire to be thoroughly familiar with that particular antique weapon.
He should be held to the standards we all abide by as a person's life ended, and safety is everyone's responsibility. You don't cock a gun and point it to a person without knowing if it is loaded and if the rounds are live. This is gun safety 101 and if you even tried this; for example, at a gun range you would be immediately escorted off the premis.
Very good analysis Aleta! A couple of things, during his sympathy tour, Baldwin told Stephanapolous that he would never point a gun at someone and pull the trigger. I think a skilled cross examiner would work with that to Grosskreutz him and get him to admit he didnât exercise due caution. Also, his co star Jensen Ackles told police in his interview that whenever he was handed a revolver with dummy rounds or empty on set, he fired it six times in a safe direction to make sure itâs loaded properly for the scene. I can hear the prosecutor now - âif Jensen checks his gun, why canât Alec?â
@@bradballard4588 there is video on CZcams that was taken with a cell phone in the moments before Alec Baldwin shot and killed.Halyna Hutchins. It clearly shows his finger on the trigger.
The FBI lab report stated the revolver would not fire, unless the trigger had been pulled. Either on purpose or by accident, the FBI managed to damage the revolver, after which it was possible to fire the weapon without the trigger pulled. But that was not the condition in which they received it.
It should be noted. This was not an antique revolver, but a modern replica by the Italian company Pieta.
Biggest issue to this argument and why itâs the weakest against Alec. He did KNOW (although it was wrong information) that the gun was COLD. He was told by two people whose job it is to tell him.
You have a stronger argument saying that he assisted in creating a stressed and toxic environment that lead to these mistakes.
If an actor tinkered with the gun, we could have more cases of guns hurting the actors themselves. They might also not know what the ammo looks like as itâs loaded for different shots. They could also tamper with the gun on accident and it could lead to a misfire, malfunction, or a similar incident to Brandon Lee. So I stand by the idea that actors should NEVER check the firearm. Not their job anyways.
Yep, you only point guns at things you want to harm. They are not toys or like other movie props. They are weapons capable of killing and if one disrespects that reality they end up in situations like this.
@@JessicaPradoHanson a cold gun prop shouldnât be a âgunâ anymore.
I see why people are not understanding this, but there should be so many lines of safety before you even rely on an actor to do their job right.
Even in the best case where Baldwin is aiming anywhere else, a hot gun can fire a bullet that could injure or kill someone through shrapnel. The only line of safety that truly could prevent this is the armory department
Jensen Ackles did a police interview where he gave a lot of interesting detail on the set and its lack of safety but also you can get an idea of how an actor should approach gun safety. I expect him to be an interesting witness if this trial goes forward.
And whose responsibility is that? The armorer. Also, Jensen, who literally lived around guns for 2 decades almost between Supernatural and likely his role in the Boys, compared to Alex Baldwin.
I agree! Ackles is going to be interesting because in his witness statement he was very detailed on his process for handling weapons on a set. He didn't rely on others checking his weapons but did it himself. I wonder if other actors on the set were that diligent. Obviously Baldwin wasnt....
â@@mlouden03Baldwin has been working with guns on set for over 30 years since at least 1990 when he did Hunt for Red October though.
@@cmmosher8035 heâs worked with guns 8 times. Over 30 years, Jensen did that every working day for 15+ years.
@@mlouden03 Who hired the armorer and didn't stop filming once the union crew quit over the safety violations involving negligent discharges?
Alec Baldwin
In N.M. 1955 State v. Gilliam, the defense appealed the guilty verdict claiming improper jury instructions from the trial judge. The judge had given instructions something to the effect of (paraphrasing) "It doesn't matter if the defendants was drunk, someone else loaded the gun, (etc., etc.), the only thing that matters is if the defendant acted without due caution and circumspection." In essence, the judge was saying to the jury, being drunk is no excuse. The defense appealed and lost, with the NM Supreme Court affirming the language of "It doesn't matter if ..., it only matters that ...".
I think this works in AB's favor and focuses the matter on the core (albeit vaguely stated) statute: Did Alec Baldwin act without due caution or circumspection? That's it. That's all the jury has to go on. There are not the kind of laws that people seem to think exist. For example, there is no law that says a person handling a firearm must personally check their own gun. There is only one law and one standard for everyone, Hollywood or otherwise: without due caution or circumspection. That's all.
I can put anything I want into the "it doesn't matter if" clause, so let's do it:
It doesn't matter if AB is a seasoned actor, was the producer of the movie, had a father who was a firearms instructor, has an irritable temperament, sucks on SNL, is great on SNL, is pro-gun control, is anti-gun control, is a Democrat, is a Republican, loaded the gun, didn't load the gun, checked the gun, didn't check the gun, had a lackadaisical attitude towards safety, was talking on the phone during safety training, pointed the gun in a certain direction, had his finger on the trigger, didn't have his finger on the trigger, pulled the trigger, didn't pull the trigger, the only thing that matters is if he acted without due caution or circumspection.
The jury will have to answer that question, and only that question.
