Why Alec Baldwin Might Get Convicted | LAWYER EXPLAINS
VloĆŸit
- Äas pĆidĂĄn 9. 05. 2024
- On October 21, 2021, Alec Baldwin was rehearsing in New Mexico for a scene in the independent film, Rust, when the gun he was holding fired, killing cinematographer Halyna Hutchins, and injuring director Joel Souza. Now, the Santa Fe County District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altwies has said she plans to charge Baldwin and armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed by the end of January for two counts each of involuntary manslaughter. Should Baldwin be charged for this firearm mishap? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below.
TIME STAMPS
0:00 Introduction
0:52 Background
8:22 The Charges
11:00 Charge No. 1
20:03 Charge No. 2
25:25 Some Potential Defenses
33:02 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 #HalynaHutchins #Rust
What do YOU think? Is it right for Alec Baldwin to be charged for the Rust set shooting mishap and the death of Halyna Hutchins?
The fact that he didn't check the chamber despite several previous accidental discharges on set which caused multiple staff members to quit over safety concerns, certainly seems like criminal negligence to me. After several previous accidental discharges, a normal, prudent person absolutely would have checked the chamber to make sure the gun was not loaded with live ammunition. The fact Baldwin was told the gun was cold shouldn't be a workable excuse for him since there had already been multiple instances on set in which a gun that was declared cold was actually loaded (a normal, prudent person in this scenario would not have taken the gun being declared cold at face value, and would have double checked themselves). Given the facts we know so far, the prosecutors seem to have a very strong case for the conviction of Baldwin. If I were a betting man, I would bet on him being convicted and going to prison.
The Sag-Aftra official industry standard on the issue says that it is NOT the responsibility of the actor to inspect the gun for bullets versus blanks. They do say that they should have the opportunity to have the gun loaded in front of the actor. But that second part was written almost as if it was "if the actor wants to make sure there are blanks" but the official standard is to not leave it up to the actor.
The question about his guilt is the exact kind of multilayered question that we have courts for. Even people who think he's probably innocent have to acknowledge there are some serious open questions (is there really an unofficial industry standard where actors get to treat firearms irresponsibly? And if there is, should an irresponsible unofficial standard absolve the people following it of legal responsibility? And how much did his producer role, and star power, influence the conditions on set, which didn't even live up to the alleged irresponsible unofficial standard?).
And let's not forget someone died as a direct result of the actions that would be explored at a trial. So "he might be innocent and he looks nice, so let's pretend nothing happened" isn't cutting it.
Charging him is wrong and a waste of tax dollars. He was told it was a cold gun, he had no reason to believe he was shooting anyone. The only guilty person is the person that lied about the cold gun.
I have worked for almost 30 years in the industry. I have so much second hand knowledge from friends I have in the industry who were both on set and in pre-production.
This wasnât inevitable. But something bad was bound to happen.
Iâve worked with Mr Baldwin before. I donât think heâs a negligent performer. This is a perfect storm of bad things.
I hope something positive comes from this.
Jensen Ackles was also working as an actor on the set of Rust in his police interview said that EVERY SINGLE TIME he was handed a cold gun, he would dry fire it at the ground to make sure all the rounds were dummy rounds. He also said the prop master and the armorer did not like him doing this but he did it anyway because he has a lot of previous experience with guns on the set of Supernatural.
That can be asked for itâs not a rule. Since it was loaded with 5 dummy rounds and 1 live round that probably wouldnât have made a difference
@Rhirhi stopit agreed, it was my understanding that live rounds were really rare on most movie sets, they aren't used that often.
Is it even right to fire at the ground?
@@amylynnhunt55 if you have a choice of test firing a gun at a person or simply firing around you at random or pointing at the ground which do you think is more safe?
@Rhirhi stopit Exactly. Sounds like it goes beyond simple stupidity. Did you know the first person to die from the Anthrax letters that came from anthrax found only in our own bioweapons labs had published an embarrassing photo of the President's daughter drunk and sitting on some other girl's lap. Robert Stevens in Boca Raton FL. Odd choice to be a victim don't you think?
So many people in the movie industry came forwards and stated that the Rust set did everything wrong. Which is a reason why most of the crew walked off set days before and they rushed to replace them with locals instead. They used a real gun for a non firing scene, when they always use a gun shaped prop (solid wood/metal made to look and weighted like a gun) for any scene or test where guns aren't fired. They also had live ammo on set and had loose live ammo literally everywhere. The armourer wasn't on set with the guns at all times when not locked up. Having random crew instead handle the firearms. Seriously I'm surprised that OSHA isn't going after them as well.
The New Mexico Occupational Health and Safety Bureau did investigate and fined them.
@@GH-oi2jf fines .... really? Just puny fines?
Sounds like negligence on the armorerâs part
@@Jinkypigs Unfortunately, that is all the Bureau can do, they do not have the authority to arrest or charge anyone, the best they can do is fine people and report their findings it is up to a District Attorney to charge someone, which in this case it seems they are doing, and already have, the AD (Assistant Director) plead out.
It's New Mexico. Half the judges are in a passive-aggressive snit because they can't get "campaign contributions" from bail bondsmen anymore.
When I lived out in California, I had a friend who used to do hang gliding and the rule was if anybody interrupted you while you were assembling the glider, you take it all the way apart again and start over. The protocol with the prop guns is what needs to change. They need to be emptied and reloaded in the room or something like that. The blanks have to go in the prop gun as close to the point of using it as possible.
The strict protocols are already there, but they only work if theyâre actually followed. If ANYONE in a responsible position had done their job properly, this wouldnât have happened.
we have not seen the charging docs
The protocol has worked safely for over 25 years. Seems to me it works great.
@@IncongruityDetected hence why they were negligent. Most of the regulations they neglected to follow were put in place after Brandon Lee was killed with shrapnel from a blank. 1. Absolutely no real ammo is allowed on set. It was literally Hannahâs job to ensure this was the case. 2. Always check the bullets/ if itâs loaded before firing. The gun changed hands between 3 people who, had they checked, would have seen the live ammo in the gun, including Baldwin. If any of those people had followed regulations, a person likely wouldnât have died. Thatâs negligence.
Had a neighbor and friends dad die hand gliding so Iâd say thatâs correct
He spent weeks on the media circuit lying about his actions, claiming never to have pulled the trigger (which we know was impossible as the firearm has been confirmed working).
He was a producer on the movie, so as well as being directly responsible for the misfire, he was responsible for ensuring the right specialists and training were in place (they were not).
You said 'Should we expect actors to become gun experts?'. No, we should expect them to be trained in basic firearm safety, and to follow it.
Alec failed on both these counts, and someone died.
As he's someone who constantly wants to blame responsible gun owners for the actions of criminals, I think this is a moral lesson in more than one dimension.
The policy of an actor being responsible for checking the gun is the part that says âTreat all guns as if they are loadedâ.
Itâs not expecting someone to be a âgun expertâ itâs about expecting them to make sure the firearm theyâre handling is safe to do so. You donât need to know everything in order to pop the cylinder or mag and make sure itâs not loaded.
đ€ "All guns are always loaded. Always."
-Jeff Cooper-1987
Baldwin's claim that he never pulled the trigger is an utter lie. The hammer on that Colt SAA copy has 2 safety catch positions specifically designed to make it impossible for the hammer to fall on a live round without the trigger being pulled. His finger was on that trigger.
