What Comes Next for the New Alec Baldwin Charges
Vložit
- čas přidán 26. 04. 2024
- ⭐️ Download Love & Pies here: pixly.go2cloud.org/SH42P
Thanks again to Love & Pies for sponsoring this video!
Last week, New Mexico prosecutors announced that they would be re-charging Alec Baldwin for the death of Halyna Hutchins while on set to film the independent film "Rust." What does this mean, what's changed, and what can we expect from the new charges? Come watch and find out!
Time Stamps:
0:00 Introduction
0:58 Background
4:18 New Mexico Prosecutors' Loose Ends
6:31 What Changed Since Baldwin's Charges Were Dropped?
13:04 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
--------------------
🚨 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...
--------------------
🚨 We have a @LegalBytes Clips channel for clips from our live streams. Subscribe here: / @legalbytesclips4042
--------------------
Follow me here!
Twitter: / legalbytesmedia
Instagram: / legalbytesmedia
Facebook: / legalbytesmedia
--------------------
🫖 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
![[실시간] 전철에서 찍힌 기생생물 감염 장면 | 기생수: 더 그레이](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4nkFvwxGAfA/mqdefault.jpg)
⭐ Download Love & Pies here: pixly.go2cloud.org/SH42P
Thanks again to Love & Pies for sponsoring this video!
My Love & Pies addiction needs no more encouragement. I'm late to the party only on day 23
@@Rotten_Ralph sorry to feed it with more pies.. and more love 😂
Gutierrez-Reed should 100% be charged. There never should've been live rounds on a god damn movie set. Period. That's 100% on her.
There is some serious negligence going on here and somebody should be held accountable.
I don’t think the main liability lies with the trigger pull. I think the liability lies with how the live ammo made it on set and into the gun.
there were several steps of failure here. if there was no live ammo, this would not have happened, but if the trigger had not also been pulled, this would not have happened. not to mention the dozens of other steps in between that had to be points of failure for this to occur. that's why the steps are so redundant. it's astounding the number of points that had to fail to get this tragic result, but here we are.
I think focusing on the trigger is a weird thing to do. Is he culpable as a producer? Probably. But the fact they gave immunity to one of the key players who could have been responsible, quite early, is weird. Sometimes in these cases, parties with a lot of culpability will try and turn first.
From what it sounds like, he pulled back the hammer but didn’t pull it far enough to lock it. So when he let go, it fell and fired the bullet. So no need to pull the trigger.
I agree, I think the only reason why they are not looking more into where the ammo came from is they have already eliminated the most likely source, the prop house providing both guns and ammo, they chemically analyzed the lead and the gunpowder in the rounds found on set to ones from the prop house and couldn't come up with a match beyond all reasonable doubt.
We know full well how sloppy this set was run and managed with the prop master (who was not much older/experienced than Reed was as an armorer) who kept bad records when things like Ammo were received and used.
IMHO the live ammo was mixed in by accident from the Prop House, but without records stating what bullet came from where and when, on top of the lack of physical connection they couldn't bring charges against the Prop House. Its one of those things..."We know what happened, we just cant prove it beyond all doubt in a criminal trial."
You're going against 1000 years of common-law tradition. The person controlling the gun hold responsibility for what happens when they pull the trigger. It's always been that way but still I'd love to hear a good argument for changing our long-established tradition.
Yes this case should go to trial. That gun did not pull its own trigger and safety concerns were brought up before the shooting
7:50 If he pulled the hammer back to just before the hammer hook caught and released it completely the gun could fire without pulling the trigger (which is exactly what Baldwin described in the interview). But the gun never should have had a bullet in it to begin with and that was the job of the Armorer, who handed the weapon to him and told him it was safe.
@@maurer3dI've always been of the opinion that If Baldwin was going to be criminally charged it should focus on his role as producer and not his handling of the gun. The crew was ready to walk off due to safety issues and there were multiple complaints about how the guns were handled-including being used for shooting targets in the desert with live ammo. From what I understand Baldwin's producer credit was used more to get investment but this was a small set and Baldwin is a veteran actor who knows how sets work. If he was aware of unsafe conditions and didn't at least raise an issue with other producers or the directors that at minimum will cloud his defense.
@maurer3d The armourer has been charged, and I'm sure Baldwin is an unbiased witness in his own case 😂
@@maurer3d that is absolutely NO defense. "i pulled the hammer, not the trigger" is just semantics. what does the trigger do? it pulls the hammer.
@@theghostofthomasjenkins9643 The trigger does not pull the hammer (on old guns like the one involved in the incident) it just releases the hammer, assuming the hammer was fully pulled into locked position.
Right away I would submit that a basic premise of gun handling is that there are no accidents. There are established rules for basic gun handling, and there are established rules for gun handling on a movie set. These rules weren't followed. If they were, the outcome would be different. The question, as I see it, is: Who is culpable for not following the rules, directly precipitating the unfortunate event, and what should the punishment be?
Who is culpable?
--*The Armorer*
------for not ensuring that all weapons were either locked up or under her direct control/handed to talent by her
------for not shutting down all production involving firearms following the first negligent discharge, until every single round was gone through to ensure that there were zero live rounds anywhere near the production venue
--*The Assistant Director*
------for violating the "only the armorer hands the talent firearms"
------for declaring it a "cold gun" without checking it, nor having witnessed someone else checking it
--*Alec Baldwin*
------for having accepted the weapon from someone other than the armorer
------for not having checked (or witnessed a checking) of the weapon to determine that it was a "cold gun"
------for pointing the weapon at the victims (when not explicitly called for in the script [which wouldn't have ever been the case, since the victims were off camera])
------for having readied the weapon and pulled the trigger
--Whoever loaded the weapon
------no one should have loaded the weapon without having confirmed the safety of each and every round being inserted. Ian Runkle (CZcams: Runkle of the Bailey) has a video demonstrating that someone with absolutely zero firearms knowledge could accurately differentiate between live rounds and dummies, even when literally blindfolded.
------the Armorer is right to have complained about the FBI not having finger-printed the casings to determine who that was
--*Anyone with control over production*
------for not shutting down all production involving firearms following the first negligent discharge, until every single round was gone through to ensure that there were zero live rounds anywhere near the production venue
What should the punishment be?
What are the penalties for negligent homicide? Those penalties. For all 5(+) of those persons.
SAG, specifically, has many firearms rules. They become extremely strict when there is any chance of flagging. Needless to say, these SAG rules weren't followed.
@@Londubh thank you for these specifics! I agree
It’s crazy that they even had functional guns on set in the first place. With today’s technology you don’t even need a prop.