Hi, Mavvie! Thank you for joining us today, pretty kitty. I would like to see coverage of the armorer's (don't want to spell her name wrong) trial, please.
Every single gun owner would find him guilty in an instant. He broke the golden rule of gun ownership. Never point a gun at anything you dont intend to destroy even if you think the gun is completely empty. After Brandon Lee the standards are used in the movies as well about pointing a weapon.
Except as many prop masters and film industry types note that rule goes out of the window on films sets as prop guns are getting pointing at someone, either an actor or the camera crew. I'm sure someone is going to point out the scene Baldwin was filming did not have the gun drawn but improvisation happens all the time in film. Also the post-Brandon Lee standard were about the maintenance and handling of prop guns in general. In Brandon Lee's case the crew didn't make sure the barrel of the prop gun was clear and there was a wax blank stuck in the barrel; that wax blank shot out after a blank cartridge was fired hitting Lee and killing him.
A lot of basic rules were broken before that scene, including no live rounds on set. I never liked the idea Baldwin is getting charged for the handling of the prop gun given as Alyte is saying there's a "Hollywood standard" for film sets. However, Baldwin as a credited executive producer should be facing some sort of criminal charge for how that set was ran and who was hired. Before the shooting crew members were about to walk off due to unsafe work condition and several reported the prop guns were being used to shoot targets off set. The armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed worked on a film with Nicolas Cage prior to Rust and a gun she handled shot a blank. She didn't give a warning and by some accounts was too close to the crew. Cage lost some hearing and wanted her fired as a safety risk. While Hollywood is known for some weird power dynamics Baldwin is known as a man who doesn't mince words. I have not heard any stories of Baldwin raising safety concerns on set which concerns me more than how he handled the gun in the scene.
Guns on a movie set are not supposed to be loaded. This is a stupid take
@@NoahStephens I learned in elementary school (4-H and Cub Scouts) basic gun safety and the rule is always treat a gun as loaded until you yourself have verified otherwise and even then don't point it anything you don't want to shoot.
Yes, and the SAG Safety Bulletins on the subject are easily found online.
7:23 LOL magic kitty
Random question: If someone is called to testify as an expert witness, who pays for their travel costs?
Ur mom
The side who's calling them. They also pay for their time, not just travel
Except anyone who has ever worked on a movie set, or taken any film course knows that no matter what a gun is never pointed at anyone. I have worked in film as an instructor. I don't know what he should be charged with but he 100% knows gun safety rules which always always always teaches you to never have a gun pointed at talent or crew.
I donât see any reason to ever have live ammunition on a movie set!
Hannah Gutierrez was responsible for the bullets, and there's testimony that Hannah sent an email requesting to use the guns for target practice with live bullets on her time off. She was denied, but Sarah the prop master texted Seth who supplied the film bullets that Hannah was black out drunk & brought live bullets on set!
Completely agree.
This is not the first time this has happened on a movie set. 1994 Brandon Lee in the Crow was shot and killed with an accidental real bullet was discharged. Wonder if that was charged and if it creates any precedence?
Funny that my dad and I were actually discussing this on Sunday. It wasn't that there was a real bullet left in the gun when they were doing Brandon's scene. It was that the lead tip of a bullet from a previous scene had stayed in the barrel of the gun. Although the it was loaded with blanks, the gunpowder in the blank cartridge ignited, and caused the bullet fragment to be shot out. They didn't properly prepare the prop gun creating the tragedy and no criminal charges were filled with the guy using the gun. I do know that there was a civil lawsuit.
As the previous commenter stated, Brandon Lee was not killed by a real bullet on set. One of the things being consistently overlooked is the fact that someone mixed live ammunition into the boxes of dummy rounds. Gutierrez-Reed has liability for not catching this, but according to her, she has suspicions about where the ammunition came from. This is what I wish the prosecutor would chase down, but they probably cannot prove anything, and the likely guilty party has already made deals. But whoever brought those bullets onto the set is what truly pisses me off.
If he were just an actor, I might be more forgiving but as a producer, the responsibility lies with you to ensure safety on set. Sure, you hire an amourer to manage that aspect on the ground but he would have been fully aware and most likely apart of the decision making that led to there being live rounds used instead of blanks or nothing at all and so should have treated the gun with care at all times. Imo, he should have been certain himself that it was 'cold' before aiming at another person.
SAG rules make actors, as well as crew, responsible for safety. But more important is that state criminal code make everyone responsible for handling firearms safely, without regard to whether they are actors or not.
@@GH-oi2jf Except there were already firearm safety issues on set in the preceding days to the point where crew had walked off in protest; the fact that he hadn't paused filming to sort out the safety issues is a *huge* issue and as producer that is *his* responsibility
Please could we get a more detailed coverage of the armorer's case and continuing details on Alec's case
The person that has possession of a firearm is responsible for what happens when it's fired. That's law, plain and simple. It's the person that has possession of that firearm responsibility to check it themselves before they fire it. Alec Baldwin DID NOT do that.
There is no such law. You're spreading misinformation.
@@trumansparks2338US DOJ 924(c) conviction status, 10 years sentence.