You can see his finger on the trigger in video test footage in which he's practicing that cross draw. I wonder how many others on set realize that it could have been they who took the bullet while he swung the revolver past them?
Yeah the FBI even tested the specific gun he used to test his claim that it discharged because of being in poor condition and found that was basically impossible (they had to literally break it to get it to fire without touching the trigger).
This video is so well done. Thank you so much for taking the time to put in the clips.
Iâve been WAITING for this video, Iâm so excited to have this explained and given more context legally.
Awesome, hope you enjoy it!! đ
Finalllyyy!!! Thanks Alyte!
Having spent 7 years carrying a variety of firearms in the military daily, I can say that you never handle any weapon without verifying the status of the weapon yourself. You never violate this rule. You always handle a firearm as if it was loaded.
My bet... he pulled the trigger to play the hammer back and forth. Pulling the trigger stops the locking mechanism which would allow it to move freely. When the "scene" he was rehearsing was completed he just let the hammer go and with the trigger already pulled it rocked forward into the firing position and struck the round in the chamber. He may not have even considered it "pulling the trigger" but he did.
Ah yes but here is the difference. You are a trained soldier, used to handling firearms (real ones, meant to kill people). Baldwin is an actor, not really used to handling firearms on the daily, especially not ones that should need to be checked- he does not have the qualifications to do that without risking harm to himself and others as a layperson that is why they have people in charge of those things.
@@sugarplum2467 These concepts are the bare basics of firearm safety that are drilled into everyone by the weapons handlers in these productions. For as long as Baldwin has been active he has been told these things countless times.
@@sugarplum2467 literally the first thing you learn in a firearms safety course is NEVER leave your finger on yhe trigger unless you intend to shoot. Even if you just go to a range to shoot they'll often make sure you know this if it's your first time.
Alec baldwin has held plenty of guns before. If he indeed had his finger on the trigger with the gun aimed at a person, and then proceeded to pull back the hammer, that is just totally unacceptable.
@@sugarplum2467 The firearm baldwin used was a real most âprop gunâ are real firearms, many a-list action actors said baldwin was wrong for not checking the weapon first after being handed it. Especially after they were firing live rounds prior. Being a trained soldier means nothing, it is the literal bare minimum for handling any type of firearm.
@@joeschmoe6908 Has it been established that he had a finger on the trigger? From what he said, I always supposed he had his finger away from the trigger, but I might be wrong obviously.
I'm curious as to why the DA doesn't seem interest in finding out how a real bullet got on to the set.
She is interested, but it has not been determined and it isnât necessary to the prosecution. The DA is concerned with violations of New Mexico law. It is not unlawful to have live ammunition on the set.
Live ammunition isnât independently lethal.
@@GH-oi2jf I think the implication is the idea that real ammo was placed intentionally in order to create the conditions for such an accident. Possibly by some disgruntled employees who walked off the set shortly beforehand???
Itâs been investigated they cannot come to a conclusion but I suspect that it was the prop supplier because the live ammo was handmade
Well first of all the DA does appear interested, as they also brought charges against Hannah Gutierrez Reed. That would be where the question of "how a real bullet got on the set" may have some relevance.
But as it relates to Baldwin ... because it doesnât matter. âAll guns are always loadedâ. âNever point the muzzle at anything you don't wish to destroyâ. âKeep your finger off the trigger until the sights are on targetâ. Nowhere in the universal safe firearms rules does it say, âpointing guns at people and pulling the trigger is fine so long as ammo is not allowed on the premisesâ.
A "real bullet" got on set the same way beer gets to a college party with under 21s present, the same way weed gets everywhere. Such prohibitions are guaranteed to be routinely broken.
Interesting. Clooney's connection to Brandon Lee would very likely make him super cautious.
Its such a shame where every minute counts and with the use of a helicopter and despite all the qualified medics that Halyna hung on to life for two hours and as soon as she got into hospital she was only alive for another 17 minutes , its just such a sad story RIP Halyna
Sometimes the damage is so bad no matter how fast they get help it will not save the victim.
she would have been dead when she arrived.....no MD on the set. she would have come into the ER with CPR in progress...the ER would go thru two more rounds of drugs to save her and failing to get the heart to start and then the MD would declare death. both lungs, and major chest vessels and her spinal cord were likely shredded. unless it happens in the hospital with a heart bypass machine on standby, this injury would be a death sentence.. interestingly, special operators in the military now face the enemy straight on rather than side on to prevent this very occurrence. a thru and thru shot side to side is universally fatal, head on, not so much.
For what it's work, medics will very rarely pronounce someone dead. They continue to work on them the whole time (CPR, etc.). You're considered alive while getting CPR. Only after did she get to the hospital, they take over the CPR, try some drugs, or other things. After some time they pronounced her dead. She was most likely "dead" pretty soon after the shooting, just not declared it.
@@Paxtez I can't speak for California specifically but they generally can't in most jurisdictions unless they are actually a doctor. As such the determination will rarely be made before the patient arrives at primary care since in most cases this will be the first opportunity for a doctor to examine the patient and make a determination of death. Hell even where the corpse is in bad condition it is still going to be the medical examiner (a qualified doctor) that actually signs off on the declaration of death although this will generally occur at the scene in that case since law enforcement will call on one when the discovery is reported.
I believe David Hall handed Baldwin the gun, as stated in the previous safety incidents on set, due to impatience. They said he would get annoyed and would fire guns without warning of the sound and shooting them before checking to see if they were âhot or coldâ to move things along faster. As thought he had a hard time with his workflow being interruptedâŠ.. by safety. If you read any of the accounts of his impatience on set, youâll see him grabbing the gun from Hannah to hand it to Baldwin as a gesture to move things along faster, is not a reach.
Are you saying the reports were that Baldwin would get impatient, or that Hall would get impatient?
@@limitsna he meant Hall
Yet Dave is the one with the plea deal. I'm not as sure as some on baldwin. I'll wait for facts in court. Its tragic for all concerned, except Dave I guess. He gets a little community service.
He did that on a previous film and disabled a stuntman
@@limitsna Halls
I think heâs much more liable than he even believes. Iâd really love to see this trial, because of the many nuances. Just like the Brandon Lee incident, I think this will change things in the industry even further, which is, obviously, a good thing. Letâs hope in the future, no matter what the budget, no one ever gets killed or wounded on a movie set by a gun, because thatâs inexcusable. I also think his interview was a terribly idea. He describes the impossible regarding that weapon, which is damning for sure. Iâm sure they will have weapons experts on their side. So many have already made videos regarding this. The FBI report on the actual weapon is also damning.
i think a bunch of people screwed up for sure, if they want to get him for being a producer, there are nine others listed, are they going to charge them too?
@@curlygirl3870 Alec Baldwin was the producer who was on set every day of production. He had a financial investment in the production and was also the co-author of the script. As an actor, he had responsibility to ensure his safety and the safety of his coworkers (Screen actors Guild Safety Bulletin page 4 paragraph 1) and to never aim a fire arm at an individual (Course S of Contracts and services). He was given verbal instructions prior to the shooting to never aim a firearm at an individual. He disregarded the movie industry safety protocols, aimed the revolver at
Halyna Hutchins, pulled the trigger and killed her.
Hannah Gutierrez-Reed and Dave Halls were also negligent, but at the end of the day and at the end of the chain of responsibility Alec Baldwin was the guy with the gun in his hand.