I'm surprised the armorer didn't face more issues- putting it on the actor is a strong statement that may mean other actors refuse to use guns at all if they can't trust them to be empty. Her charges might still be pending but we don't hear much of it despite having the largest liability I would think. If he's being charged more on the recklessness angle, you'd think other producers would be charged as well.
And she’s still being hired as an armorer, which is strange
This is a really good point!
I think the reason is that he’s a producer. In essence, he’s her boss and, if the evidence gotten from set reflects that he knew what was going on, then he’d have more culpability than she would
Fortunately most armorers do their job properly. AKA never put live rounds into a gun that is a prop for a movie, and never puts a blank in the gun unless the scene/shoot requires it.
Honestly, actors probably shouldn't use real guns exactly because stuff like this can happen
Very clearly criminal levels of negligence is on display in this case.
Yeah, but not by Baldwin. Whether he pulled the trigger or not is a complete red-herring. He certainly did, but that doesn't automatically make him responsible.
Live ammunition isn't supposed to be on set, much less inside a prop gun. The director called for a gun loaded with dummies. Dummies look exactly like real cartridges. That's what they're for. But they're filled with BBs, and rattle when you shake them. This is the only way to tell the difference between a live round and a dummy round.
But it gets worse. The rounds in question were starline brass. Starline is a company that ONLY makes dummy ammunition ... they do not produce live ammunition. So someone had to have taken Starline dummy rounds, and MADE THEM LIVE by reloading them with real propellant and a real firing pin. Then, on top of that, the armorer loaded those live rounds into the prop gun, and handed off the gun to the director, OPENED UP the gun and showed that it was loaded with what she claimed were "dummy rounds" (some of which were actually live), and left.
In other words, the director called for a loaded gun... loaded with dummies.
Baldwin is an actor, not a soldier. It is not his responsibility to check the gun for live ammunition. The only way to do that would be to UNLOAD the gun, and shake each round individually to check for a rattle. And if he did that, the gun would no longer be allowed to be used without being re-checked by the armorer. He's not even ALLOWED to unload the gun unless that's part of the scene.
If someone handed Alec a live grenade, and told him it was a prop, would you be blaming Baldwin when the grenade went off?
This is insane. There definitely is criminal negligence here, but not on the part of the actor who got handed a live weapon. It's everything that led up to that moment that caused the death of Hutchins.
@@ConsciousExpression He has producer obligations, and a producer is defined as a jobs provider. As an actor he isn't guilty. As a producer, he is from my perspective as a filmmaker.
@@thenightninja13He was not in charge of hiring, set conditions, or anything like that. He was a creative producer. There ARE people who were in charge of hiring and staffing and conditions on set. You can find out their names if you are actually curious and looking for the truth. You clearly are not.
Do you know the difference between a creative producer an executive producer? Baldwin was the former, not the latter.
Creative is in charge of ... creative stuff. And it's often a kind of honorary title. Executives are in charge of hiring and firing and staffing and conditions on set. Baldwin was not an executive.
@@ConsciousExpression There is no way as a producer, he wouldn't be privy to specific issues happening on set.
Let me be perfectly clear, even as a "creative Producer" He has an obligation on set to be safe. Producers are above the line people that are in charge of everything. They say a word, and it gets done even more so than a director. He can overrule everyone on set with how much influence he has.
I say this as a filmmaker who has produced regional Emmy award-winning productions.
If he wants a cushy title that has no responsibility, keep the actors title. A producer has a real role and responsibility on set. He is getting paid like a producer. He is being credited as a producer. He is a producer. To not do his job as a producer on set is negligent.
@@thenightninja13Sorry but I don't believe you for a second when you say "I say this as a filmmaker who has produced regional Emmy award-winning productions."
If you don't know the difference between a creative producer and an executive, and you just think that everyone with a title is equally responsible for everything, you're just not credible, sorry.
Actors are not professional gun-handlers like police and the military. A rookie mistake is to have your finger inside the trigger guard before you are ready to fire. It takes training and practice to have good finger discipline especially when drawing and pointing a pistol. The close up scene that was was being filmed may have required Alex to have his finger on the trigger which is a setup for an accidental discharge imo.
Of the people that want Baldwin charged, how many of them have held a pistol and used it? Did you handle it like a snake and could not wait to get it out of your hand? Now consider an actor that handles and carries a "prop" gun on set possibly in multiple movies over a number of years. You get comfortable with the prop piece.
The armorers gave the actors real guns with live ammo and no way to tell if the ammo was a dummy round. It was a setup for tragedy. Jailing Baldwin will not prevent this from happening again.
I have a similar opinion on this. He may have had his finger on the trigger while rehearsing the scene, which could absolutely lead to an unintentional discharge.
Fundamentally this comes down to a lack of evidence for me. Unless the new documents prove he had direct knowledge that live rounds were being used on set, I just can't see sufficient evidence of culpability here.
He's a seasoned actor with a lot of gun training for movies. He's not some shlub who's never picked one up.
If Baldwin was just another hired actor, and this happened, the state would be wrong to go after him with criminal charges given what we know, but Baldwin was the producer and the boss on set, and THAT i the reason why I think that they should go after him. And they should start going after other management for work related on the job "accidental" deaths that could be avoided by better management practices.
A rushed production doesn't load a live round into a gun.
The armorer does that. The armorer also picked a cheap, or worn out gun for the scene, one that broke on testing.
And since the armorer's previous gig allowed an unsafe discharge, she has a history of dangerous gun use.
This is a pattern.
As for the FBI gun lab BREAKING the gun, that's typical. The Bureau got busted for faking evidence and had to throw out a bunch of cases. They are sloppy, or corrupt, maybe both.
People working on the production said safety was being ignored.
It was ignored and that negligence, Baldwin DID pull the trigger-that’s also negligence. It’s clearly not wise to trust whoever brings you the gun- an actor should double check
The one thing that bothers me in this case is that I can't tell if they want to go after Baldwin because he was holding the gun or because he was an executive producer... It sounds like they might be going after him for both reasons as if they are the same reason, and that's where I have a bit of a problem with the case as I understand it so far.
Either he made a mistake and shot someone or the production was mismanaged and "anyone" could have had a mistake and shot someone. These should be addressed as two completely separate situations/crimes and investigated/charged separate from one another as well.
There's no reason a defendant can't be criminally responsible in two unrelated ways for the same crime.
@@exegetor Totally agree, but in this case these two roles are totally unrelated (actor and producer), and I have to wonder, if he was just an actor and not also a producer? Also, if he was only producing and not acting in the role that was holding the weapon, would they be going after him in the producer role?
