Alec Baldwin update

[ghbucky]

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/19/a...mid=tw-nytimes


"The film’s armorer, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, who was responsible for the guns on set, was also charged with involuntary manslaughter. The film’s first assistant director, Dave Halls, who handed Mr. Baldwin the gun that went off, agreed to plead guilty to negligent use of a deadly weapon."

[44 AMP]

Update 1/19/23

Baldwin and the armorer are going to be charged with manslaughter.

From what I know of the matter, I think that's proper for Baldwin, but I'm not sure about the armorer. The AZ DA clearly thinks there is enough evidence for charges to be brought, so we'll see how this goes.

[stagpanther]

involuntary manslaughter

[Jim Watson]

Looks ripe for a deal down to negligent homicide.

[Aguila Blanca]

And after all this time, we still don't know exactly what happened.

I have understood, from numerous articles, that Hannah Gutierrez-Reed was nowhere near the set at the time of the incident and the guns were lying on a cart, unattended. But ... according to an article about these new charges, it was she who loaded the gun, and she allegedly spun the cylinder to show David Halls (the assistant director) that the gun was loaded with dummies.

As a guy I used to work for liked to say, "Everything you read in the news is true ... unless you have first-hand knowledge of the facts."

[ghbucky]

I think what happened is pretty clear. Alec Baldwin pointed a gun at a person and pulled the trigger.

I'm no lawyer, but I'm not sure I understand how the armorer, who didn't shoot anyone, is just as much responsible as the guy who did shoot someone.

[Mainah]

I predict that Baldwin will skate on the criminal charges, and get some of what he deserves in civil court.

[Pahoo]

And after all this time, we still don't know exactly what happened.

I agree as there were a "chain" of events that led up to this tragedy. In fact, we may never know. Personally, I don't care for "man's" attitude. However, he was the last person to have this firearm, in hand and is accountable as we would be. His lies that will probably finally do him in. ....

I predict that Baldwin will skate on the criminal charges, and get some of what he deserves in civil court.

Sadly, you may be right as money talks and BS walks !!!

Be Safe

[reynolds357]

Originally Posted by jmr40

Supposedly the hammer slipped from his thumb as he was trying to lower the hammer. He wasn't pulling the trigger at the moment it fired, but probably had to pull it at some point earlier.

But that is still irrelevant. Actors aren't supposed to be firearms experts. There are other people on set who are supposed to ensure everything is done in a safe manner. Someone else handed him a gun loaded with live ammo that shouldn't have been anywhere near the set.

Actors have been pointing real guns at each other and shooting blanks at each other since the 1st movies were made. To my knowledge this is only the 2nd time when real ammo found its way into a gun. There have been other instances where injuries and at least one death when blanks went off too close to actors.

The closing scene from the very 1st western ever made. The Great Train Robbery from 1903.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hknJkYN5dqQ

The whole movie, all 10 minutes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3jrB5ANUUY

Baldwins liability is more in the fact that as director, he was ultimately responsible for firearms safety.

[Aguila Blanca]

Duplicate threads merged.

There's a better article in the LA Times: https://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...y-manslaughter

[Metal god]

I’ve said this a few times now and I’ll go ahead and say it again because in my mind it’s worth it lol . Actors are not professional armorers, mechanics , stuntmen , or electrical engineers etc. Yes, I know the rules for gun safety but that’s only because I’m a firearms enthusiast . The 4 rules are not law and are not something everyone knows .

Actors on the set are no more liable for the gun being loaded based on how the industry works as they are liable for the car they are driving on set having brake fluid in the master cylinder . There are professionals on the set that their sole purpose for being there is to make sure the props the actors are using are safe and adequate to use for their purpose of the sene

Think of it this way . If your cars manufacturer does some work on the suspension , brakes and wheels then calls you later, and says the cars ready for pick up . You then go to the dealership , pick up your newly repaired car and drive off the lot . At the first light you come to you go to break, and both front wheels fall off, causing you to slide into the intersection killing a pedestrian and hitting a car crossing the opposite direction . It seems to me that many in this thread believe it’s you the car owners fault for not checking the Lug nuts on the wheels before leaving the dealership, and the dealership has no responsibility or liability whatsoever ?