@@denvan3143 thanks for the info but you really glossed over my question. They have singled out his "producer" credit as a particular point. My point is that there are nine other producers on the project. Four "executive" producers, who we can probably assume are the money people. That leaves FIVE other producers. What are they responsible for? What was their involvement? If the DA is going to single that out, you would think more names would be added to the indictment.
"You don't understand, I'm a celebrity."
@@curlygirl3870 the fact that he is a producer is not âsingled outâ. It was one of other reasons to charge Baldwin. But letâs accept your premise for a second. It may well be the case that the DA would like to charge the other producers, but has decided the case against them is not as strong as Baldwinâs. Is Baldwinâs culpability affected by the decision to charge or not charge the others?
Excellent coverage with one exception, please correct your terminology. A misfire is when a gun is intentionally discharged but the round fails to fire. When a gun goes off unintentionally, that is an accidential (or more correclty negligent) discharge. That is a serious, negligent act and shows a lock of control over the firearm.
You would expect a lawyer to know this!
@@ganndeber1621 depends on the lawyer, I donât ask my intellectual property lawyer about gun safety laws. Thatâs like saying all doctors should know how open heart surgery works.
Why was he even pointing at somebody who's not even in the movie and pulling the trigger?
A misfire occurs when the trigger is pulled but the primer or powder in the cartridge malfunctions, causing the firearm not to discharge. Dud rounds can still be dangerous and should be deactivated and disposed of properly. đ«đ«đ«đ«đ«đ«đ«
I would call aiming a loaded gun at somebody and deliberately pulling the trigger without checking to make sure that it's not loaded with a live round first, a negligent homicide, not a negligent discharge.
Insightful take and well-documented as well. Glad that I just found your channel
i can't believe this David Hall got away with just 6 months probation and a ridiculously small fine. i think that is the most disturbing thing in all of this story.
His "know it all" arrogance coupled with cost cutting negligence led to this tragedy. I hope he and the armourer pay a heavy price for this so that things change.
đ„"Be sure of your target".
-Jeff Cooper-1987
I'll bet that he would not have put the same gun against his own head without checking the gun.
Great point!
I'll bet he would, it seems to me like he never in a million years would have considered it was loaded, I don't think he would've checked the gun in any case, had the scene he was going over been a suicide I believe he'd be dead
Yeah, he would have.
Well... I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that Baldwin probably expected the gun to loaded with a blank. If that were the case, he probably wouldn't have given how the pressure and force generated by a blank at point blank is more than enough to kill.
@@gbear1005 you could be right
Oh my goodness, I'm reading about the other suspects, but Hanna, the armor expert, was able to make Nicholas Cage flee the set because she was handling the armor so unsafe. And David Halls blocked fireways and emergency exits during earlier film projects.
And Dave didnât tell anyone, including Alec, about the misfires. He never made a report. Or anything.
@@shigermuleye5203 No, from every report and witness statements that came out after the accident basically no safety procedures were followed at any point during the production.
That doesn't excuse Baldwin, as he did not follow the safety protocole either, but the main culpable by far seems to be the armourer (as it is literally her job to manage everything related to the firearms used on set, and make sure that people handle them safely). Add to that her having already been in trouble for not respecting safety protocoles in previous movies and her texts talking about wanting to use the arms with live amo and it looks like willfull endangerment rather than mistakes because of stress / time crunch.
@@tetri90 Baldwin thought the safety protocols concerning the firearms were being followed. He said he did not know about the previous discharges or the live ammunition. Do you think he would have felt safe if he did? He was told the gun was "cold." The persons who walked off of the set did not give safety as their reason.
@@vernonfrance2974 He does say that, now the courts will have to decide both wether it is true and wether it excuse him.
For the second part, he should have known and followed procedures, so the question will be wether he actually tried to and was lied to/misled by the production team (of which he is a part of) or he didn't actually bothered that much. There are element that seems to indicate the first (notably the texts about firing the armourer if she tells the producer about the previous involountary discharges) but also elements that hint at the later (the general state of disrespect for all security protocoles, not just gun related ones, which seems very hard for an experienced actor involved in the production not to have noticed unless he didn't want to notice it).
That's why he is charged and has a trial, so that they can get to the bottom of the story.
@@tetri90 The DA is not having a trial to get to the bottom of the story. She is having a trial because she thinks she can convict. More scalps for her belt and her future political ambitions.
If she really cared about justice she would not have given a plea deal to the dude who told Baldwin the gun was cold, without himself ascertaining that. That dude has nothing material to add to the case to implicate Baldwin so why is he getting a deal? Or will he be coloring the truth for her to help convict the big prize?
Hi Alyte! Thanks for this jam-packed but easily digestible informative video, and yes it did seem like the prosecution had some sort of agenda when they informed the public of the upcoming charges đ€
I like how no one is arguing about Gutierrez-Reed receiving chargers, like she was the armorer, and bottom line it was her responsibility to make sure that gun didn't have any ammo in it when it was handed to Baldwin.
I think two questions are going to determine whether or not Baldwin is convicted. The first and biggest, is WHAT is the industry standard regarding actors checking to see if there is ammo in the gun. If the prosecutor can prove to the Jury that the industry standard is for actors to check if the gun is loaded then it's a slam dunk case in my opinion.
The second big question is how much knowledge and responsibility did Baldwin have as a producer on set. What were his responsibilities in regards to crew safety and did he know how bad conditions were on set and as a producer, per his contract, should he have known? If the prosecution can prove that Baldwin knew what was going on on set and that were conditions were as bad as the leaks suggest then I think a jury is going to find that very damning.
Gutierrez-Reed did not hand the gun to Baldwin. It was the responsibility of the actual weapons handler at that time (Halls) to check the gun. It was also Baldwinâs responsibility to demand that the gun be proven safe before using it.
Industry standard and protocol is for the actor NOT to check weapons. Alec had only one responsibility on the set and that was to bring forth his best acting ability. Even if he owns the production company and there were 11 producers he cannot walk behind every crew member on set to check on them. That would be impossible and actually not his job.
Two things to consider: a) She wasn't allowed on set that day. b) She had tried to give gun safety briefings in the past but Baldwin refused.
@@wanaraz No. The second a real gun is in your hands you are responsible for it. Actors still need to handle a gun responsibly and pointing a gun at someone is not handling that gun responsibly
@@jjthe how would he know it was loaded with live rounds. In his mind it was a prop weapon and the AD called out Cold Gun.
You could never hand me a gun without checking it. In the movie Tremors, there's a great scene where the gun nut gives a kid an empty gun and when the kid gets mad and hands it back to the gun nut, HE STILL CHECKS IT
One thatâs a film scene not reality on a film set but if an actors decides to âcheck for himselfâ then the armorer would have to take the gun back to the armory unload and reload test shot unload and reload the prop then bring it back EVERY SINGLE TIME THE ACTOR DID THAT. If they did it a few times w would be fired for violating the union rules.
@@gothgammy666 I'm not questioning your statement, I know it seems to be set protocol; but tell me, how does the actor sight-checking the cylinder require removing and reloading the gun? What part of this am I missing? I could see it if the actor opened the cylinder and removed rounds, but then we've got a situation where there are rounds in the chambers and the gun is HOT. That gun should never have been called COLD. Please help me out here.
@@karenburrows9184 it doesnât heâs making bad excuses for his boyfriend Alec Baldwin.