This is where it may be problematic... it seems they are only going after him because he was both the actor and the producer, and I don't think being 50% at fault for one part and 50% at fault for another part should be added together in this way to make him 100% at fault.. if you know what I mean.
These two roles should be prosecuted totally separately imo.
Very well put!
Hope for a trial. If anything, we need justice for the victim
The firearm going off is possible if it was an original Colt Single Action Army as it was not a four click action. The hammer pulls back and even if you don't pull the trigger if you didn't pull it back all the way and let go it would fall on the firing pin and discharge a round. Guns like that can't be made today. This was a Pietta reproduction. So it is an Italian made modern firearm that looks like a Colt Army. If you pull the hammer back even a few millimeters it will not be able to fall on the pin. It will catch on the first click. That block can only be moved out of the way if the trigger is pulled. The firearm would have to have something like three safety parts break for it to fall on the firing pin. As soon as I heard what the firearm was I knew he had to pull the trigger whether or not he was aware he did. This is why trigger discipline is everything if you want to handle a firearm.
You should look at the evidence photo showing the box of ammo with the dummy rounds and the three suspect live rounds mixed together in the same box. These rounds look virtually identical to each other. It would be nearly impossible for any actor to tell the difference once they are loaded into the gun. Some of the dummy rounds have dimpled primers, some don't. All or most of the dummy rounds have DENTED primers, but so do the live rounds. All of them look like they've been stored loose and rolling around underneath the seat of a Ford F-150 pickup truck for the last 25 years, in other words, they aren't exactly pristine. People insist AB should have checked the gun himself. What would he have looked for, exactly?
For me, the only question that matters: Why was the gun loaded with live ammo? Who was responsible for that? Everything else is kinda immaterial. The actor is presumed to not know about guns and is supposed to trust the armorer to have the gun in the proper configuration for the scene. If there is criminal culpability it is on the armorer, not the actor. The actor was an unwitting part of an accident that does not happen if the gun has been prepared properly.
The actor pointed a weapon at a person, readied the weapon, and pulled the trigger. Two independent forensic labs determined that, despite his protestations, there is zero possibility that the weapon would have gone off without him having pulled the trigger (or held the trigger in the pulled position; see: fanning a revolver [
@@Londubh The gun was broken, it had to be reconstructed to determine pulling the trigger was necessary. If I were on the jury that's sufficient doubt to acquit.
@@lagautmd wrong. The FBI could make it fire if they pulled the trigger, and that worked. They then tried to make it fire without pulling the trigger... but couldn't without beating with a hammer, and even that didn't work until _they_ broke it.
In other words, they had to destroy the weapon in order to make it do what Alec lied, I mean, claims happened
@@lagautmd or, put another way, when people say "the gun was broken" they don't mean, "was non-functional" they mean "they broke it trying (and failing) to prove that Baldwin's claims were possible, thereby disproving his claims"
Well said 💯 facts
Baldwin incorrectly asserted it was Hannah who handed him the gun when first interviewed. He later admitted it was Dave Halls after realizing he had contradicted other's stories. This shows he was aware of lackluster safety practices. More importantly Baldwin proceeded to film that day when the people who walked off the set took the safety partition which was supposed to protect the cinematographer. He then flippantly aimed directly at her, when this, without safety plexiglass, would be a HUGE no no. Then he pulled the hammer with his finger in the trigger area. Then he claimed he didn't "pull the trigger" when even a child knows that if you cock that weapon with the finger where he had his, unless you are extremely cautious (not rapidly drawing the weapon which is what Baldwin was doing) it is an almost inevitable result. He should face a year or more in prison because of this combination of factors. His apparent attempt to cover the fact of who handed him the weapon shows his culpability for unsafe practices leading to this accident. We have his negligence as a person in charge, his negligence with the weapon, his negligence of being aware that HGR was saddled with duties and not present in the church, and his decision to proceed after the safety plexiglass was taken and not available as a precaution. These are the reasons he should face jail time, and many people following this aren't really aware of every one of these factors. They may know some of it, but taken together is paints a full picture of his culpability.
Knowing the maxim that a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich; I feel like this is the best start. If even they say "no," then that would settle Baldwin's innocence for me.
I feel like this is the prosecutor appropriately hedging their bets. Their hand is forced by publicity. I feel like a trial is a coin flip at this point, given public knowledge.
For further explanation, though it doesn't matter (I'm a random on the internet, why you still reading, ty), but my personal beliefs are as follows. Actors in movies (upon direction) perpetuate the false reality, that when drawing a gun one's finger rests on the trigger. The reason actual gun users consider this dangerous is the originator of the expression "hair trigger," where the gun goes off after the movement of just a human hair. There are (publicly) open questions as to what Balwin knew about documented safety lapses and the core of why a live round was even in set. This is legit a case study in why legal systems should exist, in spite of the flaws that definitely need modernization. Let evidence and consensus dictate future action. Very science, I like.
Attractive people = innocent.
Ugly people = guilty.
A ham sandwich isn't an attractive person. I rest my case.
NO one handling or working with and around a gun should be allowed to not know and practice gun safety.
Reminder that Baldwin refused to hand over his cellphone during investigation, despite a warrant. I know he knew about the safety.
So many people on this topic are misinformed, sadly including Alite apparently. Baldwin was not in charge of hiring or the conditions on set. He was an actor and CREATIVE producer. Not a producer in charge of staffing. You need to watch the 60 minutes Australia episode on this, and also dive a little deeper into the details of the case.
Whether he pulled the trigger or not (obviously, he did), is completely irrelevant. It's a red-herring.
There was no way for him to visually inspect the weapon to make sure it wasn't loaded, BECAUSE IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE LOADED. With dummy rounds. Dummy rounds look exactly like live ammunition, that's the purpose of dummies. They're used for shots where you need realistic looking ammo that won't go off.
The AD called for a prop gun loaded with "dum-dums." Hannah brought the prop into the church, opened it up, spun the chamber, and showed it was indeed loaded, with what she claimed were dummy rounds. But two of the rounds were actually live ammunition.
And it gets darker. The live ammunition in the gun was reloaded Starline brass. Starline ONLY makes dummy ammo. They do not produce live ammo. We know this because Starline has a logo on the casing. And the cops also found several other rounds of starline brass that had silver primers and were filled with propellant.
So someone had to have taken dummy rounds and loaded them with powder and a primer and turned them into live ammo. Then that same person brought those rounds to the set.