If I have virtually zero understanding of the mechanical workings of a vehicle . How could I possibly be responsible for checking the mechanics work? The same theory holds true if you were a mechanic picking up your car from the dealership you’re still not responsible for checking the dealerships mechanics work before you leave . You are not going to be charged with manslaughter for running over to pedestrian in the street . Now let’s not hear all about how Baldwin knows all about Firarms blah blah blah . This may be about Baldwin but it’s really more about the industry and how it’s run . Think of all this happening to some no name random actor who has little to no experience with firearms .

Here’s another scenario , let’s say anytime somebody new touches a firearm on set the firearm needs to be checked for the proper ammunition if it’s loaded etc. . OK, the armorer loads the firearm with blanks and hands it to the actor says it’s safe you can go do your scene . The actor doing his due diligence, opens the guns cylinder and proceeds to check the ammunition to be sure that it’s the correct ammunition and if it’s loaded correctly . OK now what , are we saying that the actor with little to no experience now is the soul person responsible for that firearm onset moving forward ? Did that firearm not just change hands and be manipulated in a way that now maybe it doesn’t have the right ammo in it or maybe it is loaded incorrectly . Who know if this random actor even knows what they are doing . Wouldn’t the armorer now need to recheck the firearm to be sure it is actually safe since the actor messed with it ? Oh, but wait, the armorer just opened it up and checked it again so now the actor doesn’t know if it’s truly safe and he/she now has to check it again and we go round and round and round . Not every actor in Hollywood knows how firearms work and rely on the armorer to hand them a safe firearm just like they depend on the prop master or whom ever gives them the keys to a car to drive . To give them a safe and properly working vehicle.

Yes this whole situation is tragic and I wished it had never happened . I just feel based on how the industry is run, and the rules they are governed by . This is not just a simple as the last one holding the gun is at fault .

On a sidenote , i’m very curious as to what the armorer showed the Assistant Director as it relates to what the gun was loaded with? How did she show and or how did she prove the cartridges were blanks . Were they marked as blanks with special color on the case head or around the primer etc. indicating they are blanks ? Did she pull them out? Meaning actually pulled the cartridges from the cylinder showing they did not have bullets in them ? I’m asking this question because I’m wondering did the armor have every reason to believe that the ammunition in the firearm were in fact blanks? Maybe the blanks were loaded inproperly I don’t know. I hope they televise this trial, but as many have already pointed out there is likely going to be plea deals in this, and this we’ll never see the inside of a court room .

[stagpanther]

Baldwins liability is more in the fact that as director, he was ultimately responsible for firearms safety.

I tend to agree with this.

[44 AMP]

MG, go back and re-read the entire thread, you'll see that we have hashed out these arguments before, and that there IS conflicting information about who was where, when and did what. We also had a discussion about how actual gun safety and movie set gun safety are not identical.

The Rust movie shooting appears to have violated BOTH....

We probably won't ever know the entire truth, and we won't know the "official" truth either, unless/until facts are testified to in court, under oath. That, whether what really happened or not, will be the official truth if accepted as evidence by the court.

There are reports that the armorer wasn't even on the set where the shooting happened. Baldwin claims he never pulled the trigger. There are numerous other inconsistencies in the information that has been released and reported by the press.

Your car analogy is not a good comparison, in several ways. One being while you may not be required to know automobile mechanics, you are required to know how to drive, safely and you are licensed to do so. Another point is if your wheels fall off when you step on the brakes, the car is BROKEN. NOT in proper working order. There are other points, but all together, its not a good comparison.

As to "blanks", I don't know what method the movie industry uses to ID them as blanks, other than there is no regular bullet. Movie dummy rounds, as reported earlier in this discussion, are made with a BB inside, so it can be heard when shaken. The rattle shows there's no powder.