Wouldnât an A-list celebrity know better than to talk to the police without the presence of a lawyer in a case where he might be convicted of manslaughter?
He was not thinking he did anything illegal. He was handed a prop and was told it was cold and the woman who died was the one telling him what to do with it and where to point it. He was just following directions and didn't think he did anything wrong.
You would think so, but
1) he was probably under extreme stress/duress, and
2) it's evident from his statements to this point that he does not believe he committed any crime, so maybe he thought it was best to put everything on the table and try to get the case closed quickly.
Yes but his ego got in the way of sound judgement.
@@EmeraldCityVideo Yeah, I think so, too. He is old school and has been trained that they don't want actors to be the ones responsible for checking the guns and that used to be true. I strongly believe the gun should be checked immediately before placing it in the actor's hands with multiple people witnessing it. It should not be the actor because the actor has so many things he is focusing on.
@@wishingb5859 Wouldnât that still count as manslaughter though? I mean, he was the one who fired the gun, regardless of who handed it to him. Isnât that the definition of manslaughter?
Great summary, thanks for stepping through all of it. You should, however, not use the term "misfire" in regard to what happened on the set before the death of Halyna. The prior incidents were either accidental discharge or negligent discharge.
A negligent discharge is an unintentional firing of a shot due to a violation of firearms safety rules, or other improper weapon handling.
An accidental discharge in the unintentional firing of a shot not due to improper gun handling and through no fault of the person handling the gun.
To add on to this, "misfire" refers to a firearm failing to properly fire. If you pull the trigger of a loaded firearm and nothing happens, you have a misfire.
He lied, he pulled the trigger and said he didn't. Not only that, he pointed it at her! He deserves jail!!!
Well it also can be that someone should got killed and this was more then just an Accident.
@@xtinamarie_333 have to say though, lying on camera IS NOT TESTIMONY under oath. I HATE him, but he have yet to lie in court.
@@WENG0407 His interrogation was recorded, it will be in court! Cop shows him how impossible his 'story' is, with the same gun!
Alyte, you always do a great job making these situations easy to understand.
I think this is the best description of this case. Super informative!
Very informative. I now understand this case a whole lot better. Thanks.
Regardless of whether or not he is guilty of a crime, he sure is intent on shifting blame to anyone but himself with whatever kinda thing he can come up with.
He appears to be a sociopath as well ; he feels no guilt over the death of Ms Hutchins. Even if he has no liability at all, he should feel emotional guilt , which it is perfectly reasonable to distinguish from legal guilt.
Nobody seems to have asked the question (yet), "why did you pull the hammer back ?" and "why did you point the gun at Ms Hutchins ?". The safety rules quoted by LegalBytes seemed to state not to do the latter unless absolutely necessary
@@paulscottrobson honestly? Had he shot the armorer, it would have been an open and shut case for me. I don't expect all actors have all always checked every bullet they have ever fired, and I wouldn't put them in jail for it if they were handed a loaded gun by a criminally negligent moron. He may be a sociopath, but there are easier ways to murder someone. If he didn't know and it wasn't his job to know, what is there to talk about?
@@CapnSnackbeard Sociopath doesn't mean you want to murder someone, more that you don't particularly care. Even if he is 100% not at fault it would be normal to feel some responsibility as he did pull (or hold) the trigger.
AFAICS the rules LegalBytes showed stated quite specifically not to point the gun at anyone (whereas it was unclear with regard checking) which Baldwin obviously did.
I suspect it will depend on which of Baldwin or Clooney is telling the truth.
I loooove your byte-size (đ) videos! đ„°đ„°đ„°
Celebrity or not, whatever legal issue at courts around the country, from you itâs always an informative delight to hear! In these byte-sizes (đ )!
Much love to you dear! đđđđ
I don't know... maybe if Alec got out in front of this, since he was a producer, taking responsibility for the reckless armorer he hired (she had numerous complaints from a Nick Cage production), he would look more sympathetic in the eyes of everyone. Alec took the "I didn't do anything wrong, it's not my fault." stance immediately. It was his production. If you know your armorer is negligent, as a producer, it's your responsibility to fire and replace them immediately and kick them off the production.
damn this is such a well written (and spoken) video. information dense but without dumping it. love it
Thanks Alyte. You made this very easy for me to understand.
After hearing the police interview.. geez, never talk to the police without a lawyer.. especially when you are the prime target of the investigation, even more so when you KNOW you are.
Exactly his own words are going to bury him. Including that cringe narcissistic interview
Honestly the prior cases of accidental discharge should be used as solid evidence of negligence at the very least.
I don't know much about guns personally but even taking him at his word I would have lowered my arm before I released the hammer. I don't know what the chances are of it actually going off under circumstances but it seems like a reasonable last line of defence against things going wrong to not point it at anyone so at least if there is an accidental discharge it only damages property.
It was harder because she was directing him where to point the gun and was directing him to pull the hammer back. He likely did not think he pulled the trigger. But the fact he could pull the trigger before or after makes it more confusing. It should never be up to the actor to have to figure things out. Actors are mostly just obeying orders. I strongly believe guns should always be empty when they arrive on set and a trained professional should show the actor that it is empty and show him safety things while empty and then inspect and load the blanks after examining the set up for safety. It should all be handled by professionals on set in front of the actors and crew. He should not have to load the gun or double check the gun. It should all be done by the gun expert on the set. He should not have to memorize hot or cold. It should always come empty and verify that.
@@JonDoe-my8nw Baldwin was told that it was COLD. Does that mean that the weapon had live bullets? You are saying that? The judge didn't look at the Hollywood agreed on standard. It said that the judge asked a few actors and went by what they said.
@@JonDoe-my8nw Why was the woman who was killed directing the actor to aim the gun to look a certain way on camera and to cock it?
That death is what change all onset prop gun handling protocols
The four universal firearm safety rules are simple and easily understood:
1. Always treat every gun as if it is loaded.
2. Always keep the muzzle (the business end) pointed in a safe direction.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until you have made the decision to shoot.
4. Know your target and what is beyond it.
Following any or all of the first three would have prevented the accident.
geeeezzzz.....been watching videos on youtube covering this case & YOU BLEW THEM ALL AWAY! - please do more GodBless
Thank you so much, glad you enjoyed it!!
Can anyone tell me why live rounds are even allowed on a movie set? When would live rounds be necessary in a fictitious setting like a movie?
I don't know if there's a better, more general answer, but earlier reporting suggested that in this specific case, live rounds were not allowed on the set, but that some crew members had taken one or more of the guns out shooting offsite. The theory at the time was, whoever did that, failed to remove the bullets when they returned them.
Even then, accidents happen. I think that on the set of The Crow, the gun was loaded with blanks. Brandon Lee still lost his life after being shot.
They are not necessary and in well-managed sets they are not allowed. What should have happened is when they wanted to go live fire off site live rounds and guns should have been brought in by someone and then removed by that same person to ensure nothing got mixed in with prop supplies. In todayâs world of using technology to post edit filmed scenes there is no need to even have prop guns capable of operating at all. Sound and smoke can be added later (and itâs usually modified after anyway to get the best desired look and sound so this may not even be an extra step).
@@selahr. 100% agreed. I suspect this case will make non-operational guns an industry standard, especially because it isn't even that expensive or time consuming to do what you want with the sound/muzzle flash/smoke. Even on an indie film you can presumably afford to do the stuff "Supernatural" was doing in house 10 years ago.