@@sergeantmasson3669"924(c)" insures that people convicted of federal drug trafficking offenses are extra-long when guns are involved. No federal statute criminalizes gun safety. You can be a unsafe with a gun as you want and it is not a crime by itself. It can be an element of a crime, though. For example, the manslaughter state [18 USC 1112(a)] criminalizes the involuntary killing of a person with a firearm where the defendant acted, "without due caution and circumspection." But again, being unsafe is perfectly legal as long a nobody gets hurt.
@@trumansparks2338 You obtained a law degree from where, Walmart or from a box of Cheerios? I earned mine from Yale University Law School in CT.
@@sergeantmasson3669 Iâm not a lawyer and never claimed to be one. Hard to believe an Ivy League Attorney would have such poor reading comprehension.
I know many actors and I think one thing that's missed in most of this coverage is that there IS firearms certification that happens within the acting industry. There are entire courses that actors are able to take (and are often required to take per their contracts with their agents) that include these firearms certification courses where proper handling is taught. This training includes the fact that even if you are handed a "cold" gun, it's still your responsibility to double check to make sure it is indeed "cold". How much legal weight this carries, I'm not sure, but it's aggravating that it's been completely ignored.
Ignored by whom? I'm pretty sure the prosecution's lawyers will be mentioning it, along with a great many other subjects. Anything short of an imperceptible mechanical defect in the gun itself, means it's going to be hard to deny negligence on Baldwin's part.
@@another3997 I thought I was clear that I was speaking about the media coverage. Did you overlook my first sentence where I specified the coverage of the story?
Iâm originally from New Mexico and Iâm telling all yâall itâs truly the Wild West! But this case is just otherworldly đȘđ€ thank you for your insight!â€
I would be interested in hearing Hannah Gutierrez-Reed's trial.
After the shooting, people came out of the woodwork stating how they felt unsafe with her on set/she made them nervous/etc.
*edit - KITTY! *
@leapinglizard3937, Hannah Reed wasn't even on the set when the shooting happened. It happened during an unscheduled rehearsal called for by Baldwin. Hannah Reed had been sent away earlier to arrange props for scenes to be filmed later that day.
So if i get cast in a movie, and my director gives me a gun and says "ok in this scene, aim a shoot toward this crowd of people", then I do and the gun goes off.... I am liable? Why is the director not liable? what about the stage manager who loaded the gun or prop manager who obtained or manufactured the gun. I worked for awhile with a brooklyn workshop that took real guns and altered them to be "safe for use in film"....why wasn't the shop responsible for this gun which they clearly had to have been paid for? This is a mess, and blaming the actor is tantamount to charging them for "disturbing the peace" for when they scream a line at a co-star.
Why did he keep his cellphone from authorities? To wash incriminating evidence is my guess.
Thank you Alyte, It is surprising. This is litterally "Take 2"
Shouldn't there be more people prosecuted? I feel like in something like this even the director would have to be aware that no one is in real danger from a firearm...waiiiiit, was him the director?
Baldwin is/was a producer on Rust. The director was one of the people who got shot, but he survived, since it only entered his shoulder.
Your camera quality is very HD. Nice.
The Actors standard would be the SAG guidelines which state don't point a firearm at anyone, so if you use this he was clearly reckless and negligent. The defence will clearly try to obscure this very simple issue by blaming the others in the chain who also breached standard industry safety protocols and it may work. But hopefully the SAG Guidelines and the FBI testing, showing the gun did not 'go off' but required the trigger to be pulled, should be enough to convict him.
His defence team are working hard to keep the gun testing out of court, it would be shameful if the jury don't see this evidence.
As a regular Joe, I just feel like to suspect your prop is loaded with a deadly weapon when youre literally being directed to point it at someone? That doesnt sound like a reasonable line of thinking an actor would have. An outsider and non legal professional approached with that logic would come to the conclusion every single actor or even athlete who was directed to tackle/throw a punch or a kick and that resulted in injury, they would be at fault. Because they could reasonably expect it to result in injury. Its just logically so strange to me. In my mind, the director or professional in charge *must* be held accountable if the evidence doesnt point towards absolutely intentional harm put forth by the actor.
I'm sort of glad that this charge is back on the table... the whole "what standard" thing always confused me about this because numerous legal commentators seemed to applying the man on the street standard and that just seems completely inappropriate for a movie set. Of course that's not saying that Baldwin acted in a way that was appropriate for a movie set but at least that seems to be asking the right question.
Regarding the whole "Actors and Film studios get to use a different set of rules" thing, I mean yeah i get what you're saying but it also doesn't seem unreasonable that a specialist environment gets to have specialist rules, otherwise certain environments are going to be impossible. I bet a gun range operator isn't going to be able to play by the same rules as the average man on the street... that doesn't mean giving out free passes, it means applying the right compensating controls in one way to safely allow the relaxation of standards in another way. The thing is that if a gun range has stupid rules and a random customer following them in good faith kills someone... that's not the random customer's fault.
Actors rules are SAG guidelines and it clearly states don't point a gun at someone on set.