Also, as reported earlier in this discussion, the movie industry approved process for loading a gun on the set is, the designated armorer loads it, in front of the actor who is going to use it, so they see what goes into the gun. Then the actor is handed the gun to use on the set. NO ONE else is supposed to have anything to do with it.

This was not done on the Rust movie set the day of the accident. Baldwin is responsible for that, in his role as producer of the film.

Captain of the ship rule. It DOES apply here.

Also Baldwin was the guy holding and aiming the pistol when it fired. I won't attempt to decide at what legal level, but I do believe he was responsible.

Charges have (finally) been brought. Preliminary hearings are being scheduled. IF the judge at the prelimary hearings believes there is sufficient evidence to go to trial, the cases will go to trial. If not, they won't. Since the DA spent over a year gathering and reviewing evidence, and has filed charges, he believes there is.

Personally, I would hate to see a plea deal, but I rather expect one. According to one of the news reports, the guy who actually handed Baldwin the loaded gun, and told him it was a "cold gun" (meaning not loaded with live ammo) has already accepted a plea deal.

One of the points I would personally love to find out but we will never know, is if the gun was loaded with more than one live round. When the Sheriff deputies got to the scene, the gun had already been unloaded, so unless the individual who did that testifies what rounds they removed from the gun, (if they even know) we'll never know. When the gun was turned over the authorities, it was empty, and they were given a box with ammo in it, reported to have been a mixture of live rounds, blanks, and dummy rounds.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Also, as reported earlier in this discussion, the movie industry approved process for loading a gun on the set is, the designated armorer loads it, in front of the actor who is going to use it, so they see what goes into the gun. Then the actor is handed the gun to use on the set. NO ONE else is supposed to have anything to do with it.

This was not done on the Rust movie set the day of the accident. Baldwin is responsible for that, in his role as producer of the film.

As a "seasoned professional" of the movie industry, Baldwin is also responsible as an actor, because he (Baldwin, the actor) accepted a firearm from someone other than the armorer and accepted that person's word that the gun was "cold" even though he (Baldwin, the actor) had not personally witnessed the gun being loaded with dummy rounds.

And, of course, Baldwin was the person who pointed a firearm at a live person, which is contrary to Screen Actors Guild protocols.

[Tom Servo]

Captain of the ship rule. It DOES apply here.

And it runs pretty deep. What we do know is this:

• there were at least two negligent discharges on set before this incident
• several of the crew left the production over safety issues, which they say Baldwin ignored
• the armorer had an ND on a prior production, which resulted in Nicolas Cage demanding she be fired
• Baldwin knew about that and hired her anyway
• Baldwin handled the gun while the armorer wasn't present on set

When it comes to civil liability, we're going to hear the phrase "knew or should have known" quite a bit.

As for the actual shot fired, we're also in "knew or should have known" territory. The jury is going to be briefed on the same rules of firearms safety we all know. They're going to be told that Baldwin has been handling guns on set for decades, and they'll probably have people testify that he's been briefed on those safety rules several times in the past.

Negligence is all over this situation, and that's where the involuntary manslaughter charge comes in.

It's worth mentioning, the assistant director, who declared the gun safe and handed it to Baldwin, took a plea deal and rolled on Baldwin and the armorer.

[Metal god]

Interesting, had not fully considered The captain of the ship angle , make perfect sense .

I will also add it was reported the only reason the armorer was not on scene ( in the room ) was do to covid protocol on set and maybe throughout the industry at the time . Something to the effect of social distancing kind of thing . Based on size of space and number of people in the building . No that does not seem reasonable to me either . Armorer should have precedent on set but as we know covid caused many people to go into full brain fart mode as it relates to rules and common sense .

[DPI7800]

Seems like one giant hate fest of Baldwin is driving emotions and not rational analysis and everyone is wanting him to be convicted without really looking at repercussions or past events.