@@EmeraldCityVideo That is tragic and the crew members who did that are the ones who are responsible.
Great breakdown as always ^_^
Since when is the person that's holding the gun not allowed to personally verify it's safety? That's absurd.
At least the rest of the hollywood world apparently does it properly.
The least qualified person should never be the one to be performing safety checks they hire several people for that.
@@gothgammy666 I'm not at all suggesting that the actor should be the only person checking it. I'm saying that basic firearms safety dictates that whomever is holding the gun is ultimately responsible for whatever happens with it.
If my best friend (an 8 year Army vet that's much better with guns than I am) hands me a weapon, the first thing I do is to check if it's safe. This is no different.
An actor should never be prohibited from checking a firearm for safety. If they're handling a gun, and don't have the training to do it safely, they need training in that first. (It isn't THAT difficult to teach someone to safely hold a firearm, check if it's loaded, etc). And note some of the other comments from Clooney where it's stated that whenever a firearm is exchanged, the receiving party checks it. This is proper firearm safety.
Yes, they have professionals to check the weapons, but, in the end, mistakes happen, and obviously did here, which is why at every step, the weapon needs to be checked.
@@steveamsp What do you mean by "check the firearm"? Depending on the shots being planned, the bullets could be hero bullets that will be seen on camera. Can't have pin marks on them from test firing. The prop bullets need to look exactly like the real thing... can't visually inspect them. He would need to take each bullet out individually and shake them to listen for the rattle of a dummy round (assuming the prop bullet was built to standard), then put the bullet back in the gun. Brandon Lee died from prop bullets being mishandled by someone who didn't know prop bullets well enough earlier in the day. Would an actor know that a prop bullet was built unsafely?
@@Plisko1 Please note that in his interview with the police (I don't believe it was part of Andrea's video, not sure if it was released yet), he says the armorer handed him the gun, and asked if he wanted to check it, to which he said no. He'd never had problems before, so he wouldn't now.
In the context of where they were that day, they weren't actually filming, just blocking things out. Under that situation, there would be no need for even a Dummy bullet to be in the gun.
@@steveamsp The shot was framing a closeup that included the bullets as I understand things. But many criticisms are fair. Him mixing up the chain of custody after doing many shots is not unusual. but the optics are terrible. HIs story about not pulling the trigger is odd. I think the AD had the biggest role of all because it was his set. Notice how quickly he did a plea deal. Honestly, the layers of negligence go so deep... all the way from the prop house... to having live ammunition at all... using a real gun for prop bullets... The negligence of everyone else is so bad that it is almost more plausible that it was sabotage... but nevertheless, I still wonder what the actor should check for that the professionals would miss... if the bullets are part of the shot and test firing will damage the props and require them to load new ones. Trusting the professionals is not unusual. They know more about safety.
There is only 1 question, why was the gun loaded with a bullet?
Nobody knows
It was Hannah's job to check ALL ammunition. She didn't
Well, there's at least ?
- Why was the gun pointed at Halyna Hutchins ?
- Why did he pull and release the hammer ?
This was extremely informative, thank you.
Thank you for this video. đŠ
Alexander Rae Baldwin III the producer and actor of the film, admitted he worked on â40 Filmsâ with firearms. He also admitted the ARMOROER and NOT the assistant director gave him the gun. The assistant director stated that he refused to participate in the firearm safety briefing (90 minutes cut to 30 minutes, and he was on the phone with his family the entire time). The complete charging document came out on 31-January-2023 and it lists all these details.
he is in a world of hurt
đ„"It takes a stack-up of error to cause you to have an accident."
-Jeff Cooper-1987
he initially told the cops GR handed him the gun. later he said "someone" handed him the gun.
I don't know how incriminating that actually is in context. If both GR and the 1AD are authorized to hand it to him, and one of them did, I'm not sure I would fault him for assuming/thinking/saying "it was the one who always does!" until someone tells him otherwise. It seems his statement changed AFTER the 1AD told people that he did it.
Obviously there COULD be some ill intent there. I'm just not sure that I would assume as much without anything else to indicate that's the case.
The police specifically asked him if Dave Halls ever handed him the gun. He said never! He said she always hands him the gun!
@@lisagockley9759 so easy to mistake a 5 foot goth female with a 6 foot tan surfer dude when you are like zeus, majestically towering above the earth and its ant like inhabitants
He was very clearly in shock when he gave the initial testimony. It was later clarified and confirmed that Dave handed him the gun. I don't think this really indicative of anything.
@@bitgh0st in shock? have you seen the photos of him talking outside on the phone with his accountant immediately after the shooting-no shock then! even in the police station, he did not know he had committed murder. he was told at the end of the police interview that his target had expired. dude is a sociopath. he was obfuscating facts and making excuses from the first moments. the bumpkin cops(his thinking) just keep giving the immortal being from olympus more rope to hang himself......that video will be shown to the jury for sure as will the tv interview.
Super interesting.. informative!! Ty for sharing your thoughts
Thanks for making this. Was really concise
Alec Baldwin was FAR more than just "an actor" in this situation.
No he wasnât
@@gothgammy666 He owns one of the production companies involved and seems to be the main production company on set.
Alec Baldwin's negligence or lack thereof aside, do we know who loaded a real bullet in the gun? Was it the armoror who is being charged, or the guy who cut the deal?
The armorer. She loaded it. Left it alone on a kart. Halls picked it up without ever checking.
@@ChristinaPykles Thank you. What a weird situation.
Thanks for this video!!!
I like you.
I subscribed.
Thanks for the good content.
Please keep making it.
Wasnât it found that several other live rounds were found on the set and in Baldwinâs belt ? I donât like getting conspiratorial but something feels suspicious if thatâs true.
Something that was reported early, but has not been proven and has therefore disappeared from a lot of the reporting, is that some members of the cast or crew had taken some of the firearms offset to do target shooting. That seems like a plausible explanation for how live rounds would get into circulation on set, but doesn't explain why they weren't spotted and removed.
I don't think we can assume it was some extravagant plan to murder someone and get away with it. Yeah there apparently was live ammunition on set, so I think the likely answer is the obvious answer; extreme negligence.
@@scalpingsnake I agree that we shouldnât jump to conclusions but when you consider all the events that would have had to â accidentallyâ happened for this âaccidentâ to have taken place, I find my self reminded of Occamâs razor.
@@strive4208 the assumption its a conspiracy theory to get away with murder is the against occams razor thing. its way more likely people were just mishandling guns than they wanted to intentionally murder somebody they didnt know before the week prior?
Not on Baldwin
You gave a good treatment here, far better than others on CZcams or the media. To add to your commentary, Safety Bulletin #1 is almost all about handling blanks. It is decidedly written to prevent another Jon Erik Hexum or Brandon Lee-type accident. For example, the protective shielding you mention only makes sense if you understand that the shielding is meant to protect from wadding coming out of a blank, not to shield against a live round. Other than saying at the top that live rounds should never be brought on set, the bulletin contains a certain failure of imagination and does not contemplate how to detect or prevent against live rounds being mistakenly mixed in with dummy rounds. In fact, the bulletin makes no mention of dummy rounds at all. I think this is what AB is alluding to - that the safety guidelines will be updated to include additional guidance on dummy rounds.
Havenât thought about Hexum for years until all this.
Superb video. Thank you for the SAG policy document, good find!