â@@nomadpurple6154 Which is sort of ludicrous if you're filming a western with a scene involving someone pointing a gun at someone which (movie trickery aside) is kinda the point of a western. Or if someone wants a shot staring down the barrel of a gun.
I think the statement made by someone(I think it was Dwayne Johnson?) that they were going to require completely inert props and make all gunshots digital is a smart thing to do but that decision is well beyond the paygrade of 99% of actors out there and from what i've heard the lawsuit is all about Baldwin the Actor pointing a gun at someone not Baldwin as Producer okaying really dumb gun safety regulations..
is THIS the video that Rob and Runkle were anxiously awaiting to come out?
đĄ David Halls bears sooo much responsibility in this terrible cluster f***.
đ€·ââïžHow did he get off with just a slap on the wrist?
đ«±Halls handed the gun to Baldwin and declared it was "cold" even though Halls NEVER actually checked it carefully (or maybe not at all!)
Halls could have saved a life just by doing the BARE MINIMUM TASK expected of the DIRECTOR of SAFETY by checking for live ammo in the chambers!
In his interview with detectives, he showed how disinterested and uninvolved he was as the DIRECTOR OF SAFETY. He couldn't even recall the names of the armorers he was (supposedly) in charge of supervising!
He knew Hannah Gutierrez-Reed's first name but knew nothing about her assistant Sarah Zachry, both of whom had HANDLED THAT GUN on the day of the shooting.
If you haven't watched Halls' interview, it's definitely worth watching it now.
The reasonable person argument. Baldwin was offered and refused training in gun safety. Now the only possible defences for that are: 1. He didn't have time for the training due to being busy with producing and acting. 2. He felt the training was unnecessary. 3. He had received gun training on his previous movies - and therefore felt he was already at a higher standard of being safe with guns than everyone around him.
Position 1 marks him out as a poor manager who was incapable of completing all the tasks that other reasonable people had to do - all his subordinates did the training and therefore shows that his actions were not those of a reasonable person. Position 2 again marks him as unreasonable. The training clearly was necessary as the only person who didn't train was the only person who shot and killed someone. Position 3 actually marks him out as claiming to have a higher standard of gun safety than everyone around him and therefore the culpability is even greater.
Basically there's no way for him to answer his failure to train without opening himself up to his incompetence.
the defense knew there were live rounds around set. not checking that is negligent.
Did he? There arenât supposed to be live rounds on any set
"supposed to be" doesnt mean much when Alec Baldwin is in charge. Yes there were live rounds, people from the production would even take that exact pistol out and shoot with it when not filming. @@Somero5115
@@Somero5115 the actor is required not to aim a firearm at anyone in a scene (Course S of Contracts and services). Alec Baldwin, disregarding that was the negligent act that resulted in the fatal shooting.
I agree that a conviction will be hard to acquire regarding Alec Baldwin the actor. I am disappointed that Alec Baldwin the producer is not the one charged, along with the RUST production company most of whom were aware (or should have been as administrators of this film) of the disorganized, not properly budgeted and under-staffed movie set. Mr. Baldwin is a narcissistic, arrogant, bloviator. Unfortunately none of these descriptives are actionable by law. Yes a jury could find Alec Baldwin the actor, guilty. However on appeal the expert attorneys that Mr. Baldwin can easily afford will no doubt have any guilty verdict reversed. The family of Halyna Hutchins and her memory deserves so much better. I like the suggestion by LegalBytes regarding, "ALL actors handling weapons be held responsible for that weapon while in their hands." I would like to add to that suggestion...AND SAID ACTORS' EMPLOYER(S) for that movie.
I think Alec Baldwin as producer has settled with her family, paid them a lot of money and made her husband executive producer for the rest of the film
Why is there live bullets in a movie set?
Most of the sets I've been to and from most of my professors have told me in my time in LA, you got ONE job on set. Many people run their set differently, but if the 1st AD tells you to not worry about the props then you are a dumb*ss for checking the props after the fact. I personally agree that whenever you handle a deadly weapon you should treat it with outmost care and precision. But honestly the only way I see Baldwin guilty is in his role as a producer. He is the boss, it's HIS job to not cut corners and create a safe work environment. It falls on him if there's an accident on set that could've been prevented. The armorer failed in HER job on set. Baldwin didn't. Baldwin failed in his role outside of set and it cost someone their life. There has to be consequences for that.
SAG rules require everyone who handles firearms to do so safely.
He skipped the firearm training he was supposed to go to though
Hannah Gutierrez-Reed was not on set at the time of the fatal shooting. She was not permitted to be on site because of COVID-19 restrictions. But as the star of the movie and the producer, Alec Baldwin could have, and should have demanded she come onto the set to inspect the revolver if he was not inclined to do so himself. He assumed the gun and check, he assumed the A.D. knew what he was talking about, and he assumed the gun in his hand was safe.
Three assumptions and the cinematographer was dead.
Assistant director David Halls who has already taken a plea deal for his negligence in the incident has a prior reputation for safety and other unfavorable incidents on prior movie sets, including firearms issues. If you take assistant director and safety coordinator David Halls word for it and don't check the gun you're the dumb*ss.