Hannah admitted in her police interrogation that she had been needing dummies the entire shoot, she randomly found a box of dummies on set, grabbed the box and put it in the prop cart. Presumably she also later loaded those "dummies" into the prop gun that killed Hutchins.
Tthe only way for Baldwin to figure this out would be for him to UNLOAD the gun, shake each round individually for a rattle (dummies have BBs inside instead of propellant, so they rattle), and then reload it. And that is definitely not only not his job, it's something he's not allowed to do. If he unloaded the gun, it would have to be reloaded and re-checked by the armorer.
Bottom line is, if you hand a gun with LIVE AMMUNITION in it to an actor, it's very likely someone is going to get hurt. Blaming the actor is insane.
I watched the Jensen Ackles questioning here on YT and he said that usually when he is handed a gun he “fires” it to the ground 3 times to make sure it either empty or loaded with dummies, does that make any sense? From what you say it seems he shouldn’t be allowed to do that but he seemed EXTREMELY SHAKEN by the fact that he couldn’t remember if after the lunch break he had checked the gun again or not… I think he thought it could have been him the one holding the gun that day and it would have destroyed him so he was trying to calm himself by saying “I would have known because I would have checked the gun, this would never had happened to me”. He had been handling guns on set daily for 15 years prior to this event and ha has absolutely no reason to lie.
Can you post the link to the Australia special? Thanks
@@giuliadenobili5334 No. Firing a dummy ruins the dummy, because the firing pin puts a dimple in the dummy round, and it doesn't look realistic, which defeats the point. Also, firing at the ground is dangerous. Literally the only way for dummy rounds to be used safely is for the armorer not to be negligent as Hannah Reed was.
They are the first and last line of defense and also supposed to be responsible 100%, no excuses. The fact that she is making excuses should tell everyone everything they need to know about her as an armorer. A professional would own that it was their mistake, no ifs ands or buts.
Because it is literally their job to say no, we cannot do this, if it isn't safe to do. And it is their job to make sure no LIVE AMMO gets loaded into prop guns. It shouldn't even be on set.
What's more, this ammo was specifically starline brass. Starline only makes dummies. They do not make live ammo.
So someone deliberately loaded what are exclusively dummy rounds with live ammunition. And the DA only cares about the schmuck who was handed the live weapon. It's insane.
@@giuliadenobili5334 It's not hard to find by searching. I find that if I post links or even tell people what to search for the AI flags me as a spammer.
Do I think he did something very wrong? Yes.
Do I think it's fair to trial someone when your biggest evidence was a gun the police broke? No.
So I have mixed feelings about this
Yes I believe a criminal trial should go ahead
The FBI *proved* the gun was 100% functioning as intended. The only way they could get the gun to fire without pulling the trigger is by hitting it with a hammer hard enough to break the mechanism. A private forensics company took the gun from the FBI, replaced the broken parts with identical OEM parts, and further *proved* that the gun was functioning as intended. They even measured the amount of pressure it required to pull the trigger with the hammer down, the hammer at half-cock, and the hammer at full-cock. In short, it required very little pressure to pull the trigger and fire the firearm at full-cock. Alec Baldwin had pulled the trigger but so little pressure was needed he probably didn't realize it in his agitated state arguing with his victim.
I love how Baldwin is getting charged but instead of the person who brought live rounds on set and it’s just all focus on Baldwin instead of the person brought live rounds on set ridiculous.
i feel so bad for him. virtually any of us could accidentally commit manslaughter, that's what that's what manslaughter IS, right?? it's awful for everyone involved, not JUST the person who died and her loved ones, it's by FAR the worst thing that's ever happened to HIM too.
You mean... "After he negligently shot her." Yes prosecute, and let it play out in court instead of the media.
It sounds to me like they still do not have knowledge on how real bullets got into the gun, which is troubling. I don't think Baldwin should be charged as an actor, but potentially as a producer. Pulling or not pulling the trigger is not the issue for me. It's how the bullets got in the gun in the first place (which was the job of the armorer) and it sounds like there were complaints on the set of unsafe practices/cutting corners on safety that were ignored by the people in charge of the shoot. If this is true, I would think ALL producers and studios in charge of the production (anyone who had knowledge of these complaints) should be potentially charged, not just Baldwin alone.
Baldwin I think was the only producer regularly on set and he was leading the production himself
If that is the case and he was aware of safety issues on set and did nothing , then he has some responsibility for what happened.
The gun used in the fatal shooting on the "Rust" movie set could not have been fired without pulling the trigger, according to an FBI forensic report obtained Friday by ABC News.Accidental discharge testing determined that the firearm used in the shooting -- a .45 Colt (.45 Long Colt) caliber F.lli Pietta single-action revolver -- could not have fired without the trigger being pulled, the FBI report shows.
With the hammer in the quarter- and half-cock positions, the gun "could not be made to fire without a pull of the trigger," the report stated.
With the hammer fully cocked, the gun "could not be made to fire without a pull of the trigger while the working internal components were intact and functional," the report stated.
The D.A. in Santa Fe gave an interview to the celebrity lifestyle magazine “Vanity Fair” in February. Carmack-Altwies said that she wanted to see for herself if Baldwin told the truth to ABC about not pulling the trigger.
She said she conducted an “unofficial test” with a similar revolver owned by her staff. She told the magazine:
You can pull the hammer back without actually pulling the trigger and without actually locking it. So you pull it back partway, it doesn’t lock, and then if you let it go, the firing pin can hit the primer of the bullet.
The magazine then wrote, “And that can cause a live round of ammunition to fire.”
It sure seemed Carmack-Altwies wanted to find a way to let Baldwin off the hook, despite his ignoring all gun safety rules.
I think it should go to trial. All the evidence needs to come out. It's such a horrible tragic event and it needs to be determined one way or another if negligence caused this.
I love watching your coverage of these cases. I watched intensely with you and your viewers as you streamed the Johnny Depp Amber Heard trial...I learn so much from watching you. Please keep it up. ❤
IMO I think that the gun broke during testing might give a jury enough reasonable doubt to acquit Baldwin. IMO the armorer should have prevented live amm* to be on the set. I am glad that Baldwin was sued, though.
If there is a single splinter on a set it will find its way into an actor's flesh. Leave any screws exposed under ten feet in the air and performers will find a way to lose an eye. If the floor has even a 1/32" gap there's about a 100% chance an actor will trip on it. Your props, no matter how sturdy, will get played with, tossed, beat up in every way imaginable. Hand an actor something flammable? May god have mercy on your soul.
This is not a legal analysis, this is just the reality of the amount of memtal load the performance mindset takes, especially if you want high level, quality acting.