Love these types of videos!
And finally, thank you Alyte for a great video. The most rationale unbiased coverage I've seen on law tube. Gutierrez is far and away primarily responsible. There were freaking live rounds on the set
I need to see the trial to determine ABs culpability, but lean towards non criminal negligence at this point.
She was too young to be relied on. They took advantage of her. Yes, she's culpable but the people who hired her and who were far more experienced in all aspects of the industry should be ashamed of their lack of due diligence.
@@Bearwithme560 would you say the same about a man?
@@tibb814 of course.
"Everything is her direction." Sounds like he's passing the buck. But as a producer he has duty of care which he totally neglected.
Pretty much. It seems to me like he's trying to make himself out to be some unthinking idiot.
Absolutely deplorable.
He said those words relating specifically to the scene that was rehearsing and the direction in which he was pointing the gun. He was not rehearsing with someone, but with the camera and he was not pointing to someone in scene but in whatever direction he was being told by the director looking for the best shot angle.
Thanks for your content on this and glad to see you posting content again! Baldwin and Gutierrez-Reed in my opinion bear responsibility in this tragedy. The AD does too but the AD has taken a plea acknowledging that. I appreciate the content you showed wtih George Clooney. For a rehearsal any rounds live or dummy didn't need to be in the handgun not to metion no reason for a real functioning handgun for the rehearsal so anyone handling a firearm need to use reasonable checks on whether it is live or not just the work of the AD. In my opinion because Baldwin was also a Producer so not just an actor but a boss too means he has more responsibility.
No one seems to think or be willing to say that the victim had used poor judgement herself. If I were directing someone to point a gun at me, I would make sure it wasn't loaded first. I'd ask to have it shot off harmlessly. However, hindsight is 20/20. We all make mistakes but this one is indeed tragic.
As somebody who has practiced firearms safety since I was 9. Whoever gets handed a gun even if it is loaded with dummy rounds, you should always treat it as if it is hot/loaded. Don't point a gun at something you don't want to destroy. Moral of the story is ignorance is no excuse when it comes to gun safety .
This is fundamentally true in most circumstances, but a movie set has requirements that are well outside the realm of normal human experience. It is, by its nature, dangerous as gun MUST be pointed at people sometimes for scenes to work. (Either other actors or crew.) It would be very bizarre if every single gun in every movie was always pointed straight at the ground and away from the camera.
Knowing this is a problem, and having had incidents in the past, they created the armorer role to mitigate the danger and make it basically negligible. If a set follows the instructions of the armorer (whose job is really not super complex, it just requires them to always be in control of the guns and ammo) the danger basically vanishes. There are tens of thousands of man hours every year handling guns on set, and incidents are extremely rare.
The problem here was an extreme level of negligence. Industry standard will be for actors to *never* mess with the guns, because actors are not armorers, and if they do something the armorer does not know about it could create danger. Alec probably won't get in trouble for being the one holding the gun, he will get in trouble for accepting the gun from a non-armorer when he should know better.
He has strong defenses, but if he said anything dumb in interrogation (which most people do) he might have accidentally limited himself.
@@Caelinus This is a fair response. I did not think of the implications that involved sets on movies. Me being a normal person I fall into the realm of normal gun safety. You are absolutely correct about the situations on set. I do not envy having to deal with so much stress/issues that relate to someone in this industry. I think the only common sense think I can add is to get competent people handling safety and when someone hands you a firearm to check to see what is actually inside of it.
@@shigermuleye5203
" Funny how it's never an A-list star who is killed or even seriously hurt."
1. That is of course incorrect.
2. What is your point? Like, really specifically.
I've seen a few accidental discharges on the range and one in a group hunting event. Each time the person holding the gun would SWEAR on his LIFE that he didn't touch the trigger! So, we never argued this point. When you have an accidental discharge of your own, chances are you are going to be as convinced that you didn't have your finger on the trigger either.
That's why every instructor on every range ever will tell you to treat the gun as if it could just decide to go off by its own at any time.
I understand why actors have to violate these habits... and I just feel sorry for everyone involved. I have no idea if the local criminal system will find Alec Baldwin legally culpable. But morally, I expect that Baldwin will feel guilty for a long time, and would tell you so himself, at least in private.
@@Caelinus you are spot on about this. I do think the big huge giant red flag that makes this situation different from 99.99% of sets is the fact that the armorer brought live ammo to the site and had the cast and crew target shooting in the off hours. Any armorer who is putting set safety first wouldn't travel with real live ammo. It makes mix-ups possible and deadly.
If Baldwin is guilty of anything, it's in his role as producer, if it was foreseeable that the armorer was creating a dangerous set and he allowed the shoot to continue.
On the brighter side, Alec seems to love Northern New Mexico. Now he can return to Santa Fe for 18 months on the state's dime, and while on Stephanopoulos, he stated that he was getting tired of making movies. While at Santa Fe, he could learn a new trade in the sheet metal field.
Excellent! Finally, some clarity based on facts and legal expertise.
Great recap
He wasn't only an actor, HE WAS THE PRODUCER!
It's almost like she says that at 2:49 !
Great analysis! I think Baldwin talking to police as if they were children about the bullets shows he had a higher burden than your average person. I am also wondering why any bullets were in the gun at all. It was a rehearsal. They weren't filming actual shots yet!
Well if you believe Alec Baldwin he said that the assistant director told him it was a cold gun, so I assume that the AD got the gun directly from the armorer who told him the gun was cold. The armorer obviously didn't verify the gun was empty.
I have been around firearms my entire life. I have shot just about anything you can think of. What boggles my mind is the idea that you rely on someone else to make sure the fire arm is safe. If you hand me a firearm the first thing I do is establish that itâs not loaded. The only person who loads my firearm is me. At a gun store, the clerk will check to see if itâs loaded before handing it to me. Once they do, I check again. The only person truly responsible for my safety is ME!
Great analysis thanks
Yeah this is confusing even Emily D Baker was like wtf?
Such a thorough job Alyte!!
Great information
This was good, thank you.
Just a lay-person here whose thoughts are not fully vetted... But I think about angry dogs in older films, where you can see their tails are up and wagging. Outside the movie, I can see the real dog dog is happy, and not being mistreated. This let's me actually buy into the fiction without outside worry ruining the movie. And this becomes a subconscious thing. The only time my mind is brought out of the story is when there is no tail wag, and I start thinking about filming conditions or considering if cg was used, instead of paying attention.
I, personally, would like if it were similar with guns. Absolutely no working guns, blanks or otherwise, anywhere near a set. Every barrel filled. And after a few movies getting used to it, if I see a gun in the movie and the barrel is obviously filled, it would just keep me more in the movie without the worry of whether proper safety measures were being followed, or thinking about the people on set.
And it is a movie (or tv), we are already accepting really wacky things like unrealistic lighting, unrealistic audio quality, unrealistic sound effects, etc. "Realism" is already out the window, so there's not really a good reason for the guns to have to be perfectly realistic.
all guns are completely safe when maintained and handled properly
@Peet Ky I mean everything is safe when you remove human error. But if misstepping and doing that little half trip hop was the trigger for nuclear bombs being set off... maybe that "safe if nobody scuffs their foot" stance isn't overly assuring~
I feel like the gap in knowledge about Hollywood gun safety issues caused this. They learned in the silver age that having ANY firearm on site requires a firearm manager, one person responsible for knowing the state of guns. Otherwise, accidents not only CAN happen, but inevitably WILL happen.