Also as pointed out to you the Armor wasn't even on location that day because of covid restrictions. Assistant director and supposed safety coordinator David Halls left the set to retrieve the firearm from a cart that it was placed out on and brought it on, set declaring it a cold gun for everybody to hear. Despite that he later admitted to investigators that he never actually checked the firearm and verified that it was a cold gun. Which is why he is has already taken a plea deal for his criminal negligence in the incident. Yet to answer for their negligence but also charged are the armor and producer / actor Alec Baldwin. This was a low-budget shitshow of a production, union camera crew had already walked off set the day before due to safety concerns, replace by non-union crew they called in at the last moment. Their concerns including 2 prior accidental discharges and othet matters regarding the production they were unsatisfied with. Had Halyna Hutchins, also union, had the state of mind to walk off the set with them she would still be alive today. Unfortunately she was loyal to the production and stayed and it cost her her life the following day. Because Alec Baldwin went and shot and killed her like a dumbass.
this is gonna be very interesting at trial.
He was also the producer er of the film and allowed cast to use real firearms in their breaks....with live rounds. He allowed that, so in the "how did the live rounds end up on set?" issue, he could also be considered negligent
Wow you are so right...
Thanks for your POV...I'm sure that if the script had called for AB to point the firearm at his wife or kids, he Would have checked the weapon first.
Iâm still wondering why everyone ASSUMES that it was an accident ?
for sure follow up on the armorer!!
In the British Army you are specifically instructed to never point a weapon at a person you donât intend to kill. So as a side note, if a British Solider is pointing a weapon at you and gives you instructions, take those instructions very seriously.
On the question of live round, why could the weapon accept live rounds? A reasonably prudent person would have used a weapon that had been modified so it couldnât use live rounds (a small dowel in the chamber would have prevented live rounds being loaded).
On a movie set, letâs say it calls for a scuba scene, would an actor go underwater without personally checking they had air in their tank. As I like breathing, I would check my air supply and not rely on a third party, I think the same duty of safety applies here.
Hollywood, where they're more worried about offending someone than killing someone. This is the most literal example of that where Alec refused to check the gun for fear of offending the AD.
Having heard him speak, he's pretty cooked.
1) It's a revolver. The bullets, no matter the type, would have been plainly visible. And so they should have been treated as potentially live.
2) It's a revolver. The function of the hammer is to pull back _and then release the hammer_ so that it can strike the bullet currently chambered to set off the primer inside.
3) By his own words, he let go of the hammer. _You never let go of the hammer on a revolver unless you intend to fire it._ There is a distinct tactile feeling when the hammer is caught versus when it is not. He should have never "let go" of the hammer. He should have lowered the hammer, controlling it until it was safely at rest against the bullet in the chamber again. He claims that he never touched the trigger, which he would have had to do to put the revolver back into a "safe" condition.
Itâs going to be interesting.
The prosecutors are relying on David Halls in both this case and against the armourer. He says the armourer handed it to Baldwin and declared it a cold gun. A number of people contradict this and say Hall handled the gun and made that call. There are reports he was fired in 2019 when a gun he was handling went off on set and injured someone.
The seeming swiftness with which a deal was made with Hall, is not a great sign to my mind. I am not based in the US, but the prosecutors seem to have focused on Baldwin pretty quickly. It kind of makes sense, he had the gun, he was a producer, but it seems a bit weird to do a deal with an AD who might be a lame witness. I mean, he apparently has a poor track record with firearms and has self interest in making a deal.
Iâd have thought theyâd have more beneficial neutral witnesses. Interesting to see what new evidence there is.
I also think that the legality/liability aspect kind of undermines some rational analysis of what went wrong. I know it wonât be popular to say, but id you want to fix hollywood, the best way to do it is hold the producers liable, and have a no fault-process to analyse what happened. Itâs worked in aviation.
Can you do a video on the guy who shot someone for pulling into his driveway?
Itâs clear the Baldwin did not understand how this particular antique firearm functioned. Pulling the hammer back and releasing it while his finger was on the trigger has a very high likelihood of the weapon firing. That indicates he didnât pay attention during his training, which is enough to show negligence. Especially if the report of him being on the phone during gun safety classes is true.
They decided to use real antique firearms for authenticity. That adds an extra burden to be thoroughly familiar with how they could be safely handled. So how could he later claim he let the hammer fall and was surprised the gun went off? It functioned exactly as it was supposed to.
He's playing dumb. By the way, the revolver was a modern replica, not an antique.
@@GH-oi2jf But it had no modern safety features, correct?
One wrinkle is that NM case law has established that criminal negligence is always required for involuntary manslaughter. So that will be required even on the predicate misdemeanor negligent handling of firearm alternative. This is more than just that he "should have known" the risks; it essentially requires a reckless mens rea, in which defendant was subjectively aware he was creating a risk to others. Volokh has blogged on this.