Once he gets convicted like so many want, are we now good with law enforcement being charge criminally when there is a death during training? How about military personnel? These are two areas where there are truly trained personnel that “should know”,but still have fatal training accidents with firearms or other munitions.

[stagpanther]

Seems like one giant hate fest of Baldwin is driving emotions and not rational analysis and everyone is wanting him to be convicted without really looking at repercussions or past events.

Once he gets convicted like so many want, are we now good with law enforcement being charge criminally when there is a death during training? How about military personnel? These are two areas where there are truly trained personnel that “should know”,but still have fatal training accidents with firearms or other munitions.

I think there is something to be said for your point as well. A legal eagle on CNN made the comment that prosecution is going to have a tough time since they can't even establish how the lethal cartridge made it into the gun to begin with. We'll see. I can't imagine pointing a weapon in any state at someone unless you were ready to kill. I was once asked to do that during the filming of a popular program, even after confirming the weapon was empty, and I still refused to do it. Because the consequences are so high if there is even the slightest chance for error, there has to be someone responsible for maintaining that highest standard of safety. It may be arguable who that is in Baldwin's case, but the oenus appears to be on him to attribute who that is.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Metal god

I will also add it was reported the only reason the armorer was not on scene ( in the room ) was do to covid protocol on set and maybe throughout the industry at the time . Something to the effect of social distancing kind of thing .

No, that's not the reason.

The reason is that she had to wear two hats. In addition to being the armorer, Guttierez-Reed was also the assistant property master, and she had complained on multiple occasions that the assistant property master role interfered with performing the armorer role properly. It has also been reported in numerous articles that older, more experienced armorers turned down the assignment because of the dual role nature. They obviously knew that the armorer can't also be running around playing assistant property master while trying to keep track of God knows how many guns there must be on the set of a western.

She was on the site. She just wasn't at the church set -- which is where the guns were. And the applicable industry standards were that if the guns were there, the armorer should have been there with them.

[natman]

Here are the first four rules for gun safety from page 14 of the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) manual for safety on a set:


Bulletin #1, Firearms
GENERAL SAFE USE AND HANDLING OF FIREARMS
1. Refrain from pointing a firearm at anyone, including yourself. If it is absolutely necessary to do so on camera, consult the Property Master (or, in his/her absence, the weapons handler and/or other appropriate personnel determined by the locality or the needs of the production) or other safety representative, such as the First A.D./Stage Manager. Remember that any object at which you point a firearm could be destroyed.

2. NEVER place your finger on the trigger until you're ready to shoot. Keep your finger alongside the firearm and off the trigger.

3. KNOW where and what your intended target is.

4. DO NOT engage in horseplay with any firearms.

It appears that Baldwin broke several, if not all four.

Here's the definition of involuntary manslaughter from the New Mexico code:

2019 New Mexico Statutes
Chapter 30 - Criminal Offenses
Article 2 - Homicide
Section 30-2-3 - Manslaughter.
Universal Citation: NM Stat § 30-2-3 (2019)

Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice.

.....
B. Involuntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to felony, or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection.

Whoever commits involuntary manslaughter is guilty of a fourth degree felony.

Here's the definition tailored to this situation:
B. Involuntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed in the commission ... of a lawful act which might produce death ....without due caution and circumspection.

It's pretty hard to argue that Baldwin acted with due caution and circumspection.

[Metal god]

She had to wear to hats , i disagree . Yes she had two “jobs” on set but my understanding of reports that was simply a speculation as to why but not the actual reason . The report or account I heard was she was not aloud in so was doing the other job . Not did not go in and hand the gun to Alic because she was doing something else .

The above bolded section seems to indicate the armorer followed protocols as it relates to giving the firearm to the correct person if she was not able to hand the gun directly to the actor . So now it seems her liability now lies on how she stored the ammo and how she knew what ammo was real , blanks or dummy .