It requires far more than that, it requires that any person who handles a firearm is familair with firearms safety and how to check the weapons. They cannot pass this responsibility off on to a firearm manager or armourer. Simple rule that saves lives.
This is a very well done, very well researched and very well presented video. I know people think he should not be charged and should get off because heâs the actor but, I think he has some responsibility as the producer, and actor as well.
Brilliant video! The last expert was dead on!
The sheer incompetence in this entire situation is baffling.
All the years I spent in the army, all of the actions from these people is utterly mind boggling that no alarms went off in their heads.
The question for me is who loaded the gun
Yeah, I agree. That person is the one who I would hold responsible.
I don't know that there's a way to get that answer. I said above, there were reports early on that some of the movie's guns had been taken out shooting offsite in the days before the incident, which suggests it's possible they were loaded to go to a gun range, and then never properly unloaded. Even IF you could figure out if that's true, and who went shooting, and which of those people had the gun, I feel like it would be an easy defense for them to say that when it was returned to the armorer, they had a reasonable expectation that she would check/empty it.
My biggest concern with this case up and down is that there seems to me to be reasonable doubt absolutely everywhere, because you have people who are relying on the judgment of designated professionals, and none of those professionals seem to have been doing a great job.
Like George Clooney said, every time someone hands you a gun, you check it yourself. No matter what the person who just handed it to you just said. Seems redundant, it is, and for good reason.
And you never point it at a person. Even if you think it is not loaded.
To be clear, my understanding is not the the actor physically checks the gun themselves but that the prop master handing them the gun is supposed to show them visually that the gun is completely empty and then hand it to them.
To be even more clear, if you are handling guns of any type there are rules you must follow or people may get shot. First rule: never point a gun at anyone unless you plan to shoot them. Two: always check to see if the gun is loaded when you pick it up. Three, never put your finger on the trigger unless you plan to shoot. Baldwin broke all three rules and if he had not been such an anti gun advocate over the years some might cut him some slack. He is a horrible man and I hope the judge throws the book at him.
@@mikenagy938 Please stop with your weapon ignorance. Movie sets are not the same as a target range as the number one difference is NO LIVE AMMO. However, on sets and in movies, we do point and shoot at people objects with blanks. Fake bullets are not blanks nor do they look the same. Fake bullets are used to safetly film loading and closeups of the weapons. Blanks have either flat or crimped tips. This is why sets need to have responsible armorers
@@deltaechoproductions Baldwin did NOT watch when shown. If he was shown at all.
@@deltaechoproductions responsible armorers and actors. If you get handed a gun on a movie set then you should check it even if the armorer already checked, this decreases the chance of critical failure to nearly zero.
@@mikenagy938 those arenât film set rules dude
There was a ton of coverage about this shooting in the immediate months following it. It is a disservice to not include all of that. For example, Baldwin was the highest authority on scene regarding all aspects of real-time production including where crew could stay. Baldwin made the artistic decision to use real firearms and not non-functioning prop guns. Baldwin was aware of the safety issues the crew complained of. There has been a civil case where all of these facts were alleged and that case was settled. As part of that case was a detailed video timeline/reenactment that was shown publicly.
There are industry standards well established about safety procedures required on movie sets where real functioning firearms are being used as props.
There are two levels of culpability for this crew. One the actual killing. Two failure to provide a safe set whether or not a death occurred. The charges are manslaughter involuntary involving criminal negligence. People are killed in criminal manslaughter all the time all over the country with prison sentences as consequences. The elements of this crime are spelled out in law.
That should be the focus here.
In a Forgotten Weapons video comments, there were endless people talking about how people say they've cleared a gun and haven't.
Just shows why you need to clear it yourself first before assuming a gun is cleared
Doesnât take a professional gun handler to follow the 4 rules of handling guns
Interesting to hear from George Clooney that it was strict practice on set too
@@nickkerr5714 Yep, just like every school bus has to stop at every RR crossing since the big accident even when no lights or trains are coming. Things have changed since 40 years ago, accidents happened and measures are in place for a reason. It's a simple set of rules to follow that can ultimately save a life, I think that is worth it.
There is only one true measure of negligence. If this were a rehearsal of a suicide scene, would Alec have checked the gun before pointing at his head?
exactly this
Why does that matter? Itâs still not his job, like he has for the last 40 years, he would follow the protocol of let the armorer do their job and he do his job. Also, heâs been shot in movies before, heâs had guns at his head in movies before.
@@Tommyboy6426 LOL You are not getting her point
@@outsidethepyramid there is no point. Itâs a stupid point. Her âargumentâ doesnât make any difference and doesnât mean shit.
Concur.
You mentioned other on-set fatalities; have other actors or producers been charged with manslaughter in those incidents?
I think the underlying negligence charge is going to be for them not having safety meetings and continuing to film after other accidental discharges; the fact that the producers were warned and it got to the point where the crew walked off should make it pretty easy to prove they both knew the risks and willfully chose to continue. The armorer will probably be hit on the fact that she was doing more than one job.
People keep overlooking that Baldwin wasn't just an actor on the project and was both hands on in hiring and managing the set, but was as far as I know the only producer on set that morning as well. So even if he's not responsible as an actor, he's responsible as a producer.
I think as a producer, no matter his actual role as producer/actor he holds some responsibility for what happens on set
There were 6 producers and 4 executive producers. I don't know that we know what his role was as a producer in this movie yet.
By that logic every producer should be charged?
If his role as producer is as specifically outlined as Alyte makes it sound, then it's unlikely (to me) that it would be a contributing factor to the prosecution. It sounds like there would be other producers who would have more liability in the strictest sense. The decision not to charge any other producers suggests to me that they are interested in him because he is literally, physically the human being who was handling the firearm. That's why they went after the 1st AD, whose role was apparently just touching the gun for 10 seconds. It seems to me they believe the 1st AD broke the proper chain of custody for the gun, and that both he and Baldwin should therefore have been more careful because there was no reasonable expectation that you could be relying on Guttierez-Reed's expertise/inspection.
As a producer, he is almost certainly on the hook for civil damages, and that's likely going to cost more than this movie ever had any hope of making.
Alec Baldwin was an executive producer on 30 Rock and complained to Tina Fey about one guy's performance. Tina had to remind Alec that the "actor" was their actual janitor who'd been handed a speaking role as a laugh. Yeah, being a producer is more of a vanity / remunerative title than one denoting any responsibilities or working knowledge of the show as far as Alec Baldwin is concerned.
@@wishingb5859 Well, they all should be charged. This is the problem of shared responsibility. It would be a problem if apparantly on a movie set things can go wrong and the management can hide behind this kind of BS.
If Baldwin is convicted, are they going back to arrest the one who shot Brandon Lee? Or any of the other people shot on set?
If it was found that there was the same level of disregard for safety in that case, someone quite probably should have been charged. ALL shootings on set occur as a result of a disregard for firearm safety. Ask yourself if this had been anywhere else but a movie set, would the person just have to say "It was an accident!" and so no consequences? Tell me what is so special about a movie set that makes any difference when it comes to reckless endangerment and negligent homicide through callous disregard for firearm safety.
Before Brandon Lee, Jon-Erik Hexum passed away in1984 from a set gun mishap.