Your job as a technician is to *toddler proof* the set. An actor who is lazer focused on how to move/talk/emote/react to best serve the camera has just around the same amount of critical thinking left over as a three year old. In my unprofessional opinion, the actor is only 5% at fault at best. Even if an actor breaks armory rules, it is your job as a technician to enforce them and educate preemptively when necessary to ensure safety. You are the brains of the operation - it is not right to put your performers' lives on the line and then blame them for not also doing your job.
Sounds like the management was cutting corners for safety to save money
I do think the gun being reconstructed could bring enough doubt on that piece of evidence to be substantial.
An issue the gun may have had before could no longer exist after being broken and repaired.
I would agree - unless it is something like a missing piece that is still missing I assume you could call almost everything about it into question.
A revolver works by the trigger pulling the hammer back and then releasing it. You can cock the hammer manually, of course. But you can also _release_ the hammer manually. The gun fires when the hammer strikes the bullet with sufficient force to set off the primer that ignites the powder within.
You don't need to pull the trigger to fire a bullet from a revolver. That said, if he had cocked the gun until it held, and then _uncocked_ the gun, he would have had to hold the trigger in order to release the hammer. So, he absolutely pulled the trigger. But that wasn't the point where the gun fired. The gun fired when he let go of the hammer and let it strike the back of the bullet. And his finger was likely nowhere near the trigger at that point in the process.
The gun safety on that set was appalling. That there was live ammunition anywhere near a gun to be used as a prop is just a tragedy in waiting.
I read the original indictment, and all of the information about misfires that happened on set, etc. It's just too tangential. There is no way to show a causal relationship between the prior misfires and the safety concerns and the shooting. They are unrelated to each other. Therefore, I don't think it will be sufficient to show involuntary manslaughter.
This is going to come down on blind luck when they pull the Jury members. The gun is a dead issue, as "the trigger had to be pulled" is easily restated as "people who work with guns lacking imagination in order to acquire the desired conclusion." This also ignores how someone who has no intent to pull a trigger can still do so with the side of the finger. This ultimately asks the question of whether you consider the trigger to have been pulled if Alec did not do so by intent or an act of squeezing the trigger directly. As for the financial angle, the state loses again a lot of the time, because people do not make these kind of movies for anything but profit, and corners being cut is called being fiscally responsible with the money of others. This is a witch hunt with someone's political aspirations hanging on the outcome, and this case would be well and truly over if this was an unknown actor with even twice as many "cut corners." Definitely a case of prosecutorial misconduct IMO.
Honestly I don't understand why the gun even matters.
To me it's irrelevant whether he pulled the trigger or not. If he was just a random cast member than he's IMO not guilty (even if he pulled the trigger}. But if he was a producer with knowledge of safety issues who didn't act to address those issues than IMO he's guilty (even if it was someone else holding the gun).
In fact, if the gun shoot by itself that demonstrates poor safety standards on set.
The victim who was put to her death ☠️ deserves a court trial to find out who’s to blame for this tragedy.🎭
This is such a complicated and somewhat ethical case… I think if there is even the slightest doubt he could be somehow responsible it should go to trial. But at the end of all this it’s an enormous tragedy and I hope the main effect will be that Hollywood changes the rules on guns on set. Too many people died for these kind of accidents, it should never happen again and if I have to watch a movie that is slightly less realistic to make sure that nobody dies ever again I will happily do so! I watched Jensen Ackles interrogation after the shooting and he looks so distressed and traumatised by this, it breaks my heart!!! He keeps saying “it could have been me, I could have been the one holding the gun that day”. This would keep me up at night for the rest of my life! He also said he never felt unsafe on set. I know he wasn’t always there but I also think he’s the kind of person who would have said something if he’d thought something was wrong so the negligence wasn’t probably that bad… I imagine a set (especially for a low budget production) to be a very chaotic environment… yet the ONE question at the end of the day is: how did live ammo end up on set. Isn’t it?! There was NO reason for those bullets to be there!
I do think it should go to trial, because at the very least someone was negligent which lead to a death. There's no excuse to have live rounds in a gun while shooting a film. That being said, the fact that the FBI managed to break the gun is a big issue in my view, because there is the chance there really was something wrong with it. Don't get me wrong, I don't think the gun fired itself, and even if it did there would still be an issue because it had live rounds inside, which it shouldn't. From what I heard, the most likely explanation is that he had the finger on the trigger while cocking the revolver, and lightly pressed on it without realizing, which could be enough to shoot the gun. Knowing how likely that is to happen on that specific gun would be useful information, which may now be unreliable. I know there were tests before it broke, but if they were conducted by the same people who broke the gun their experience may be put into question.
If he wasn't a rich and politically connected Hollywood star, he would have already been found guilty of negligent homicide
So i fully accept i don't know enough about guns and that gun specifically to say this is possible but could it be that, as he described, he didn't fully pull back the hammer and on releasing that's what caused the firing mechanism to hit the firing pen?
But to me the biggest thing in this is his knowledge, if he knew anything about the safety issues, the live ammo on set, any of that then he deserves some sort of punishment..
The details of how the particular revolver fires are not as important as two safety rules:
1. do not point a firearm at anything you are not prepared to destroy.
2. upon receiving a firearm, verify its status. If it is supposed to be clear, prove it.
Should go to trial
Yes, it is proper to bring charges. He admitted he knows never to pull the trigger of a firearm while pointing it at anyone. He says he was specifically trained that way. Yet he did pull the trigger against what he claims he knows he never should've done. His lies about his actions suggest consciousness of guilt.
What are they doing with real rounds on a movie set??? Should they not use blanks?
Blanks still can kill
@@samanthapateman8054 ok, what do you think the militarty uses for training purposes, and also normal film making set. It might not be perfect, because yes the explosion and wadding can cause injuries (sometime to death, but unlikely), because the wadding can on occasion penetrate if shot very close or bruise at mid distances, it still is a hell lot safer than reg.
My opinion is that Baldwin should have been put on trial by now. There are many things about this case that are murky,, but one fact is perfectly clear. Only one person held the revolver when it was pointed toward two people and fired, killing one. That person was Alec Baldwin. There is no dispute about that. The question is whether he was negligent, making him legally culpable? That is a question for the jury.
Baldwin has been trying to minimize his responsibility in his many public statements on the matter. In my opinion, he is the person responsible for this death by his reckless handling of a firearm.
Pound the facts.