Many people argue that any normal adult with knowledge of firearms simply HAD to be aware of the risk involved. I don't see this. My model of Baldwin is that he was acting in habitual ways just as he had on all other "cold gun" rehearsals throughout his long career, and was focussed on the gun movements for the camera (without attending to where it was pointing), so was essentially completely oblivious to the idea he was creating any risk. He did not have a mindset like "oh, this is dangerous, I shouldn't really be doing it, but f** it, I'll do it anyway" or any guilty mindset remotely like that. And also that he is a basically good person who would not knowingly create a risk to others.
And comes the response that he should have known better, or a rational person would have known. But this is all irrelevant if you take seriously the mens rea officially required for the charge.
In practice, however, I dont believe people really do take this mens rea requirement seriously. They are happy to apply an objective standard, even if the law officially requires subjective recklessness.
Please cover the armorer's prosecution because of the different types of responsibility.
Anytime someone hands me a firearm. I expect to them to show me it is clear. If they don't I will check myself. For someone that has been in Hollyweird as long as he has. He know gun rules.
While I think Alec Baldwin should cut the victim's family a big check, criminal charges require either deliberate intent, or extreme and willful negligence. No one else on set was complaining about Baldwin's behavior with the gun, and multiple people handled the gun before him and did not adequately check that the gun was unloaded.
No double jeopardy?
He never went to trial the first time. Charges were dropped without prejudice
There has not been a final determination in the case, so no, double jeopardy isn't triggered here.
@@LegalBytesMedia Thank you for the clarification. Much appreciated!
@@LegalBytesMedia if the armor is telling the actor that a firearm is safe and is giving the actor instructions and the actor is doing exactly what they are saying should take guilt away from the actor the armor is untimely responsible. what you are saying is Alex should have actively disagreed with person hired to be an expert. also a producer is many different things to a movie and being one doesn't mean he was involved at with day decisions about the film it can mean you just collect another paycheck and slap your name on the movie
A reasonable person on a work site believing that everything is in order and following direction should not be negligent. He's not a firearms expert! That's why movie sets have armorers.
But... sometimes there's no reason for something to happen!
I think theyâre leaving out a chunk of the evidences against him. Thereâs no way theyâd be charging him if it was a case of accidental shooting. Iâm thinking once they present their evidence weâll see.
Mr. Baldwin has been in sooooo many westerns, he should know that single action revolvers have the firing pin on the hammer and that you can never just release the hammer. You always slowly return the hammer to rest. If there is a live round, blank or with a bullet, dropping the hammer is likely to set off the round.
Why there were meant to be health and safety experts of gun use on set at all times. Always risk using real pistols and not blanks I guess that's common sense .
He seems to think the gun malfunctioned . He is so dumb he doesnât realize if u pull back the hammer and Let go it fires
@@Maximus90277 It did malfunction. Nothing was supposed to happen other than the hammer hitting a dummy round. The fact that there was a bullet in there that shouldn't have even been on set doesn't make it any less of a malfunction. If he weren't on a set and that happened, I would completely agree, but it was on a set and there weren't supposed to be any rounds on set because of this sort of thing being a possible eventuality. It had been roughly 30 years since the previous fatal shooting, so it does seem like a bit of a stretch to suggest that he was negligent by trusting that the protocols were being kept sufficiently well to allow the performance.
But, we'll have to see what the evidence is and whether or not this is something other than overly zealous prosecution and grandstanding.
Michael J. Fox has made 3 time traveling movies, he should be able to build a flux compensator from scratch while blindfolded and hands bound behind and then perform a time travel back and forth.
It seems like the case against the armorer is: were there adequate firearms safety procedures (assumed to be implemented and enforced by the armorer) and how did her actions allow those procedures to be subverted? The same basic factors are involved in Baldwin's case. I find it hard to imagine that the armorer would be convicted and that Baldwin wouldn't. If someone with the experience Baldwin has inadvertently shoots someone else with a gun that's apparently in proper working order, that's the definition of negligence in my book.
He's an actor not a soldier, I don't think as an actor you're suppose to know about the various props you handle. Not sure as producer where the responsibility lies.
I think of the 1st 4 rules of gun safety. It would not have happened if Alec had used them when handling the revolver.
given movies have guns pointing at people, its hard to do the standard safety precautions of not point it at someone as if it was live. lots of movies would be pretty lame with all the cops yelling FREEZE with their guns pointed in the air or 7000 edits of firing rage shots edited into a scene.
its important that a gun is fully checked multiple times by multiple people before getting on set in the first place, and if it has to be loaded with blanks, those blanks are loaded at the latest possible moment.
as an army vet with weapon expertise, theres no way that would have happened under my watch even if he hadnt checked the gun, unless he had loaded it himself after i handed it to him. the handlers are clearly at fault. the real question is did he act like a diva to bypass safety for the sake of his ego or professionalism i met him once and he strikes me as the kinda guy who would throw things at people of they didnt do things how he wanted
also if the stories about people playing around with the guns and live rounds is true, theres where the negligence lies
I too, would like to see the armors prosecution to see how that goes. They have a professional armor on the set. I think that unhooked Baldwin from double checking it. If there were witnesses to the gun being handed to him with the term cold gun to me that seals the deal with the jury, no matter what they think of Alec.
no not at all. when you work at a gun shop and showing guns you pull it out of the case check clear, hand it to the customer they check clear, and when they hand it back to you you check clear again. id fully convict him just based on the fact he admitted he pulled the hammer and let go. when he previously lied saying it went off on its own. my main revolver i have never even used the trigger and shoot it exclusively by fanning the hammer.