Side note: love how your dog gets up and lays on the pillow designated as his spot. đ
Your delivery is wonderful. I appreciate the thorough explanations and reasoning. Thank you for this video.
I believe, as a producer, he has a strong CRIMINAL liability. Several liabilities as to safe working conditions, financial motivation of decision making, known violations and lack of corrective actions, protocol violations of: scope of duties, availability to perform duties, creating a catastrophic environment through undefined and hurried atmosphere (unsafe is the 'norm'), & failure to ensure "engineering safeties" are in place prior to operations.
As an actor, he failed to "refuse" a weapon from the incorrect C-O-C, failure to ensure "safe" weapon, failure to call out the lack of engineering safeties on set and with weapon, failure to adhere to weapons handling rules ( 1. do not point at anything you do not wish to kill, 2. Keep unloaded until necessary, 3. Keep fingers off trigger until ready to fire, 4. Check and ensure "SAFE" upon receipt/handling of weapon, & 5. Know weapon safeties/capabilities/malfunctions.
Additionally many others also bear responsibility for this chain of events, which killed and injured people. The financial motivation to cut corners, turn a blind eye, wink and nod, etc...
@Stephen Kaiser,
Very well stated. I agree.
I do not work in the film industry, but have close persons in my life who do; this tragedy has been a focus for me since it occurred, as the outcomes and implications could impact people who matter to me. My position thus far, based on available and known information, was that Baldwin was likely and reasonably at-fault as a producer and/or "boss" (whether formally titled or associated with certain responsibilities or not, this was well-known to have been "HIS passion project") who knew well enough to identify a "safe and professional" operation from "unsafe and unprofessional conditions". My view was that this was, in effect, a workplace tragedy, with criminal negligence going to several parties (armorer, "bosses") akin to hazardous work-environment deaths on a factory floor. I did not view Baldwin "the actor" as being guilty of anything, resulting from his role as an actor; the precedent for that is very concerning. Baldwin "the producer", "the boss", however, seems absolutely at-fault. (Whether that constitutes fault into the realm the charges cover is not something I feel confident enough to weigh in on, but I'm leaning toward "yep".)
However: the argument that you've made here, that Baldwin is "not just an actor", but a _veteran_ actor with decades of experience, who ought to have known better even within that role? That is something I hadn't seriously considered (oops) and has me thinking. Ignoring Baldwin and this tragedy (for a moment) what are the implications of this? Is there precedent in other industries for a union worker's "time in grade" (experience in a given profession, but not reflected in title/responsibilities in their employment contract) to impact whether or not they would reasonably/legally assume a higher grade of responsibility (than, say, a newcomer or recent hire with less experience/knowledge) in the event of a workplace tragedy? This is an angle I hadn't thought of before.
the actor pulled the trigger without checking the gun. manslaughter. actors are not above the law.
Great analysis! Your "Dog Sits Here" pillow however hooked me. Had to subscribe... then run to Amazon to find a pillow like that!
Thank you so much, glad you enjoyed it!! đ
@@LegalBytesMedia Very much. Thank you!
when do we get to see this masterpiece on the big screen?
I grew up around all types of guns and I'm retired military. When someone hands you a gun, you check it. I don't care if you saw 10 other people check it in front of it, you check it yourself. I've seen people miss bullets in weapons many times.
Yes, but as you just pointed out, with all your experience, you KNOW this. Would Alec know to do this?
@Renegade doesnât matter, the gun is in your hands, itâs your responsibility, you are at fault for what happens. You can have people double check and assist but you are responsible.
@@RenegadeVile anyone handling a firearm, no matter what should know this. If they don't, they should not be handling it.
This is basically the very first thing taught in any firearms safety class.
@Renegade Vile If he was handling a weapon then he should have made sure he knew how to do it safely. You can't just go drive a vehicle without any training and then wreck, kill someone and say "It's not my fault, no one taught me how to drive safely". If you take part in any activity, Its your responsibility to make sure you know the rules and how to do it safely.
@@RenegadeVile what?! I have zero experience with guns and I know to see if it has bullets. If society starts to undermine common sense, then that society will fall.
Accident on autopsy doesn't mean it wasn't a preventable accident. The FBI broke the gun trying to get it to fire without pulling the trigger by using a hammer on the hammer of the revolver. The armor ran out of hours for her position as armor in the film and if I'm not mistaken the propmaster in charge said in her police interview that they ran out of one of the rounds on set and the armor went and got a bag that she had that had rounds in it. If I'm correct on this then that may be why there has been no charges against the prop house that filled the order for rounds on this film set. IMO there was alot of mistakes made on this film and the three that had charges failed in their duties to make this a safe set and share blame for the death of the cinematographer.
"Accident on autopsy"
I thought that was a really weak argument. It doesn't really matter what the coroner thought happened. The coroner has the dead body, not a recording of events leading up to the body being dead. As far as the coroner is concerned, the cause of death being an accident or a homicide is all hearsay.
The FBI said the gun worked perfect until it broke on them. The FBI would not test the prop weapon with a hammer. Maybe another one but not the actual one. How or why the round got in the prop weapon is still a mystery but in the end it's not Alec's job and he's not allowed to check the weapon. AD called out COLD GUN and then handed it to Alec.
@@wanaraz "it's not Alec's job and he's not allowed to check the weapon."
*Says Alec.*
It's actually very very common for actors to check the guns themselves. As mentioned in the video, after the accident on The Crow, actors have taken a more active roll in gun safety.
@@ddegn You need to educate yourself. You are 100% wrong.
@@wanaraz Did you watch the video?
Small but important critique: the levels between the audio samples and you talking are waaaaaay off. The samples are really really quiet compared to when you're talking. Really hard to listen to when I have to change the volume constantly to maintain an equilibrium.
Literally every other thing about is SPOT ON. Take my criticism with its proper weight. Just a matter of production and process. Overall this is the most informative thing I've seen anywhere about this incident, from mainstream media or elsewhere. đ
(By samples I mean the externally sourced video clips)
oh man i love the video but the ebook and podcast audio being left-ear-only is killing me
This has all the ingredients needed for a trial that is profitable for the local municipality. The Scopes "monkey" trial and OJ are two examples of this. Trials where there is enough public interest to get so much media and people wanting to get close that hotels are full and dinners are over worked. Justice is rarely done in these cases but the money is hard to go past.
Yeah, that's who was behind the OJ media circus. Local eateries.
Yes if you are handling a real firearm I don't care who you are you need to maybe not be a expert but you need to know basic safety procedures. By the way I learned that at 13 during hunter safety class held at my school with real firearms. I am now 60 something and have never had a negligent discharge.
But that production had 3 accidental discharges before this one. Whoever was responsible for the firearm didn't know what they were doing and that person was not Alec Baldwin.
@@wishingb5859 Alec Baldwin pulled the trigger. It's his responsibility to know what was in the chamber at the time.
Thanks for the clarification
Murk averted
Even George Clooney discusses a contradiction with the stated rules of the screen actors guild. "always treat it as if it is loaded", "Never point it at someone", but then also points out that often there are shots where the camera is looking down the dangerous end of a gun. Well... There's a person behind the camera. So when there are established exceptions a rule is not as cut and dry, or "perfectly clear" as it may be anecdotally.
But he also mentioned handing the gun to a 'prop master'.
I bet there are cameras that can be handled remotely, that's probably a good standard for those types of shot (not that some sets wouldn't still ignore the rule out of convenience).