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Metal god

The above bolded section seems to indicate the armorer followed protocols as it relates to giving the firearm to the correct person if she was not able to hand the gun directly to the actor . So now it seems her liability now lies on how she stored the ammo and how she knew what ammo was real , blanks or dummy .

She didn't "give" the revolver in question to Halls. All reports I have seen said that there were several similar revolvers left unattended on a cart. That's definitely a violation of industry safety protocols.

[OldMarksman]

Post by jmr40: "Actors have been pointing real guns at each other and shooting blanks at each other since the 1st movies were made. "

They do a great job at making it so appear, but (1) blanks can kill, and (2) SAG rules forbid such things.

[Tom Servo]

are we now good with law enforcement being charge criminally when there is a death during training?

Well, yes. A life is lost due to someone's negligence. That's why we have the pesky four rules and the SAG has theirs: to prevent tragedies like this.

All reports I have seen said that there were several similar revolvers left unattended on a cart.

This is where things are weird with that armorer. Apparently, she took one of the revolvers off site to do some target shooting the prior day. That might explain how live ammo got on set. Why were the guns not locked up while the armorer was off site? That's another good question.

This whole thing comes down to a chain of negligence that's just astounding the more I read into it.

[HiBC]

A wreck often has more than one responsible party. Its often the case that if just one of them had done things right the wreck may have just been a close call.
We have incomplete information, but my impression is that Armorer Guttierez was not strong in her security and "chain of custody" processes.
As far as "Doing what she was told to do" sometimes you have to make choices. If I was an aircraft mechanic ordered to put an unsafe aircraft in the air, I'd like to think I'd refuse,even if it meant getting fired. If we don't maintain security on our firearms (including me and you) we might play a significant part in someone getting killed. A kid,maybe.

Of your Armorer walks can you keep on filming with firearms,or is that a shut down?

I'm inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt as far as loading live ammo. (For no good reason) But I'm inclined to think she may have been generally sloppy.(For equally no good reason) Three handguns on a cart,one inert,one blanks only and one fully functional was the report I read somewhere. No one supervising?

Lets not forget 1) There was informal target shooting which means live ammo was accessible. Management has to own that one. Did Baldwin take part?
What was chain of custody between the plinking and the gun cart?

2) Same day,disgruntled crew staged a walk-off, as I heard it,at least in part over firearms safety/discharges. I can't ignore then possibility an angry,irrational crew member pocketed a round at the plinking session then later loaded it into an "unloaded" gun. A passive/aggressive wake up call.. I'd use that if I were a defense attorney.
Except safety protocols would have kept Halya alive and unharmed had they been followed,even with a sabotaged gun.
It has happened that gunshow looky-loos have looked at a gun and secretly loaded it,then put it back on the table.

The attitude "The ends justify the means" is not so rare.

3) If Baldwin wanted to "Improv" that day, why the fully functional handgun? Thats another deadly decision. A "blank firing only" prop gun was available, allegedly. Why have non firing props if not for "improv?"

The Assistant Director? Handed Baldwin the loaded gun and told him it was cold. He got a plea deal.
Either this AD needs to stand up and say "This is my fault. I called "Cold Gun" without checking"

Or Baldwin is criminally negligent for trusting an incompetent bimbo with such a life and death call.
" OK,Halya, the incompetent bimbo AD (non armorer) told me this gun is unloaded so I'm going to point it at you and thumb the hammer back..."

Good idea? ( I don't give a flip about pulling the trigger. Does it matter? All the steps leading up to that point matter.)

"I didn't know the gun was loaded! " is hardly original. I think the word got out on that one.

Tom Mix,Andy Divine, Gene Autry, Barbara Stanwyck,Hopalong Cassidy, Cleavon Little and Gene Wilder, Jimmy Stewart,John Wayne,Jack Palance,Yul Brynner,Steve McQueen,Clint, Paldin, Jack Elam, Slim Pickens,The entire cast of the Wild Bunch, etc all managed to make movies without killing anyone.

So what is "special" about Alec Baldwin ?