Physics and mechanics are such that it is _impossible_ for Hutchins to have been shot and subsequently expired without four things:
1. The weapon having live ammo (or at least a round with powder in it) in the chamber.
2. The weapon being pointed at her
3. The weapon being readied by pulling the hammer back
4. The weapon's trigger preventing the fall of the hammer
1. Baldwin negligently failed to check himself nor observe someone else checking that the weapon had no dangerous rounds in it.
2. Bullets don't curve, so he _must_ have negligently pointed the weapon at her
3. He admitted to having pulled back the hammer
4. The FBI proved, through both non-destructive and destructive testing, that the only way for the hammer to fall would be operation of the trigger. Thus, Baldwin _must have_ operated the trigger. Operating the trigger when not explicitly required by the script is negligent. Operating the trigger when the other three factors are in play is _insanely_ negligent. Intention is irrelevant to Negligent Homicide, because lack of intention is why it's _Negligent_ Homicide, rather than some form of Murder.
And all of this negligence is despite the fact that there was a previous negligent discharge on the set, which Baldwin _knew_ because that was part of why some of the crew left.
No, if the Prosecution is intelligent, they'll have expert witness after expert witness after expert witness slamming those facts over and over and over again, and Rebuttal Witnesses who could refute the Defense's witnesses as wrong or irrelevant.
"Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, you have a simple question before you. Was he negligent on any of Points 1, 2, or 4? Given that Point 3 is not in contention, if you answer answer yes on _any_ of these questions, any single one of them, you have no choice, you _must_ convict, because if he had done his duty on _any_ of them, Halyna Hutchins would be alive today.
"If you answer yes to _any_ of those questions, you must convict. If some of you believes he was negligent only on point 1, and others that he was only negligent on point 2, and others believe he was only negligent on point 4, and others believe that his admission on point 3 was negligent... that means that you all _agree_ that _he was negligent._ The form of his negligence doesn't matter, only that he was negligent. If he was in any way negligent, you must convict.
"To do anything else would be to declare that the rich and famous are not subject to the same laws that apply to each and every other person in this room. To do anything else would be to declare that the life of someone behind a camera means less than the prestige of someone in front of it. You don't believe that do you? Give the people of New Mexico justice. Give Halyna Hutchins justice. Give Matt Hutchins justice. Give Andros Hutchins justice."
Ridiculous. Baldwin not only had no reason to think live ammunition was in the gun, he had every reason to think that there was no chance live ammo was in the gun. Live ammo is not even allowed on set. Much less in a prop gun. And Hannah, the armorer, delivered a live weapon to an actor.
The gun was literally SUPPOSED to be loaded. With dummy rounds. Dummies are not blanks. They are realistic looking cartridges that have no propellant and can't explode. They're used for shots where you need a loaded weapon in the shot.
They called for a gun loaded with dummies. Hannah brought the weapon into the church, opened it, showed that it was indeed loaded, with what were suppoedly dummies, but they weren't.
The only way for Baldwin to know this would be for him to unload the weapon and shake each round for a rattle. Dummies rattle. Real cartdridges don't.
And that's not only not his job, it's against regulations. He isn't allowed or supposed to load or unload the weapon unless that action is in the script.
If you hand an actor a live weapon, it's very likely someone is going to get hurt. Actors are not soldiers, they're not cops, they're not marksmen and they're not gun experts. They may play those roles in the movies, but the reason that you have a single expert on set in charge of weapon safety is BECAUSE IT'S ACTING NOT REAL LIFE.
The set is not a gun range or a battlefield.
If you hand an actor a live grenade and claim it is a prop, are you then going to say he's responsible when the grenade explodes and people get hurt?
If he was trained like he said, we would have made sure he was playing with a toy. Their should never be real rounds on a movie set. Ever!
If the armorer had previous problems with guns- so she was cheap to hire- whoever hired her is culpable.
Whoever loaded the gun with live ammunition is culpable.
Baldwin with all of his experience in movies should have known better. Blanks can kill too. Safety was ignored- thats On Baldwin
both are responsible. Should have checked the gun himself. Always. Everytime. Tragic.
His cell phone might be the smoking gun. The one he did not want to turn over to authorities.
I stand behind Alec Baldwin! Because standing in front of him is too dangerous
Perhaps this time the prosecution will proceed with care. Alec condemned himself.
oy the fbi broke the gun! ugh
RIP Halyna Hutchins. Check the chamber yourself, Mr. Important. Every time. Can’t outsource your liability.
Since he was only rehearsing he could have pointed the gun at an imaginary camera anywhere else. If he doesn’t have the imagination he could have brought in any object as a camera stand in. He could use his phone and it would be a good publicity material. How I shot my phone after it pocket dialled one time too many.
My opinion is that Alec Baldwin is legally culpable as a producer. However so should all or most of the other RUST producers. For example, Hannah G-R did contact a line producer, Gabrielle Pickle who responded to Reed's complaints about her job before the fatality with, “We hired you as both Armorer and Key Assistant Props” (sorry I do not have a link to that data). However the title "Producer" can mean anything from profit sharing, maintaining the production's budget, to determining who is hired for on set duty such as...armorer. Interestingly enough the information provided by Rust Productions regarding titles, duties, average salaries and profit sharing by producers might be of an assist in resolving the SAG/AFTRA strike (as of this post it is ongoing) to show just what level remuneration for producers can be.
He was so stupid to talk at all. Dude thats all admissable. He pointed it at her. Thats a big F'ing no no . He deserves charges along with the armorer and that AD
Thanks Alyte I hope we get cameras in court!
If it goes to trial, I hope so, too. 🙂
Am I missing something? To me whether Baldwin pulled the trigger or not should be irrelevant. During his job as an actor, pointing the gun, pulling triggers etc is part of the job? Similarly as a race car driver drives the car as fast as possible within the governing rules. Blanks can kill at short range and there must be rules around that, if he broke those then I get it. But the culpability surely lies with whoever put a live round in the gun. All other arguments seem like fluff and grandstanding BS.
well, the scene did not require any trigger pulls to start with, and they also weren't filming at the time, just getting setup, lights, camera angles etc, so there was no reason for his finger to be inside the trigger guard at all. and if he wants to brag about how he knows his gun safety, then it does matter if he pulled the trigger or not. especially considering it could be on him as a producer that there was live ammo anywhere near the set. (which I'm pretty sure the charges will be based on rather than his role as the actor who pulled the trigger)
He shouldn't pull any triggers or point them at people which he did. Gun rules for movies are pretty strict.