â@@quint2568Actors aren't gun nuts nor are they required to be gun nuts.
It's always the best idea to keep your mouth when it comes to potential criminal liability. Don't self snitch.
As director he tried to make a low budget movie which is fine but don't cheap out on armorer and/or gun safety..imođź
I understand to make a case the state can need to make deals, but it still chaps my booty that the propmaster and AD aren't also getting prosecuted. They all have culpability.đą
He also wouldn't participate in the armourers safety training classes before the shoot.
Ya. If it wasn't a movie set I'd say ya. But if I'm in a scene and the armorer, the professional in charge of gun safety, handed him a gun and told him it was clear. You are reasonably going to believe that it is OK.
A reasonable person with gun safety knowledge never points a REAL (not toy) gun at anyone period. You use a dummy point so if a live round were in the gun it would not hit anything living. They even protect the expensive cameras that way + they often add plexiglass in front of it.
- Don't point the gun at anyone = not going to negligently kill someone
- Use a dummy point - again prevents a bullet from killing someone
- Treat all guns as if they are loaded
- See the gun cleared in front of you or clear it yourself. (no blanks, or dummies were needed for that scene so the chamber should have been cleared of anything which means anyone could check it for NO ammo. Revolvers are very very easy to check this on. Yet refused when asked.
Convict HIM!
Love your work and I appreciate this video, but I STRONGLY disagree with a few points made in the video and overall rhetoric.
1) An actor should never be the expert on a firearm. Aside from their not being practical. They may have a misunderstanding of how the prop weapon works and what each âbulletâ is. Itâs the problem with âToo many cooks in the kitchenâ. Relying on actors to check their weapons could lead to other incidents that put them and others in harm.
Armorer should be able to do their job at their own pace as well. Having an actor hover over them can be a distraction, cause the armor to rush their process or miss a step.
An actor may be over-confident in their knowledge as well. If they tinker with the weapon to check the safety, they could accidentally cause the weapon to be more dangerous.
Having an actor involved in the safety of weapon can simply create too many variables that could lead to incidents.
2) cold gun, means cold gun. That is a very important part of this case that should not be overlooked. This meant the weapon was checked and declared safe. So no action that an actor makes would set it off. That is why the director and Alec were comfortable with the weapon. And it precisely because of prior experience, that they became complacent with handling the weapon. They were not negligent, they acted believing they were safe.
3) As for aiming the weapon and plexiglass. Plexiglass isnât a solution. I have never seen plexiglass used on set for a COLD Gun. Itâs possible that it is used in some sets but what Iâm getting at is that this doesnât seem like a standard. It is also not his job to put plexiglass there.
The way he aimed the gun and everything is a common angle. Nothing he did was out of the ordinary. As an actor, thatâs what he supposed to do. And there are plenty of other people there that did not direct him to not point the gun the way he did. Again this is all because everyone believed it was a COLD GUN. A very protected and important term. Cold Gun should have just as much weight and importance as saying Hot Gun.
4) As for Hollywood playing loosey goosey . I strongly disagree that this is an example of that. I argue that the actors should never be responsible for the firearm as the stresses along with their other responsibilities creates a potentiality for an incident.
Hollywood is very departmentalized and very protective of its unions. Some departments canât even touch a loose screw if it belongs to another.
I think the issue is people see production as ONE job. But itâs multiple industries in service of a common goal. The armorer department should have enough checks and safeties that the product is safe as it is delivered. Not having the actors accountable isnât less accountability, itâs MORE accountability on the department responsible for the safety of their product/service.
I do believe that other departments can cause issues. All producers and managers should be investigated and we should get a timeline of how actions lead to the incident. I worked on a set that was extremely disjointed and hostile. The stress of the set lead to multiple meltdowns and breakdowns. I even had an incident due to the stress. I take responsibility for causing the incident but I do wish the people above me were held responsible. I could literally feel the difference leaving that set. I could think normally, I could process my job normally. I thought I was bad at my job, but the more distance and experience Iâve had, the more I understand that the job I was on was a shit show and shouldâve had more people step up. And I know people did, a friend was let go for it
Was the firearm on set real and capable of causing deadly force?
Yes
Did he have a responsibility for the safe use of a real firearm?
Yes
Did his use of a firearm result in a negligent death?
Yes
Donât use real firearms if you canât handle the responsibility that comes with their use.
Did the armorer get charged already?
If Baldwin was handed a gun by the armorer, stating that it was a âcold gun and then accidentally shot himselfâŠIt seems clear that 100% of the responsibility for the accident would be the armorer.
Itâs not clear how this responsibility changes because he accidentally shot somebody else.
how many times can he be charged?
John Wick shows that its not necessary for real guns to be used on a movie set
this Rust producers (Baldwin) had 2 college girls with 0 firearm experience helping the Armourer load the guns. Live bullets were on the set, and these girls had no clue the bullets were real. The actors who did have gun experience were too snobby to help the inexperienced girls with the guns.
Alec is trained in gun safety. He didnât check his gun. Itâs like a driver asking the passenger âis the handbrake on?â then the car rolling and killing someone. The driver would be responsible. Alec is responsible.
Alec Baldwin's lawyers claim the Baldwin had near nothing knowledge about firearms which is total BS. In several of his movies, he fired many different firearms. "The Getaway", and "Hunt for Red October" are just 2 examples.
Quite frankly, they shouldn't even have real guns on movie sets...
It takes more of a deep dive than this since the first set of charges were dismissed due to the condition of the gun which broke while testing which couldn't rule out Baldwin's story. What has happened since is even more troubling since the gun was reportedly given to independent experts that might of used replacement parts to do testing. If this was presented to the Grand Jury its worse because it evidence tampering and wasn't the only steps taken after the tragedy since the charges may be Unconstitutional if there based on new laws passed afterwards. Laws were passed to enhance the charges in the handling of a firearm only after the accident and if true they can't be used retroactively against the actor. When Involuntary Manslaughter with a firearm is often used when those using then knew there was live rounds involved like at a gun range or when left loaded on purpose. Another example that did not lead to charges was in the death of actor Brandon Lee on the set of The Raven when a blank everyone knew was being used in a gun pointed at him. Indeed he along with the one holding the weapon didn't expect anything but a bang but its power was lethal enough to kill since it drove what was in front of into his chest. In Baldwin's case the belief was similar since the gun having a live round was thought to be impossible because an Armorer was in charge of its safety no one else. It was her fingerprints on the live rounds casing not anyone else's and allegedly passed drugs thought to be cocaine she had on her so it wouldn't be found by Police that came in. In a video taken at the time she seemed to lament more that no one would ever hire again being the first time she was lead Armorer from a family well regarded in it. It wasn't even her that gave the gun to Baldwin but an assistant who called it Cold that made a fast plea for their testimony with an unsupervised parole with just a fine should be just as guilty under these charges. Since Baldwin and likely Hutchens who died along with others thought the Armorer had done their job the gun was about as dangerous as a doughnut that day. Indeed its telling that it seems they've abandoned the claim that he would have had to pull the trigger this time but neither is the assertion that he had to know that it might be loaded with live rounds. It was only after the fact some were found on set or in it and the Armorer which should of known the difference since it was their at fault alone. The Screen Actors Guild has come out to support Baldwin since they also know that this is why an Armorer is hired even when cast replicas are used like Police Series carried only in holsters on set. Its taboo in the film industry for anyone but the Armorer to handle any weapon real or otherwise until its needed and only given then retrieved by them to an actor because its a fail safe but in this they proved lethal.
"READ THIS"
The prosecution would have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was subjectively aware of the danger: that he actually thought about the possibility that the gun might be loaded, and proceeded to point it and pull the trigger despite that. That's much harder than just to show carelessness, or even gross carelessness, though of course much depends on what evidence the prosecution has gathered.
I don't think so. A firearm is a deadly weapon as a matter of law. Everybody is expected to know that.
âThe analysis from experts in ballistics and forensic testing relied on replacement parts to reassemble the gun fired by Baldwin, after parts of the pistol were broken during testing by the FBI. The report examined the gun and markings it left on a spent cartridge to conclude that the trigger had to have been pulled or depressedâ.
* The gun was allegedly âmodifiedâ. In this respect there very well could have been a malfunction, either by a defective sear causing the hammer to be discharged with no amount of pressure being applied. Additionally, one cannot determine whether live or âblankâ rounds were in the gun ( F.lli Pietta long Colt 45 revolver) simply by spinning the cylinder. This was the job of the âArmorerâ and assistant to check and verify the safety of the weapon (Prop Gun).
@@SuperSynoptic Baldwin said, on camera, that he pulled the hammer back and then let it go
What's the argument? That's not a malfunction
@@NewMitchell-wh3fj
** * A slip gun is a revolver which has been modified to disconnect the trigger from the hammer, so as to cause it to fire by pulling back and releasing the hammer. Often the hammer spur is lowered, so the gun may be fired by wiping one's finger across the hammer. Enough said.
SAG-AFTRA puts support behind Alec Baldwin following manslaughter charge in 'Rust' movie shooting.
""To the extent that the charges filed on January 19 are based on an accusation of negligent use of a firearm predicated on this or any actor having a duty to inspect a firearm as part of its use, that is an incorrect assessment of the actual duties of an actor on set," it said."
"It added, "An actorâs job is not to be a firearms or weapons expert. Firearms are provided for use on set under the guidance of multiple expert professionals directly responsible for the safe and accurate operation of that firearm."
If guns in American movies are real, does that mean that aliens in American movies are also real?