@@darkhighwayman1757 That’s great to know although I am perplexed as to how they make movies with those OH&S conditions, especially with certain camera angles and the amount of actors on a set. If in fact they are meant to use fake/replica guns then clearly a crime has been committed. However, nothing yet explains
1) why live rounds were on a movie set
2) how a live round made its way into the firearm
3) how did the person in charge of the firearm allow its use unchecked
Surely the person who chambered the round is ultimately responsible while the person who supplied the round and or gun are to some degree also responsible?
When I was in the Navy you used blanks to fire the salute at funerals. You were responsible for chambering the round, and the armoured for supplying it. As a blank it still had a lethal range, so you were also accountable for the weapons discharge. If the rules are equally clear then the alleged crimes seems really clear.
abc anounces it is supporting alec baldwins by this inter view
I can see him having to pay for liability as a producer having an unsafe film set but to charge him for any kind of criminal charge feels also gross. Unless he is forced to fight to make guns in movies safe I don't see the point that seems like an obvious accident even if it was negligent
Hannah is the guilty party
Alec Baldwin having been one of the producers, whose ultimate responsibility is to provide for safety on set, should be he held responsible as well as the other producers.
And I think he should also appear before court as the actor who held the gun which killed Halyna.
Am I right here, what do you think?
Alec is a jerk. With his bank he should have stepped up right away to help the family of the one he killed. Bottom line is never point a weapon at anyone unless you intend to use it.
When making movies you should always check thoroughly with the props I find it being an accident
Accident or not he is responsible for his own actions. And, his lying about the trigger is disrespectful. Anyone else would be charged.
idk. I think the charges should have been dropped based on what was presented before. I wouldn't find teh gun reconstruction evidence that compelling because there would be know way to know how close it matched the gun's state prior to its mishap @ the FBI. So unless the doc's show that Alec was more than just the guy on set when the gun went off and he actually knew the production was cutting corners w/ safety and either didn't care or actively encouraged it I think there is not much to go on for a prosecution.
the filming of Indiana Jones comes to mind when he wasnt feeling well so instead of sword fighting he just shot the guy (thats why no squib)...
The argument that "they broke it, so it must be faulty" is idiotic on its face:
--The FBI broke the weapon when trying to prove that what Baldwin claimed happened (the weapon firing without some sort of activation of the trigger) _could_ happen.
--The FBI couldn't make it fire without activation of the trigger _without_ breaking the weapon.
--This proves that the weapon _could not have fired_ without (A) depression of the trigger (B) breaking the weapon.
--The weapon wasn't broken before it came to the FBI, thereby eliminating (B).
----Thus, the only possibility is (A)
----Thus, Baldwin must have operated the trigger in some way.
--Operating the trigger when not specifically required by the script is negligent.
--That action resulted in the death of Hutchins
--Death resulting from negligence is negligent homicide
----Thus, Baldwin is guilty of negligent homicide.
QED.
The validity/relevance of the 2nd forensic study is suspect due to the replacement of parts is _highly_ suspect, because "faulty hammer" would lift some degree of culpability from Baldwin, and that was one of the parts replaced before the 2nd study.
I really wonder why they seem so determined to finish a movie, a person died working on. That fact makes me definitely not want to watch it.
If I remember correctly it was part of the settlement with Helena Hutchinson's husband who will also be credited as a producer in the movie. I think the idea was not to let Helena's last work die and to do it right.
A more jaded perspective is that the people who invested money in the film want a return on their investment, and making Halyna's husband a producer was helpful to make him an ally to the finalization of the film (and less likely to want to help the prosecution, which could stand in the way of that). 😐 Not sure what the motivations are, but they could be varied.
It will be tough to decide if I want to watch it or not. I also can’t imagine how hard it must have been for cast and crew to go back there!!
The real solution would be for the concerned unions or insurers to impose the use of airsoft and replica guns instead of depending on security measures that have killed a number of people over the years.
Using blank is like using mercury thermometers : it works, but it's a very bad idea if anything goes wrong
A trial (and condemnation) would be a good incentive for such a ban.
I wonder if there are minor laws that they can apply here, that they may bring to bear
Why are you assuming it was an accident?
I’ve seen no evidence that it was his purpose to shoot and/or kill Halyna Hutchins. The main legal question for his criminal case is whether he was reckless in handling the firearm in the way he did that day.
Shit happens leave the man alone
Baldwin killed that woman. She is gone forever. To her husband, to her son and to her loved ones. Gone, ever gone.
It would seem only fair to see him face some consequences or accountability for this careless, unintentional act…
It was Alec's fault, These rich actors and actresses just expect the whole world around them to just fall into place, life doesn't work like that, always check you're firearm, common since.
he was proven a liar and for my money should have gone to jail years ago!
he was the man in charge of everyone there
he pulled the trigger no question
he cut all the corners
ignored all warnings
without him a mother would still be here!
I didn't pull the trigger..excuse .
Cheapskate producer Alec cut corners to save a few $ aka paid for inexperience with real bullets on set.He knew safety were a issue people quite a week before, he didn't do 💩to improve it.
When I've seen this all those movies Brandon lee Was the time and space of repeated by something? Revoking by a spirit If this one is copy at this gun. This is what happened 😮🙁 I see this guy The bullets were real It came back for. Lee The one the only revised By crow rust The movie are real life This is the two connections from this day forward You make these movies are realistic might be case I was remember when my grandaunt life china I see bruce lee son That was happened ☝🏿
Alyte, the question has always been in my mind, was the gun ever functionally cocked? Single action revolvers have a two stage cocking mechanism. It is possible, since the firing pin is part of the hammer, that the gun could discharge if the hammer is released and the hammer is not actually to the catch mechanism. There is always an audible "click" when the hammer passes the first or second catch. If the gun is sufficiently dirty/gummy, the catch may not operate (no click) and the hammer is free. if the hammer is free and is released, it will fly forward and the pin will impact the primer resulting it the gun firing. It can also happen if the hammer is just shy of the first catch and released. Mr. Baldwin could be telling the truth and still be guilty of firing the gun through carelessness. If he was in a position to effect the cutbacks in safety, that makes him liable for the overall lack of safety that resulted in death and injury. Just my opinion.
I think this is a very sound analysis. If it does in fact go to trial, I expect expert witnesses to testify with this level of specificity on what actually was happening with the revolver. Also, the point you made about cutbacks is exactly what the prosecution is after to shore up a case against him. I'm really really curious to see how all of that evidence unfolds.
Doesn't this count as double jeopardy?
No because it didn't go to trial and get a verdict.
@@jen6373 I see. Thank you!
Shouldn’t go any further… Use common sense people trust your intuition Alec Baldwin is a good actor good human being good father good husband good friend nobody’s perfect but he’s certainly did not intend to kill anybody and he didn’t need the money he just enjoys making movies… and like all of us must make money… In this country they are😢 so quick to demonize people I think this whole thing should be dropped and not pursued… Definitely not forget but forgive and move on…May the diseased Rest In Peace and the injured heal…Next time anybody is an any scene where a gun is pointed at them what I would do is I would just go over walk over to check the girls empty go back to my scene…I would not leave my safety in anybody else’s hands… Life is a risk not everything is devilish and on purpose✌️
Alec paid a paid an employee to take care of the safety of the prop guns. I dont know why Alec is being charged. The prop person should be responsible.
I love your videos but can't stand the background music. I'm trying to listen to what you're saying. Please, no background music!! It's not needed!!
Who is to say that in "reconstructing" the gun, they didn't fix any problems with the gun that caused the gun to go off? I'm not convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt.
My argument against Alec Baldwin is as follows
1) the first thing you teach any child that lives in the same house as a firearm is never point a firearm at something you are not willing to destroy.
2) with firearm ownership and handling training you are instructed to always treat every firearm as loaded regardless of circumstances.
3) as the person with the firearm in his hand when it was discharged he bears half of the responsibility of the death of Miss Hutchinson.
4) there were at least 15 complaints lodged about safety on the set of Rust.
5) Baldwin as producer of the film was responsible for not only safety procedures but the atmosphere of safety on and off set. Thus as producer he bears half of the responsibility of Miss Hutchinson death
Thus regarding points 3 and 5 Baldwin carries 1/2 of the responsibility for holding the firearm that was discharged and 1/2 of the responsibility for the negligent atmosphere on set. Thus he should be sentenced to no less than 6 months in prison for wrongful death at minimum and 3-5 for negligent homicide as a maximum in my humble opinion.
There's a number one rule of firearms: don't aim a gun at something you don't want to destroy.
So in order to pull off that kind of shot in cinema, you must make it absolutely 100% certain that it won't injure the recipient.
But even with that in mind, between Cinema tricks, gas-fired Airsoft replicas, and CGI, the use of blank firing guns in almost all cases is completely obsolete and should be avoided.
The only exception should be to use it solely to capture the sound and muzzle flash for post-processing.
The excuse of Alec stating the hammer fired the shot without pulling the trigger shows a fundamental lack of understanding of firearms on the part of Alec, because anyone who knows revolvers knows that all you need is the hammer for it to fire a round.
Even if it was defective, he should have never pulled the hammer, and even then it shouldn't matter because he fundamentally broke his own advice, and was effectively asking them to look down a barrel - which is something you should never do.
I think some people get too blinded by celebrity, thinking 'What if that were me?' But they aren't you and you'll never be them. Every day people make HONEST mistakes and suffer consequences forever. That's why we want compassion. But this situation is so incredibly messed up there are so many levels of safety failure and Alec was directly responsible for set conditions being so unsafe. It's not just that he pulled the trigger it's that he has fault for the entire situation leading up to that gun being loaded with live ammo. But I also really Really want the person who mixed live ammo into the dummy round boxes, on purpose, to be charged too because that imo is the MOST evil person in this. The armorer has put into legal documents exactly how she believes this happened and it is fucked up.
If the gun wasnt defective then baldwin had the knowledge and experience to be responsible for the weapon. He shouldnt be able to pay his way out of it
This was obviously on purpose by someone.. who handles a gun with real bullet on a movie set.. 😂 come on guys, admit that hollywood and matrix are real
He talks about all that gun training he had but didn't check the gun to see if it was loaded ?
It doesn't matter if it was an accident. He was negligent in a way that it was obviously dangerous. He was cutting safety corners on the backend. He should be charged. If I'm driving 100 mph and hit and kill someone accidentally, I'm still getting charged. Rich guys should be no different
All I have going on in my head is my father's admonition regarding guns. "Only point a gun at something you intend to shoot" He was a hunter and hunting rifle collector. He was serious and steady in handling weapons and he taught my brother well (he never taught me as I was not interested) Shooter Baldwin should be in jail but I fear he will only ever get public shaming.
He's an actor. They are literally paid to point guns at other people because their character is meant to point a gun at someone.
Baldwin wasn't just sitting around in his living room showing off his new piece to his friends.
@@dwightfry99 And secondly, my father said "The first thing you do when you pick up a gun is to make sure it is unloaded"
@@luminyam6145 well I second the opinion that there shouldn't have been live bullets on set at all. But even then, the armorer who handed the gun to him had taken on that responsibility and apparently said it was clear.
But... I'll still give you that. Even when given the clear, he could have checked it again and that is a smart thing to do.
@@dwightfry99 Baldwin was a producer and a bunch of the crew had walked off because of safety issues; they literally brought in non-union scabs to work THAT DAY because so much of the crew walked. There's no way the producer on set didn't know why half the crew wasn't working
Mr Baldwin should be deeply ashamed of his behaviour when the facts speak for themselves. He pulled the trigger. He did not check the gun. Who would aim a gun at a person release the hammer. He has a LARGE family to protect and provide for. It must go to trial. For justice.
As a producer, I totally think Alec deserves to face criminal liability. I was surprised when the original charges were dropped. I don’t think this was a vanity or courtesy title, it seems he was clearly involved in the production behind the scenes.
To me Alec B is a stable and mature person who does not display any type of questionable behavior. He has always maintained his innocence and I believe him.
This is a witch hunt. Prosecutors clearly need a scapegoat in this case. Why are they not focusing on the Armorer on that film set?
I just keep asking WHY she wanted him to aim that gun at her? The question should be what was HER mental state. I've never heard of any director asking someone to point a gun--loaded or unloaded--at them or at the camera. Someone should have made ABSOLUTELY SURE the gun had no bullets in it whatsoever. That's not Baldwin's job, but to be fare, he should have double/triple checked. Open up the cylinder and he would have seen the bullet and then this would not have happened. But that's all in hindsight.
She was checking the alignment of the camera. But she should have had a shield of some sort or the gun should have been unloaded for this part and reloaded for the actual filming of the scene
She has to receive justice. She lost her life and things were heavily disorganized on set. The employees knew about the chaos.
So Mr Baldwin needs to stand trial. He has obligations as one of the richest people in stage which means he is supposed to be surrounded with training, New Mexico rules, county rules, employment rules, firearm and set safety. I feel there is no way he shouldn't know just as much as this poor woman, Helena. Fair is fair. And I am saying this as a HUGE Alex Baldwin fan. The woman deserves justice IN COURT.